Removing the laws of God- what does it really mean?

[Leaf473]

The question was answered several times, I'm not sure how re-answering it would change anything. There was no dodge, but if you look back I have been answering all the questions but as soon as I start asking questions which has been very few, I don't receive answers. It just doesn't seem like a genuine exchange anymore. I am sorry if you think it was otherwise.

Well I'm glad you answered it, my apologies that I missed it.

So just if you could help me out then, what was your answer to the question of how many commandments are being referred to in that passage from Revelation?

I don't think your answer needs to be long, it's really just a number, as I understand the question.

Is it ten commandments or some other number of commandments?

 

[Leaf473]

If love fulfilled the law, we could twist our concept of love into anything we want, to justify our actions. We could convince ourselves that lying to someone is out of love. That committing adultery is out of love. That murder is out of love. That the prophets were nothing, we just need love; running the danger of negating the Bible altogether.

Sin twists love to our own ends. The law of God sets the record straight.

I agree that we can twist the concept of love into anything we want if we are walking by the flesh.

I believe Paul does say in Romans that love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There is only one way to show my explanation of Heb 3:7-4:13 is incorrect, and that is to
present the correct one.

This you have not done.

I wound say that the scriptures in post both post # 1161 and post # 1006 linked that you refuse to discuss proves you have not provided a correct interpretation of the scriptures but have read into the scriptures what they do not say or do not teach (eisegesis). Your unwillingness to discuss this only proves this fact.

 

[Clare73]

I agree. The thread has been very polite.

Typically these discussions can spiral out of control very quickly.

It may just be that we are all wanting to love each other as ourself and it is showing.

And our OP's sweet disposition after more than 1200! posts is a definite contributor.

 

[Clare73]

I wound say that the scriptures in post both post # 1161 and post # 1006 linked that you refuse to respond to proves you have not provided a correct interpretation of the scriptures but have read into the scriptures what they do not say or do not teach (eisegesis). Your unwillingness to discuss this only proves this fact.

There is only one way to show my explanation of Heb 3:7-4:13 is incorrect, and that is to
present the correct explanation in a unified passage which treats/accounts for all the points presented in the passage.

This you have not done.

 

[Leaf473]

See Romans 2:29 for the same juxtaposition of Spirit and law.

"No, a man is Jew if he is one outwardly; and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit, not by the written code (letter)." (Ro 2:29)

2Corinthians 3:3-9 - two covenants regarding the law:
Mosaic - law engraved in letters on tablets of stone; ministry of death due to curse of the law,

New Covenant - law written on tablets of human hearts (v.3), ministry of life (v.6), righteousness (v.9), power of love and obedience (v.3) by the Holy Spirit,

which are now fulfilled in obedience to Jesus' two commands of Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10.

"Binding force"? That's plain scary. How about source of obedience.
Yes. . .continue.

Shall we continue with 2 Corinthians 3, or did you wish to move over to Romans 2?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There is only one way to show my explanation of Heb 3:7-4:13 is incorrect, and that is to
present the correct explanation in a unified passage which treats/accounts for all the points presented in the passage.

This you have not done.

Post # 1161 and post # 1006 proves your claims here are not true.

 

[Clare73]

Post # 1161 and post # 1006 proves your claims here are not true.

Present your stand-alone exegesis of the passage, being true to its presentation of a full-time Sabbath-rest, not a weekly Sabbath-rest.

 

[Clare73]

Shall we continue with 2 Corinthians 3, or did you wish to move over to Romans 2?

Continue with yours re: 2Cor 3.

 

[Leaf473]

Continue with yours re: 2Cor 3.

Thank you,

And do we agree that the letters of commendation to you or from you refers to something written using letters? Now, yes, I'm very aware that in the original greek, it's two different words. One word refers to the kind of thing we today put into an envelope, the other refers to the characters made up of lines and curves.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you,

And do we agree

Until we disagree. . .

that the letters of commendation to you or from you refers to something written using letters?

Now, yes, I'm very aware that in the original greek, it's two different words. One word refers to the kind of thing we today put into an envelope, the other refers to the characters made up of lines and curves.

Yes, we agree that the paper on which letters of commendation are written are epistole, and
the scripted letters themselves on the paper are gramma.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Present your stand-alone exegesis of the passage, being true to its presentation of a full-time Sabbath-rest, not a weekly Sabbath-rest.

Actually no. I posted an exegetical scripture review in response to your post 715 which has been provided in post # 1161 and post # 1006 showing the claims you were making earlier in your post was eisegesis (reading into the scriptures what they do not say or teach). If you disagree your welcome to show why by responding to the linked posts above and the scripture contexts and chapter definitions that disagree with your post. At the moment your disagreeing without showing why and your refusal to respond to the linked posts that disagree with your claims only proves my point. Of course you are free to believe as you wish and we will agree to disagree.

 

[Leaf473]

Until we disagree. . .

Yes, we agree that the paper on which letters of commendation are written are epistole, and
the scripted letters themselves on the paper are gramma.

Cool!

And now we come to
You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men.

This part contains both of those Greek words you referred to, or forms of them, I believe.

How is the letter written and read? Not literally, of course. I think it's kind of more like an idea. Other people look at the Corinthians and have an understanding of Paul's ministry.

Are we still agreeing or do we now disagree

 

[Clare73]

Cool!

And now we come to
You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men.

This part contains both of those Greek words you referred to, or forms of them, I believe.

Agreed. . ."letter" is epistole, and "written" (inscribed) is gramma.

How is the letter written and read? Not literally, of course. I think it's kind of more like an idea. Other people look at the Corinthians and have an understanding of Paul's ministry.

Are we still agreeing or do we now disagree

Still with you.

 

[Leaf473]

Agreed. . ."letter" is epistole, and "written" (inscribed) is gramma.
Still with you.

Okay, and now...

Is it fair to say that as people are grasping this idea that they are in some way reading or assessing the spirit of the situation?

 

[HIM]

Exegete Heb 3:7-4:13.

Let's do it together.

 

[Clare73]

Okay, and now...

Is it fair to say that as people are grasping this idea that they are in some way reading or assessing the spirit of the situation?

Don't have a clue what you mean.

 

[Leaf473]

Don't have a clue what you mean.

That's okay,

Maybe it requires a way of thinking that something you're not used to doing.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Paul here.

Either way, peace be with you. And thank you for the opportunity to get this far!

 

[Clare73]

Let's do it together.

Heb 3:7-4:13. . .not sure what that would look like.

So I'll just present my explanation, verse by verse, beginning with the particular issues presented in the text:
1) One of the issues of the NT Hebrew Christians is unbelief. . .how can that be?
2) Another issue is the Sabbath. . .why would Hebrews need warning about the Sabbath?
3) And what does Canaan have to do with NT Hebrews and the Sabbath?
These issues must be addressed in a correct explanation of Heb 3:7-4:13.

Hebrews 3:7-19: God's people failed to believe in the past.

"So, as the Holy Spirit says:

Psalms 95:7-11:
Today, (as distinct from OT Canaan), if you hear his voice (gospel preached),
do not harden your hearts (refuse to believe)
as you did in the rebellion (refusal to enter Canaan),
during the time of testing (their testing God) in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did (exiled Israel in the wilderness).
That is why I was angry with that generation,
and I said 'Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
So I declared an oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' " (God's own rest)

See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

[NB: There is an issue of not holding firmly, of turning way (rebellion, apostasy), of unbelief by the NT Hebrews that the writer is addressing. They were considering a return to their OT religion, perhaps because of persecution by their fellow Hebrews, or threats of their families to disinherit them, or both, the reason can only be conjecture.

This passage is actually the second of five warnings in the letter:
1) 2:1-4 - do not fail to hear the gospel,
2) 3:7-4:13 - do not fail to believe,
3) 5:11-6:12 - do not fall away (apostasy),
4) 10:19-39 - do not lapse back,
5) 12:14-29 - do not refuse God.]

As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice (in the gospel),
do not harden your hearts (in unbelief)
as you did in the rebellion." (and refuse to enter into Christ's salvation)

Who were they who heard and rebelled? (refusing to enter Canaan)
Were they not all that Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for 40 years? Was it not with those who sinned (rebelled), whose bodies fell in the desert? And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? So we see that they were not able to enter (the promised Canaan rest, Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 12:8-10) because of their unbelief.

Hebrews 4:1-10: Do not fail to believe again.

Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands (Today, if you hear his voice--in the gospel--Matthew 11:29, salvation rest is still available), let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it (by returning to your OT religion and failing to enter into NT salvation rest). For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did (Galatians 3:8; sacrifices and ceremonies); but the message they heard was of no value to them because they did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest (NT salvation rest), just as God has said,
"So I declared an oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "

And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work" (God's Sabbath-rest is full time, not just one day a week). And again, in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest." (God's own full-time Sabbath-rest)

It still remains that some will enter this rest ("Today. . .") and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in (to the full-time rest from their enemies in Canaan, Deuteronomy 12:10) because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today (Psalms 95:7), when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice (in the gospel)
do not harden your hearts."(and fail to enter God's own full-time Sabbath rest in his NT salvation-rest)

For if Joshua had given them rest (in the promised rest of Canaan, a prefigure of God's NT salvation rest), God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest (which is full-time) also rests (full-time) from his own work (to save), just as God did from his.

Hebrews 4:11-13: Warning

Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest (salvation rest), so that no one will fall (from faith, salvation) by following their example of disobedience. For the (judging) Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Take heed of the God with whom we have to do.)

Jesus' NT full-time salvation rest is the fulfillment of God's own ("my") full-time Sabbath rest for his people.

The Sabbath was given for man (not for God), not man for the Sabbath.

Hebrews 10:25 - Christians are not to forsake assembling together for the Lord's Supper
(Acts 2:42).

 

[Clare73]

That's okay,

Maybe it requires a way of thinking that something you're not used to doing.

Well, that was short and sweet.

To understand God's meaning of text, I don't approach it subjectively, if that's what you mean.

I take it at the meaning of its words in the language, in light of the whole counsel of God.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Paul here.

Either way, peace be with you. And thank you for the opportunity to get this far!