- Jan 19, 2024
- 1,269
- 860
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
You still do not understand the 10 commandments and the rest of the Law added by Moses and why it was added, no point discussing this until you get this. I have probably written about this in other threads, you can search for this on this site or better still, simply read the Bible, all is there for you to find.a duty or act of remembrance specific to a day of the week repeated so to keep this day as holy is indeed a ritualistic.
you've misunderstood me. I've never said rituals are negative, in fact I explicitly said the opposite in my response to you. however God does not desire the ritual, he desires the heart. given contrasting scenarios of ritual with the heart it is the heart that God welcomes over the ritual, not the ritual over the heart. The old covenant views the physical as a means to reach the heart. the physical was a required presence and intrinsic to the faith. it was a mechanism of separating a people group called Holy and used to show other nations God's glory.
The new covenant however views the heart as a means to reach the physical. We see this demonstrated in various ways for example in the Mat 5 Jesus tells us of the commandments of do not murder and do not commit adultery, a reference to 2 of the 10. Then he steps off script and addresses hatred insteaof d merely resisting murder, or addresses lust instead or merely resisting having sex with another woman. Jesus addressed the heart and showed how these commandments do not address the heart. We see Christ's dialogue with the rich man. He is asking Christ in Mat 19:20 "All these I have kept .... what do I still lack?” He kept the commandments yet still was lacking. Showing again the commandments themselves are lacking and do not address the heart. This all feels good except when we challenge the Sabbath. Still blinding keeping it according to law but are we asking "what do I still lack" and unlike the rich man are we ready to commit? Jesus does challenge Sabbath practice in Mat 12:12 saying it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. So while you may keep the Sabbath according to the letter, my motivation instead is to do good. I don't bother to count the days either, I just strive to do good everyday. is this not lawful?
this question was regarding law written upon our hearts. You said it was the 10 that is written upon our hearts. These verses do not show me where it is the 10 that are separated and then written upon our hearts. The 10 are tablets of the covenant law, they are placed in the ark of the covenant and the sign of the covenant is the sabbath. What part of this tells you it is universal, intended to be extracted then superimposed over all people groups forever? Circumcision is extremely similar, also a sign of an everlasting covenant for generations to come (Gen 17), also very specific in the physical act, and also a requirement. But NT teaching calls it nothing (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). Which covenant was God's perfect law? Why are we so quick to dimiss one, but not the other?
how did you conclude that "all the law and the prophets" actually meant only the 10 commandments? I would rather not change the words. the context is all the law and the prophets, so let's keep it there. scripture does not separate law, does not give it labels and segment it then say this group is for keeping and this group we can sweep under the wrong. This phrase "all the law and the prophets" means just that, and Jesus also uses it in Mat 5:17 saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." again the context being "all the law and the prophets" and not reduced to the 10 commandments. so in v18, in the immediate context, when Christ says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." why conflated this with the 10? This is not the 10, it is all the law and the prophets. stop conflating these references to things that cannot be supported. the 10 may be regardest as some of the greatest, yet Christ explicitly calls out the least as well, but still, all you see is the 10.
the 4th commandment is not a moral practice. sure we can argue that any commandment from God may be called moral but that's not critically engaging the subject and if we stick to that we must also include the stuff we don't want to talk about, for example, circumcision would also be called moral under the same measure. When we isolate the practices in the 10 the 4th does not address moral behaviour, it addresses ritual rest. There are also many laws outside the 10 that do address moral behaviour that does not fit with cutting up laws into these categories calling the 10 only moral code. For example, Lev 19:18 says "‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbour as yourself." This is indeed included in moral code, and Jesus quotes this moral code and calls it the second greatest commandment. Leviticus is often entirely erased because the priestly duties are no longer active thus the levitical teachings have the same fate, yet here it is, explicit moral code and affirmed by Christ plus as a bonus outside of the 10. is this not a part of God's perfect law?
This paragraph that you have written feels like a copied and pasted devotional but it is not critically engaging the subject. The entire Torah may be separating into these two categories that you have made here. This is not unique to the 10 so in no way does it isolate the 10 either. Nowhere in scripture is the 10 commandments called moral law. the term moral law is not even biblical and is a post-biblical label applied to scripture and traditionally used synonymous with the 10, but this is a misnomer, the 10 are not all moral in nature. the 2 greatest commandments are also not a summary of the 10, all the law and prophets hang upon them (that is what Jesus said isn't it). "summary" is an interesting word to use. It is used in Mat 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets". (again the phrase "the law and the Prophets") but you seem to be using it to manipulate the text as uniquely identifying the 10 as a moral code. this is not how the word is used as the context is not uniquely the 10 it is all the law and the Prophets.
There is no reason to extract the 10 or conflate it with some other term that you're hiding in your back pocket to pull them out of their covenant. Whatever measure you apply to the 10 using these greatest commandments also needs to be applied to all the law and the prophets as is the explictly context. so if you conclude you pull out the 10 as requirement for Christian living then you you pull with it the law and the prophets over Christian living the same way, it is the package deal and this would be counter-gospel. There is no precedence to separate the 10 as you are doing and it robs the glory from Christ as he is what the 10 and all the law and Prophets are pointing to, instead you've found a way to point back to the 10. I don't want to hear how the NT points to the 10, I want to hear how the 10 points to Christ. Surely the latter is a more noble and greater cause, elevating the 10 beyond mere commandments or ritual and far better use of our attention.
When you understand this important distinction we could discuss.
Upvote
0