Do the Ten Commandments define sin? (nope)

[MartyF]

So, on that basis you call me a Pharisee and a Mormon?

What's the purpose of your question?

 

[Ken Rank]

Every sin, every commandment... falls under love God or neighbor. That is what Yeshua said, "upon these two hang ALL of the Law and Prophets." That doesn't mean the individual commandments are abolished or not for today, it means that at their core, each one can be filed (if you will) under love God or love neighbor.

 

[royal priest]

That commandment is outside the Ten. Jesus quoted it as one of the greatest two, both outside the Ten.

Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Actually, the "two greatest" are summaries of the 10C's two tables: love to God (1-4), and love to neighbor (5-10)
Romans 13:8-10

 

[Neogaia777]

If you believe the Ten Commandments define sin, you have left yourself lots of wiggle room.

These sins are not covered under the TCs.
- Pride
- Greed
- Envy
- Wrath, Fits of Rage
- Lust
- Gluttony
- Sloth
- Dishonesty, Deception
- Impurity, Debauchery
- Witchcraft, Sorcery
- Hatred, Indifference
- Jealousy
- Showing Favoritism, Prejudice and Discrimination
- Selfish Ambition, Self-Centeredness
- Withholding Remedy to Human or Animal Needs
- Drunkenness, Drug Abuse
- Fornication, Sodomy, Bestiality
- Discord, Dissensions, Factions
- Unbelief, Disbelief, Agnosticism, Atheism
- Etc.

The definition of sin is not limited to the Ten Commandments.
The definition of sin is not limited to the Books of the Law.
The definition of sin is not limited to the Old Testament.
The definition of sin is not even limited to the entire Bible.

Okay, back to your wiggling.

Suffice to say, I think we can all agree, "we're all sinners" while in this world... Enter the NC...

God Bless!

 

[Saint Steven]

i'd say it's pretty darn comprehensive even if you could possibly think of one sin that wouldn't fit under any of the 10. what do you think that sin would be?

I agree for the most part. I gave you a list. See the OP.

 

[Saint Steven]

Actually, the "two greatest" are summaries of the 10C's two tables: love to God (1-4), and love to neighbor (5-10)
Romans 13:8-10

That is human reasoning attempting to understand why Jesus didn't name any of the Ten as the greatest commandment. The Bible does not support that claim. Unless you can cite a scripture that says that. There is nothing in the context to suggest that was what Jesus was doing.

 

[royal priest]

That is human reasoning attempting to understand why Jesus didn't name any of the Ten as the greatest commandment. The Bible does not support that claim. Unless you can cite a scripture that says that. There is nothing in the context to suggest that was what Jesus was doing.

Paul was not using mere human reasoning. He was writing the Word of God.
Romans 13:8-10,
"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

 

[ebedmelech]

You are changing the question when you expand it to the whole law. That is my point. Those who claim the Ten Commandments define sin are incorrect.

You may think I'm changing the question but the fact is the whole law is based on the Ten Commandments...(the moral law).

There's no getting around that.

If you pose the argument based on scripture you cannot define the terms because scripture does that.

 

[Neogaia777]

1-4 loving God, 4-10, loving others as (well as) yourself... (moral laws are laws of or about love)...

God Bless!

 

[Soyeong]

The covenant that God made with Noah did not have the same commands, statues, or precepts as the covenant God made with Abraham, or the covenant that He made with Israel.
Why do you think God's character would have to change in order to make different covenants with different groups of people, under different circumstances, in different times?

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the Law was primarily given to teach us how to express His character traits such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control.

For example, in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, so following those instructions is about acting in accordance with the holy character of our God. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's holiness can't be ended without first ending God's holiness.

God's character traits are eternal and unchanging, so while He can certainly reveal an aspect of His character that He hadn't previously revealed, but once something has been revealed it will always be valid and will never change. For example, if God were to reveal to one group of people that it is in accordance with His righteousness to help the poor and reveal to another group of people that it is is no longer in accordance with his righteousness to help the poor, then God's righteousness would be subject to change and would not be eternal, contrary to Psalms 119:142 and 119:160. So when God has given instructions to Israel for how to train in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and we are told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10), then it should be easy to figure out what we should look up to figure out how to do that.

 

[Soyeong]

You may think I'm changing the question but the fact is the whole law is based on the Ten Commandments...(the moral law).

There's no getting around that.

If you pose the argument based on scripture you cannot define the terms because scripture does that.

The Bible does not distinguish between moral and non-moral laws. If there were non-moral laws, then there would be examples where someone disobedience to God would be considered moral, but there are no examples of that. Rather, disobedience to any of God's commands is always immoral and sinful. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

 

[Soyeong]

Must Christians keep the 10 Commandments?

Absolutely not! Christians are not under the Torah - that was the Old Covenant which has been superseded. (Besides which, the Torah contains hundreds of laws, not just ten.) If you put yourself back under the Torah, then:

Galatians 5:4
"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

The Lord Jesus said the Torah is good, and it is good to observe it. Paul said the same. It is obvious and evident that everything the Lord commands is good, and leads to blessing.

But Jesus never said we must keep the Torah. That is legalism.

He said we are to keep HIS commandments under the New Covenant. The New Covenant is nothing at all like a Law or a set of regulations: it is a radical process of inner change, based upon faithfulness and obedience to Jesus Christ, and being spiritually transformed. This can only happen through complete and total submission to Jesus Christ and His commands, putting Him before all else, and striving to follow Him.

By the way, this is my first post here. I signed up to make this comment but not sure I will be staying as I quickly discovered that, as well as being highly commercial, this site has some very ungodly principles which I would not want to support.

Hello,

God is God, so the whole world is under His Law and obligated to obey it, otherwise He would not have been just to judge the world with the Flood for their sins or to judge the world in Revelation. Likewise, in 2 Peter 2:6-8, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of their Lawless deeds, so they were under God's Law and were obligated to obey it even though they were in a covenant relationship with God, so they didn't get the choice of whether they wanted to be under God's Law and neither do you. Through the Law God has given you knowledge of what is sin, so what is up to you is whether or not you are going to repent and obey by faith.

Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17, 23) and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that he would still have taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6), and to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1). There is no much sense in someone wanting to become his follower while not wanting to follow the Law that he followed and taught his followers to obey by word and by example.

If God is legalistic for requiring His people to obey His Law and Jesus was legalistic for living in perfect obedience to it and for teaching his followers to obey it by word and by example, then being legalistic is being in good company, but that's not what legalism refers to. Rather, it is in regard to the manner in in which someone obeys God's Law without regard to its intent.

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and obey His Law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so it would make no sense to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning people that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and follow what he taught.

 

[Soyeong]

That's good. Although it is based on gaining knowledge through teaching and study. How does this fit?

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Paul spoke about multiple categories of laws, such as God's Law, the law of sin, and works of the law, so it is important to correctly identify which law he was speaking about not being under. The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walked in the Spirit with those who have a mind set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's Law. Furthermore, in Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it, so it would make no sense whatsoever to interpret 5:18 as speaking about the Mosaic Law. Rather, in 5:16-17, Paul described the desires of the flesh as causing us not to do the good that we want to do, which is exactly how he described his struggle with the law of sin in Romans 7:12-25, so when we are led by the Spirit we are under God's Law and not under the law of sin.

 

[Soyeong]

Do you know where your orange juice comes from?

Hopefully that seems like a strange question. But God has commanded that the fruit from the tree in the center of the garden is forbidden.

As you have stated, it is more important WHO the command is from than WHO it was given to. Right?

The TCs were given to the Israelites alone by God through Moses. It matters.

I agree that understanding who a law was given to matters, but we need to understand that the Law was not given as instructions for how to live as a Jew, but rather it was given as instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, and as followers of God we should seek to walk in His ways.

I agree that the Law was only given to Israel, but it was never intended only for Jews, but rather the Jews were given the role of being a light to the nations, of blessing them by teaching them how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8). In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with them and in Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born. In Acts 15:16-17, they certainly saw themselves as being the restoration of Israel in fulfillment of prophecy rather than as a brand new entity that was distinct from Israel. In Romans 9:6-8, Israel is not made up of those who are descended from Israel, but of those who have faith in the promise. In Ephesians 2:19, through faith in Messiah, Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are all terms used to describe Israel, so Gentiles now have the privilege and the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles. However, if you want to be a stickler about what was only given to Israel, then in Jeremiah 31:31, the New Covenant was only made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, so it is only through faith in Messiah that Gentiles are able to join Israel and partake of the New Covenant.

 

[Soyeong]

No, no, no... That's ridiculous. The word "but" is a hinge word. The sentence direction turns on that word.

"You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." means that there is new information from Christ to replace words of the law. It was NOT in accordance with Mosaic law, it was the opposite. If I have that wrong, please explain yourself. Thanks.

If Jesus had said "it is written....but I say unto you..." then you would be correct, however, he was not speaking against what was written, but against what the people had heard being taught. For example:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

Nowhere in the Law is it written that we should hate our enemy, so Jesus could not have been speaking against what was written, but he could have been speaking against what his audience had heard being taught about what was written.

The command not to look at a married woman with lust in our hearts is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our hearts, not something brand new. In Leviticus 19:17, we are told not to hate our brother, so again nothing brand new. In Proverbs 20:22 and 24:29, we are instructed not to repay what others have done to us, so turning the other cheek is nothing brand new.

 

[AvgJoe]

If you are selfish are you loving others as you love yourself?

No

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

SIN BOLDLY.......understand this quote from Martin Luther and you will be well on your way.....

 

[Dave L]

A desire to make one's own judgments about the right and wrong of one's own actions is what is the root of all sin.

What if the person is right? Did Jesus sin in your estimation?

 

[Dave L]

But hatred does not equal selfishness, in every instance. A person can be selfish without any hate for the other person. Guess we see things a little differently.

Selfishness (hatred) places one's own self above others in loving ways.

 

[Saint Steven]

Paul was not using mere human reasoning. He was writing the Word of God.
Romans 13:8-10,
"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

Your argument is falling apart. You switched from Jesus to Paul and came up one commandment short.