Bible Study The Law of God - The Law of Moses - The Law

[Nathan]

I had to delete from the quote of your post as it with my comment was over the posting limit for number of words. But I am only including your comment so you will know what I am referring to anyway.

The Post you were there commenting on said, "The way I see this, Nathan, is simply put, you are following the law because you "keep" the Sabbath day, that is "keeping the law". There is no way around this, you can not say you do not keep the law, or follow the written law, yet you are doing just that."


As I see it much of this is a dispute of semantics. I think most of us who are true to Christ are really keeping that Sabaath but just hesitate to call it that as we see that to be saying we are yet under that OLd Law. As that is part of the Law that is fulfilled in Christ and in those walking in Christ we are actually keeping the Sabaath when we are faithful to observe the ceasation of our fleshly work to dedicate our time to spiritual things.

The only problem that I see with the comment you are responding to in your post partially quoted above, is that the comment to which you are responding seeks to judge. And that is a violation of what Paul taught of God's love at Romans chapter 14, and it fails to take into consideration what James tells us about the matter, James 4:10 "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
11 ¶Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"

This disputing of what others were doing with regard to that Old Law is what James was having to deal with, as also ocurred in all of the churches to various degree.

I see what your saying. Most of the time I am said to be using semantics. That's not a bad thing, because to a certain degree I am. But at the same time I am making a distinction between two things that are so closely related, that it does take some similar - but different - wording to seperate them.

The difference is that I believe the Sabbath is still a litereral day, just like the other 9 commands are still literal commands. I do not believe that disregarding the Sabbath as a literal day is Christ like. Christ believed it was a literal day, why wouldn't we?

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of Man is Lord [even] of the Sabbath.

Again, that's from the amplified bible. It clearly states that He(the Son of Man) is Lord, and He is Lord of the Sabbath.

What does that mean? Well, those in Christ, who have Him as Lord, when led by His Spirit, are going to be keeping the Sabbath day holy when they are being led.

He was walking with His disciples, they were following Him. They got hungry, they were not seeking to do their own thing, they were just feeding their flesh. There was not anything about their actions which dictated they were not remembering the Sabbath for what it is, and keeping it holy. How else could Christ say that they were not "guiltless"? He had not died yet, so according to 'popular' teaching He had not nailed the law to the cross.

The Sabbath is not about the do's and don'ts. It's about the love relationship between God and us. A day made for us. Jesus never denies this, in fact, He is the One who states this. If it were all of a sudden changed from a literal day, into a spiritual one, then why would He not have stated so?

He does not. The testimony stands as a witness to who He is, and what love looks like. True love fulfills all the commandments. The first 4 show what true love looks like toward God, the other six is what it looks like toward man.

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

And so it is with God also. James gives a human example of the truth about loving your neighbor. But the same is true with God, for if you say you love God, yet worship idols, you have transgressed the whole law. For He who said "thou shalt love the Lord your God" also said "thou shalt not make any graven images, to worship them".

Christ magnified the law, He still magnifies the law, but you cannot magnify something that is not there. If the Sabbath day has been "removed", made void, then there is nothing to magnify. Or, worse yet, there is nothing to point to Christ, which is the undeniable purpose of the law.

No semantics here.

 

[Elijah674]

Matt. 28:20 finds Christs Command still in force. There is NO way to Obey Christ & then baptise anyone that 'openly' does not keep these Commandments.

And in Matt. 18:17-18 We see who it was that He (Christ) gave this authority to. To bind both in heaven & in His Church on earth! (the Church membership!)

In Acts 9:5-6 we see Christ not healing Saul, but HE SENT him to the CHURCH that He had given the 'keys of the kingdom' to. And Saul was BAPTISED into that CHURCH! This was & is to be the 'ONE FAITH' of Eph. 4:5. And as is always the case, it (the Church) was & IS CONDITIONALupon Obedience to Christ's Word!! Or the whole CANDLESTICK will again be removed! Rev. 2:5 & Rev. 3:16.

But even with that being the case, it in NO WAY NEGATE'S who it is that is ones BROTHER! Could one be ignorant & still be a brother and not a church member? Surely, but never will they be in membership of the Lord's Virgin Church until they give themselves 100% up to Keep the Lords Eternal Covenant OPENLY! (as did saul) So a brother is a very special person!
(1 John 5:16-17) And there is this 'visual testing' for the world to know that one has subbmitted their life over to Christ in baptism! (Matt. 10:32-33)

And all else?? we are to love as brothers yet, not as one of the Brotherhood! (or household of Faith) Matt. 22:35-40

When one will 'not obey' the Commandments of God, there is NO WAY that we can say that they are our brother, and be truthful! And if that is not so, then I am not a Christian either. (and yes, 'i' hear you!)


And 'i' am talking about the professed 'c'hristian folds of Rev. 17:1-5. Sure, there are still some sincere ignorant Christian's still there perhaps?? and surely many who had passed on in that ignorance, who will be saved. For what are we accountable for, but living all the light that we had been 'LED' of the Holy Ghost into?? Rom. 8:14

But when we of today find that we are PARTAKERS of OPEN SIN, we cannot remain in yoked bondage with falshood, and stay saved for long! Hosea 4:6, Dan. 12:4 + Rev. 18:4 DOCUMENTATION!

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

Matt. 28:20 finds Christs Command still in force. There is NO way to Obey Christ & then baptise anyone that 'openly' does not keep these Commandments.

And in Matt. 18:17-18 We see who it was that He (Christ) gave this authority to. To bind both in heaven & in His Church on earth! (the Church membership!)

In Acts 9:5-6 we see Christ not healing Saul, but HE SENT him to the CHURCH that He had given the 'keys of the kingdom' to. And Saul was BAPTISED into that CHURCH! This was & is to be the 'ONE FAITH' of Eph. 4:5. And as is always the case, it (the Church) was & IS CONDITIONALupon Obedience to Christ's Word!! Or the whole CANDLESTICK will again be removed! Rev. 2:5 & Rev. 3:16.

But even with that being the case, it in NO WAY NEGATE'S who it is that is ones BROTHER! Could one be ignorant & still be a brother and not a church member? Surely, but never will they be in membership of the Lord's Virgin Church until they give themselves 100% up to Keep the Lords Eternal Covenant OPENLY! (as did saul) So a brother is a very special person!
(1 John 5:16-17) And there is this 'visual testing' for the world to know that one has subbmitted their life over to Christ in baptism! (Matt. 10:32-33)

And all else?? we are to love as brothers yet, not as one of the Brotherhood! (or household of Faith) Matt. 22:35-40

When one will 'not obey' the Commandments of God, there is NO WAY that we can say that they are our brother, and be truthful! And if that is not so, then I am not a Christian either. (and yes, 'i' hear you!)


And 'i' am talking about the professed 'c'hristian folds of Rev. 17:1-5. Sure, there are still some sincere ignorant Christian's still there perhaps?? and surely many who had passed on in that ignorance, who will be saved. For what are we accountable for, but living all the light that we had been 'LED' of the Holy Ghost into?? Rom. 8:14

But when we of today find that we are PARTAKERS of OPEN SIN, we cannot remain in yoked bondage with falshood, and stay saved for long! Hosea 4:6, Dan. 12:4 + Rev. 18:4 DOCUMENTATION!

--Elijah

What do you consider yoked bondage as?

 

[Who Says]

What do you consider yoked bondage as?

That is an interesting thought.

Did not Jesus say it was their traditions (their self-made added law) that was that yoke of Burden?

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Was Peter talking about the law or was he talking about all their traditions they called law, there?

 

[Wings]

That is an interesting thought.

Did not Jesus say it was their traditions (their self-made added law) that was that yoke of Burden?

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Was Peter talking about the law or was he talking about all their traditions they called law, there?

Hi there 'Who Says' & Nathan,

Please consider:-

'For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law.'
(Gal 5:3)

'For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.'
(Jas 2:10)

If Paul and James made no distinction of the kind you are considering in relation to the LAW, then why should we?

In Christ
Wings

 

[Nathan]

That is an interesting thought.

Did not Jesus say it was their traditions (their self-made added law) that was that yoke of Burden?

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Was Peter talking about the law or was he talking about all their traditions they called law, there?

Jesus did say that. And the Apostles did say that. And I think that they are two separate things. The simplicity of Gods law contrasted with the complexity of mans. That's why when Jesus came He said "You heard it was said of old...". Then He would follow up with Gods intention. And then there were times when He would flat out confront the wilfull neglect of Gods law in the use of their own law. That would usually find itself repeating most often of the commandment of the Sabbath.

But with all of that said, Elijah is speaking of something different here.

2Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

In this aspect, Paul is dealing with yokes of service. And specifies that righteousness should not be yoked together with lawlessness. Light and darkness. Truth and lies.

So my question was when do we consider a yoke to be on these two different things? For instance, you would see it, like Paul says, between two people who get married. They have a commitment, at that point, to each other. Another example is a Christian being a "member" of a cult faith. One where he devotes his time and effort in working with others for a "common" goal.

So I guess that is how you distinguish what you are yoked to. Because a yoke confines the movement of one animal within a certain moving distance of the other. So to be yoked with someone would dictate that there is a certain amount of freedom from that person, but you two are going in the same direction, working for the same thing, being controlled by the same thing. The list could go on.

Now. What does that say if we are yoked with Christ? Interesting.

 

[Nathan]

Hi there 'Who Says' & Nathan,

Please consider:-

'For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law.'
(Gal 5:3)

'For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.'
(Jas 2:10)

If Paul and James made no distinction of the kind you are considering in relation to the LAW, then why should we?

In Christ
Wings

Exactly. Why should we? If James states that when we do not love our brother then we are guilty of all the law, then why do we make a distinction as if they are separate or all 'inclusive'?

 

[Elijah674]

Nate, here are Christ's Words 'of law' for your answer.
Rev. 17:1-5 finds the ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH. (Inspiration says!) This requires baptism to join these church's in YOKED MEMBERSHIP.

And the 'LAW' of Rev. 18:4 is hard to UNDERSTAND??Being a partaker is being in membership with any of these ABOMINABLE folds. And being a partaker??

False known & not believed doctrine taught for truth?? (are you kidding?) + $ support, and being in the yoked documented membership! (baptismal certificate) If one cannot figure that out, there is 'still' likely a biger problem, (2 Cor. 6:14-18 includes all yokings!) that of not being [MY PEOPLE] in the first place? so whose people are you! You go compare John 12:42-43 & Rev. 3:9 & see what you come up with. And what is the result of staying 'yoked together'? read the rest of the verse of Rev. 18:4 for Christ's documentation.

--Elijah

 

[Who Says]

Jesus did say that. And the Apostles did say that. And I think that they are two separate things. The simplicity of Gods law contrasted with the complexity of mans. That's why when Jesus came He said "You heard it was said of old...". Then He would follow up with Gods intention. And then there were times when He would flat out confront the wilfull neglect of Gods law in the use of their own law. That would usually find itself repeating most often of the commandment of the Sabbath.

But with all of that said, Elijah is speaking of something different here.

2Corinthians 6:14
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

In this aspect, Paul is dealing with yokes of service. And specifies that righteousness should not be yoked together with lawlessness. Light and darkness. Truth and lies.

So my question was when do we consider a yoke to be on these two different things? For instance, you would see it, like Paul says, between two people who get married. They have a commitment, at that point, to each other. Another example is a Christian being a "member" of a cult faith. One where he devotes his time and effort in working with others for a "common" goal.

So I guess that is how you distinguish what you are yoked to. Because a yoke confines the movement of one animal within a certain moving distance of the other. So to be yoked with someone would dictate that there is a certain amount of freedom from that person, but you two are going in the same direction, working for the same thing, being controlled by the same thing. The list could go on.

Now. What does that say if we are yoked with Christ? Interesting.

Yes, and It is my believe that was written in 2 Corinthians as it was both of these types were present in the church at that time.

Here is what I base that belief on: 2 Timothy 2:19 "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."

 

[Who Says]

Hi there 'Who Says' & Nathan,

Please consider:-

'For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law.'
(Gal 5:3)

'For whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.'
(Jas 2:10)

If Paul and James made no distinction of the kind you are considering in relation to the LAW, then why should we?

In Christ
Wings

Amen.

Yes, that is how I too see it. I started to get confused for a second as I was getting tired.

I fear my brain may have developed wings.

It tries to fly away from me at moments.

There are some days when if I did not think with thoughts that make no real sense I would have no thoughts at all.

 

[ivdavid]

This thread is pretty important - discusses some core issues regarding the "law". I just thought of summarizing what's been discussed in the previous pages - so a new reader may come up to speed easily.

Well, I've come across 4 kinds of interpretations or views here, if I were to group them broadly -

view#1. We are no longer under the law - Christ has fulfilled it - Therefore we are no longer bound to keep it. The whole law is summarized in the 2 commandments to love.

view#2. We are no longer under the law - we derive absolutely no righteousness from the law, only in Christ - but we still ought to keep the law, specifically the testimonies of God in the 10 commandments - not for our righteousness but as a witness to our love for God. The ordinances have been fulfilled and we are not obligated to follow them.

view#3. The above view#2 + also the ordinances such as observing clean foods in our diet, witness our love for God.

view#4. We are no longer under the law - but whosoever chooses to keep the law can do so without imposing it on others such as in view#1, as this may lead to judging and contempt.



These following concerns are what seem at stake for each of these views -

The concern of view#1 is that the law is being built up again and this might bring people enjoying freedom in Christ back into bondage - Why must the law be preached instead of Christ alone.

The concern of view#2 is that view#1 is not concrete enough to discern between truly loving God and hiding under the pretense of an intangible 'love' which provides them the excuse/deceptive trap to live in lawlessness. This is avoided by the law, specifically the 10 commandments, and hence this must be embraced by all who truly love God.

The concern of view#3 builds on view#2 by including all the law and not simply the non-ceremonial laws.

The concern of view#4 is not over keeping the law, as long as it's not of/for self-righteousness, but that an insistence on keeping it may lead to contemptuous judgment by one side and condescending arrogance by the other.



These are the main supporting and opposing arguments put forth which I have paraphrased in my own words as I've understood them -

argument#1 FOR view#1 - there are the many direct Scriptural references and in fact an entire book(Galatians) specifically targeted at chastising people for trying to observe the law.

argument#2 AGAINST argument#1 - The above argument applies only to the case where the people are trying to earn righteousness by keeping the law - this is not the case put forth when we completely rest on Christ for our righteousness AND keep the law in love, to evidence such love for God.

argument#3 FOR view#1 - Preaching observance to the law brings us under bondage again.

argument#4 AGAINST argument#3 - The law is burdensome only to those walking by the flesh, not at all to those walking by the Spirit. It is enslaving only to those who are trying to merit righteousness, not to those who are evidencing their love of God by keeping His law.

argument#5 AGAINST argument#4 - But Christ has fulfilled the law and I no longer need to observe it to 'evidence' my love for God - I can just simply love God in spirit and in truth, and not necessarily by the OT law - which in fact I anyway fulfill when I love God.

argument#6 AGAINST argument#5 - Loving God "in spirit and in truth" is an intangible love which could get very subjective and derail many into practicing lawlessness. While we must and should love God in spirit and in truth, we can assure ourselves of having only true love and not a deceitful 'love' by consciously checking if we are abiding by His law. It is the indicator of our love - not our love itself.


argument#7 FOR view#2 - God is unchanging - why must His law change?

argument#8 AGAINST argument#7 - The Law has given way to Grace. With Christ, the priesthood and the law changed.

argument#9 AGAINST argument#8 - Grace is the flip-side of the Law - both go together always. The Law itself has not given way to grace - only its purpose. While we thought we are saved by the law - now that thought has been replaced to tell us that we are saved by grace. The law still stands in its original purpose intended by God - to point us to Christ and not to save us.


argument#10 AGAINST view#2 - Christ is our Sabbath. Why must we observe the Sabbath as an ordinance any longer?

argument#11 AGAINST argument#10 - The Sabbath is not an ordinance, it is a testimony of God. And all the testimonies of God are unchanging as He never changes.


argument#12 AGAINST view#3 - The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Christ. Why must we observe them any longer?

argument#13 AGAINST argument#12 - The Bible (OT) clearly declares not keeping the law as sin. Therefore we ought to observe them.

argument#14 AGAINST argument#13,view#2,view#3 - But the insistence on keeping the law when another believes otherwise, only leads to judging them in your hearts which is not of love.

argument#15 AGAINST argument#14 - Then, is it love to continue practicing and/or encouraging lawlessness?


If I've missed anything else or if I've got something wrong, please correct me.

 

[Elijah674]

This thread is pretty important - discusses some core issues regarding the "law". I just thought of summarizing what's been discussed in the previous pages - so a new reader may come up to speed easily.

Well, I've come across 4 kinds of interpretations or views here, if I were to group them broadly -

view#1. We are no longer under the law - Christ has fulfilled it - Therefore we are no longer bound to keep it. The whole law is summarized in the 2 commandments to love.

view#2. We are no longer under the law - we derive absolutely no righteousness from the law, only in Christ - but we still ought to keep the law, specifically the testimonies of God in the 10 commandments - not for our righteousness but as a witness to our love for God. The ordinances have been fulfilled and we are not obligated to follow them.

view#3. The above view#2 + also the ordinances such as observing clean foods in our diet, witness our love for God.

view#4. We are no longer under the law - but whosoever chooses to keep the law can do so without imposing it on others such as in view#1, as this may lead to judging and contempt.



These following concerns are what seem at stake for each of these views -

The concern of view#1 is that the law is being built up again and this might bring people enjoying freedom in Christ back into bondage - Why must the law be preached instead of Christ alone.

The concern of view#2 is that view#1 is not concrete enough to discern between truly loving God and hiding under the pretense of an intangible 'love' which provides them the excuse/deceptive trap to live in lawlessness. This is avoided by the law, specifically the 10 commandments, and hence this must be embraced by all who truly love God.

The concern of view#3 builds on view#2 by including all the law and not simply the non-ceremonial laws.

The concern of view#4 is not over keeping the law, as long as it's not of/for self-righteousness, but that an insistence on keeping it may lead to contemptuous judgment by one side and condescending arrogance by the other.



These are the main supporting and opposing arguments put forth which I have paraphrased in my own words as I've understood them -

argument#1 FOR view#1 - there are the many direct Scriptural references and in fact an entire book(Galatians) specifically targeted at chastising people for trying to observe the law.

argument#2 AGAINST argument#1 - The above argument applies only to the case where the people are trying to earn righteousness by keeping the law - this is not the case put forth when we completely rest on Christ for our righteousness AND keep the law in love, to evidence such love for God.

argument#3 FOR view#1 - Preaching observance to the law brings us under bondage again.

argument#4 AGAINST argument#3 - The law is burdensome only to those walking by the flesh, not at all to those walking by the Spirit. It is enslaving only to those who are trying to merit righteousness, not to those who are evidencing their love of God by keeping His law.

argument#5 AGAINST argument#4 - But Christ has fulfilled the law and I no longer need to observe it to 'evidence' my love for God - I can just simply love God in spirit and in truth, and not necessarily by the OT law - which in fact I anyway fulfill when I love God.

argument#6 AGAINST argument#5 - Loving God "in spirit and in truth" is an intangible love which could get very subjective and derail many into practicing lawlessness. While we must and should love God in spirit and in truth, we can assure ourselves of having only true love and not a deceitful 'love' by consciously checking if we are abiding by His law. It is the indicator of our love - not our love itself.


argument#7 FOR view#2 - God is unchanging - why must His law change?

argument#8 AGAINST argument#7 - The Law has given way to Grace. With Christ, the priesthood and the law changed.

argument#9 AGAINST argument#8 - Grace is the flip-side of the Law - both go together always. The Law itself has not given way to grace - only its purpose. While we thought we are saved by the law - now that thought has been replaced to tell us that we are saved by grace. The law still stands in its original purpose intended by God - to point us to Christ and not to save us.


argument#10 AGAINST view#2 - Christ is our Sabbath. Why must we observe the Sabbath as an ordinance any longer?

argument#11 AGAINST argument#10 - The Sabbath is not an ordinance, it is a testimony of God. And all the testimonies of God are unchanging as He never changes.


argument#12 AGAINST view#3 - The ceremonial laws have been fulfilled by Christ. Why must we observe them any longer?

argument#13 AGAINST argument#12 - The Bible (OT) clearly declares not keeping the law as sin. Therefore we ought to observe them.

argument#14 AGAINST argument#13,view#2,view#3 - But the insistence on keeping the law when another believes otherwise, only leads to judging them in your hearts which is not of love.

argument#15 AGAINST argument#14 - Then, is it love to continue practicing and/or encouraging lawlessness?


If I've missed anything else or if I've got something wrong, please correct me.

OK: ;)
You did ask, right?

You remind me of most 'clergy' to day. (OK: so the original saying was of a politician)
He was asked by another of two friend (church members) of his believing this or that opposite way? And he point blank wanted his (the preachers!) 'conviction' on this. So the answer?? was that he did indeed go along with his friends!

Or did 'i' miss the post answer?:waving
--Elijah