Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[Drew]

It is commonly held that in the Mark 7 encounter over purity laws (and the parallel account in Matthew), Jesus’ central aim is to critique the Pharisees for adding man-made traditions to the pure core of Torah. I suggest that this position rests on the extremely weak implicit supposition that since Jesus begins his critique with an attack on Pharasaic add-ons, that focus must be preserved throughout the encounter. There is obviously no “rule†that prohibits a person (such as Jesus) from shifting the target of his critique from one thing to another. And this is clearly what is happening in the Mark 7 encounter.

The person who thinks that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws is faced with an enormous challenge: the Torah clearly asserts that eating certain foods make the Jew unclean, and yet Jesus says these things:

There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man[/b]. 16If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"

I am, frankly, mystified at why the argument does not end here – Jesus is clearly talking about food in this section and is saying that no foods defile. This is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws. And yet some insist on trumping the plain meaning of what Jesus is saying by (apparently) appealing to the notion that the initial focus of Jesus’ critique – Pharisaic distortions to Torah – is still the central matter on the table. I am not sure how this really works – Jesus clearly is saying that all foods are clean in direct contradiction to the prescriptions of Torah.

Arguments can and do evolve – there is no rule that say “if you begin a discussion attacking item x, the rest of what you say in that encounter must be an elaboration of that critique of xâ€Â. Clearly the debate does indeed begin with a focus on Pharasaical add-ons to Torah. But when Jesus says that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles you, it is clear that Jesus is steering the conversation in another direction and is making the more general claim that the time of the Levitical food laws has come to an end. How can the food laws survive this claim by Jesus?

When we get statements like the following, it is obvious that the matter on the table is no longer Pharasaic distortions to Torah (which is clearly the focus of verses 1-13):

And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

This is clearly not an argument against the Pharisees adding things on to existing rules about how foods defile. If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

Clearly, Jesus is not still focused on the addition of distortions to food laws that are otherwise to be upheld. No – he is overturning the food laws. With the re-definition of the people of God to include Gentiles, there is no longer any room for symbols that set the Jew apart from the Gentile – and that is precisely what the food laws did. So now, they must be set aside. And this is what Jesus does.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Drew -
Mark 7 and Matthew 15 is referring to a Talmudic law regarding the washing of hands before eating. These two parrables have nothing to do with the health laws found in Leviticus 11. The reason why I included Matthew 15 is because it is the exact same incident that is recorded in Mark 7. And in Matthew 15:20 Jesus clearly explains that the whole conversation dealt with the eating of unwashed hands, not eating anything that crawls across your plate.

 

[Yahoshea]

Perhaps someone should define from the Hebrew what it means to keep or break the commandments. For that matter what does commandment mean?

 

[Steve76]

Perhaps someone should define from the Hebrew what it means to keep or break the commandments. For that matter what does commandment mean?

Should Christians keep the ten commandments today? Of course!

Jesus instructed that if we follow Him and love Him we would keep the commandments. You cannot have God on your terms, that's what commandments mean to me... ;)

 

[seekandlisten]

Can one break the ten commandments when they follow Jesus' command of love your neighbor as yourself? One would think the ten commandments were absorbed into this one commandment no?

 

[Yahoshea]

Commandment -----

The word command, as well as commandment, is used to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah but does not properly convey the meaning of mits'vah. The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood as a directive. To see the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, tsiyon meaning a desert or a landmark. The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who traveled the deserts in search of green pastures for their flocks. A nomad uses the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible are not commands, or rules and regulations, they are directives or landmarks that we look for to guide us. The word tsiyon meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the landmark.

Keep -----

Many times I have heard it said that no one can keep all of the commands but, this is not true. From an Hebraic perspective of the word shamar behind the English word keep, it is possible to keep all of the commands. The problem lies in our understanding of keep as meaning obedience, but this is not the meaning of shamar. It should first be recognized that not all of the commands of the torah are for all people. Some are only for the priests, some are only for men and some are only for women. Some are only for children and some are for leaders. But, it should also be understood that even if a command is not for you, you can still keep it. The original picture painted by the Hebrew word shamar is a sheepfold. When a shepherd was out in the wilderness with his flock, he would gather thorn bushes to erect a corral to place his flock in at night. The thorns would deter predators and thereby protect and guard the sheep from harm. The word shamiyr derived from this root means a thorn. The word shamar means to guard and protect and can be seen in the Aaronic blessing, May Yahweh bless you and keep (guard and protect) you. One keeps the commands of God by guarding and protecting them.
(One can see this definition carried out in the
Keep†of the castle the most secure place in the castle and in the prayer “Now I lay me down to sleep I pray the lord my soul to “Keepâ€. A prayer for the Lord to guard and protect.)

Break ------

While the word keep, as in "keep the commands of God" does not mean obedience but guarding and protecting, the meaning of "break the commands of God" does not mean disobedience. The Hebrew word parar, translated as break, is the treading of grain on the threshing floor by oxen to open up the hulls to remove the seeds. To the Ancient Hebrews, breaking the commands of God was equated with throwing it on the ground and trampling on it. In both cases, keeping and breaking are related to ones attitude toward the commands. A child who disobeys his parents and is genuinely apologetic shows honor and respect to his parents. But a child who willfully disobeys with no sign of remorse has trampled on his parents teachings and deserves punishment.

The above definitions are from Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center. As one can see keeping the commandments is not so much about obedience as it is about attitude. A few points to consider –
Two men commit the same sin. One of the men hates that he has failed again. He hates his sin and commits himself to overcome his sin. The other shrugs off his sin and cares not for the natural laws of God. He trods the directions of God under foot. One breaks the commandments and one does not. And for the one who hates his sin we have the blood of Christ to cover him. He is repentant, for he is sorry for his sin and turns from it.

God gives us directions on how to get to Zion, the Holy City. He leaves signposts and landmarks along the way for us to follow. We are instructed to follow the Tradewinds/wind of the spirit to guide us. Like a good father God attempts to teach us with His directions on how to live a prosperous, healthy and clean life. A life that leads to character development. A life that changes the follower to be more like his heavenly Father. That is the simple plan of God.

 

[Brother Lionel]

If more christians held this view, the world be a very different place. Its not rocket science people. God has given us simple directions to heaven: Love and obedience. The problem is that we humans have the audacity to obey Him in a way that is convenient for us and in a way that suits our lifestyle. We say we love Him but yet we pick and choose which commandments to abide by and which ones to lay aside. But this is nothing new, they were doing the exact same thing in Jesus' day and even before then. This is why His word says:

Isaiah 29:13 - Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men

Matthew 15:8 - This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

"He that has an ear to hear, let him hear!"

 

[Yahoshea]

If more christians held this view, the world be a very different place. Its not rocket science people. God has given us simple directions to heaven: Love and obedience. The problem is that we humans have the audacity to obey Him in a way that is convenient for us and in a way that suits our lifestyle. We say we love Him but yet we pick and choose which commandments to abide by and which ones to lay aside. But this is nothing new, they were doing the exact same thing in Jesus' day and even before then. This is why His word says:

Isaiah 29:13 - Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men

Matthew 15:8 - This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

"He that has an ear to hear, let him hear!"

thanks for the comment.

 

[Drew]

Can one break the ten commandments when they follow Jesus' command of love your neighbor as yourself? One would think the ten commandments were absorbed into this one commandment no?

I think you have correctly captured the essential point. Paul and Jesus are both clear - the Law of Moses has been retired, including the 10 commandments.

Beware the patently incorrect reasoning that retiring the Law of Moses would mean that its ok to commit murder, commit adultery, etc. That is simply not the case. Prescriptive law is not the only way people get guidance on how to do things.

With the advent of the Spirit, we are freed from the law, as Paul so cleary teaches, and our actions are guided by the Spirit, not the written code:

But now, by dying to what once bound us {***the Law of Moses, by context}, 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.

 

[toddm]

Can one break the ten commandments when they follow Jesus' command of love your neighbor as yourself? One would think the ten commandments were absorbed into this one commandment no?

I think you have correctly captured the essential point. Paul and Jesus are both clear - the Law of Moses has been retired, including the 10 commandments.

Beware the patently incorrect reasoning that retiring the Law of Moses would mean that its ok to commit murder, commit adultery, etc. That is simply not the case. Prescriptive law is not the only way people get guidance on how to do things.

With the advent of the Spirit, we are freed from the law, as Paul so cleary teaches, and our actions are guided by the Spirit, not the written code:

But now, by dying to what once bound us {***the Law of Moses, by context}, 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.

I really don't have time to read all 20+ pages in this thread, but I will say this - The 2 greatest commandments of loving God and loving others are the summary statements of the 10 commandments. On the sermon on the mount, Jesus magnifies the 10 commandments by pointing them more inward (if anyone has ever hated, he is guilty of murder). Jesus is zeroing in on the heart. As a Christian, our first and foremost command is to love God and we are doing this by believing in His Son. If we love God, then the natural result and outflow of our heart SHOULD be to love others. If the Holy Spirit is residing within you, then He will produce His fruit (Gal 5:22-23) and that fruit is why we will love each other. Christ didn't come to abolish the Law, He came to fulfill it and He does so by taking the 10 commandments to a whole new level.

I know that's kind of brief, but I'll elaborate if any one wants me to

 

[Brother Lionel]

So toddm, based on your last response, I have a simple question for you: Should Christians keep the 10 commandments today? Is obedience to these ten principles legalism?

 

[Brother Lionel]

Furthermore -
Are not the two great commandments summations of the ten? The first four dealing with love for God and the last six dealing with love for man?

 

[shad]

Furthermore -
Are not the two great commandments summations of the ten? The first four dealing with love for God and the last six dealing with love for man?

You are absolutely right. :yes

 

[RND]

Furthermore -
Are not the two great commandments summations of the ten? The first four dealing with love for God and the last six dealing with love for man?

Brother Lionel, I have always found it fascinating that when examined closely the 4th commandment acts as a bridge between God and man! The first three commandments are specific as to how we are to relate to God the Father and Son and the next 6 do indeed show us how we are to interact with our fellow man. Yet the fourth commandment acts in a way as a bridge that connects the two concepts together.

I wrote an article on my blog about this connection once. I'd be honored if you examined it and gave me your thoughts BL.

The Connection of the Mercy Seat

 

[Brother Lionel]

Great read RND!!! Very thought provoking!!

 

[francisdesales]

So toddm, based on your last response, I have a simple question for you: Should Christians keep the 10 commandments today? Is obedience to these ten principles legalism?

We are to obey the commandments of God, but NOT because they are the Mosaic Law. Obedience to God is based upon a higher principle that transcends the commandments given to a particular earthly people and race - since even WITHOUT the Law, man can be saved, based upon the knowledge they receive via the Spirit in their conscience (see Romans 2). A person is just in the sight of God, a spiritual Jew, and may know absolutely nothing about the Decalogue. As such, Paul is adamant that justification is not dependent upon obeying the Mosaic Law or being a Jew, part of which means worshipping God on a SPECIFIC day of the week... Only Jews who STILL obey the Mosaic Law are bound to Saturday worship, and those who choose to bind themselves to the Old Covenant. Christians are thus not bound to Saturday worship.

I know I have stated this a long time ago, just a bump here...

Regards

 

[Brother Lionel]

But Francis,
We're not discussing the issue of salvation. The law does not and never will save us. Jesus is our Savior, not the law. We are discussing the Christian life after salvation has taken place. After someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, should they live by the ten principles given by God and not cheat on their spouse? Should they live by the ten principles and respect their parents? Should they live by the ten principles and worship God only? Are we not to obey the commandments of God because of grace? Or can we disregard the ten commandments because of grace? And what standard principle is higher than the ten commandments? Are not hese principles the ultimate standard at which we will be judged by (James 2:12)?

 

[Drew]

After someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, should they live by the ten principles given by God and not cheat on their spouse? Should they live by the ten principles and respect their parents? Should they live by the ten principles and worship God only? Are we not to obey the commandments of God because of grace?

You have already been shown how this line of reasoning is flawed. No one, of course, is saying that we should cheat on our spouse. The point that Paul and other New Testament writers make is that the informing source for how we act in the world is not a set of prescriptive laws - like the Law of Moses which has been set aside or retired - but is rather the Holy Spirit.

I politely suggest that this is really a matter of whether or not we accept the authority of the Scriptures. Paul and Jesus are clear - the Law of Moses is retired. People are free to believe otherwise, but the Biblical teaching is clear.

Obviously, there is a deep intuitive inclination to argue just as you and others argue - that we need "law" to ensure moral behaviour. Well, the Bible says otherwise, despite what that intuition suggests.

 

[francisdesales]

But Francis,
We're not discussing the issue of salvation. The law does not and never will save us. Jesus is our Savior, not the law. We are discussing the Christian life after salvation has taken place.

Salvation is ongoing - meaning, my walk in the Spirit demonstrates that I am indeed "saved". Saved means being saved from something. Today. That would be a slavery to sin. Thus, as I demonstrate that I am free from the slavery of sin, I demonstrate the Spirit working within me. Thus, today, I am saved because of such actions. Salvation is not only looking back in time when I FIRST was freed from sin. It is crucial that we REMAIN in this freedom - NOT to return to the vomit of our former lives (2 Peter 2:20-22)

After someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior, should they live by the ten principles given by God and not cheat on their spouse?

Gentiles were not given "ten principles". They were given the Law of Love with the Decalogue as a backdrop, a continuity to our shared past. However, we are not bound to the Decalogue, and certainly not the one to worship God on "Saturday", which all people did not have as a common day of reference... We honor our parents because it is of the Law of Love. Saturday worship is not part of the Law of Love - that is a specifically JEWISH Law.

Are not hese principles the ultimate standard at which we will be judged by (James 2:12)?

[/quote]

We are judged upon what we have been given to obey. We are not bound to the Mosaic Law, ANY of it. Isn't that clear? We obey what we find in the Decalogue, not because it is in the Decalogue, but because they are part of the Law of Love, the New Covenant, my brother.

Regards

 

[RND]

So toddm, based on your last response, I have a simple question for you: Should Christians keep the 10 commandments today? Is obedience to these ten principles legalism?

We are to obey the commandments of God, but NOT because they are the Mosaic Law. Obedience to God is based upon a higher principle that transcends the commandments given to a particular earthly people and race - since even WITHOUT the Law, man can be saved, based upon the knowledge they receive via the Spirit in their conscience (see Romans 2).

Without means "outside of." Those that were born "outside" of the law of Moses are saved "outside" of the law of Moses. When those that do the things of the law, even though they were born outside of it, they provide evidence that the law is written on their hearts.

A person is just in the sight of God, a spiritual Jew, and may know absolutely nothing about the Decalogue. As such, Paul is adamant that justification is not dependent upon obeying the Mosaic Law or being a Jew, part of which means worshipping God on a SPECIFIC day of the week...

The "works of the law" were unnecessary for salvation., i.e. the sacrificing of animals, etc.

Only Jews who STILL obey the Mosaic Law are bound to Saturday worship, and those who choose to bind themselves to the Old Covenant. Christians are thus not bound to Saturday worship.

I know I have stated this a long time ago, just a bump here...

When we review Romans 2 we should take into consideration just exactly how Paul frames the conversation:

Rom 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Paul is saying, quite succinctly, that one can boast in the law of Moses and still be a lawbreaker. He goes on to point out that a man who is circumcised violates the law then his circumcision is actually counted as uncircumcision! As if he was never part of the house of Israel. So therefore if a man that has been circumcised in the heart steals or otherwise breaks the law then his circumcision is counted as uncircumcision.