Three Questions Relative to the 4th Commandment

[Doran]

To any and all sabbath day-keepers out there, I have three questions to which I would like to have answers:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

2. Heb 7:12 speaks to a "change of law" that is necessary. Do any of you know what the new law is that replaced the old?

3. Can medical professionals who must work on the sabbath perform that good work for pay? (Yes or No, please.)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

To any and all sabbath day-keepers out there, I have three questions to which I would like to have answers:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

No. Law keeping is not what saves us, it is the blood of Jesus that saves. We do not keep thou shalt not murder to save us just like we don’t keep the Sabbath commandment to save. The commandments are kept through love and faith. 1 John 5:3 Rev 14:12, Romans 3:31. It's an outward expression that shows we have been changed on the inside by Jesus

2. Heb 7:12 speaks to a "change of law" that is necessary. Do any of you know what the new law is that replaced the old?

The law that is being referred to is the priesthood, Jesus is our High Priest in the New Covenant, which is the context in Hebrews 7 shows this is the law that was changed.

Hebrews 7: 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

3. Can medical professionals who must work on the sabbath perform that good work for pay? (Yes or No, please.)

Jesus says we can do good on the Sabbath and healing was part of the example of what of Jesus did on the Sabbath that is doing good. I personally would not accept payment for doing good on the Sabbath

 

[Doran]

No. Law keeping is not what saves us, it is the blood of Jesus that saves. We do not keep thou shalt not murder to save us just like we don’t keep the Sabbath commandment to save. The commandments are kept through love and faith. 1 John 5:3 Rev 14:12, Romans 3:31. It and outward expression that shows we have been changed on the inside by Jesus

So...just how would consistent non-observance of the sabbath, even in good conscience (Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16) , reflect the inner change inside by Jesus?

The law that is being referred to is the priesthood, Jesus is our High Priest in the New Covenant, which is the context in Hebrews 7 shows this is the law that was changed.

Hebrews 7: 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

No...it's actually the entire Law of Moses that is being talked about. It is forbidden by the Law of Moses to add to or subtract from the Law, therefore no single commandment or category of commandments were permitted to be subtracted from or added to the Torah (Deut 4:12; 12:32). This is why the writer to Hebrews did not say that there is a change IN the [priesthood] law (as though any commandment in the law could be modified or amended or altered); rather he said a change OF [all the] law was necessary. The entire Torah is ONE cohesive unit -- one body of Law. No commandment or category of commandments in the Torah can be chaged; for that would violate the Torah itself. Therefore, any change at all to any of the commandments in the Torah would necessitate a new body of law. Do you know what that new law is?

Jesus says we can do good on the Sabbath and healing was part of the example of what of Jesus did on the Sabbath that is doing good. I personally would not accept payment for doing good on the Sabbath.

And so you would counsel any and all Christian medical, emergency or other "first responders" (which would include numerous secular professions) to not accept wages for working on the sabbath? And when they ask you why, what reason would you give besides your personal, subjective feelings on the subject?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So...just how would consistent non-observance of the sabbath, even in good conscience (Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16) , reflect the inner change inside by Jesus?

Those are out of context. Romans 14 does not mention once the Sabbath commandment Col 2:14 KJV provides the context for Col 2:16-17 KJV and it is referring to ordinances, not commandment. There is more than one Sabbath in the scripture, the weekly Sabbath commandment and the annual sabbath(s) ordinances, its the annual sabbath ordinances being referred to if one allows the context to dictate the meaning.

No...it's actually the entire Law of Moses that is being talked about. It is forbidden by the Law of Moses to add to or subtract from the Law, therefore no single commandment or category of commandments were permitted to be subtracted from or added to the Torah (Deut 4:12; 12:32). This is why the writer to Hebrews did not say that there is a change IN the [priesthood] law (as though any commandment in the law could be modified or amended or altered); rather he said a change OF [all the] law was necessary. The entire Torah is ONE cohesive unit -- one body of Law. No commandment or category of commandments in the Torah can be chaged; for that would violate the Torah itself. Therefore, any change at all to any of the commandments in the Torah would necessitate a new body of law. Do you know what that new law is?

Interesting. You quote Hebrews 7 yet do not supply one quote from Hebrews 7 stating the law that changed is the law of Moses and ignore what Hebrews 7 does define as the law that changed was the Priesthood. So do we no longer need to love God and man with all of our heart from the law of Moses?

If you keep reading in Hebrews, the Text disagrees with you that all of the law of Moses is wiped out.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

And so you would counsel any and all Christian medical, emergency or other "first responders" (which would include numerous secular professions) to not accept wages for working on the sabbath? And when they ask you why, what reason would you give besides your personal, subjective feelings on the subject?

I am referring to the people who keep the commandments of God.

 

[Doran]

Those are out of context. Romans 14 does not mention once the Sabbath commandment Col 2:14 KJV provides the context and it is referring to ordinances, not commandment. There is more than one Sabbath in the scripture, the weekly Sabbath commandment and the annual sabbath(s) ordinances, its the annual sabbath ordinances being referred to if one allows the context to dictate the meaning.

Oh...so Rom 14 is not alluding to the sabbath day because Jews didn't consider that particular day to be "more sacred than another"? What about you: Is the 7th day of the week more sacred to you than the other 6?

Re Col 2:14 does not say what you imply. The text does not say that he (Christ) cancelled [certain] regulations in the written code....Rather the text says that He cancelled the written code [itself] WITH its regulations, which "coincidentally" comports quite well with Deut 4:12; 12:32! The entire law was cancelled! If Christ had cancelled just one part of the Law, then he violated the Law of Moses in the process! And, how we can know this with absolute certainty -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- is the last short phrase in v.13 that begins the sentence . That last sentence reads: He forgave us ALL our sins,... and v. 14 begins with "having canceled the written code with its regulations that was against us and stood opposed to us, he took IT (the "written code") away, nailing it to the cross." Notice the SINGULAR "it". Paul didn't say he took "them away" (as in the regulations, plural) -- but the entire Mosiac Law, i.e. all the "written code"!!! All of IT! Every bit of IT! And if you deny this very obvious truth, then Christ could not have forgiven us all our sins (v.13) since all of us have broken numerous commandments throughout the Law of Moses. We didn't just break a few second tier sabbath laws or dietary laws! The entire Law of Moses stood opposed to us and was against us -- not just some low level sabbath days or the dietary laws.

Verse 16 begins with a concluding statement to what Paul just stated....THEREFORE -- in light of the exceedingly profound truth spoken by Paul, don't let anyone judge you with respect to dietary laws or of the observance of days -- any days -- any Sabbath! The term "sabbath" itself has the indefinite article attached it! This means ANY sabbath! This makes v 16 is an unqualified statement.

Moreover, the Gr. term "dogma" itself has a very broad meaning. You know what "domga" is all about, right? Would you say that the the 5th commandment is dogmatic? Or the 6th? Or the 7th, etc.? Paul does the same exact thing in Eph 2:15 where it is "the law" [of Moses] "WITH its commandments and regulations" (dogma) was abolished!

Now, I know you believe the 4th commandment is a "moral law", right? Well, then look how "dogma" is used in Act 16:4, which follows right on on the heels of the Jerusalem Council in the previous chapter. They declared the "decrees" or "decisions" (i.e. dogma) of the apostles, which included the moral law of abstaining from sexual immorality (Act 15:29)

Interesting. You quote Hebrews 7 yet do not supply one quote from Hebrews 7 stating the law that changed is the law of Moses and ignore what Hebrews 7 does define as the law that changed was the Priesthood. So do we no longer need to love God and man with all of our heart from the law of Moses?

Didn't have to! I'm sure the writer was very familiar with Deut 4:2; 12:32. He knew the Law of Moses could not be amended!

If you keep reading in Hebrews, the Text disagrees with you that all of the law of Moses is wiped out.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

Yes, these Messianic Jews were in real danger of falling away from the faith. So, the writer is reminding them what the alternative for them is if they do that! If they reject Christ's sacrificial atonement for their sins, they will face WORSE judgment than prescribed by the Law of Moses. The writer is not saying that they'll be judged by the Law of Moses but is simply reminding them that judgment will be far worse than if they had been under the Law -- comparatively speaking.

I am referring to the people who keep the commandments of God.

You lost me. So...medical professionals, emergency workers, first responders, etc. who consistently work on the sabbath because that is what their secular profession demands should be categorized as people who don't keep the commandments of God? But yet...even so, these folks will not lose their salvation -- even though they habitually practice the sin of sabbath-breaking?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Oh...so Rom 14 is not alluding to the sabbath day because Jews didn't consider that particular day to be "more sacred than another"? What about you: Is the 7th day of the week more sacred to you than the other 6?

Re Col 2:14 does not say what you imply. The text does not say that he (Christ) cancelled [certain] regulations in the written code....Rather the text says that He cancelled the written code [itself] WITH its regulations, which "coincidentally" comports quite well with Deut 4:12; 12:32! The entire law was cancelled! If Christ had cancelled just one part of the Law, then he violated the Law of Moses in the process! And, how we can know this with absolute certainty -- beyond any shadow of a doubt -- is the last short phrase in v.13 that begins the sentence . That last sentence reads: He forgave us ALL our sins,... and v. 14 begins with "having canceled the written code with its regulations that was against us and stood opposed to us, he took IT (the "written code") away, nailing it to the cross." Notice the SINGULAR "it". Paul didn't say he took "them away" (as in the regulations, plural) -- but the entire Mosiac Law, i.e. all the "written code"!!! All of IT! Every bit of IT! And if you deny this very obvious truth, then Christ could not have forgiven us all our sins (v.13) since all of us have broken numerous commandments throughout the Law of Moses. We didn't just break a few second tier sabbath laws or dietary laws! The entire Law of Moses stood opposed to us and was against us -- not just some low level sabbath days or the dietary laws.

Verse 16 begins with a concluding statement to what Paul just stated....THEREFORE -- in light of the exceedingly profound truth spoken by Paul, don't let anyone judge you with respect to dietary laws or of the observance of days -- any days -- any Sabbath! The term "sabbath" itself has the indefinite article attached it! This means ANY sabbath! This makes v 16 is an unqualified statement.

Moreover, the Gr. term "dogma" itself has a very broad meaning. You know what "domga" is all about, right? Would you say that the the 5th commandment is dogmatic? Or the 6th? Or the 7th, etc.? Paul does the same exact thing in Eph 2:15 where it is "the law" [of Moses] "WITH its commandments and regulations" (dogma) was abolished!

Now, I know you believe the 4th commandment is a "moral law", right? Well, then look how "dogma" is used in Act 16:4, which follows right on on the heels of the Jerusalem Council in the previous chapter. They declared the "decrees" or "decisions" (i.e. dogma) of the apostles, which included the moral law of abstaining from sexual immorality (Act 15:29)



Didn't have to! I'm sure the writer was very familiar with Deut 4:2: 12:32. He knew the Law of Moses could not be amended!

Yes, these Messianic Jews were in real danger of falling away from the faith. So, the writer is reminding them what the alternative for them is if they do that! If they reject Christ's sacrificial atonement for their sins, they will face WORSE judgment than prescribed by the Law of Moses. The writer is not saying that they'll be judged by the Law of Moses but is simply reminding them that judgment will be far worse than if they had been under the Law -- comparatively speaking.

You lost me. So...medical professionals, emergency workers, first responders, etc. who consistently work on the sabbath because that is what their secular profession demands should be categorized as people who don't keep the commandments of God? But yet...even so, these folks will not lose their salvation -- even though they habitually practice the sin of sabbath-breaking?

I think more studying needs to be done on commandments, ordinances, statues and laws Neh 9:13 which are all not the same. You think all laws are the laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments is not separated from the law of Moses, yet God separated these commandments from all other laws. Too many verses out of context and I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discussion. I provided my answers, they are not going to change, but wish you well seeking Truth to His Word.

 

[BobRyan]

(Here is a thread destined to "move" )

To any and all sabbath day-keepers out there, I have three questions to which I would like to have answers:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

James 4:17

Some people think they should not bow down before images else they will not be saved. Do you think they are wrong Doran?

2. Heb 7:12 speaks to a "change of law" that is necessary. Do any of you know what the new law is that replaced the old?

Heb 7 speaks of the change in the law regarding the priesthood.
Heb 10 speaks of the change in the law regarding animal sacrifices and offerings.

The new law of the priesthood in Heb 7 is stated to be the High Priestly ministry of Christ in Heb 8:1-5

3. Can medical professionals who must work on the sabbath perform that good work for pay? (Yes or No, please.)

yes - just as did the priests in Moses' day.

 

[Doran]

I think more studying needs to be done on commandments, ordinances, statues and laws Neh 9:13 which are all not the same. You think all laws are the laws of Moses and the Ten Commandments is not separated from the law of Moses, yet God separated these commandments from all other laws. Too many verses out of context and I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discussion. I provided my answers, they are not going to change, but wish you well seeking Truth to His Word.

The tenor of the NT is that the Law Covenant of Moses is ONE body of law. It stands or falls together! Even Deut 4:12; 12:32 very clearly implies this. It is for this reason, nothing can be added to or subtracted from that ONE body of law. God did not make two covenants with Israel through Moses: One for the Two Tablets and one for the Book of the Law. Scripture never speaks of two Mosaic Covenants. It is ONE covenant of law! And that one covenant of law demanded perfect obedience!

 

[BobRyan]

The tenor of the NT is that the Law Covenant of Moses is ONE body of law. It stands or falls together!

Until you read 1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

The Commandments of God are contrasted to circumcision - making it very clear that they are not "one and the same" as some suppose.

so then in the commandments of God
"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:2

In the Commandments of God - the Law of Moses listed in James 2, in Rom 13, in Rom 7, in Matt 19, in Mark 7 etc is most certainly included

Even Deut 4:12; 12:32 very clearly implies this.

Deut 5:22 says "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud... and added NO more" - showing that the TEN are always included in what is termed "The Commandents of God" no matter what else from scripture is also included.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The tenor of the NT is that the Law Covenant of Moses is ONE body of law. It stands or falls together! Even Deut 4:12; 12:32 very clearly implies this. It is for this reason, nothing can be added to or subtracted from that ONE body of law. God did not make two covenants with Israel through Moses: One for the Two Tablets and one for the Book of the Law. Scripture never speaks of two Mosaic Covenants. It is ONE covenant of law! And that one covenant of law demanded perfect obedience!

This appears to be your confusion, the Ten Commandments were separated from all others laws. The law of Moses includes the Ten Commandments, but the Ten Commandments stand on a whole other foundation according to God. He only wrote the Ten Commandments and only the Ten Commandments were inside the ark of the covenant Exodus 25:10-22 ALL other laws were placed outside Deuteronomy 31:26 and were handwritten by Moses. God identifies the Ten Commandments as “My commandments” Exodus 20:6 right in the Ten. Anytime we see God’s commandments, the commandments of God, My commandments or His commandments includes this unit of Ten.

There is not “one body of law”. There are lots of different laws in scripture that serve different purposes…Neh 9:13. But only the Ten Commandments did God not leave up to man to write, they were divinely written by our Creator. Exodus 31:18

The Ten Commandments are the only law written and spoke personally by God as these are His divine works Exodus 32:16 and cannot be edited Deut 4:2 because man is not above God and there will never be a time when it’s okay for some people can worship other gods, but not others, or some people can vain God’s holy name, while others can’t- there is no different standard the Ten is what we will be judged by James 2:10-12 which is why the Ten are inside the ark in the most Holy of God’s Temple revealed in heaven Rev 11:19 under His mercy seat. The saints keep the commandments of God and faith in Jesus Rev 14:12 until the very end of time. Rev 22:14 but it is a remnant Rev 12:17 KJV although God longs for all of us to obey Him through faith and love. 1 John 5:3 Romans 3:31 Rev 14:12 Isaiah 48:18

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No...it's actually the entire Law of Moses that is being talked about. It is forbidden by the Law of Moses to add to or subtract from the Law, therefore no single commandment or category of commandments were permitted to be subtracted from or added to the Torah (Deut 4:12; 12:32). This is why the writer to Hebrews did not say that there is a change IN the [priesthood] law (as though any commandment in the law could be modified or amended or altered); rather he said a change OF [all the] law was necessary. The entire Torah is ONE cohesive unit -- one body of Law. No commandment or category of commandments in the Torah can be chaged; for that would violate the Torah itself. Therefore, any change at all to any of the commandments in the Torah would necessitate a new body of law.

You can't keep what you can't keep. Many laws can not be kept because there is now no Temple. Laws strictly for woman could never be kept by men. So what you said is not really true. Laws that could be kept were still kept after that destruction of the 1st Temple.

 

[Doran]

You can't keep what you can't keep. Many laws can not be kept because there is now no Temple. Laws strictly for woman could never be kept by men. So what you said is not really true. Laws that could be kept were still kept after that destruction of the 1st Temple.

Hmm...sounds like a personal problem to me. There are no exceptions made in Deut 4:2; 12:32. Those texts don't say, "Don't add to or subtract from God's commands, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances". The Law is the Law. Besides, didn't God know that one day the Temple would no longer exist?

 

[Doran]

(Here is a thread destined to "move" )

James 4:17

Some people think they should not bow down before images else they will not be saved. Do you think they are wrong Doran?

This is not what I asked. Why can't you give me a straight yes or no answer? Instead you equivocate with a text that deflects. Here's the question again:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

What is so difficult about this question that you can't give a straightforward answer? Jas 4:17 doesn't apply because one could know of a greater good that he ought to do on many or even most sabbaths, which would make the 4th commandment subordinate to it.

Heb 7 speaks of the change in the law regarding the priesthood.
Heb 10 speaks of the change in the law regarding animal sacrifices and offerings.

The new law of the priesthood in Heb 7 is stated to be the High Priestly ministry of Christ in Heb 8:1-5

yes - just as did the priests in Moses' day.

Nope. Deut 4;2; 12:32 strictly prohibit amendments to the Law of Moses. How ironic is this!? Look at yourselves, sabbatarians, who love to boast in the Law, and tell us, and that not one jot or tittle will ever pass away from this "eternal" law, that the whole law is binding forever upon the entire human race, etc.,etc., etc., yada, yada, yada -- except when it doesn't, apparently! Now you want to sweep the above passages under the rug because they're inconvenient truths for you!? There is a word for this kind of behavior.

Moreover, the writer to Hebrews did not qualify the term "law". He simply said that there must be a change of law -- not a change IN the law, as you're clearly implying. Nor is there is no such thing as "priesthood" law or "animal sacrifices and offerings" law. Scripture knows of no such divisions in the law. Nor did God make different covenants for different aspects or categories of Law. He made ONE, INDISSOLUBLE covenant of Law with the Israelites through Moses. There is no such thing as the First Covenant, Part A, Part B, Part C, etc., which you're trying to insinuate!

Moreover, the NT writers are in in total agreement with what Moses wrote in the two above mentioned passages. They, too, saw the Law as one, indivisible unit. See Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10; 5:3. (Also, see my post #3, especially my commentary on Col 2:13-14, which presents for you sabbath-keepers no small theological problem of just how many or our sins could Christ have forgiven in that passage if the entire Mosiac "written code" of law was not cancelled and nailed to his cross?) I also intend to do a brief commentary on Rom 7:1-6.) The Law is an all or nothing proposition. There is no third option, as you're trying to create.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Hmm...sounds like a personal problem to me. There are no exceptions made in Deut 4:2; 12:32. Those texts don't say, "Don't add to or subtract from God's commands, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances". The Law is the Law. Besides, didn't God know that one day the Temple would no longer exist?

The problem is yours. No one is adding or subtracting. The destruction of the 1st Temple and the keeping of Torah afterwards proves you wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

(Here is a thread destined to "move" )

To any and all sabbath day-keepers out there, I have three questions to which I would like to have answers:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

James 4:17

Some people think they should not bow down before images else they will not be saved. Do you think they are wrong Doran?

This is not what I asked. Why can't you give me a straight yes or no answer? Instead you equivocate with a text that deflects.

because it puts that same shoe on the other foot and shows how just as you do not judge others -- so also we do not.. rather we affirm what scripture says.

I.E. the "obvious point" in that response above. How "odd" that you resort to that retort.

You realize Jesus said something of that same sort that you are complaining about when asked about His authority to teach - right?

Here's the question again:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

What is so difficult about this question that you can't give a straightforward answer? Jas 4:17 doesn't apply

you are of course wrong about that.

because one could know of a greater good that he ought to do on many or even most sabbaths, which would make the 4th commandment subordinate to it.

If you are saying that to save a life on Sabbath is of a higher obligation than resting on Sabbath... we agree.

 

[BobRyan]

the NT writers are in in total agreement with what Moses wrote in the two above mentioned passages. They, too, saw the Law as one, indivisible unit. See Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10; 5:3.

Nope --

read 1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

The Commandments of God are contrasted to circumcision - making it very clear that they are not "one and the same" as some suppose.

so then in the commandments of God
"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:2

In the Commandments of God - the Law of Moses listed in James 2, in Rom 13, in Rom 7, in Matt 19, in Mark 7 etc is most certainly included

Even Deut 4:12; 12:32 very clearly implies this.

Deut 5:22 says "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud... and added NO more" - showing that the TEN are always included in what is termed "The Commandents of God" no matter what else from scripture is also included.

 

[Doran]

The problem is yours. No one is adding or subtracting. The destruction of the 1st Temple and the keeping of Torah afterwards proves you wrong.

No, you just made an excuse, that is not in Deut 4:2; 12:32, for not keeping the whole law, which is tantamount to removing commandments from the Torah. Re the 1st Temple: it's destruction was temporary; for God had pre-determined to have a replacement. Besides, don't you know that God requires nothing less than full obedience to all the Torah? If one breaks just one commandment, he's guilty of ALL the law.

 

[BobRyan]

(Also, see my post #3, especially my commentary on Col 2:13-14, which presents for you sabbath-keepers no small theological problem of just how many or our sins could Christ have forgiven in that passage if the entire Mosiac "written code" of law was not cancelled and nailed to his cross?)

First of all - you have Col 2:13-15 wrong.

Secondly gentiles were never charged with "sin" for failing to keep one of the ceremonial laws or one of the civil laws of the nation of Israel... it is only the moral laws of the TEN and of similar commandments that are condemning gentiles as sinners. This is a "basic" teaching for Rom 3, Rom 7 etc.

Acts 15 makes it clear for example that the law of circumcision which had never been applied to gentiles in the OT could not simply be "made up for gentiles" ad hoc in the NT by zealous Jewish Christians. (Notice that not even non-Christian Jews were doing that in the case of gentiles).


read 1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

The Commandments of God are contrasted to circumcision - making it very clear that they are not "one and the same" as some suppose.

so then in the commandments of God
"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:2

In the Commandments of God - the Law of Moses listed in James 2, in Rom 13, in Rom 7, in Matt 19, in Mark 7 etc is most certainly included
Deut 5:22 says "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud... and added NO more"

- showing that the TEN are always included in what is termed "The Commandents of God" no matter what else from scripture is also included.

========================

As for Col 2
13 And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 (and also Matt 22) - is not a "decree against us"
"Honor your father and mother" Ex 20:12, Eph 6:2, Matt 19, Rom 13 .... is not "a decree against us"
"the Sabbath was made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27 - ... is not "a decree against us"


When you drive down the road and see a 55 MPH speed limit sign -- it is not there "as a decree against you".

But the TICKET that you get for speeding IS a "decree against you" when you are found guilty.

In Col 2 -- IT is the debt owed, the condemnation as a law-breaker that is nailed to the cross... but "Do not take God's name in vain" is not deleted by Christ as he points out in Matt 5. Christ pays our debt of sin - rather than "deleting His Word".. Not sure why this detail is so confusing for a few Christians.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

No, you just made an excuse, that is not in Deut 4:2; 12:32, for not keeping the whole law, which is tantamount to removing commandments from the Torah. Re the 1st Temple: it's destruction was temporary; for God had pre-determined to have a replacement. Besides, don't you know that God requires nothing less than full obedience to all the Torah? If one breaks just one commandment, he's guilty of ALL the law.

it is not an excuse lol, that is history! According to you, the law could not be kept after the Temple was destroyed. No one can keep the whole law. You can only keep what applies. You would know that if you knew Torah...but you don't...

 

[Doran]

Nope --

read 1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

The Commandments of God are contrasted to circumcision - making it very clear that they are not "one and the same" as some suppose.

so then in the commandments of God
"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:2

In the Commandments of God - the Law of Moses listed in James 2, in Rom 13, in Rom 7, in Matt 19, in Mark 7 etc is most certainly included

Deut 5:22 says "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud... and added NO more" - showing that the TEN are always included in what is termed "The Commandents of God" no matter what else from scripture is also included.

Same regurgitated nonsense. Re 1Cor 7:19: How can the "commandments of God" (the Torah) be contrasted to circumcision when that religious ritual was also commanded in the Torah (Lev 12:2-3)? Don't you know that a house divided against itself cannot stand (Lk 11:17)!? ( The "contrast" in 1Cor 7:19 makes sense only if the "commandments of God" are understood to be the new law that is implied in Heb 7:12.

I find it more than curious how you keep giving rebuttals and yet you never bother to reconcile them with scriptures that teach opposing views. I know the devil is the father of lies, and his children love lies; yet if Christians truly have the love of God in them, that love can only rejoice with the truth (1Cor 13:6). If you have no zeal for the truth and just blatantly ignore opposing scriptures with texts that you think support your argument, you will certainly never win over any spiritually discerning Christian to your viewpoint. Meanwhile, I can reconcile 1Cor 7:19 with my view and show how that passage harmonizes nicely with the ones I have provided, thus far.

But I'll be gracious and give you another shot first; for it's not my intention to embarrass anyone. But if you flub the next shot, I will reconcile your 1Cor 7:19 with my thoroughly biblical New Covenant Theology perspective of scripture.