The law, the commandments, and Christians.

[DamianWarS]

The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).

The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.

For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.

You’re merging multiple “laws” into one thing. Paul doesn’t treat “Law,” “Mosaic Law,” “Decalogue,” and “New Law” as interchangeable. He distinguishes between the law of works, the law of faith, the law of the Spirit, etc. Flattening them into a single category is a post-biblical move, not a textual one.

The idea that the Ten Commandments = natural law = permanently binding isn’t a biblical argument. Scripture never isolates the Decalogue as the “moral law” distinct from the rest of Torah. That’s a later Christian framework. James 2:10 actually warns against dividing the Law into keepable vs. non-keepable parts.

Galatians 3:24 is used selectively. Yes, the Law was a tutor. But Paul’s whole point is: "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor" (v. 25). You can’t use v. 24 to argue ongoing obligation while ignoring v. 25.

Jeremiah 31 doesn’t say God will write the Ten Commandments on the heart. It says “My law,” and explicitly contrasts the New Covenant with the one made when Israel came out of Egypt i.e., Sinai. The New Covenant is not just Sinai internalized.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments” doesn’t refer to the Ten Commandments. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ “commandments” are His own teachings, especially His new commandment to love as He loved (John 13:34-35), not Moses’ commands.

Paul repeatedly calls the Sinai covenant a ministry of death and slavery (2 Cor 3; Gal 4). So saying the Commandments are “paths to freedom” needs to reckon with Paul’s language. He explicitly locates Christian freedom in life by the Spirit, not adherence to written code (Rom 7–8; Gal 5).

Most of your argument depends on the Catechism, not Scripture. If the question is “What does the Bible say?”, the Catechism can't settle the issue by itself. The NT nowhere says the Decalogue survives as a uniquely binding law code for Christians while the rest of Moses doesn't. the OP may present a well-accepted Catholic interpretation, but biblically speaking, it assumes distinctions the text doesn’t make and ignores the parts of Paul that undermine the conclusion. The NT’s moral vision is grounded in the Spirit and the law of Christ, not a selective continuation of Sinai.

 

[The Liturgist]

As a help to one's memory, and to make sure we are on the same page, I shall include the verse as a quote.

[NRSVUE acts 15:1] The Council at Jerusalem​

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”​

I say that the "certain individuals" were wrong.

And you are entirely correct on this point, as always, my friend

 

[The Liturgist]

The Law, as revealed by God and fulfilled in Christ, serves as a moral compass and pedagogical guide for the Christian faithful. It includes the Mosaic Law, especially the Decalogue, and finds its perfection in the New Law of the Gospel. “The Law has become our tutor unto Christ” (Galatians 3:24), and its enduring moral precepts are reaffirmed by the Church as binding. The Catechism teaches that “the Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel” and “remains necessary for man” as it “denounces and discloses sin” (CCC §1963–1964).

The Ten Commandments, given to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 20:1–17), are “fundamentally immutable” and “engraved by God in the human heart” (CCC §2072). They express the natural law and are reaffirmed by Christ, who deepens their meaning in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5–7). The Commandments are not abolished but fulfilled in charity: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). They are the foundation of Christian moral life, guiding the faithful in their duties toward God and neighbour.

For the Christian in this world, the Law and Commandments are not burdens but paths to freedom and holiness. Grace enables their fulfilment, and the Spirit writes them anew on the heart (cf. Jeremiah 31:33; CCC §1965–1966). The faithful are called to interiorise the Law, living it not merely by external observance but through love: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Thus, the Commandments remain essential, not as relics of legalism, but as living expressions of divine wisdom and the way of life in Christ.

By the way, its amusing that despite you affirming this, and despite the fact that your church is responsible for the majority of worship services celebrated on the seventh day, some sabbatarian members still accuse the Roman Catholic Church falsely of teaching people to break the Ten Commandments, when this is demonstrably, evidently false.

 

[fhansen]

You’re merging multiple “laws” into one thing. Paul doesn’t treat “Law,” “Mosaic Law,” “Decalogue,” and “New Law” as interchangeable. He distinguishes between the law of works, the law of faith, the law of the Spirit, etc. Flattening them into a single category is a post-biblical move, not a textual one.

The idea that the Ten Commandments = natural law = permanently binding isn’t a biblical argument. Scripture never isolates the Decalogue as the “moral law” distinct from the rest of Torah. That’s a later Christian framework. James 2:10 actually warns against dividing the Law into keepable vs. non-keepable parts.

Galatians 3:24 is used selectively. Yes, the Law was a tutor. But Paul’s whole point is: "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor" (v. 25). You can’t use v. 24 to argue ongoing obligation while ignoring v. 25.

Jeremiah 31 doesn’t say God will write the Ten Commandments on the heart. It says “My law,” and explicitly contrasts the New Covenant with the one made when Israel came out of Egypt i.e., Sinai. The New Covenant is not just Sinai internalized.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments” doesn’t refer to the Ten Commandments. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ “commandments” are His own teachings, especially His new commandment to love as He loved (John 13:34-35), not Moses’ commands.

Paul repeatedly calls the Sinai covenant a ministry of death and slavery (2 Cor 3; Gal 4). So saying the Commandments are “paths to freedom” needs to reckon with Paul’s language. He explicitly locates Christian freedom in life by the Spirit, not adherence to written code (Rom 7–8; Gal 5).

Most of your argument depends on the Catechism, not Scripture. If the question is “What does the Bible say?”, the Catechism can't settle the issue by itself. The NT nowhere says the Decalogue survives as a uniquely binding law code for Christians while the rest of Moses doesn't. the OP may present a well-accepted Catholic interpretation, but biblically speaking, it assumes distinctions the text doesn’t make and ignores the parts of Paul that undermine the conclusion. The NT’s moral vision is grounded in the Spirit and the law of Christ, not a selective continuation of Sinai.

We won't understand the gospel unless we first understand that, with or without regard to the law, whether or not one has even heard the law, one cannot be and remain a murderer, adulterer, theif, etc and still expect to enter heaven.

 

[DamianWarS]

We won't understand the gospel unless we first understand that, with or without regard to the law, whether or not one has even heard the law, one cannot be and remain a murderer, adulterer, theif, etc and still expect to enter heaven.

The 10 are presented to a post-exodus Israel and establish a covenant relationship. They are framed in a way for a specific time, place and people and we shouldn't expect them to be universal as they were never presented that way. We cannot superimpose the 10 over Christian living and expect the same results because we are not in the same conditions the 10 were made in. The 10 have monotheistic claims and moral pillars framed in a way that uniquely challenges Israel and the surrounding cultures (through Israel). In the NT Christ reframes these as a heuristic approach over a list of dos and donts that is often summed up by NT authors as "loving your neighbour as yourself,"; this is known as "Christ's law".

It is this law that is fundamental and reaches deeper than the 10 can ever. First, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,” this includes the monotheistic claims of the 10 but also far greater. it is not only about idolatry, graven images and using his name in vain (which of course are not consistent with loving God with all your heart), but also innately our every action as directly involved with obedience to love God. Christ calls this the greatest commandment. The second is to love your neighbour as yourself. and this certainly includes not murdering your neighbour, stealing, lying, sleeping with their wife, etc... but it goes far deeper. We are no longer merely resisting doing harm, but Christ flips it and tells us we should be actively seeking to love others.

The 10 simply do not go to this length, and I may keep the 10 but hate my neighbour (and yes, even hate God), which is inconsistent with Christ's law. We cannot approach Christ if we cannot seriously approach our own actions critically to align with Christ. Christ's law has this goal, where the 10 are lacking, and we can keep the 10 while failing to critically address sin in our lives. This is the conversation Christ has with the Pharisees; it wasn't about how well they kept the law, Christ was more interested in their heart. The heuristic approach in Christ's law is not about a check list, and we must actively participate in understanding how our actions contribute to loving God/neighbour.

In its day the 10 were radical claims and ways of thinking challenging not just Israel but surrounding cultures too as a polemic to show order and restoration under God, but Christ's goes deeper than the 10 ever can; He is interested in letters of not just "the heart" but "OUR heart" which is the place where the value is birthed, but he is not interested in the letters on stone which can be exploited to support our own sin and may be devorced from our heart. It is good to think that murder, adultery, stealing, etc... are wrong but most (if not all) would accept this throughout all of civilization without any prompting and the 10 do not hold dominion over these moral claims. It is better to cut to the heart over a motivation to resist evil (which is limited, especially when condensed to 10), but actively be involved with doing good in all our actions. Christ himself tells us "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mat 12:12), establishing that goodness itself is above sabbath law (directly) but also more broadly is a comment on all law and a nod to his own commandment that is Christ's law. This focus you will find is far more consistent throughout the NT.

 

[fhansen]

The 10 are presented to a post-exodus Israel and establish a covenant relationship. They are framed in a way for a specific time, place and people and we shouldn't expect them to be universal as they were never presented that way. We cannot superimpose the 10 over Christian living and expect the same results because we are not in the same conditions the 10 were made in. The 10 have monotheistic claims and moral pillars framed in a way that uniquely challenges Israel and the surrounding cultures (through Israel). In the NT Christ reframes these as a heuristic approach over a list of dos and donts that is often summed up by NT authors as "loving your neighbour as yourself,"; this is known as "Christ's law".

It is this law that is fundamental and reaches deeper than the 10 can ever. First, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,” this includes the monotheistic claims of the 10 but also far greater. it is not only about idolatry, graven images and using his name in vain (which of course are not consistent with loving God with all your heart), but also innately our every action as directly involved with obedience to love God. Christ calls this the greatest commandment. The second is to love your neighbour as yourself. and this certainly includes not murdering your neighbour, stealing, lying, sleeping with their wife, etc... but it goes far deeper. We are no longer merely resisting doing harm, but Christ flips it and tells us we should be actively seeking to love others.

The 10 simply do not go to this length, and I may keep the 10 but hate my neighbour (and yes, even hate God), which is inconsistent with Christ's law. We cannot approach Christ if we cannot seriously approach our own actions critically to align with Christ. Christ's law has this goal, where the 10 are lacking, and we can keep the 10 while failing to critically address sin in our lives. This is the conversation Christ has with the Pharisees; it wasn't about how well they kept the law, Christ was more interested in their heart. The heuristic approach in Christ's law is not about a check list, and we must actively participate in understanding how our actions contribute to loving God/neighbour.

In its day the 10 were radical claims and ways of thinking challenging not just Israel but surrounding cultures too as a polemic to show order and restoration under God, but Christ's goes deeper than the 10 ever can; He is interested in letters of not just "the heart" but "OUR heart" which is the place where the value is birthed, but he is not interested in the letters on stone which can be exploited to support our own sin and may be devorced from our heart. It is good to think that murder, adultery, stealing, etc... are wrong but most (if not all) would accept this throughout all of civilization without any prompting and the 10 do not hold dominion over these moral claims. It is better to cut to the heart over a motivation to resist evil (which is limited, especially when condensed to 10), but actively be involved with doing good in all our actions. Christ himself tells us "it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mat 12:12), establishing that goodness itself is above sabbath law (directly) but also more broadly is a comment on all law and a nod to his own commandment that is Christ's law. This focus you will find is far more consistent throughout the NT.

I agree with most of this completely and yet this is the very reason Jesus could truthfully say in Matt 19:17,
"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments”, referencing the ten,

and Paul could say In Rom 2:13:
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

or in Rom 8:12-14
Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God."

The new covenant is not about whether one must be obedient but rather about how one becomes obedient, authentically, and, yes, love, which fulfills the law by its nature (Rom 13:10), is that authentic means. It's the righteousness that the law and prophets only testify to but cannot accomplish in us (Rom 3:21-22). That accomplishment comes solely by virtue of becoming united with the Vine, by communion with God, the very source of love. And that union, that ingrafting, is first established by faith.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith" (Phil 3:9).

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree with most of this completely and yet this is the very reason Jesus could truthfully say in Matt 19:17,
"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments”, referencing the ten,

and Paul could say In Rom 2:13:
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

or in Rom 8:12-14
Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God."

The new covenant is not about whether one must be obedient but rather about how one becomes obedient, authentically, and, yes, love, which fulfills the law by its nature (Rom 13:10), is that authentic means. It's the righteousness that the law and prophets only testify to but cannot accomplish in us (Rom 3:21-22). That accomplishment comes solely by virtue of becoming united with the Vine, by communion with God, the very source of love. And that union, that ingrafting, is first established by faith.
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith" (Phil 3:9).

Your argument hinges on interpreting all these references to mean the 10 where the texts never say this. Mat 19:17 we have a familiar account of someone asking Christ which commandments he should keep, Christ's answer seems to cover only the second half of the ten and adds an extra to love your neighbour as yourself. But the takeaway is not how justified the man was for keeping these, but that he still lacked. This exposes the 10 as lacking itself, not to mention it was only 5 commandments. Jesus uses these as a segue to expose the real problem, which addresses the heart.

No one is arguing that murdering, stealing, lying and adultery are wrong or that respecting your parents is a good idea. These are well-established morals that preexist the 10 itself and can be found in any culture. But the bigger question is not how profound these ideas are, but what follows in v20, "what do I still lack". The issue is not what the man kept, but what he was lacking that could not be answered by the 10 (or in this case, the 5)

We can conflate all these references and say "what they really mean is to keeping the 10" but this needs to be injected into the text, not to mention we are missing the point. The tablets are a seal of the covenant relationship first established in Ex 24 (the 10 were spoken in 20 and the tablets were received in 31). This is the covenant, and Hebrews 8:13 says it has been made obsolete.

Deut 5:2-3
The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today

The rest of Deu 5 is quoting the 10. The 10 had a unique relationship as a covenant relationship with Israel, "not with [their] ancestors." This shows us the 10 were never designed for outside the covenant relationship and explicitly for Israel. Coupled with Hebrews 8:13 it's hard to understand why our eyes are still fixed on the 10. It is Christ that we should be looking to and keeping "his commandments" which surpass the 10 in all ways as they address the root of the heart using a heuristic approach. Monotheistic values (commandments 1-3), we can say, are about loving the Lord with all our heart, yet "with all our heart" implicitly reaches further, so it's not just about no other gods, no idols and not taking his name in vain, but it goes beyond. These can all be mechanically observed and divorced of any heart action; Christ's law addresses the depths of our hearts that that's the point, not a list of rules. This is the same with loving your neighbour as yourself, it goes infinitely beyond the actions of the 10, no longer motivated with simply not harming our neighbour from a preset list but a charge to actively pursue love.

The 4th seems like the oddball one, but it really is a monotheistic claim, rescuing pagan 7th-day claims to point to the one creator. ANE (ancient near east) cultures already had a lot of these values in place. Hebrews had a strict 7-day week system, which was unique to them; other cultures used moon phases that may have aligned to a 7-day week but were reset with the lunar month (unlike the Hebrews, who decoupled the two systems). The decoupling is important because the weeks align with no observable phenomena (like moon phases), leading to pagan beliefs. But 7-day iterations already had established practices and values among surrounding cultures long before Israel was formed. It wasn't unique to them, and they inherited these values over being the first to introduce them. It wasn't unusual that the Hebrews had rituals or veneration practices on this day, and surrounding cultures would have overlapping agreement. But the difference is that Sabbath aligns with creation/monotheistic claims over using it to highlight pagan 7-day claims, and is also used redemptively, pointing to Christ. It is deeply rich with meaning, but these point to and are fulfilled by Christ, who is the source and meaning of the sabbath day. Where the physical observance is a part of the old covenant that no longer needs to be repeated.

 

[fhansen]

Your argument hinges on interpreting all these references to mean the 10 where the texts never say this. Mat 19:17 we have a familiar account of someone asking Christ which commandments he should keep, Christ's answer seems to cover only the second half of the ten and adds an extra to love your neighbour as yourself. But the takeaway is not how justified the man was for keeping these, but that he still lacked. This exposes the 10 as lacking itself, not to mention it was only 5 commandments. Jesus uses these as a segue to expose the real problem, which addresses the heart.

No one is arguing that murdering, stealing, lying and adultery are wrong or that respecting your parents is a good idea. These are well-established morals that preexist the 10 itself and can be found in any culture. But the bigger question is not how profound these ideas are, but what follows in v20, "what do I still lack". The issue is not what the man kept, but what he was lacking that could not be answered by the 10 (or in this case, the 5)

We can conflate all these references and say "what they really mean is to keeping the 10" but this needs to be injected into the text, not to mention we are missing the point. The tablets are a seal of the covenant relationship first established in Ex 24 (the 10 were spoken in 20 and the tablets were received in 31). This is the covenant, and Hebrews 8:13 says it has been made obsolete.

Deut 5:2-3
The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today

The rest of Deu 5 is quoting the 10. The 10 had a unique relationship as a covenant relationship with Israel, "not with [their] ancestors." This shows us the 10 were never designed for outside the covenant relationship and explicitly for Israel. Coupled with Hebrews 8:13 it's hard to understand why our eyes are still fixed on the 10. It is Christ that we should be looking to and keeping "his commandments" which surpass the 10 in all ways as they address the root of the heart using a heuristic approach. Monotheistic values (commandments 1-3), we can say, are about loving the Lord with all our heart, yet "with all our heart" implicitly reaches further, so it's not just about no other gods, no idols and not taking his name in vain, but it goes beyond. These can all be mechanically observed and divorced of any heart action; Christ's law addresses the depths of our hearts that that's the point, not a list of rules. This is the same with loving your neighbour as yourself, it goes infinitely beyond the actions of the 10, no longer motivated with simply not harming our neighbour from a preset list but a charge to actively pursue love.

The 4th seems like the oddball one, but it really is a monotheistic claim, rescuing pagan 7th-day claims to point to the one creator. ANE (ancient near east) cultures already had a lot of these values in place. Hebrews had a strict 7-day week system, which was unique to them; other cultures used moon phases that may have aligned to a 7-day week but were reset with the lunar month (unlike the Hebrews, who decoupled the two systems). The decoupling is important because the weeks align with no observable phenomena (like moon phases), leading to pagan beliefs. But 7-day iterations already had established practices and values among surrounding cultures long before Israel was formed. It wasn't unique to them, and they inherited these values over being the first to introduce them. It wasn't unusual that the Hebrews had rituals or veneration practices on this day, and surrounding cultures would have overlapping agreement. But the difference is that Sabbath aligns with creation/monotheistic claims over using it to highlight pagan 7-day claims, and is also used redemptively, pointing to Christ. It is deeply rich with meaning, but these point to and are fulfilled by Christ, who is the source and meaning of the sabbath day. Where the physical observance is a part of the old covenant that no longer needs to be repeated.

I think you're over-complicating things a bit here. By listing an example of the ten, Jesus was implictly referencing the ten-as Paul was in Rom 7 and 13 even tho he, as well, only listed a number of them. Neither were suggesting that one need not place and worship God above all else, for example. And both understood and taught that love fulfills the law to begin with, naturally excluding the kinds of sins that the decalogue prohibits or fulfilling those injunctions that it specifies- even as love accomplishes much more than that.

So I don't quite understand. In your previous post you seemed to acknowledge that we're enjoined to take things a giant step further, no longer compelled by the law but compelled by love. In this, the "righteous requirement of the law" (Rom 8:4) is met in us, fulfilled, but the right way, the only right way. And this virtue, this love, is only attainable in the way God desires and justice demands by means of union with Him.

As to the young man in Matt 19, Jesus meant exactly what He said; the ten commandments must be obeyed (otherwise love would obviously be ignored, opposed, destroyed). The problem was that the young man, himself, would only be satisfied by seeing himself as already absolutely perfect, something all humans tend to desire to believe of ourselves at any one point in time. But Jesus is telling us all that perfection in this life involves giving up everything to follow Him, to follow God. And He's offering that as an option: "If you want to be perfect..." And that should be our goal: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48), even if that won't be attainable in an absolute sense in this life. The principle: the more we give up for the kingdom of God the nearer we are to Him, and nearness to God is what the gospel is all about. Union with God is our perfection, our wholeness, our purpose, our telos-and our uncompromised happiness, even, incidentally.

 

[DamianWarS]

As to the young man in Matt 19, Jesus meant exactly what He said; the ten commandments must be obeyed

except he doesn't say this. Paul doesn't say it either. there is an elephant in the room you're refusing to admit is there. Hebrews tells us the old covenant is obsolete, the 10 are the covenant document and seal of the old covenant so they are obsolete. so how can both Jesus and Paul point to a system under the 10 while at the same time it is made obsolete?

Understanding if murdering, lying and stealing are wrong are not the issue. Simply because they are repeated as values in the NT does not smuggle the entire covenant with it. I can agree that murding is wrong but not agree that Sabbath law is a requirement under Christian living. those two can be mutually exclusive.

the controversy is not if murdering, stealing, or lying are wrong nor is it if having other gods is wrong. the controversy is the 4th commandment and the argument you make is because the NT values x, y, and z it must value the entire 10 as a inseparate collection. this is unsubstantiated and is an example of illicit totality fallacy. we know it has been made obsolete so why try so hard to rework the 10 into any mention of law or overlapping value? instead of saying Christ says "exactly" to obey the 10 commandments why not actually read what he exactly says and stop pretending it says something else.

the fundamental issue is the value behind the Sabbath law requirement so no need to show me that the NT sees murdering is wrong to smuggle in the 4th commandment. the 4th is a ritual of rest, and it's ritual requirement has been fulfilled through Christ so we no longer need to keep repeating it over and over so that we may have rest. Sure we can get physical rest by observing Sabbath but the act of keeping sabbath is unable to give us spiritual rest. only Christ can do that, and we don't need to go through Sabbath law to get favorable access to Christ.

the 4th commandment shows us that entire households had to rest, including the animals. the things with animals is they have no authority to rest and they cannot take it for themselves. they must be given rest and not just by anyone, but by one with authority to give it. this is a powerful salvation metaphor showing us Sabbath rest is recieved not earned. It anticipates Christ as the one with that authority (he is Lord of the Sabbath) over a rest earned through keeping the law. we cannot take the rest ourselves by keeping a day, it is only Christ that gives it and we in turn should look to Christ (not a day)

 

[fhansen]

except he doesn't say this. Paul doesn't say it either. there is an elephant in the room you're refusing to admit is there. Hebrews tells us the old covenant is obsolete, the 10 are the covenant document and seal of the old covenant so they are obsolete. so how can both Jesus and Paul point to a system under the 10 while at the same time it is made obsolete?

Because they both understood that, while the law was incapable of actually producing holinesss in us, it was nonetheless holy, right, spiritual and good as per Rom 7, testifying to another righteousness that could actually accomplish what the law could not. So the OC was made obsolete only because the NC could actually produce the authentic obedience that the old could not. Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop, sheds some light here:
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

 

[DamianWarS]

Because they both understood that, while the law was incapable of actually producing holinesss in us, it was nonetheless holy, right, spiritual and good as per Rom 7, testifying to another righteousness that could actually accomplish what the law could not. So the OC was made obsolete only because the NC could actually produce the authentic obedience that the old could not. Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop, sheds some light here:
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

The NT distinguishes between moral content and covenantal form. Where it has overlapping morals, it is a different covenant that does not superimpose the covenantal documents of the OC into the NC (ie the 10 commandments). The secret sauce to the NC is Christ, and it is only through him that we can produce righteousness.

The ability to keep X or Y law by our own merit is still just as futile as it was in the OC but with Christ, we can accomplish it because he has accomplished it. But this does not superimpose the 10 commandments over the NC, which seems to be your argument's flaw.

we all know this hinges on the 4th commandment observance, which is ritual/ceremonial in nature, not whether we see murder or stealing as wrong. The requirement for the 4th is absent in the NC and counter-gospel according to the general premise of the NC that sees that Christ has brought to completion the ritual/ceremonial/symbolic aspects of the OC so that they are no longer required.

We both agree on how this applies to the sacrifice, to circumcision or to separating our threads/grain, so why isn't the 4th included as well? is it not a ceremony of rest that is a metaphor for salvation and points to Christ that we must repeat over and over? How is the sacrifice any different? How is circumcision any different?

The meaning of the Sabbath is found in Christ, and it should be valued through Christ. Similar aspects of the law are no longer valued in their OC form but in the NC form seen as completed through Christ. Sabbath law follows the same pattern of other ritual/ceremonial-based laws. It does not follow a moral pattern and so inherits the same NC form that is completed through Christ.

Moral aspects of the laws "ways to be good to each other" are expanded upon to better reflect an action of our heart over a mechanical action that can be exploited. Grouping the 4th with this expanded upon moral code of the heart doesn't make the sense, and in the end still has the same result as seeing them as ceremonial in that Sabbath is not kept on a day, but for every moment through Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Claiming what God Himself said is doing justice and righteousness Isa56:1-2 which is the foundation of His throne Psa89:14 is not moral I believe is taking the liberties that only God has. Only God can bless and only God can sanctify both of these God connected with the seventh day Sabbath. Gen2:3 Exo20:11 Isa56:2 Eze20:12

Our Heavenly Father said Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God Exo20:8-11, it is the holy day of the Lord Isa58:13 God is love and we are made in His image to love. If our earthy father asked us to remember something that is important to him, would we show love by forgetting and doing what we want instead or modifying it to make it more convenient for us. Would our spouse appreciate it if we celebrated their birthday on a different day because we made other plans, is this love? I believe those who separate this one comamndment, when God did not Deut4:13 Exo34:28 Exo20:6, are missing the whole point of what God is asking of us if we love Him Exo20:6 John14:15. Forgetting something that God said to Remember that He made holy, sanctified and blessed, I think shows bigger implications of the issue, the heart. Eze20:16 1John2:3-4

 

[DamianWarS]

Because they both understood that, while the law was incapable of actually producing holinesss in us, it was nonetheless holy, right, spiritual and good as per Rom 7, testifying to another righteousness that could actually accomplish what the law could not. So the OC was made obsolete only because the NC could actually produce the authentic obedience that the old could not. Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop, sheds some light here:
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

the OC points to Christ and everything the OC was, Christ is better; therefore looking to Christ over the precepts of the law is a better way. People seem to think this is too abstract and we need a more concrete list to follow, this is what the holy spirit is for. but the NT is full of examples of Christian living, all aligned to Christ's law, and even explicitly saying to love your neighbour as yourself. This is the line the NT authors quote but it is a quote from Christ and includes first to love God with all your heart then love each other as yourself. Where this easily aligns with most of the 10, the 4th commandment is not a natural product and this seems to trouble people.

This forces us to critically look at the 4th commandment. After doing so, we must admit it is ritually based and there is no NT commandment to keep it. There is also no biblical teaching that bifurcates law, the 10 are a part of a greater covenant, and if we bring in 1 (or 10) we bring in them all because they are not meant as a single unit. When we attempt to separate the 10 from the rest of law, we do so without biblical support. what is all of them? well start reading Exodus 20 (when the 10 are first introduced) and keep going to Exodus 24 (where the blood covenant is made). that very clearly shows the covenant is greater than the 10 alone and that the 10 do not stand apart.

I have no issue with keeping the day, I myself defacto keep the day out of tradition and habit, but I do not see it as a NT commandment and gatherings in the NT has a different focus. There is no commandment to rest in the NT outside of seeking spiritual rest from Christ. Gatherings also do not have a focus of rest and are aligned to community and teaching/preaching. Simply saying "its the God's law" has no logic as it's all his law, not just the 10. Mat 5:17 the context is establishes "the law and the prophet" Jesus is not trying to isolate the 10. what he says he says regarding all the law.

There are also explicit verses to speak against forcing the practice of keeping days. You may interpret these differently, but it builds an expectation for specific teaching regarding the keeping sabbath if it were to be valued in the same way as the old and that teaching is missing. Based on how the NT presents it, there is no reason why we should look at the 4th commandment as a requirement of the faith.

 

[fhansen]

The ability to keep X or Y law by our own merit is still just as futile as it was in the OC but with Christ, we can accomplish it because he has accomplished it. But this does not superimpose the 10 commandments over the NC, which seems to be your argument's flaw.

It depends on what you mean here. No one's been speaking of doing it by one's own merit. Christ is our righteousness, both our model-showing that it can be done- and our empowerer, enabling us, by grace, to do it as well. To the extent that we're near to and fellowshipping with God, we will begin to act like Him, or as He would if he were human (Jesus), or as He desires us to be and to act in any case. To the extent that we sin, especially in particularly grevious manner, then we've already abandoned Him and the love that is intrinsic to that relationship, that union. The righteousness that comes with justification, IOW, is not merely imputed or declared, but given. And if we're honest with ourselves we know that we can still fail to live by it, by the Spirit. The gift:

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22

"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

“But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:20-21

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:18-22

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

“Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.” Rom 8:12-14

This forces us to critically look at the 4th commandment. After doing so, we must admit it is ritually based and there is no NT commandment to keep it. There is also no biblical teaching that bifurcates law, the 10 are a part of a greater covenant, and if we bring in 1 (or 10) we bring in them all because they are not meant as a single unit. When we attempt to separate the 10 from the rest of law, we do so without biblical support. what is all of them? well start reading Exodus 20 (when the 10 are first introduced) and keep going to Exodus 24 (where the blood covenant is made). that very clearly shows the covenant is greater than the 10 alone and that the 10 do not stand apart.

I have no issue with keeping the day, I myself defacto keep the day out of tradition and habit, but I do not see it as a NT commandment and gatherings in the NT has a different focus. There is no commandment to rest in the NT outside of seeking spiritual rest from Christ. Gatherings also do not have a focus of rest and are aligned to community and teaching/preaching. Simply saying "its the God's law" has no logic as it's all his law, not just the 10. Mat 5:17 the context is establishes "the law and the prophet" Jesus is not trying to isolate the 10. what he says he says regarding all the law.

There are also explicit verses to speak against forcing the practice of keeping days. You may interpret these differently, but it builds an expectation for specific teaching regarding the keeping sabbath if it were to be valued in the same way as the old and that teaching is missing. Based on how the NT presents it, there is no reason why we should look at the 4th commandment as a requirement of the faith.

There was a new-found freedom from the law, for sure, But from the beginning the churches carried the 10 commandments down through time with them as a requirement, even if only to spell out and emphasize the way a truly reborn Spirit-empowered person should behave. The law in that sense has no power or purpose for one who is truly Spirit-led. But it still serves as a tutor, showing that we're not being led by the Spirit to the extent that we're engaging in serious sin; as we've strayed. As to the 4th commandment, the early church in both the east and west obviously felt free to observe a new day as set aside for rest and worship of God. This is a practice that they would not have changed on their own, however, but which could only have been received.

"On the first day of the week we came together to break bread." Acts 20:7

Some teachings I'm familiar with:

"We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead." St Justin Martyr, c 150 AD

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death." St. Ignatius of Antioch c 100 AD

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

 

[DamianWarS]

It depends on what you mean here. No one's been speaking of doing it by one's own merit. Christ is our righteousness, both our model-showing that it can be done- and our empowerer, enabling us, by grace, to do it as well. To the extent that we're near to and fellowshipping with God, we will begin to act like Him, or as He would if he were human (Jesus), or as He desires us to be and to act in any case. To the extent that we sin, especially in particularly grevious manner, then we've already abandoned Him and the love that is intrinsic to that relationship, that union. The righteousness that comes with justification, IOW, is not merely imputed or declared, but given. And if we're honest with ourselves we know that we can still fail to live by it, by the Spirit. The gift:

Christ is a model but this needs to be qualified as to how far that model extends. I suspect what you mean is Christ is a model so far as it pertains to the things you value in your faith. For example, Christ was circumcised physically; therefore, as a model, should we not be circumcised physically? Christ died for our sins; therefore as a model, should we too die for the sins of others? Christ radically challenged the de facto interpretation of the law of the day, so as a model, should we not radically challenge the de facto interpretation of the law too? How far does this modelship go? Simply calling Christ a model is not a mic drop as it's a loaded statement and used only to prop up whatever it is you're trying to prop up.

As it pretains to Sabbath law, Christ shows us as a model of Sabbath that it is better to do good (Mat 12:12). So rather than plan to have a ritual rest on the Sabbath day, it is better to plan to do good (even if that involves work) but no one whats to admit that logic and would rather keep their sabbath day as the 4th has instructed them to, rather than actively seek goodness as Christ has modeled.

There was a new-found freedom from the law, for sure, But from the beginning the churches carried the 10 commandments down through time with them as a requirement, even if only to spell out and emphasize the way a truly reborn Spirit-empowered person should behave. The law in that sense has no power or purpose for one who is truly Spirit-led. But it still serves as a tutor, showing that we're not being led by the Spirit to the extent that we're engaging in serious sin; as we've strayed. As to the 4th commandment, the early church in both the east and west obviously felt free to observe a new day as set aside for rest and worship of God. This is a practice that they would not have changed on their own, however, but which could only have been received.

Paul uses this same example, calling the law a tutor. But he doesn't bifurcate law (such as things is foreign in scripture). Gal 3:24-25 says "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." The law can certainly show us moral action, but it should not function as our guide to a moral foundation and if it does we will end up missing the point. I may not kill, not steal or not lie to my neighbour, all law-keeping things, but I also may actively hate him and have a motivation towards him that is incompatible with Christian living, all while saying the law is my tutor so I am justified. You may say the law is your tutor, but in practice, the law is not informing you of your moral action (since the product of the 10 is too superficial) but something much deeper is.

I suspect the thing that keeps you fixated on the law is the 4th commandment so you have to maintain this false dichotomy of law to prop up the 10 and smuggle them into the NC. Resisting harming my neighbour is not actually that hard to do (I can just ignore him and I can easily accomplish that) and this is all that the 10 require of us. Actively seeking my neighbour and loving him as myself is a lot harder to do and goes beyond the 10. So are we really informed by the 10 or is it something else? I do hope (for your neighbour's sake) it is something else. So what informs you of the Sabbath? well if you keep the sabbath day, then certainly you're trying to align with the law (in a modern contextual way no doupt since sabbath-keeping today would require a off-the-grid action) but if the rest of law is not informing your of your actions (you understand it's not just about not killing people) then why is it the 4th has this crucial role? Does the not 4th/Sabbath point to Christ? Is not Christ the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning he has authority over it? The 10 communicates these values in Christ but in ignorance and unrevealed. Why would you hold on to those value? I do not seek simply to not cause harm to my neighbour, or not have idols in my house. But I actively seek a relationship with God and my loving my neigbour, all of which the 10 does not tell me to do.

 

[fhansen]

Christ is a model but this needs to be qualified as to how far that model extends. I suspect what you mean is Christ is a model so far as it pertains to the things you value in your faith. For example, Christ was circumcised physically; therefore, as a model, should we not be circumcised physically? Christ died for our sins; therefore as a model, should we too die for the sins of others? Christ radically challenged the de facto interpretation of the law of the day, so as a model, should we not radically challenge the de facto interpretation of the law too? How far does this modelship go? Simply calling Christ a model is not a mic drop as it's a loaded statement and used only to prop up whatever it is you're trying to prop up.

You're still over-complicating the matter. Christ shows us that obedience is possible, that man was never created to sin and that there's a way, one Way, to overcome the sin that otherwise earns us death.

As it pretains to Sabbath law, Christ shows us as a model of Sabbath that it is better to do good (Mat 12:12). So rather than plan to have a ritual rest on the Sabbath day, it is better to plan to do good (even if that involves work) but no one whats to admit that logic and would rather keep their sabbath day as the 4th has instructed them to, rather than actively seek goodness as Christ has modeled.

Ye, it's good to do good on the Sabbath. And so?? One of those goods, for our own benefit as the Sabbath was made for man, is to regulary take that time dedicated to the devotion and partaking of God.

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." The law can certainly show us moral action, but it should not function as our guide to a moral foundation and if it does we will end up missing the point.

And how faithful are we being, or what good would our faith be, if we were persistently and unrepentantly engaged in breaking the commandments? Here's a great quote that happens to be from a former pope:

"This faith, however, is not a thought, an opinion, an idea. This faith is communion with Christ, which the Lord gives to us, and thus becomes life, becomes conformity with him. Or to use different words faith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is expressed in charity. A faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith. It would be a dead faith."

I may not kill, not steal or not lie to my neighbour, all law-keeping things, but I also may actively hate him and have a motivation towards him that is incompatible with Christian living, all while saying the law is my tutor so I am justified.

??? The law as a tutor only points to our lack of justice, our lack of love, IOW, in such cases!

I suspect the thing that keeps you fixated on the law is the 4th commandment so you have to maintain this false dichotomy of law to prop up the 10 and smuggle them into the NC.

There's no smuggling them in to the NC. They simply stand as truth regarding certain basic matters of justice, even though they cannot accomplish that justice/righteousness in us by merely observing them. Again, they're innocuous for one who would be "perfected in love", but we prove that we still benefit from their tutorship to the extent the we sin, wherever we fail to love, IOW. They help convict us that our hearts and minds are not in the right place.

Is not Christ the Lord of the Sabbath, meaning he has authority over it? The 10 communicates these values in Christ but in ignorance and unrevealed. Why would you hold on to those value?

What does that even mean? If we were actively breaking the commandments we only prove that we don't even know Christ, let alone love Him and neighbor.

 

[DamianWarS]

What does that even mean? If we were actively breaking the commandments we only prove that we don't even know Christ, let alone love Him and neighbor.

you're conflating not to mention bifurcating law. in ex 20 the 10 are introduced. Ex 24 there is a blood covenant (all before the tablets) In between those chapters is a whole pile of laws and commandments not of Moses but of God and this is the covenant that was formed to which the 10 are an inseparable part. the covenant is not just regarding the 10, it's the whole thing. so when you say "actively breaking" what you are really are saying is there are some we can actively break and others we can't but the distinction is biblically indefensible and we need to relay on post biblical tampering to understand what laws of the old covenant are not obsolete and what laws are obsolete.

the 4th is not a moral claim. by letter the instruction is regarding ritual rest. your remarks about the 4th are not about rest they are about devotion to God and I suspect you mean something other than physical rest. the 4th is also unambiguously on the 7th day, I'm not sure what day you keep but if your tradition can speak for you it's not the 7th day. the 4th is also as much about not working for yourself as it is not causing others to work. this would demand us to go off the grid during the Sabbath which is something I doubt anyone actually does. there's a manpowered system at the end of all these services we use daily. if they are non-essential then our participation in them violates the 4th. I don't know what you keep or not keep but I suspect it's not the 4th according to the 4th, and it's some traditional/modern contextual variant of it.

the 4th points to Christ and he fulfills it in the same way he fulfills other ritual/ceremonial/symbolic components of the law like the sacrafice or circumsion (all commandments of law). I don't break the 4th in the same way I don't break the everlasting covenant of circumcision made with Abraham or in the same way I don't break sacrafical laws or other ceremonial aspects of the law. why does the 4th not come under the same scrutiny?