The Ten Commandments - Obsolete?

[He's Coming Soon]

For me, the controversy raging over the display of the Ten Commandments is not really about legality or the constitution. No. It really seems to be all about irony.
As the news reported daily of this battle, I soon began to wonder if anyone else was finding the whole thing paradoxical. As this huge outcry for for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in schools, courthouses, and in other public places reached a feverish pitch in Internet chat rooms, on talk-radio shows, and in news magazines, I understood that most Christian churches in the country still teach that all or a part of them were nailed to the cross. (A belief that teaches the Commandments and/or their penalties are no longer in force for Christians.)
Proponents of that stance say that America should have them on display because they are a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, even as they also say that Christ did away with the Commandments when He died. In fact, some also say He left just two new commandments with which believers should concern themselves.
Yet this is confusing: If the Commandments are no longer in effect, why are they, as Christians and Americans, trying to force them on every other citizen by displaying them as a government-sanctioned artifact? Also, if Jesus did away with them, can they really be part of a common Judeo-Christian heritage? Wouldn’t the most correct course of action be to post the two new covenant commandments of Jesus for a Christian nation?
On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were so important to this nation’s Founding Fathers, why should we not be compelled to obey them implicitly—every one of them, with or without the benefits of grace—if America is to return to its glorious roots? If the Founding Fathers established this nation on the pillar of the Ten Commandments, might they have reasonably expected them to be followed to the letter by like-minded Christian citizens?
What are you thoughts; does God make mistakes and go back on His own word He gave twice?

​

 

[logos65]

Paul wrote:
8) Owe no man any thing but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment it is briefly comprehended in this saying namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10) Love worked no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
So I believe it is safe to say if we love God we won't have any gods before Him, or have graven images etc., so I don't think the Ten Commandments are done away with, but to follow them is to show love, or as you have said, following the New Covenant two commands (Matthew 22:37-40).

 

[Watching in the Word]

I would like to point out the prophesies of Jer31:31-33 that speak of the New Covenant and having it written on the hearts. Ezek 11:19,20 and 36:25-27 say it is the Holy Spirit given that does this, therefore the prophesies are to new covenant believers. The Law only changed in the sacrifice of the Lamb and the priesthood, and remains basically the same because the things that please God in living His way remain the same.
If Christians do not want to keep His Law in their hearts why put them up on public buildings at all?

 

[bugkiller]

For me, the controversy raging over the display of the Ten Commandments is not really about legality or the constitution. No. It really seems to be all about irony.

As the news reported daily of this battle, I soon began to wonder if anyone else was finding the whole thing paradoxical. As this huge outcry for for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in schools, courthouses, and in other public places reached a feverish pitch in Internet chat rooms, on talk-radio shows, and in news magazines, I understood that most Christian churches in the country still teach that all or a part of them were nailed to the cross. (A belief that teaches the Commandments and/or their penalties are no longer in force for Christians.)
Proponents of that stance say that America should have them on display because they are a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage, even as they also say that Christ did away with the Commandments when He died. In fact, some also say He left just two new commandments with which believers should concern themselves.
Yet this is confusing: If the Commandments are no longer in effect, why are they, as Christians and Americans, trying to force them on every other citizen by displaying them as a government-sanctioned artifact? Also, if Jesus did away with them, can they really be part of a common Judeo-Christian heritage? Wouldn’t the most correct course of action be to post the two new covenant commandments of Jesus for a Christian nation?
On the other hand, if the Ten Commandments were so important to this nation’s Founding Fathers, why should we not be compelled to obey them implicitly—every one of them, with or without the benefits of grace—if America is to return to its glorious roots? If the Founding Fathers established this nation on the pillar of the Ten Commandments, might they have reasonably expected them to be followed to the letter by like-minded Christian citizens?
What are you thoughts; does God make mistakes and go back on His own word He gave twice?​

I am confused by your statements and your icon identifiers.

bugkiller

 

[gideon army]

Honestly nobody here is interested in what anybody has to say yes? Believe all agree when asking spiritual question, Bible is the only Authority yes?

Now let's see what Scriptures has to say about the 10 Commandments shall we?

2 Cr 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

Wonder who on earth wants to sit in a Ministry that preaches the Law of the 10 Commandments? Believe all can read for yourselves that the Holy Spirit said that it is a Glory that is passing away yes?

However there's be ppl claiming that the above isn't referring to the 10 Commandments. Ok then again let Scriptures Interpret Scriptures shall we?

Exd 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

If you read the whole context of above furnished scriptures, you'll see that it's the 2nd giving of the 10 Commandments (for in the 1st giving, Moses broke all 10 Commandments in breaking the stones for the children of Israel were worshipping a goldern calf at the foot of Mount Sinai).

Imagine Daddy GOD got Jesus to be beaten/ scourged till not 1 iota of flesh is left on Him & nailed to the Cross suspended between Heaven & Earth for 6 hours so that He could fulfilled the 10 Commandments on our Behalf & took it away fm us as a stumbling block yet i wonder why are Christians bringing it back? Please read the u/m Scriptures

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Do you believe that Scriptures says the 10 Commandments are used by Satan to convict the believer?

Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities (archē in the greek & translated : of angels and demons) and powers ( exousia in the Greek & translated to read: the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates) , He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Humm, ever wondered whom is it from when one preaches to have the 10 Commandments back?

Scriptures also says that there's knowledge of sin when there's the 10 Commandments (pls refer to abraham's life, he kept sinning & pls find me GOD rebuking Abraham) & when one's is sin conscious, 1 Ti 4:1-2 specifically states that it's those fm decieving spirits & demons

Jesus Disarmed the devils by nailing the 10 Commandments to the Cross, dount need any rocket scientist to know who benefit in bringing the 10 Commandments back

 

[msortwell]

Do the Scriptures teach, either directly or indirectly, that the NT believer is to make use of the law? Yes.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV)

To answer other than ‘yes’ is to declare the law to be other than inspired text. Few Christians would take such a position. This requires us to conclude that the law is of SOME use to the Christian. Now we are faced with the more difficult question regarding how the Christian should make use of the law.

To make this determination we can begin by determining if, and how, indwelt Christians are instructed to consider the implications of OT law upon how they should conduct themselves.

In some cases the OT law is essentially quoted. And the clear intent is that the recipients follow the instruction provided in the Law.

Consider James’ NT warning . . .

James 2:8-9
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well;
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (NKJ)

. . . and the OT basis for that instruction.

Lev 19:15
15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
(KJV)

Consider Peter’s Command . . .

1 Pet 1:15-16
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (KJV)
. . . and the origins of that command.

Lev 11:44
44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (KJV)

Lev 19:2
2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. (KJV)

Lev 20:7-8
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. (KJV)

And . . .

Rom 12:19
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (KJV)

Deut 32:35
35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. (KJV)

Paul also directly invoked the authority of one of the 10 Commandments.

Eph 6:1-3
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. (KJV)

Exod 20:12
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (KJV)

In each of these cases, the authority of God’s law is considered sufficient to inform the NT Believer regarding what ought or ought not to be done.

One NT author, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, applied the OT law as “case law,” using it as the source of a precept having more broad application in NT days.

1 Tim 5:17-18
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
(KJV)

Deut 25:4
4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
(KJV)

Again, in each case there is a direct reference to the law of God. In each case the instruction is to Christians within whom reside the Holy Ghost. And although it can be assured that the Spirit of God was a participant in the recipients’ ability to accept and apply the instruction, there is no direction from the NT teachers to specifically seek a Spiritual unction. Rather, direct reference is made to the law of God.

So we have seen clearly that the Law of God is, at times, treated as authoritative by the NT Authors. But is all of “the Law” to be treated equally? The Scriptures provide this answer as well.

Two aspects/categories of OT Law seem to have been fulfilled in Christ, bringing their purpose to fulfillment and their mandated observance to an end.

The dietary laws, along with the laws regarding particular days and dietary practices . . .

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [substance] [is] of Christ. (Col 2:16,17)

This would seem to clearly indicate that the laws governing food, drink, and OT observances were a picture/shadow of Christ and therefore no longer in effect while we are in Christ, (i.e., now that there purpose has been fulfilled).

The ceremonial laws regarding the sacrificial system . . .

From Heb 8

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

From Heb 9

[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Clearly the OT worship and sacrificial laws were intended as a precursor to, and picture of, that which was fulfilled in Christ.

This seems to be what was meant in Matt 5.17 wherein it states, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

This general principle, the cessation of observing some of the OT laws, while upholding others seems to be succinctly illustrated in the following verse.

1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (KJV)

The aggregate indicates that those laws, ceremonies, and observances that foreshadowed or otherwise pictured the Christ who would come have been fulfilled in Him and therefore, the related laws and observances themselves, abrogated.

Clearly, none of this text teaches contrary to the commands to the believer to walk after the Spirit. Neither does it challenge the clear teaching that we cannot be justified (judged to be righteous) under the light of the law, but are fully dependent upon, and trusting in, the grace of God for our salvation – our right standing with Him.

Still, it is God’s law that reflects for all of the world His standard for righteousness, and we ought to be pleased and constrained to walk in obedience to it. What that means, exactly, remains a subject with which we might wrestle.

 

[gideon army]

Do the Scriptures teach, either directly or indirectly, that the NT believer is to make use of the law? Yes.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV)

To answer other than ‘yes’ is to declare the law to be other than inspired text. Few Christians would take such a position. This requires us to conclude that the law is of SOME use to the Christian. Now we are faced with the more difficult question regarding how the Christian should make use of the law.

No contest on above statements especially where you quoted from 1 Ti 3:16.

Let's start with reproof shall we?

God breath/ Scriptures showing the Believers IN Christ how a Boastful/ Stupid/ retards those Children of Israel are by saying to GOD 'All that the LORD has spoken, we WILL do' Exd 19:8. If you read (or ask any Hebrew Scholars ) the Hebrew sentence construction , you'll find it it said out of Pride. Imagine a corruptible/ weak/ sinful by nature if not helpless men supposing/ presumming their ability to do ALL that Holy GOD commands? Immediately GOD withdrew HIMSELF from the Children of Israel & Told moses to tell them NOT to come near least they will die. Have GOD ever reacted this way before they boasted of their ability?

Now, before the Children of Israel boasted of their ability to keep what GOD says, have any died out of unbelief/ complaining & so forth (Pre Sinai)? I challenge anyone to check & i'll assure you that none died, however after they boasted- all died from unbelief & complaining So still thinks that men can keep the 10 Commandments? The very 1st Commandment given by GOD hurdle can't be cleared because at the Foot of Mount Sinai, they were worshipping a goldern calf

Instrcution:

What does Scriptures says about the Law of 10 Commandments?

2 Cr 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

Wow, you mean to say that you love sitting under a ministry of Death? However i've noted that you're one of those ppl who claims that the above isn't referring to the Law of the 10 Commandments? Some 'THINKS' it's referring to the ceremonial/Levitical or even the Oral Laws?

Sadly i now knows that you're either not pastored properly or haven't been reading your Bible to state & believe it so. Why? As i've Bolded/ Underlined & in RED for you to read that the Ministry of Law refers clearly to the 10 Commandment which is the only Laws of GOD Written & Engraved on stones. Shall furnished your scriptures for it then:-

Exd 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Above is the 2nd giving of the 10 Commandment for the 1st set was utterlly broken by Moses )) as he came down & saw the ppl worshipping idol. What Moses did was correct, if he had went down the Mount Sinai fully, all the ppl would have been dead!

If you read the whole context of the above, it's after moses 40 days up on mount sinai with GOD the Daddy showing Moses of his Son (Jesus) redemptive work via the Cross (all the incense/ sins/ flour / heave / wave offerings speaks of Jesus work - which you can find Leviticus & numbers which are shadows against what Christians have after Jesus's death on the Cross for He is THE Substance).

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Now scriptures specifically states that the Biggie 10 Commandment is written with the finger of GOD engraved & written on tablets of stones, it also says that Jesus Himself fulfilled all the Holy requirements of a Righteous Holy Daddy GOD by being the 'likeness' of sin & being cursed by hanging on a tree (took up all our broken laws & attracted all the curses on Himself which is supposed to be on our heads) & removed all believers from the Judgement of the 10 Commandments as it is contrary to us - HE REmoved it.

Why then are ppl so stubbon & headstrong to reinstate it back? Do you not know that satan uses the 10 Commandment to convict the Believers? If you follow on read on from where i stopped in above Col 2;14 to Col 2:15 as follows:-

Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities ( archē in the Greek & translate to read: of angels and demons) and powers (exousia in the Greek & translate: the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates) , He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Hallelujah praise Jesus for making things so much easier for us modern men as Concordance & bible study tools are readily available to all those who have a hunger for deeper crystal truth in His word instead of reading scriptures superficially like all the heathens of this world

Now, scriptures has also shown without any shadow of doubt that by nailing the 10 Commandment to the cross, Daddy GOD has removed / sorry typo error, it should read DADDY GOD WIPED Out the 10 Commandment on the believer so that satan & his 1 third cohoots of fallen devils (former angels) can't use the 10 commandment to convict the believer anymore? I am wondering who is trying to bring by the 10 Commandment?

Righteousness

There's many 'concerned' christian asking what if the believers sins or live in grossly immoral lifestyle then how? In answering this question, we need scriptures to answer things pertaining to the things of GOD right?

Hebrews 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"

Hebrews 10:17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."

Told you so that it's all GOD Himself right? In the giving of the 10 Commandment, it's about about you (the believer) for it's all 'THOU SHALL & More Thou Shall'. Prasie be to Daddy for in the New Covenant cut between Jesus (on our behalf) & Daddy GOD is all about HIM & none of us.

Wow, have also heard from so christian asking then the 10 Commandment is still relevant right since Scriptures says that GOD will write them in the believers hearts? Yes it will by no means pass away is what Jesus said but now the focus is not on you It's all GOD working inside the believer for the believer. He's not in us to convict us of our sins but only of our BLOOD Bought Gift of Righteousness in Christ. Let me show you what Scriptures mean:-

Phl 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Do you see anything above that refers to you the believer doing anything? Told you so that it's all HIM & Him alone right? Then again have also encountered ppl asking that by preaching this then wouldn't it be dangerous for ppl to sins wantingly?

Question, are ppl not sinning for 1500 years from the giving of the Law till Jesus death? Those Scribes/ Pharisees whom are supposed to be keepers of the Law are worse right? Scriptures have already proven to us that all the great men of GOD from Moses/david/solomon/samson & many more all Failed

Then they all ask, what then or how then do we become like Christ? Are we not supposed to behave like Christ Himself? Good question, however what's raised by concerned christians isn't the Scriptural answers, for it is written:-

2 Cr 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Took the liberty to underline & bold all important words for you This is how scriptures says that the sure fire way for us to be transform into Jesus's Image from GLORY to Glory which means brighter & brighter right as all believers are sons of GOD?

Have you been noticing an small incovenient truth in that all the scriptures furnished involves NONE of the believers in actions? Just their belief in Christ's

Then some unbelieving Christians would again asks, what is this & that? Example, how can we be sure that what's quoted will be done?

Then i will tell you & those Law advocators that Grace=Christ=Grace is a teacher & Christ Himself will teach all believers.

Between Jesus & men's efforts, which you think i'll believer/ have faith in & choose? I believe it's the darnest most stupid question any believer can ask themselves which includes me right in that we'll have ALL our hopes & faith in Christ then ourselves

Btw, James/Peter/ John are sent to preach to the Unbelieving Jews & not Christians. It's profitable for us to learn but it's not written specifically to christians.

 

[Aibrean]

Actually the 10 commands were of the covenant. There were more than 10 commandments.

Jesus gave us commandments. Love God and love others. Everything else fits into place.

Galatians 3:23-26

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

 

[bugkiller]

Do the Scriptures teach, either directly or indirectly, that the NT believer is to make use of the law? Yes.

I say no! Gal 3:10; 5:3 and James 2:10 all indicate that if you follow/observe any of the law you are obligated to keep/observe the whole law.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (KJV)

I agree with this. So how are we to live by everything when some thing are in direct opposition? Remember if you observe one part of the law you must observe all the law. I think that we are told to ignore/throw out the law in Gal 4:30. If you do this you can not observe it. Do I then intend to say that we can sin without consequences? No! If it is behavior that one is worried about; go to Galatians. In Gal 5:13-25 we read about the behavior of Christians that are led by the Spirit and not the law. In I Timothy 1:9, 10 we find who the law applies to. If any of those things are your way of life the law applies to you and v 9 staes that you are not a Christian. Gal 5:4 states that you can not have both the law and salvation.

To answer other than ‘yes’ is to declare the law to be other than inspired text. Few Christians would take such a position. This requires us to conclude that the law is of SOME use to the Christian. Now we are faced with the more difficult question regarding how the Christian should make use of the law.

No as I have already stated above.

To make this determination we can begin by determining if, and how, indwelt Christians are instructed to consider the implications of OT law upon how they should conduct themselves.

In some cases the OT law is essentially quoted. And the clear intent is that the recipients follow the instruction provided in the Law.

Consider James’ NT warning . . .

James 2:8-9
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well;
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (NKJ)

. . . and the OT basis for that instruction.

Lev 19:15
15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
(KJV)

Consider Peter’s Command . . .

1 Pet 1:15-16
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (KJV)
. . . and the origins of that command.

Lev 11:44
44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (KJV)

Lev 19:2
2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. (KJV)

Lev 20:7-8
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. (KJV)

And . . .

Rom 12:19
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (KJV)

Deut 32:35
35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. (KJV)

Paul also directly invoked the authority of one of the 10 Commandments.

Eph 6:1-3
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. (KJV)

Exod 20:12
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. (KJV)

In each of these cases, the authority of God’s law is considered sufficient to inform the NT Believer regarding what ought or ought not to be done.

One NT author, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, applied the OT law as “case law,” using it as the source of a precept having more broad application in NT days.

1 Tim 5:17-18
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
(KJV)

Deut 25:4
4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
(KJV)

Again, in each case there is a direct reference to the law of God. In each case the instruction is to Christians within whom reside the Holy Ghost. And although it can be assured that the Spirit of God was a participant in the recipients’ ability to accept and apply the instruction, there is no direction from the NT teachers to specifically seek a Spiritual unction. Rather, direct reference is made to the law of God.

Yes if you isolate these scripture references and ignore others. Remember we are to live by every word that comes from God and all scripture is given by inspiration of God. There are similarities between the OT and NT. They are entirely two different covenants. See Jer 31:31-34.

So we have seen clearly that the Law of God is, at times, treated as authoritative by the NT Authors. But is all of “the Law” to be treated equally? The Scriptures provide this answer as well.

The citations of the law are not for the purpose of teaching observance of the law. Otherwise the NC is nothing but a warmed up left over and not a new covenant as promised in Jeremiah and there is no NC.

Two aspects/categories of OT Law seem to have been fulfilled in Christ, bringing their purpose to fulfillment and their mandated observance to an end.

All aspects of the law have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ and there is nothing left for anybody to fulfill.

The dietary laws, along with the laws regarding particular days and dietary practices . . .

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [substance] [is] of Christ. (Col 2:16,17)

This would seem to clearly indicate that the laws governing food, drink, and OT observances were a picture/shadow of Christ and therefore no longer in effect while we are in Christ, (i.e., now that there purpose has been fulfilled).

The ceremonial laws regarding the sacrificial system . . .

From Heb 8

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

From Heb 9

[It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Clearly the OT worship and sacrificial laws were intended as a precursor to, and picture of, that which was fulfilled in Christ.

This seems to be what was meant in Matt 5.17 wherein it states, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

This general principle, the cessation of observing some of the OT laws, while upholding others seems to be succinctly illustrated in the following verse.

1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (KJV)

And what are keeping the commandments of God? First what are the commandments of God we are to keep? Look at I John 3:23 - And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. Now did Jesus issue the ten commandments? No! consider John 15:10 and Ex 33:20. Jesus kept the ten commandmants and thousands have seen Jesus and lived.

The aggregate indicates that those laws, ceremonies, and observances that foreshadowed or otherwise pictured the Christ who would come have been fulfilled in Him and therefore, the related laws and observances themselves, abrogated.

Clearly, none of this text teaches contrary to the commands to the believer to walk after the Spirit. Neither does it challenge the clear teaching that we cannot be justified (judged to be righteous) under the light of the law, but are fully dependent upon, and trusting in, the grace of God for our salvation – our right standing with Him.

If you follow the law in any fashion you are justified by the law and do not have salvation Gal 5:4. Behavior that coinsides with the law is incidental and not proof that one is obeying the law. Remember if you submit to one part of the law youare obligated to all the law Gal 3:10; 5:3 and James 2:10. You are only righeous by imputation of the righteousness of Jesus (God) without which no man shall see God (be saved). Ones righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and pharisees to be saved. This in no way can be achieved throught the law.

Still, it is God’s law that reflects for all of the world His standard for righteousness, and we ought to be pleased and constrained to walk in obedience to it. What that means, exactly, remains a subject with which we might wrestle.

No not really. Just be led by the Spirit and you will not be found guilty. The law that theChristian is under and subject to is There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I might be confused here, but Revelation 14:12 reads, "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

I'm confused how this gets overlooked? I don't understand how/why people use scripture that is actually kind of subjective and they use it only for their benefit. But the verse I provided above is very clear and is not subjective at all. We must keep the commandments of God (Which are the 10) and have faith in Jesus.

This isn't being legalistic. Why are we so quick to keep the traditions of men and follow what they say rather than the word of God?

It might be because of your limited view of what the commandments are. Have you considered I John 3:23? This clearly does not point to the ten commandments.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Wow, I'm becoming more and more shocked by the apparent rudeness is how people respond on here. I think that was a little harsh to say I have a limited view of what the commandments are. It is obvious also how Jesus says He gives us commandments, so I understand that the commandments are not JUST the 10, and I did in fact word my post as such and for that I apologize.

I accept your apology. Your presentation is classic SDA. Maybe you are not SDA as your faith icon does not indicate. This is also becoming atypical SDA. As I have read your entire post that I am responding to I find that indeed you are talking about the ten commandments. I agree with your assessment of what you said. Generally on these boards any time the word commandments appears is it taken as the ten commandments. Here is a possible reason we have this problem. Some believe that Jesus issued the ten commandments and apply John 14:15 to apply guilt for not observing the sabbath. I usually present John 15;10 and Ex 33:20. John 15:10 has two improtant phrases My commandments and My Father's commandments. Jesus sid He kept His Father's commandments. So what would be Jesus' commandments. They of necessity must be different according to grammatical sentence structure.

And Ex 33:20 says no one can see God and live. Thousands have seen Jesus (God) and lived. So Moses could not identify God by sight. It does say Moses saw the back of God. But look at the verse a little closer and you will see it was only the glory that Moses saw. I can go into this issue much deeper if you like.

Now let's look at I John 3:23 very close up. And this is His (God theFather's) commandment, That we should believe on the name of His (God the Father's) Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He (Jesus God the Son) gave us commandment. This also shows a difference like John 15:10 shows. Both of these references mess with the doctrine of the Trinity to say that God the Father's commandments are the same as Jesus' commandments.

The first and second His has to be God the Father because Jesus is not His own Father. Hold on you might say because of John 10:30 - I and My Father are one. The word one is not a reference to diety as it is not capitalized. This also would not be understood to mean the same person or entity. To bear this out there are many verses that indicate the Father God had some interaction with God the Son ie My Father sent Me; I go to My Father; I do what My Father shows Me, delivered unto Me of My Father, etc. I roughly count 71 times some kind of relationship or interaction between Jesus and His Father just in the Gospels. See how this interfers with claiming that Jesus issued the ten commandments?

But I would also say that 1 John 3:23 summarizes the 10 commandments, right? "...That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ...", Jesus is God, and if we believe in the name of God, and have a relationship with God like this is acting, then that summarizes the first 4. The next part, "...and love one another, as He gave us commandment." This summarizes the last 6. How is my understanding limited in that?

First are you stating or asking? It seems to me that you are trying to say that Jesus issued the commandments or for the purpose of retaining the OC. There is no such thing as an Old Covenant Christian. Gal 5:3, 4 says you have Jesus and salvation or the law and death. Here are the verses: For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal 4:30 says we are to throw the law. Romans is chock full of phrases like not under the law (6:14, 15), delivered from the law (7:6) Christ is the end of the law (10:4).

When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery....." He replied with the 7th, sixth, eight, ninth and fifth commandments with the phrase "do not defraud" just before the fifth commandment.

Note what was asked - What must I do to have eternal life. We see in Mat 19 that observing the law will not get you eternal life. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus to keep the law. Why? I think it was his approach. Where in the NT do you get that anything to do with obtaining salvation has to do with the law? None that I can find. Roman 10:9, 10; Acts 2:38; 16:30, 31.

My understanding on scripture, which is not lacking, is that when the commandments are brought up, they reflect the 10, whether that is in summarizing them like in 1 John 3:23 or actually naming them off.

If you say so. I think that you have accepted the words of someone else as truth and approach the scripture with an idea you wish to to validate. I aapproach the scripture with questions. We have a difference in character. I need no validation to make me happy which is very contrary to the flesh and the usual value system found in society religious or secular. I usualy am not welcome because I ask questions and way to many. I would ask my mother why till she got extremely fustrated. I think you accept things without question bewcause some authority said so.

bugkiller

 

[SGM4HIM]

It might be because of your limited view of what the commandments are. Have you considered I John 3:23? This clearly does not point to the ten commandments.
/quote]

Gee, I didn't get to that part yet. Why?

John 1 2:3 This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

John 1 3:2 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother.


Let's break it down. Jesus's walk did not include murder. (good)

Cain's walk did include murder. (bad)

Let's keep it simple. We are not talking about a particular administration of these laws or a particular sacrificial system.

Can we start with just one out of ten?

If not, why not?

 

[msortwell]

BK,

I provided Scripture references demonstrating where Paul, Peter, and James used the law of God to determine what decision to make or what action to take.

To this you simply said, “Yes if you isolate these scripture references and ignore others. Remember we are to live by every word that comes from God and all scripture is given by inspiration of God. There are similarities between the OT and NT. They are entirely two different covenants.”

Your response falls far short of making any substantive point. Paul, Peter, and James each made use of the OT law in making life’s decisions.

I AM NOT arguing that a man can or should use the law to show himself righteous, quite the opposite. Rather, I hold that, relative to justification, the law is only capable of condemning a man.

I have shown clearly from Scripture that two NT Apostles and James considered it appropriate to reference God’s law. You have offered NOTHING by way of explaining why their example ought not to be followed.

You have consistently confused text, warning against our seeking our righteousness through obedience to the law, with the biblical practice of using the law as a moral compass - a road map of how we ought to live. Latecomers to the discussion would have to see my previous post to know why this does not include following the OT ceremonial laws.

You have shown confusion regarding text that decries the weakness of the old covenant in comparison to the new, incorrectly concluding that it instructs us to reject the law that the Apostles and NT Disciples embraced and used.

Offer YOUR EXPLANATION. Why did Peter, Paul, and James reference the OT law if to do so was contrary to walking in the Spirit?

Finally, consider . . .

Rom 7:12, Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (NKJ)

Rom 7:22
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. (NKJ)

 

[Cribstyl]

I might be confused here, but Revelation 14:12 reads, "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

I'm confused how this gets overlooked? I don't understand how/why people use scripture that is actually kind of subjective and they use it only for their benefit. But the verse I provided above is very clear and is not subjective at all. We must keep the commandments of God (Which are the 10) and have faith in Jesus.

This isn't being legalistic. Why are we so quick to keep the traditions of men and follow what they say rather than the word of God?

It's debatable that John meant the ten commandments rather than the only two commandments that Jesus gave Him to write about in all his letters.

In John's gospel, ijohn iijohn,iiijohn "the truth" is clearly the commandments to love.
In 2John sums up "the truth" and doctrines that he taught and what he nmean by commandments.
When sabbatarian isolate verses they're able to confuse themselves with added commentary to impose the law into these lessons. They dont care what the context is saying when they find key words.


2Jo 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2Jo 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
2Jo 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
2Jo 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not [write] with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
2Jo 1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

 

[Cribstyl]

This is where some other sabbatarian cuts in and explains that the two is really the ten.

 

[Frogster]

I am so tired of asking these same questions.

But I never get a straight answer.

Why didn't paul want the galatians churches under law?

Why didn't paul want Jewish law reinstated?


Gal 2:18 No, if I start building up again a system which I have pulled down, then it is that I show myself up as a transgressor of the law.

 

[Cribstyl]

IPreachChrist, repectfully, care to address my post?

#17

 

[Frogster]

(Something I posted in another topic that might benifit this discussion if anybody has answers)

In Romans 7:12 which was written more than 25 years after the death of Christ it reads, "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." Also in Romans 2:13 it says, "For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." Again in Romans 7:22 he writes, "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward of man."

Your totally prooftexting Rom 2:13. Paul was on a polemic diatribe, showing hypocrisy, and how no one was justified bt law. Why would he blow his whole aregument, and say we are justified by law?

Look to the culmination. Rom 3;20 is also said elsewhere.


20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

It seems clear on here that people believe once we have faith in Jesus, we have no need to keep the law. But Paul addresses this also in Romans. In 3:31 he says, "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." Paul tells us that faith does NOT abolish the law, it establishes it, or upholds it.

Sorry, but it is established to show sin, or don't forget, it can also mean that faith was found in the law, (OT) hence establishing it, and we see the OT example in Rom 4. So yes, the faith establishes the law (OT), law can also mean OT, as used in 3:19. However, as per Gal 5:18 and Rom 6;14, we are not iunder law. Why didn't paul wan the law for the Galatian churches?

We also see in Acts 24 when he was defending himself before the Roman govbernor Felix because of the charges of dissension and sedition brought by the Jewish religious leaders. He replies to the accusations that are brought against him by saying, "I worship the God of my fathers, believe all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." That was said in verse 14, and I don't think that he is saying there that the law is still in effect, BUT in Acts 25:8 when he again is defending himself he says, "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all."

Paul in the upper chapters of Acts, was saying he did not break the law, IN THAT INCEDENT, not only that he was right, Christ was fround in the OT, but read Gal 4;12, Paul lived as a gentile, and so did Peter.

This is sometime after Christ's death and resurrection in which Paul says he has done nothing against the law.

Why did the synagogue leaders give him 39 lashes, the strictest punishment for blasphemy? Saying if you circumcise, Christ will profit you nothing, went against the covenenatal stipulations.

I think it is interesting that 9 of the 10 are upheld.

Sorry, but the law was one, as per gal 5;3, james 2;10.

What do you think of this?

15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

I know the argument, but Jesus says to love one another which is the last six, and we obviously have to love God. But if 9 of the commandments are clearly still to be upheld, WHY would ONE of them not be? Doesn't it make sense that God established these 10 for a reason? To show that we love Him (The first four) and to show our love for others (The last 6). Also in Revelation 12:17 it says the dragon went to war with those "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Again in Revelation 14:12 it reads, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

I've had people argue that these are NOT the 10, but actually all the commandments that Jesus taught. First of all, Jesus kept the Sabbath and actually never told people not to observe it, He rather upheld it. Also, both of these verses talk about keeping the "commandments of God and the faith of Jesus". If this is not directed toward the 10, what are the commandments of God being spoken of here?

I would like answers/responses to all the scripture and points I make. I feel it's kind of weak to only focus on one part of my post and then leave out the scripture that I provided.

Why didn't Paul want sabbath for the galatians or colossians?

 

[bugkiller]

Why do you "accept" my apology and then attack me by saying I'm "classic SDA"? I'm saying attack because you aren't doing it in an uplifting way, but rather in a degrading way. I am extremely confused as to why I'm getting a very negative, rude vibe from you posts.

I am very sorry that you think I said anything about you. I did say something about your presentation though. What I said comes though much experience. If you think that is an attack, I hope that you never seem on the offense.

Also, I actually approach scripture with questions as well. I don't have traditional views as most Christians because I don't just fall in line with what someone has told me. I research and I dig deep into the meaning of what the Word of God tells us.

Excellent, then we can have a good discussion.

I never said I needed validation to make me happy? All I need is to believe in Jesus and have a relationship with Him and that brings me joy knowing that when He comes again the in the clouds I will be eternally with God.

It is extremely rude to assume all of these things about me that you do? Who are you to judge my character or what I am like? I believe that is One persons job.

Well first I am very happy for you. If you wish to change my opinion, you will have to change your presentation some. After all I can only respond to what I read if I respond at all.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

It's debatable that John meant the ten commandments rather than the only two commandments that Jesus gave Him to write about in all his letters.

Why is this debatable? When I read John 15:10 I get that Jesus obeyed His Father's commandments, not His (meaning Jesus'). When I read I Joihn 3:23 I get that God the Father has only one well two commandments in the NC. They are to believe in His Son and do as His son commanded. The commandments Jesus issued are different than those of the law (Torah) of Moses which came from God the Father.

In John's gospel, ijohn iijohn,iiijohn "the truth" is clearly the commandments to love.
In 2John sums up "the truth" and doctrines that he taught and what he mean by commandments.
When sabbatarian isolate verses they're able to confuse themselves with added commentary to impose the law into these lessons. They dont care what the context is saying when they find key words.

I very much agree with the immediate sentence above.

bugkiller