Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Drew]

Its amazing how people can twist the scriptures to support their beliefs. Jesus clearly said that the law will never fail as long heaven and earth is here and yet some still refuse to accept this basic truth. Amazing!

It is very difficult to have a discussion with you. I have addressed this specific text - Matthew 5 - several times.

You have never, repeat never, engaged my argument about how to read that text.

I have a different standard - I attempt to engage every text and argument you make. I still owe you something about Romans 3:31 and Romans 8:7, and perhaps some other stuff.

But I have presented an argument about the Matthew 5 text at least twice, and maybe thrice.

Your non-response to my arument suggests either:

1. You are not reading my posts;
2. You cannot find an error in that argument;
3. You have not had time to respond.

Only choice 3 allows your case to survive. So, prithee, what is your specific response to my argument about Matthew 5?

 

[Ben Joiner]

Wow, what a hoppin thread.
Brother Lionel
It would appear that you responded to my question and then some I don't wanna ignore all your other references, and I'm not, but for discussion purposes I'll stick with your main point.
Great, it would also appear that you believe as I suggested that the Sabbath day in Col 2 is a "special sabbath." I think your reasoning flows like this:
Premise 1:"Handwriting of ordinances against us" Refers to Ceremonial Laws Only
Premise 2:There are Sabbaths that we are told aren't in force in Col 2
Premise 3:These Sabbaths are connected in the text as the "Handwriting of Ordinances against us"
Conclusion:These Sabbaths refer to special Sabbath ceremonies

In my estimation, your argument loses strength by relying on the "handwriting of ordinances against us" clause. If you wanted to say that the Sabbaths there were ceremonial, then there is a possible case to be made because those are more difficult to follow and aren't as cohesive with Jesus' command to "GO" While keeping the regular Sabbath is more in keeping with the new covenant that already replaces so many ceremonies.

But to claim that only ceremonial laws were against us, is preposterous. Any sin against any the 10 Commandments of God condemns us to hell. How can a law be any more against you than that?

 

[Drew]

Now this should really put an end to the issue of whether Paul endorsed the end of the Sabbath in Colossians 2.

14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

An interesting question is this: Are the 10 commandments included in this category of “decrees†that have been nailed to the cross. I suggest that the answer has to be understood as “yesâ€Â, in light of how Paul immediately qualifies what he has written in verse 14:

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to (AO)food or (AP)drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--

Note the function of the “thereforeâ€Â. When someone writes something of the form: “The set of laws {X} has been abolished, therefore behaviour Y is not to be judgedâ€Â, the writer is intending the reader to understand that the set {X} includes any laws that prohibit behaviour Y. While I consider this to be self-evident, a more formal treatment may help.

(1) Premise: The following is asserted: “The set of laws {X} has been abolished, therefore behaviour Y is not to be judgedâ€Â;

(2) It follows from the assertion (1) that behaviour B must be prohibited by some law Y in {X}. If there were no law against Y in set {X}, there would be no need to mention that Y should not be judged.

To illustrate, imagine this statement “The speeding laws have been abolished, therefore you are not to judge a woman who shaves her legs†Nonsense right? What does abolition about speeding laws have to do with leg-shaving behaviours? Nothing, of course. What would make sense, of course, is this: “The laws about feminine grooming have been abolished, therefore you are not to judge a woman who shaves her legsâ€Â.

Returning to the specifics of the Pauline statement. Paul tells us that one implication of the abolition of certain unspecified decrees is that you shouldn’t be judged for what you do on the Sabbath. This only makes sense if Paul has meant the reader to understand that the decrees that have been abolished include a decree about treating the Sabbath in a special way.

And that is precisely what we are told in one of the 10 commandments. It is therefore clear that Paul intends us to understand that at least one of the 10 commandments has been nailed to the cross. And I will suggest that it is also reasonable to conclude that all 10 of them have been nailed to the cross in the same manner.

 

[Drew]

I think your reasoning flows like this:
Premise 1:"Handwriting of ordinances against us" Refers to Ceremonial Laws Only
Premise 2:There are Sabbaths that we are told aren't in force in Col 2
Premise 3:These Sabbaths are connected in the text as the "Handwriting of Ordinances against us"
Conclusion:These Sabbaths refer to special Sabbath ceremonies

I don't follow this. But of this we can be sure:

1. One of the 10 commandments tells people to treat the Sabbath as being special;

2. Paul tells us that one of the impacts of certain "decrees" being abolished is that no one should be "judged" for how they treat the Sabbath;

3. Therefore Paul must be expect that this comandment has been abolished, If it weren't abolished, it would remain in force. And if it remained in force, there would indeed be grounds to judge someone who did not treat the Sabbath as special.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Wow, what a hoppin thread.
Brother Lionel
It would appear that you responded to my question and then some I don't wanna ignore all your other references, and I'm not, but for discussion purposes I'll stick with your main point.
Great, it would also appear that you believe as I suggested that the Sabbath day in Col 2 is a "special sabbath." I think your reasoning flows like this:
Premise 1:"Handwriting of ordinances against us" Refers to Ceremonial Laws Only
Premise 2:There are Sabbaths that we are told aren't in force in Col 2
Premise 3:These Sabbaths are connected in the text as the "Handwriting of Ordinances against us"
Conclusion:These Sabbaths refer to special Sabbath ceremonies

In my estimation, your argument loses strength by relying on the "handwriting of ordinances against us" clause. If you wanted to say that the Sabbaths there were ceremonial, then there is a possible case to be made because those are more difficult to follow and aren't as cohesive with Jesus' command to "GO" While keeping the regular Sabbath is more in keeping with the new covenant that already replaces so many ceremonies.

But to claim that only ceremonial laws were against us, is preposterous. Any sin against any the 10 Commandments of God condemns us to hell. How can a law be any more against you than that?

Its okay Ben, I completely understand. So are you saying that the Ten Commandments are against us?

Moses commanded them to put the book that he wrote in the side of the ark of the covenant as witness against them. - Deut 31:26

But Proverbs 19:16 says that "He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die."

Psalm 112:1 says Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.

James 1:25 says But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Revelation 22:14 says Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

How are the commandments against us when the bible says we're blessed when we do them??

 

[Brother Lionel]

I think your reasoning flows like this:
Premise 1:"Handwriting of ordinances against us" Refers to Ceremonial Laws Only
Premise 2:There are Sabbaths that we are told aren't in force in Col 2
Premise 3:These Sabbaths are connected in the text as the "Handwriting of Ordinances against us"
Conclusion:These Sabbaths refer to special Sabbath ceremonies

I don't follow this. But of this we can be sure:

1. One of the 10 commandments tells people to treat the Sabbath as being special;

2. Paul tells us that one of the impacts of certain "decrees" being abolished is that no one should be "judged" for how they treat the Sabbath;

3. Therefore Paul must be expect that this comandment has been abolished, If it weren't abolished, it would remain in force. And if it remained in force, there would indeed be grounds to judge someone who did not treat the Sabbath as special.

Hey Drew, point two and three are assumptions, not factual. Which one of the Ten Commandments dealt with food, drink, festival, or new moons? Also, the sripture says that these were a shadow but the substance is Christ. The ceremonial sabbaths all pointed to Jesus Christ but the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments did not. It pointed to the creation where Jesus rested and hallowed the day as a memorial to remind all mankind that He started it all.

 

[Drew]

Which one of the Ten Commandments dealt with food, drink, festival, or new moons?

Obviously none. But that part of my argument that specifically focuses on the abolition of the Sabbath is not affected by this. I am willing to back off my suggestion that this text tells us that all 10 are abolished.

But there is clearly no logical way to escape the implication that the Sabbath commandment has been done away with.

Also, the sripture says that these were a shadow but the substance is Christ. The ceremonial sabbaths all pointed to Jesus Christ but the weekly Sabbath of the Ten CommandIments did not. It pointed to the creation where Jesus rested and hallowed the day as a memorial to remind all mankind that He started it all.

You are obviously begging the question here. What you say abouts the "10 C" Sabbath law may well be true, but this is not an argument that it has not been abolished. And you simply assert that there is this special category of "ceremonial" Sabbaths and that it is only these Sabbaths that point to Jesus. Can you actually defend this assertion?

 

[Brother Lionel]

Which one of the Ten Commandments dealt with food, drink, festival, or new moons?

Obviously none. But that part of my argument that specifically focuses on the abolition of the Sabbath is not affected by this. I am willing to back off my suggestion that this text tells us that all 10 are abolished.

But there is clearly no logical way to escape the implication that the Sabbath commandment has been done away with.

So, the Ten Commandments (which includes the seventh day Sabbath) had nothing to do with food drink festivals new moon, etc. (which you admit), but the Sabbath (which again is part of the Ten Commandments) is included? Does this make sense? So Paul was speaking about all of the ceremonial aspects and only one tenth of the Ten Commandments?

Also, the sripture says that these were a shadow but the substance is Christ. The ceremonial sabbaths all pointed to Jesus Christ but the weekly Sabbath of the Ten CommandIments did not. It pointed to the creation where Jesus rested and hallowed the day as a memorial to remind all mankind that He started it all.

You are obviously begging the question here. What you say abouts the "10 C" Sabbath law may well be true, but this is not an argument that it has not been abolished. And you simply assert that there is this special category of "ceremonial" Sabbaths and that it is only these Sabbaths that point to Jesus. Can you actually defend this assertion?

Yes. Would you like the response to this?

 

[Drew]

Hi Brother Lionel:

I am no longer going to discuss this with you.

 

[Brother Lionel]

LOL exactly! Because this makes no sense!! I encourage you to study Paul's writings with the correct approach - that the PENALTY of the law is gone, not the law itself. God doesnt condone anarchy in His kingdom and that is what you are implying, pure anarchy!! No law, no order... And God is a God of order... ;)

 

[Drew]

There are those who will argue that Paul’s declarations about the Law coming to an end leave the Torah entirely intact in terms of being a set of prescriptive behaviours we should pursue. Some who hold this position maintain that Paul is only declaring the end of the judgement function of Torah. Here is an expression of this view, in specific relation to the Galatians 3 statements about how we are no longer under the guardianship of the Torah.

“As you can see from the definition above, Paul is NOT referring to the Law as a teacher. Instead, he is again speaking of the judgment function of the Law. The context indicates that the Law functioned as a guardian for those convicted of sin. Since all have sinned (Gal. 3:22), this was all of humanity. When forgiveness came through faith in the atoning sacrifice of Yeshua, we were no longer subject to the guardianship of the Law; we were no longer under its penalty for disobedience. However, this did not mean that the Law's role as God's standard of right conduct had been voided.â€Â

There are a wide range of reasons for being sceptical of such an interpretation. First of these is that, unless there are truly compelling reasons to the contrary, the statement that we “are no longer under the supervision of the Law†reasonably suggests that the Law has been fully retired, not that it continues to be a prescriptive obligation for us, with only one specific aspect of it done away with – its function of conferring on us a specific penalty for it disobedience.

The problem with this view is more strongly seen in Ephesians 2:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

I will continue to bring up this text, since I think it is perhaps the clearest proof that the Torah has indeed been abolished. To return to the point, what writer would clearly assert that the Torah, as set of rules and regulations has been abolished, and yet expect the reader to continue to think that it is still in force, in any prescriptive capacity? It would be a deeply confused, inarticulate writer who would use this direct statement of abolition, clearly in reference to the prescriptions of Torah, and really mean that it is only the judgement function of the Torah that has changed. Why not some other function, like the function of giving us knowledge of sin? – Paul, at several places, ascribes such a function to Torah.

Failure to give Paul due credit for being a competent and clear thinker is probably the biggest reason for the survival of the clearly erroneous view that Torah is still in force. By assuming he would use “abolition of Torah†language to only denote the end of its judgement function is to suggest that he is less competent than a high school student. If a high school student wrote Ephesians 2:14-15 intending the reader to understand that we are still expected to follow the prescriptions of Torah, he would, rightfully, be given a failing grade. I repeat: no competent writer, least of all the highly educated Pharisee Paul, would write Ephesians 2:14-15 and not expect the reader to get the plain sense of his words – the Torah, as a written code, has been retired.

Imagine that a certain society was under a prescriptive law that, for example, people are not allowed to drive cars on Sunday. Now imagine that the government “abolished this law with its commandments and regulationsâ€Â. No reasonable person would think that the prohibition against Sunday drive persists in any sense at all that could remotely be called a law.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe – that while in both Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 the end of the law is clearly declared, it still continues to survive, as a law.

 

[Brother Lionel]

So again, is it still a sin to take a man's life?

 

[Rick W]

So again, is it still a sin to take a man's life?

If you love your neighbor you won't kill him, steal from him, covet his wife or lie to him.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Brother Lionel]

[quote="Brother Lionel":2n5uwol6]So again, is it still a sin to take a man's life?

If you love your neighbor you won't kill him, steal from him, covet his wife or lie to him.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [/quote:2n5uwol6]


Excellent point Ric! That is how you love your neighbor as yourself; by not killing, stealing, coveting, lying, respecting parents, and commiting adultery.

Now how do you love the Lord?

 

[Rick W]

Now how do you love the Lord?

I know scripture says with all your heart, mind and soul but it's more than that.
How do I love my wife? How do I love my parents or my neighbor for that matter?

To be very honest with you I can't put it into words. I just do. But I know He loved me first before He came into my life. Fact is, that realization was the first thing I became so aware of at that moment. I cried for it. Bawled like a baby.

 

[Drew]

[quote="Brother Lionel":397ruigk]So again, is it still a sin to take a man's life?

If you love your neighbor you won't kill him, steal from him, covet his wife or lie to him.

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [/quote:397ruigk]
Thank you Rick for stating what should be obvious - where love is present to guide actions, law is not required.

And this is precisely what God is doing in redemptive history at the cross. WIth the gift of the Spirit, the dwelling place of God shifts from the temple to the human person. Without the Spirit, the Jews needed prescriptive law to guide their actions. But something vital changes at the cross - the Holy Spirit is given to us to serve in that role. I politely suggest that to hold onto the law is to deny the power of the Spirit.

 

[Brother Lionel]

[quote="Brother Lionel":1dml35n4]

Now how do you love the Lord?

I know scripture says with all your heart, mind and soul but it's more than that.
How do I love my wife? How do I love my parents or my neighbor for that matter?

To be very honest with you I can't put it into words. I just do. But I know He loved me first before He came into my life. Fact is, that realization was the first thing I became so aware of at that moment. I cried for it. Bawled like a baby.[/quote:1dml35n4]

LOL! So we are clear in that we love our neighbor by not killing them, lying to them, coveting their goods, commiting adultery, and disrespecting our parents; but when the question arises on how do you show your love for God, the answer is "I can't put it into words. I just do?" Rick, lets get real. Thats not an answer. You and I both know that the first four of the Ten Commandments deal with love for God, the last six deal with love for your neighbor. And for the record, Matthew 22:37-40 is not the first time these two great commandments were spoken. They were both OT Commandments first and Jesus just recited them.

Love for God:
Deu 6:5, Deu 10:12, Deu 11:13, Deu 13:3, & Deu 30:6

Love for our neighbor:
Lev 19:18 "...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: For I am the LORD."

 

[Brother Lionel]

So people, how do we show our love for God???

 

[Ben Joiner]

Brother Lionel,

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I was operating under the assumption that there is no one, anywhere, who hasn't broken the 10C and therefore is condemned by them. The First commandment is to have the only God as your only God. From this all other commandments flow. This the breaking of any other commandments of God also violates this one.

Maybe you're suggesting that this is like Paul's Rhetoric and not so literal? But He goes on and on in Romans about sin against God condemning us.

 

[francisdesales]

LOL! So we are clear in that we love our neighbor by not killing them, lying to them, coveting their goods, commiting adultery, and disrespecting our parents; but when the question arises on how do you show your love for God, the answer is "I can't put it into words. I just do?" Rick, lets get real. Thats not an answer. You and I both know that the first four of the Ten Commandments deal with love for God, the last six deal with love for your neighbor. And for the record, Matthew 22:37-40 is not the first time these two great commandments were spoken. They were both OT Commandments first and Jesus just recited them.

I think Jesus is very clear on the distinction between simply "following the letter of the law" as the Pharisees did was not "enough" to be righteous in God's eyes. Jesus said unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and Scribes, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, since the Pharisees were quite strict in following the LEGAL aspects of the Law, how would WE become even MORE righteous?

By following the Law of Love - which Jesus goes on to describe in Matthew 5-7...

Following the LEGAL definition of not committing adultery, in the Pharisee's eyes, was to not have sex with another woman not your wife. Thus, in the Pharisee's eyes, one could have fantasies of sexual relations with another woman. One could flirt, do everything EXCEPT the act of copulation. But yet, the Pharisee acting this way was NOT disobeying THEIR definition of the law. Jesus defined it MUCH MORE strictly - going BEYOND the letter of the Law. Thus, we obey Christ, not because of the Mosaic written Law, but because the Spirit has written a Law on our heart that exceeds what the legal Mosaic law required.

We abide in the Law of the Spirit - which fulfills more than the written letter. We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are the Mosaic Law. We obey a higher law, the Law of Love. Jesus very well explained the difference, noting how the Pharisees were FAR from the Kingdom, despite following the legal letter of the Decalogue...

It is the inability of the SDA to note the distinction Jesus makes in the Gospels that lead them to preaching a false gospel about adhering to the Mosaic written letter, the age's neo-Judaizers. They do not understand that the Spirit puts aside the need to adhere to the written letter which considers everything but sex as following the commandment against adultery. The Spirit has freed us from such phony following of God's Law.

Regards