Would you win in this court of law?

"Court of Law" by my friend Lauren over at A Proverbial Woman. Check out her blog here.

Illustration time! (Long, but I believe it’s worth it!) Let’s say that you are charged with a crime. Let’s say that crime is not honoring the Sabbath as commanded by God (there are other examples… but let’s use this for the illustration). The complaint against you reads: CHARGE: DISHONORING THE SABBATH PUNISHMENT POTENTIAL: UP TO, AND INCLUDING, DEATH (Ex 31:14-15, Num 15:22-29, 35, Num 22:30-32) You’re arrested and booked. Your trial date arrives and both sides are ready for trial. Your defense attorney intends to argue that, although you knew about this law, you didn’t believe it applied to you, or if it did apply to you, the times have changed and you could honor it as you saw fit. The prosecution will argue that the law defining how the Sabbath is to be observed is very clear, and that you broke the law by not following these elements. Those elements are: 1) Remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy (Ex 20:8, 31:12-14, 16, Lev 23:3, Deut 5:12). Holy is “kadash” which translates to “set apart” – different than the other days. 2) Not doing any work (Ex 20:10, Lev 23:3, Deut 5:14). 3) Not causing others to work (Ex 20:10, Deut 5:14). In this court, as in all courts, there must be sufficient evidence to convict you. One witness is not sufficient, there must be two or more witnesses which support the evidence for any given side (Deut 19:15, 2 Cor 13:1). The prosecution calls their first witness, the Father. He testifies that He gave the law to His people, both native-born and foreigners (Num 15:29-30). He testifies that He gave it to be a blessing to those who obey it (Deut 11:27, 28:1-12) and a curse for those who disobey it (Deut 11:28, 28:15-68). He testifies that the Sabbath law was specifically a sign of the covenant between Him and His people, and that it was meant to last forever (Ex 31:13). The defense cross-examines the Father, and asks Him if He changed. The Father testifies that He does not change (Num 23:19, Mal 3:6). The prosecution calls their second witness, David. He testifies that the law is firm (Psalm 19:9), that the law is perfect (Psalm 19:7), that keeping them brings great reward (Psalm 19:11), that keeping the law brings blessing (Psalm 119:1-2), that the law is to be fully obeyed (Psalm 119:4), that there is rejoicing in keeping the law (Psalm 119:14), that the Father rebukes those who do not keep the law (Psalm 119:21), that disregarding the law is selfish (Psalm 119:36), that the law is good (Psalm 119:39), that he believes the law is forever (Psalm 119:44), that the law brings freedom (Psalm 119:45), that the law brings comfort (Psalm 119:52), that those who disobey the law are wicked (Psalm 119:53), that God formed him with the ability to learn and follow the law (Psalm 119:73), the law is trustworthy (Psalm 119:86), that without obedience to the law, there is death (Psalm 119:92), that the law is to be kept for his entire life (Psalm 119:112), that God rejects those who disobey the law (Psalm 119:118), that he is grieved because those he loves do not obey the law (Psalm 119:136), that life comes by obedience to the law (Psalm 119:154), and finally, he testifies that the law brings peace (Psalm 119:165). The defense cross-examines David, and asks him why he speaks so positively of the law if it is such a burden. David testifies that it’s not a burden because he desires to obey it with all his heart, and that it can be kept (Deut 30:11-14, Philippians 4:3). The prosecution calls their third witness, Jesus the Messiah. He testifies that he told everyone that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to show people that it could be kept (Matt 5:17). He testifies that he told everyone that not even the smallest part of the law would be done away with until heaven and earth passed away (Matt 5:18). He testifies that anyone who disregards even the smallest command from the law, and/or teaches others to do so, will be made least in status within the coming Kingdom (Matt 5:19). He testifies that he also kept the law after his resurrection, by remaining clean until he ascended to the Father, so that he could perform his duties as high priest in the Heavenly Temple (John 20:17). The defense cross-examines Jesus the Messiah, and asks him if the law hadn’t changed, why he came telling people that they only needed to love God and love their neighbor. Jesus testifies that he never said they “only” needed to do these things, but rather, that he was saying all the laws given by the Father hung on either loving God or loving our neighbors (Matt 22:36-40). He testifies that in obeying the “lesser” laws, we fulfill the greater two laws by default, because they’re all about either loving God or loving our neighbor. The defense then asks Jesus the Messiah why he came teaching something new. Jesus testifies that he didn’t. Everything he taught was the same as what his Father commanded (John 7:16), including loving God (Deut 6:5) and loving our neighbor (Lev 19:18). The defense then asks Jesus the Messiah if only the Jewish people had to follow the law. Jesus testifies that the law is for both those native-born and foreigners (Num 15:29-30) and that those who believe he is the Messiah are all considered the children of Abraham (Gal 3:29). He testifies that anyone who is Abraham’s descendant should be doing what Abraham did (John 8:39). The prosecution calls their fourth witness, John. He testifies that breaking the law is called sin (1 John 3:4). He testifies that the way we love our neighbor is by first loving God, and the way we do that is by obeying His law (1 John 5:2-3), and that obeying His law is not a burden (1 John 5:3). He testifies that if a person is truly “of God,” they will not continue to sin intentionally (1 John 5:18). He testifies that the test of whether or not we truly know God is if we keep His law (1 John 2:3), and that if we claim to know Him but don’t keep His law, then we are liars and do not have the truth in us (1 John 2:4). He testifies that we can test this ourselves by seeing if we walk as Jesus the Messiah walked (1 John 2:5-6). The defense cross-examines John and asks him how he came to the conclusion that breaking the law is called sin. John testifies that sin entered the world when Adam (and Eve) disobeyed the command not to consume the fruit in the Garden (Gen 2:16-17, Romans 5:12, 1 Cor 15:21). The defense then asks John how he came to the conclusion that obedience to the law equals love. John testifies that Jesus the Messiah told them that this was the case (John 14:15, 21), and that since Jesus the Messiah also didn’t teach anything except what the Father first taught (John 7:16), that this must be true, since the Father doesn’t change (Num 23:19, Mal 3:6). The defense then asks John why he doesn’t believe the law is a burden. John testifies that the Father made it possible to keep (Deut 30:11-14), that we can do anything through the power of the Father (Philippians 4:3) and that Jesus the Messiah sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within believers, for the express purpose of helping them to realize when they’re sinning, so that they can change course, and return to walking according to the law (Ezek 36:27, John 16:8, 13). The prosecution then calls their fifth witness, James, the brother of Jesus the Messiah. He testifies that the law is freedom for those who obey it, because it brings blessing (James 1:25). He testifies that simply reading the scriptures is not enough, one must actually do what they say (James 1:23). The defense cross-examines James, and asks if simply believing that Jesus is the Messiah is enough. James testifies that faith is not simply an act of believing, that it requires action. That belief without proof may as well be dead. If we claim to have faith, others should be able to see that (James 2:14-26). The prosecution rests, and the defense calls their first witness, YOU. You testify that you own a Bible, and that you read it. That when you have had questions about something you’ve read and are confused, you ask your pastor. You testify that in the past, you were concerned that no one was teaching that we should be keeping the Sabbath in this day and age, so that you asked your pastor why this was the case. You testify that he told you that it’s not needed today, because the law was abolished at the cross, and that now we rest in Jesus. You testify that he also told you that by keeping these Old Testament laws, we are denying the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah, and that it’s very dangerous, and that you shouldn’t even entertain the idea. You testify that he is an educated man, and he went to seminary school. You didn’t, so he must be right. You testify that this is why you’re being (falsely, in your opinion) charged with not honoring the Sabbath, because your pastor told you that you don’t have to do so. You testify that all you did was work your regular job on the seventh day of the week and then go out to eat at a restaurant with your family afterward. You testify that you don’t see what the big deal is. You testify that even prayed over your meal before eating it. You testify that you love God. The prosecution cross-examines you and asks you if you’ve ever had a speeding ticket. You testify that you once received a ticket for going 45 in a 35, but that you didn’t believe you should have been charged with that crime either, because your friend told you they raised the speed limit in that area to 45. The prosecution asks you if you took a look at the law in that area and if it was actually 45. You testify that your friend actually was incorrect, and after looking at the law, it was 35 in that area, so you were charged appropriately, and that you paid the fine, which was the punishment under the traffic law. The prosecution asks you if, after looking at the laws concerning the Sabbath, as recorded in scripture, you did not carry out any of those elements. You testify that you didn’t break anything because of Colossians 2:16, that you can’t be judged for keeping Sabbath the way you want to keep it. The defense calls their second witness, Paul. Paul testifies that when he was writing his letter to the Colossians, he was writing it to the believers living in Colossae (Col 1:2). That he was warning them to stay true to the scriptures they already knew, and not to throw those to the wayside in favor of traditions set by men that were not based in scripture (Col 2:8). That these people were living righteously, not dead in sin any longer (Col 2:13) and that he was telling them not to let those around them convince them that they were doing bad things by keeping the Sabbaths, feasts, and eating clean according to scripture (Col 2:16). He testifies that it’s hard to understand that perspective because we don’t have a record of the original letter he received FROM the Colossians, so it’s important to understand the context these believers in Colossae were living in before trying to read his response to them. The defense asks Paul if he taught contrary to the law. Paul testifies that he was actually accused of doing just that, but that there was no truth in these reports, because he did keep the law, and taught others to do the same (Acts 21:20-24). Paul testifies that to prove he actually did keep the law, he took a Nazarite vow (Acts 21:26) which declared one set apart to God, as per the law (Numbers 6:1-21). Paul then testifies that he even explicitly told people that he didn’t advocate for getting rid of the law, but told them to uphold it (Rom 3:31). He testifies that he doesn’t understand how people have arrived at the conclusion he taught anyone against the law, especially because he went out of his way to abide by it, returning to celebrate the feasts that were required in the law (Acts 18:21, 20:16, 1 Cor 5:8, 16:8). The prosecution calls a rebuttal witness, Peter. Peter testifies that he also told people to remember the law of God (2 Peter 3:2). Peter testifies that he knows Paul well, and that Paul is really knowledgeable concerning the law of God, because he studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Peter testifies that as a result, some of Paul’s teachings can be hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter testifies that because Paul can be hard to understand, some people make errors in their interpretation of Paul’s words, which causes them to be lawless (disobeying the law of God) (2 Peter 3:17). The prosecution and defense rest their cases. The jury deliberates, and then returns with their verdict of GUILTY. Your punishment will be left to the judge. The attorneys query the jurors after the verdict. They ask what made them return a verdict of guilty. The jurors respond that all of the prosecution’s witnesses provided incontrovertible evidence that the law was eternal, a good thing, a sign of the covenant of the Father’s people, that God doesn’t change, that Jesus didn’t teach against the law. They say that the defendant (you) appeared to rely on someone else’s interpretation of the law, rather than the plain reading of it, despite previously feeling as though something was inconsistent. They state that the defendant appeared to see that she should be keeping the Sabbath as commanded, but decided ultimately that it wasn’t important to do so. They state that her basis for not keeping it (Col 2:16) was ultimately refuted by the author of that letter himself – Paul. Paul testified that this wasn’t the intent of the letter, but actually the opposite. Paul further testified that he fully supported the keeping of the law. One day, we will be put on trial before the Great Judge. We all have sinned (Rom 3:23), the metric for our punishment will be according to the law. Numbers 15:22-29 tells us that there is a sacrifice for UNINTENTIONAL sin. Meaning, we did it, and didn’t mean to do it (before we knew better, or because we didn’t realize we were sinning). Numbers 22:30-32 tells us that for INTENTIONAL sin, the punishment is being cut off from the Kingdom, or even death. Hebrews 10:26-31 tells us that if we keep sinning after realizing it’s sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice for us, but a fearful expectation of judgment (from the Great Judge), that anyone rejecting the law dies if two or three witnesses can confirm they rejected it. It tells us that those who do so trample on the blood shed as a sacrifice for our breaking of the law. Please reconsider your position on this matter, as it has eternal consequences. <3