Does the day of Christ resurrections tell us to change the worship of Sabbath?

[Clare73]

Jesus told us that to love God with all our hearts, soul and might is the fulfillment of the law. How do we love God with everything within us and ignore the very commandment He tells us to remember and that lies at the very middle of the10 commandments?

The same way we fulfill all the commandments simply by loving (Ro 13:8-10).

Jesus is our Sabbath rest from saving ourselves. We rest in him. . .fultime. . .if we believe the NT.

 

[Gary K]

The same way we fulfill all the commandments simply by loving (Ro 13:8-10).

Jesus is our Sabbath rest from saving ourselves. We rest in him. . .fultime. . .if we believe the NT.

And if we believe both Testaments?

 

[safswan]

I truly believe messianic and SDA readers of 2Cor 3:6-11 are in denial of what those verses are telling us. You cannot deny that those verses are telling us that the 10 commandments WERE temporary. The KJV even tells us that the 10 have been done away, verse 11. 11 For if that which IS done away WAS glorious, much more that which remaineth IS glorious. Notice the word "was", telling us the 10 are past tense. Verse 7 tells us that the subject is "the ministry of death" and then explains that the ministry of death is the 10 written on stone WAS glorious.

Couple those verses with Eph 2: 9-15 telling us: 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, there is absolutely no doubt Paul is telling us we are not under the laws of the Sinai covenant.

It is with heavy heart when I read Messianic and SDA responses concerning what Paul so plainly wrote.

THE MINISTRATION OF DEATH
​

The apostle Paul wrote:"But if the ministration of death written and engraven on stones,was glorious,...which glory was to be done away;"[II Corinthians 3:7]

Without careful and proper study of the word of God(Isaiah 28:9,10),the above passage of scripture may be used to say the ten commandments was a ministration of death which is now done away with.This would be in severe contradiction to other statements by the apostle Paul.

He teaches that the breaking of the ten commandments is a sin and contrary to sound doctrine.[I Timothy 1:8-11]

He teaches that observing the ten commandments will allow us to fulfill the command to love.[Romans 13:8-10]

He enjoins the keeping of a particular commandment as the first with a promise ,implying that the others are to be observed also.[Ephesians 6:1-3]

He says the doers of the law "shall be justified" and the context indicates this is a reference to the ten commandments.[Romans 2:13,20-23]

He says this law shows what is sin.[Romans 7:7]

He states boldly, he is under the law to Christ.[I Corinthians 9:21]

If we are not subject to this law then Paul says we are carnal.[Romans 8:7]

Is it really the ten commandments which minister death? This seems to be the teaching of many persons today. Their theory is; get rid of the ten commandments and if there is no law, there will be no sin.

Then, we would not really need a saviour and we would not need to repent of any thing.[Romans 4:15] The preaching of the apostles against sin, would be completely unnecessary. How ridiculous!

The apostle Paul in a parallel passage explains what was the true cause of death and how it should be treated.

As in II Corinthians 3,in Romans 7, Paul discusses the difference between the old and new covenants.[II Corinthians 3:6,14;Romans 7:6]

As this comparison is done, the term used to describe the old covenant is; the ministration or service which produces death or that we were dead wherein we were held.[Romans 7;6]

How did the old covenant produce death and condemnation?

(i) A penalty for breaking the ten commandments was death.[See, John :8:3-5;Leviticus 20:10;Exodus 21:22-25;23:18-20;Numbers 15:32-36]

(ii)The sacrifices for sin could not truly remove the penalty for sin which is death.[Deuteronomy 27:26;Galatians 3:10;Hebrews 10;1-4;Romans 6:23]

A superficial view of the situation would cause some to believe the problem was the ten commandments. This is not so ,Paul explains:

"For when we were in the flesh,the motions of sin,which were by the law,did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."[Romans 7:5]

Sin works by the law to produce death. Should we get rid of the law to get rid of sin or stop sinning and so remove the threat of death?Paul continues:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in the newness of spirit(ministration of the spirit),and not in the oldness of the letter(ministration of death)."[Romans 7:6]

Does this mean we are delivered from keeping the law or delivered from the death penalty if we have the law in our hearts and walk in obedience to it, while trusting in Christ to be the propitiation for our sins.[I John 2:1,2] Let us see:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin?(i.e. Is it a bad thing which we should get rid of?)God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet."[Romans 7:7]

Hence Paul emphatically states that the problem was not the ten commandments but:

"...sin taking occasion by the commandment.... the commandment which was ordained to life,I found to be unto death.For sin,taking occasion by the commandment,decieved me and by it slew me."[Romans 7:8-11]

He states that the commandments ministered death, not because they were faulty, but sin was the true culprit.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and just ,and good."[Romans 7:12]

He emphasizes:

"Was then that which is good(the law) made death unto me?(ie.is the ten commandments really that which ministered death?) God forbid but sin..."[Romans 7:13]

Paul goes on to explain how we escape from the problem of sin and death which the old covenant ministered:

We do so through Jesus Christ who took the punishment we should have received for our sins. Through Him we have forgiveness of our sins and His love for us i.e. His grace motivates us to forsake sin and live Godly.[See, Romans 7:24,25;8:1-3;II Corinthians 5:14,15;Titus 2:11,12;I John 2:1,2]

To be led by the Spirit of God means the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in(done by) us and we are no longer carnal but subject to the law of God which is spiritual.[Romans 7:14,8:4,7]

CONCLUSION​

We cannot get rid of sin by removing the ten commandments. Our only hope is to depend on Christ by faith to forgive us our sins and to keep us from continuing to break the commandments.[John 8:1-11]This is the ministration of the spirit, which brings life. This is what remains and is glorious.

 

[daq]

THE MINISTRATION OF DEATH
​

The apostle Paul wrote:"But if the ministration of death written and engraven on stones,was glorious,...which glory was to be done away;"[II Corinthians 3:7]

Without careful and proper study of the word of God(Isaiah 28:9,10),the above passage of scripture may be used to say the ten commandments was a ministration of death which is now done away with.This would be in severe contradiction to other statements by the apostle Paul.

He teaches that the breaking of the ten commandments is a sin and contrary to sound doctrine.[I Timothy 1:8-11]

He teaches that observing the ten commandments will allow us to fulfill the command to love.[Romans 13:8-10]

He enjoins the keeping of a particular commandment as the first with a promise ,implying that the others are to be observed also.[Ephesians 6:1-3]

He says the doers of the law "shall be justified" and the context indicates this is a reference to the ten commandments.[Romans 2:13,20-23]

He says this law shows what is sin.[Romans 7:7]

He states boldly, he is under the law to Christ.[I Corinthians 9:21]

If we are not subject to this law then Paul says we are carnal.[Romans 8:7]

Is it really the ten commandments which minister death? This seems to be the teaching of many persons today. Their theory is; get rid of the ten commandments and if there is no law, there will be no sin.

Then, we would not really need a saviour and we would not need to repent of any thing.[Romans 4:15] The preaching of the apostles against sin, would be completely unnecessary. How ridiculous!

The apostle Paul in a parallel passage explains what was the true cause of death and how it should be treated.

As in II Corinthians 3,in Romans 7, Paul discusses the difference between the old and new covenants.[II Corinthians 3:6,14;Romans 7:6]

As this comparison is done, the term used to describe the old covenant is; the ministration or service which produces death or that we were dead wherein we were held.[Romans 7;6]

How did the old covenant produce death and condemnation?

(i) A penalty for breaking the ten commandments was death.[See, John :8:3-5;Leviticus 20:10;Exodus 21:22-25;23:18-20;Numbers 15:32-36]

(ii)The sacrifices for sin could not truly remove the penalty for sin which is death.[Deuteronomy 27:26;Galatians 3:10;Hebrews 10;1-4;Romans 6:23]

A superficial view of the situation would cause some to believe the problem was the ten commandments. This is not so ,Paul explains:

"For when we were in the flesh,the motions of sin,which were by the law,did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."[Romans 7:5]

Sin works by the law to produce death. Should we get rid of the law to get rid of sin or stop sinning and so remove the threat of death?Paul continues:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in the newness of spirit(ministration of the spirit),and not in the oldness of the letter(ministration of death)."[Romans 7:6]

Does this mean we are delivered from keeping the law or delivered from the death penalty if we have the law in our hearts and walk in obedience to it, while trusting in Christ to be the propitiation for our sins.[I John 2:1,2] Let us see:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin?(i.e. Is it a bad thing which we should get rid of?)God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet."[Romans 7:7]

Hence Paul emphatically states that the problem was not the ten commandments but:

"...sin taking occasion by the commandment.... the commandment which was ordained to life,I found to be unto death.For sin,taking occasion by the commandment,decieved me and by it slew me."[Romans 7:8-11]

He states that the commandments ministered death, not because they were faulty, but sin was the true culprit.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and just ,and good."[Romans 7:12]

He emphasizes:

"Was then that which is good(the law) made death unto me?(ie.is the ten commandments really that which ministered death?) God forbid but sin..."[Romans 7:13]

Paul goes on to explain how we escape from the problem of sin and death which the old covenant ministered:

We do so through Jesus Christ who took the punishment we should have received for our sins. Through Him we have forgiveness of our sins and His love for us i.e. His grace motivates us to forsake sin and live Godly.[See, Romans 7:24,25;8:1-3;II Corinthians 5:14,15;Titus 2:11,12;I John 2:1,2]

To be led by the Spirit of God means the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in(done by) us and we are no longer carnal but subject to the law of God which is spiritual.[Romans 7:14,8:4,7]

CONCLUSION​

We cannot get rid of sin by removing the ten commandments. Our only hope is to depend on Christ by faith to forgive us our sins and to keep us from continuing to break the commandments.[John 8:1-11]This is the ministration of the spirit, which brings life. This is what remains and is glorious.

Good post, but I would add that the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant, and thus, walking in his Testimony is walking in the Spirit according to some of the Pauline passages you referenced: for the Testimony of the Master expounds the true supernal and spiritual way of understanding the Torah, and therefore, walking in the Way that is pleasing to the Father. We cannot do so without that Testimony and walking in that Testimony.

 

[safswan]

The law is summed up in one rule: He who loves has fulfilled the law (Ro 13:8-10).

Jesus is our Sabbath rest now (Heb 3:7-4:11).

Good day,

You do realize you cannot love nor fulfill the law unless you actually do the things which both love and the law demands. John gave the example:

I John 3:
11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

So Cain's lack of love resulted in him committing murder. He killed Able.

So John could say:

I John:
18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Hence you cannot just say you love or have a feeling about someone you claim to love. It must be acted upon and then you can say you love or you have fulfilled the law. How we treat the Sabbath and all the other commands of the ten, will then determine if we are truly loving and fulfilling the law.


There is no scripture which says Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This is an invention of men.

 

[Bob S]

THE MINISTRATION OF DEATH
​

The apostle Paul wrote:"But if the ministration of death written and engraven on stones,was glorious,...which glory was to be done away;"[II Corinthians 3:7]

Without careful and proper study of the word of God(Isaiah 28:9,10),the above passage of scripture may be used to say the ten commandments was a ministration of death which is now done away with.This would be in severe contradiction to other statements by the apostle Paul.

He teaches that the breaking of the ten commandments is a sin and contrary to sound doctrine.[I Timothy 1:8-11]

He teaches that observing the ten commandments will allow us to fulfill the command to love.[Romans 13:8-10]

He enjoins the keeping of a particular commandment as the first with a promise ,implying that the others are to be observed also.[Ephesians 6:1-3]

He says the doers of the law "shall be justified" and the context indicates this is a reference to the ten commandments.[Romans 2:13,20-23]

He says this law shows what is sin.[Romans 7:7]

He states boldly, he is under the law to Christ.[I Corinthians 9:21]

If we are not subject to this law then Paul says we are carnal.[Romans 8:7]

Is it really the ten commandments which minister death? This seems to be the teaching of many persons today. Their theory is; get rid of the ten commandments and if there is no law, there will be no sin.

Then, we would not really need a saviour and we would not need to repent of any thing.[Romans 4:15] The preaching of the apostles against sin, would be completely unnecessary. How ridiculous!

The apostle Paul in a parallel passage explains what was the true cause of death and how it should be treated.

As in II Corinthians 3,in Romans 7, Paul discusses the difference between the old and new covenants.[II Corinthians 3:6,14;Romans 7:6]

As this comparison is done, the term used to describe the old covenant is; the ministration or service which produces death or that we were dead wherein we were held.[Romans 7;6]

How did the old covenant produce death and condemnation?

(i) A penalty for breaking the ten commandments was death.[See, John :8:3-5;Leviticus 20:10;Exodus 21:22-25;23:18-20;Numbers 15:32-36]

(ii)The sacrifices for sin could not truly remove the penalty for sin which is death.[Deuteronomy 27:26;Galatians 3:10;Hebrews 10;1-4;Romans 6:23]

A superficial view of the situation would cause some to believe the problem was the ten commandments. This is not so ,Paul explains:

"For when we were in the flesh,the motions of sin,which were by the law,did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."[Romans 7:5]

Sin works by the law to produce death. Should we get rid of the law to get rid of sin or stop sinning and so remove the threat of death?Paul continues:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in the newness of spirit(ministration of the spirit),and not in the oldness of the letter(ministration of death)."[Romans 7:6]

Does this mean we are delivered from keeping the law or delivered from the death penalty if we have the law in our hearts and walk in obedience to it, while trusting in Christ to be the propitiation for our sins.[I John 2:1,2] Let us see:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin?(i.e. Is it a bad thing which we should get rid of?)God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet."[Romans 7:7]

Hence Paul emphatically states that the problem was not the ten commandments but:

"...sin taking occasion by the commandment.... the commandment which was ordained to life,I found to be unto death.For sin,taking occasion by the commandment,decieved me and by it slew me."[Romans 7:8-11]

He states that the commandments ministered death, not because they were faulty, but sin was the true culprit.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and just ,and good."[Romans 7:12]

He emphasizes:

"Was then that which is good(the law) made death unto me?(ie.is the ten commandments really that which ministered death?) God forbid but sin..."[Romans 7:13]

Paul goes on to explain how we escape from the problem of sin and death which the old covenant ministered:

We do so through Jesus Christ who took the punishment we should have received for our sins. Through Him we have forgiveness of our sins and His love for us i.e. His grace motivates us to forsake sin and live Godly.[See, Romans 7:24,25;8:1-3;II Corinthians 5:14,15;Titus 2:11,12;I John 2:1,2]

To be led by the Spirit of God means the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in(done by) us and we are no longer carnal but subject to the law of God which is spiritual.[Romans 7:14,8:4,7]

CONCLUSION​

We cannot get rid of sin by removing the ten commandments. Our only hope is to depend on Christ by faith to forgive us our sins and to keep us from continuing to break the commandments.[John 8:1-11]This is the ministration of the spirit, which brings life. This is what remains and is glorious.

You can provide all the posts you can find, but you cannot deny 2Cor is telling us that the 10 commandments were the ministry of death and it has been replaced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You cannot name one sin that that Loving others as Jesus loves us will not cover. If we all loved each other as Jesus loves us not one sin would abound.

When Paul tells us we are not under the Law what do you believe he meant? Gentiles were never under the dictates of the 10 commandments, when in all of scripture did it begin?

Jesus told the Jew to keep the 10, but he was living under the dictates of the Law. The Law was the words of the old covenant. That covenant ended when Jesus, at Calvary, ratified the new covenant with His own blood.

 

[Bob S]

Good day,

You do realize you cannot love nor fulfill the law unless you actually do the things which both love and the law demands. John gave the example:

I John 3:
11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

So Cain's lack of love resulted in him committing murder. He killed Able.

So John could say:

I John:
18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Hence you cannot just say you love or have a feeling about someone you claim to love. It must be acted upon and then you can say you love or you have fulfilled the law. How we treat the Sabbath and all the other commands of the ten, will then determine if we are truly loving and fulfilling the law.


There is no scripture which says Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This is an invention of men.

If you would finish 1Jn3 you would find the key to living a life that Jesus intended for all mankind.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Love is the key to eternal life. Think about it, if we all loved each other there would be no strife in the World.

 

[safswan]

Good post, but I would add that the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts is the new Spirit of the renewed covenant, and thus, walking in his Testimony is walking in the Spirit according to some of the Pauline passages you referenced: for the Testimony of the Master expounds the true supernal and spiritual way of understanding the Torah, and therefore, walking in the Way that is pleasing to the Father. We cannot do so without that Testimony and walking in that Testimony.

Greetings,

I do know Paul is just repeating the testimony of the Messiah but there are some who would not accept the testimony of the Messiah as being for the church and so Paul's writings were used to explain his own statements.

 

[trophy33]

And if we believe both Testaments?

Two testaments cannot be both valid at the same time.

Thats why also Paul writes that "we" had to die to the first one, to belong to another one.

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another"
Rom 7:4

"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."
Rom 7:6

Its "either-or". Its neither "both" nor "something between".

 

[SabbathBlessings]

THE MINISTRATION OF DEATH
​

The apostle Paul wrote:"But if the ministration of death written and engraven on stones,was glorious,...which glory was to be done away;"[II Corinthians 3:7]

Without careful and proper study of the word of God(Isaiah 28:9,10),the above passage of scripture may be used to say the ten commandments was a ministration of death which is now done away with.This would be in severe contradiction to other statements by the apostle Paul.

He teaches that the breaking of the ten commandments is a sin and contrary to sound doctrine.[I Timothy 1:8-11]

He teaches that observing the ten commandments will allow us to fulfill the command to love.[Romans 13:8-10]

He enjoins the keeping of a particular commandment as the first with a promise ,implying that the others are to be observed also.[Ephesians 6:1-3]

He says the doers of the law "shall be justified" and the context indicates this is a reference to the ten commandments.[Romans 2:13,20-23]

He says this law shows what is sin.[Romans 7:7]

He states boldly, he is under the law to Christ.[I Corinthians 9:21]

If we are not subject to this law then Paul says we are carnal.[Romans 8:7]

Is it really the ten commandments which minister death? This seems to be the teaching of many persons today. Their theory is; get rid of the ten commandments and if there is no law, there will be no sin.

Then, we would not really need a saviour and we would not need to repent of any thing.[Romans 4:15] The preaching of the apostles against sin, would be completely unnecessary. How ridiculous!

The apostle Paul in a parallel passage explains what was the true cause of death and how it should be treated.

As in II Corinthians 3,in Romans 7, Paul discusses the difference between the old and new covenants.[II Corinthians 3:6,14;Romans 7:6]

As this comparison is done, the term used to describe the old covenant is; the ministration or service which produces death or that we were dead wherein we were held.[Romans 7;6]

How did the old covenant produce death and condemnation?

(i) A penalty for breaking the ten commandments was death.[See, John :8:3-5;Leviticus 20:10;Exodus 21:22-25;23:18-20;Numbers 15:32-36]

(ii)The sacrifices for sin could not truly remove the penalty for sin which is death.[Deuteronomy 27:26;Galatians 3:10;Hebrews 10;1-4;Romans 6:23]

A superficial view of the situation would cause some to believe the problem was the ten commandments. This is not so ,Paul explains:

"For when we were in the flesh,the motions of sin,which were by the law,did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."[Romans 7:5]

Sin works by the law to produce death. Should we get rid of the law to get rid of sin or stop sinning and so remove the threat of death?Paul continues:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in the newness of spirit(ministration of the spirit),and not in the oldness of the letter(ministration of death)."[Romans 7:6]

Does this mean we are delivered from keeping the law or delivered from the death penalty if we have the law in our hearts and walk in obedience to it, while trusting in Christ to be the propitiation for our sins.[I John 2:1,2] Let us see:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin?(i.e. Is it a bad thing which we should get rid of?)God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet."[Romans 7:7]

Hence Paul emphatically states that the problem was not the ten commandments but:

"...sin taking occasion by the commandment.... the commandment which was ordained to life,I found to be unto death.For sin,taking occasion by the commandment,decieved me and by it slew me."[Romans 7:8-11]

He states that the commandments ministered death, not because they were faulty, but sin was the true culprit.

"Wherefore the law is holy, and just ,and good."[Romans 7:12]

He emphasizes:

"Was then that which is good(the law) made death unto me?(ie.is the ten commandments really that which ministered death?) God forbid but sin..."[Romans 7:13]

Paul goes on to explain how we escape from the problem of sin and death which the old covenant ministered:

We do so through Jesus Christ who took the punishment we should have received for our sins. Through Him we have forgiveness of our sins and His love for us i.e. His grace motivates us to forsake sin and live Godly.[See, Romans 7:24,25;8:1-3;II Corinthians 5:14,15;Titus 2:11,12;I John 2:1,2]

To be led by the Spirit of God means the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in(done by) us and we are no longer carnal but subject to the law of God which is spiritual.[Romans 7:14,8:4,7]

CONCLUSION​

We cannot get rid of sin by removing the ten commandments. Our only hope is to depend on Christ by faith to forgive us our sins and to keep us from continuing to break the commandments.[John 8:1-11]This is the ministration of the spirit, which brings life. This is what remains and is glorious.

Great post! Thank you!

 

[safswan]

If you would finish 1Jn3 you would find the key to living a life that Jesus intended for all mankind.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

Love is the key to eternal life. Think about it, if we all loved each other there would be no strife in the World.

Hello,

One instruction by the same apostle in the same book and same chapter does not replace the other. What you quote would be in addition to what I have explained.

 

[safswan]

You can provide all the posts you can find, but you cannot deny 2Cor is telling us that the 10 commandments were the ministry of death and it has been replaced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You cannot name one sin that that Loving others as Jesus loves us will not cover. If we all loved each other as Jesus loves us not one sin would abound.

When Paul tells us we are not under the Law what do you believe he meant? Gentiles were never under the dictates of the 10 commandments, when in all of scripture did it begin?

Jesus told the Jew to keep the 10, but he was living under the dictates of the Law. The Law was the words of the old covenant. That covenant ended when Jesus, at Calvary, ratified the new covenant with His own blood.

Hello,

This type of response was anticipated. If you had read the entire post you would have seen that I used the writings of the apostle Paul to explain his own statements. You should read again the post which explains how we are to express our love for another:

Does the day of Christ resurrections tell us to change the worship of Sabbath?

Jesus told us that to love God with all our hearts, soul and might is the fulfillment of the law. How do we love God with everything within us and ignore the very commandment He tells us to remember and that lies at the very middle of the10 commandments? The same way we fulfill all the...

www.christianforums.com

Gentiles were clearly invited here, to be a part of Israel's covenant and the Sabbath was specifically mentioned:

Isaiah 56:
1Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Below is an explanation of what is meant by, "not under the law".

NOT UNDER LAW

​

When confronted with certain of the commands, which should be observed by Christians but which are largely ignored by the majority, those who ignore these commands will boldly say; they are not under the law but under grace.

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law ,but under grace."[Romans 6:14]

To understand what is meant by "not under the law" we must know what it is to be under grace.

Grace - (5485,Strong' s)charis, from 5463;graciousness( as gratifying), of manner or act(abstr.or concr.;lit., fig.or spiritual;espec. the divine influence upon the heart,and its reflection in the life;including gratitude):

With regards to God's act towards sinners it is thus defined as: The kindness by which God bestows favours and blessings upon the ill deserving, and grants to sinners pardon of their offenses ,otherwise called unmerited favour.(Bible dictionary - The Family Bible)

To be under grace is therefore not speaking of the Christian using something other than the law of God to define sin or right living but of the way sin is dealt with ie. how God treats sinners.

To be under law in this context would be a reference, therefore ,also to the way in which sin is dealt with by the law. The passage alludes to this as it says; "For sin shall not have dominion over you:.."

This passage speaks of a change in the way sin and its consequences are to be treated, all because of the actions of Christ.[See, Romans 6:9-11]

How was sin and sinners treated before Christ, the Messiah came to save His people?How did sin have dominion over man?


In the old covenant sin had dominion over man in two ways.

(i)Sinners had a curse pronounced against them for failing to keep the commands of the law. Also any sinner discovered was likely to be punished for his sin and death by various means was one of the punishments. [Deuteronomy 27:26;Exodus 21:12-24;Leviticus 24:10-23;Dueteronom y 19:11-21;17: 2-13;Hebrews 10:28.]

(ii)There were onerous ceremonies which were to be performed in order to approach God in worship and to atone for the sins of the people.[See, Leviticus 1-7,16,23]

"And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you to make atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses"[Leviticus 16:34]

However these sacrifices and ceremonies for sin were only temporary measures put in place until Christ should have made the sacrifice which would remove sin and its consequent result of eternal separation from God. All these(temporary measures) were called patterns ,figures and shadows.[Exodus 25:9,40;Hebrews 8:5;9:22-28; 10:1-10]

To continue to administer the punishments, to refuse to acknowledge the true and perfect sacrifice of Jesus and to continue to trust in the sacrifices and ceremonies is to be under the law.

It is God's grace in making the sacrifice of Jesus available to all ,but God's grace does not replace the commands which were broken and which caused the sacrifices and ceremonies to be introduced, Hence Paul asks:

"What then? shall we sin ,because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."[Romans 6:15]

The writer of Hebrews says we have been redeemed from transgressions described by the first covenant:

"And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance" [Hebrews 9:15]

Paul was also able to say he was:

"...being not without law to God but under the law to Christ..." [I Corinthians 9:21]

He also says the law is that which identifies sin.[See, Romans 3:20b;7:7]

This clearly shows Paul was still subject to parts of the law and prophets but that the Lord Jesus Christ had replaced portions which related to His death. Hence Christians are not under the law but are still subject to the commands in the law and prophets which define sin, right and wrong. The ten commandments are referred to in this way where Christian life is concerned.[See, Romans:13: 8-10;I Corinthians 7:19;Hebrews 8:10;James 2:10-12]

The best example of what is involved in being under grace is seen in the case of the woman caught in adultery.

The woman was found guilty of breaking the command:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."[Exodus 20:14]

According to the law she was to have been stoned to death.[Leviticus 20:10;John 8:5]

Grace was exercised and Jesus said; "...Neither do I condemn thee.."[John 8:11]

Jesus did not prescribe any remedy for atonement according to the law.[eg. Leviticus 16:1-34]

However at the end of it all, she was told :

"...go and sin no more. " [John 8:11]

Hence; " Thou shalt not commit adultery", still stands and she is still subject to the law of God even thou grace freed her from the penalty of sin.

It is the same now, as we access this grace by faith but are to practice the "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."[Ephesians 2:8-10]

Many persons teach the opposite of this, as they claim those who observe the ten commandments and other aspects of the law which define right living (righteousness) are under a curse, fallen from grace and are trying to earn their own salvation.

Jesus and the apostles knew there would be persons who would attempt to distort the gospel in this way and their words on this subject are clear.

Jesus knew there would be many who would claim to believe and have faith in Him. He states clearly that this must be accompanied by their obedience:

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed."[John 8:31]

Paul said it this way:

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love."[Galatians 5:6]

James makes it clear that our faith is dead unless accompanied by our works:

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,and not by faith only....For as the body without the spirit is dead,so faith without works is dead also."[James 2:24,26]

John states clearly it is not wrong for us as Christians to do works of righteousness:

"Little children let no man deceive you:he that doeth righteousness is righteous,even as He is righteous."[ I John 3:7]


In conclusion; we must have faith in the sacrifice of Christ in order for us to gain forgiveness and remission of our sins. Any one who continues to trust in the shadows(sacrifices and ceremonies) is still under the law and is condemned to die for; "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" so all have to depend on Christ for salvation.[Romans 3:23,28]

The law is not made completely void however as it still identifies sin and right living and hence Paul asks:

"Do we then make void the law through faith?"

And answers:

"God forbid we establish the law."[Romans 3:31]

The law which is established includes the ten commandments. [Romans 13:8-18;7:7; 2:10-13,21- 23;I Timothy 1:9-11]


Hope you understand and if you are a pastor or a teacher you will not ignore this correction but seek God for an understanding that is based on truth. The souls you may be responsible for are depending on you.

 

[Leaf473]

...you cannot love nor fulfill the law unless you actually do the things which both love and the law demands.

Hi safswan,

There's the rub, in my experience. What do the law and love demand?

My Christian brothers and sisters that I've met here who observe a seventh day are happy to talk in general categories, such as the Ten Commandments plus some others, or animal sacrifices and laws about the priesthood.

The discussions about general categories can go on indefinitely, in my experience.

But if you'd like, I'd be very interested in talking about specific laws

 

[Gary K]

Two testaments cannot be both valid at the same time.

Thats why also Paul writes that "we" had to die to the first one, to belong to another one.

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another"
Rom 7:4

"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."
Rom 7:6

Its "either-or". Its neither "both" nor "something between".

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

 

[trophy33]

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Agreed. Thanks for another supporting text.

 

[safswan]

Hi safswan,

There's the rub, in my experience. What do the law and love demand?

My Christian brothers and sisters that I've met here who observe a seventh day are happy to talk in general categories, such as the Ten Commandments plus some others, or animal sacrifices and laws about the priesthood.

The discussions about general categories can go on indefinitely, in my experience.

But if you'd like, I'd be very interested in talking about specific laws

Greetings Leaf473,

We have had this conversation before. Remember these:

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Unfortunately I was not able to continue the discussion, but I believe if you read my last post in the thread again, then you would find that, I was not saying what you were asserting. However I have some questions. I hope you can answer them.


Are you now convinced that many of these commands, and laws should be observed, and you need help in determining what is relevant?

Or is this, just your method of trying to cloud the issue, instead of addressing the arguments, which show these commands are still relevant?

Do you believe men of God like Timothy had similar issues to deal with? How do you believe he addressed these issues?

Is there any example in the acts of the apostles, which show a resolution of issues similar to those you may be referring to?

Hope you can answer these.

 

[Leaf473]

Greetings Leaf473,

We have had this conversation before. Remember these:

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Sabbath and Sunday in early Christian Theology (under construction)

Love And The Ten Commandments The most surprising and disturbing error among law and Ten Commandments bashers is the failure to understand the relation between love, the law and the Ten Commandments.Some attempt to prove that the word commandment as used in John 14:15, 21; I John 2:3-4; 3:22...

www.christianforums.com

Unfortunately I was not able to continue the discussion, but I believe if you read my last post in the thread again, then you would find that, I was not saying what you were asserting.

Okay... unfortunately, that thread is now locked. But sure, we'll go with the questions you wish to ask

However I have some questions. I hope you can answer them.

Please, go ahead

Are you now convinced that many of these commands, and laws should be observed, and you need help in determining what is relevant?

No, I'm not convinced of that. I agree that there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important.

Or is this, just your method of trying to cloud the issue, instead of addressing the arguments, which show these commands are still relevant?

No, I'm not interested in clouding the issue. Indeed, I think discussing specific instructions in the law would be "unclouding"

Do you believe men of God like Timothy had similar issues to deal with?

Sure!

How do you believe he addressed these issues?

Similar to what Paul wrote to Titus, that long disputes about the law are not profitable

Bible Gateway passage: Titus 3:9 - New American Standard Bible

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are useless and worthless.

www.biblegateway.com

So hopefully we can avoid a lengthy dispute about the law, and have an edifying discussion about particular laws

Is there any example in the acts of the apostles, which show a resolution of issues similar to those you may be referring to?

The closest thing I can think about this time is from Acts 15, where the apostles and elders decide that the gentiles don't need to keep the law. But they do give them for instructions to help them get along with the Jewish Christians and any gentiles who are still offended by idols.

Hope you can answer these.

Did I answer your questions?

 

[Leaf473]

Unfortunately I was not able to continue the discussion, but I believe if you read my last post in the thread again, then you would find that, I was not saying what you were asserting.

Also, do you want to address the issue that I raised on that thread over here on this thread?

 

[safswan]

Okay... unfortunately, that thread is now locked. But sure, we'll go with the questions you wish to ask


Please, go ahead


No, I'm not convinced of that. I agree that there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important.


No, I'm not interested in clouding the issue. Indeed, I think discussing specific instructions in the law would be "unclouding"


Sure!


Similar to what Paul wrote to Titus, that long disputes about the law are not profitable

Bible Gateway passage: Titus 3:9 - New American Standard Bible

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are useless and worthless.

www.biblegateway.com

So hopefully we can avoid a lengthy dispute about the law, and have an edifying discussion about particular laws


The closest thing I can think about this time is from Acts 15, where the apostles and elders decide that the gentiles don't need to keep the law. But they do give them for instructions to help them get along with the Jewish Christians and any gentiles who are still offended by idols.


Did I answer your questions?

Good day Leaf473,

You say:

"No, I'm not convinced of that. I agree that there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important."



The fact that you are not convinced, in a sense, makes this endeavor of yours, a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Persons who are sincerely trying to discern the truth, would seek to determine, if the primary arguments are valid or not. If they are, clearly supporting the position that, the ten commandments are still to be observed by the Church, then the next step would be to determine which of the associated laws are also applicable.

If the primary arguments, do not support the continued observance of the ten, then any attempt, to determine whether or not, other laws are also to be observed, would be a waste of time and effort.

It would seem then, that your aim is not to discern truth, but to convince others of the validity of your position. This is what you refer to as, "unclouding", the issue by asking these questions. You think, "trip them up with these, and cause them to abandon their folly, and also prevent others from joining the same".

Only the weak would fall for this tactic. If you are not able to address adequately, the primary arguments, then it is a clear sign that your position is on shaky grounds. I suspect you are also among those who have failed to heed the warning Peter gave about Paul's writings.(II Peter 3:16)

I have addressed questions, you have asked in another thread, and am still willing to do so here, even though your approach is somewhat like that of the Pharisees, in Jesus' time. They only sought, to trap Him with their questions, not to get to the truth. Note however, I am not Jesus, and so I may not have an immediate answer, to every situation.

However, since I am assured, of the validity of my primary arguments, I am assured that an answer will come even as the Lord promised:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."(James 1:5)

You also distort and downplay, the example in scripture, which shows how issues like this, can be addressed. You say Timothy should:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."



Now if these were referring to the issues we are discussing and situations like that in Acts 15, then you may be in breach by joining this discussion. Even the one in Acts 15 should not have taken place according to your reasoning.
Note that the passage says nothing about, length, just dispute, and so whether you like it or not, based on your application of the passage, this is a dispute.

However, as far as I am concerned, the Acts 15, incident, was not of the type being described by Paul in Titus 3, and neither is the contentious discussions, about the continued validity, of the ten commandments and its associated laws, which go on here. Jude had urged that, we earnestly contend for the faith.

You should research more, about the contentions, between, the Hillell and the Shammai, schools of the Rabbins, and the petty questions they were asked at times.

With all this in mind, you may want to reconsider your approach.

It is not good, that one should have the view, that if a law or command from God, seems difficult or impossible, to observe, then this means it is no longer applicable. We should seek to establish the validity of the command, first, and then seek God's help, in observing the same.

Whatever your decision, you should also consider the following, which you seemed to have missed, or ignored in the questions I asked.

Paul told Timothy the following:

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."(II Timothy 3:15)

The scriptures which Timothy knew from a child were the Law and Prophets.

Read how Paul further instructed him:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."(II Timothy 3:16,17)

So the law and the prophets would make him wise unto salvation and are to be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and would make him perfect and furnished for every good work.

However you say otherwise. You claim:

"...there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important."

Whom do you expect me to believe? You or Paul?

Now, situations may arise, like the one in Acts. Timothy and all sincere brethren, would most likely seek counsel from the elders, or apostles, and have the issues resolved. (The book to the Hebrews was written to address many of these issues about the relevance of the law.)

And this is how it can be done today, but of course for such deliberations to be profitable, then the primary arguments would have to be settled prior to this.

You and I, are not settled on this, and so I know this dispute/discussion will not be profitable.

Your take on the events of Acts 15, was a bit misleading. Below is another way of looking at the issues being resolved there. For certain the final decision was not just about giving christians:

"...instructions to help them get along with the Jewish Christians and any gentiles who are still offended by idols."

I am sorry for the lengthy response, but thought it would be best, you understand where I am coming from, so you don't waste your time.







The Truth About Acts Chapter 15



Many persons as they interpret the events of Acts chapter 15, arrive at a conclusion which the passage and good sense do not support. They say;

"If Sabbath observance was a requirement of the Church, it would have been included among those necessary things,..." .

Are we to believe there is no other command of the Law which applies to the Church? Was this a comprehensive list given by James as to the way of life of a Christian or did he only mention some of what is required; or what should not be done? If that which James mentioned
(Acts 15:20-21,29) is all that Gentile Christians should not do then Christianity today is filled with many unnecessary things.


These persons like many others have misunderstood this passage and have imposed on it things which it does not say. This passage rather than making the Gentile more different from the Jew, draws him closer to the Jewish way of life.


Some claim, "...Gentile converts...were ignorant of Jewish Laws" and that "Sabbath keeping:...was unfamiliar to the Gentiles."


The scriptures do not support this.


Gentiles were among those who were in the synagogues on the Sabbath. (See Acts 13:42-48; 14:1;17:1-4; 18:1-4).


In Acts 15 also, James states that; "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Acts 15:21).


Jewish historian Josephus supports this, "...the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination for along time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come... as God pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also." (Against Apion, 2, 40).


Circumcision - The Point of Contention


The main dispute in Acts 15 was the vexed question of circumcision. Certain disciples were of the view that to be saved, Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses i.e. they had to keep all the commands in the Law, both those of the sacrificial and of the Ten Commandment system. Note that an uncircumcised person could not take part in the Passover in the Old Covenant (Exodus 12:45-48).


It was being explained by Peter that both Jews and Gentiles will be saved through grace i.e. God's love in allowing His Son to die for us, rather than by sacrifices. (See Acts 15:7-11; Ephesians 2:8-13; Hebrews 9:11-14). Notice that the things mentioned are closely linked to either the sacrificial systems of the Jews or that of the Gentiles and to make it clear what is expected of the new converts then these things were mentioned.


(1) Gentiles had a practice of partaking in food offered to idols (I Corinthians 10:19-21).

(2) Fornication was a part of the rituals performed by Gentiles in service to their gods. (Numbers 25:1-3; I Corinthians 10:8; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; I Kings 14:24)

The Lion Handbook, "The World's Religion" had this comment on Canaanite religion; "According to Hebrew and Greek writings, popular worship included ritual prostitution and other excesses." [Page 66].

(3) Blood was used for atonement in the Old Covenant and was not to be consumed. Animals were to be properly killed to remove the blood. The heathen also drank blood in worship of their gods. A practice which Israel adopted (Psalm 16:4; Ezekiel 33:25; Leviticus 17:11-14).

Strangled animals i.e. animals which die of itself were given to the stranger or alien in the Old Covenant but now James is saying the Gentile should not partake of such an animal i.e. he should be like the Jew. (See Deuteronomy 14:21; Acts 15:29).


The Gentiles coming into the Church should not adopt the sacrifice of circumcision nor should they Continue in their own sacrificial practices of fornication, offering and eating food offered to idols and drinking of blood. The fact that James referred all to Moses, being read in the synagogues on the Sabbath in every city, shows he was not rejecting the whole of the Law, as all things, the Gentiles should abstain from, are proscribed by the Law. (See Acts 15:20-21).


Do Christians Abstain From Things Strangled And Blood

"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust...ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:..." (Leviticus 17:13-14).


It is this command that James is repeating in Acts 15. How many Christians today actually obey this command?


To this writer's knowledge, only Jewish and Moslem butchers take special care to see that animals are butchered in a manner to cause the blood to be drained properly. Other butchers use methods which technically result in the blood remaining in the animal and hence most Christians end up eating the blood in the flesh.


Rather than giving permission to abandon the Sabbath, the conference in Acts 15 has placed more responsibilities on Gentile Christians.These persons attitude is common, as many have not realized what is expected of them. The practice of blood transfusion may also be affected by this command. I urge all to repent of disobeying the commands in Acts 15:20, 29 and of placing the subject of the Sabbath in the passage when it clearly was not a part of the discussion.

 

[Leaf473]

Good day Leaf473,

You say:

"No, I'm not convinced of that. I agree that there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important."



The fact that you are not convinced, in a sense, makes this endeavor of yours, a case of putting the cart before the horse.

Persons who are sincerely trying to discern the truth, would seek to determine, if the primary arguments are valid or not.

Thank you, safswan, for your post. There's lots of great points in it, I'll start with this first one that you bring up. I have sought to determine if the primary arguments put forward by seventh day observers are valid. By comparing those arguments to other specific instructions in the law of Moses, I have concluded that they are not.

This is a discussion forum, so I think it would be great if you would like to discuss that. We can "compare notes", if you wish

If they are, clearly supporting the position that, the ten commandments are still to be observed by the Church, then the next step would be to determine which of the associated laws are also applicable.

If the primary arguments, do not support the continued observance of the ten, then any attempt, to determine whether or not, other laws are also to be observed, would be a waste of time and effort.

It would seem then, that your aim is not to discern truth, but to convince others of the validity of your position. This is what you refer to as, "unclouding", the issue by asking these questions. You think, "trip them up with these, and cause them to abandon their folly, and also prevent others from joining the same".

Only the weak would fall for this tactic. If you are not able to address adequately, the primary arguments, then it is a clear sign that your position is on shaky grounds. I suspect you are also among those who have failed to heed the warning Peter gave about Paul's writings.(II Peter 3:16)

I have addressed questions, you have asked in another thread, and am still willing to do so here, even though your approach is somewhat like that of the Pharisees, in Jesus' time. They only sought, to trap Him with their questions, not to get to the truth. Note however, I am not Jesus, and so I may not have an immediate answer, to every situation.

However, since I am assured, of the validity of my primary arguments, I am assured that an answer will come even as the Lord promised:

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."(James 1:5)

You also distort and downplay, the example in scripture, which shows how issues like this, can be addressed. You say Timothy should:

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."



Now if these were referring to the issues we are discussing and situations like that in Acts 15, then you may be in breach by joining this discussion. Even the one in Acts 15 should not have taken place according to your reasoning.
Note that the passage says nothing about, length, just dispute, and so whether you like it or not, based on your application of the passage, this is a dispute.

However, as far as I am concerned, the Acts 15, incident, was not of the type being described by Paul in Titus 3, and neither is the contentious discussions, about the continued validity, of the ten commandments and its associated laws, which go on here. Jude had urged that, we earnestly contend for the faith.

You should research more, about the contentions, between, the Hillell and the Shammai, schools of the Rabbins, and the petty questions they were asked at times.

With all this in mind, you may want to reconsider your approach.

It is not good, that one should have the view, that if a law or command from God, seems difficult or impossible, to observe, then this means it is no longer applicable. We should seek to establish the validity of the command, first, and then seek God's help, in observing the same.

Whatever your decision, you should also consider the following, which you seemed to have missed, or ignored in the questions I asked.

Paul told Timothy the following:

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."(II Timothy 3:15)

The scriptures which Timothy knew from a child were the Law and Prophets.

Read how Paul further instructed him:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."(II Timothy 3:16,17)

So the law and the prophets would make him wise unto salvation and are to be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness and would make him perfect and furnished for every good work.

However you say otherwise. You claim:

"...there is great wisdom in the law, and that the principles of all of the instructions in it are important."

Whom do you expect me to believe? You or Paul?

Now, situations may arise, like the one in Acts. Timothy and all sincere brethren, would most likely seek counsel from the elders, or apostles, and have the issues resolved. (The book to the Hebrews was written to address many of these issues about the relevance of the law.)

And this is how it can be done today, but of course for such deliberations to be profitable, then the primary arguments would have to be settled prior to this.

You and I, are not settled on this, and so I know this dispute/discussion will not be profitable.

Your take on the events of Acts 15, was a bit misleading. Below is another way of looking at the issues being resolved there. For certain the final decision was not just about giving christians:

"...instructions to help them get along with the Jewish Christians and any gentiles who are still offended by idols."

I am sorry for the lengthy response, but thought it would be best, you understand where I am coming from, so you don't waste your time.







The Truth About Acts Chapter 15



Many persons as they interpret the events of Acts chapter 15, arrive at a conclusion which the passage and good sense do not support. They say;

"If Sabbath observance was a requirement of the Church, it would have been included among those necessary things,..." .

Are we to believe there is no other command of the Law which applies to the Church? Was this a comprehensive list given by James as to the way of life of a Christian or did he only mention some of what is required; or what should not be done? If that which James mentioned
(Acts 15:20-21,29) is all that Gentile Christians should not do then Christianity today is filled with many unnecessary things.


These persons like many others have misunderstood this passage and have imposed on it things which it does not say. This passage rather than making the Gentile more different from the Jew, draws him closer to the Jewish way of life.


Some claim, "...Gentile converts...were ignorant of Jewish Laws" and that "Sabbath keeping:...was unfamiliar to the Gentiles."


The scriptures do not support this.


Gentiles were among those who were in the synagogues on the Sabbath. (See Acts 13:42-48; 14:1;17:1-4; 18:1-4).


In Acts 15 also, James states that; "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Acts 15:21).


Jewish historian Josephus supports this, "...the multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination for along time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come... as God pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also." (Against Apion, 2, 40).


Circumcision - The Point of Contention


The main dispute in Acts 15 was the vexed question of circumcision. Certain disciples were of the view that to be saved, Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses i.e. they had to keep all the commands in the Law, both those of the sacrificial and of the Ten Commandment system. Note that an uncircumcised person could not take part in the Passover in the Old Covenant (Exodus 12:45-48).


It was being explained by Peter that both Jews and Gentiles will be saved through grace i.e. God's love in allowing His Son to die for us, rather than by sacrifices. (See Acts 15:7-11; Ephesians 2:8-13; Hebrews 9:11-14). Notice that the things mentioned are closely linked to either the sacrificial systems of the Jews or that of the Gentiles and to make it clear what is expected of the new converts then these things were mentioned.


(1) Gentiles had a practice of partaking in food offered to idols (I Corinthians 10:19-21).

(2) Fornication was a part of the rituals performed by Gentiles in service to their gods. (Numbers 25:1-3; I Corinthians 10:8; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; I Kings 14:24)

The Lion Handbook, "The World's Religion" had this comment on Canaanite religion; "According to Hebrew and Greek writings, popular worship included ritual prostitution and other excesses." [Page 66].

(3) Blood was used for atonement in the Old Covenant and was not to be consumed. Animals were to be properly killed to remove the blood. The heathen also drank blood in worship of their gods. A practice which Israel adopted (Psalm 16:4; Ezekiel 33:25; Leviticus 17:11-14).

Strangled animals i.e. animals which die of itself were given to the stranger or alien in the Old Covenant but now James is saying the Gentile should not partake of such an animal i.e. he should be like the Jew. (See Deuteronomy 14:21; Acts 15:29).


The Gentiles coming into the Church should not adopt the sacrifice of circumcision nor should they Continue in their own sacrificial practices of fornication, offering and eating food offered to idols and drinking of blood. The fact that James referred all to Moses, being read in the synagogues on the Sabbath in every city, shows he was not rejecting the whole of the Law, as all things, the Gentiles should abstain from, are proscribed by the Law. (See Acts 15:20-21).


Do Christians Abstain From Things Strangled And Blood

"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust...ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh:..." (Leviticus 17:13-14).


It is this command that James is repeating in Acts 15. How many Christians today actually obey this command?


To this writer's knowledge, only Jewish and Moslem butchers take special care to see that animals are butchered in a manner to cause the blood to be drained properly. Other butchers use methods which technically result in the blood remaining in the animal and hence most Christians end up eating the blood in the flesh.


Rather than giving permission to abandon the Sabbath, the conference in Acts 15 has placed more responsibilities on Gentile Christians.These persons attitude is common, as many have not realized what is expected of them. The practice of blood transfusion may also be affected by this command. I urge all to repent of disobeying the commands in Acts 15:20, 29 and of placing the subject of the Sabbath in the passage when it clearly was not a part of the discussion.