Do you agree that christians should keep the 10 Commandments? (2)

If only we would just sit down and try to digest the simple truth of the gospel.

The law is needed to identify sin in the life.

Christ is needed to cleanse the sin from the life.

When our sins have been cleansed by Christ, and we are living In Christ, by His Spirit indwelling in us, giving us power and strength to overcome sin, the law is no longer needed, as we now live by faith.

But if we are now living by faith, does that mean we have license to go back and sin? Of course not. We'd end up going right under the law again!

All have fallen short of the glory of God. All have weaknesses and infirmities. Such humble individuals, as imperfect as they are, recognize the holiness and validity of God's law. But such individuals are not those who wilfully transgress the law. There is a vast difference between "willful" transgression versus "shortcomings" due to human weakness.

When God sees that you are relying on His strength, and cooperating with His Divine will by exercising your God-given WILL POWER, His Grace is sufficient for you, and Christ's righteousness is imputed upon you.

But when we say "well, since I'm saved by Grace, and since I can't keep the law anyway, I'm not even going to try", this is when the "grace of God is turned into lasciviousness" (June 1:6)

The word lasciviousness means:
Excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law, morality and decorum. Basically, this is saying that they are taking grace too far.

It's called "cheap grace". People end up succumbing to cheap grace when they do not realize that Law and Grace are inseparable.

They work hand-in-hand. The Ark of the Covenant is a perfect illustration of knowing how Law and Grace operate together.

Inside the Ark of the Covenant in heaven (Revelation 11:19), you have the Law of Ten Commandments. Right above the Law you have the "MERCY seat". This is where we come "boldly before the throne of Grace where we might obtain mercy and find grace" (Heb 4:16)

The only reason Grace exists is BECAUSE there is a law. If the Law was only for the Old Covenant, than may I ask why we need Grace in the New Covenant? Grace can only exist because there is a law for which we are PRESENTLY guilty of breaking!

The most irrefutable proof that the Law is still valid in the New Covenant is that the original Ark of the Covenant, which houses the Tables of the Testimony, resides in Heaven's Sanctuary (Revelation 11:19; 15:5).

This is the "better testament" (Heb 7:22) for the New Covenant. But the Ten Commandments law STILL reads the same, for the earthly sanctuary was a "figure" (copy) or a "pattern" of the true (heavenly) (Heb 9:24).

Lysimachus said:

I agree with the context you laid out here tall73.

I will comment on a couple points, however. When I see that the emphasis of Jesus' point is "what is lawful to do on the Sabbath", this, to me, automatically implies that there are "unlawful things to do on the Sabbath". For if Christ did not believe the Seventh-Day Sabbath was to be kept by all mankind, why didn't He just argue with the Pharisees that the Sabbath is no longer important?

Had Jesus been living in our day, His approach would have had to have been totally different. In Jesus' day, you had the pendulum shifted way to the right, where legalistic Judaism was at its peak. For Christ to place His emphasis on keeping the Sabbath would have completely defeated His purpose in reaching out to the Jews who were way in left-field about Sabbath keeping.

It would seem to me, then, that Christ's argument leaned more toward what is spoken of in Isaiah 58:13,14, where the Sabbath is to be a "delight". Clearly, the exacting, burdensome, rigorous rules being imposed on the Sabbath by the Tulmud had turned the day into a miserable "burden".

Click to expand...

I think Jesus often did argue for the sabbath not being burdensome. But I am not sure that is the point here. He uses the example of David and says that David did something that was lawful only for the priests.

IE. it doesn't sound like the act was in itself lawful.

Incidentally, the Jewish believers in Judea continued to keep the whole law, according to Acts 21, and therefore they would continue to apply advice regarding the keeping of the Sabbath, even if no one else did.

As for the "Son of Man". We have to remember that everything about Christ is "Judo-centric". Forgive me if I'm wrong, however, but it appears that you are implying that "perhaps" this lends credence to the possibility of the Sabbath being tied only to the Jews because it is a Messianic prophecy in Daniel 7? Or maybe I'm just not digesting what you are implying could be derived from Daniel 7.

Click to expand...

I am not implying anything. I don't understand it yet. But there seems to be a reason for placing "made for man" and Son of Man.

What that reason is I don't yet know. I am just trying to focus more attention on it in case others have ideas.

Lysimachus said:

Notice:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil [pleroo - "to fill full"]. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled [ginomai - "accomplished"]." (Matthew 5:17,18)​

.....

Furthermore, if Jesus truly did come to do away with the Law, then why did He take the time to teach them? Why did He say that those who do and teach the Commandments “shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19)? Why would God bring His Law to an end when Christ perfectly kept the Law and told us “to walk even as He walked” (1 John 2:6)?

Click to expand...

But the problem for Adventists using Matthew 5 is that they ignore the parts of it they do not like.

Jesus addresses not only the 10 commandments, but oaths and eye for eye as well with the same "you have heard" formula. He is not referring only to the ten commandments, but the whole law.

The two greatest commandments likewise are not from the ten, but from Lev. and Deuteronomy.

Yet Adventists do not advocate keeping the whole law. They do not advocate doing all that Jesus did. So Adventists still have to reckon with the same issues as other Christians, apart from the Messianics.

Elder 111 said:

Scripture does not teach that. What Paul said is that we are not under the law. What does "not under the law" mean? It does not mean that there is no law but that we are not under the condemnation of the Law. All have sinned and therefore deserve death. Is that not so? But by the Spirit indwelling we have the power to overcome sin. If we overcome sin we overcome breaking the law. The law does not move.
Think about it, if the law could have been removed then Christ would have had no need to die. Just move the law and we were home free. But Christ died for us, for breaking the law, for every man that will ever live. Why would Christ died for a law that He would remove?



Why, because He died for you. Why, because death was the wages of breaking the law. Is that not what the bible teaches?


Not because there is no law but because the penalty of the law has been taken by Christ. Should we then sin, "God forbid" Is what Paul said. How can we sin or break the law if there is no law? Why don't you steal and lie and kill if there is no law? Why don't the Holy Spirit direct you away from those things if there is no law?

Click to expand...

He does not direct me away from those things. He directs me to Love my neighbor and to Love God. Love does not do acts unbecoming. So I live the law of Love not the thou shall nots. If I see someone hungry is it okay that I just don't commit adultry with their spouse or that I do nor kill them? The compassion of Christs love in me stirs me to love this person. For it is His love in me that moves me. Not the law. Is it not sin to know to do good and not do good? Like allow this person to be hungry. Where in all the law is it written that we should feed the hungry and visit the sick?

tall73 said:

But the problem for Adventists using Matthew 5 is that they ignore the parts of it they do not like.

Jesus addresses not only the 10 commandments, but oaths and eye for eye as well with the same "you have heard" formula. He is not referring only to the ten commandments, but the whole law.

The two greatest commandments likewise are not from the ten, but from Lev. and Deuteronomy.

Yet Adventists do not advocate keeping the whole law. They do not advocate doing all that Jesus did. So Adventists still have to reckon with the same issues as other Christians, apart from the Messianics.

Click to expand...

Well I would agree that Jesus most certainly taught many more laws than were only listed in the Ten Commandments. And I hope I have never implied that the Ten are the only ones that carry into the New Covenant.

Paul even quoted from Leviticus concerning moral issues, such as homosexuality.

While we may not understand the formula 100%, I still feel we are much safer to conclude that the Ten Commandments, which were written in stone, carry a perpetual weight. I think the carving of them in stone was to make a point concerning its unchangeable character.

With that said, I feel (though you may disagree) that the fact that the heavenly sanctuary contains the Ark of the Covenant (not the same one that was on the earth of course) offers sufficient theological basis for upholding the Ten in the New Covenant age. To me, the Ten are more of a "basic foundation". God is trying to keep it simple for us, so that we may never forget those basic Ten. But may we never fall into the ditch that this means that's all we have to obey.

No matter what, we know the ceremonial services tied to the sanctuary have certainly ceased, as Christ is now our Intercessor in heaven.

Now as for the other laws (hygienic laws, for example), those can be a bit more tricky.

Lysimachus said:

Well I would agree that Jesus most certainly taught many more laws than were only listed in the Ten Commandments. And I hope I have never implied that the Ten are the only ones that carry into the New Covenant.

Paul even quoted from Leviticus concerning moral issues, such as homosexuality.

While we may not understand the formula 100%, I still feel we are much safer to conclude that the Ten Commandments, which were written in stone, carry a perpetual weight. I think the carving of them in stone was to make a point concerning its unchangeable character.

Click to expand...

Now you are wrestling with the real problem. . Jesus, Paul, James, etc. reference the whole law not just the ten.

There are moral principles in the whole law, not just the ten. And many contend there is a ceremonial law in the ten.


As to the 10 being permanent because they were in stone, that does not necessarily follow. The 10 commandments were the words of the covenant, the heart of the covenant, with Israel. As with other suzerain covenants of the time the covenant document was recorded in a monument of stone.

As part of that central covenant document we have the sabbath, a sign with Israel:

Exo 31:13 "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.


Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


The stone tablets are not more permanent than the first covenant, which was supplanted by the new.

The stone tablets ministry is found not to be permanent.

2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.


Now I certainly agree many moral principles remain from the whole law. But the question is whether the Sabbath, a sign with Israel, a memorial, a day which had prescribed sacrifices, which pointed to creation and redemption, was in fact a moral precept or a rather a "ceremonial law".


The Sabbath has much more in common with the passover and the Day of Atonement than with thou shalt not steal.

And the sabbath is grouped in with the other appointed times as a shadow:

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Lysimachus said:

With that said, I feel (though you may disagree) that the fact that the heavenly sanctuary contains the Ark of the Covenant (not the same one that was on the earth of course) offers sufficient theological basis for upholding the Ten in the New Covenant age

Click to expand...

Is it your view that a copy of Aaron's staff is in heaven, or a copy of the book of the law? If not, then why would a copy of Israel's covenant document be?

The text does not say that the ten commandments are in the ark in Revelation.

It is doubtful given 2 Cor. 3 referenced above that the stone commandments would be in heaven. Their ministry was the ministry of death, and is said to not be permanent.


It is in Ellen White's writings that we see the ten commandments in the heavenly sanctuary.

As to the ark in Revelation, it is part of several sanctuary scenes which frame the sections of the book.

We have Jesus among the candlesticks, the scene with the angel offering incense and then casting down the censor, the ark scene, and then the whole sanctuary filled with smoke.

These scenes move from greater to greater holiness, and at the same time correlate to greater and greater judgment in the book.

But as with all of Revelation, they are symbols.

And the symbols can be viewed more than one way. For instance, in chapter 4-5 we get a slightly different take on the sanctuary symbols. Now we have the 7 spirits of God before Him in His sanctuary throne room. The ark was where God met with the people in the earthly sanctuary, and He dwelt above the mercy seat, representing His throne. But now we have God on His heavenly throne, and instead of gold cherubim we have actual cherubim.

So Rev. 4-5 spell out more of the reality of the symbols of the sanctuary, as it is showing God's heavenly throne room.

Ex 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.
22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Ex 30:6 And you shall put it in front of the veil that is above the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is above the testimony, where I will meet with you.

Lev 16:2 And the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.

Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.

tall73 said:

As to the 10 being permanent because they were in stone, that does not necessarily follow. The 10 commandments were the words of the covenant, the heart of the covenant, with Israel. As with other suzerain covenants of the time the covenant document was recorded in a monument of stone.

As part of that central covenant document we have the sabbath, a sign with Israel:

Exo 31:13 "You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.


Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


The stone tablets are not more permanent than the first covenant, which was supplanted by the new.

Click to expand...

Our problem of disagreement here lies in how we understand the term "covenant". Yes, the Ten Commandments were named "the covenant", but the were not "the covenant". A covenant is a promise, an agreement, a contract, a pact between two parties concerning written words. But it is impossible to say that the words themselves are the covenant. The New Covenant did not come to erase the previous words, but only to convert the soul and transform the believer. We find the New Covenant experience found in the Old Covenant time frame (see Psalms 37:31; 40:8; 119:34; Proverbs 3:1-3; 7:1-3).

I'm still not convinced, however, that the writing of them on stone by God's own finger (yes, the only law God has ever written with His own finger) is not of perpetual obligation.

The stone tablets ministry is found not to be permanent.
2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Click to expand...

I don't see the ministration of death coming to an end here. I see the glory of Moses being done away, only to be replaced by the glory of Christ which made them even more glorious.

Ellen White herself wrote a great commentary on the Ministry of Death here:
The Righteousness of Christ in the Law

The engraving them upon stone is for a mental picture only. Christ, however, has come to show us that that which is stone must be engraved in the heart as well. But this does not erase the literal reading of it. After all, if it did, we would not need Bibles, now would we? One could argue that the Spirit can talk to you directly, without ever having to open your Bible and read the literal words on paper. But what's in paper tells you the Ten WERE written in stone. And this is for our benefit, to help us grasp the significance and importance of them.

Now I certainly agree many moral principles remain from the whole law. But the question is whether the Sabbath, a sign with Israel, a memorial, a day which had prescribed sacrifices, which pointed to creation and redemption, was in fact a moral precept or a rather a "ceremonial law".

The Sabbath has much more in common with the passover and the Day of Atonement than with thou shalt not steal.

And the sabbath is grouped in with the other appointed times as a shadow:

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there were many Jewish ceremonies added to the 4th commandment Sabbath. But we cannot neglect the fact that there is nothing of a ceremonial nature mentioned in the 4th commandment itself. Even if Colossians 2:17 did include the Sabbath, the context seams more to do with not judging people as to whether they should hold a festival on the Sabbath days or not.

Whether one choose to have a festival on it, or not, I believe we are still under obligation to give that day to God, and rest from our worldly enterprises (menial work, and pleasure seeking, etc.).

Lysimachus said:

Our problem of disagreement here lies in how we understand the term "covenant". Yes, the Ten Commandments were named "the covenant", but the were not "the covenant". A covenant is a promise, an agreement, a contract, a pact between two parties concerning written words. But it is impossible to say that the words themselves are the covenant. The New Covenant did not come to erase the previous words, but only to convert the soul and transform the believer. We find the New Covenant experience found in the Old Covenant time frame (see Psalms 37:31; 40:8; 119:34; Proverbs 3:1-3; 7:1-3).

Click to expand...

I did not say the ten commandments are the covenant.

The covenant is indeed the promises on both sides. And this covenant is a particular type of covenant. It is not a parity covenant, one between equals. It is a suzerainty covenant. Usually it was made between a strong king who conquered a weaker king. The conquered king was bound under a covenant which involved curses and blessings by the stronger.

Certain requirements were given, etc.

And the agreement included the covenant words or document, which was a memorial of the covenant which was kept by both sides to remember the agreement.

So the presence of stone tablets is not at all surprising. They are the covenant words or covenant document, at the heart of the covenant with Israel, but no they are certainly not the whole covenant.

The covenant document or words are without a doubt tied to the whole covenant, and that covenant is gone.

Exo 34:27 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Exo 34:28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.


In regards to the above text you said:

Lysimachus said:

I don't see the ministration of death coming to an end here. I see the glory of Moses being done away, only to be replaced by the glory of Christ which made them even more glorious.

Click to expand...

Look at the last line. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory...the ministry of death, the old covenant law, engraved on tablets of stone...was not only overshadowed but coming to an end.

The ministry of death is here associated with the tablets of stone. The covenant that the stone tablets were at the heart of is gone and there is a new covenant.

Now even if you think the same exact law is inscribed on the heart, the stone tablets are not at all indicated in a positive light. They are no more.


So stone did not indicate permanence in this case. It was the covenant document, the covenant words, made with Israel after the custom of the time.

But it is the law on the heart that lasts, not the law in stone.

Lysimachus said:

Ellen White herself wrote a great commentary on the Ministry of Death here:
The Righteousness of Christ in the Law

The engraving them upon stone is for a mental picture only. Christ, however, has come to show us that that which is stone must be engraved in the heart as well. But this does not erase the literal reading of it. After all, if it did, we would not need Bibles, now would we?

Click to expand...

A. the whole law was given for our instruction, not just the ten.

B. You don't keep the whole law.

C. The literal reading of it would start with our coming out of Egypt as slaves. I was never in Egypt as a slave.

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

This was all part of the covenant with Israel. It contained the sabbath, declared to be a sign with Israel.

The law, including the 10, certainly contain moral principles. But they are themselves a specific application of principles given to the Israelites in their context and their land, along with the sanctuary rites which show the plan of salvation.

Incidentally, your assertion that the 10 are written on the heart ignores:

A. There are moral commands outside the ten. They too would have to be there.

B. The only text I am aware of that speaks about the law on the heart is Rom 2, and it shows gentiles, who do not know the law, keeping the righteous requirements by the conscience.


Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

But these gentiles were not spontaneously keeping the Day of Atonement and sabbath by the conscience. The conscience does not teach such things. It teaches enduring moral principles.

One could argue that the Spirit can talk to you directly, without ever having to open your Bible and read the literal words on paper. But what's in paper tells you the Ten WERE written in stone. And this is for our benefit, to help us grasp the significance and importance of them.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the significance in that culture was that the stone was a reminder of a covenant.

Lysimachus said:

There is no doubt that there were many Jewish ceremonies added to the 4th commandment Sabbath. But we cannot neglect the fact that there is nothing of a ceremonial nature mentioned in the 4th commandment itself. Even if Colossians 2:17 did include the Sabbath, the context seams more to do with not judging people as to whether they should hold a festival on the Sabbath days or not.

Whether one choose to have a festival on it, or not, I believe we are still under obligation to give that day to God, and rest from our worldly enterprises (menial work, and pleasure seeking, etc.).

Click to expand...

A. Col. 2 says it is a shadow, and one is not to judge regarding it, along with the other holy days. Now I am fine with folks keeping or not keeping anything in that list.

B. The commandment points to creation and to redemption. Redemption is seen in the Deut. 5 version. But the whole thing was a sign with Israel of God's Lordship. His two claims over them, the reason for his being their Suzerain, their Lord, are that He created them, and He redeemed them. The creation aspect is seen more often in the texts. But both are there.


And the sabbath was a sign with them of their adherence to the covenant.

Now you say that the ceremonies were added to the sabbath. The ten as was referenced are a covenant document. But all the requirements were part of the covenant. Further information is spelled out regarding the sabbath, not just what was to be done, such as sacrifices, etc. but what happens if one does not keep it, etc. The sacrifices are a part of the sign. They point to redemption.

tall73 said:

Is it your view that a copy of Aaron's staff is in heaven, or a copy of the book of the law? If not, then why would a copy of Israel's covenant document be?

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe the original Rod of Jesse is there. Remember that Aaron was High Priest, and the High Priest typifies Christ. So the rod of Aaron on earth would be juxtaposed to the Rod of Christ in heaven. The rod also budded, and this symbolizes Christ which is the Vine, in my humble opinion. While Revelation does not mention every single furniture item, I believe John revealed enough items to paint a picture that the heavenly has all the same items. We have the Ark of the Covenant (11:19); the Altar (8:3,5; 9:13), the Golden Censer (8:3); the Seven Golden Candlesticks (1:12,13,20; 2:1; 4:5). Should we assume that because John did not give detailed descriptions of anymore items, that this means none of the other items exist, or represent anything? I believe God leaves some mysteries for us to derive spiritual meaning from. Enough has been given us to infer that the rest of the items are there.

Concerning the book of the Law, yes, I believe there is a symbolic book in heaven for which the book of the law typified. All the ceremonial laws of Moses find their meaning in Christ's high-priestly ministry. All the ceremonial laws are still in effect--only now in heaven, spiritually. Their earthly physical keeping of them was done away with, but not what they stood for. So the book of the law is still to be followed, but spiritually. But many that are to be kept spiritually also are to be kept literally--depending on the moral nature of them. With the Ten, I believe the 4th can be kept physically no less than the other 9.

The text does not say that the ten commandments are in the ark in Revelation.

Click to expand...

I would have to respectfully disagree, because although it does not say it "specifically", saying that the Ten Commandments is not in the Ark of the Covenant in heaven would be tantamount to a construction worker describing a house to you, but making no mention of a restroom. Because the construction worker did not mention the restroom in his description, should we imply that there must be no restroom in the house? Obviously not. It is automatically inferred. Another example might be a historian mentioning a cavalry charge, but not mentioning horses. Are we to conclude that there was a cavalry charge without the use of horses? The Ark was clearly to house the Testimony, so it's not important to really go further on this.

In Exodus 25:16, Moses is told to put the "testimony" into the Ark. 32:15 calls it the "two tables of the testimony". 25:22 calls it the "ark of the testimony". The words "testimony" here can just as easily be called "covenant".

Revelation 11:19 says: "ark of his testament". This could also be translated as "covenant". So the Ten Commandments were called "covenant", or "testament" (whichever you prefer).

If the Ten Commandments were not inside the Ark of the Covenant in heaven, it would just be called the "Ark". Not the Ark "of His Testament". It can only be called the "Ark of His Testament" if it is housing the covenant in it. At this point, I believe God expects us to use our brains by going to the Old Testament Sanctuary typology to find out what is in that "Ark".

If God were to give away all the details, He would be making it too easy. He expects us to "study to show ourselves approved...rightly dividing the word of truth".

It is doubtful given 2 Cor. 3 referenced above that the stone commandments would be in heaven. Their ministry was the ministry of death, and is said to not be permanent.

Click to expand...

The law is clearly still condemning. We're still in need a of a Saviour, even today, when we sin. If we do not accept Christ, we will consume in the Lake of Fire for our sins, which is the transgression of God's law. That is what the Law does. It condemns the unrepentant sinner.

It is in Ellen White's writings that we see the ten commandments in the heavenly sanctuary.

Click to expand...

Yes, she clearly did receive quite a bit more detail, didn't she? I'm thankful to God that we have a prophet who can shed some more details on these blurry questions. I think it is very reasonable, and logical, too, to conclude that the original copy of the Ten Commandments are in Heaven's Ark.

False prophets simply don't talk about God's law, and being more like Christ. They don't talk about His testimony.

As to the ark in Revelation, it is part of several sanctuary scenes which frame the sections of the book.

We have Jesus among the candlesticks, the scene with the angel offering incense and then casting down the censor, the ark scene, and then the whole sanctuary filled with smoke.

These scenes move from greater to greater holiness, and at the same time correlate to greater and greater judgment in the book.

But as with all of Revelation, they are symbols.

And the symbols can be viewed more than one way. For instance, in chapter 4-5 we get a slightly different take on the sanctuary symbols. Now we have the 7 spirits of God before Him in His sanctuary throne room. The ark was where God met with the people in the earthly sanctuary, and He dwelt above the mercy seat, representing His throne. But now we have God on His heavenly throne, and instead of gold cherubim we have actual cherubim.

So Rev. 4-5 spell out more of the reality of the symbols of the sanctuary, as it is showing God's heavenly throne room.

Click to expand...

Allow me to explain to you how I see these symbols:

I personally do believe the other items from the earthly sanctuary to be literal in the heavenly—in that there are truly items in the Lord’s sanctuary in heaven. But these items I believe are “SYMBOLIC” of something real.

The Pot of Manna, for example, has so much symbolism, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. For one, Jesus is the bread of life, and Manna is called bread in several places. It also is a symbol of implicit obedience—we do exactly as God says just as He told the Israelites when the Manna fell. It probably also has connection to the Sabbath. The Pot of Manna definitely also typifies healthy living, and eating what the Lord has ordained, and not those things which He forbids. It typifies glorifying God in our bodies. When we follow Christ as our forerunner into the Most Holy Place, we see, by faith, these things before us—and they are things we are to actively and spiritually partake of. Hebrews 4:16 says we are to come boldly before the throne of grace that we might obtain “mercy”. Why do we think the “mercy seat” is called the “mercy seat”? And yes, incase you forgot, it is the lid that covers the 10 commandments! The law is right before us when we come before God to obtain mercy! This is why we need Grace! Because the 10 commandments define our sins, and we recognize our sins and realize our need of a cleansing Saviour. But there is no need of a Mediator until we recognize first that breaking all 10 commandments is sin. If we don’t recognize that breaking them is sin, then we have no need for a mediator, and no need for a Saviour.

Now, let’s assume for a moment that all these items do not literally exist. In fact, let’s assume that because those other items are not mentioned as items in the heavenly sanctuary, that we can only determine the existence of the Ark of the Covenant, the Testimony (Revelation 11:19 and 15;5), the 7 Golden Candlesticks, and the Altar of Incense (Revelation 4 and 5) in heaven. Fair enough?

Let us raise the question: Does the fact as to whether they literally exist or not make any difference as to the meaning?

Whether the Testimony in heaven literally exists or not matters not, as there is symbolism that stands for something. Symbolism is present regardless of its literal existence. The law “EXISTS”. It just “IS”. You don’t need to see it for it to just “BE”. And literal or not, the symbolism is written to help us “perceive” the law’s eternal existence.

And because we know that the earthly sanctuary was a pattern of the heavenly, guess which sanctuary we need to study? The earthly sanctuary. That’s the one Paul studied in Hebrews. That’s the one the Jews studied so that they might have a glimpse of their Messiah’s future mediatorial work.

The bottom line is this:

Literal or not, there is symbolism. And symbolism always stands for something literally true.

So whether the Testimony in heaven in the Ark of God’s Testament is literal or not I do not believe it bears any weight as to whether the Testimony is valid or not. Reality and Validity are not subject to literalism. Literal or not, we are told this law is to be written in our hearts.

But on a side note, I believe that if the New Jerusalem in heaven is a literal city, then we have no real good reason to believe that the Sanctuary in that city is only symbolic. I believe there is a literal temple, just like there is a literal city, and just like God created a literal earth he created a literal city with a literal temple. Just like Jesus is spiritually in our hearts, yet exists as a physical person, so there is a literal place/kingdom/city/temple which is to be within us before we can inherit it. Before we can physically be with Jesus, he must first be in our hearts. Before we can physically dwell in this literal city, it must first be in our hearts.

Off to bed, but wanted to leave you with one thought on the subject.

Deu 9:9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.


The tablets of stone are the tablets OF THE COVENANT that the Lord made with you (Israel).

The tablets are in stone because they are the covenant record, just as with other covenant records. That is why they are called the tablets of the covenant. Or sometimes the tablets of the testimony.

tall73 said:

Off to bed, but wanted to leave you with one thought on the subject.

Deu 9:9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.


The tablets of stone are the tablets OF THE COVENANT that the Lord made with you (Israel).

The tablets are in stone because they are the covenant record, just as with other covenant records. That is why they are called the tablets of the covenant. Or sometimes the tablets of the testimony.

Click to expand...

Oh I do agree with this. Of course, this would go into another lengthy debate trail of the principles of the covenants; something I really do not have the time to delve into. But let's just say that after studying the covenants for many years, I'm convinced that it was never God's intent for the Old Covenant to fail. It waxed old due to the poor promises to obey the words they agreed to keep. They sought the law of righteousness as if it were by the works of the law, and not by faith. Israel was never able to keep the promise to be obedient to these laws (since they relied on their own strength alone), so for God to say "since you couldn't keep it, I'm gonna put it in file thirteen to make it easier for ya" would be--well, pretty much a "cop-out" on God's part, and we can be sure Satan's would be having a hay-day with a smile on his face saying---"see God, not even they were able to keep your own law, so you are now cheating by removing it from them". The New Covenant is actually a statement God is making to prove to Satan and the universe that He will have a people who are finally able to keep them out of true, genuine, heart-felt love.

The covenant promise to keep these laws has been "renewed", but this time, it will be God will who do the writing through His Holy Spirit. Not that God didn't write His laws in the hearts of Old Testament believers, but the emphasis and vast spiritual import was not fully grasped, therefore, this principle needed to be strongly emphasized for the New Covenant.

The Moral Code and the Mosaic Code was codified as one comprehensive law to the Israelites. In the New Covenant, the ministration has changed (now Christ is our High Priest), not the law itself. You have the Moral Laws of right and wrong, then you have the remedial laws (ceremonial/remedial) that were designed to ceremonially "remedy" the problem of sin. They were laws to remedy breaking the main law. The entire remedial system has been shifted to a new ministration in the New Covenant. But the basis of that agreement, those Ten which are enshrined in the New Covenant, have nothing to do with the remedial system. The Ten Commandments do not "deal with the problem of sin". It is by transgressing these laws that the remedial system is in place to resolve.

tall73 said:

Incidentally, your assertion that the 10 are written on the heart ignores:

A. There are moral commands outside the ten. They too would have to be there.

Click to expand...

I don't have time to comment on everything, as I too need to go to bed. But I will make a few comments. I have no doubt there are moral commands outside the ten. But I still believe the 10 are of a "foundational" nature. One could argue why God didn't just keep all 613 laws in paper form, or put all 613 in stone. Obviously, that 10 of them were put on tables, while the other 603 were put on paper, would leave an indelible imprint on the mind of the Jew concerning their "foundational" importance. Not stealing, for example, can go a long ways in its rich spiritual meaning. An example might be when we waste God's time--we are stealing time from Him. Committing adultery can be tied to numerous principles of immoral, and even forming illegitimate unions.

B. The only text I am aware of that speaks about the law on the heart is Rom 2, and it shows gentiles, who do not know the law, keeping the righteous requirements by the conscience.

Click to expand...

I would say that Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16,17 also does a good job at demonstrating this. I also would argue that 2 Cor 3:3 does too, but I already know and have heard your explanation for why you do not believe 2 Cor 3:3 has anything to do with writing the Ten Commandments in the tables of the heart. I believe the fact that Paul made the allusion to "tables of the heart" reveals Paul's intent, and thoughts, that the Ten Commandments are very much apart of this package.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

But these gentiles were not spontaneously keeping the Day of Atonement and sabbath by the conscience. The conscience does not teach such things. It teaches enduring moral principles.

Click to expand...

I'm sure most Sabbatarian Christians are aware that the law being spoken of here in Romans 2 is not limited to, or necessarily wholly inclusive of the Ten Commandments. God will not condemn the Gentile for not being obedient to a law he is unaware of. See James 2:17; Heb 10:26. And we have no doubt that the Ten Commandments and many of the Mosaic Laws teach enduring moral principles. But let us thank God for his graciousness in elaborated them much more extensively for those of us believers who are privileged to know more about God, His love, and His laws. So if this extended knowledge comes to them, if their hearts are right, and they did bear conscience of that which they knew, once the rest of the law reaches them, they will follow it, as their hearts are already prepared to receive it.

This is why the Sabbath 4th commandment is so special to the Christian. There are Pagans and other infidels the world over that keep the other 9 commandments. But once the knowledge of the Sabbath reaches them, suddenly now they are "distinguished" as worshipers of Jehovah, the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

So whether the full knowledge of the law has reached the Gentile or no, what he does know, he will be judged according to this knowledge, and only the "doers of the law" shall be justified.

The codified form reveals basic information, yet is very much needed. It is the codified form that sets the standard, and puts us on the right path for discernment concerning far greater spiritual laws that extend well beyond that which is written.

God is not the author of confusion. How reasonable it is for God to be so kind to us, and give us Ten Basic principles to put into gear the following expanded principles for which we shall continue to learn, and move unto perfection.

When I read the words of Ellen White concerning what will happen when Jesus comes back, I cannot help but be in awe at her amazing mastery of the English language, and how eloquent and powerful she was able to put it.

It is my prayer that these words will instill a convicting impression upon those who feel it is okay to break the Ten Commandments:


All I ask is that you truly search the bottom of your heart tall73. You better be absolutely sure that these words are the words being penned by a false prophet. Because if come to find out, that after all, she was a true prophet, oh how I fear for what you will have to bear. I fear the look on your face if what is written above truly does come to pass--when you see the Ten Commandments being shown by God's hand in the clouds.

As for me, I choose to be on the safe side and believe these words. There is NO modern prophet that writes like her, anywhere.

Blessings brother,

Lysimachus