Christianity, the Sabbath, Ten Comm, from Eden onward

SabbathBlessings said:

You accused me of something and I gave you an opportunity to show where I was wrong, that you didn't dismiss Psa 119:105 as being the old covenant so therefore we do not have to follow. You can't even answer the question without deflection, which tells me everything. And the commandments of God is God's Word according to Jesus in the NC Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13

This is in God's hands, He will be our Judge.

Click to expand...

OK. having thought about it, I wrote hurriedly. I would never consider Psalms old covenant unless it related to the law being followed rather than the Spirit, I actually love psalms:
I trust in God's unfailing love forever and ever. And what I meant was, if Psalms was being followed in a verse to support following after the TC, that would be old covenant
However rushing what I wrote, meant I wrote incorrectly, so I apologise to you for that.
However, I will contrast my apology, with you accusing me on another website of misrepresenting scripture, relating to a verse I quoted. It turned out that I confirmed to you the verse meant exactly what you believed. However, I received no apology from you, for bearing false witness against me. If needed, I could bring your statements and my verse to this thread.
So once again I apologise to you, but as you refused to apologise to me, which of us in truth cares more about what is written in the TC?

Studyman said:

What is the Law that you were delivered from? "Thou shall not commit adultery? Thou shall not steal? Did Jesus clear away these Laws of God so men could satisfy the lusts of their flesh, and still be accepted by God? Or are we delivered from the Law, by the Grace of God, "The soul that transgresses God's Commandments shall die"?


This is easy, by the "Letter" of the Law, we are dead in our sins and trespasses, at least according to the Holy Scriptures. It wasn't the Law, "Thou shall not hate thy brother in thy heart" that killed anyone, or caused the death of anyone. It was the Law, "The soul that sins shall die".

Jesus waived that penalty. Now we are free from the Yoke of the Bondage of the Law of Sin, to become renewed in the spirit of our mind, and put on a New man, not like the old man who didn't love God and didn't honor and respect Him with obedience, but as Paul teaches, "that "ye put on" the new man, which after God is created "in righteousness and true holiness". A man like Jesus, as it is also written: "He that "saith" he abideth in him ought himself "also so to walk", even as "he walked".

Click to expand...

turning this into no longer seeing adultery or stealing, etc.. as sinful is a strawman and misunderstands the limits of the 10 commandments. The 10 show us thresholds for moral failure. "Do not murder" means if I murder, I cross that threshold and am removed from a covenant relationship (legally speaking), but it doesn't mean so long as I don't murder, then I am not sinful. This is a problem of the 10 that it can become too mechanical or checkbox driven without actively checking the heart or the root of sin. When the 10 no longer serve as the legal threshold, then we no longer get trapped in this kind of thinking. Being released from this does not mean lawlessness; it views sin happening at a much deeper level than egregious threshold limits

Paul presents an example of a widow who remarries. The widow is released from the former covenant marriage and enters a new covenant marriage. In Paul's example, the widow does not have a loose or lawless moral base because of the former being no more and entering into the new. In like maner Paul is not suggesting we are now lawless but that the legal code of the old is no longer our measure, and if you call that lawless it is akin to calling the widow an adulterer which Paul out of the gate addresses (not to mention is a strawman). We know v6 is not talking about the law of sin because in v7 he immediately says it is not of sin and in v12 he speaks of this law as holy and good. So we know this law, is not the law addressed in v23 called the law of sin, which is directly associated with sin. These are different laws. We also know this is not just about freedom of the penalty of law because the point of change is not the penalty of law, but the way of law. "we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" "serve" and "way" are key words to describe othropraxy of the law. Our orthopraxy is not of the old way of the letter, but of the new way of the Spirit. We see this language come up again in v25 saying "I myself serve the law of God with my mind..." although a different point Paul use common language to establish the serving as the action towards the law. and in v6 it is in a new way (new orthopraxy) of the Spirit. This doesn't mean we are lawless, which is the broken record strawman that I keep hearing, it means we are under a new marriage covenant.

The word used in v6 for release/deliver is a unique word only used in this verse in the entire NT. The root word (katargeó) is about making something obsolete or bringing something to an end (there are several words it can be translated into). in the text, it is not the law that is spoken of as "released" but instead us. especially "we have been made released/brought to an end" in relation to the law. it's framed in the passive voice so it's not Paul or us doing the releasing; it is God, and it is a condition upon ourselves in reference to the way we serve God. This perfectly aligns to the example given about marriage, where death brings us to the end of the marriage covenant. v6 says "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive," so we are the ones who have died, and this death has brought upon us an end to this "old way of the letter" and brought forth a new way in the Spirit. This is addressing new orthopraxy, not redefining sin.

SabbathBlessings said:

Paul is releasing us from the only law that God made holy and righteous and is good?

Click to expand...

Paul is not doing the releasing. The word is a unique word that doesn't occur anywhere else in the NT. It is in the passive voice, which is important. lit. it says "we have been made to a brought-to-an-end state" in relation to the "old way of the letter"; this does not say "Paul releases us...." or "You release yourself..." we are recipients of the action (Paul includes himself in saying this); it is something that is caused by an action upon us, where death is the trigger as it says in v6 "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive..." and this aligns with the example given about a widow who remarries. death absolves her of the former marriage covenant, but she is not lawless, instead enters a new covenant. just as the window no longer looks to her old marriage covenant to serve the new, so too we do not look to the old letter to serve the new Spirit. sin doesn't get redefined, but how we serve does. the text says explicitly we serve in a new way of the Spirit (not in the old way of the letter)

DamianWarS said:

Paul is not doing the releasing. The word is a unique word that doesn't occur anywhere else in the NT. It is in the passive voice, which is important. lit. it says "we have been made to a brought-to-an-end state" in relation to the "old way of the letter"; this does not say "Paul releases us...." or "You release yourself..." we are recipients of the action (Paul includes himself in saying this); it is something that is caused by an action upon us, where death is the trigger as it says in v6 "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive..." and this aligns with the example given about a widow who remarries. death absolves her of the former marriage covenant, but she is not lawless, instead enters a new covenant. just as the window no longer looks to her old marriage covenant to serve the new, so too we do not look to the old letter to serve the new Spirit. sin doesn't get redefined, but how we serve does. the text says explicitly we serve in a new way of the Spirit (not in the old way of the letter)

Click to expand...

We are released from the captivity of sin, when we serve the Spirit, not released from the law that is sin when we break that keeps us in captivity that leads to death Rom6:16 Rom6:23, that Paul himself says when we don’t subject ourselves to, is serving the flesh, not the Spirit and one will not inherit God’s Kingdom.

I guess we shall see, but this is not a passage I would want to get wrong. If you can’t duplicate plainly this teaching from Jesus where He taught not to break the least of these commandments, but instead now we are free to murder or vain My holy name.

DamianWarS said:

turning this into no longer seeing adultery or stealing, etc.. as sinful is a strawman and misunderstands the limits of the 10 commandments. The 10 show us thresholds for moral failure. "Do not murder" means if I murder, I cross that threshold and am removed from a covenant relationship (legally speaking), but it doesn't mean so long as I don't murder, then I am not sinful. This is a problem of the 10 that it can become too mechanical or checkbox driven without actively checking the heart or the root of sin. When the 10 no longer serve as the legal threshold, then we no longer get trapped in this kind of thinking. Being released from this does not mean lawlessness; it views sin happening at a much deeper level than egregious threshold limits

Click to expand...

For what this is worth, when we say things like “this is the problem with the Ten Commandments” you do know that God, our Creator Exo20:11 wrote them personally. Exo 31:18, its the work of God Exo32:16. It’s the only law that atoned for sins what is under His mercy seat Exo25:21 Exo31:18 Deut 4:13 the Ten Commandments. They are very broad Psa 119:96 - for example- do not have any gods before Me, with this one commandment- if we were keeping this one commandment in its fullness there would be no law broken period just by this one commandment- anything we place above God is breaking this one commandment, we can’t break the other 9 without breaking this one commandment, why they are all interconnected breaking one commandment we break them all. Jesus taught plainly how broad the commandments are by relating thoughts of anger with the commandment to thou shalt not murder, thoughts of lust with the commandment to not commit adultery Mat5:19-30 by a changed heart from Christ, none of God’s perfect laws written by our perfect Savior would be broken. In the OT, people who treated the ark of God that held the Ten Commandments would die by not showing it respect. God by just His word spoke and it was so Psa33:9 , to say there is a problem with the law of God that God both spoke and wrote, that He made a mistake a problem, that man has to fix, what is under His mercy seat that atones for our sins. There is no law that could be broken that doesn’t fall under the Ten Commandments. If everyone was keeping them the way Jesus taught the world would be in perfect harmony with God and would only be worshipping the One True God- how much sin would this put away. People instead of looking at ourselves to conform to the perfect will of God, try to find fault with His commandments which is essentially trying to find fault with God Rom8:7-8 as if He doesn’t know what He is doing and we must correct Him. This is the mindset that caused Lucifer to fall and kicked out our first parents from the garden, doubting what God said and relying on self. Man can’t make anything holy, only God can and saying there is a problem with something God made holy, just and good Rom7:12 just seems like a bad idea in my eyes.

SabbathBlessings said:

We are released from the captivity of sin, when we serve the Spirit, not released from the law that is sin

Click to expand...

v6 doesn't say that. I'll even quote the KJV

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

which law is this? Once thing we can be sure of it is not of sin because Paul directly shuts this down in v7

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay..."

so this law, identified with the "oldness of the letter" that we are released from cannot be of sin. in v12 it is described this way "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." this is not "of sin".

at the end Paul speaks of an opposing law that he calls the law of sin. But this law contrasts the law in v6 and is not the same thing. We know the law in v6 is called "Holy, just and good" we also know it is directly referenced as not sin itself, but rather it role is to expose sin. So this cannot be the same law described in 23 as the "law of sin". in v23 he even names it as "but I see another law..." it's not confusing in the text, Paul clearly separates these two. v6 law that we are released from, is not the same as v23, which is another law identified as the law of sin. 7:1 even opens up saying that the law is only binding as long as you live, then Paul begins to unpack this to show we are released from law "having died to that which held us captive," thus the death has triggered a decoupling of the law's legal code.

DamianWarS said:

v6 doesn't say that. I'll even quote the KJV

But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

which law is this? Once thing we can be sure of it is not of sin because Paul directly shuts this down in v7

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay..."

so this law, identified with the "oldness of the letter" that we are released from cannot be of sin. in v12 it is described this way "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." this is not "of sin".

at the end Paul speaks of an opposing law that he calls the law of sin. But this law contrasts the law in v6 and is not the same thing. We know the law in v6 is called "Holy, just and good" we also know it is directly referenced as not sin itself, but rather it role is to expose sin. So this cannot be the same law described in 23 as the "law of sin". in v23 he even names it as "but I see another law..." it's not confusing in the text, Paul clearly separates these two. v6 law that we are released from, is not the same as v23, which is another law identified as the law of sin. 7:1 even opens up saying that the law is only binding as long as you live, then Paul begins to unpack this to show we are released from law "having died to that which held us captive," thus the death has triggered a decoupling of the law's legal code.

Click to expand...

We have to reconcile with other teaching as he is hard to understand.

What Paul is not releasing us from:

God’s commandments
Obedience to God
The definition of sin
What God made holy

Is the law sin? Certainly not! Rom 7:7
The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Rom 7:12

This would contradict Paul in all his other teachings and more importantly Jesus. Paul is making an analogy just as death ends a legal marriage bond so a person is free to belong to another, our death with Christ ends the law’s authority to condemn us so we can belong to Him and bear fruit for God. Sin is rebellion, unbelief and disobedience Heb3:7-19, bad fruit, sin leads to death Rom6:23 Rom6:16 Rev22:15 Mat7:23 submitting to His Spirit and obedience through faith and love Rom3:31 1John5:3 John14:15 Exo20:6 leads to peace Rom8:6 Isa 48:18Psa 119:165 life and reconciliation Rev22:14 Mat19:17

SabbathBlessings said:

We have to reconcile with other teaching as he is hard to understand.

Click to expand...

The context is clear and straighfoward enough and it is not hard to understand. Your reconciling attempts push the meaning in a different direction than the natural read of the text which would indeed make it cryptic but your method superimposes a layer of confusion over the text so you can inject another meaning the text does not support. anyone can do that to any text but the suspicion would be that it's not being critically engaged and it's meaning is being ignored. Rather than saying the text is too hard to understand why not actually engage the text for what it says, not what you want it to say.

SabbathBlessings said:

God’s commandments
Obedience to God
The definition of sin
What God made holy

Click to expand...

These are all strawmen.

SabbathBlessings said:

Is the law sin? Certainly not! Rom 7:7
The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Rom 7:12

Click to expand...

and this is the law that is identified that we are released from in v6 (and in v1 too). the context of v6 is we are released from this law that is not sin and is called holy, just and good. Released doesn't mean "sin is redefined" or the law is polluted and no longer can be holy. The text says we are the ones released from this law trigger from "having died to that which held us captive". the law is that which held us captive, but Paul is clear, the law is not sin but it did bind people under a legal code and framework by defining a moral code that sin exploits, thus we are held captive. Paul says it himself, "But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive, and I died." Paul is not addressing a literal death, or a loss of salvation; he is addressing the knowledge of sin that the law exposes, also brought the knowledge of death upon him, loss of innocence, condemnation, judgment, etc... as well as the desires within him to go against the law.

The death of v6 is not a death of the law but it is a death that releases us from being bound to the legal code, just as the window is release from her marriage vows, this death is Christ's death that we co-participate in and it's benifits upon salvation. the old way under the letter was external commandments, codemation, human labour and effort that exposes sin and ultimately a judgment of death. The new way is spirit-empowered obedience, and an internal renewal that goes outward and brings forth life.

SabbathBlessings said:

This would contradict Paul in all his other teachings and more importantly Jesus. Paul is making an analogy just as death ends a legal marriage bond so a person is free to belong to another, our death with Christ ends the law’s authority to condemn us so we can belong to Him and bear fruit for God. Sin is rebellion, unbelief and disobedience Heb3:7-19, bad fruit, sin leads to death Rom6:23 Rom6:16 Rev22:15 Mat7:23 submitting to His Spirit and obedience through faith and love Rom3:31 1John5:3 John14:15 Exo20:6 leads to peace Rom8:6 Isa 48:18Psa 119:165 life and reconciliation Rev22:14 Mat19:17

Click to expand...

The text more explicitly says not that the authorty of the law ends, but that we are released from law's grip on us, in our co-partipation of Christ's death. ultimately this is Christ's authority indeed, but the law doesn't change, howeer we are no longer bound to its covenant, being released from it through Christ's death and are now bound to a covenant to Christ himself led by the Spirit.

the 10 commandments speaks of moral thresholds, for example, do not murder which is a pretty big one. but this doesn't mean the moments leading up to murder (or stealing, lying, adultery, etc...) are also not sinful; it just means by the authority of the legal code of the law, you don't come under condemnation until you pass that threshold. So in the new is murdering now ok (or stealing, lying, adultery)? at best, that misunderstands the point; at worst it's an intentional strawman, in the new, murder is no longer a moral threshold, and our threshold is rejecting the spirit's leading and is an every moment thing. Sin is not redefined but we are no longer bound to the law so that legal code agreement has changed from the letter of the old to the spirit.

DamianWarS said:

The context is clear and straighfoward enough and it is not hard to understand. Your reconciling attempts push the meaning in a different direction than the natural read of the text which would indeed make it cryptic but your method superimposes a layer of confusion over the text so you can inject another meaning the text does not support. anyone can do that to any text but the suspicion would be that it's not being critically engaged and it's meaning is being ignored. Rather than saying the text is too hard to understand why not actually engage the text for what it says, not what you want it to say.

Click to expand...

I do not beleive Paul is constantly contradicting himself and Christ and teaching we are released from the law that is holy and defines sin Rom7:7 which leads in the wrong direction Rom7:23 Rom6:16 Rom6:23 Heb10:26-30, but beleive as you wish.

DamianWarS said:

turning this into no longer seeing adultery or stealing, etc.. as sinful is a strawman and misunderstands the limits of the 10 commandments.

Click to expand...

My post simply pointed out to you the "Law" of God that brought about death, is "the soul that sins shall die", not "thou shall not commit adultery". My point was simply that the "LAW" Paul teaches "we were delivered from" in Rom. 7, was not God's Law that defines sin, but the "LAW" declaring the consequences as sin.

DamianWarS said:

The 10 show us thresholds for moral failure.

Click to expand...

Yes, rejection, dismissal, teaching others to dismiss God's Commandments, even the Least of them, is a Moral Failure no doubt. And engaging in such behavior is so "Exceedingly Wicked", according to God, that the consequences of such moral failure is death. Which is perfectly understandable because if a person with free will, refuses to humble himself to God and "seek the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" in this short mortal life, choosing instead to live by his own judgments, Statutes, high days, and religious philosophies of this world God placed us in, then why would God grant this same person immortality, to cause "the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters" forever in heaven?

DamianWarS said:

"Do not murder" means if I murder, I cross that threshold and am removed from a covenant relationship (legally speaking), but it doesn't mean so long as I don't murder, then I am not sinful

Click to expand...

Of course, If you don't murder, but you cheat on your wife, you are sinning,

DamianWarS said:

This is a problem of the 10 that it can become too mechanical or checkbox driven without actively checking the heart or the root of sin.

Click to expand...

One of the most evil and wicked teachings ever perpetrated by this world's religions, is that "The Pharisees were trying to earn Salvation by obeying God's Commandments "To the Letter".

This evil lie has caused many of my brothers to be led astray. The foundation of the "Jews religion", is a religion that "taught for doctrines the commandments of men", not God. A religion who claimed to trust Moses, but didn't believe him. A religion that "full well rejected the commandments of God", that they might live by and promote the traditions of men. Did not Love God, were not interested in pleasing God, or obeying His Laws. This evil lie is the foundation of a lot of modern philosophies concerning obedience to God, that both Paul and Jesus warned about.
There is no example of anyone in the Bible that obeyed the 10 Commandments "too much". And it certainly wasn't the mainstream preachers of that time.

DamianWarS said:

When the 10 no longer serve as the legal threshold, then we no longer get trapped in this kind of thinking. Being released from this does not mean lawlessness; it views sin happening at a much deeper level than egregious threshold limits.

Click to expand...

This is what Eve did, she released herself from the Legal obligation of the Law, that she determined in her own mind were against her, and contained "egregious threshold limits", and then reasoned within her own mind that God actually wanted her to work of God's Sabbath, or eat what God forbids His people to eat, or Judging God and His Laws as "Moral" or "Not Moral".

I don't think the Bible supports her philosophy here.

DamianWarS said:

Paul presents an example of a widow who remarries. The widow is released from the former covenant marriage and enters a new covenant marriage. In Paul's example, the widow does not have a loose or lawless moral base because of the former being no more and entering into the new.

Click to expand...

The former head of the woman died. She is not free to marry another until he is dead. But if her head is dead, then she is free from the Law of her former husband, to marry another. A husband that never dies, whose Laws are forever.

DamianWarS said:

In like maner Paul is not suggesting we are now lawless but that the legal code of the old is no longer our measure,

Click to expand...

You are preaching as if her former husband was following God's Laws. If this were the case, he would still be alive, and the woman would never want for a righteous husband. But he died, and now she is free to be married to a righteous husband, one who lives by Every Word of God, and lives forever.

You are really missing Paul's point here.

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even "to him who is raised from the dead", that we "should bring forth fruit unto God".

DamianWarS said:

and if you call that lawless it is akin to calling the widow an adulterer which Paul out of the gate addresses (not to mention is a strawman).

Click to expand...

But you just said, "The 10 show us thresholds for moral failure.", but now you say "but that the legal code of the old is no longer our measure". And yet we are to be married to a husband whose legal code was God's Laws?

What if it is you who have been deceived, and Jesus and Paul is speaking the truth?

DamianWarS said:

We know v6 is not talking about the law of sin because in v7 he immediately says it is not of sin and in v12 he speaks of this law as holy and good.

Click to expand...

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when "the commandment came", sin revived, "and I died".

What Commandment came that revived Sin, and killed Paul? Was it not "The Soul that sins shall die"?

And what is the Law of the New Husband Paul speaks to? Thou art made whole, now go and sin no more? Or does the wife now rule over the husband, telling Him what Laws are "Moral" and what Laws are "Not Moral"? Does the woman then, get to create her own judgments, her own high days, her own images of God?

SabbathBlessings said:

I do not beleive Paul is constantly contradicting himself and Christ and teaching we are released from the law that is holy and defines sin Rom7:7 which leads in the wrong direction Rom7:23 Rom6:16 Rom6:23 Heb10:26-30, but beleive as you wish.

Click to expand...

Paul contradicts your interpretation not himself. His writings are inspired scripture. I know you don’t like Paul.

Studyman said:

Yes, rejection, dismissal, teaching others to dismiss God's Commandments, even the Least of them, is a Moral Failure no doubt.

Click to expand...

This perpetuates the strawman. I get your language is careful to not accuse but the inference is clear enough. I am not using the language reject, and I in fact vehemently oppose it. As you've pointed out Jesus says, "even the least of them" so then the question is what do you suppose is the least? Surely the 10 are the greastest not the least so how do you reconcile your own language with "the least of them" or do you still only see a 10 commandments vacuum? If we critically approach the context, Mat 5:17 says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." so the "thing" that Christ does not come to abolish (aka reject, dismiss, etc....) is the "Law or the Prophets" but instead he comes to fulfill them. Christ here establishes an indivisible unit, not a separated 10. If I reject the law OR I reject the prophets (not a cut and paste version but any part) then I am liable to be counted among the least in the kingdom of heaven (as Mat 5:19 says)

so what does this include? well it's very loaded with christological meaning (undeniably so). So do we reject circumcision? do we reject the sacrifice? No, we don't reject them; we see them made complete through Christ, but their intrinsic value still holds, and we still need the quality of these things made complete through Christ. This isn't an "out" but the reality of new covenant understanding that Christ has made law complete in a way that their legal code of the old has been made obsolete when compared to our new covenant faith in Christ. In this view, nothing is abolished or dismissed or whatever other strawman language you want to throw in there. This doesn't apply to a separated 10, but from the greatest to the least, however, the revelation is their intrinsic value is now held in Christ, not through the legal code of the old.

so before the strawman comes out again, this does not mean murder, stealing, lying, etc... are no longer sinful. Sin does not change; what changes is the legal code. It is a mistake to say the legal code itself defines sin. it was sin before the code itself. What the legal code defines are measurable thresholds that come with legal consequence unique to the covenant it's created in. For example, "do not murder" certainly carries with it a qualitative judgment that murdering is wrong, but murder was wrong before this was written down, so it doesn't define murdering as sinful (it was already sinful); it calls it out and establishes a legal threshold that if crossed, the offender has legal consequences. Christ fulfilling this doesn't mean murder is no longer sinful (that's just silly and is a strawman), the law is not "murder is sinful" it is "do not murder." Christ internalized it in Mat 5 saying "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment..." even to the point of saying "anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell" now that's a drastically different threshold than "do not murder" and reveals the goal posts are actually far closer than the law presents them. Being made obselete doesn't mean we no longer value murdering as sinful but rather the goal post is obsolete, where its value in the new is internalized to the root of the sin, not an extreme outward action of it.

this works for all the law and the prophets and is not just a special case for a select few. It works for murdering, as it works for circumsion, as it works for the sacrifice. Although it all has christological application, let's be honest, circumcision and the sacrifice are more direct and do not address moral action themselves but ritual action used as a christological vehicle. moral actions, like how we treat each other, are still centred in Christ as an outflowing but do not change in their outwardness. Goodness is universal, and no covenant contract refines these things. This makes sense; if it is moral, it is always moral but if we approach the 10 critically, the 4th commandment doesn't fit moral action, but rather ritual action and yes, even used in direct christological revelation. So is the Sabbath rejected? Absolutely not! just like circumcision or the sacrifice are not rejected. If we can agree that there is a qualitative increase in circumcision and the sacrifice in the new covenant, then it would be inconsistent to also not apply this for the 4th commandment (and it would be a strawman to reframe this in "abolish" language)

SabbathBlessings said:

I do not beleive Paul is constantly contradicting himself and Christ and teaching we are released from the law that is holy and defines sin Rom7:7 which leads in the wrong direction Rom7:23 Rom6:16 Rom6:23 Heb10:26-30, but beleive as you wish.

Click to expand...

The text says explicitly we are released from this law (v6), then defines that law as not sin (v7) and holy, just and good (v12). If all we see are contraditions then maybe it use creating the contradiction.

Circumcision and the sacrifice are good examples. They are holy laws direct from God, and predate any Exodus law or account well established in Genesis (prelaw). With the case of circumcision it is even a sign of the everlasting covenant between Abraham and God and his descendants which also shares a lot of similarity with Sabbath law. They are also still valued in the new covenant, but not their legal code. This already identifies that the legal code may be separated from the intrinsic values found in law; the legal code may be dropped while still keeping the intrinsic value.

The 10 do not define sin they define thresholds of sin. "Do not murder" can be said is loaded with an implicit moral that murdering is wrong. sure that may be true, but what about the million steps before murder? are they wrong too? or does the 10 silently says they are permissable sin? Murder was wrong before the law, the law itself does not innately define murder as sin, but it does expose it (as well as the others). You can argue that "do not murder" (or the others) are implicit law in Genesis but that's not true. no sin threshold like what the 10 establish was uniquely defined. (There were thresholds but not what the 10 define) Even if these overlapping values can be found, the threshold law of the 10 is never set.

But murder was always sinful, and the legal code does not have unique jurisdiction if murdering was sinful or not. It was always sinful, and we have clear examples of it being called out and punished in Genesis (the million sins before murder were also always sinful). But these examples do not keep the 10 commandments; they keep intrinsic values that are anchored in God not the 10

what's the difference? The difference is their goals. the 10 define thresholds for legal consequence in the covenant they are created in, they do not go to core intrinsic values. murdering is wrong, but what also is wrong is hate. those two are connected (As Jesus establishes in Mat 5) however, the threshold the 10 establishes are more the inevitable end when hate is left unchecked but it doesn't comment on anger itself. both are sinful, and both need to be kept in check. The 10 here do not have wholistic focus of these intrinsic values but instead highlight the polar ends, which is why their legal code is obsolete and there is a better way. the better way captures the wholistic values better through Christ and spirit led.

DamianWarS said:

The text says explicitly we are released from this law (v6), then defines that law as not sin (v7) and holy, just and good (v12). If all we see are contraditions then maybe it use creating the contradiction.

Circumcision and the sacrifice are good examples. They are holy laws direct from God, and predate any Exodus law or account well established in Genesis (prelaw). With the case of circumcision it is even a sign of the everlasting covenant between Abraham and God and his descendants which also shares a lot of similarity with Sabbath law. They are also still valued in the new covenant, but not their legal code. This already identifies that the legal code may be separated from the intrinsic values found in law; the legal code may be dropped while still keeping the intrinsic value.

The 10 do not define sin they define thresholds of sin. "Do not murder" can be said is loaded with an implicit moral that murdering is wrong. sure that may be true, but what about the million steps before murder? are they wrong too? or does the 10 silently says they are permissable sin? Murder was wrong before the law, the law itself does not innately define murder as sin, but it does expose it (as well as the others). You can argue that "do not murder" (or the others) are implicit law in Genesis but that's not true. no sin threshold like what the 10 establish was uniquely defined. (There were thresholds but not what the 10 define) Even if these overlapping values can be found, the threshold law of the 10 is never set.

But murder was always sinful, and the legal code does not have unique jurisdiction if murdering was sinful or not. It was always sinful, and we have clear examples of it being called out and punished in Genesis (the million sins before murder were also always sinful). But these examples do not keep the 10 commandments; they keep intrinsic values that are anchored in God not the 10

what's the difference? The difference is their goals. the 10 define thresholds for legal consequence in the covenant they are created in, they do not go to core intrinsic values. murdering is wrong, but what also is wrong is hate. those two are connected (As Jesus establishes in Mat 5) however, the threshold the 10 establishes are more the inevitable end when hate is left unchecked but it doesn't comment on anger itself. both are sinful, and both need to be kept in check. The 10 here do not have wholistic focus of these intrinsic values but instead highlight the polar ends, which is why their legal code is obsolete and there is a better way. the better way captures the wholistic values better through Christ and spirit led.

Click to expand...

Romans 7:6 does not teach that God’s law has been abolished. Instead, it teaches that believers are released from the law’s power to condemn Romans 6:23 Rom 7:23. When we are in Christ, we die with Him to sin Rom6:1-4, and a law cannot condemn someone who has already died. The law itself remains holy and good, Rom7:12 We no longer try to obey God in our own strength. We now serve God through the power of the Holy Spirit, with obedience flowing from a saved relationship John14:15-18. This includes the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath, which are kept as a response to God’s salvation in Him, rather than a means of salvation.

Jesus makes clear at His Second Coming we were never released from Gods holy laws. If we are in Him, we are in the first group. Those who do not subject themselves to the law of God Rom 8:7-8 sadly was never in a saved relationship with Christ. John14:15 Exo20:6 Isa 56:6 Isa 56:1-2 Heb8:10


Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers (Breaking commandment #1 Exodus 20:3) and sexually immoral (breaking commandment #7 Exodus 20:14) and murderers (breaking commandment #6 Exodus 20:13) and idolaters (breaking commandment #2 Exodus 20:4-6), and whoever loves and practices a lie (breaking # 9 Exodus 20:16 or any of the commandments 1 John 2:4) Breaking one we break them all James 2:11-12 Exo 20:1-17 .

Look at Revelation, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to Him. This is coming from God directly, to Jesus and then to John through an Angel.


Declaring the end from the beginning.


What does Jesus say is the standard for entering in through the gates into the city?


Notice... adultery, murder, idolatry, lying... the Ten commandments.

Jesus is speaking directly to the churches.

Conclusion:

• Jesus wraps the statement with His authority.
• The statement is specifically to the churches.
• Commandment keeping, specifically the Ten, is expected of the churches.
• "...and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

Also:

• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Keep the nine commandments, forget the Sabbath," instead it says in Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy."
• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath instituted at creation," instead it says in Exodus 20:10, "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God."
• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Jesus is also Lord of the Sunday," instead it says Mark 2:28 says, "Therefore [because the Sabbath was instituted at creation; Mark 2:27] the Son of Man [Jesus] is also Lord of the Sabbath." This also points to the fact that the Lord's Day is the seventh-day Sabbath, not Sunday.

ETA: Looks like @SabbathBlessings and I were writing the same thing at the same time.

Freth said:

Look at Revelation, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to Him. This is coming from God directly, to Jesus and then to John through an Angel.

Revelation 1:1-2 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.​

Declaring the end from the beginning.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.​

​

Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.​

​

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.​

What does Jesus say is the standard for entering in through the gates into the city?

Revelation 22:14-15 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​

Notice... adultery, murder, idolatry, lying... the Ten commandments.

Jesus is speaking directly to the churches.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.​

​

Conclusion:

• Jesus wraps the statement with His authority.
• The statement is specifically to the churches.
• Commandment keeping, specifically the Ten, is expected of the churches.
• "...and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.

Also:

• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Keep the nine commandments, forget the Sabbath," instead it says in Exodus 20:8, "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy."
• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath instituted at creation," instead it says in Exodus 20:10, "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God."
• Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Jesus is also Lord of the Sunday," instead it says Mark 2:28 says, "Therefore [because the Sabbath was instituted at creation; Mark 2:27] the Son of Man [Jesus] is also Lord of the Sabbath." This also points to the fact that the Lord's Day is the seventh-day Sabbath, not Sunday.

ETA: Looks like @SabbathBlessings and I were writing the same thing at the same time.

Click to expand...

Happy Sabbath my friend!

I am off for now but I hope you and everyone else has a blessed Sabbath day.

SabbathBlessings said:

Happy Sabbath my friend!

I am off for now but I hope you and everyone else has a blessed Sabbath day.

Click to expand...

Happy Sabbath!

SabbathBlessings said:

Romans 7:6 does not teach that God’s law has been abolished.

Click to expand...

you continue to perpetuate the strawman. I will be clear I adamantly reject the abolishment of law. this passage uses the word "release", Jesus uses "fulfilled" and these are the words I'm using. not reject, not dismiss, not abolish, not throw away or whatever other abolish language you can think of. If continued I will be force to interpret misrepresentation like this as inflammatory.

DamianWarS said:

you continue to perpetuate the strawman. I will be clear I adamantly reject the abolishment of law. this passage uses the word "release", Jesus uses "fulfilled" and these are the words I'm using. not reject, not dismiss, not abolish, not throw away or whatever other abolish language you can think of. If continued I will be force to interpret misrepresentation like this as inflammatory.

Click to expand...

Ok, I was not trying to misrepresent you. The law that was fulfilled in Christ is not the law of sin and death Paul is releasing us from. The law that is fulfilled in Christ is the law He magnified Isa 42:21 Mat5:17-30 Exo20:6, the law He placed in our hearts and minds that are fulfilled in us Rom8:4 by submitting to His Spirit John14:15-18, the law Paul said in his mind he served Rom7:22 that one that defines what sin is when we break Rom7:7 its the other law that one one is released from, that condemns the sinner that brings one into captivity of sin and death Rom7:23 Rom6:23 if we are not in Christ John15:4-10 John14:15-18

I am OK agreeing to disagree but it seems like a big difference between the law of sin that we are released from versus the law of God that we keep through our love to Him and a response to His Spirit working within us.