God Disqualified Christians From Participating in the Mosaic Law Covenant

[SabbathBlessings]

OK.

So, all of these verses quoted from James are speaking only of the 10C.

When he is only quoting and contrasting the Ten, yes, that's the context.

No, I won't. All I really did was ask a question to get some idea of the thoughts of others re: James being written prior to or after the destruction of Jerusalem. You did not answer my question.

There's no point in answering it because its not relevant to obeying God's commandments. You would need to first establish the relevance through scripture and would need something that says in 70 AD when the earthy temple is destroyed so is the Ten Commandments, now we can worship other god, bow to idols, covet, steal etc. or something of this nature. We see the Ten continue on until Jesus comes back blessing His faithful for keeping them Mat 5:19-30 Rev 14:12, Rev 22:14-15, so unless I see the relevancy, I really don't see the point to answer the question.

For fun though here is a cool interactive timeline ...

The Biblical Timeline

timeline.biblehistory.com

 

[HIM]

Well, enlighten us, please. Why should I find it so that YOU and I should know? You mean to say, you don't know already?

Meanwhile, work on falsifying my syllogistic argument. By now you should know how the drill works. All you need to do is falsify one of the premises.

Oh wait...I think I see something. You might be right...v.18 says that "He chose to give us birth through the Law..." Unless I'm misreading it. I misplaced by glasses.

Or wait ...could it be v.22? Do not merely listen to the word [of truth]?

Help a brudda out here, will ya?

You are starting to put it together. Like was said, it is in the first chapter.

Your opinion is noted and disagreed with.

As if it is important to say so?

Are you now OK with the word "Mosaic" to refer to the Law of Moses?

Never had issue with it. The mosaic law is not the same as saying the mosaic law covenant. And to say the book of the covenant is not saying mosaic law covenant. It is saying the book of the covenant. Of does not necessitate.it. As was shown you the people received the covenant which in the verses you were shown explicitly state being the Decalogue. Moses received in addition laws and statutes to teach the people.

 

[Leaf473]

OK.

So, all of these verses quoted from James are speaking only of the 10C.

OK.

So all of these verses quoted from James are speaking of all of the instructions that came through Moses.

1. By "instructions" do you mean all the laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, God gave to Moses and Israel within the Covenant God made with Moses and Israel? Or would you like to restate this?

I simply say Instructions because sometimes people get hung up on the differences between Commandments, statutes, judgments, etc.

I think Royal law refers to the entire law, but it could refer to that particular commandment about loving your neighbor. And the law of Liberty might refer to the whole law or to the *principle* of Liberty.

I wouldn't see either of those as "a hull worth dying on".

Particular to this thread, though, the idea that the Whole Law is just the Ten Commandments is hard to support unless one is heavily biased towards that already.

James has just quoted from Leviticus about loving your neighbor. That overlaps with the 10, but goes well beyond them and is not one of them.

James's readers, I'm pretty sure, would have thought the whole law refers to, well, the whole law. That's especially true since James doesn't say anything to limit "the whole law".

FWIW, I'm not taking the position yet that I agree or disagree that all the quoted phrases are speaking of the same thing. I've had my interpretations and am attempting to set them aside and just read and understand what James is saying.

That's cool

Also, FWIW, you two seem to be in disagreement already and my leaning just from these verses so far is towards the way you @Leaf473 see this. I also have in mind what @Doran says his syllogism shows re: how the old covenant Law, whether it be the 10C or all of that Law cannot be the Law of Liberty. So, already a few things to consider.

 

[GDL]

The royal law is the greatest commandments- love to God, love to man and love to God does not go undefined, it is keeping the commandments of God 1 John 5:2-3 which is why James quotes directly from the Ten as it gives the details to the greatest commandments. God's perfect law and testimony Psa 19:7 written personally by our Creator and Savior.

The royal law in James2:8 identifies only the commandment outside of the decalogue from Lev19:18.

It seems you see the word "royal" to be referring to the Shema (first greatest commandment) and Love Neighbor (second greatest commandment).

• Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think Royal law is just a term of Honor for the law.

OK.

If it's the same James that's leading the church in Jerusalem in Acts, his community is really into keeping all of the instructions from Moses.

Do you lean one way or the other as to who this James is or isn't?

Your last statement seems to coincide with your read that James is pre-AD70. It also seems to coincide with the thinking that there was a transition in understanding taking place between AD30 (or so) and AD70. Correct or would you restate this?

If we include this as part of the "keep the whole law but stumble in one part" passage, then James is quoting from Leviticus as well as the Ten Commandments. So, context indicates that "the whole law" is all of the instructions from Moses, not just the 10.

OK, so we're going into James 2:10 with this.

• Where would you pull this from Lev?
• My read is that you're saying this going to Lev. takes us out of the Decalogue so, we're dealing with more than the 10C. Correct?
• What about the royal law reference to Lev19:18 - didn't that also take us out of the Decalogue? Maybe you already said this.

How about the "partiality" James2:9 speaks of - is this in the Decalogue and/or in other parts of what you earlier called other instruction?


FWIW, I'm still (or again) thinking about the word "royal". I know some:

• Correlate it to YHWH who was viewed in some ways as Israel's King - the King who makes law - e.g. Is33:22;
  • Note also what James4:12 says.
    • The only other time this Greek word for "lawgiver" is used is: LXA Psalm 9:20 Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them: let the heathen know that they are men. Pause.
• Correlate it to Jesus Christ.
  • Jesus certainly spoke of Love Neighbor as the second greatest commandment of Torah and He:
    • Used in in principle to go deeper with it Matt5:44-48 (note Jesus summation command to be Perfect like our Father Matt5:48).
      • It seems Perfection is a goal beyond the second greatest commandment.
      • BTW, one research paper I read says James referenced Jesus' Sermon on the Mount 45 times.
    • Used it with the young ruler in Matt19:19 then in context tells him He lacks Perfection and Jesus commands him to follow Him.
      • It seems Perfection is a goal beyond the second greatest commandment.
    • Says all of the Law and the Prophets hangs on Love God and Neighbor Matt22:39
    • Says understanding Love God and Love Neighbor makes one not far from the Kingdom of God Mark12:3--34
    • Says in Luke10:27 re: Love God and Neighbor - do this and live. But Paul says there was no law given that could give life.
      • There's more in Luke27 re: mercy and James stresses mercy.
  • Paul spoke of Love Neighbor and:
    • Uses it as an explanation for his command is to love one another which fulfills law.
      • I don't see Paul commanding to do this Love Neighbor command here.
    • Said we're called to liberty (as James is speaking of), but not liberty for flesh, and Paul commands to serve one another through love and he uses the Love Neighbor command as explanation because it fulfills all law, and his next command is to walk in Spirit, and says if we walk in Spirit, then we're not under law Gal5:13-18.
      • I don't see Paul commanding to do this Love Neighbor command here.
• See it speaking of the supremacy of the 2 greatest commandments as Jesus was asked and confirmed.
  • Which seems to be how SB is seeing it and possibly similar to the way L473 is seeing it.
• The question for me is why and how specifically does James use the word and thus, how important is it to know precisely?
• Then there's the other issue, @Doran brought up - are these mentions of law speaking about law of principles?

Thinking for now but "royal" notes importance and Lev19:18 is YHWH's Law given to Moses not in the Decalogue but summarizing part of the Decalogue and any other commandment(s) having to do with love neighbor (Rom13:8-10).

 

[GDL]

When he is only quoting and contrasting the Ten, yes, that's the context.

Thanks.

There's no point in answering it because its not relevant to obeying God's commandments. You would need to first establish the relevance through scripture and would need something that says in 70 AD when the earthy temple is destroyed so is the Ten Commandments, now we can worship other god, bow to idols, covet, steal etc. or something of this nature. We see the Ten continue on until Jesus comes back blessing His faithful for keeping them Mat 5:19-30 Rev 14:12, Rev 22:14-15, so unless I see the relevancy, I really don't see the point to answer the question.

Your opinion that the time of writing of a part of NC Scripture is not important is noted.

The rest of what you say is not important to me re: the simple question I asked and is full of faulty logic as to what being in Christ in Spirit carries with it.

For fun though here is a cool interactive timeline ...

The Biblical Timeline

timeline.biblehistory.com

A lot of work!
Unless I missed something, they don't date James.
There's a lot of disagreement on dating writings post AD70.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Thanks.

Your opinion that the time of writing of a part of NC Scripture is not important is noted.

The rest of what you say is not important to me re: the simple question I asked and is full of faulty logic as to what being in Christ in Spirit carries with it.

A lot of work!
Unless I missed something, they don't date James.
There's a lot of disagreement on dating writings post AD70.

You made the claim that 70AD some how changed that we no longer need to obey the commandments of God, so its up to you to prove that through scripture, not me. This version does not seem to reconcile with Mat 5:19-30, Rev 14:12, Rev 22:14-15.

 

[Leaf473]

Do you lean one way or the other as to who this James is or isn't?

I think the author of the book of James is the same one he meets when returning to Jerusalem, also the one he meets earlier when he says he met with James and John. But not a big deal if someone sees it differently

Your last statement seems to coincide with your read that James is pre-AD70. It also seems to coincide with the thinking that there was a transition in understanding taking place between AD30 (or so) and AD70. Correct or would you restate this?

Definitely a transition. James (technically those with him) says that there are many believing Jews in Jerusalem who are also very zealous for the law. There's no reason to comment on that if that's the same thing that was happening in the gentile Christian world. It also sounds like the Jewish Christians had heard that Paul was telling Jewish believers not to circumcise their children. Not to open another can of worms, but we know that Paul was against gentiles being circumcised. He probably wasn't concerned about Jewish believers circumcising their children. My guess.

But all that to say, yes, a transition was going on and it didn't happen at the same speed everywhere

OK, so we're going into James 2:10 with this.

• Where would you pull this from Lev?

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19:18 - New American Standard Bible

You shall not take vengeance, nor hold any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

www.biblegateway.com

By the way, not to muddy the waters, but this commandment is given in the context of vengeance and grudges. Does that mean we only have to love our neighbors as it relates to vengeance and grudges? I say definitely No.

But I bring that up as a way of saying that just because James mentions two Commandments from the 10 doesn't mean that "the whole law" refers only to the 10.

• My read is that you're saying this going to Lev. takes us out of the Decalogue so, we're dealing with more than the 10C. Correct?

Yes, definitely.

• What about the royal law reference to Lev19:18 - didn't that also take us out of the Decalogue? Maybe you already said this.

Yes, we agree again. I would add that I don't think James is ever "in" the decalogue in that section, other than to quote two Commandments from it. Most people probably couldn't read back then, and the Ten Commandments were the most well known, so great for examples.

How about the "partiality" James2:9 speaks of - is this in the Decalogue and/or in other parts of what you earlier called other instruction?

I don't think partiality can be found in the 10, unless someone really, really stretches them

I think what James is getting at with partiality and loving your neighbor is that we don't like it when someone shows favoritism against us. Therefore we shouldn't show it against other people.

What poor person likes to see rich people being treated better than they are, especially in the church? It's no small matter. Most churches I get in give better treatment in some way to the very wealthy or very important, as opposed to the homeless person who wandered in off the street.

So James is saying, You treat rich people better? You've just trashed the entire law.

__________________
But there are several things in the law, outside of the 10, that do talk about partiality

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 16:19 - New American Standard Bible

You shall not distort justice, you shall not show partiality; and you shall not accept a bribe, because a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous.

www.biblegateway.com

FWIW, I'm still (or again) thinking about the word "royal". I know some:

• Correlate it to YHWH who was viewed in some ways as Israel's King - the King who makes law - e.g. Is33:22;
  • Note also what James4:12 says.
    • The only other time this Greek word for "lawgiver" is used is: LXA Psalm 9:20 Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them: let the heathen know that they are men. Pause.
• Correlate it to Jesus Christ.
  • Jesus certainly spoke of Love Neighbor as the second greatest commandment of Torah and He:
    • Used in in principle to go deeper with it Matt5:44-48 (note Jesus summation command to be Perfect like our Father Matt5:48).
      • It seems Perfection is a goal beyond the second greatest commandment.
      • BTW, one research paper I read says James referenced Jesus' Sermon on the Mount 45 times.
    • Used it with the young ruler in Matt19:19 then in context tells him He lacks Perfection and Jesus commands him to follow Him.
      • It seems Perfection is a goal beyond the second greatest commandment.
    • Says all of the Law and the Prophets hangs on Love God and Neighbor Matt22:39
    • Says understanding Love God and Love Neighbor makes one not far from the Kingdom of God Mark12:3--34
    • Says in Luke10:27 re: Love God and Neighbor - do this and live. But Paul says there was no law given that could give life.
      • There's more in Luke27 re: mercy and James stresses mercy.
  • Paul spoke of Love Neighbor and:
    • Uses it as an explanation for his command is to love one another which fulfills law.
      • I don't see Paul commanding to do this Love Neighbor command here.
    • Said we're called to liberty (as James is speaking of), but not liberty for flesh, and Paul commands to serve one another through love and he uses the Love Neighbor command as explanation because it fulfills all law, and his next command is to walk in Spirit, and says if we walk in Spirit, then we're not under law Gal5:13-18.
      • I don't see Paul commanding to do this Love Neighbor command here.

• See it speaking of the supremacy of the 2 greatest commandments as Jesus was asked and confirmed.
  • Which seems to be how SB is seeing it and possibly similar to the way L473 is seeing it.

I'm not sure if I'm following everything you're saying, but it would seem really strange that we could break either of the two greatest Commandments and not end up being guilty of breaking the entire law. And since all of the "lesser" laws hang on the two greatest, it would seem like if you break one of the lesser laws you break the greatest laws. (I don't think Jesus means that some laws hang on the love God commandment and others hang on love neighbor. Rather, the two Commandments together form the basis of the entire law.)

Note also that James's reasoning is that it's the same God that said the two quotes from the 10. But the same reasoning would hold up with the entire law. The same God also said Marry your dead brother's wife

• The question for me is why and how specifically does James use the word and thus, how important is it to know precisely?
• Then there's the other issue, @Doran brought up - are these mentions of law speaking about law of principles?

Thinking for now but "royal" notes importance and Lev19:18 is YHWH's Law given to Moses not in the Decalogue but summarizing part of the Decalogue and any other commandment(s) having to do with love neighbor (Rom13:8-10).

 

[GDL]

I simply say Instructions because sometimes people get hung up on the differences between Commandments, statutes, judgments, etc.

Thought so but letting you speak for yourself.

I think Royal law refers to the entire law, but it could refer to that particular commandment about loving your neighbor. And the law of Liberty might refer to the whole law or to the *principle* of Liberty.

I wouldn't see either of those as "a hull worth dying on".

I have been exploring another line of thinking I saw while looking at these verses recently. Big picture is that the 2 mentions of the law of liberty create obviously identical bookends and that the royal law mentioned in between is different.

Additionally, James1 speaks of the Word of Truth by which God birthed us and then being Word doers. This is obviously not Mosaic Law. It's in this context that James first speaks of the Law of Liberty, which can be translated as the Law that provides Freedom.

I think you may find that this is where the @Doran syllogism goes. The Mosaic Law and Covenant did not provide Freedom. The Word of Truth by which God birthed us - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - provided us with Freedom. I'm exploring this connection with the Law of Liberty - the Law that provides Freedom. And I don't think this is the royal law of Lev19:18, which if we do, we're doing well, but if we don't do, then we're convicted as transgressors under the breaking one you break them all concept. And note that this is not a 10C issue per se, but more succinctly a partiality issue that is in the Law not stated in the 10C just as Lev19:18 is not within the 10C.

REVISED; See how the NIV seems to be picking this up. James1-2.

Particular to this thread, though, the idea that the Whole Law is just the Ten Commandments is hard to support unless one is heavily biased towards that already.

I think hard to support is beyond an understatement and you're being gracious.

James has just quoted from Leviticus about loving your neighbor. That overlaps with the 10, but goes well beyond them and is not one of them.

James's readers, I'm pretty sure, would have thought the whole law refers to, well, the whole law. That's especially true since James doesn't say anything to limit "the whole law".

"overlaps" is probably a decent way to say it. In Rom13 Paul says Lev19:18 summarizes some of the 10C and if any other (commandments - pertaining to Love Neighbor). James attaches partiality in the context of how one treats the rich vs. the poor which I'd see as James finding one of Paul's "if any other commandments" outside the 10C pertaining to Love Neighbor. Another way to look at this is the 10C being the headings all other laws, commandments, statutes, judgments (instructions) fall under.

 

[GDL]

You made the claim that 70AD some how changed that we no longer need to obey the commandments of God, so its up to you to prove that through scripture, not me. This version does not seem to reconcile with Mat 5:19-30, Rev 14:12, Rev 22-14-15.

Please show me where I made such a claim.

 

[Doran]

With all due respect to you sabattarians, I have grown so weary of the ratio of noise (foolishness) to signal (substance) of your posts that I have spent considerable time putting together the biblical timeline of events that transpired between God's promised covenant with the Israelites, its fulfillment and most importantly its content. This timeline, taken from the Book of Exodus, totally demolishes the inane theories that the Old Covenant was not a Law Covenant and SB's self-contradictory theory that also says it wasn't but, nonetheless, it somehow "included" the Ten Words, anyhow. I have very little doubt that this timeline and events that occured during this period will literally shake some people's world because the events, run counter to so many presuppositions. I'm not going say much more than this; for I know that as sure as God has made little green apples you sabbatarians are going to criticize the timeline and when you do, it will show how fast you are to depart from scripture in order to support your presuppositional traditions, i.e. "traditions of men". So for now, I'll just step out of the way and allow you guys (and gals) to fly your true colors and watch you as you try to twist, distort and pervert the Holy Word of God in order to support your theories.

The Timeline of Exodus from its Covenant Promise to Covenant Fulfillment to its Covenant Content​

God mentions his impending covenant with the Israelites for the first time (19:5)

Moses was God's only authorized, appointed spokesman to the people (19:6)

The people for the first time agreed, through Moses, to obey God (19:8)

God affirms Moses' prophetic office with the goal of having the people implicitly trust his chosen prophet (19:9)

The Israelites were prohibited from having direct contact with God (19:20-22)

On the first trip to the mountain top, God commanded Moses to bring Aaron with him (19:24)

The Decalogue was initially verbalized to the people through Moses (20:1)

The Decalogue was verbally given to Moses (20:2-17)

After the Ten Words were given, it is inferred that Moses descended the mountain to speak to the people (20:18-20)

The people agreed for the second time to obey God (20:19)

Moses made his second trip to the mountain top alone for further revelation from God (20:21)

On this second trip, God warned the people again against the sin of idolatry (20:22-23)

God also gave Moses commands regarding the impending altar and the sacrifices that were to be made on it (20:24-26)

In addition to the above warnings and commands, God gave the people other laws, as well (21:1)

Many of those laws were civil or religious/ceremonial in nature (21:2-23:19)

God also issued more warnings and added promises to the people (23:20-33)

Scripture infers Moses made a third trip to mountain and took many others with him (24:1)

But only Moses alone could approach the Lord; the others were forbidden to do so (24:2)

When Moses descended the mountain he told the people all God's words and laws (24:3a)

And the people for the third time agreed to obey (24:3b)

The next morning Moses had an altar built to make the blood sacrifices that God had commanded earlier (24:4b-6,8)

The blood was sprinkled on the altar, the people and the scroll, thereby ratifying the covenant (24:4b-6, 8; Heb 9:19-20)

At this time, Moses recorded all God's words (24:4b) that he had spoken to Moses on all his trips (20:2-17; 21:2-23:33)

And he wrote everything in a book called The Book of The Covenant and read the Book to the people (24:7a)

And after reading the covenant to the people, they agreed for the fourth time to obey everything the Lord had said (24:7b)

Moses, Aaron, the 70 elders, etc. ascended the mountain to eat the covenant meal (Ex 24:9-11)

The Lord commanded Moses (who took Joshua this time) to come to the mountain of God for the fourth time (24:12-13)

And Moses stayed on the mount this time for 40 days and nights to receive the tablets of God's law and commands (24:12)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Please show me where I made such a claim.

You have implied this a few times, which is why I asked for you to clarify why 70AD would matter to God’s Ten Commandments, you seem to indicate that it does or that the whole ‘Mosaic covenant including the Ten Commandments’, ended or consummated in 70AD , if I am wrong, my sincerest apologies. Perhaps you can clarify why it matters when James wrote 2:10-12 and why 70AD would have any impact on James writings, which James 2:10-12 is modeled after the words of Jesus Mat 5:19-30. Jesus indicated this would directly impact our status in heaven, so it doesn‘t seem to me 70AD would have any bearing to God’s Ten Commandments, which is in God’s holy Temple in heaven Rev 11:19.

 

[GDL]

I think the author of the book of James is the same one he meets when returning to Jerusalem, also the one he meets earlier when he says he met with James and John. But not a big deal if someone sees it differently

I normally let the Textual Criticism guys do the manuscripts work and authorships, etc. I don't get caught up in the author of Hebrews either.

Definitely a transition. James (technically those with him) says that there are many believing Jews in Jerusalem who are also very zealous for the law. There's no reason to comment on that if that's the same thing that was happening in the gentile Christian world. It also sounds like the Jewish Christians had heard that Paul was telling Jewish believers not to circumcise their children. Not to open another can of worms, but we know that Paul was against gentiles being circumcised. He probably wasn't concerned about Jewish believers circumcising their children. My guess.

But all that to say, yes, a transition was going on and it didn't happen at the same speed everywhere

The transition is well identified and written about. I recently listened to 25 hours or so of study that had a fairly strict focus on the language of the transition and its correlation to some eschatological differences within the Preterist arena. There were some very interesting observations made.

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19:18 - New American Standard Bible

You shall not take vengeance, nor hold any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

www.biblegateway.com

By the way, not to muddy the waters, but this commandment is given in the context of vengeance and grudges. Does that mean we only have to love our neighbors as it relates to vengeance and grudges? I say definitely No.

But I bring that up as a way of saying that just because James mentions two Commandments from the 10 doesn't mean that "the whole law" refers only to the 10.

Lev19:18 is one I often ask others about. As you note, grammatically its stated in a couplet that speaks of rebuking a neighbor. We focus so much on what we might call the positive side of love, but the commandment is actually written in the context of helping to keep our neighbors in line with God and community and leaving any vengeance we could get into to God.

In Gal6:1-2 fulfillment of the Law of Christ (which I see as love one another as He loved us) is in essence similar in that we help a fellow Christ out of any sin they may be caught up in. Helping others out of sin is what Jesus did and does for us.

You and I have had a few fairly limited discussions about these principles with all God's Law. We're seeing some of that even in this Lev19:18 great command and how it can have application in the NC. If we take this one example further and consider the original context, not holding a grudge against a neighbor may be seen in Jesus taking the no murder command which is summarized by the Love Neighbor command into the no hate in our heart level. IOW Love Neighbor contains no murder which contains no hate which was no grudge per Love Neighbor, if this make sense.

Yes, definitely.

Yes, we agree again. I would add that I don't think James is ever "in" the decalogue in that section, other than to quote two Commandments from it. Most people probably couldn't read back then, and the Ten Commandments were the most well known, so great for examples.

Thanks for your input.

I don't think partiality can be found in the 10, unless someone really, really stretches them

I think what James is getting at with partiality and loving your neighbor is that we don't like it when someone shows favoritism against us. Therefore we shouldn't show it against other people.

What poor person likes to see rich people being treated better than they are, especially in the church? It's no small matter. Most churches I get in give better treatment in some way to the very wealthy or very important, as opposed to the homeless person who wandered in off the street.

So James is saying, You treat rich people better? You've just trashed the entire law.

__________________
But there are several things in the law, outside of the 10, that do talk about partiality

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 16:19 - New American Standard Bible

You shall not distort justice, you shall not show partiality; and you shall not accept a bribe, because a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous.

www.biblegateway.com

There are several verses in the OC Law that address partiality (e.g. Ex23:3; Lev19:15 - and a quick search of the NKJ shows 26 mentions) and we know it's God's character to be impartial. We're to be as He is. Most of the partiality instruction is related to judging. From there I think it's our work to see how this may fit into the headings - the Decalogue.

I'm not sure if I'm following everything you're saying, but it would seem really strange that we could break either of the two greatest Commandments and not end up being guilty of breaking the entire law. And since all of the "lesser" laws hang on the two greatest, it would seem like if you break one of the lesser laws you break the greatest laws. (I don't think Jesus means that some laws hang on the love God commandment and others hang on love neighbor. Rather, the two Commandments together form the basis of the entire law.)

I'm not going back to read what I said, but I agree with the way you're explaining this. I'd add that John's teaching in 1John based upon the wording Jesus used when correlating the first & second greatest commandments, ties them together so they cannot be separated. If we're loving God then we're also Loving brother and if we're loving brother, then we're also loving God. Same goes for the negative perspective.

Note also that James's reasoning is that it's the same God that said the two quotes from the 10. But the same reasoning would hold up with the entire law. The same God also said Marry your dead brother's wife

Noted many times re: this example and many others.

 

[GDL]

You have implied this a few times,

Please show me where I made such a claim.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Please show me where I made such a claim.

I think if you read more closely, you'll see there was an overlap period between the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ and AD70 when He destroyed the entire Mosaic System. Scripture often works, especially in Prophecy, with an already & not yet reality.

I think Mosaic Law includes God's Law plus some things mainly for a specific people - a Priest Nation - for a specific era ended with an exclamation point by 70AD.

The Mosaic Covenant with its Mosaic Law (terms and conditions of the Mosaic Covenant) with physical implements on earth until AD70.
The Ten Words/Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law which is part of the Mosaic Covenant now vanished.

All I asked is for you to provide scripture to prove your assessment.

 

[GDL]

All I asked is for you to provide scripture to prove your assessment.

No, you said this: "You made the claim that 70AD some how changed that we no longer need to obey the commandments of God."

I never said we do not need to obey God's commandments and hopefully never will. Where you're misunderstanding me is that the New Covenant has a New Law of Christ and I obey Jesus Christ for Salvation (Heb5:9) and whatever He commands now as has been revealed in His New Covenant Writings.

In order to do so correctly, part of what I need to do is rightly divide His Word of Truth which would include being able to discern what was put into effect by Him in AD30 (approx.) and completely established when He vanished the Mosaic Covenant and its Legal System when He tore down the Jerusalem Temple and absolutely hammered the non-remnant that rejected Him as Messiah/King/High Priest. The severity of that destruction boggles me every time I think about it and reminds me of this warning in Rom11:22. Many of us don't have an experiential clue what severity means.

I recently read a guy who described the transitional AD30-AD70 period as The Beginning of the End (AD30) & the End of the Beginning (AD70). Some refer to the interim period as Already and Not Yet because of verses like Heb that told us the OC was made obsolete, was becoming obsolete and was near vanishing. Some say we are in another historical Already & Not Yet period. It's all done in Christ and being finished. A similar concept is taking place within us. We're saved and being saved, sanctified and being sanctified, seated with Him but not physically there yet. This is in essence how prophecy works in history.

As I've said to you before, if you'd just climb out of the box you're in - which has no lid holding you in - there's an abundance of detail awaiting you. Keep observing the 7th day and keep eating and drinking healthily. It's not the Kingdom of God, but if it's where you are and you're not forcing it on others, it's all OK. Be as cautious as you want to. He's got you. There's a verse that says He sets your pace (but the assumption is you've got to be moving forward).

 

[GDL]

The Timeline of Exodus from its Covenant Promise to Covenant Fulfillment to its Covenant Content​

My "Informational" clicked responses are just me letting you know I've read you. I actually don't like these limiting response buttons, but they save some posting like this one.

While I'm here. this work looks informative. I've done similar ones in the past but yours are cleaner. Please know they are being appreciated by some, or at least one. I know you know they are not appreciated by some others as they are in all probability very detrimental to some interpretations.

I'm not going to critique this one. A cursory glance seems it's just history.

 

[Doran]

My "Informational" clicked responses are just me letting you know I've read you. I actually don't like these limiting response buttons, but they save some posting like this one.

While I'm here. this work looks informative. I've done similar ones in the past but yours are cleaner. Please know they are being appreciated by some, or at least one. I know you know they are not appreciated by some others as they are in all probability very detrimental to some interpretations.

I'm not going to critique this one. A cursory glance seems it's just history.

But if you read the argument carefully, it's history that has very important content. For example, on the basis of all the content and it's chronology in the Exodus cites in my argument, is it reasonable to believe that the Book of the Covenant consisted of only the Ten? Or are we supposed to believe that every time the people pledged to obey all of God's commandments, they didn't really mean all or everything, but only the Ten? Or another question begging to be asked, is why was the covenant ratified after Moses' third trip to the mountain of God, and not after the first if the covenant was only the Ten? And is it reasonable to believe that after Moses descended for the third time and told the people all God's words and laws, that was limited to just the Ten? We just pretend that God didn't speak anything more after the Ten in chapter 20 and prior to the covenant's ratification? And when Moses wrote everything down the Lord had said, that was limited to only the Ten? Or can we pretend, as some here do, that the covenant wasn't really a law agreement? How many times have I asked sabbatarians, who claim to know what the covenant ISN'T, to tell us what it IS? Yet, I never received a real, unequivocal answer. These chapters in Exodus 19-24 give us the answers.

I think one has to perform some pretty hefty feats of mental gymnastics to conclude from Exodus 19 thru 24 that the covenant consisted of only the Ten. That would be stretching all the passages in the above chapter range so far out of shape, that none of it would make any sense.

And then there are more profound implications to the proper understanding of all those chapters. If we reach the only logical conclusion there is and say that the covenant included a lot more than just the Ten, then what are the implications to Jer 31:33? Can those laws written on the hearts and minds of NC believers be everything in the NC, since the OC, obviously, contains religious, civil and even dietary laws that are no longer applicable to us today? Or would it be eminently more reasonable to believe, as I have consistently argued, that those laws would be the Law of Christ, the Law of Liberty, the Perfect Law, the Law of Faith and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ...and even the Two Greatest Laws upon which the entire OT hinges?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, you said this: "You made the claim that 70AD some how changed that we no longer need to obey the commandments of God."

What the difference between the commandments of God in your mind than the Ten Commandments that you claimed vanished

The Ten Words/Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law which is part of the Mosaic Covenant now vanished.

Or God’s law you said ended in 70AD. Wouldn’t you want a text to go along this very big claim.

I think Mosaic Law includes God's Law plus some things mainly for a specific people - a Priest Nation - for a specific era ended with an exclamation point by 70AD.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, you said this: "You made the claim that 70AD some how changed that we no longer need to obey the commandments of God."

I never said we do not need to obey God's commandments and hopefully never will. Where you're misunderstanding me is that the New Covenant has a New Law of Christ and I obey Jesus Christ for Salvation (Heb5:9) and whatever He commands now as has been revealed in His New Covenant Writings.

So the law of Christ is in conflict with the law of God? You claim the Ten Commandments vanished, but they are written throughout the NC Jesus telling us not to break the least of these commandments, James saying you break one you break them all quoting only from the Ten. Since these commandments have been revealed in the New Covenant, seems weird you would be claiming they vanished. Jesus kept them and told us to and is our example to follow. 1 John 2:6

In order to do so correctly, part of what I need to do is rightly divide His Word of Truth which would include being able to discern what was put into effect by Him in AD30 (approx.) and completely established when He vanished the Mosaic Covenant and its Legal System when He tore down the Jerusalem Temple and absolutely hammered the non-remnant that rejected Him as Messiah/King/High Priest. The severity of that destruction boggles me every time I think about it and reminds me of this warning in Rom11:22. Many of us don't have an experiential clue what severity means.

In order to rightly divine the word of God, you will actually need a Text that shows in 70AD all of the law of Moses vanished including the Ten Commandments which does not reconcile with Mat 5:19-30, Rev 12:14, Rev 22:14-15 or the greatest commandments from the law of Moses.

 

[GDL]

But if you read the argument carefully, it's history that has very important content.

Though I read fairly quickly, I did read every statement and saw everything you are explaining. It was quick for me because I've done some of the same work before and I read Ex-Deut in context and work to digest all of it together as it was intended. As I said, you laid this out more clearly than I have before.

Maybe I should have said it's just historical fact (with substantial content) and for me it was simply, but of course!

You're preaching to the choir, and I hope some others can appreciate the quality of the lesson.

Or would it be eminently more reasonable to believe, as I have consistently argued, that those laws would be the Law of Christ, the Law of Liberty, the Perfect Law, the Law of Faith and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ...and even the Two Greatest Laws upon which the entire OT hinges?

Eminently more reasonable.

One of the things that flies by so many of us is how the same thing is said in different terminology. There is nuance being conveyed and there are different angles being used to convey mostly the same Christ-centered message of Salvation.

My read is that each phrase you've identified here is virtually synonymous with each other phrase and with a few more you haven't mentioned, like the Word of Truth, and God's Good News of His Son Jesus Christ, and the Faith of Jesus Christ once for all handed down to His Holy Ones. IOW the New Covenant Writings.

Nice work. It'll pain me to see it ignored or attacked with poorly reasoned, repetitive, eisegetical arguments.