Indeed.
Here is Paul writing in Rom 7 long AFTER the time of Christ
Rom 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary,
I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin
is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Paul says that even in his lost condition (old covenant) he would not know of sin unless the Law had outlined it for him
1 John 3:4 "SIN IS transgression of the Law"
Where "the first commandment with a promise" is still to this very day "honor your father and mother"
Eph 6:1-2 according to Paul in the NT
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God"
Rev 14:12 "the saints keep the commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Rom 3:31 "
do we make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we establish the law"
The NEW Covenant of
Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8 "writes the LAW on the heart"
This relies too much on conflation and over generalizing.
Paul establishes the role of law, which exposes our sin. Let's push it to the extreme. Does Paul mean "only because the 10 say do not murder he knows murdering is wrong?" No, Paul does not mean that we are clueless of morality without the law (or how you would frame it without the 10). the 10 are morally thin and have a lot of gaps. they cover covenant legal code thresholds, but do not mean everything north of do not murder, steal, lie, etc.. is good and everything south of it is evil. Jesus goes further lengths, showing murder starts at our heart with hatred. So Paul's comments are not there to show the anchor of morality itself; that anchor should be seen as rooted in God not in the 10. Are the 10 and God aligned? of course, but Jesus very clearly shows it's limits in Mat 5. The alignment is for the guidance of Israel under the old covenant through the exodus, their high periods of Kings and as well as exile periods up until Christ. That role of moral guidance is overshadowed by the HS in the new and the old is made obsolete. That doesn't mean murdering is not now free to do, it means we have better way guiding us on our morality.
Johannine texts (including Revelation) the 10 are not established as the referent of law/commandments as it seems you are artificially doing. Rather, John builds a new commandment framework under Christ. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another..." This is core of Johannine teaching but instead you use his words to point to something he never says.
in Eph 6:1-2 Paul is not re-installing the 10 as our legal code. He does not say "Keep the 10" or "the 10 are still binding" this is the conclusion you're jumping to that the text never says. Paul very clearly says we are not under the law, so how is it he can both say we are not under the law but are under the 10? You're conclusions are that the 10 are separate law, which scripture never says, rather than try and fragment law Paul treats it as morally true but also reframed under Christ. He starts off with "Children, obey your parents in the Lord". This is not a quote; this is a commandment under Christ. So as Christ reframes murder and adultery in Mat 5 Paul too shows a reframing of the 5th. This fits with with NT writing emphasizing love as a fufilling the law.
1 Cor 7:19 can be paired with Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:5. studying those as a triad shows the referent of 1 Cor is not the 10 commandments but a faith under Christ as Gal reveals. These verses all point to the same thing, and one thing it reveals it does not point to the 10. This is letting Paul interpret Paul, not hijacking his words to smuggle in the 10. and using Gal 5:6/6:15 as a more unpacked revelation it is fully consistent with this new covenant law through love over the old, which focuses on law through physical posturing
We do not delete law, or usurp it. But law is undenably reshaped in the new, Jesus himself says he comes to fulfill law and we see clear examples of what fulfilled law looks like in sacrafice and circumsion. It's not that we toss away the sacrafice or circumsion, it's that they are reframed in the new, and our focus is on the Christ over the physical posturing. It's more subtle but laws like do not murder, do not commit adultary are also reshaped. the old frames the laws as a moral threshold where the new frames it at it's source and direct from heart. Both represent the same moral concept, but the old has a lower resolution. The morality of it is not "do not murder" that's a threshold limit. But what about all the moments that lead up to the act? these are moral failures too that the 10 do not address and Christ does. The legal code however doesn't have the same requirements as the new, they are still valued just reshaped and this is an undisputed fact that we both accept, I apply it universally to the old covenant, where you apply it selectively.
Are you relying on creative writing for your source?
they argue for an edited Sabbath commandment that now points to week day 1. So it continues to be fully in force in their POV.
Your argument above is the same one that says that if we do not agree with the Catholic church on purgatory then we cannot agree with them that the trinity is "one God in three persons", which you and I would both say is a failed argument
it's your souce, and each one sees a reframed sabbath valued on Sunday. Sure we don't agree with the Catholic traditional on all points but there is reason for that you can trace back to the reformation. "Sola scriptura" would be a product of the reformation that is why we don't value purgatory but value the trinity both are "post biblical labels" but the trinity can still be supported biblically. Sola scriptura challenges the Catholic sacred tradition. So when we make comments like the 10 are separate to the covenant they are form in or call them moral law these are not "sola scriptura" defensible and more rooted in post-biblical traditions. A reframed sabbath was values in the early church, and only recently has there be a small faction that challenges this saying it needs to be based on the legal code and cannot be reframed then tries to present the 10 as universal (which cannot be defended in sola scriptura)
fact: the early church did not have full alignment to the legal code of the 10, but framed the sabbath requirement to a different day. Sabbath is the key point here because 5-10 are moral integration 1-3 monothestic integration (all of which are thresholds limits), but sabbath is ritual intergration with broad monothesitic claims (rooted back in monothesitic creation acount) that also have a unique christological meaning the others do no share.
critically addressing sola scriptura with the 10 we know the old is made obsolete, we know the new does not have full aligment to the lgeal code but reframes with new requirements, some that at face value do not keep the old and we know there is no sabbath law requirement explict in the the new but rather Christ tells us how goodness itself is superior to the legal code of sabbath law (Mat 12:12). And we know "commandments of God" has a new framework that we can't just superimpose the 10 or whatever system of the old over top of. all of this demands we approach the entirty of the law differently (including the 10) and in new revelation which is fully consistent with NT writings and Jesus's teaching.
Gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath blessing
Is 56:27
Acts 13 gentiles in synagogue on Sabbath, wait for Jews to leave after hearing the gospel, then ask Paul to schedule more Gospel preaching the "Next Sabbath" (instead of "tomorrow)
the blessing of the Sabbath has a christological focus not uniquely physical. it is not merely physical rest that is the benfiit because very clearly we can take any day and receive the same benifit with physical rest (and do it all the time). the uniquness to the sabbath is the claim of holiness that is brought about from a completed work. This is foundational and what the creation account reveals and what the legal code leans on. the 7th day is not random, it comes out of a completed work, without the completed work there is no 7th day. Rest too is not something we can seize which is the core of the framework of the law, instead it is something granted by authority even to the weakest amoung us (animals rest, not because they take it, because it is given to them). Sabbth in this sense is a sense of liberation, which Christ affirms saying "if an ox may be loosed on the Sabbath, how much more a daughter of Abraham?" (Luke 13). The core meaning of sabbath never changes, but Christ reframes the Sabbath to reveal this core better what has an effect on the requirments and it is not actually about physical ceasing, it is a freedom granted by one with authoirty who has completed the work. the sacrafice and circumsion all are about holiness too, the sabbath is part of the same core framework which is brought to complition thorugh Christ, so it's not that we throw out the sacrafice or throw out circumsion but they are forever realised through Christ over their physical counterparts that required constant ritual. in this sabbath hits squarely on the same values.
Lev 23 Sabbath is "a day for holy convocation"
do much so that even gentiles in Acts 13 after hearing the gospel on Sabbath, ask for "more" gospel preaching to be scheduled for them on the "next Sabbath", not "tomorrow"
The 4th commandment addresses the legal code as a moral threshold. Do not muder does not mean we should not be free to love our neighbour as our self as well which is unpacked further in Leviticus 19:18, the two in fact compliment each other. The 10 shows us the line we should not cross where gathering on the 4th can still be seen as complimentary value of the 4th but it's not unique to the 4th. "holy convocation" was intended for all ritual holidays along with ceasing work and can be as can be plainly seen in the instructions laid out in the rest of Lev 23 for the other festivals. It is not a uninque aspect of the 4th, it is a unique aspect ritual days. Col 2:16 especially fits Lev 23 very well, saying "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day". Just read Lev 23 for yourself. Col 2:16 dovetails into Lev 23, addressing it's entire context. This is contrasted with approaches that reject Col 2:16 as a comment on sabbath law, saying it's just for festivals or the reverse only using it to comment on the Sabbath. Col 2:16 very neatly comments on Lev 23 entire context and this includes the "holy convocation" on the Sabbath.
we can worship God 7 days a week but that is not a sanctified day set apart and allowing no secular work else no one would have a job.
The legal code is there to remember this day and keep it holy. yet we have no power to keep it holy, and no amount of ceasing will grant us the power to keep it holy. holiness can only be given, which aligns with the goals redemptive goals of the Sabbath. It is not a day that is made holy, but rather a completed work in us, (light is spoken into our darkness) where we are called holy. And so we are keeping ourselves holy and this can only be done through Christ and must be given continual attention. Even if only a day, it still must be done through Christ and cannot be accomplished by our own power because we cannot keep things holy. Christ never gives us legal-code instruction for keeping the Sabbath, rather he points to goodness as a superior goal, which in line with the entier NT teaching of the law of love/Christ.
all say the Sabbath begins for all mankind in Eden.
all argue that the Sabbath commandment was edited by man made tradition some time after the cross.
I agree with both statements I just don't think there is Bible support for doing the second.
"edited by man made tradition" is not the focus and I'm not claiming the Sabbath has turned into Sunday. But rather it is reframed in the new and no longer bound by the legal code of the old as we see the case with all rituals of the old covenant. So the important take away is not follow whatever traditions man comes up with, but rather how Christ has reframed the old into the new. copy and pasting the 10 commandments "as-is" does allow room for Christ and which just like we should be questioning man-man traditions like Sunday worship, we also must question our motivation for superimposing the old "as-is' into the new, which is a counter-mechanism of the new.
and "fulfill" does not mean "delete"
As Jesus shows in triplicate in Matt 5.
Jesus' does not point to a single example of "delete" or "end" in Matt 5 so then no animal sacrifice laws are mentioned by Jesus in Matt 5
He does not say that "do not murder" is ended rather he says that its meaning has always been broad and deep.
NOR does He say "someday the law against Murder will also include not hating"
we have clear cases of what fulfilled looks like with the sacrifice and with circumcision. They are fulfilled but are still values in the new (they are not deleted) The result is we are not bound by the legal code but instead Christ shows us a better way (himself). Moral things are still moral, you can't change what is moral or what is not moral, but they still are reframed in the new to better isolate the core. To say "He does not say that "do not murder" is ended" quite frankly is a strawman, you know it is, we all know it is, so stop using this like it's a mic drop. "do not murder" is moral action, where the 4th is of ritual action. They are not the same so are going to show up differently, but they both change; it's not long a moral threshold or breaking points, it focus is on the core actions of the heart. That's a change in perspective over the 10 and the new goes deeper.
To fulfills moral law, such as Love your neighbor as yourself, is to perfectly comply with it.
Moral law does not get deleted as soon as someone complies.
obviously
fulfillment of moral things is a continual practice. We can't have someone come and demonstrate perfect love so that we no longer have to love. no one is claming that. So fulfillment of moral aspect must touch on deeper levels and be more focused on the root which is exactly how the NT frames it. Morality doesn't stop but it's no longer a legal code of "do not cross line" but rather an active part of moment to moment living. The sabbath is not of moral action, sure we can call the 10 "Moral Law" but again back to sola scriptura, this is a post-biblical label and does not actually change what the 10 are. The 4th remains a ritual action over strictly a moral action, rebranding it as moral law does not change it's moral substance, and it's core is unchanged. This isn't to separate the law in cereomonial, civil, etc... that approach can loose focus but the fulfillment of ritual actions get reframed under Christ in the new as this is with circumsion and the sacrafice. This is through heuristics and cognitive inference by allowing scripture to guide us how it treats like examples as confirmation but verses like Col 2:16 give us an objective scriptural basis. Opposed to ideas that cannot be supported biblically, like the 10's legal code is copied "as-is" in the new, we are under the Sabbath law, or although Christ fulfilled certain laws so that their requirment had change the 10 are not affected by this. This idea of separating the 10 from the law is not biblically supported and is treating it to a level that scripture cannot support, mass generalization, conflating, based on post-biblical traditions and non-critical study. I cannot respect the position like I can't respect purgatory because it cannot be responsibly found in scripture.
