Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Hello Rick!

I know you said not to reply to your post but I'm going to and also request your continued participation in this discussion. We have discussed many things on this forum that are of little practical value. Our relationship to the Law of Moses, IMO, is decidedly not one of them. If it is God's will that we keep the Sabbath, then it is of great importance to know this.

You wrote:

Jesus is not on record as ever having said, "You shall not take the name of Lord your God vain." But Moses is. So do we get out of keeping this command since we, supposedly, only follow Jesus' Commands? I think not! Jesus accepted Moses' teaching on this matter, as all Christians do.

But wasn't the second commandment actually spoken by God to Moses and then through Moses to the people? Thus, believing Jesus to be God (The Word), in the SOM Jesus would be reiterating His own command! I know it is easy to forget, as we often do, that The Law was not of Moses but of God.

Your remarks about Jesus' comments on the second commandment provide a good illustration of an important point about the Law. Suppose you were born and raised in England. You learned at an early age that it was unlawful to commit murder. Then, as an adult, you immigrated to the United States, where, to no surprise, you found it also illegal to commit murder. Would you think you were still under the law of England? Of course not. In the same way, many things of the Law of Moses are the same under the Law of Christ, the New Covenant. And many were in effect long before Moses.

Jesus came and taught as no one had ever taught before. Just as in His illustration, the wineskin of the law was burst asunder, unsuited for His teaching.

I wish to get to the heart of the matter. The question, to my mind, is this: could a person having absolutely no instruction in the Law of Moses, but thoroughly instructed in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, live a life completely satisfying to God, within, of course, his ability according to the grace given to him to do so? I say emphatically yes. What say you, or any others who read this?

May God give us the truth in this matter.

[Guest]

It does seem hopeless to divide the Law into groupings that are not defined in scripture so as to try to keep some but not the others. I'm sorry that my discussion was not convincing for you, concerning the instructions God has given for us as to what His people should and should not "eat". My point was that God's laws have not changed, since Noah. Initially, He did not give animals to be eaten by His people in the garden, however. But, since sin came, maybe that has something to do with it. I believe that in the future we won't be eating animals either in His kingdom.

So I'm still confused. You say the law is not divided into groupings. And that Jesus commanded us to keep the law of Moses. Yet Hebrews says the law has changed.

This point has been made to you already. But I don't recall you answering it. Please explain how Jesus statement (the way you have said you understand it) that not one jot or tittle will pass from the law, yet Hebrews (7:12) says the law has changed.

If not one jot or tittle can pass from the law, then how did some pass?

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
Heb 7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest
Heb 7:16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For He testifies: "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK."
Heb 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
Heb 7:19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

Your entire argument stems from your interpretation of Jesus statement (Matt 5:18), yet this interpretation cannot be accurate, if the book of Hebrews, Acts and Paul's writings are inspired.

Actually, Homer, the following is a false statement:

He commissioned His Church to teach His disciples to obey His Commandments, not those of Moses.

Because He did teach us to keep the Laws of Moses and to teach them to every nation!

peace, dmatic

So why did the Jerusalem council decide against Christ! If they were suppose to be teaching "every nation" the law of Moses, they failed by teaching otherwise.

[Guest]

and wasnt the main purpose of the law to show that we CAN'T keep it?

That would be one thing among many things that came up in the narrative of Romans (in what-all Paul was trying to say and accomplish in writing it). But the main purpose? I don't think so, though that 'inability' does enter into the narrative (chapter 7, the "I", a Jew before conversion). If there is "a" main purpose of God's Law; it is that we CAN keep it through Christ!

(ESV)
Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, imo.
But I mean, like, well, I didn't write this....

Along those same lines, Paul also said:

Rom 2:14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts,

Could it be said that one who has the law written in the heart does fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, but not the letter of the law? Do you see the difference?

If I read the command Do not murder but I do hate others, is this right? The law doesn't go far enough. It doesn't get the the root of the problem. Regeneration corrects this. The heart is renewed and out of it comes actions that do fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. This type of heart does not need to hear the commands "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, etc. because a regenerated heart does not hate others "by nature".

Now, if Paul said this about someone who does not have the law (Rom 2:14) and also stated in Romans 8 that God did what the law could not do by sending His Son and His Spirit to live by. So if we live by the Spirit the righteous requirements of the law are fully met in us. The statement of Paul's does not say to live by the law because God has enabled us to now do so, it says live by the Spirit. The law reveals sin, the Spirit directs our steps and convicts us of sin. It does what the law did, and then some.

[Guest]

I wish to get to the heart of the matter. The question, to my mind, is this: could a person having absolutely no instruction in the Law of Moses, but thoroughly instructed in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, live a life completely satisfying to God, within, of course, his ability according to the grace given to him to do so? I say emphatically yes. What say you, or any others who read this?


Yes absolutely without a doubt at least IMHO. Could it be the LOM was specfically meant to keep the nation of Israel holy (set apart) from their heathen neighbors since it represented the kingdom of God. These laws were for them specfically but Christ's laws were for anyone who wished to follow him.
Stoning adulterers and homosexuals made sense to keep the family structure within Israel intact and for the survival of the nation. But though these acts are equally sinful under Christ the punishment changed from a physical death under the LOM to a spiritual death under Christ which was a separation from God.

[Guest]

I agree as well, but someone said that the Law of Moses was to be taught to the Gentiles. I don't remember who said this but I would like chapter and verse from the person who said it.

[Guest]

I wish to get to the heart of the matter. The question, to my mind, is this: could a person having absolutely no instruction in the Law of Moses, but thoroughly instructed in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, live a life completely satisfying to God, within, of course, his ability according to the grace given to him to do so? I say emphatically yes. What say you, or any others who read this?

I also say "yes" just as emphatically!

As I've stated before, Jesus gave "the Law which was above the Law (given through Moses)". He explained the true Law of God which underlaid the Law through Moses. Indeed, the Law of Christ often contrasted with some of the commandments of Moses. For those commandments were sometimes tempered to accomodate the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites.

It is my belief that without the enabling grace of God, it is actually harder to obey Christ's injuctions than it is to obey the laws given to Moses.

Paul made an enlightening statement:

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

Lest he be misunderstood, Paul made it clear in this passage that though outside the law to those who are outside the law (of Moses), he was not without law toward God, for he continued to be under the law of Christ.

And what is the "law of Christ"? I think it is none other than Christ's teachings such as are recorded in Matthew 5,6, and 7 ---- teachings concerning which he said that he who hears them and obeys them is like the wise man who builds his house on a solid foundation, and which thereby will stand. But he who does not obey them is like the foolish man who builds his house on insecure foundation, whose house will fall when persecution or other pressures come.

I appreciate Dmatic's emphasis on the necessity of obedience and the fact that enabling grace to obey comes though Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on our behalf. However, we do disagree, as is obvious, concerning the Mosaic law --- whether or not it is still in effect under the new order.

[Guest]

Homer,

I might be able to study & post on these topics some time but don't know when. We'd need a new thread. I'm really into N.T. Wright and spent 14 hours yesterday studying his and some other people's stuff (like re-listening to Steve's lecture on "The Law of Moses & the Christian" and reading Scot McKnight's blog-commentary on Wright's Romans Commentary). You should take a look at that, bro!

Unfortunately, perhaps for me, I'm in a minority on the forum in my views and really don't like debating these things but keep getting put into that position. It's too much for me, brother! I'm plumb wore out & need to give it a rest.
God bless, Homer. See ya when,

[Guest]

Rick C. this is a very good statement!

If there is "a" main purpose of God's Law; it is that we CAN keep it through Christ!

Keep up the good work!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Paidion wrote:

Dmatic, Jesus seemed to contrast many times what "it was said in the old days" with what he taught.

You are correct in saying that Jesus did contrast what "those of old" taught with what he taught. He often rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, for example, for teaching the traditions of men (those of old), instead of teaching God's commandments. He said that their worship was in vain, because they were neglecting to teach God's commandments as given through Moses and the Prophets, and instead were teaching the comandments of men.

You are incorrect, however, to suggest that Jesus ever refuted the Law of Moses. He always upheld it. In all of His teachings. In fact, one of His "sayings" was to observe and do all that Moses said to observe and do. (Matthew 23:2-3) he even said that those who broke even the least of those commandments and taught others to break it, even the least!, would be called least in the kingdom of heaven! (Mt 5:19) To suggest that Jesus taught disobedience or disregard for "Moses" law, is wrong.

You tried to support your suggestion, withJesus' statements on the Laws of divorce, suggesting that Jesus said that we are not to leave wives at all. First, Moses did not command men to leave their wives. They were free to stay with them, even if the wives had committed fornication. It is true that God hates divorce. This is true in the Old and the New testaments. Jesus further explained, in answer to the question if it was lawful to divorce for any reason, that it is better not to follow one's hard heart, except for the cause of fornication, but if a husband desired to "put her away" he should give her a writing of divorcement. If he did not give her the writing of divorcement, and simply "put her away", he was causing her to commit adultery if she married another. And the one marrying her, that had simply been "put away" without the writing of divorcement, would also be committing adultery, since she was not legally divorced. Jesus is upholding the Law of Moses here!

Hope this helps you,

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Paidion further wrote:

If we believe that God literally gave the command to hate our enemies, then what do we do with the opposite command which Christ gave, namely, to love our enemies? We can't obey them both. Or did God give the former through Moses so that they would at least love their neighbours! Did God sometimes give commands as concessions because of the weakness of the Israelites while he really wanted something much better?

Why would one believe that God gave a command to hate ones enemies?

He does not so instruct in His Law to Moses!

Obviously, men were teaching this, as if it was a command from God, probably so as to excuse their hatred for their enemies, and for those who had mistreated them.

So, your question:

Or did God give the former through Moses so that they would at least love their neighbours!

implies an untruth, and the question therefore is invalid. God did NOT command anyone to hate their enemies!

Of course, if you can show me from the Laws of Moses where God ever did command such, please share it.

Peace, dmatic