Do the Ten Commandments define sin? (nope)

[Saint Steven]

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 whole house does not consist of the foundation. Like I said, there something missing if you claim the TCs define sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

I agree that it is important to correctly identify which law is being spoken about. But then you impose your own idea on the scripture, claiming "the law" cannot be the law. Understand that "the law" is always the law, the whole, and nothing but the law, except when it is speaking of the books of the Law (capital "L"). For example.

Matthew 5:17
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

You are claiming that Jesus was not bringing new teaching in Matthew five? Just the same old laws?

The understanding was what Jesus was addressing. Among your people and neighbors does not include enemies. Therefore hate your enemies.

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people,
but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

The old testament was the bad news. The new testament is the good news.

If you are promoting the law, that's just bad news. IMHO

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

Then you are agreeing that the TCs do not completely define sin. Thanks.

 

[Ken Rank]

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 true.... the 2 sum up the 10, and the 10 sum up all others. That's why I said, "at their core" the 2 sum it all up because I believe that is what Yeshua was saying when he says, "upon these two hang all the Law and Prophets."

 

[Saint Steven]

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

God Bless!

Do you keep the Sabbath? Which day?

 

[Saint Steven]

That is true.... the 2 sum up the 10, and the 10 sum up all others. That's why I said, "at their core" the 2 sum it all up because I believe that is what Yeshua was saying when he says, "upon these two hang all the Law and Prophets."

Why are you hanging Prophets?

 

[Ken Rank]

The Bible does not distinguish between moral and non-moral laws.

Amen... there is not a place in Scripture that distinguishes moral and ceremonial laws thus that entire idea means WE are who have to decide what is and is not moral or ceremonial. God's law came as a single package. The distinguishing mark that exists is whether or not the mechanisms are in place for us to follow certain commandments. For example, if we live in the nations under secular rule, then commandments that are specific to being in the land where the Torah (God's law) is being used as the rule of law simply do not apply at this time. There is also no physical Temple, so anything related to it obviously can't be done either.

I apologize in advance to any reading this who might be offended, because my intent isn't to offend... but the idea that messiah came to abolish the commandments is absurd. Not only does that lack support in the NT, there isn't a prophecy pointing to that anywhere in the prophets. Moreover, he came to reverse the curse of sin and death which ISN'T the commandments, it is the result of Adam's transgression! In other words, he came to die without sin to the reverse the wage of sin (death) and in the process, he walked out the Law in a manner that revealed how God intended for it to be walked out. He didn't do away with it, he showed us how to properly walk within it!

 

[RDKirk]

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

Jesus is God.

God's decisions are always right.

A debate between Christians about whether God sinned is silly on its face.

 

[Dave L]

Jesus is God.

God's decisions are always right.

A debate between Christians about whether God sinned is silly on its face.

RDKirk said: ↑
Sin = "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."

How about Paul? Or Peter?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Nobody knows whats its like to be sin free since we are literally living in it every moment.

Sure will be different once in Heaven with no sin. I'm sure God will help us adjust. Hopefully we will not even have a memory of what sin was. For it sure does get old.

As I get older I sin less but, my sin bothers me more. I take that as a good sign. The sanctification process can be a rough one.

Being married to a Saint reveals my sin daily.

M-Bob

 

[RDKirk]

RDKirk said: ↑
Sin = "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."

How about Paul? Or Peter?

Paul asserted some self-assessments of his life based on his obedience to God--he believed he was pretty obedient.

I'm not sure what you might be referring to in regards to Peter.

And, of course, my original statement was based on Genesis 3:

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

[Dave L]

Paul asserted some self-assessments of his life based on his obedience to God--he believed he was pretty obedient.

I'm not sure what you might be referring to in regards to Peter.

They do exactly what you think sin consists of.

 

[RDKirk]

They do exactly what you think sin consists of.

Obviously you're going to have to provide the verses rather than being coy about it.

 

[Saint Steven]

…
A debate between Christians about whether God sinned is silly on its face.

I agree. But that is the debate coming from those who do not understand that the law was being put aside. If Jesus had been under the law he would have been breaking it. I can only conclude that he was not under the law. The issue was work on the Sabbath. He even admitted he was working. Yet the debate is that it wasn't work. Under the assumption that Jesus was under the law.

John 5:16-18
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath,
the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them,
“My Father is always at his work to this very day,
and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him;
not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father,
making himself equal with God.

 

[Alithis]

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.

ALL of these are covered ..for all these are a violation of the greatest command

 

[ebedmelech]

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.

Indeed it does. There are moral laws and laws of ceremony...both are contained in the law.

For instance, the feast day celebrations as well as laws with regard to sacrifice and offerings are laws of ceremony whereas the moral laws define how we are to behave in respect to God and one another. In *many* cases the breaking of the moral law triggers the requirement of a law of ceremony.

I can understand how one may not desire to see it that way...but the distinguishing factor is the laws of ceremony speak of Christ and His ultimate sacrfice , while the moral law defines sin for us and send us to Christ for forgiveness after the cross. After Christ the ceremonial laws are no longer required under the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant breaking the moral law required a particular law of ceremony to obtain forgiveness. They are stated in Leviticus.

 

[1213]

Who were the Ten Commandments given to?

I think they wee originally for Jews. But according to the Bible, disciples of Jesus (“Christians”) should be also Jews.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; don't boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you.
Romans 11:17-18

Won't the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:27-29

But I also think, the commandments are good, I don’t see any good reason to reject them.

 

[Soyeong]

I agree. But that is the debate coming from those who do not understand that the law was being put aside. If Jesus had been under the law he would have been breaking it. I can only conclude that he was not under the law. The issue was work on the Sabbath. He even admitted he was working. Yet the debate is that it wasn't work. Under the assumption that Jesus was under the law.

John 5:16-18
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath,
the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them,
“My Father is always at his work to this very day,
and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him;
not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father,
making himself equal with God.

If Jesus was sinless because he didn't need to obey the Law rather than because he lived in perfect obedience to it, then him being sinless would hold no significance. On the contrary, Jesus was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4). If priests can perform their duties on the Sabbath and be held innocent of breaking it or if someone can get their child or an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath without breaking it, then clearly there are some forms of work that the Sabbath was never intended to prohibit, which includes the work that Jesus was doing. As he said, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, so the Sabbath was never intended to be used as an excuse to avoid obeying the command to love our neighbor.