The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant

[daq]

Do any commandments in Scripture have a physical interpretation?

My soul longs, and even faints for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God Psalm 84

All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanne, (Mat 11:13). Therefore the true meanings and understandings of the Torah are expounded and filled up to the full, (Mat 5:17), in the testimonies of the Immerser and of the Master himself in the Gospel accounts.

The Torah was not even fully operational until the Testimony of the Master, of the Grace and the Truth, was complete, (as when he says "It is Finished", Jhn 19:30, (the holy Testimony given to him from the heavens, from above, from the Father, Jhn 3:27, to fully expound the Torah, Prophets, and Writings by way of select examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, and sayings, which enable one to understand the whole through walking by faith in his full Testimony)). Such a far cry this is compared to those who say the Torah has been abolished, set aside, or rendered inoperable.

 

[daq]

My point is not to bolster a physical interpretation of circumcision, or of any of the law. My point to to show we must interpret it spiritually.

If not platitudial then why not apply the words of Musaa and Bulus to circumsion too?

Ps. Thanks for correcting my typo

It's not my authority, it's written in plain sight in the passage.

Not my authorty. Paul calls circumcision nothing on a few occasions (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). I suppose there is some interpretation in that Paul meant circumcision in the physical but certainly not a controversial claim, especially when Paul also shows his value of spiritual circumcision in Col 2

As I've stated I don't bolster physical circumcision. I get my direction to do so not from personal opinion but from NT teaching. The question I pose is if we view circumcision this way in the spiritual and not in the physical (which we do) then why not sabbath?

Yes, I agree with Paul's statements. What he also brings up is a contrast between that which is written upon our hearts of the spirit and that which is of written code. Showing that the former is not the same as the latter, at least superficially speaking.

Paul also circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) His motivation is missional, not anti-pharisaical. 1 Cor 9:23 sums up Paul's missonal motivation "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." Paul didn't want people to get circumcised for superficial reasons so he broadly discouraged it, but maintained a higher missional calling that if we are so called to do so, we should contextualize ourselves so that we may minister to the people we are speaking to and in Timothy's case this involved circumsion

Then we need to treat the Sinaic covenant with Sabbath as it's sign and the Abrahamic covenant with circumcision as it's sign the same way. If we cannot treat them equally we arbitrarily are focusing on one over the other.

how we view Sabbath law should be the same as how we view Circumcision law. Or how we view circumcision law should be how we view Sabbath law. So the two can be related.

It was not a comment on any Pauline use of "letter". I was using letter to represent the explicit text of said commandments and with that the explicit physical requirements so as to differentiate it with according to the spirit .

Way off topic now: you would need to actually prove your stated opinions about the writings of Paul, which I am not going to ask you to do because it would just cause more derailment. We've hashed out enough, especially since the OP has made it clear that this is not the topic, so I'll simply agree to disagree at this point.

 

[timothyu]

Why do you always come back with the Abrahamic covenant,

Jesus thought enough of it to try and restore it.

 

[Leaf473]

All the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanne, (Mat 11:13). Therefore the true meanings and understandings of the Torah are expounded and filled up to the full, (Mat 5:17), in the testimonies of the Immerser and of the Master himself in the Gospel accounts.

The Torah was not even fully operational until the Testimony of the Master, of the Grace and the Truth, was complete, (as when he says "It is Finished", Jhn 19:30, (the holy Testimony given to him from the heavens, from above, from the Father, Jhn 3:27, to fully expound the Torah, Prophets, and Writings by way of select examples, parables, proverbs, idioms, and sayings, which enable one to understand the whole through walking by faith in his full Testimony)). Such a far cry this is compared to those who say the Torah has been abolished, set aside, or rendered inoperable.

Sounds like No, none of the commandments in Scripture have a physical interpretation. Thanks for your input

 

[Clare73]

Why do you always come back with the Abrahamic covenant, is is not the purpose of this thread. If you want to start a thread about it, please go ahead. So you remember we have discussed this in the past, not fully but we did.

The New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, and was sealed by His Blood but for who? For the people who love God and do his will. Do you understand this?

The New Covenant is only for those who believe in and trust on Jesus and his atoning work for the remission of their sin.

I would like to gently offer another perspective, one that sees the Ten Commandments not as something fading away, but as a living, holy foundation that the Spirit actually confirms and writes on our hearts rather than sets aside.
First, Jesus Himself said clearly:
fulfill does not mean to cancel or end—it means to complete, to show its full meaning and purpose. In fact, He goes on to say:
Heaven and earth are still here, so is God’s law.
Now regarding 2 Corinthians 3:7–11, many take Paul’s comparison between the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of the Spirit” to mean that the commandments themselves are the problem. But look closer. The commandments were glorious, because they came directly from God. The “ministry of death” refers to how the letter of the law alone—without the Spirit—could only condemn us because of sin. The problem was never the law, but the hardened hearts of the people. That’s why God promised a new covenant, not without the law, but with the law written inside us:

Jesus never lowered the standard of the law—He actually raised it.

Indeed!

He raised it from "thou shalt do no harm" to "thou shalt love one another as I have loved you." (Jn 13:34), which necessarily fulfills the Law.

 

[Bob S]

The SDA church does not teach that we are saved by keeping the Sabbath. No more than we are saved by not murdering our neighbor.

The SDA church teaches that Ellen White was an inspired prophet. Her writings, according to the church, are just as inspired as the scriptures. Read the following from her writings and then tell us again Adventists don't believe the Sabbath has to be observed to be saved.

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

Much of her writings reek of righteousness by our own works. Most of the writings stop before telling us we will go to Hell if we do not follow her writings. Thus we see many offshoots sprout that supposedly follow her additions to scripture.

That said, while we are not saved by law-keeping, according to Jesus Christ no is saved by continuing in the path of sin (breaking God's law 1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12) Heb 10:26-30 Mat 7:21-23 Rev 22:14 , without a conversion, meaning a change in direction, no longer living for self- but living to serve God and by His every Word. Mat 4:4

Since the Sabbath law was only for those who espoused the old covenant, and no one today is under the dictates of the old covenant, your statement is meaningless.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The SDA church teaches that Ellen White was an inspired prophet. Her writings, according to the church, are just as inspired as the scriptures. Read the following from her writings and then tell us again Adventists don't believe the Sabbath has to be observed to be saved.

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

Much of her writings reek of righteousness by our own works. Most of the writings stop before telling us we will go to Hell if we do not follow her writings. Thus we see many offshoots sprout that supposedly follow her additions to scripture.

Since the Sabbath law was only for those who espoused the old covenant, and no one today is under the dictates of the old covenant, your statement is meaningless.

Did you not read my post? No one is saved by lawlessness (disobedience) according to Jesus Christ Mat 7:21-23 Heb 10:26-30 Rev 22:14-15.

God never isolated the 4th commandment the way you are others do, its right with the commandment to not have other gods and not to murder our brother. Not my law, not my testimony its God's Exo 31:18 Exo 20:6 so your grievances are not with me.

While we are not saved in our sins Mat 1:21 (breaking God's law) we are not saved by keeping it either, we are saved by grace through faith. I just do not understand how people come to the conclusion that faith means disobeying what God said. The Ten Commandments were never the Ten suggestions or optional choice hence the word commandment spoken by God which Jesus told us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How do we have faith in Jesus but not His teachings, I guess that's something for Jesus to sort out soon enough

If someone wants to understand what SDA's believe you can go to our statement of beliefs, no one believes EGW writings are equal to the Bible. Not even she believed that. Just goes to show you can't believe everything one reads on the internet.



Take care

 

[pasifika]

The SDA church does not teach that we are saved by keeping the Sabbath. No more than we are saved by not murdering our neighbor.

No law can't save us since all of us have broke God's law and sinned. We are only saved by the gift of God, His grace through faith.

That said, we keep God's commandments including the 4th commandment, not to be saved but because we love Jesus and obey God and believe Him at His Word John 14:15 Exo 20:6 , obeying God is a consequence of faith Rom 3:31, not a means to salvation, but this is the faith that reconciles Rev 14:12 Rev 22:14 hearing His Word but not doing is not an example of faith James 1:22

That said, while we are not saved by law-keeping, according to Jesus Christ no is saved by continuing in the path of sin (breaking God's law 1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12) Heb 10:26-30 Mat 7:21-23 Rev 22:14 , without a conversion, meaning a change in direction, no longer living for self- but living to serve God and by His every Word. Mat 4:4

if you don't keep the Sabbath or any other commandments you're not save! simple as that.

The problem is you and other sabbatarian here, are trying to keep it the "old way" (letter).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

if you don't keep the Sabbath or any other commandments you're not save! simple as that.

The problem is you and other sabbatarian here, are trying to keep it the "old way" (letter).

Jesus said not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, not to change a jot or tittle Mat 5:18-30 as if there is anyone greater than God that could improve upon what God Himself personally wrote and personally spoke,

I do not see how one is keeping the "new way" by literally worshipping other gods or literally murdering our neighbor, I am pretty sure this is not a teaching of Scripture. It is inconsistent to place only the 4th commandment to be treated as “the new way” than the other 9 commandments. Personally, I do not believe that is going to work out so well, but we are given free will to test any theory we want. Guess we will have to agree to disagree and soon, everything will get sorted out. Be well.

 

[DamianWarS]

Way off topic now: you would need to actually prove your stated opinions about the writings of Paul, which I am not going to ask you to do because it would just cause more derailment. We've hashed out enough, especially since the OP has made it clear that this is not the topic, so I'll simply agree to disagree at this point.

Indeed, let's bring it back to the OP. Paul tells us circumcision is nothing; what matters is the new creation (Gal 6:15). But the OP isn't about circumcision, it's about the eternal quality of the Sabbath. As declared through scripture, circumcision is of the same eternal quality as the Sabbath law. Both are signs of eternal covenants with explicit instructions.

What Paul states in Gal 5:16 he states in mirror form in 1 Cor 7:19 and Gal 5:6. Each he says circumcision is nothing then goes on saying "what counts." 1 Cor 7:19 says what's counts is keeping the commandments of God, Gal 5:6 says what counts is faith expressed through love. And 6:15 says what counts in the new creation.

Now what counts is not 3 different things. What counts is one thing. Each of these verses describes the same things. So Paul's intent on God's commandments (which would otherwise be ambiguous) is faith expressed through love and is the new creation. This is an identity through Christ's law, not through the old law. Paul's use of commandments has identity with the new covenant, namely "Christ's law" not with the old covenant.

These verses contrast the flesh with the spiritual or the old with the new. Could Paul have said Sabbath law is nothing what matters is the new creation? So why didn't he? Well, that's the question. If Sabbath law is of the same eternal quality of circumcision, should we not value and approach the the 2 in the same way? Should we not approach law in a universal manner by what we do to one, we do to the others. If we don't, by what measure do we count a law better than another? The OP seems to suggest the everlasting covenant part is the proof needed to count Sabbath requirement as highly valued. sure, but the OP forgot to mention the other everlasting covenant also highly valued.

 

[pasifika]

Jesus said not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, not to change a jot or tittle Mat 5:18-30 as if there is anyone greater than God that could improve upon what God Himself personally wrote and personally spoke,

I do not see how one is keeping the "new way" by literally worshipping other gods or literally murdering our neighbor, I am pretty sure this is not a teaching of Scripture. It is inconsistent to place only the 4th commandment to be treated as “the new way” than the other 9 commandments. Personally, I do not believe that is going to work out so well, but we are given free will to test any theory we want. Guess we will have to agree to disagree and soon, everything will get sorted out. Be well.

Jesus said not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, not to change a jot or tittle Mat 5:18-30 as if there is anyone greater than God that could improve upon what God Himself personally wrote and personally spoke,

I do not see how one is keeping the "new way" by literally worshipping other gods or literally murdering our neighbor, I am pretty sure this is not a teaching of Scripture. It is inconsistent to place only the 4th commandment to be treated as “the new way” than the other 9 commandments. Personally, I do not believe that is going to work out so well, but we are given free will to test any theory we want. Guess we will have to agree to disagree and soon, everything will get sorted out. Be well.

no one who keep the new way of the Spirit will worship other gods or breaking the Sabbath, whereas those of the old way of the letter will claim to keep the law yet their hearts are evil and lawbreakers.

As Jesus said, they must clean the "inside" first then the outside will be cleaned also.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

no one who keep the new way of the Spirit will worship other gods or breaking the Sabbath, whereas those of the old way of the letter will claim to keep the law yet their hearts are evil and lawbreakers.

As Jesus said, they must clean the "inside" first then the outside will be cleaned also.

Strange one is claiming to be walking by the Spirit yet condemning those who want to only worship God , not murder our brethren or keep God's Sabbath day holy the way He said.. God's Spirit is not in conflict with God's law since His Spirit is the one who wrote them on stone and than wrote them in our heart and only God knows what is going on inside ones heart, not us strangers on the internet, so lets leave the judging up to God who is the only no one can hide anything from Ecc 12:13:14 how we judge others is how we will be judged, no wonder why Jesus said better take the plank out of your eye first.

Paul made clear what it means to walk in the Spirit and it is not transgressing God's law. He clearly said those who do so will not inherit the Kingdom of God. I guess that why Jesus taught not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments quoting from the Ten Commandments and than went on to share what the intent is behind God's perfect and everlasting law that He said plainly He did not come to destroy. Mat 5:17-30

Gal 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Did Paul mean, if not under the law one doesn't have to keep the law? Not at all if reading the very next verses.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [f]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Leaf473]

When two sets of laws overlap in some areas, it doesn't mean that both are necessarily still in force

In the New Covenant, God puts his ways in our mind. Does anyone here see in their mind not to wear blended fabrics? God doesn't put the letters of the law in our minds

he satisfies the longing soul.
He fills the hungry soul with good Psalm 107

 

[daq]

At the heart of this discussion lies the assertion that the Decalogue, as articulated in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, constitutes the very covenant God established with Israel. The text is explicit: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” This identification of the commandments with the covenant itself underscores their enduring and foundational significance within the biblical narrative.

Hi JFF, I am curious as to whether or not you have ever tried to reconcile the Ten as presented in Exodus 34 with the Ten which are found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5? There are some slight differences between Exo 20 and Deut 5 but the differences in Exo 34 compared to the other two passages are much greater.

Exodus 34:10-28 LSV
10 And He says, "Behold, I am making a covenant. I do wonders before all your people, which have not been done in all the earth, or in any nation, and all the people in whose midst you [are in] have seen the work of YHWH, for it [is] fearful—that which I am doing with you.
11 Observe for yourself that which I am commanding you today. Behold, I am casting out from before you the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite;
12 take heed to yourself lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land into which you are going, lest it become a snare in your midst;
13 for you break down their altars, and you shatter their standing pillars, and you cut down its Asherim;
14 for you do not bow yourselves to another god—for YHWH, whose Name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God.
15 Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land, and they have gone whoring after their gods, and have sacrificed to their gods, and [one] has called to you, and you have eaten of his sacrifice,
16 and you have taken of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters have gone whoring after their gods, and have caused your sons to go whoring after their gods;
17 you do not make a molten god for yourself.
18 You keep the Celebration of Unleavened Things; [for] seven days you eat unleavened things, as I have commanded you, at an appointed time, [in] the month of Abib: for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.
19 All opening a womb [are] Mine, and every firstling of your livestock born a male, [whether] ox or sheep;
20 and you ransom the firstling of a donkey with a lamb; and if you do not ransom, then you have beheaded it; you ransom every firstborn of your sons, and they do not appear before Me empty.
21 [For] six days you work, and on the seventh day you rest; in plowing-time and in harvest you rest.
22 And you observe [the] Celebration of Weeks for yourself, of [the] first-fruits of wheat-harvest; and the Celebration of Ingathering at the revolution of the year.
23 Three times in a year all your males appear before the Lord YHWH, God of Israel;
24 for I dispossess nations from before you, and have enlarged your border, and no man desires your land in your going up to appear before your God YHWH three times in a year.
25 You do not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with a fermented thing; and the sacrifice of the Celebration of the Passover does not remain until morning.
26 You bring the first of the first-fruits of the land into the house of your God YHWH. You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."
27 And YHWH says to Moses, "Write these words for yourself, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel according to the tenor of these words."
28 And he is there with YHWH forty days and forty nights; he has not eaten bread, and he has not drunk water; and he writes on the tablets the matters of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

The reason for the differences is revealed in the LXX. In the Hebrew text we read the ten debarim all the way through: but dabar or debarim, (a plural form), can be either rhema or logos in Greek, and in the LXX we find τους δεκα λογους, (the ten logous, a plural form of logos), in both Deut 10:4 and here in Exo 34:28, while Deut 4:13 reads τα δεκα ρηματα, (the ten rhemata, a plural form of rhema).

The Ten found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are Rhema spoken-written words and sayings. The Ten found in Exodus 34 are Logos which is reasoning and understanding within the Rhema. This is why they are not even in the same order: for it is all mixed together and full of the Logos of Elohim. This may be understood by the contexts in the Hebrew language, but Hebrew does not have separate words for the concepts of Rhema and Logos.

Just food for thought. Shalom.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Hi JFF, I am curious as to whether or not you have ever tried to reconcile the Ten as presented in Exodus 34 with the Ten which are found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5? There are some slight differences between Exo 20 and Deut 5 but the differences in Exo 34 compared to the other two passages are much greater.

Exodus 34:10-28 LSV
10 And He says, "Behold, I am making a covenant. I do wonders before all your people, which have not been done in all the earth, or in any nation, and all the people in whose midst you [are in] have seen the work of YHWH, for it [is] fearful—that which I am doing with you.
11 Observe for yourself that which I am commanding you today. Behold, I am casting out from before you the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite;
12 take heed to yourself lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land into which you are going, lest it become a snare in your midst;
13 for you break down their altars, and you shatter their standing pillars, and you cut down its Asherim;
14 for you do not bow yourselves to another god—for YHWH, whose Name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God.
15 Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land, and they have gone whoring after their gods, and have sacrificed to their gods, and [one] has called to you, and you have eaten of his sacrifice,
16 and you have taken of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters have gone whoring after their gods, and have caused your sons to go whoring after their gods;
17 you do not make a molten god for yourself.
18 You keep the Celebration of Unleavened Things; [for] seven days you eat unleavened things, as I have commanded you, at an appointed time, [in] the month of Abib: for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.
19 All opening a womb [are] Mine, and every firstling of your livestock born a male, [whether] ox or sheep;
20 and you ransom the firstling of a donkey with a lamb; and if you do not ransom, then you have beheaded it; you ransom every firstborn of your sons, and they do not appear before Me empty.
21 [For] six days you work, and on the seventh day you rest; in plowing-time and in harvest you rest.
22 And you observe [the] Celebration of Weeks for yourself, of [the] first-fruits of wheat-harvest; and the Celebration of Ingathering at the revolution of the year.
23 Three times in a year all your males appear before the Lord YHWH, God of Israel;
24 for I dispossess nations from before you, and have enlarged your border, and no man desires your land in your going up to appear before your God YHWH three times in a year.
25 You do not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with a fermented thing; and the sacrifice of the Celebration of the Passover does not remain until morning.
26 You bring the first of the first-fruits of the land into the house of your God YHWH. You do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."
27 And YHWH says to Moses, "Write these words for yourself, for I have made a covenant with you and with Israel according to the tenor of these words."
28 And he is there with YHWH forty days and forty nights; he has not eaten bread, and he has not drunk water; and he writes on the tablets the matters of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

The reason for the differences is revealed in the LXX. In the Hebrew text we read the ten debarim all the way through: but dabar or debarim, (a plural form), can be either rhema or logos in Greek, and in the LXX we find τους δεκα λογους, (the ten logous, a plural form of logos), in both Deut 10:4 and here in Exo 34:28, while Deut 4:13 reads τα δεκα ρηματα, (the ten rhemata, a plural form of rhema).

The Ten found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 are Rhema spoken-written words and sayings. The Ten found in Exodus 34 are Logos which is reasoning and understanding within the Rhema. This is why they are not even in the same order: for it is all mixed together and full of the Logos of Elohim. This may be understood by the contexts in the Hebrew language, but Hebrew does not have separate words for the concepts of Rhema and Logos.

Just food for thought. Shalom.

Very interesting, thank you, ill study this. I always wondered but never got to it.

 

[Bob S]

Did you not read my post? No one is saved by lawlessness (disobedience) according to Jesus Christ Mat 7:21-23 Heb 10:26-30 Rev 22:14-15

Contrary to your misguided beliefs, we who do not espouse the old covenant Sabbath are not lawless. We are guided by the Law of Love. The old covenant ritual laws were for one nation, Israel. Even Jews are not under those laws if they would only believe..

God never isolated the 4th commandment the way you are others do, its right with the commandment to not have other gods and not to murder our brother. Not my law, not my testimony its God's Exo 31:18 Exo 20:6 so your grievances are not with me.

He never isolated them for the Israelites, the Gentiles have never been under all those ritual laws unless they wanted to join for some reason.

While we are not saved in our sins Mat 1:21 (breaking God's law) we are not saved by keeping it either, we are saved by grace through faith.

You deny that Ellen, your endeared prophet, wrote a different story.

I just do not understand how people come to the conclusion that faith means disobeying what God said. The Ten Commandments were never the Ten suggestions or optional choice hence the word commandment spoken by God which Jesus told us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How do we have faith in Jesus but not His teachings, I guess that's something for Jesus to sort out soon enough

It is so evident that you do not understand, most SDAs don't.

If someone wants to understand what SDA's believe you can go to our statement of beliefs, no one believes EGW writings are equal to the Bible. Not even she believed that. Just goes to show you can't believe everything one reads on the internet.

Where did the prophets of old get their inspiration to write the Bible? Where did Ellen claim to get her inspiration? To conservative SDAs, Ellen's writings are the same as canon. Her writings are inspired according to the SDA church's fundamental doctrine.

 

[KevinT]

This shows us the temporary aspect of the 10. the glory perhaps hasn't changed, but the spirit surpasses it to such a degree that it pales in comparison, like the former has no glory at all, showing to value the spirit over the law. Should the spirit and the law ever disagree? not by its true nature, but by letter it may as Christ himself shows, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath which is not highlighted in the 4th commandment. Christ shows us that goodness itself surpasses the requirement of the letter so we may practice goodness over the requirement of the letter and still be lawful. Further NT teaching shows us how we are to walk with the Spirit to be that guide, but indeed, the Spirit may call us out of practice from the letter. I don't mean the spirit will call us to murder, lie, steal or sleep with our nieghbour's wife which would be a strawman but let's call a spade a spade here, the sabbath is a ritual practice deep with meaning, the Spirit must be given precedence so that the meaning of the Sabbath may come alive so that others may experience the glorious rest of Christ as well and this may be a call to break our rest, as it is with rescusing sheep in Mat 12:11-12

I agree with what you are saying. When Jesus taught His countrymen, they thought that doing something like pulling an ox out of a ditch was violating the Sabbath. They might do it because they had to, but it still apparently seemed wrong. Jesus taught that doing good on the Sabbath WAS consistent with God's law. Thus Jesus wasn't overturning the special day to remember that God created the Earth, He was teaching us better it's true meaning and purpose.

KT

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree with what you are saying. When Jesus taught His countrymen, they thought that doing something like pulling an ox out of a ditch was violating the Sabbath. They might do it because they had to, but it still apparently seemed wrong. Jesus taught that doing good on the Sabbath WAS consistent with God's law. Thus Jesus wasn't overturning the special day to remember that God created the Earth, He was teaching us better it's true meaning and purpose.

KT

This is all well and good for oxen stuck in ditches but most of us will never be in such a circumstance. I think the elephant in the in the ditch here is what is the measure of good that may be deemed lawful on the Sabbath even if it involves work?

Let's take for example I might mow my neighbours lawn on Monday. My motivation to mow their grass is to be helpful and to serve my neighbour. Is this then a good act? If it can be deemed good on a Monday is it also good and therefore lawful on the Sabbath?

To me the real elephant in the ditch is why just the sabbath? Should we not always be motivated with doing good and if our motivations are always aligned with goodness then are they not always lawful?

 

[Studyman]

This is all well and good for oxen stuck in ditches but most of us will never be in such a circumstance. I think the elephant in the in the ditch here is what is the measure of good that may be deemed lawful on the Sabbath even if it involves work?

Helping someone in need on the Sabbath Days is one thing. Creating a business or a tradition where your clients pay you, or you go around on God's Holy Sabbath Day looking to "do jobs" or "alms before men" is another.

I think the analogy of a ox falling in a pit, is for me to understand that if I'm home studying on the Sabbath, and my neighbor falls and breaks his hip, that I don't say, "Hang in there, the sun sets in 3 hours and then I can help you". Not that you drive around on Saturday looking to do odd jobs or good deeds for others.

Let's take for example I might mow my neighbours lawn on Monday. My motivation to mow their grass is to be helpful and to serve my neighbour. Is this then a good act? If it can be deemed good on a Monday is it also good and therefore lawful on the Sabbath?

Of course not. God gives you 6 days, according to Him, to do your works/good deeds like "working for money to feed your children", a good act, "bringing in wood to keep your house warm in the winter", another good act, mowing your lawn, or other peoples lawns to make the place look good, another good act. These are all "Good acts" and God gives us ample time to do them, during the week. But God Esteems the 7th Day above the other 6 days of the week. As it is written, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

At some point, God's Words should be considered, in my view.

To me the real elephant in the ditch is why just the sabbath? Should we not always be motivated with doing good and if our motivations are always aligned with goodness then are they not always lawful?

Honoring and respecting God is Good. Disobeying or disrespecting God is bad. The Spirit of Christ motivates men to do good, as God defines it, not as you, or others who profess to know God, define it, in my understanding of Scriptures. The purpose of the Holy Sabbath is to teach people to prepare themselves for something. You don't wait until the return of Jesus, to "prepare" for His return. You don't let your lawn go for 6 whole days, and then mow it on God's Holy Day.

Unless you don't believe God, that His Instruction is Holy, then of course, it wouldn't matter.

 

[DamianWarS]

Unless you don't believe God, that His Instruction is Holy, then of course, it wouldn't matter.

The flippant remarks aside, Christ says doing good is lawful, and I believe him.

Christ's example in Mat 12 is regarding sheep trapped in pits (not actually oxen). He then summarizes the value, saying, "How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mat 12:12). You might read this and think of a physical state like falling and breaking a leg or maybe a car accident. Certainly, help those people no matter what day of the week it is, but what about how the biblical concept of 'lost sheep' is used not to represent a physical state, but a spiritual one? We must critically ask the question if Christ is using sheep trapped in pits as a metaphor for the lost on top of the surface literal details, and if he is what should our action be?

Helping someone in a physical emergency is generally considered uncontroversially good and lawful on the Sabbath. But what about helping someone in spiritual darkness that may or may not involve work? Is this "good" too? If we can define something as "good" without compromise on the other 6 days under the motivation of spiritual rescue then how could that also not be good on the 7th day? Goodness should not be seen as conditional, if it is good, it is always good.

This forces the question, what is good? Cutting someone's grass may appear like an act of goodness, but if our motivation is corrupted, although the recipient gets the benefit, our hearts do not engage in "goodness"; we instead engage in whatever corruption that motivated us. There is propositional goodness or things we say are good and it may even carry into acts of goodness (propositionally) but propositional goodness doesn't necessarily engage the heart, and if our hearts are corrupted then the act inherits the same.

Then there is embodied goodness, which is a goodness that would be an outflow from our heart (in the context of a heart transformed by Christ). It's the latter that Christ is addressing; embodied truths are far more consistent with Christ's teaching than isolated propositional truths. Ideally, they look the same but when a propositional truth is limiting, embodied truth will always be a better focus. to be clear there is only 1 truth, but the 10's propositional statements are too indescriptive to be exhaustively applied.

for example, the sixth commandment is "You shall not murder" (Ex 20:13) this is a very short statement; there may be an argument in terms of what murder means or should the word be kill, but otherwise, this is easily understood. Christ however expands upon its requirements and says "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Mat 5:22). Both are addressing the same truth, but I'm sure we can all agree Christ's revelation of it is a better way. The truth however, did not start at the 10, the 6th commandment a contextual example in place and time and it's motivations may be different. Christ howeer is approaching more of an embodied core that requires our participation, then merely a black or white statement and his motivation is address the heart over merely statements.

I would suggest the 10 are more polemically motivated to contrast surrounding nations' values of the time than they are about touching on core embodied truth, which is the goal seen with laws written upon our hearts/of the Spirit. Christ shows us a heuristic approach to law by the 2 greatest commandments regarding our love to God first, then love for each other. This forces us to critically engage issues over simply approaching them like a checkbox and is a direction closer to embodied truth then the 10 could ever be. The embodied truth is complete through the spirit, where law is written upon our heart and our charge is to walk in the Spirit to guide us through these embodied truths.

Ex 20:13 and Mat 5:22 will both have a result where no murder is happening. But because sabbath law involves ritual practice (the only 1 of the 10) then it may conflict with a charge of doing good. Christ shows this tension between these truths, a propositional truth to keep the Sabbath holy and an embodied truth where goodness transcends it. This shows us that the act of ritual rest on the Sabbath in itself does not address morality, as a moral act of goodness may override it.

Christ shows there is more to the 4th than simply ritual rest as there is more to 6th than resisting murder and Christ favours the goodness over the ritual. Should we then be looking for goodness to do on the Sabbath? I don't see a conflict with this and broadly we should always be looking for goodness. My question would be if we are not then we should be asking ourselves why aren't we? it really is about addressing embodied goodness/love as a perpetual outflow of our hearts through the Spirit that is our goal over keeping limited propositional statements if we take in the the rest of the NT teaching to inform us what this goodness should look like. I don't see how in this space, our actions can ever be unlawful.