Article: A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel

I had collated the various posts on the latest series on Law and Gospel, and have improved on them at various parts, correcting spelling and grammatical errors as I see them. Also, quite a couple of footnotes and references were added so as both to clarify various terms and teachings mentioned, as well as substantiate various claims with literary sources. Here is the improved article here entitled A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel. May God use this for the edification of the Church, Amen.

Law and Gospel: Prelude

Having previously posted on the topic of the Sabbath with a broader look at the theme of the Law of God, I have been receiving some flak from the Legalists, both from a Seventh-day adventist apologist and prophecy 'expert' Charlene Fortsch and advocates of a particular form of Israelism (or new Jews) calling their group 'the Israel of God'. While they have proven incalcitrant in refusing correction by the Word of God, and instead seek to place believers under the yoke of slavery to the Law (cf Gal. 5:1), interaction with them has indeed helped in clarifying my thoughts on the topic of the Law with respects to the Gospel. I also have a polite invitation from a Seventh Day Adventist pastor Jan McKenzie to debate the issue of the Law of God with a special focus on the epistle to the Galatians.

With such a situation therefore, I would thus be able to kill these many birds with one stone by primarily going through Galatians on the topic of the Law and the Gospel, and thus vindicating the Gospel of Sola Fide from her enemies, which is what I would be doing in a future series of blog posts.

Before I start, there are two extremes — two ditches on the side of the road that we must avoid. The first one is Legalism (including Soft Legalism), which I would be dealing with, and the other is Antinomianism or Licentiousness or "Easy-believism", which my friend Mike Ratliff has posted a series of four posts discussing it. Without going into much detail, it must be said that salvation cannot be merited or repaid or improved (contra Legalism), and it brings forth fruit (contra Antinomianism). The confusion comes about surely when the idea of fruits are mixed up with the idea of merits, and therefore the Legalists would attack the true Gospel as being lawless, while the Antinomians would attack the true Gospel for adding works as a requirement for salvation.

So what exactly is the difference between fruits and merits, it may be asked? After all, since salvation yields fruits of salvation, therefore does this mean that lack of fruits signify a lack of salvation? If so, what then is the difference between fruits and merits? One way of looking at this is that merits are prior to salvation while fruits are posterior to salvation. Therefore, basing salvation on merits gives a person no assurance, since nobody has any idea whether they have fulfilled the merit quota necessary to earn their 'ticket to heaven'. Fruits however, are done upon an assured foundation of salvation, and therefore there is no quota to fulfil. Secondly, what is even more striking here is that fruits by definition are natural outgrowths of something, and this something is salvation, which comes about through the new nature given us by God through regeneration. As stated in Rom. 6:2, how is it that we who died to sin still live in it? Therefore, while merits involve striving to meet a standard, fruits involve naturally growing from an assured foundation which provide the strength and will to grow.

With this, let us then continue to look into the book of Galatians.

[to be continued]

The ever-present dangers of Soft Legalism

With respects to a previous post regarding the seriousness of the doctrine of Sola Fide, and the dangers of works-righteousness aka Legalism, I have came across some interesting quotes which I would like to share on this topic. The quotes come from a book entitled The Future of Justification: A response to N.T. Wright by John Piper (IVP, Nottingham, England, 2008) which is his official response to the error of the so-called New Perspective on Paul. Part of the error of New Perspectivism lies in an inherent legalism which is quite nuanced but at its root is indeed promoting works-righteousness. It is in this context that the error of Soft Legalism is addressed.

The essence of legalism is the belief that our right standing with God is based on, comes by means of, or is sustained by our works — regardless of whether these works are self-produced (hard legalism) or whether they are completely produced by God's grace in us (soft legalism). (p. 152, Footnote 14)

...while legalism involves the view that 'salvation consists of the observance of precepts,' boasting and self-righteousness may, but do not always, accompany this motion. When they do not, we may speak of a 'soft' or 'torah-centric' form of legalism; when they do, we have a 'hard' or 'anthropocentric' legalism. To this, we may add that 'soft' legalists, who try to obey God's law because they believe that God has commanded them to do so, may not believe that they are thereby 'earning' their salvation, still less that they are 'establishing a claim' on God based on their own 'merit'. Surely love for God, or even fear of his judgment, are adequate motives for obedience to his commands. No such explanation as hypocrisy, self-seeking, merit-mongering, and outright rebellion against God need be invoked to explain why religious people would attempt to do what they believe God has commanded them. To think otherwise is to insist, for example, that Psalm 119 expresses the religion of a sham, and that Deut. 30:16 commands it.

Unfortunately, in most definitions of legalism by New Testament scholars, the possibility of 'soft' legalism is not even considered. The 'legalist', for Cranfield, is the one who tries to use the law 'as a means to the establishment of a claim upon God, and so to the defense of his self-centeredness and the assertion of a measure of independence over against God. He imagines that he can put God under an obligation to himself, that he will be able so adequately to fulfil the law's demands that he will earn for himself a righteous status before God.' For Moule, legalism is 'the intention to claim God's favour by establishing one's own rightness.' For Hübner, those who see righteousness as based on works define their existence in terms of their own activities, leave God out of consideration, and, in effect, 'see themselves as their own creator.' For [Daniel] Fuller, legalism 'presumes that the Lord, who is not 'served by human hands, as though he needed anything' (Acts 17:25), can nevertheless be bribed and obligated to bestow blessing by the way men distinguish themselves.'

Such definitions would be innocent enough if they were accompanied by an awareness that 'legalists' of this kind represent only some of those who interpreted Deut. 30:16 as saying that obedience to God's law was the way to life. But all too frequently there is no such awareness. The alternative to faith is not (as it is in Paul) simply 'works', whether they are 'good' or 'bad' — a statement which embraces both 'soft' and 'hard' legalism — but rather the sinful, self-seeking, merit-claiming works of the (necessarily 'hard') legalist. Whereas Paul can contrast faith in Christ with 'the works of the law', and mean by the latter no more than the deeds commanded by the law, the very notion of 'works' is so inextricably in the minds of some scholars with self-righteousness and pride that (as we have seen) the 'works of the law' can only be conceived as sinful. It is no surprising that for such scholars, the 'law' whose works are conceived as sinful cannot be seen as divine, but inevitably becomes the legalistically distorted form of God's law which prevailed (we are confidently told) among the Jews of Paul's day. But — it must be emphasized — in Paul's argument it is human deeds of any kind which cannot justify, not simply deeds done 'in a spirit of legalism'. Paul's very point is lost to view when his statements excluding the law, and its works from justification are applied only to the law's perversion. (Stephen Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998], 132-134)

(p. 158-159, Footnote 24)

As it can be seen, soft legalism is seen in the fact that one does works even in a spirit of obedience as part of one's standing before God. And as Westerholm states so clearly: Paul's very point is lost to view when his statements excluding the law, and its works from justification are applied only to the law's perversion. Therefore, it is not even a distortion of the Law that Paul is against, but even the fulfilment of the Divine and Holy Law in obedience for one's standing or justification before God. And that is why King's Kid and all who believe similarly to her are legalistic heretics in the same spirit as the Judaizers. For anyone to demand the keeping of the divine and holy Law as being contributing to one's standing before God (not even necessarily salvific) is to commit the deadly error of legalism, and depending on the consistency upon which this position is held, can damn the person who believed it to eternal hellfire (cf Gal. 1:8-9).

As I have said before, so I will say again, it would do very well for all of us to look hard at the book of Galatians and see exactly what was it about the Judaizers that merited them an anathema from the apostle Paul. All legalists, and in fact many Christians also, have a wrong view of the heresy of the Judaizers. The Judaizers are NOT teaching salvation by works, nor even salvation by faith plus works technically speaking (though in reality it is salvation by faith plus works), but they are teaching salvation by faith plus obedience to the Law.

With this, I would conclude this post there. However, I would be starting some expositions on the book of Galatians on the topic of Law and Gospel, showing forth the true New Covenantal relations between them as stated explicitly by Scripture as written by Paul himself.

The Gospel of Sola Fide

I have been posting about the Gospel and how serious we are to treat the issue of the Gospel. With regards to the Gospel, I have written and linked an article some time ago about the proclamation of the Gospel in which I have wrote about the contents of the Gospel with regards to its proclamation as follows:

So what exactly is the Gospel? In its broad sense, the Gospel is the entirety of Scripture, because ALL of Scripture is Good News and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting an training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16 -NIV). However, the Gospel most definitely have a narrower and more popular sense, in that it demarcates the basics of the faith that is to be proclaimed and believed in order for people to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. It is this sense which is prevalent in the NT Scriptures, whether it be distilled into a one-sentence message of 'Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 2:38); 'if you confess with your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved' (Rom. 10:9), or into proto-creeds as can be seen in 1 Cor. 15:3-8. Thus, we can see that the Gospel consists of propositional truth statements that are to be understood and believed in (not merely paying lip service), which results in the salvation of all who will do so. Such biblical passages definitely seems minimalistic; with the Gospel proclamation being reduced to one statement or a collection of statements. Or is that so?

What then does the Gospel consists of? The Gospel proclamation as found in Scripture is actually very simple and can be succinctly stated as: calling on all Man to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (Lk. 24:47; Acts 20:21). Together with the other passages we have looked at earlier, this seems to suggest that the Gospel message is very simple and easy, and it is. However, Man, due to sin and our own creaturely limitations, complicate matters. God intended the Gospel to be simple, but then it is only able to be effective in communicating its message if it is understood, which mankind fail to do so due to our own sinful, creaturely nature. Our hearts are darkened (Rom. 1:21) due to the rebellion of our depraved nature against God, and we have became blind to spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) and without understanding (Is. 6:9-10; Eph. 4:18). Therefore, when given a simple Gospel presentation, rebel Man cannot understand it, and if they do, they would attempt to distort it. It is precisely because of this that the context of the various passages and the entire Bible itself is employed for the sake of the Gospel; that the meaning of the simple Gospel message can be made abundantly plain and clear (perspicuous); such that all Man would be able to understand it and be without excuse as to their rejection of the message.

This suggest, therefore, that the Gospel message is a simple message which must be understood in the way of how God wants it to be understood. In other words, the Gospel message is the simple message of repentance of sins and belief in Christ as Lord and Savior; according to the definitions of the terms and concepts as dictated in Scripture. For example, what is 'sin'? Sin must be understood in the biblical sense of rebellion and crime against God which Man commit against God by breaking His holy Law and thus incurring wrath and punishment. Any other definition like being just 'wrong choices which prove that we are human' would constitute a denial of the Gospel message, even though the word 'sin' may be used. This goes for the other words like 'Jesus Christ', which must be understood as being the name of the Second person of the Trinity which was incarnated on Earth by being born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, and suffered and died on the Cross for our sins etc, and definitely NOT the New Age 'Jesus Christ'.

Now, such an exercise of the definition of words used could theoretically go on ad infinitum ad nauseum, leading to a semantic 'turtles all the way down' infinite regression scenario (which seems to be the rage within Emerging church circles, I may add). However, the Bible does not lend itself to such skepticism, as God has created Man in His own image (Gen. 1:27) and has even written the work of His Law on the hearts of all Man (Rom. 2:14-15), and has also revealed Himself to them through the work of Creation in what is known as General Revelation, thus Man are all born with a recognition of God but reject Him anyway. Part of the image of God that Man has is the capacity to communicate, and therefore there would not be an infinite regression scenario whereby Man could never understand anything of the Gospel at all, though our sinfulness do mar our understanding. It is because of this General Revelation that the Gospel proclamation, and all communication, is possible. With sufficient clarification, the Gospel could be communicated and understood, and the amount of clarification needed for the Gospel message to be successfully communicated would vary between different persons.

The next important question is with regards to how many truths are therefore needed to be communicated in order for the Gospel to be understood exactly as the Scriptures meant is to be? This would definitely depends on the audience. For simple folks, the basic message of repenting of sins and believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior would suffice, as their conscience could aid in the understanding process. However, such is not the case for most people who have bought into the philosophy of the world and have therefore suppressed the truth (Rom. 1:18-19) and seared their conscience against the Truth of God. For example, a consistent evolutionist would have already suppress the general revelation given within him/herself regarding the Creation of the world and thus the existence of sins, and therefore cannot understand the Gospel message with regards to sins (which furthermore removes the need for a Savior). Therefore, the Gospel message must include the entire account of the Creation and the Fall in order to 'fill up the gaps' he/she has created through his/her embrace of the evolutionary worldview.

The contents of the Gospel proclamation therefore is a modular one based on the core truth: 'Repentance of sins and belief in Jesus Christ', and explanations which clarify this truth. Typically, most people are not so degenerate as to require detailed understanding of correct doctrine in order to be saved, except for those in cults. What is meant by this is that a typical non-Christian wouldn't be thinking that perhaps the Gospel message is a commitment to a demigod whose name is Jesus Christ, or to Michael the Archangel when he/she hears the Gospel message, unless they are from a cult who teaches that. Occam's razor does apply to our thinking process too, and therefore human beings do not normally multiply ignorance unnecessarily by trying to make a message more complicated than it actually is. The Gospel message thus can normally be communicated and clarified without trying to do the equivalent of giving the unbeliever a crash course in soteriology within the context of a Gospel presentation.

So what are the truths to be included within a Gospel presentation? The truths to be included within such a presentation would be those which most people do not believe in and would be a stumbling block to their coming to faith. It is for this reason that the reality and awfulness of sin MUST of necessity be proclaimed, since Man typically either disregard or downplay sin. With this in mind, the reality of Creation, the Fall, the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ are the key doctrines which must be covered so that the Gospel could be clarified. Other doctrines like that of the Trinity are important too, but they would be important only if the person being witnessed to comes from an anti-Trinitarian cult.

This by the way would have practical implications with regards to the Ray Comfort saga (which I have just realized after I re-read it). However, this is not the issue we would be discussing here. Rather, we would be focusing our attention on the heart of the Gospel, which is the Gospel of free grace (grace alone — Sola Gratia) through faith alone (Sola Fide).

Anyway, I have prepared an article to that effect — The Gospel of Sola Fide. For we are saved by faith alone apart from any works that we have done or will do. This applied also with regard to salvation, as I have written:

The one issue that has cropped up recently is the idea that obedience to God somehow contributes to our salvation, and therefore the idea is that disobedience to Christ somehow disqualifies a person's salvation. While it sounds holy and honoring to God, it is in actual fact not because the act of obedience is taken as a work unto salvation, even though it is not called by its proponents a work per se. Thus Paul attacks the Judaizers mercilessly and condemned them to eternal hellfire (Gal. 1:8-9) because they require obedience to the Mosaic law of being circumcised among other requirements of the Mosaic Law. Obedience towards God by the believer is the expression of his/her love towards God, never to contribute in any way towards salvation. Of course, since obedience comes because of our changed regenerate nature which gave rise to faith (Jn. 3:5; Ez. 11:19), disobedience may indicate that such a person was not saved to begin with. But saying that obedience is a fruit of salvation is vastly different from saying that obedience contributes to salvation; the former starts from a position of being saved, the latter not. The latter position therefore is no different from any form of works-righteousness who attempt to work for their salvation and thinking that their works are pleasing in God's sight, while only those done by faith is truly pleasing to God (Rom. 14:23b)

What compounds the problem as stated above is when people create their own idea of what constitutes obedience towards God and then attempt to make it binding upon Christians. Such is the case with things like Jewish Sabbath observance or even Christmas or Easter observance. It is simply amazing how various people can make a law and then state without biblical warrant that such a law must be obeyed as part of our obedience in Christ. This is of course totally reprehensible, and more so when they make it the determining factor of salvation or something close to it. Such unbiblical laws do not have to be obeyed by Christians, much less used as a gauge of their spiritual condition before God.

Now, with regards to obedience of God's Law, we can see the immediate application to Judaists who claim that they are the one obeying God's Law, while all the while they add to it and distort it beyond recognition, not to mention judging people by it. It is surely revealing when their teaching is the exact same teaching which Paul condemns in Galatians, yet their eyes are blinded to see the error of their ways.

So therefore, let us follow the true Gospel of Sola Fide, and not the false 'gospel' of obedience to the Law. We obey God and His law as an expression of love, yet never as something which saves us nor make us saveable or more worthy to be saved. Let us reject the claims of the Judaists and trust fully in God for our righteousness apart from any works.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
my perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
the King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die
my soul is purchased by His blood
my life is hid with Christ on high,
with Christ my Savior and my God! (× 2)

(Before the Throne of God above, by Charitie Lee Bancroft, music © Vikki Cook, Sovereign Grace Music. Third Stanza)

The Gospel of Sola Fide and the seriousness it should be held

I have been engaging in some sparring over at Isaiah's blog on the topic of the Sabbath with various commenters who insist on seventh day Sabbatarianism and attempt to make that binding upon Christians. One in particular, a person with the nick of King's Kid, have managed to raise the ire of biblically-minded Christians by attacking the Gospel of free grace (calling it "blasphemy") and overall insulting those of us who see the Legalism hidden behind the spiritual-sounding words. He/She further refuses to be corrected by Scripture and refuses to read what others are saying, but continues to utilize a Judaist hermeneutical framework in subjugating Christians to the demands of the Law. Needless to say, the revival of the Judaizer party in our modern time did not go down too well both with New Covenantal believers and with Reformed Covenantal believers like my friend Vincent Chia and me. The Epistle of the Galatians is so clear in its proclamation of Christian liberty from the Old Covenant and its laws such that all orthodox Christians have recognize this fact be they Dispensational, New Covenantal, or Covenantal in their hermeneutical framework and metanarrative. The Neo-Ebionite or "New Jews" movement are thus outside the pale of orthodoxy, and preach a false gospel which the Scriptures anathemized and such teachers are damned to the pits of hellfire without any hope of redemption (Gal. 1:6-8-9).

That said, this is not the focus of this post, of which instead I would like to focus on the attitude of Christians towards this matter. I would post two comments made from the post as perfect examples to illustrate perfectly what I would be talking about.

First:

July 18, 2008 at 15:23

Isaiah

Folks, I’m going to call a time-out here, if you don’t mind. At the rate it’s going it’s going to degenerate into a mud-slinging fest and won’t be edifying to anyone.

Please exercise restraint and caution. Sure, there are two seemingly-irreconcilable opposing points of view here, but I pray that everyone remembers that we need to seek to counsel with love and in good faith.

Will mud-slinging one another with outright insults, insinuations of insults, and seemingly witty attacks achieve anything? No, and neither will strong condemnation — if you have a valid point with Scriptural basis make it, else I rather you hold your peace.

It makes me quite sorry to see this, frankly. While I appreciated the debate earlier, I don’t like the fact that my blog has degenerated into a muddy battleground of sorts.

Second:

July 18, 2008 at 20:35

S.J. Walker

Isaiah,

Thanks. Sometimes the best meant things go in one ear and out the other. I have done the same thing. Sometimes we try the “well, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em” defense, or the “this sounds like that, so you must worship fat” arguments. Bottom Line: Are we knew men or aren’t we? If we can still justify the type the of language displayed here then there is a good chance we are just really nice looking corpses. If even the mention of the fact that mud slinging has gone on causes us to stop, think, and repent, then perhaps we are alive and simply need to wash up so to speak.

Thanks Isaiah, God Bless

Isaiah desires 'peace' on his blog, and for that I will not trouble him on his post with this issue again. Yet, that does not mean that I will keep silent. The stakes here are too high to keep silent — the salvation of souls are at stake, and therefore I will continue here on my blog with regards to this issue.

As I read these two comments, I am simply appalled. This is more so with SJ Walker, since he claimed to believe in the truth. The latitudinarianism shown here is just plain disgusting. Both Isaiah and SJ Walker thinks this is a mud-slinging session. Perhaps it is, but that is only coming from one side — King's Kid who enacts all manner of strawmen, shamelessly ridicules his/her opponents and attacks the Gospel of Sola Fide. Do they know what is at stake here? Similar to Paul's epistle to the Galatians and his controversy with the Judaizers, THE GOSPEL is a stake here. Embrace the Judaist, Neo-Ebionite heresy, and you essentially deny Christ and cease to be a true Christian. THAT is the issue. To put it simply if you will, the choice is between salvation by faith alone versus salvation by faith PLUS obedience to the Law, and we know what the Scriptures say about THAT.

In other words, this is not just some disagreements among brethren over some 'minor' issue like eschatology or believer's baptism/infant baptism. NO, the controversy is over the Gospel itself. Affirm the Neo-Ebionite position of King' Kid, and you have embraced another 'gospel' — it's as simple as that.

My good friend Vincent has posted a very good comment on this turn of events, which I will repost here.

July 19, 2008 at 1:46

Vincent Chia

Re: Christian Sarcasm?

For those of us who have no time (or no interest) to read “A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking,” here is a profitable article on satire and sarcasm within the Christian context:

Is It “un-Christian” to Engage in Satire?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html

Or even a note from Teampyro …

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/08/yes-we-do-need-sarcasm.html

Why the sudden interest in “Christian satire/sarcasm?” No, I am not dying to be satirical or even sarcastic, but it behooves us to to realize that the biblical authors used satire and sarcasm too. And I am absolutely tired of hearing such remarks from false teachers, “You are not turning the other cheek by being sarcastic or satirical.” Is that not turning the other cheek? Please do your exegesis.

A false teacher IS a false teacher; an apostate IS an apostate. I’ll call a spade a spade. And I don’t and will not pretend to enjoy the heresies and falsehood of false teachers and heretics. If heretics are invited to dance in all their glory, then be prepared to be shot down HARD.

As the author at Tektonics had written, “As with the Apostles, so too with the Fathers. And today, may he who is able use the gifts of sarcasm and satire. To those whose feathers (among other things) are ruffled by the use of these, perhaps the only appropriate response is that which my niece says to her little sister, in a playful and spritely tone, when the latter is overcome with a case of the pouts - and so too I say it here in a playful and childish manner, for the situation doesn’t seem to warrant anything else - Cry, baby, cry!”

So Cry, Baby, Cry!

And this I fully agree. Somehow we are supposed to treat heretics with kids' gloves? THESE ARE THE WOLVES WHO COME IN TO DESTROY THE SALVATION OF SOULS! And we are to ... smile at them?! I doubt anyone here would smile at a person who is attempting to murder their wives/children/parents/any other loves one, yet it is perfectly alright and in fact the only loving action to do in smiling at spiritual murderers?!

So let's call this 'loving' and 'tolerant' action what it actually is. It is a betrayal of Christ and His Gospel, hatred of the flock, the delight of Satan and his demons and false prophets.

A false teacher IS a false teacher; an apostate IS an apostate. I’ll call a spade a spade. And I don’t and will not pretend to enjoy the heresies and falsehood of false teachers and heretics. If heretics are invited to dance in all their glory, then be prepared to be shot down HARD.

May God have mercy upon us all, and help us learn to love God and denounce the error of latitudinarianism.

On the Mosaic Law in light of the fullness of the revelation of the Gospel

Here is an article on the Mosaic Law, expounding more upon it in relation to the viewpoint of rabbinic Judaism, and how it interacts with the Gospel of grace through faith alone, as well as the dynamics between the coming of the New Covenant as the Old Covenant is phased out.

Also, with regards to the previous article on the Sabbath, I have added something which had slipped my mind then, which is very pertinent for our discussion on the Sabbath. The verse I overlooked in haste is

And he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27)

This should put to an end to all forms of legalism with regards to the Sabbath, but sadly it doesn't.

The beginning of Ebionitism?

In The Church History of Eusebius, NPNF2-01 Bk. III, Chapter XXVII: The heresy of the Ebionites (available online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxvii.html). Footnotes 824 states:

The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47). For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a doctrinal heresy, but an anti-Christian principle of life. But the natural result of these Judaizing tendencies and of the involved hostility to the apostle of the Gentiles was the ever more tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah; and as the Church, in its strife with Gnosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress upon Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and these Jewish Christians became ever more apparent until finally left far behind by the Church in its rapid development, they were looked upon as heretics. And so in Irenæus (I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical sect called Ebionites, whose Christology is like that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Paul, use the Gospel of Matthew only, and still cling to the observance of the Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws between the milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical Christology (cf. ibid. III. 21. 1; IV. 33. 4; V. 1. 3). In Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the orthodox Christology is still more clearly emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law drops still further into the background (cf. Hippolytus, Phil. VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.). So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as an heretical sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was possessed by Irenæus who lived far away from their chief centre, he distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn by Justin. This distinction of Origen’s between those Ebionites who accepted and those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by Eusebius (see below, §3). Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. sqq.) is the first to make two distinct heretical sects—the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. It has been the custom of historians to carry this distinction back into apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the continuous existence of a milder party—the Nazarenes—and of a stricter party—the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch (Dogmengesch. p. 37 sqq.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The division which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if he himself had any clear knowledge of a distinction, his reports are so contradictory. The Ebionites known to him were most pronounced heretics; but he had heard of others who were said to be less heretical, and the conclusion that they formed another sect was most natural. Jerome’s use of the two words is fluctuating; but it is clear enough that they were not looked upon by him as two distinct sects. The word “Nazarenes” was, in fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with “Ebionites.” Upon the later syncretistic Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note 1. Upon the general subject of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 226 sqq.

Thus, it can be seen that the Ebionites came from the Jerusalem Church which had apostatized as they cave in under Jewish pressure, plus the fact that the Church there refuses to mature into the fullness of the Christian faith (especially with regards to Christology it seems) but continue to identify Christianity as a Jewish faith, failing to differentiate between the true Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism as compared to the distorted rabbinic Judaism of their time.

Reply to Isaiah on the topic of the Sabbath (part 1)

I have just finished this article on the Christian Sabbath as it is based on the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue. I am neither a Dispensationalist nor a New Covenantal Theologian but a Covenantal Theologian, so the issue of the Law must be faced head-on instead of just dismissing it as being of no consequence like most modern Christians nowadays who superficially and derisively claim that "we are under Grace, not Law".

This was done mainly as a partial answer to my brother-in-Christ Isaiah who is grappling with the issue due to hearing messages from the Seventh-Day Adventists, the most prominent cult today which practices Saturday Sabbath, of which the most recent one can be seen here. His blog is more well-read than mine, and as such, like it or not, he has more responsibility for whatever he blogs than me since more people will be influenced by whatever he says, and therefore I have felt a burdern to proclaim the Word of God on this matter. This matter is not in fact just a preference issue, but has become something of an obedience issue, and may probably degenerate into a test of orthopraxy (right living) just like adultery. It therefore has serious ramifications when taken to its logical conclusions, of which the Seventh Day Adventists have done so already.

As Paul addresses the Galatian Christians two millenia ago, I hope to address Isaiah and his friends: Not out of condemnation (that is reserved for those who are attempting to lead them astray), but out of love for them As Paul states in his epistle to the Galatian Christians:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

(Gal. 4:21-31. Bold added)

This is part one of my reply to the issue of Sabbatarianism, and more specifically the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath as a requirement of the Law of God. I will be posting the second reply which will be a rebuttal of Walter Veith's message on the Sabbath, based upon the foundation of the true doctrine of the Law as I have exposited from Scripture.

[Just FYI, there will be no Weekly Meditations this week due to the intensive effort required to fight this fire. Sorry. Hey, at least I get to re-read through Deuteronomy, Romans, Galatians and Hebrews and parts of Leviticus, and that consecutively while seeking understanding of the Law.]

Answering the abominable heresy of the (Neo-)Ebionites

The weekly meditation that I have posted last week on Is. 9 and the Messianic implications it has seems to have attracted the attention of a Swedish (Neo)-Ebionite Anders Branderud, who calls himself a Netzarim. Since there has been a lot of interest in all things Jewish in recent times, I think that this issue should be addressed in a bid to head off Judaizing influences which have the potential to place deluded people under the anathema of God (Gal. 1:8-9)

Historically, the emergence of the Ebionite heresy is rather hard to trace. What we can know however with the aid of Scripture is that it must have came from the Judaizing party first reproved in the Council of Jerusalem (Act 15: 1-29) which had tried to press the observance of the Law according to the Judaist understanding of the Law. Later on, when they prove recalcitrant, the Apostle Paul rebuked and condemned them and their teachings in the entire epistle to the Galatians, nothing that the Judaizing party ought to emasculate (castrate) themselves since they boast so much in their flesh and in circumcision (Gal. 5:12), noting that 'for freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery' (Gal. 5:1). The Judaizers probably still persist as a group historically as the Ebionites, and slander and attack Paul as an apostate plus reject his writings as Scripture because it did not square with their unbiblical understanding of the Law plus the fact that Paul was their most outspoken critic.

As a historical movement, the Ebionites have been virtually eliminated from the word scene due to persecution from both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles detest them since they were Jews, Christians rightly denounce them as heretics, and the non-Christian Jews detest them because they claim to follow Jesus whom they regarded as a false prophet. In other words, their position placed them in no-man's land, as being similar to an 'almost Christian" — hated by the World, rejected by God and excommunicated from the Church. As such, they have mostly gone extinct. Their initial persistence however have caused a backlash as the Church then denounced all things Jewish, of which the harsh rhetoric used would unwittingly provide fuel for future anti-Semitism which is always prevalent in the hearts of the Gentiles.

The recent interest in all things Jewish have however resurrected the Ebionite heresy from the grave. Similar to the ancient Ebionites, these Neo-Ebionites claim to follow "Rabbi Yeshua" while rejecting Christianity. One such group is the "Netzarim", who are self-styled "Restored Nazerene Jews of Israel". They most certainly are Jews, but they create an ahistorical "Yeshua" of their own making and claim to follow him. In reality, they follow a mere figment of their imagination and are totally deluded. Let's face it, either you be a unbelieving Jew who denies Jesus, of you follow Jesus as your Messiah. Such a "half-way" position is totally untenable historically, not to mention logically and scripturally.

As stated, one way to address such nonsense is to read up on the facts of history. The texts of the New Testament are historically beyond refute as to their credibility and reliability, having have superior manuscript evidence as proof. In fact, one of the earliest manuscript papyri were dated to around the turn of the second century AD [Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan Publishers, 1998, Grand Rapids, MI), p. 61-62], far too little time for the NT texts to be corrupted. Therefore, it is simply impossible to claim to believe in "Rabbi Jesus" while rejecting all the evidences of Jesus Christ and of the Christian faith based upon Him based upon the facts of history. You can disagree with the New Testament if you so wish, but don't claim to follow Jesus when you actually don't!

This Neo-Ebionite site has manged to distort historical documentation even by misquoting the words of Eusebius, an early Church father. In his work The Church History of Eusebius, which is found in the collation NPNF (Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers) (available online on CCEL here). From here, we can compare the distortions of the Neo-Ebionites with the truth.

The Neo-Ebionites first claim that the charge of the Jerusalem church was given to James the Just, giving EH II, XXIII.4 as their reference. What of course it didn't say was that James confessed Christ as the Messiah.

12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’

13. And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven. (Eusebius, Church History of Eusebius, Book II, Chapter XXIII: The Matyrdom of James, who was called the brother of the Lord, NPNF2-01, source)

Next, they claim that the original disciples of Jesus called the Netzarim excised Saul, thereafter referred exclusively as Paul, and judged him as an apostate, quoting EH, III, xxvii, 4. Checking with the original source shows that Eusebius was talking about the Ebionite heretics here, and therefore the "Netzarim" showed themselves to be Neo-Ebionites in fact. The footnotes in this text (made by the editors) sure looks interesting.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law;⁸³⁰ and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews⁸³¹ and made small account of the rest.

830 This is mentioned by Irenæus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen (Cont. Cels. V. 65 and Hom. in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a general characteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the Fathers, from the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their relations to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background, as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus with that of Irenæus). The “these” (οὗτοι δὲ) here would seem to refer only to the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the first class in making the statement.

831 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 26. 2, III. 11. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25, note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of Irenæus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25, note 24). The former is much more probable, and the difficulty may be most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5), or at least that it passed among the earliest Jewish Christians under Matthew’s name, and that Irenæus, who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to be identical with the canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a Hebrew “Gospel according to the Hebrews” was used by the “Nazarenes and Ebionites” as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII. 13; Contra Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2. Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites (XXX. 13) had a Gospel of Matthew “not complete, but spurious and mutilated”; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it the “Gospel according to the Hebrews.” It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius’ treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he considered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his mention of the former in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence, naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must therefore make the change which he did in Irenæus’ statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as he knew them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Eusebius in his opinion that Irenæus was mistaken, and that the Ebionites did not use the Gospel of Matthew. But none of these facts militate against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews in its original form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least passed originally under his name among Jewish Christians. For it is by no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original Gospel according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and that, therefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning. It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to have seen in the library at Cæsarea (de vir. ill. chap. 3), may have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Since the writing of this note, Handmann’s work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Das Hebräer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I find that he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply “the Gospel,” or some general name of the kind, and that it received from others the name “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” because it was used by them. This may well be, but does not militate at all against the existence of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that Matthew was the author of their only gospel. Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels alongside of the “Ur-Marcus,” (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far as to suggest that it is to be identified with the λόγια of Papias (cf. the writer’s notice of Handmann’s book, in the Presbyterian Review, July, 1889). For the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24. I find that Resch in his Agrapha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Gospel in its original form, and makes it later than and in part dependent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him.

This immediately alerts us to the subjectivity of these "Netzarim", since it is a fact that the Ebionites were thrown out of the Church early in its history and as such have no legitimate claim to historical continuity with the teachings of Jesus, being opposed by all the Apostle even and anathemized by God Himself through His Word (Gal. 1:8-9).

Historical revisionism sure runs rampant in such circles, with even the destruction of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from that area being used as "proof" of Christianity being a Hellenic and thus false religion. Nevermind the historical fact that the Jews had rebelled against Roman rule under the leadership of the false messiah Bar-Cocheba (Eusebius, Church History of Eusebius, Book IV, Chapter VI: The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian, NPNF2-01, source), and therefore they get what they justly deserve (As if the Roman Empire was going to lie down and allow one of its own provinces to revolt!). It is a fact that the Jews were a rebellious people, and although they have a reason to be, the suppression and expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem was done for political reasons rather than any religious consideration. Noting that Christians everywhere were being persecuted during that period, the Neo-Ebionites showed themselves long on assertion but short on logical rational thinking, as if the Roman Empire was going to do the bidding of Christians who they were actively persecuting! Sheer idiocy!

On the Law

Theologically, the entire thrust of the argument against Christianity by these Neo-Ebionites is that Christianity is "anti-Torah". Such shows their Legalistic slant, and proves once for all that they do not even understand their own Scriptures, distorting the teachings of the Old Testament to be one of legalistic law-keeping, whereas it was never meant to teach such a perversion. We can of course look at the New Testament to see the correct understanding between Law and grace, of which the best presentation is found in Romans and Galatians. However, a quick glance of the Old Testament would show that to be the case also.

For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; You will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise (Ps. 51:16-17)

Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith (Hab. 2:4)

Besides these two overt texts, we can see the grace of God apart from the Law in the narrative episodes of Israel's history. When Israel was saved from Egypt in the Exodus, was it because they were righteous? No, for it is written:

Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you [Israel] this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people (Deut. 9:6)

Therefore, Israel's salvation from Egypt was totally of grace. Even in the giving of the Law, we can see that the way of salvation is still by grace. For in Deut. 27-28, God had through symbolisms showed forth the Law and its attendent blessings and curses as both sides of the same coin through half of Israel pronouncing the blessings on Mount Gerazim and the other half proclaim the curses opposite them on Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:29). The symmetrical nature of these two can be seen when comparing the first and second part of Deut. 28. Yet, God has pronounced that they will experience both and after their destruction and dispersal among the nations, they will be saved again (Deut. 30:5). Such salvation would be by grace and that alone, for we can see that God will work to change them (Deut. 30:6) so that they will turn to Him. Also, in Ez 36:22-27, this new heart is given by God alone and it is based on grace not on Law, for as verse 22 says

It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. (Ez. 36:22b)

From all of this therefore, we can see that salvation even in the Old Testament is by grace not by Law at any point in history. The Law was given only to Israel after they were saved (from Egypt). And therefore, the Law was to serve not unto salvation but as a rule for the people of God, and is therefore to be evaluated accordingly. The rabbinic Jews from before Jesus' time up till now have therefore distorted the message in their own Torah and as such are living everyday under the wrath of YHWH whom they claim to follow. The Neo-Ebionites therefore, having follow the Legalistic works-righteousness of rabbinic Judaism, are similarly distorting the true message of the Torah and are thus under the condemnation of God for it.

Christianity therefore is the true message of God and an extension of Abrahamic Jewish religion. Far from Christianity being "anti-Torah", it is the Judaism that rejects Christ and believes in works-righteousness that is in actual fact "anti-Torah"! For they substituted the commands of God for the traditions of Man (Mk. 7:9), as the fathers the Pharisees did before them.

In conclusion, to unbelieving Jews and the Neo-Ebionites, hear the Word of YHWH:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (Jn. 8:42-47)

Repent therefore, and believe in the true Messiah, Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God, for the forgiveness of sins. Repent of your wickedness in blaspheming God and of thinking that your works and the observance of the Law can earn you merit in the eyes of God, while God Himself has said that your righteous acts are as polluted garment (Is. 64:6). All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), Jews and Greeks alike (Rom. 3:9), and are therefore under the fiery wrath of God. Only God can save you now, and in this He has provided a way through belief in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior (Rom. 10:9-13). Repent therefore of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, such that you will be imputed the righteousness of God and saved by Him. Amen.