Commandments

[Pagan]

It is more whether they have done the will of The Father who is in heaven. In Matthew 7:22, Jesus tells us that many who have done good in His name will be refused because they did not do the will of The Father who is in heaven.

Many people misuse commandments and actually are working against Him while believing that they are keeping the commandments. This is the danger of legalism: that one has learned how live such that their peers cannot use the commands of the law to condemn them (Romans 4:4), but has not come to have His law written on their heart so that they may be approved by God through obedience (Romans 4:5, Romans 6:16, Matthew 7:13). In such cases, The Holy Spirit still condemns that person when He speaks through our words, yet that one has acquired a belief that satisfies them so they will not receive His judgement (eg Jeremiah 19:15).

This is why in Hebrews 3:12-15 we are warned that if we have accepted His judgement and come into repentance (that is what Christians do), then we must remain repentant and obedient to His voice until the end otherwise we become obstinate and we are cut off from Christ because of our stubbornness and refusal to obey (John 15:1-2). This actually happens every time that a person chooses to disregard truth, they become hardened in their heart against the truth and then having gained confidence to oppose that truth, is trapped in their sin of pride, to keep resisting call of The Holy Spirit to repentance.



If you read Exodus 19, you will see that this is not how it came about. The Jewish people had been wandering the wilderness after having escaped Egypt, and God was giving instructions for how they must live to distinguish themselves as a holy people.

It is not a small coincidence that when Jesus gave the perfect model of prayer, He instructed that our first request should be "let your name be sanctified/revered/glorified/hallowed in all the earth". He also stated in Matthew 6:33 that our first priority should be to vindicate God's name from those who have misused it. In John 12:28, Jesus again shows that the glorification/sanctification/vindication of God's name is the first place in His heart. The voice from heaven in that verse shows prophecy spoken by the power of God (not by human words), that He will glorify His name again.

There is a depth of meaning in the commandment Exodus 20:7 - to take His name in vain (as vanity), is to take for the pride of one's appearance. There are many people who will qualify their opinions by God's name, claiming to have authority because they were officially ordained or baptised. The ones who do this wrongly (meaning that they do not have God's approval - they are using His name for a wrong purpose and deceitfully), are those whom Jesus will say in judgement (Matthew 7:21) "I never knew you, depart from me, you workers of iniquity".

Again, to claim a right to salvation by the keeping of law where one does not personally consult God in order that they may truly carry out His desire (compared to doing their own desire in His name), that is one who is taking His name for their own pride of appearance - vanity/misuse. A holy people, a kingdom of righteousness, does not do that.

I understand that the commandments of Exodus 20 relate to Exodus 19, or at least I'm heading in that direction. However, rules about fraud, perjury, and misrepresentation predate Exodus.

Also, I think we should not put over emphasis on rules. In business, I always told employees that I wanted them to do the right thing for the customer, even if the rules seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

King Henry VIII of England became the first person to manage a forest when he bought Kensington, which is now part of London. At the time it was a forest, which he wanted to preserve as a place to hunt the critters.

Almost certainly, he was greedy, ungodly, and oppressed the poor.

Several posters have expressed their ideas about the meaning of "subdue the earth." So far, I don't think we have any agreement that it should mean "manage the earth."

No, there will never be agreement here.

 

[Blackmarch]

Several posters have expressed their ideas about the meaning of "subdue the earth." So far, I don't think we have any agreement that it should mean "manage the earth."

My environmentalist neighbors think we should manage the earth. Their inspiration comes more from the science than the religion. One of them believes that King Henry VIII of England became the first person to manage a forest when he bought Kensington, which is now part of London. At the time it was a forest, which he wanted to preserve as a place to hunt the critters.

in the jewish culture ruling something didn't mean you could just do whatever you wanted with it (at least if a leader was following the law set out for leadership anyways). you had laws in which dictated how you could treat or use what was subjected to your leadership.. altho i suppose if one were to take an action that wasn't covered by a law that it technically would not be wrong, but considering what the laws did cover, it generally was in the direction that while a leader/ruler could command subjects to an extent, the responsibility, wellbeing, and actions in relation to what was subjected also rested upon that leader.

Furthermore the followers of christ are to emulate christ and god in thoughts and actions, so in that respect also, ruling or subduing something would impart a a large responsibility of taking care of that thing and making it better than what it was before.

so the term manage would work for me

 

[Pagan]

in the jewish culture ruling something didn't mean you could just do whatever you wanted with it (at least if a leader was following the law set out for leadership anyways). you had laws in which dictated how you could treat or use what was subjected to your leadership.. altho i suppose if one were to take an action that wasn't covered by a law that it technically would not be wrong, but considering what the laws did cover, it generally was in the direction that while a leader/ruler could command subjects to an extent, the responsibility, wellbeing, and actions in relation to what was subjected also rested upon that leader.

Furthermore the followers of christ are to emulate christ and god in thoughts and actions, so in that respect also, ruling or subduing something would impart a a large responsibility of taking care of that thing and making it better than what it was before.

so the term manage would work for me

For almost twenty years, I worked for a public school district. The government and history textbooks spoke about the origin of democracy, so they talked about how Jewish kings had to obey the law just like the Jewish subjects. So, I wonder if anything in that law required protection of the environment.

 

[Serving Zion]

I understand that the commandments of Exodus 20 relate to Exodus 19, or at least I'm heading in that direction. However, rules about fraud, perjury, and misrepresentation predate Exodus.

Also, I think we should not put over emphasis on rules. In business, I always told employees that I wanted them to do the right thing for the customer, even if the rules seemed to suggest otherwise.

My only concern is that you seem to be listening to Christians who have diluted the truth of the fact of how and why the commandment was given, and that by doing so, they are not representing the truth to you honestly (2 Peter 2:3 warns of false teachers who are greedy for followers, who will exploit vulnerable ones with "fabricated stories").

To say that Exodus 20:7 was a ratification of a Bronze-Age business code is to effectively disregard the very first words in Exodus 20:1: "And God spoke all these words, saying:".

My intuition and discernment leads me to suggest that perhaps you are asking difficult questions of your Christian friends, and that the combination of your authoritative nature and a predisposition to disbelief has caused them to fear that you will disagree with them and they will then lose the opportunity to bring you into salvation. It is not uncommon for Christians to be tempted by those fears and to make the mistake of being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Serving Zion]

So, I wonder if anything in that law required protection of the environment.

It will have been natural in the heart of a righteous king to honour the environment (not every king was righteous though - 2 Kings 16:2-4).

For instance, words such as Psalms 24:1 would convict and require repentance from a king of righteousness if he was not caring for the environment, because The Holy Spirit will have made sure of it. (Genesis 6:3 - "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal").

 

[Pagan]

My only concern is that you seem to be listening to Christians who have diluted the truth of the fact of how and why the commandment was given, and that by doing so, they are not representing the truth to you honestly (2 Peter 2:3 warns of false teachers who are greedy for followers, who will exploit vulnerable ones with "fabricated stories").

To say that Exodus 20:7 was a ratification of a Bronze-Age business code is to effectively disregard the very first words in Exodus 20:1: "And God spoke all these words, saying:".

My intuition and discernment leads me to suggest that perhaps you are asking difficult questions of your Christian friends, and that the combination of your authoritative nature and a predisposition to disbelief has caused them to fear that you will disagree with them and they will then lose the opportunity to bring you into salvation. It is not uncommon for Christians to be tempted by those fears and to make the mistake of being intellectually dishonest.

I thank you for your help with the commandments. I understand that God didn't intend that we should think of Exodus 20 as a business code. However, Exodus 20 contains the ideas of a Civil Code. It prohibits perjury, false intent, and misrepresentation. It suggests a use of common law in deciding cases, and it limits damage awards by suggesting that a plaintiff cannot take a defendant's life or his ability to make a living.

 

[Pagan]

It will have been natural in the heart of a righteous king to honour the environment (not every king was righteous though - 2 Kings 16:2-4).

For instance, words such as Psalms 24:1 would convict and require repentance from a king of righteousness if he was not caring for the environment, because The Holy Spirit will have made sure of it. (Genesis 6:3 - "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal").

Numbers 35:33-34 sounds closer to the modern view of environmental protection.

Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the Lord, dwell among the Israelites.

 

[Blackmarch]

For almost twenty years, I worked for a public school district. The government and history textbooks spoke about the origin of democracy, so they talked about how Jewish kings had to obey the law just like the Jewish subjects. So, I wonder if anything in that law required protection of the environment.

The more direct laws deal mostly with planting crops, treating animals that are raised by people, and how and where to dump or get rid of waste... But On the other hand there are quite few instances where there are laws to avoid certain things or to hunt only certain amounts at certain times which end up having a happy coincidence at having some sort of preservative effect upon the land even tho there is nothing to indicate that concern for the environment was a factor in giving the law.

 

[Pagan]

Exodus 21 has rules about slaves. Verse 10 says that a man who has a second wife must still feed and clothe the first wife. I suppose that's okay as long as he can cancel her credit cards.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Passover ended with Jesus's death, He was the Passover Lamb, the Lamb of God without blemish.

Not.

Exodus 12:14 “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.

 

[Pagan]

Exodus 21 and Exodus 22 continue with more commandments.

Exodus 22:2-3 must be an early version of Stand Your Ground.

If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

The time of day changes the nature of the crime.

 

[Blackmarch]

Exodus 21 and Exodus 22 continue with more commandments.

Exodus 22:2-3 must be an early version of Stand Your Ground.

If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

The time of day changes the nature of the crime.

Probably because the situation changes pretty drastically when there is more light and more people around, which changes what options are open to people.

Or theres already a different law else where that deals with the daytime event.

Im reading here that in the daytime the theif is to be caught and forced to give restitution for what he was taking... And if he could not afford it the he was to be sold off, in addition if he was caught red handed then he has to pay double for anything stolen he has on his person.

Interestingly the rendition i have of verses 2 and 3 say that if he is killed at night there shall be no blood shed for him, but if it happens at day then there shall be blood shed for him. No mention of who or what's blood would be used


Ps there are going to be lots of commandments all the way to and thru deuteronomy

 

[Pagan]

Exodus 23:1-9 has rules about speaking the truth without being influenced by the popularity, national origin, or economic status of the information.

 

[Pagan]

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that God's commandment to "fill and subdue" the earth amounts to a command to manage and preserve the earth. I suppose that is possible, but my best guess says that manage and preserve are modern ideas that would not have occurred to Bronze Age or Iron Age authors.

However, Exodus 23:10-11 suggests to me that the author of Exodus had some idea that nature might need a nudge in the right direction.

For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

 

[food4thought]

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that God's commandment to "fill and subdue" the earth amounts to a command to manage and preserve the earth. I suppose that is possible, but my best guess says that manage and preserve are modern ideas that would not have occurred to Bronze Age or Iron Age authors.

Hi, Pagan. I would say that the Bronze and Iron Age authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who would naturally have concern for His creation.

However, Exodus 23:10-11 suggests to me that the author of Exodus had some idea that nature might need a nudge in the right direction.

For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.

Just another example of how the Bible sometimes exceeds what one would expect from ancient people, suggesting an origin beyond these people.

 

[Serving Zion]

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that God's commandment to "fill and subdue" the earth amounts to a command to manage and preserve the earth. I suppose that is possible, but my best guess says that manage and preserve are modern ideas that would not have occurred to Bronze Age or Iron Age authors.

It reads more to me the intention is to tame what is naturally wild, to bring in civilisation and love to a world that is naturally beastly. If you know animals well, they do have compassion, morality and conscience. What they don't have is the same strengths of philosophy and language that humans have. Humans were the appointed species by God for the purpose of "subduing" earth - to maintain it's behaviour within bounds of tolerance that is morally acceptable.

The reason we don't have this in a vast way today, is because humans are not living as the image of God that is to subdue, but as destroyers that is to consume.. all because we choose sin instead of love - force instead of lead - own instead of share - "us" and "them" instead of "we".

 

[Pagan]

Hi, Pagan. I would say that the Bronze and Iron Age authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who would naturally have concern for His creation.

Just another example of how the Bible sometimes exceeds what one would expect from ancient people, suggesting an origin beyond these people.

It reads more to me the intention is to tame what is naturally wild, to bring in civilisation and love to a world that is naturally beastly. If you know animals well, they do have compassion, morality and conscience. What they don't have is the same strengths of philosophy and language that humans have. Humans were the appointed species by God for the purpose of "subduing" earth - to maintain it's behaviour within bounds of tolerance that is morally acceptable.

The reason we don't have this in a vast way today, is because humans are not living as the image of God that is to subdue, but as destroyers that is to consume.. all because we choose sin instead of love - force instead of lead - own instead of share - "us" and "them" instead of "we".

So when did theologians decide that Genesis 1:28 commands the stewardship of creation?

Saint Augustine wrote a lot about Genesis 1. He argues both sides of the modern debate, but I don't know if he wrote about Genesis 1:28.

A friend of mine, who claims to know about Martin Luther, believes that Luther thought of Genesis 1:28 as a rule of family law rather than a commandment about stewardship.

The translators of the The Geneva Bible of 1599 must have agreed with Luther. It has a footnote about Genesis 1:28.

The propagation of man is the blessing of God.

The footnote directs the reader to Psalm 128, which speaks of the blessings of women and children, rather than the stewardship of creation.

So our understanding of Genesis 1:28 has changed.

On an ecumenical note, let me say that Psalm 128 echos a Chinese proverb. In China a man asks himself, "What is good?"

He answers, "Woman and children."

So when he writes the word, good, he draws a picture of a woman holding swaddled infant.

 

[Pagan]

Davidian commentary on Genesis 1:28

According to Moses, God said, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

According to King David from Psalm 8

What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet:
All flocks and herds,
and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky,
and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.

In a Jacob Bronowski's book, The Ascent of Man, the first chapter is "Lower than the Angels." David's song must have provided the title.

 

[Neogaia777]

Is Genesis 1:28 the first commandment or maybe the first three commandments?

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Declarations that will, and of what will come to pass with man, maybe, but I don't know about "commandments" though...