Do the Ten Commandments define sin? (nope)

[Soyeong]

I agree that it is important to correctly identify which law is being spoken about. But then you impose your own idea on the scripture, claiming "the law" cannot be the law. Understand that "the law" is always the law, the whole, and nothing but the law, except when it is speaking of the books of the Law (capital "L"). For example.

Matthew 5:17
“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.

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

In this verse, Paul clearly distinguished between the Law of God that he served with his mind and the law of sin that he served with his flesh. Paul switched back and forth about which is the two laws he was speaking about, especially in Romans 7 and to a lesser extent chapters 5, 6, and 8.

Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

In this verse, Paul distinguished between a law that was of work and a law that was of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's Law, but rather our faith upholds it, so God's Law is of faith.

So I'm not claiming that "the law" can't refer to God's Law, but just that there should always be careful to determine which law he was speaking about. For example, if Romans 7:22 and Romans 5:20 are speaking about the same law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in causing transgressions to increase, which is absurd.

 

[Soyeong]

You are claiming that Jesus was not bringing new teaching in Matthew five? Just the same old laws?

The understanding was what Jesus was addressing. Among your people and neighbors does not include enemies. Therefore hate your enemies.

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people,
but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Jesus was perhaps teaching to understand the Law in way that would have been new to his audience, but was fulfilling the Law by teaching obedience to it as it was originally intended to be understood, not making his own additions to it in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2.

It is a giant leap to go from saying that Leviticus 19:18 does not specify our enemies to saying that therefore the Law commands us to hate our enemies. In Leviticus 19:34, we are also instructed to love the stranger as ourselves.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think they wee originally for Jews. But according to the Bible, disciples of Jesus (“Christians”) should be also Jews.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them, and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree; don't boast over the branches. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you.
Romans 11:17-18

Won't the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:27-29

But I also think, the commandments are good, I don’t see any good reason to reject them.

Do you keep the Sabbath? Which day?

 

[Saint Steven]

If Jesus was sinless because he didn't need to obey the Law rather than because he lived in perfect obedience to it, then him being sinless would hold no significance. On the contrary, Jesus was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4). If priests can perform their duties on the Sabbath and be held innocent of breaking it or if someone can get their child or an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath without breaking it, then clearly there are some forms of work that the Sabbath was never intended to prohibit, which includes the work that Jesus was doing. As he said, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, so the Sabbath was never intended to be used as an excuse to avoid obeying the command to love our neighbor.

There isn't really any way around it that I can see. The issue was work on the Sabbath and Jesus admitted that he was working.

John 5:16-18
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath,
the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them,
“My Father is always at his work to this very day,
and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him;
not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father,
making himself equal with God.

 

[Soyeong]

The old testament was the bad news. The new testament is the good news.

If you are promoting the law, that's just bad news. IMHO

God has just one continuously revealed plan of redemption. In Deuteronomy 10:12-13, God said that the Law was given for His people's own good, and I believe Him, do you?

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but in 7:23, he contrasted that with a law of sin that was waging war with the law of his mind and holding him captive. In Romans 7:6, he spoke about being released from a law that held us captive. It would make no sense to interpret 7:6 as Paul speaking about being released from the holy, righteous, and good commands of the God that he served, which he delighted in obeying, but would make perfect sense to interpret that as being released from the law of sin that held us captive.

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Do you really believe that the Law was added because of transgressions, but now that this faith has come we can go back to our transgressions?

 

[Soyeong]

There isn't really any way around it that I can see. The issue was work on the Sabbath and Jesus admitted that he was working.

John 5:16-18
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath,
the Jewish leaders began to persecute him.
17 In his defense Jesus said to them,
“My Father is always at his work to this very day,
and I too am working.”
18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him;
not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father,
making himself equal with God.

Can you please explain why you disagreed with what I said? Galatians 4:4 clearly states that Jesus was born under the Law. If priests are permitted to do work on the Sabbath without breaking it and we can get our child or ox out of a ditch without breaking it, then why do you insist that the work that Jesus was doing was breaking the Sabbath? Do you think that he spoke falsely when he said that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath?

 

[Saint Steven]

… Do you really believe that the Law was added because of transgressions, but now that this faith has come we can go back to our transgressions?

Well, what does this mean to you then?

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

 

[Saint Steven]

Can you please explain why you disagreed with what I said? Galatians 4:4 clearly states that Jesus was born under the Law. If priests are permitted to do work on the Sabbath without breaking it and we can get our child or ox out of a ditch without breaking it, then why do you insist that the work that Jesus was doing was breaking the Sabbath? Do you think that he spoke falsely when he said that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath?

Sure, we can discuss that. But let's at least look at the whole sentence. That tells us why.

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Born under the law to redeem those under the law. Those under the law were his own people. This is not so much a doctrinal statement as one of national ethnicity. Israelites were under the law. Jesus was an Israelite. What do you make of this? Until John. Then what?

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John.
Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached,
and everyone is forcing their way into it.

 

[Soyeong]

Well, what does this mean to you then?

Galatians 3:23-25
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus made a similar statement about the Law being under John, but but since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin was, so if he was speaking about it being taught after John, then saying that it was until John was not speaking about it ending with John. Furthermore, he went on in verses 17-18 to teach obedience to the Law and to say that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least part to disappear form the Law, so he clearly was not speaking about something that was never going to end, not about something that he thought had already ended. As such, I don't see a good reason to think interpret the law being until John or until Christ to be speaking about it ending with either of them, especially because neither of them taught that the Law had ended, so repentance was no longer necessary, but just the opposite. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law in accordance with what he taught by word and by example.

 

[Soyeong]

Sure, we can discuss that. But let's at least look at the whole sentence. That tells us why.

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Born under the law to redeem those under the law. Those under the law were his own people. This is not so much a doctrinal statement as one of national ethnicity. Israelites were under the law. Jesus was an Israelite. What do you make of this? Until John. Then what?

Luke 16:16
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John.
Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached,
and everyone is forcing their way into it.

God's Law is holy, righteous, and good, and was given as a precious gift for our own good to teach us how to walk in God's ways, how to rightly live, how to refrain from sin, how to be blessed, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so those who are under the Law have no need to be redeemed from something like that, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our Lawlessness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness. Those who have never been under the Law have never needed Christ to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness. It is inconsistent for someone to believe both that the Law was never given to Gentiles and to believe that Christ came to free Gentiles from the Law.

However, the whole world is under God's Law and obligated to obey it, otherwise God would not have been just to judge the world with the Flood for their sins or to judge the world in Revelation. Likewise, in 2 Peter 2:6-8, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of their Lawless deeds, so they were under God's Law and were obligated to obey it even though they weren't in a covenant relationship with Him.

 

[Saint Steven]

In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus made a similar statement about the Law being under John, but but since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin was, so if he was speaking about it being taught after John, then saying that it was until John was not speaking about it ending with John. Furthermore, he went on in verses 17-18 to teach obedience to the Law and to say that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least part to disappear form the Law, so he clearly was not speaking about something that was never going to end, not about something that he thought had already ended. As such, I don't see a good reason to think interpret the law being until John or until Christ to be speaking about it ending with either of them, especially because neither of them taught that the Law had ended, so repentance was no longer necessary, but just the opposite. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law in accordance with what he taught by word and by example.

Oftentimes Jesus is referring to the prophetic aspect of the books of the Law, which seems to go right past you. See if you can catch it this time.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

 

[Saint Steven]

God's Law is holy, righteous, and good, and was given as a precious gift for our own good to teach us how to walk in God's ways, how to rightly live, how to refrain from sin, how to be blessed, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so those who are under the Law have no need to be redeemed from something like that, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our Lawlessness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness. Those who have never been under the Law have never needed Christ to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness. It is inconsistent for someone to believe both that the Law was never given to Gentiles and to believe that Christ came to free Gentiles from the Law.

However, the whole world is under God's Law and obligated to obey it, otherwise God would not have been just to judge the world with the Flood for their sins or to judge the world in Revelation. Likewise, in 2 Peter 2:6-8, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of their Lawless deeds, so they were under God's Law and were obligated to obey it even though they weren't in a covenant relationship with Him.

Can you make the distinction between "God's law" and "the law"? Not the same.

1 Corinthians 9:21
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Oftentimes Jesus is referring to the prophetic aspect of the books of the Law, which seems to go right past you. See if you can catch it this time.

Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

I agree that Luke 16:16 could have been referring the aspect of John's role being prophesied. In John 5:46, Jesus said that Moses wrote about him, in Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets interpreting to them all of the things in Scripture concerning himself, in Hebrews 10:7, the volume of the scroll is written about Jesus, and in Romans 10:4, Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so the Law is all about Christ and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. My congregation spent two years going through a sermon series on Finding Messiah in the Torah, which I can link to you if you are interested.

Can you make the distinction between "God's law" and "the law"? Not the same.

1 Corinthians 9:21
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

"The law" can refer to any sort of law, so I use "God's Law" to specify that I am speaking about the entirety of the Law given by God in the OT. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul was not openly admitting to deceiving people and he was not speaking sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message. Rather, in context the was speaking about giving up his rights in order to meet people where they were at. In verse 21, he said that he was not free from God's Law in a parallel statement with being under Christ's Law, so they both refer to the same thing. Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow.

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree that Luke 16:16 could have been referring the aspect of John's role being prophesied. In John 5:46, Jesus said that Moses wrote about him, in Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets interpreting to them all of the things in Scripture concerning himself, in Hebrews 10:7, the volume of the scroll is written about Jesus, and in Romans 10:4, Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so the Law is all about Christ and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. My congregation spent two years going through a sermon series on Finding Messiah in the Torah, which I can link to you if you are interested.



"The law" can refer to any sort of law, so I use "God's Law" to specify that I am speaking about the entirety of the Law given by God in the OT. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, Paul was not openly admitting to deceiving people and he was not speaking sinning in order to reach sinners because that would have completely undermined his message. Rather, in context the was speaking about giving up his rights in order to meet people where they were at. In verse 21, he said that he was not free from God's Law in a parallel statement with being under Christ's Law, so they both refer to the same thing. Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow.

From my view, "the law" unless accompanied by an "of" qualifier, most always is in reference to the law that God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses. Unless it is in reference to the books of the Law. The term "God's law" to me means the law of human conscience given to all humankind, not just Israel.

What I find hard to understand is that this law of human conscience (God's law) seems to stem from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil at the Fall of humankind. This seems strange to me.

 

[Soyeong]

Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law not the same, which is why he calls them the commandments.

You are not understanding the role that Moses played as a mediator because nothing originated on his authority, but rather God told him what to say to the Israelites whereupon he then conveyed that to them. So all of God's commands are God's commands and come with the same moral authority regardless of whether God wrote them, God told Moses to write them, or even if He had just spoken them without anyone writing them down. A change in the medium upon which the commandment are written or where they are placed does not change the moral authority of who gave them or the content of what they were require us to do.

The Ten Commandments were what the Mosaic Covenant was originally intended to be, however, that covenant was never made. It was predicated on the condition that the people would hear God's voice and become a nation of priests (Exodus 19:5-6). However, upon hearing God's voice the people got cold feet and wanted a different covenant where Moses would act as a mediator, where God would only speak to Moses and they would listen to Moses instead. As such, it became necessary for Moses to write down additional instructions for how to walk in God's ways in lieu of the people being directed how to walk in them by hearing God's voice (Deuteronomy 5:22-33), so they ended up making a covenant that had 613 laws and as a nation with priests, not a nation of priests.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes what you refer to as ceremonial laws. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's holiness can't be ended without first ending God's holiness. The Mosaic Law points us to Christ because it is all about him and how to have a relationship with Him based on faith and love.

 

[Soyeong]

From my view, "the law" unless accompanied by an "of" qualifier, most always is in reference to the law that God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses. Unless it is in reference to the books of the Law. The term "God's law" to me means the law of human conscience given to all humankind, not just Israel.

What I find hard to understand is that this law of human conscience (God's law) seems to stem from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil at the Fall of humankind. This seems strange to me.

I have demonstrated how Paul spoke about multiple categories of law in Romans 7:25 and Romans 3:27 and how there are verses that speak about "the law" that would make no make no sense to all be speaking about the same law, so to say it most always is in reference to the law that God gave to the Israelites would be to make a very unsafe assumption, especially considering the major role that the oral law played in Judaism in the 1st century. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith upholds the Law and in 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law, which would make no sense if he were speaking about the same law in other verses like Romans 7:5 or Galatians 5:4. Much of what is said about laws in the NT is in regard to man-made laws. For example, in Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews to visit with or associate with Gentiles, which is not found anywhere in God's Law, and is in fact contrary to it. It was this law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-15 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

You are not understanding the role that Moses played as a mediator because nothing originated on his authority, but rather God told him what to say to the Israelites whereupon he then conveyed that to them. So all of God's commands are God's commands and come with the same moral authority regardless of whether God wrote them, God told Moses to write them, or even if He had just spoken them without anyone writing them down. A change in the medium upon which the commandment are written or where they are placed does not change the moral authority of who gave them or the content of what they were require us to do.

The Ten Commandments were what the Mosaic Covenant was originally intended to be, however, that covenant was never made. It was predicated on the condition that the people would hear God's voice and become a nation of priests (Exodus 19:5-6). However, upon hearing God's voice the people got cold feet and wanted a different covenant where Moses would act as a mediator, where God would only speak to Moses and they would listen to Moses instead. As such, it became necessary for Moses to write down additional instructions for how to walk in God's ways in lieu of the people being directed how to walk in them by hearing God's voice (Deuteronomy 5:22-33), so they ended up making a covenant that had 613 laws and as a nation with priests, not a nation of priests.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes what you refer to as ceremonial laws. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's holiness can't be ended without first ending God's holiness. The Mosaic Law points us to Christ because it is all about him and how to have a relationship with Him based on faith and love.

Sorry but I do not agree with your interpretation. There is a clear delineation between the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic or CeremonialLaw.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes, indirectly, that is the point. Many sins are not directly covered by the Ten. So, using that as a basis to define sin is flawed.

Using it totally by itself as a basis for defining sin is flawed but you said you cannot define sin using the whole Bible. This is where you are wrong. Without the bible there would be many serious sins we would probably not know about. If you use the other moral laws in the OT and the moral teachings of Christ, you pretty much have all sin covered. But as I said some are general principles that have to be extrapolated, such as my TV example.

 

[Saint Steven]

You are not understanding the role that Moses played as a mediator because nothing originated on his authority, but rather God told him what to say to the Israelites whereupon he then conveyed that to them. ...

That's good. I'm amazed at how many people don't understand that.

Leviticus 1:1-2
The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said,
2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord,
bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.

 

[Saint Steven]

I have demonstrated how Paul spoke about multiple categories of law in Romans 7:25 and Romans 3:27 and how there are verses that speak about "the law" that would make no make no sense to all be speaking about the same law, so to say it most always is in reference to the law that God gave to the Israelites would be to make a very unsafe assumption, especially considering the major role that the oral law played in Judaism in the 1st century. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith upholds the Law and in 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law, which would make no sense if he were speaking about the same law in other verses like Romans 7:5 or Galatians 5:4. Much of what is said about laws in the NT is in regard to man-made laws. For example, in Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews to visit with or associate with Gentiles, which is not found anywhere in God's Law, and is in fact contrary to it. It was this law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-15 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles.

No, I believe that for the most part it is the same law in those examples. I was planning to go point-by-point on that, but changed directions to deal with this. See below.

Circumcision was the law that separated Jews from gentiles. Which was Abrahamic, not Mosaic, as you know. In the context following the situation about Peter separating himself from the gentiles we find this statement by the Apostle Paul. See below.

What was it that Paul destroyed?

Galatians 2:18-19
If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Compare. What is said of Paul when he returns to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:21-24
They have been informed that you teach all the Jews
who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses,
telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.
22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come,
23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses,
so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth
in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But there was truth in the reports about Paul. He never denied it.