The role of The Law
Questions from a 7th Day Adventist
Questions and Statements Addressed:
I. What is God’s moral law?
II. What about the Sabbath?
III. How does holiness fit in with the law?
IV. If sin is the transgression of the law, what law?
V. If the “Ten Commandments” were nailed to the cross, what is the new law?
VI. If we all must stand in the judgment, what is the basis of our guilt?
VII. How can a person know if he is sinning or not.
VIII. Did Jesus death do away with sin?
IX. If the Law was not given until Moses, therefore no guilt, (Romans 4:15, 5:13) why did God destroy the world with the flood.
X. Why does the NT quote so many of the OT Commandments.
XI. Do I see any difference between the laws pointing to Jesus and the “10.”
XII. Does the fact that all the OT prophets, priests, and Jesus and the Disciples kept the
Sabbath make any difference?
Sabbath make any difference?
XIII. Could some NT writers have assumed everyone would keep the “10,” so they didn’t mention keeping the weekly Sabbath?
XIV. The “holy days” (Passover, etc.) all pointed to Christ, and therefore are obsolete.
XV. Keeping the “10” is not punishment, but the law of liberty.
XVI. Only the “Jewish” laws of priests and sacrifices, etc. ended at the cross.
XVII. The New Covenant in Jesus blood cleanses us from sin, writes God’s laws on our hearts, enabling us by the HS to conquer sin.
XVIII. About “hell.”
XIX Do people deserve the same treatment as the Devil?
XX. How could anything exist in unquenchable fire?
For this discussion on the role of “The Law,” I am defining “the law” as: The entire “law and the prophets,” that is the Old Covenant or the Old Testament. For brevity I will use OT for the entire Old Testament or Old Covenant, and NT for the New Testament or New Covenant.
Following are some questions and statements raised by a 7th Day Adventist. I think the discussion applies equally to all seekers that wrestle with the role of “the law” as it relates to the Gospel and our lives as Christians today. I was raised in a church environment in which it seems we spent a fair amount of focus on the “law side” of God’s Word.
In writing in response to these questions, and near the end some statements, I raise for your consideration the premise that even the NT has a “law” side as well as the “Gospel,” or “good news” side. The NT unquestionably requires an ethical life, primarily addressed as “obedience,” and expresses over and over again that only those that “obey” are righteous and/or “saved.” On the other hand the NT also clearly shows that there is no way we can be made righteous by works, or by being “good enough.”
This dynamic (and Divine?) tension is the subject of my taking a shot at the answers to these questions and statements. (The questions and/or statements are in bold.
In evaluating my own ministry of nearly 40 years, I suspect I may have spent an inordinate amount of time on the “law side” of both the OT and NT, and may have missed much.
I await your input regarding some of what I present here for “the body” to consider.
There may be some redundancy due to some overlapping questions. The first six questions occupy the most time, but I included the other questions and statements raised also for consideration.
(see also a brief discussion of God’s Sovereignty or Man’s Free Will in this blog.)
A I do not see that term in scripture. I think it is used to separate out the things that we perceive to be moral imperatives carried over into the NT as opposed to things pertaining to the tabernacle and later the temple, the “sacrificial” system, perhaps some of the “civil laws,” and miscellaneous “odd” laws we wonder about that seem to have applied to the nation of Israel
I have wrestled with the concept for years, as have most folks knowledgeable and curious enough to seek genuine answers. However, I see nowhere in scripture that God makes the distinction, for example, between the “Ten Commandments,” and many of the more obscure laws such as mixing kinds of cloth.
As Creator, God makes the rules. Hence, I would define objective “morality” as complete and perfect obedience to His entire law. The more one obeys, the more “moral” one is, and vice versa. The standard, however, is perfection. We know that the Jews never got it right as a people, and that, in fact, no human being has ever got it right, so none are adequately moral to please God.
Many (perhaps all?) OT laws were fulfilled by Jesus. Jesus said, Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” NKJ It seems to me that either the entire law is still in force NOW, or it has been fulfilled. That still leaves some question as to what that means.
There are two major ways of looking at “the law” that I am familiar with. (If there are others, I am certainly open to look at them as well.)
1) The entire OT is completely in force except for what the NT nullifies or specifically says Jesus fulfills. (Circumcision, sacrifices, dietary laws, all the Temple
2) The entire OT has been superseded by the New. Therefore ONLY things the NT requires are part of the NT and law of love.
There is much overlapping between the two views. The NT clearly continues many things from the OT, and clearly nullifies others. As I read about the OT in the New, it seems to indicate that the NT completely supersedes the Old, yet uses the Old as an authoritative basis. According to that view, Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the law, and in Christ we have our Sabbath, we have freedom, salvation, “morality” or “righteousness” imparted to us because of His sacrifice.
We know we can’t be saved by obedience to the law, as we have already blown that. We know we can’t keep the law. The Jews couldn’t and we can’t. So we are left with trust in Jesus … and freedom. If, at the judgment even those trusting in Jesus for salvation have our morality evaluated on the basis of obedience to the law, I am still really in deep weeds. Regularly I do things that trouble me, and do NOT do many things I probably should. If there is not genuine freedom in Jesus AND forgiveness of ALL my shortcomings, I have had it.
II. Q What about the Sabbath?
A The Ten Commandments are unquestionably brought into the NT at every point ….. except the Sabbath. Either view expressed above brings at least the “9” into the NT. If the OT were not available to us, I see no way any reader would assume the NT requires obedience to the OT Sabbath. Since the NT came to the Jews first, and some observance of the Sabbath was their custom in their anemic attempts to follow the law, it can be argued that the Sabbath by inference is a part of the NT. But, in most places the Sabbath is mentioned in the NT it seems modified along the lines of liberty, and challenging its observance by those of Jesus earthly day.
It is clear Jesus customarily went into Synagogues on the Sabbath, and that the practicing Jews of that day attempted to follow the Sabbath. During Jesus lifetime the OT was still in force, being changed upon His death. Even then, there were many controversies on or about the Sabbath in Jesus interaction with the Jews. I am aware of no place Jesus actually taught that the Sabbath was still in force as a spiritual requirement in the NT. In most controversies it seems to me that Jesus spoke of the Sabbath as a given, but also challenged the Pharisees and others about their perception of it. I see no place specifically that Jesus nullified the Sabbath in His teaching, but He certainly challenged the “letter” of the law as opposed to the Spirit. Some examples:
Matthew 12:1-21 Jesus Disciples picked grain on the Sabbath to eat and Jesus defended them, and healed a man, and spoke harshly to the Pharisees who followed the Sabbath but missed the point.
Matthew 28:1ff Jesus did rise from the dead on the first day of the week.
Mark 2:23-28 Again they picked grain on the Sabbath and Jesus defended that. Probably a parallel passage 27 “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:” KJV
Mark 3:1-6 Again Jesus healed on the Sabbath and challenged the Pharisees.
John 5:1-18 indicates that Jesus “broke” the Sabbath, and defended such. As Lord of the Sabbath, of course, He could do that.
John 7:19-24 Jesus spoke of circumcision and the Sabbath together as “givens.” He spoke of breaking the Sabbath to do circumcision. But He did not teach that circumcision was a requirement in the NT. In fact the Apostles clearly said it is not.
As we move into the rest of the NT, the Apostles wrestled with this issue of the law as it relates to faith. For a time, the Apostles attended Jewish synagogues to preach the Gospel. That was on the Sabbath, as that was when Jews met in synagogues. (Synagogues apparently came about while in captivity in Babylon
Some Jewish converts believed and taught that Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law. The Jerusalem Council dealt with that and offered the edict in Acts 15. We see the question raised, and from verses 13 we see James, either having or appearing to have the ability to pass sentence on this subject. Both in James declaration of the sentence and in the letter sent out to the Gentiles there is NO mention of the Sabbath as a requirement for the Gentiles. James does mention it as a part of the customs of the day and mentions that Jews read Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, but it is NOT made a part of the requirement of the NT by either Jesus or the Apostles that I can see.
(Dietary laws are also dealt with in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles repeatedly. This is a separate, but related topic. Does The NT nullify the wisdom of God’s laws to the Jews? No. It is probably temporally wise to eat that way still. It just simply has no bearing on a person’s relationship to Jesus or salvation or spiritual vitality.)
In a passage about judging others, Paul writes to the Romans. All of Chapter 14 deals with precisely both the Sabbath and dietary laws. 5-7 “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.” NKJ
If “the Sabbath” was still a requirement under the New Covenant, this seems a very good place to mention it, at least as an aside comment, but rather Paul seems to say it is the heart that matters and that we are NOT to judge one another on the basis of which day is most holy. All days are to be holy. This would have been the only instruction the church at Rome
I am content for some to be “fully persuaded” that the Sabbath is still a part of the NT, and feel no need to judge them. But I do not believe it can be established under the NT as a mandate for either Jews or Gentiles. Under the OT it is front and center!!
The basic question raised is that of whether the OT, or parts of it, is still is in effect. If so, which parts are for Jews, and which part for Gentiles? Not even Jews can possibly obey the Old Covenant, as there is no Temple
In Galatians 4:10-11 Paul writes to that Church (and us!?) “You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.” NKJ
Again, if Paul was NOT speaking of the Sabbath in this passage, it would seem he should have at the very least said, “Now I am not speaking of THE SABBATH, we all know that God has clearly commanded such. I am referring to pagan holy days, or some of the other Jewish festivals, or Sabbaths, or …..” As the only Christian instruction the church in Galatia
In Colossians 2:16-17 “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” NKJ Again, if “the Sabbath” was NOT included in this passage, it would certainly seem to be spiritual malpractice to not mention it. Again, this is the only known Christian teaching the Church at Colosse would have had on the topic.
I do not see any reference in the NT to any requirement or direct teaching that the Sabbath or any of the other OT law should be observed.
A scriptural case can be made for the Sabbath by going back to Genesis about God resting the 7th day, etc., especially coupling the Genesis account with later laws regarding the Sabbath. (Notably Exodus 20:1-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21, etc. Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” NKJ)
It is argued that since the Sabbath was instituted before the law, it is still binding after the law. But, circumcision also preceded the law, having been commanded to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:11, yet the NT is graphically clear that it is not required. In fact, if done to impress God, or to be made righteous, it is soundly condemned. I personally believe that if it is done for health or practical reasons it is OK. It just is NOT OK as a religious or Spiritual exercise as a part of the NT.
From Genesis 1:1 - 11:25 is a history of the world from creation, to the fall, the flood, and the tower of Babel
The law, and later the prophets, certainly reflects God’s wisdom and requirements for Israel Israel
I believe all of God’s OT laws, properly understood, are wise and good for mankind. And, I personally believe that any nation that would institute them as the laws of the land could be much blest. But to include any of them as a mandated part in the New Covenant seems theologically suspect, and perhaps even damning. Paul states in Galatians, particularly 5:1-4 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” NKJ (emphasis added) This is strong language.
If the Sabbath is a requirement (Or any other “law”) …….. um … is it possible to keep it completely? Are the Sabbath laws simply a general “guideline?” The OT does not deal with it as a “guideline.” In the OT it is ironclad, mandatory, and its violation required the death penalty. Is it enough to keep the Sabbath from time to time when it is convenient? Do we get extra credit for keeping it better than some or even most folks? Will God judge our Sabbath keeping “on the curve?” Will He compare us to the Muslims steadfastness to their beliefs? Will we be compared to die hard vegetarians in their beliefs? Will he compare us only to complete heathens? Will he compare us to those nasty or perhaps merely ignorant folks who worship on Sunday? How about those that do a lot more than me? How about those who love Jesus more than I do? Will God’s grace be extended more to those who gather on Saturday than on Sunday or Friday?
What does “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy,” mean? Are we to keep it like the Jews were supposed to keep it BEFORE synagogues were invented? The law was clearly given before there were synagogues. Did Jews show up on the Sabbath at the tabernacle or later the Temple
How closely must we adhere to the original plan, either of the Creation account or “the Law” account in order to get credit for Sabbath keeping? Is two out of four weeks good enough? Three out of four? Nine out of ten? Is there a righteousness line we cross one way or the other? Are good motives adequate? Motives alone don’t seem to fit into the OT laws of the Sabbath. If we keep it “in spirit” does that qualify? How would we do this in the spirit without our bodies? What must our bodies be doing to qualify?
OR, was Paul correct in saying, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Is this the same for Sabbath keeping?
If salvation is by anything other than grace by faith, I’m in deep weeds indeed. In fact, if it has to do much with “my faith” I’m in trouble. My faith wavers a goodly portion from day to day. If Jesus doesn’t carry ALL my sins, there is no hope for me. I can either despair in my inability to make it …… OR hope that God grades on the curve, and that I somehow make it, (Surely I must be better than Hitler, and Saddam, and Qadaffi, and drunks, and at least child molesters? OR ought I to rejoice that Jesus has already made the way for me because of His love and sacrifice, and He makes me His righteousness? If it isn’t the latter, despair MUST reign.
Can it be that if I break ONE part of the law I am I really guilty of ALL. If James 2:10 can be trusted that is true. “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” NKJ
III. Q How does “holiness” fit in with obedience to the law?
A My upbringing in the “holiness” tradition seemed to focus greatly on the free will of man and being holy, as 1 Peter 1:15-16 says “but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy.” NKJ
Likely the best and wisest practitioners of this tradition understood far better than I. But the way I received and understood holiness, seemed to focused much on external things like not attending movies, dancing, drinking, smoking, chewing, swearing, any sort of sexual activity before marriage, and most of them after marriage, even having nasty thoughts, etc. I think I missed the love, freedom, and grace Jesus offers. I may still be an emotional and spiritual cripple by the emphasis of “being good” to the near exclusion of the simple grace side of the Gospel. But, both the OT and NT law indicates I can never be “good enough.” (See a brief discussion on this blog regarding the sovereignty of God and the free will of man issue.)
I believe there IS a ditch on both sides of the road, and that a Divine tension exists in the NT between living right and receiving God’s grace. It seems to me there IS an ethical and obedience component to the Gospel. I can not in good conscience identify completely with the eternal security message as is widely preached and held.
However, when I ask myself: Have I been holy enough today? Have I read the Bible enough, witnessed enough, prayed enough, taken up my cross enough, served others enough, or confessed or repented enough? Have my thoughts been pure enough? Do I REALLY love the Lord my God with my WHOLE heart and mind and soul and strength? Have I really been “perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect?” Um, ….. “Not so much!”
My pride and covetousness and lust and greed and selfishness and stubbornness alone do me in. If “being good enough” is what holiness is all about, man, I’m afraid I’m not there …. Yet. Can I get there on this side of eternity? Hmmmm.
If we are either saved by the law or any part of it, including keeping the Sabbath, or even kept by obedience to it, I’m afraid I will be closed out. So, I fervently hope that some of what I have historically thought about God and the Bible and eternity ………. are wrong.
IV. Q Is sin the transgression of the law? If so, what law?
A Yes, according to the KJV of I John 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” Modern translations render it “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.” NKJ Either way I would say it is God’s law that is referred to primarily. In any event, all have sinned.
V. Q If the “Ten Commandments” were nailed to the cross, what is the new law?
A John 13:34 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” KJV (Also I John 2:7-8, 2 John 1:15)
John 6:29 “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” KJV (emphasis added)
Also whatever is required in the New Covenant is also the “new law.” But, the NT is MORE restrictive than the Old, in that it also covers motives. (ie, Matthew 5-7 says murder is forbidden in the OT, but hatred in the New. If we don’t forgive, we won’t be forgiven, etc.) Both the OT and the NT “law” force me to call upon the Lord for mercy and receive His grace. Apart from grace, and the process of confessing our sin, we are all still in lots of trouble.
The NIV phrases Colossians 2:13-14 “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” NIV
As I read this, it must all be nailed to the cross with Christ!? If “some” is left, which part? And which part can “we” fulfill? The Gospel is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who trust in Jesus. For those calling upon the Lord, it is cancelled. Good news!
VI. Q If we all must stand in the judgment, what is the basis of our guilt?
A Rejecting the Gospel, OR violating any law of God, OR violating our God given conscience subjects us to judgment and damnation. If we violate any of the “10,” OR don’t feed the hungry, care for the poor, forgive others, love perfectly, forgive everyone, OR if we know to do good and don’t, we are damned and doomed to whatever comes upon death to those under the condemnation of God .….. UNLESS, “we confess our sins,” and “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins ….” I John 1:9
Romans 1 and 2 speak to this. 2:12 “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.” NKJ
The point of the “law side” of the Gospel is that no one can save himself, and no one is innocent. And, regardless of how folks protest, no one will be able to stand before God and say, “no one told me!” “The Law” says, apart from Jesus there is no hope. The Gospel side says, Jesus is all we need. The God that would send His only Son to go through what Jesus did in our behalf will not be unjust in dealing with anyone. We needn’t worry about the “innocent heathen,” other than as we have opportunity we should share the good news.
These questions have forced me to freshly rethink what the Gospel is. I think my background, and other “holiness” churches, as well as the 7th Day folks, may have really missed something. When we peel down these questions, they all seem to stem from “the law” side of the equation; it is how we were raised. But …. How far can we get by perfect obedience to all the requirements? And, does a sort of generic desire to be perfect qualify us? I see at work in MY life that honest desire …… sometimes ….. and at others not so much.
And if it be argued that we simply need “perfect love,” …………. OK …….. um …… can I even get that right? Not so far anyway. Will I only be OK if I happen to die or if Jesus happens to come on one of my “up” spiritual times? Even when I die or He comes back ….. will my best and highest spiritual motives be enough?
The older I get, the more I can relate to Isaiah 64:6 when he expresses that “all our righteousness” is as filthy rags.
VII. Q How can a person know if he is sinning or not.
A One key Bible definition of sin is “missing the mark.” By that standard we, or at least I, miss with striking regularity. Hence, if we are still breathing ….
Can we ever be “righteous,” by “obedience” even for a brief time? Are our motives ever 100% pure? We were born in sin, are sinners by choice, and as long as we have this “treasure in earthen vessels,” we are still “earthen.” Perhaps it is safest to assume we are always falling short and to simply rely on Jesus for His righteousness!?
Romans 1:19-22 “… because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,” NKJ (Emphasis added)
VIII. Q Did Jesus death do away with sin?
A Doesn’t seem to have “done away” with personal sin, at least as we are aware of it in this earthly existence. At least if John knew what he was talking about, AFTER Jesus death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. I John 1:8-10, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” NKJ
However, God seems to be able to “do away with it” as it relates to His view of us. Colossians 3:3 “For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” NKJ There seems to be a number of “theological realities” that are yet hidden from our view, among which is the idea that God can see us as completely pure, innocent, forgiven, etc. This is remarkable to me, of course, and I cannot fully grasp it, but it is a fine thing indeed.
I sure can’t see myself that way, other than by faith, and that dimly ... really dimly! So, there is a theological sense in which Jesus may have “done away with” our sin by bearing it on the cross, but while we are still here in the flesh, it seems we have to face it at various points, certainly up to the point of confessing it, and sometimes by having to live earthly consequences of it. For those who do not accept the offer of Jesus for forgiveness, it just stacks up.
IX. Q If “the law” was not given until Moses, therefore no guilt, (Romans 4:15, 5:13) why did God destroy the world with the flood.
A At least enough of the law of God has always been known from Creation to bring guilt. Adam and Eve apparently had only one “law.” Don’t eat the fruit. They blew it. Cain killed Abel, and the record indicates he “knew” better. The foundational principle of man’s purpose to seek God has always been there. Mankind became plumb wicked, hence the flood. Mankind has since done the same. Not just “some,” but ALL. Hence, Jesus offer of life by exchanging our guilt, sin, damnation, etc., for His righteousness, innocence, and eternal life.
X. Q Why does the NT quote so many of the OT Commandments.
A The law brings an awareness of our sin and hopelessness. The law, ALL of God’s law, forces us to come to Christ as the ONLY solution to our guilt. No one makes it to heaven by being good enough or by obeying the law.
XI. Q Do I see any difference between the laws pointing to Jesus and the “10.”
A Practically, I don’t think so. NONE of them can save. Neither can “obedience.” They are ALL there to lead us to the inevitable conclusion that “we” can’t do it, and ONLY Jesus can.
XII. Q Does the fact that all the OT prophets, priests, and Jesus and the Disciples kept the Sabbath make any difference?
A I don’t think so. Because ONLY Jesus ever kept it adequately. The Jews certainly NEVER did, as both the OT and NT clearly proclaim. So, the perfect observance, which IS THE ONLY standard, has not, is not, and never will be adequately kept on earth. Leaving us once again with grace and forgiveness ………. or nothing.
The dilemma with “the Law” is this question. Is partial obedience good enough? Is “sort of good motives,” adequate?
XIII. Q Could some NT writers have “assumed” everyone would keep the “10,” so they didn’t mention keeping the weekly Sabbath?
A Only those that didn’t make the canon. ☺Those that did make the cut, and show up in the NT seem to recognize that ALL are under condemnation, and that to violate ONE law is to violate all. If we are ALL under the sentence of death by breaking even one law …….. which despite DS Warner, I certainly do routinely, particularly those enumerated in the Sermon on the Mount. I have never actually “killed” anyone …… but I’m certainly not thrilled with all, and there appear to me a lot that “deserve a good killin’” to quote some great philosopher.
And, DANG, there are some of the female persuasion in the world that grab attention …..
And, do I ALWAYS completely speak the truth to everyone about everything?
Well, you probably get it!! ☺
Now does this give rise to the “shall we sin that grace may abound?” No. But still the best we have is not enough. That has got to be at the heart of the “good news.” I can’t make it .. but Jesus DID.
XIV. Q The “holy days” (Passover, etc.) all pointed to Christ, and therefore are obsolete.
A OK. They can still be wonderfully instructive, and probably no harm done by observing them. (properly from the heart) But as a means of salvation they are indeed completely obsolete.
XV. **Q The Weekly Sabbath was established at Creation and will be kept still in heaven.
A I reckon we’ll have to get to heaven to find that part out, but since creation, has the Sabbath EVER been kept adequately by any individual or people? Certainly not ever for long, and I believe, never adequately to satisfy the full demands of the law.
XVI. Q How were people “saved” in the OT?
A Well, Genesis 6:8 “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. NKJ Did Noah “obey” adequately? He seems to have done pretty well before the flood.
Romans 4:3 “For what does the Scripture say?"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” NKJ (emphasis added) Did Abraham “obey” adequately? How about Hagar …. And his lying to the various kings about Sarai?
Is there anyone in the OT or NT for that matter that obeyed adequately? David? Um … Solomon? … Moses? …. Hmmmm
Certainly none were “saved” by keeping the Sabbath or obeying the law. Moses did his best, even stoning a guy that picked up sticks ……. Still he didn’t make the cut to enter the Promised Land, and that entire generation died and did not enter the Promised Land. I don’t think the ancient Jews even thought of being “saved” like we do. Nonetheless, does God see it the way we do?? Good thing God is the one that keeps score.
XVII. Q We keep the “10” because we are saved.
A Hmmm. Really? Seriously? If you actually do keep them, I need to learn a great deal from you. Do you REALLY keep the “10” as Jesus requires, in at least, the Sermon on the Mount? Matthew 5-7? I certainly don’t according to that standard, and even according to the OT standard I have violated enough of them to be without hope. Can we live good enough to tilt the balance in our favor once we have broken the commandments? Can our “goodness” or “obedience” ever outweigh our sin? If we are wicked for 50 years and decide to obey the law completely and die within 2 years, does the good outweigh the bad? How about if we are wicked for 5 years and then “obey” for 75? Will that outweigh?
On the other hand if we are wicked our entire life and at the very end ask Jesus to “remember me when you come into your kingdom,” is that adequate?
If we are wicked for how ever many years and then “confess our sins,” and “believe in Jesus,” will that cover it?
Q Obedience is the proof of faith. A Same hmmmmm. What percentage of obedience is required, and what intensity level of obedience must be maintained? Quite sure I don’t qualify.
XV. Q Keeping the “10” is not punishment, but the law of liberty.
A OK ….. sort of. It is NOT “punishment,” all right. But, I don’t think keeping the “10” is what James 1:25 and 2:12 is speaking of as the “law of liberty” either.
I will acknowledge that the more closely we can obey them, the better life is. I think the same is true of all of God’s laws, even the OT ones. I think if we as a nation had even God’s OT laws as the laws of the land we would be temporally blessed. HOWEVER, there is a difference between temporal blessings by avoiding the pitfalls of life, and eternal life stemming from obedience to any law, whether Old or New.
XVI. Q Only the “Jewish” laws of priests and sacrifices, etc. ended at the cross. (circumcision, etc.)
A Really? Circumcision was given BY GOD way before “the law” of priests and such.
XVII. Q The New Covenant in Jesus blood cleanses us from sin, writes God’s laws on our hearts, enabling us by the HS to conquer sin.
A Amen. BUT, Do we “conquer” sin by being enable to adequately “live” perfect obedience to even the NT law? Does the HS enable us to live completely above sin, above ANY violation of even the NT “laws?” Again, by the standard of Jesus teachings, that hasn’t happened to me yet. Do you know anyone who even today, filled with the HS, NEVER covets, or lusts, or is angry with a brother, or always does right, and never does wrong, or never has evil thoughts or motives? I have heard of and known some who have “claimed” to live above sin ……… not sure how that affects pride ….. OR I John 1:8-10. Not sure I have ever actually “known” someone who completely succeeded? Do you?
Those I know who seem genuinely the most “holy,” also MOST recognize their own failures, weaknesses, sin, guilt, and worthlessness. Those harshest and most judgmental about other folks “sins” and/or failures, real or imagined, seem by that very attitude to break the NT law of “judge not that ye be not judged.”
XVIII. Q About “hell.”
A I need to study this a lot more. Perhaps I will attempt such a study later.
Q As to your reference to the lake of fire for the false prophet, the Beast, and the Devil,
A I certainly do not make the rules, and since I am not God and don’t plan to become God, I cannot perfectly know all that He has in mind. However, if Matthew 25 can be believed, Jesus Himself spoke of those on His left hand in the judgment, V. 41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:” NKJ So, if Jesus has gone ahead to “prepare for us a place,” which He clearly says He has, He has apparently also prepared a place for “the devil and his angels.” Jesus seems to indicate that indeed people will populate such a place.
XIX Q Do people deserve the same treatment as the Devil?
A Jesus seems to say so. Do you or “we” have a better plan that passes muster with God?
However in one sense the topic of hell is a red herring. It is what it is. Naturally people don’t like that thought and don’t want a God that could fire up such a place.
And ……. ? What is new? Jesus “came unto His own and His own received Him not.” Is it a surprise that many recoil from God? Not really in this messed up world.
I am certainly willing to revisit the topic on my own, and I think it IS good to do the best we can to “rightly divide the word of truth.” On the other hand, we are not going to change it because the winds of popular opinion downplay it. It is like the vehement discussions about what may happen when Jesus returns. People get all wound up on their particular theory about what may happen when Jesus comes, when everyone ought to know that my view is best!! ☺
Whatever is ACTUALLY going to happen is going to happen, and it is not subject to a 5-4 vote or a particular denomination’s brightest scholars.
As to the “everlasting fire” business, those are at least the words of scripture. It is certainly fine to question what that may mean. It is different thing to specifically formulate a doctrine as to what it means, one way or the other.
It is like the Mormons doctrine of “baptism on behalf of the dead.” It is fine to question what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15:29 “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” NKJ
I don’t know what he intended. But, it is an entirely different kettle of fish to answer it that a person since 1840 or so (Whenever Joseph Smith got his “revelation.”) can be baptized on behalf of folks that died hundreds of years ago. The problem is that the answer supplied raises more Biblical questions about salvation than the initial question.
Anyone above the intellectual level of eggplant will have questions. It is when doctrine gets built around speculation about what a passage might mean that we get into trouble. Probably all denominations, and even all of us as individuals, miss the mark here. Paul indicated that he himself, who actually apparently saw Jesus, saw only dimly or darkly as in an imperfect mirror or glass. I’m smart enough to know I don’t have all the answers, I’m just not smart enough to know which answers I don’t have.
XX. Q How could anything exist in unquenchable fire?
A That is certainly an interesting earthly question. It is like the question about the irresistible force encountering the immovable object. Or, "Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?" It is a fine philosophical question, but completely irrelevant as it relates to the after life. If there is a place of eternal punishment, as the traditional concept of hell is, God is certainly able to handle the devil and his angels and the beasts, false prophets, antichrists, dragons, etc., in whatever fashion He chooses. And, if those who reject Jesus offer of eternal life with Him, whether of their own volition or predestined, God is able to figure out a way for that to happen. If He is able to supply an afterlife of blessedness for those who love Him, He is able to figure out what to do with those who reject His offer of abundant life here and eternal life hereafter. If He causes them to be annihilated, fine with me. I just want to be where He is, as oposed to being wherever He isn't!!!
There are many passages of scripture I question. But what God plans for the future is above my pay grade. Now, where the Word speaks CLEARLY then we can speak clearly. Where it gives some “hints,” we may give some hints. But to speak forcefully and authoritatively where the scripture is not clear, and where scholars have disagreed for centuries, seems awfully presumptuous.
