Daniel Dulcich's Rebuttal to "10 Commandments show How to Love".

[Soyeong]

No, I wouldn't.

I take from the tone of your answer that you don't believe we need to follow that law carefully, to the letter, today.

If that's the case, I think we can cut to the chase: we keep the general ideas behind the law, we don't keep the letters. And I say a big Amen!

Psalm 119:97
How I love your law! It is my meditation all day.

The problem is that you keep wanting to separate following a principle from following the things that are examples of that principle. For example, if we were discussing what it means to love God and our neighbor, then we could come up with a list of 613 examples of what it means to love in various situations, such as helping the poor or returning our neighbor's lost property. However, saying that we keep the general idea behind the law, but don't keep the letters is like saying that we just love God and our neighbor, but don't help the poor, return our neighbor's lost property, or do any of the other examples of what it means to love God and our neighbor, but if we don't do the things that are examples of a principle, then we are not keeping that principle. I consider following the letter of the law to be undermining both the intent of what God has commanded and why He commanded it, which therefore leads to death just as assuredly as refusing to obey what it instructs, so what I mean by not keeping the letter of the law is different than what you mean by it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The Greek word "dogma" is used five times by the Bible, twice in regard to the decrees of Caesar (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:7), and once in regard to the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4), so justification needs to be given for interpreting it in Colossians 2:14 as referring to any of the laws of God. The purpose of the brutality of crucifixion was to act as a deterrent, so the Romans wanted to make sure that everyone knew why someone was being crucified, so they would nail to someone cross a handwritten ordinance that were the charges that was against them (Matthew 27:37). This is also likely how they knew that the other two people were crucified for being thieves. So when a handwritten ordinance that listed the charges that are against us is instead nailed to Christ's cross, then this fits perfect with the concept of him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from any laws, but in order to free us from all lawlessness.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover lamb, however, instead of saying that observing Passover has now ceased, he concluded by saying that we should therefore continue to observe Passover. Foreshadows testify about what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about what is to come by continuing to observe God's holy days rather than a way that bears false witness against what is to come, so Paul was emphasizing the importance of continuing to observe God's holy days by saying that they are foreshadows of what is to come.

Hi Soyeong,

I really appreciate your posts and we usually agree on a lot of things, which is great. Maybe you can clarify for me, are you suggesting the law/ordinances pertaining to animal sacrifices is still in effect despite Jesus becoming our sacrificial Lamb for the forgiveness of sin. Hebrew 10:1-10 makes the clear case we no longer sacrifice animals and in doing so is saying that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to forgive our sins, but that's not what scripture teaches. Hebrews 9:14, 1 John 1:9

 

[Soyeong]

Okay... Jesus was born under one kind of law, if we are led by the spirit we are not under a different kind of law.

That would be a place where we interpret the scriptures differently

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, so there are no grounds to assume that because Paul spoke about Jesus being born under the Law of God that every other time that he spoke about being under a law that he was referring to the Law of God.

Christ was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to its, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk I the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Knowledge of sin is by the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20) and we are not permitted to do what God has revealed to be sin (Romans 6:15), especially because the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and of convicting us of sin (John 16:8).

 

[Soyeong]

Well, one example would be the clothes-tearing instruction in Leviticus 13.

Psalm 119:165
Those who love your law have great peace. Nothing causes them to stumble.

Again, you are referring to obeying the letter of the law to doing what it instructs, and if that is the case, then Jesus taught how to love God and our neighbor by obey the letter of the law.

Okay... Looks like maybe a typo in the earlier post, then

Sorry about the typo. It remains that Paul said in a parallel statement that He was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he was equating the Law of God with the Law of Christ, and the Law of Moses is the Law of God. Christ is God, so it wouldn't make any sense to think that the Law of Christ is different than or contrary to the Law of God.

 

[Soyeong]

That sounds like a Yes, Jesus does want us to show our love for him by sacrificing animals to him.

Do you believe the early Christians were going to the temple on a regular basis and offering animals?

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head, and the only vow that involves doing that is a Nazarite vow in Numbers 6, which involves making offerings. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Mosaic Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it by paying for the offering of others. In Hebrews 8:4, it says that if Jesus were here on earth, then he wouldn't be a priest because priests are making offerings in accordance with the Mosaic Law. In Acts 2:46, they were attending the temple together every day and breaking bread in their homes. If early Christians had rejected the temple service, then they would not have continue attending the temple. So offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple, so yes, I believe that early Christ were going to the temple on a regular basis and offering animals. If all of Israel had accepted Christ, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed, and Christians would still be making offerings. In Ezekiel 44-46, it prophesied about a time when another temple will be built and when offerings will resume. If the nations knew the value of the temple to them, then they would have sent armies to protect it rather than destroy it.

 

[Leaf473]

Because we find in Colossians 2 and Hebrews 10 that Paul says all ordinances that fall under a shadow of things to come, that is, pointing to Jesus and the cross, were nailed to the cross.

Colossians 2:14, 17 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. ... Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.​

​

Hebrews 10:1, 12 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. ... But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.​

​

The handwriting of ordinances, the sacrifices (aka "the law"; ordinances, not the Ten Commandments) which were a shadow of things to come. Sacrifices ceased as was prophesied; in the middle of the last week of the 70 week prophecy.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.​

​

NOTE: This has been covered many times in other threads.

________________

NOTE: This has been covered many times in other threads.

Yes, it has been covered many times in other threads.

But here's what happens:
A person says that no jots or tittles will pass away until the new heaven and new earth. Okay, sounds good so far.

Then, they will say that some of those jots and titles have been nailed to the cross. That means we don't have to do them anymore.

But if we don't have to do them anymore, isn't that essentially the same as them passing away from the law?

 

[Leaf473]

"Pleroo" has a range of meanings, though the NAS Greek Lexicon has one definition that is specifically in regard to what it means to fulfill the law, so I don't think that it is assuming anything to say that we should use that definition when discussing what it means to fulfill the law, especially when that definition fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next after he said that he came to fulfill the law, it fits with how other verses use the word, and it fits with how other Jewish writings us the word, while other definitions of "pleroo" are contrary to how Jesus used the word or how it is used in other verses, and would mean that Jesus was a liar and a false prophet.

Well, I learned something interesting just now: the NAS Greek Lexicon is essentially copied from Thayer's.

And that they both contain the phrase,
"to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be".

I agree that supports your point , though it stops short of of saying it means to keep the law. Rather, it looks to me like it brings up the idea of keeping the law to the letter, or keeping the general principles behind the law.

 

[Leaf473]

The problem is that you keep wanting to separate following a principle from following the things that are examples of that principle. For example, if we were discussing what it means to love God and our neighbor, then we could come up with a list of 613 examples of what it means to love in various situations, such as helping the poor or returning our neighbor's lost property. However, saying that we keep the general idea behind the law, but don't keep the letters is like saying that we just love God and our neighbor, but don't help the poor, return our neighbor's lost property, or do any of the other examples of what it means to love God and our neighbor, but if we don't do the things that are examples of a principle, then we are not keeping that principle. I consider following the letter of the law to be undermining both the intent of what God has commanded and why He commanded it, which therefore leads to death just as assuredly as refusing to obey what it instructs, so what I mean by not keeping the letter of the law is different than what you mean by it.

Okay... Maybe I misunderstood the tone of your previous post.

How does what you wrote fit with my earlier question,
"If someone arrives at your Christian fellowship with the skin condition described in Leviticus 13, are they asked to tear their clothes? Is that seen as an expression of love for God?"

 

[Leaf473]

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, so there are no grounds to assume that because Paul spoke about Jesus being born under the Law of God that every other time that he spoke about being under a law that he was referring to the Law of God.

Christ was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to its, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk I the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Knowledge of sin is by the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20) and we are not permitted to do what God has revealed to be sin (Romans 6:15), especially because the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and of convicting us of sin (John 16:8).

Well, I agree that Jesus was born into the Mosaic law. I don't see any reason to then switch the meaning when it later talks about how we are not under the law.

Again, I think there's a subjective element there, so we're probably just going to read it differently

Psalm 19
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever. The Lord’s ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.

 

[Leaf473]

Again, you are referring to obeying the letter of the law to doing what it instructs, and if that is the case, then Jesus taught how to love God and our neighbor by obey the letter of the law.

Cool! Then I'm looking forward to your post about the clothes-tearing instruction.

 

[Leaf473]

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head, and the only vow that involves doing that is a Nazarite vow in Numbers 6, which involves making offerings. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Mosaic Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it by paying for the offering of others. In Hebrews 8:4, it says that if Jesus were here on earth, then he wouldn't be a priest because priests are making offerings in accordance with the Mosaic Law. In Acts 2:46, they were attending the temple together every day and breaking bread in their homes. If early Christians had rejected the temple service, then they would not have continue attending the temple. So offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple, so yes, I believe that early Christ were going to the temple on a regular basis and offering animals. If all of Israel had accepted Christ, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed, and Christians would still be making offerings. In Ezekiel 44-46, it prophesied about a time when another temple will be built and when offerings will resume. If the nations knew the value of the temple to them, then they would have sent armies to protect it rather than destroy it.

Interesting! If early Christians were traveling from places like Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus every time someone in their family gave birth or had an unclean discharge, how did the rumor ever get started in Jerusalem that the gentiles were being taught not to keep the law?