Ten Commandments Replaced?

[archierieus]

Some Christians teach that the principles Jesus stated in Matthew 22:36 - 40 have replaced the Ten Commandments for Christians. They call this the "New Law," the "Law of Love." I have sat in a pew in a church on Sunday morning, and heard the preacher say this very thing. Matthew 22:36 -40 reads as follows (YLT):

"36 `Teacher, which is the great command in the Law?'

37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding--

38 this is a first and great command;

39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;

40 on these--the two commands--all the law and the prophets do hang.'"

How about it? Is what they say true? Have these two principles replaced the Ten Commandments for New Testament Christians?

Dave

[Gerr]

And how does one define love?

Gerry

[archierieus]

That is an interesting and important point, Gerry. Here is what the preacher said in that Sunday sermon: the Holy Spirit will guide you to know the loving thing to do. That is their answer.

Of course, that is quite subjective. Secondly, since all of us are sinners, we sometimes confuse other influences for the Holy Spirit. For example, the mother who threw her three small children off the pier in San Francisco, because she thought God wanted her to. There needs to be an objective standard.

Another facet of the question has to do with what Jesus actually said. In this passage, He did not say that these two principles replace the Ten Commandments. He did say that "on these two commands hang all the law and the prophets."

But, I would be interested to know how someone could get out of those words, the idea that they REPLACE the Ten Commandments. Anyone have any thoughts about that?

Dave

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

That is an interesting and important point, Gerry. Here is what the preacher said in that Sunday sermon: the Holy Spirit will guide you to know the loving thing to do. That is their answer.

---

[:"blue"]My problem with that is that under the claim of being led by the Spirit of God, Koresh could have sex with any of the females among his followers. That Jimmy Jones, under the claim of being led by the Spirit of God, could induce his followers to drink poison. Ditto the comet people in San Diego. That the Holy Spirit does not contradict what He had previously revealed to be truth. [/]

Gerry

[archierieus]

Absolutely, Gerry. Seems to me that is why an objective standard is needed.

Now, as for the other issue: Jesus said: "On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets." How could anyone get out of that statement, the idea that Jesus intended these two principles to REPLACE the Ten Commandments? Ben, whaddya say?

Dave

[benherndon]

I never said that text alone shows the Law of Moses is 'replaced'...(don't think I used the term...but that's OK, I'll accept the term).....but, I gave you many texts. You do the exegeting for me....I've explained my point of view many times...I don't need to hear it again....What I want to hear is your exegeting of that list of texts and perhaps others that parallel, at least by implication, what they say, IMO & 'reading'.

No games, Dave! this is a discussion, not a contest...OK? And no promises as to how long or how much I participate...I am a caregiver these days anticipating a major move of residence.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

I never said that text alone shows the Law of Moses is 'replaced'...(don't think I used the term...but that's OK, I'll accept the term).....but, I gave you many texts. You do the exegeting for me....I've explained my point of view many times...I don't need to hear it again....What I want to hear is your exegeting of that list of texts and perhaps others that parallel, at least by implication, what they say, IMO & 'reading'.

---

Here is the list of texts which you posted in the other thread:

Quote:

---

What I am against is the teaching that the NT commands Sabbath observance upon the Christian. Why am I opposed to that? Because of Mark 2:27---Christ is Lord of the Sabbath also! (be careful to not misinterpret that sentence which is common in SDA circles!) and Matt 22:36-40 (Jesus explains the two commandments He emphasizes) John 3:16-18 (How the Christian is saved in simple terms) Acts 15:19 (don't make it difficult for the Gentiles), Romans 3:20---(no one is made righteous by observing the law no matter how well done it is) Rom 6:14 (we are not under law but under Grace----no, we are not under some combination of the two, its either one OR the other!) 2Cor 3:11 & 14 (the Ten Commandments fade away and Grace is what lasts) Gal 3:25 (When Christ brought Christians Grace we were no longer under the Law as the Jews previously were) Gal 4:30 (The slave woman and her child, representing the Old Covenant, are 'cast out') Eph 2:15 (Christ abolishes the authority of the "law" over the Christian) Col 2:14 (Christ cancels the 'bond' against us created by our breaking 'the Law', nailing it to the cross.) 1Tim 1:8..("the Law" is not for 'good men' but is for evil men.

---

We will review each of these texts, in time. But, let's start with this one--the one in Matthew. You comment about it that "Jesus explains the two commandments He emphasizes." IOW the other commandments (including the Sabbath) according to you, He does NOT emphasize. Correct?

Quote:

---

No games, Dave! this is a discussion, not a contest

---

My preference is to stick with the Word, and the issues. I hope that is your preference as well. I do encourage you to avoid making ad hominem attacks or inferences. Stick with the issues, and all will be well.

Now, how about your answer, Ben? So far, your response has been: "I never said that text alone shows the Law of Moses is 'replaced'"

But, surely you must find SOME support in that passage. If not, then why did you cite it? So, let's have it, Ben. In what way does that passage say or support the idea that those two principles replace the Ten Commandments. Or, if you prefer, in what way does that passage show that Jesus meant to minimize the Fourth Commandment?

Now, if this text does not support your case, but you rely on other texts, and if, about each text, you say that it ALONE doesn't support your position, then your case becomes a house of cards. So, let's see what you say about THIS text.

Cordially, Dave

[benherndon]

As I said in the 'other' thread....I don't like rancorous discussing. Some people can disagree agreeably.....some can't. Apparently we do not fit in the former category from both our individual points of view. So.....let us pass by this opportunity to continue the rancor. I don't think it would represent Christianity very well for us to continue discussing.

This does not mean that I am Christ-like and that you are not!! But, this is like Paul and Mark....at least Paul chose to stop the association. I think that might be a good example for you and me, both.

I would still like to see your exegeting of those texts I gave.....I might learn something..I like to hear alternate points of view or exegeting and try to evaluate them....but I will not comment regardless of what you say, if, indeed, you choose to say anything. Its up to you.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

As I said in the 'other' thread....I don't like rancorous discussing. Some people can disagree agreeably.....some can't. Apparently we do not fit in the former category from both our individual points of view.

---

I don't think that what I have posted here would objectively be considered 'rancorous.' However, I am asking you to support your position. If you consider that 'rancorous,' then I guess that is what you think.

But, come now, not so quickly. You brought the subject up. We need to see some support for the position you have taken.

Cordially, Dave

[jasd]

QR frame:

Mat 22:35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer {3544 – nomikos; per law, ie, of the legal-ceremonial and/or inclusively the Mosaic}, asked [him a question] , tempting him, and saying,

Mat 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment {1785 – entole; authoritative prescription, ie, commandment and/or precept} in the law {3551 – nomos; law, through the idea of prescriptive usage, regulation, specially, of Moses}?

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love {25 – agapao; in the social or moral sense, the judgement and deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty, and propriety} the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.

Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like {3664 – homoios; similar in appearance or character} unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour {4139 – plesion; near-fellow, ie, countryman, Xtian, friend} as thyself.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law {nomos} and the prophets.

(braces: mine, ie, loosely paraphrasing JStrong)

Note: The association – nomikos/nomos

Note: This exchange occurs prior to the Passion; that said, in sense - the law, though now imprecise, still inheres in its entirety (for those who place themselves under it to serve); whilst, it does not (for whom it never did, and to those for whom it no longer obtains).

:proofed

[archierieus]

Now then, let's take a look at the passage which is at issue here: Mt. 22:36 - 40. I would like, for the moment, to focus on v. 40:

"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (NKJV)

Let's examine the word, 'hang.' Firstly, how do other versions word it?

KJV hang

NIV hang

NASB depend

RSV depend

Let's look at the definitions of these English words:

hang suspend from

depend rely or to hang down from

As I read the dictionary, neither of those words suggests the concept of REPLACING. Instead, they suggest a connection or interdependence. Now, if I have missed something, I hope that someone will bring it to my attention.

Okay, let's now take a look at the Greek word:

krematai Gk. lemma: kremannumi morphology: 3rd pers. sing. present passive indicative

BAGD def.: "b. fig. (Philo, Post. Cai. 24; 25; Sib. Or. 7, 55) . . . all the law and the prophets hang (depend) on these two commandments Mt 22:40 (as a door hangs on its hinges, so the whole OT hangs on these two comm. . . ."

[bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.]

LOUW-NIDA def: "to be in a relation of dependency upon something - ‘to depend upon.’ . . . ‘the entire Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments’ Mt 22.40. In a number of languages dependency as in Mt 22.40 may be expressed as ‘to hang on’ or ‘to be tied together by’ or ‘only have meaning because of.’ "

[Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.]

So far, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus intended the two principles to replace the Ten Commandments. In fact, everything points to 'a relation of dependency . . ."

Once again, focusing on this verse, if I have missed something here, then please bring it to my attention.

Finally, we go to the passage itself, and the reaction of the one to whom Jesus' words were addressed. The Jews' intent was to trap Jesus and nail upon Him the charge of disregarding the Law of God. If Jesus' answer was perceived as replacing the Ten Commandments, they would have jumped on that. What was the reaction to His response? Look at the parallel account in Mark 12:28 - 34. Note, in particular, vv. 32, 33:

"32 So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.

33 And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Once again, it looks pretty clear that Jesus' answer was neither anything new, nor perceived by his hearer as replacing the Ten Commandments.

Oh, there is one other point that bears on the question. Did Jesus come up with a new teaching here, or had this been around for awhile. Note that He quoted from the book of Deuteronomy:

De 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

5 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."

Indeed, this was not a new teaching. The same God Who spoke the Ten Commandments, and wrote them with His own finger on tables of stone, ["written in stone"] also gave this instruction, at that time. Did God contradict Himself? Certainly not!

Further help may be found by reading the following verse, v. 6:

"And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart."

What are "these words"? The reference is to the Ten Commandments, which had just been repeated, a few verses before. (All in the same address) Look at ch. 5:6 - 22. Loving the Lord your God with all the heart, means that 'these words,' the Ten Commandments, shall be in your heart. That compares favorably with the New Covenant found in Heb. 10:15, 16, where God says He will write His laws in the minds and hearts of His people.

Well, let's see how it stacks up:

English word

Greek word

Greek lexicons

Jesus' hearer

Quote from OT

Reference to 'these words,' the Ten Commandments

All these sources agree. Jesus had no intention of suggesting that the two great principles of love should replace the Ten Commandments. Instead, the two principles, and the Ten Commandments, are interdependent, the door and its hinges.

Enough for now. Before moving to the next passage, I would welcome any response or observations.

Sincerely, Dave

[Ted Oplinger]

Hmmm.....

This discussion would not be complete without looking to the third chapter of Matthew's Gospel, where it reads (NASB) in verses 17-19:

"Do not think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, no the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in heaven."

It doesn't take a Bible scholar to compare this passage with the idea the Law is "replaced", and see that the idea is completely without merit...or Christ is one big liar!

To equate the word "fulfilled" as meaning "replaced" or "set aside" effectively renders verse 17b to say, "...I did not come to abolish, but to replace/set aside/do away with..."

How confusing is that? I do not think Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth...nor do I think "all things" are accomplished as yet...nor has heaven and earth passed away as of this moment...so what does that leave?

That means Christ - knowing what His work on the Cross was going to accomplish - declared that abolishing the Law was not part of that work.

That the Law was not abolished or replaced was confirmed by Paul in Romans 3, where he explains what the Law's function is - to define what is sin and what is righteousness. In verse 8, he makes an interesting point: Jews of his day were already laying the charge of abolishing the Law against the fledgling Christian church...and Paul called this slander. Paul's defense winds up in verse 31 with the words that faith does not nullify the Law, but rather establishes the Law.

That the "love replaces 10 Commandments" idea nearly always turns to doing away with the 7th day Sabbath (at least, to this pilgrim, that is the usual progress of the notion), is a statement of its own indictment, in light of Christ's own words in Matthew 3.

Because obedience to the 10 Commandments points also to the Sabbath...it is commonly taken that including odedience - and necessarily Sabbath obedience - places one in an "under Law position" - trying to achieve salvation by works - and rejecting the positive "under grace" position of the Gospels.

It seems to me the bigger questions would be, Just what does the Scriptures mean by being "under Law" and "under grace", and is "under Law" necessarily diametrically opposed to "under grace"?

Romans 3:19 makes mention that the Law speaks to those "under Law"...that every mouth may be closed (seems to be future tense here), and all the world may become accountable to God.

Does the work of Christ on the Cross make the believer any less accountable to God than the non-believer? If both the non-believer and the believer are accountable to God ...then both are necessarily under Law.

In Galatians 4, Paul makes a remark that poses a question to inquiring minds. Verses 4,5 read, "But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order to redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

If you and I need redeeming to see Christ heaven...then are we not necessarily under Law? If we are sinners, we are under Law, are we not?

Since Paul also said in Romans 3 that "by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified", then to be redeemed... must we then necessarily be under grace to see Christ in heaven?

Simultaneously "under Law" and "under grace"? Hmmmmm...is that possible? Aren't they supposed to be opposed to one another? Or can it be that Law and Grace are both means that God is using to restore His image in people - that both are necessarily needed to go forward in our Christian experience?

I don't wish to hijack this thread...but it seems that many of the "Law of Love" advocates - particularly within the Sunday churches - have troubles with these to concepts.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ted_Oplinger said:

Simultaneously "under Law" and "under grace"? Hmmmmm...is that possible? Aren't they supposed to be opposed to one another? Or can it be that Law and Grace are both means that God is using to restore His image in people - that both are necessarily needed to go forward in our Christian experience?

---

Well, if it ain't . . . Iron Deacon himself!! Still parked on the wrong side of the Red, are you? At least (it sounds like) that hogwash from DTS hasn't spilt onto you yet.

You do make a very, very good point, Ted. That would indeed seem to me, to be what the Bible teaches. As for the old-school evangelicals . . . I am looking forward to carefully analyzing each of the Bible references which the old-line evangelical theology relies on, in regard to the Ten Commandments. (Recently, they have changed their tune a little.) As you pointed out in your post, the Sabbath is the FLY in the ointment. Makes the ol' boys squirm. But, more of that as we go along.

Anyways, I have got to take my car up to the shop just now, and will look forward later to continuing with the next verse that Ben had presented--unless someone else has some words of wisdom to add, first.

Best Regards,

Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Note: This exchange occurs prior to the Passion; that said, in sense - the law, though now imprecise, still inheres in its entirety (for those who place themselves under it to serve); whilst, it does not (for whom it never did, and to those for whom it no longer obtains).

---

Ahh, but, as Paul wrote in Romans 1 - 3, isn't the whole world under the jurisdiction of the moral Law of God? In Paul's day? As for those who claim that the TC were nailed to the cross, and they are now under the Law of Love, as they call it, Mt. 22, if they admit to being under jurisdiction of that law, then aren't they accepting jurisdiction of the attached corpus?

Dave

[archierieus]

Okay, let's continue with the very first text that Ben posted. Here it is:

Quote:

---

What I am against is the teaching that the NT commands Sabbath observance upon the Christian. Why am I opposed to that? Because of Mark 2:27---Christ is Lord of the Sabbath also! (be careful to not misinterpret that sentence which is common in SDA circles!)

---

Let's look at all three versions of Christ's statement. First, Mt. 12:8 NKJV--

Mt 12:8 "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Mr 2:28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

Lu 6:5 And He said to them, "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

Now, would someone like to tell me in what way this saying of Jesus supports the notion that the NT "does not command Sabbath observance upon the Christian"? I look forward to any responses.

Dave

[archierieus]

Well, surprise! I just looked at Mt. 12:8 in Nestle-Aland. Here is what it says:

kurios gar estin tou sabbatou ho huios tou anthrwpou

Interesting, indeed. Here is what these words mean:

lord for is of the sabbath the son of man

Intriguing! The emphasis is on "lord" as the first word. Emphasizing the Son of man's lordship of the Sabbath. And, 'tou sabbatou' clearly identifies this as the weekly Sabbath. The word 'day' is not in the Greek, nor is the word 'even' or 'also'.

In ordinary English, it would read:

"for the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Let's go now to Mk. 2:28. Since the first word of v. 28 is 'hoste', let's include v. 27:

to sabbaton dia ton anthrwpon egeneto kai oux ho anthrwpos dia to sabbaton. hoste kurios estin ho huios tou anthrwpou kai tou sabbatou.

Alright:

the sabbath on account of man was made and not man on account of the sabbath. For that reason, lord is the son of man also/even of the sabbath.

In this gospel, we do see the word 'kai,' meaning also or even in this application.

Interesting to note, again, the emphasis of the lordship of the Son of man, of the Sabbath.

And, Lk. 6:5:

kurios estin tou sabbatou ho huios tou anthrwpou

lord is of the sabbath the son of man

Hmmm. A third time, the emphasis on the lordship of the Son of man, of the sabbath. Also, in this gospel, the word 'also' or 'even' is not present, nor is the word, 'day'

In ordinary English, then:

The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Very well. Having done this exercise, I can find no implication or suggestion that these verses would support the notion that the NT "does not command Sabbath observance upon the Christian." Now, as for Ben's admonition: "be careful to not misinterpret that sentence which is common in SDA circles!" Indeed, the verses as they read in Greek, appear to say EXACTLY what Adventists have taught: "The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." The issue that does appear in these passages, pertains to how to KEEP the Sabbath.

Okay . . . Ben, Gerry, Jasd, Iron Deacon, anyone? Can you find ANY support in these passages for the idea that the Nt does not command Sabbath observance upon the Christian? I am REALLY looking forward to a response!

Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

How about it? Is what they say true? Have these two principles replaced the Ten Commandments for New Testament Christians?

Dave

---

Reiterated them in shorter form, as opposed to replacing.

[:"red"] "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" [/] Micah 6:8 KJV

[archierieus]

Good point, LHC. And, a very appropriate reference from the OT which expresses similar thoughts.

Hmmm. Haven't heard back from anyone yet about the 'Lord of the Sabbath' issue. Oh well, moving right along . . . Although, I hope that if someone does have thoughts on this issue, he or she will share them.

Here is the next reference which Ben posted in support of the idea that the NT does not command Sabbath observance upon Christians:

Quote:

---

John 3:16-18 (How the Christian is saved in simple terms)

---

Here is the passage (NKJV):

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Now, then, in what way does this passage support the idea that 'the NT does not command Sabbath observance upon the Christian'?

Dave

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

---

Okay . . . Ben, Gerry, Jasd, Iron Deacon, anyone? Can you find ANY support in these passages for the idea that the Nt does not command Sabbath observance upon the Christian? I am REALLY looking forward to a response!

---

Well, Dave, there is no Scriptural support for the idea that Christians are not accountable to observe the Sabbath. Indeed, the very same people who deny the our responsibility to observe the seventh day, according to commandment, use the very same Sabbath texts to explain how obligatory Sunday observance upon the Chrisitian community!

So....under whose law does one wish to be? Man's? or God's?

Second point - There is not a nation on earth that does not have laws which the inhabitants therein obey, whether they are natural citizens, foreign-born, or visitors. Every person on earth is "under law" to some kind of national or community authority. What shall we say of the NT Christian?

Does the kingdom of heaven - God's kingdom and throne - have a jurisdiction wherein His Law is the Law of His kingdom? Does the Christian - one who calls himself by Christ's name, and in so doing professes citizenship to God's kingdom - have the obligation to be found obedient to that Law?

From that, it seems to me that to claim that Christians are not under any kind of Law flowing from the authority of the throne of Christ, is to deny jurisdiction of God's authority over the Christian. In short, it's a denial of God's sovereignty and authority over the Christian.

That, to me, is the logical conclusion to the argument that being "under grace" nullifies any or all obligation to be found obedient to God's sovereign Law.

Knowing people professing Christ from many denominations, I find relatively few who make the case Christians have no obligation to righteous behavior because of grace - Christians are to have a code of righteousness. What I find is curious, though, is that the ones claiming "grace" nullifies Law-keeping, bind themselves to a denominational code of behavior to define their righteousness - and claim they are "under grace"!

So again, I come back to the point - what does it mean to be "under Law", and "under grace"?

Romans 2:12,13 "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law, for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified"

Hmmm....Paul speaks here not of NT "law of grace", but of being found obedient to God's Law, regardless wheter one recognizes His sovereignty or not. Death is the end for both the "ignorant" non-believer and the disobedient believer alike.

All are...under Law.

Romans 3:23,24 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

Hmmm...all have sinned, but all are being justified as a gift by His grace.

All are....under grace.

Sounds like Paul doesn't know which camp he wants to be in - the obedience camp, or the grace camp!

Allow me to tie one more text into my foolishness here...

Romans 2:17 "But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon Law, and boast in God"

Ahhhh...some clarity. The question should not be, "Is obedience to the Law necessary for Christians"? Not at all.

It should be, "From what fountain does that Law-keeping flow from? The fountain of human works to achieve heaven? Or from the Fountain of Life indwelling within the believer, producing every righteous and good work?"

What is the person relying upon for heaven's entrance? their codes of behavior and professions? or the Living God dwelling within the new creation in their heart?

But there's that word, "Jew" there. How so many Christians really hate using that word. I guess that is why the Christians of 1000 years ago + developed the Israel/Church dichotomy over time, to keep Law-keeping as a "Jewish" necessity, but freeing the Christian to do....whatever.

I have found that a large amount of incorrect/illogical theology having as a source this artificial "Jew/Church" separation...and most commonly held conceptions I've heard, of what is "under Law" and what is "under grace", falls into this observation.

Is that not why most Christians go to great lengths to separate themselves from what is "Jewish" - and thus what is "obviously of Jewish works" - to be rid of the Law and its requirement to keep the Sabbath?

Looks like a vicious circular trap - Christians want to be found obedient to God, but not to anything "Jewish"...but to deny what appears "Jewish" in effect causes them to deny the sovereignty of the very God they profess!

Oh, the things the human mind falls prey to.....

[jasd]

>>…concept of REPLACING.<<

I don’t think anyone speaks of “REPLACING” per se; however, since it is introduced as an operative term... and inasmuch as the OT seems to forward a ‘removal’ of the known Sabbath day (we speak of the Sabbath, do we not?)… much as the Tabernacle was removed from Shiloh, and Shiloh is no more; the ark of the Covenant from the Holy of Holies, and the ark is likewise hidden; Paradise from Eden, and seems now to be in the Third Heaven; etc… let me suggest as an operative term instead:

Conversion… that is, the ontological development of a thing from one set of symbolism and remembrance… to another, though still retaining its similitudine, that is, symbolism and remembrance.

>>Instead, they suggest a connection or interdependence.<<

Yes, though affiliated… the ‘greatest commandment’ and the ‘one like unto it’ being surpassingly supereminent with all others being tediously subvenient.

>>…there is nothing to suggest that Jesus intended the two principles to replace the Ten Commandments.<<

I don't know that anyone is suggesting or espousing 'replacement'.

>>Finally, we go to the passage itself, and the reaction of the one to whom Jesus' words were addressed.<<

As I recall, St Matthew relates that it was put to Jesus by a nomikos expert in the nomos… the ‘nomos’ being 613[:"red"]*[/] laws of the Jews - the statutes, judgements, laws, etc… (with some including the entire OT as nomos).

[:"red"]*[/] "The scribes declared that there were 248 affirmative precepts, as many as the members of the human body; and 365 negative precepts, as many as the days in the year, the total being 613, the number of letters in the Decalogue"

>>The Jews' intent was to trap Jesus and nail upon Him the charge of disregarding the Law of God. If Jesus' answer was perceived as replacing the Ten Commandments, they would have jumped on that.<<

I agree it was with improbity that they sought to question Him; however, it was commonly argued that the greatest law was that of the Sabbath, the circumcision, the required three feasts a year, the written law, the oral law, the first tablet, the second tablet, the moral, the ceremonial, the phylacteries, the fringes, the this, the that, the yada-yada, the blah-blah…

and rather than get drawn into that discursiveness, Jesus simply summarized the entirety of their diffusion into two concise precepts.

>>Jesus had no intention of suggesting that the two great principles of love should replace the Ten Commandments.<<

No doctrine of replacement was necessary; Gd had already, earlier-on, abridged the Ten Commandments.

>>Instead, the two principles, and the Ten Commandments, are interdependent, the door and its hinges.<<

Perhaps, this discourse in Matthew is not limited to the Ten Commandments… and the two principles really just superintend all else.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

inasmuch as the OT seems to forward a ‘removal’ of the known Sabbath day (we speak of the Sabbath, do we not?)

---

There's the rub . . . Pray tell, what Scriptures might you cite in support of that position?

Quote:

---

No doctrine of replacement was necessary; Gd had already, earlier-on, abridged the Ten Commandments.

---

Where? What Scripture passages?

Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Worthy treatise, Ted. Hope I'm not too far to comment on a couple of sentences that somewhat identifies who really are the believers.

Quote:

---

Christians want to be found obedient to God, but not to anything "Jewish"...

---

[:"red"] "...salvation is of the Jews." [/]

John 4:22 KJV

[:"red"] "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" [/] Romans 3:1-3 KJV

Quote:

---

most Christians go to great lengths to separate themselves from what is "Jewish"

---

[:"red"] "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." [/]Galatians 3:29 KJV

[:"red"] "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" [/] Romans 2:29 KJV

Keep looking up!!

[archierieus]

Ted, your post is very well-reasoned, and I am wholeheartedly in agreement. I, too, have been both puzzled and amused by the 'gymnastics' some people engage in, to avoid the Sabbath.

Part of it, I think, is lack of a clear understanding of some points. That understanding could be acquired through careful, prayerful study. It is there for those who seek it.

For example, John 3:16: "Whosoever BELIEVETH on Him . . ." Here is a verse which is sometimes cited in support of the notion that one need not obey God's Law, but only believe. Hmmm. Is that what the word 'believeth' means?

Start with the English word, 'believe.' Webster's tells us that the word means, 'to have confidence in the truth of something.' Interesting.

Okay, dig a level deeper. How about the Greek word which is translated, 'believeth'? That word is 'pisteown,' a participle, Gr. lemma 'pisteuw.' What, pray tell, does THAT word mean? Kittel has a most excellent, and lengthy article about it. Here is an excerpt, pertaining specifically to the use of 'pisteuw' in the NT:

"f. Development of the Use of pisteuw. The verb follows much the same pattern as the noun. It usually means “to receive the message,” but it may also denote “to be believing,” and the participles can have the same force as pistoŒs, which is equivalent to “Christian.”

3. Christian Faith and OT Faith. Faith in the NT is the same as faith in the OT inasmuch as it is belief in God’s word, but with the difference that God’s deed is now disclosed only in the word. The OT righteous believe in God on the basis of manifested acts, but NT believers believe in God in and with the act of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as this is known only by gospel proclamation. God’s act is here the word, for Jesus is himself God’s word. Faith, then, is trust in God’s eschatological act in Christ and hope for the consummation of the work that God has thus begun. In the interim it is trust that God will not let believers be confounded but that as they are dead with Christ, so they will be kept until they are also raised with him. Insofar as faith is faithfulness, it is faithfulness to God’s saving act in Christ, to the one name in which is salvation (Acts 4:12). The obedience of faith is obedience to the way of salvation in Christ, which includes, of course, turning aside from sin. In every dimension it means a radical reorientation to God that governs all life. Hence faith is the Christian religion and believers are Christians. Yet the stress on Christ is a stress on God, for faith in Christ is faith in God’s act in Christ. God meets believers (only) in Christ, in whom all God’s fullness dwells. Christ is God’s final act embracing already its future and definitive manifestation."

(Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, Editors, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) 1985.)

Thus, pisteuwn in Jn. 3:16 has a broader meaning than the English word 'believe.' "In every dimension it means a radical reorientation to God that governs all life."

Actually, though, resort to Greek is not necessary. Simply looking at the passage in Jn. 3 in which v. 16 appears, can help provide a better understanding of the word. Take a look at vv. 19 - 21:

"Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 "For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 "But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

These verses clearly tell us that those who believe in Jesus will turn from practicing evil and come to the light, and do deeds of light which have been done in God. This is consistent with Kittel's discussion of the word 'pisteuw.'

Well, thus far, as for this passage in Jn. 3, nothing appears which would suggest either that the Sabbath is not commanded upon NT Christians, or that the TC have either been replaced, or do not apply to NT Christians.

But, if I have missed something, PLEASE, someone, bring it to my attention!! I look forward to responses.

Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

inasmuch as the OT seems to forward a ‘removal’ of the known Sabbath day (we speak of the Sabbath, do we not?)

---

Quote:

---

No doctrine of replacement was necessary; Gd had already, earlier-on, abridged the Ten Commandments.

---

abridge: to reduce in scope, diminish; Webster's 9th Coll.

Dictionary

This following particular text seems to preclude an abridgement, though that is an archaic meaning to the word, abridge.

[:"red"] "So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" [/] Hebrews 4:9 NASB

OTOH neither does this meaning seem to fit a removal, as stated from the same source.

:to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense.

[:"red"] "But He answered and said, "It is written, ' MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" [/] Matthew 4:4

capitalized theirs LHC

[:"red"] "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. " [/] Deut 8:3 NASB

[jasd]

>>… (NASB) in verses 17-19:

"Do not think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, no the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in heaven."

It doesn't take a Bible scholar to compare this passage with the idea the Law is "replaced",<<

I highlighted “replace” in my google taskbar and the first hit was in archierieus’ post. I think I missed something along the way… who is saying this or that is “replaced”? This terminology

constructs a strawman.

>>To equate the word "fulfilled" as meaning "replaced" or "set aside" effectively renders verse 17b to say, "...I did not come to abolish, but to replace/set aside/do away with..."<<

The texts do read fulfil/fulfilled; however, let’s look at them…

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil {4137}.

#4137 pleroo

from 4134; to make replete, … --accomplish, … fully preach ... [ed.]

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled {1096}.

#1096 ginomai … used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.) … be performed, be published, [ed.]

These terms are quite ranging and allow some flexibility in attempting to understand the meaning of what Christ is saying. Further, note that I’ve severely edited Strong’s definitions, as they were quite lengthy. I saved the gist of them as to coincide with the below proffered…

“It is worthy of observation, that the word gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfil, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. … And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle's words, Whereof I am made a minister, to fulfil{4137} the word of God; i.e. to teach the doctrine of God (Col 1:25).” [ed.]

Whereas, Christ fulfilled the word, St Paul fulfilled it also – even as you today and another will tomorrow.

Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath {4137,0} so fulfilled {4137}.

>>I do not think Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth...<<

One would hope not, oy vay!

>>…nor do I think "all things" are accomplished as yet...nor has heaven and earth passed away as of this moment...so what does that leave?<<

Laws, prophets, jots, and tittles? Are they significant? Why? When?

The Day of Atonement rituals were very prescribed, jots and tittles, if you will; yet, since the 6th century BC the ark of the covenant has been missing. What happened to OT propitiation for the ensuing 5+ centuries in the camp of the Southern Kingdom? whilst the High Priests, those legitimate and those not, ministered in the Holy of Holies as though the ark and the Shekinah were still there?

>>…declared that abolishing the Law was not part of that work.<<

One may be precipitous to declare that the law has been abolished. Myself, in the above, accede that 'the law' is still extant, however, it does not inhere to everyone.

>>That the Law was not abolished or replaced was confirmed by Paul in Romans 3,<<

That may be so; however, note what follows…

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; v22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

and…

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

>>…verse 31 with the words that faith does not nullify the Law, but rather establishes the Law {3551}.<< [ed.]

Exactly, and attested/witnessed (Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law {3551} and the prophets;) by the same law {3551} that worketh wrath…

Rom 4:15 Because the law {3551} worketh wrath: (that is, the entire catalog of 613 nomos/laws)

>>…nearly always turns to doing away with the 7th day Sabbath (at least, to this pilgrim, that is the usual progress of the notion), is a statement of its own indictment, in light of Christ's own words in Matthew 3.<<

I suggest that it would be more opportune were one to first address the fact that Gd has abridged His commandments on stone. (and, are you not actually thinking of Matthew 5?)

>>Just what does the Scriptures mean by being "under Law"…<<

Well, for one, by drawing too fine a point in placing oneself under the OT Sabbath. That would be placing oneself under law.

>>…"under grace", and is "under Law" necessarily diametrically opposed to "under grace"?<<

Depends on how one defines “…Law”.

>>Romans 3:19 makes mention that the Law speaks to those "under Law"...that every mouth may be closed (seems to be future tense here), and all the world may become accountable to God.<<

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

>>Does the work of Christ on the Cross make the believer any less accountable to God than the non-believer?<<

No. The believer is fully accountable to Gd; however, the blood of Christ stands him/her.

>>If both the non-believer and the believer are accountable to God ...then both are necessarily under Law.<<

They are both under sin as adheres through Adam, ipso… under the law unto death. That said,

Rom 14:23 …for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Is there a commandment that states, “Thou shalt not lack faith”?

How about “Thou shalt not lie”?

“Thou shalt not neglect to do that which is good”?

Js 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.