Ten Commandments Replaced?

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

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.

---

Actually, I chose the word 'replace' in my initial post, to start this thread. The reason I did so, was that I have heard that idea presented, for years. Another expression I have heard is that the Ten Commandments were 'nailed to the cross." When asked, what are the guidelines then, for a Christians' behavior today, I have been told that this passage-love God and love your neighbor--are the principles that govern a Christian's life, rather than the TC. The concept has been presented on this forum, as well, and lengthy discussions have followed. The Bible references relied on, in support of the concept, keep popping up, so I thought it would be good to take a careful look at each such reference. While the exact word 'replace' may or may not have been used (I don't recall), I think it is a good fit in describing the concept as I have heard it presented over the years. I note on this thread, Ben's comment as to the word 'replace':

"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."

I do appreciate Ben listing the Bible references used to support the concept, in one place. They shall be addressed, one by one.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

I wish to point out, in terms of a progress report, that, so far, three of the references cited by Ben have been addressed by this student, on this thread. In analyzing the passages, I have relied on 'peer-reviewed' reference works, which have received the highest marks and are the industry standards used by those very peers--the flagship reference works, IOW. They include, Nestle-Aland, Kittel, BAGD and Louw-Nida. In utilizing those reference works, I have been careful to cite the VERY OCCURRENCES OF THE GREEK WORDS which appear in the specific Bible verses. The citations of authority have been exactly on point.

I welcome response, and any suggestions as to either the procdure, or the work product so far.

Regards, Dave

[Ted Oplinger]

Hmmm...more fancy footwork. No matter.

JASD, I was kind of hoping that my post would ellicit precisely this response. I was not disappointed.

To the response for my comments on Matthew 5:19-19...

Quote:

---

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.

---

Unless you've been raised in a sheltered life, "replaced" is the exact terminology used by the "Law of Love" advocates in every place I've seen this conversation take place. That Dave called it for what it is first is not the construction of a strawman argument.

The strawman arguement is the concept the Law can be kept perfectly once, by one person, and this negates the obligation for all other citizens of the kingdom of God to do likewise.

In looking at the word "fulfilled", I'm happy we can agree that it does not mean "abolish" or "set aside" or "rendered null and void" for believers.

To obey a law is to fulfill the obligations/duty set forth in that Law. To teach that same law is to affirm it is right and just to obey. That is precisely what Christ is speaking of in Matthew 5:17-19.

Moving on...

Quote:

---

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?

---

Ahhh...here comes the ol' bait and switch, or red herring, tactic...blur the sacrificial system in with the Ten Commandments...

The book of Hebrews makes it very clear that the laws regarding the sacrifices and feasts were to be considered distinct and apart from the Ten Commandment Law.

Why?

The 10 Commandments give us a transcript of God's character.

The laws of feasts, sacrifices, and sacraments were given as the OT gospel to demonstrate how God was going about taking care of the issue of sin, pointing forward to Christ's work on the cross. True fulfilling obedience to that law could never save a sinner; it could only point the sinner's trust forward in time when the Messiah would come to provide the complete, perfect sacrifice which could fulfill that law.

Since then, Hebrews is quite clear that these particular laws still have an application, but in the heavenly temple, not the earthly. And yes, every little jot and tittle still applies, because what Moses received on earth is but a copy of what God had already instituted in heaven. That Christ has yet to come means He is still engaged in His work as our High Priest - indicating (to me, at least) that He is still engaged taking care of those jots and tittles, even as you read these words.

And...before the verse in Hebrews gets quoted that says Christ offered His own blood once, then sat down at the Father's right hand...the same book states He ever lives to make intercession for those who believe. I would hazard to say that the process of confession, repentance, and intercession is creating a testemonial record affirming that one perfect and sufficient sacrifice...over and over again. By what law? those found in Exodus - Deuteronomy..

Quote:

---

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.

---

Paul writes quite well that as many who are ignorant of the Law ("without" the Law) still perish in their sin...but sin is not held acountable unless there is Law to define it!

However, ignorance is no excuse!

Why would I say this?

Romans 1:18-20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

and Romans 2:12-16 "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 it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

It looks like, in Paul's writing here, that the Law applies to the Gentiles who are ignorant of it! Paul states the fact that God has written the Law within the Gentile's heart will be evident on the day of judgment....even though they were never "given" the Law in the first place.

If in the grand scheme of things, God has revealed Himself enough through nature that every person is without excuse, then it is the logical deduction that every person then has the obligation to seek out what God requires of them, regardless of whether they were formally given Law or not.

So I must conclude that the Law of God is indeed immutable, eternal, and applicable to every man, woman, and child, regardless of time or place.

Quote:

---

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

---

I was wondering when this little passage was going to rear up.

5056 te,loj telos {tel'-os}

Meaning: 1) end 1a) termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time) 1b) the end 1b1) the last in any succession or series 1b2) eternal 1c) that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue 1d) the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose 2) toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods)

Origin: from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal) ; TDNT - 8:49,1161; n n

Usage: AV - end 35, custom 3, uttermost 1, finally 1, ending 1, by (one's) continual + 1519 1; 42

Paul here is not contending that Christ, by virtue of His perfect life and sacrifice, ended any obligation to obey the Law of His kingdom!

Quite the contrary, Paul is saying that the Law puts the sinner on the path that leads him/her to Christ as their perfect sacrifice and Redeemer. That has always been the function of the Law - it could never be a means of salvation, but rather only a means to declare whether one is a sinner or not, and to declare the sinner needs a Savior in order for the sinner to continue in life.

Quote:

---

>>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.

---

Not the point I was trying to reach at all, but nice try anyway.

By the way, you affirmed the very argument I've posted elsewhere: the real rub is the Sabbath, and the artificial Israel/church dichotomy.

You say that obeying the OT Sabbath is placing one's self "under Law"...I guess the same could be said about making graven images (tell that one to the followers of the Papacy...), taking God's name in vain (also known as swearing false oaths before God), and honoring our mothers and fathers. After all, these commands bracket the Sabbath commandment.

As I said before, the real rub is trying not to be seen as "Jewish", and thus obviously working one's way to heaven under Law. Those declaring for Christ must need be keeping up appearances before other Christians that we are "under Grace"...however they define that...right? But it is my position that mankind has been "under grace" ever since the Fall of Adam and Eve...for they rightly should have died right when they sinned, according to the Word of God there in Genesis.

So how is "under Law" and "under Grace" to be Scripturally understood? I have yet to hear a good expository on this by the "Law of Love" supporters that doesn't make an artificial distinction between believers and faith before and after the cross (a distinction of which I have yet to see as being Biblically sound as well).

Quote:

---

>>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.

---

I believe I made the case that the human race stands both under Law and under Grace in the same moment. The fact that the Blood of Christ has already been applied to to the human race (as a whole) does nothing to change this fact. In fact, it has been the Blood of Christ that allowed mankind to stand in a state of Grace under Law...

...in the OT times, when all sacrifices pointed forward to both the Redeemer's work and sacrifice as well as the point in time when sin would be absolve once and for all...

...and in the NT times, where the cross points back to the accomplished Redeemer's sacrifice and forward to the ime when the sin issue is to be resolved once and for all.

Those who perish in the second death, do so in disobedience to the Gospel - failure to take advantage of the Divine grace that has always been instrumental in bring the sinner to Jesus.

Quote:

---

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

---

It looks like that would be implicit in commandments 2-4 - we must have faith in God who we aren't able to see (except through the eyes of faith), are commanded to both not to make images of as well as not profaning His name, and are directed to do the impossible: keep holy what God has declared to be hallowed and blessed.

Hint on that last one: how can the unholy ever keep what is holy and pure, holy and pure? It's all there within the Sabbath commandment which....well, leads us back to where we started, does it not?

[jasd]

Well, I logged-on and read the current posts… Wow, you guys are prolific! It takes me forever to put together a post, as almost everything basically starts from scratch. It’s going to take me

another lifetime to comeback on you guys as quickly. So, with that, hopefully, made clear –

catch me as you can…

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

>>Where? What Scripture passages?<<

Ahh, I knew I’d posted it, …did a search of jasd and et voila! here it is:

Hos 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

[Ted Oplinger]

Ah, shoot, JASD, we're a patient lot. Take all the time you need.

For what it's worth, my better half says it also takes me forever to put together a post!

[Stan]

Welcome back, TED you were missed

[jasd]

>>Ahh, but, as Paul wrote in Romans 1 - 3, isn't the whole world under the jurisdiction of the moral Law of God?<<

Several things…

/ I don’t think a brief can be made for the above statement in that you’ve articled “(the) moral Law”, understood to be THE written law – thereby, narrowing its parameters to be applicable to only those to whom it was given.

/ it seems you correlate the written laws of the COI and the laws supposedly inherent to the conscience of the gentile. (if that were so… to what purpose then – would have been the written laws, as all mankind supposedly has inherent laws of conscience)

/ you’ve equated a “the moral Law” of “the whole world” and the TCs, eg…

>>As for those who claim that the TC were nailed to the cross,<<

nullifying the fact that the TCs were given only to the COI per…

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Ex 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

The covenant and its attendant articles were between Gd and Israel only. One wishing to find wherein the gentile is covenanted must look to the House of Israel – or to the NT.

Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: v7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints:

St Paul’s prologue suggests the subject is ‘Jewish Xtians’ and ‘Gentile Xtians’ – causing one to wonder if he, in these chapters, did not wander off indulging in hypotheses … as he notes that “neither Jew nor Gentile observed the law…”

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: v15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

…the Platonic ‘unwritten’ law?

>>As for those who claim that the TC were nailed to the cross,<<

If I’m not mistaken, you’ll probably be addressing this point somewhere around Galatians and Colossians…

>>…if they admit to being under jurisdiction of that law,<<

What law is in focus here? The TCs or that which is taken to be inherent to one’s conscience? I favor the ‘naturalness’ of Romans 2 to indicate that ‘uncircumcision and ignorance of The Sabbath’ placed the natural gentile outside the economy of the COI and outside “THE Law”.

>>…then aren't they accepting jurisdiction of the attached corpus?<<

What was it that you suggest was nailed to the cross?

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Hos 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

---

et alors? Monsieur, I direct your attention to the passage in which v. 11 is found. Consider this:

"Ho 2:10 Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, And no one shall deliver her from My hand.

11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, Her feast days, Her New Moons, Her Sabbaths-All her appointed feasts.

12 "And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, Of which she has said, 'These are my wages that my lovers have given me.' So I will make them a forest, And the beasts of the field shall eat them.

13 I will punish her For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense. She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, And went after her lovers; But Me she forgot," says the LORD."

One may observe from this passage, that God here speaks of judgments and destruction to be poured out upon his people--figures of devastation. The religious events, the harvests, other events, all will cease because of the desolation of God's people. THAT is the focus of the passage, et aucune erreur.

I have heard Colossians 2:16, 17 quoted as supporting the idea that the weekly Sabbath was abolished at Calvary. However, once one sits down with such individuals, and goes over the passage with them, the question is easily resolved-and has been, every time in my experience. BTW I did not see that passage included in Ben's list, and with good reason. It simply does not support such a notion.

Mediter de nouveau sur qch . . .

Dave

[jasd]

“I will also cause all her mirth to cease, Her feast days, Her New Moons, Her Sabbaths-All her appointed feasts.”

So…, Hosea prophesied to the Northern Kingdom… has her feast days ceased? her new moons? Her sabbaths? etc? You betchum. The proof, whether ensconced in language of devastation or of bliss

lies in the fact that none on this forum know the whatfor or whereof the Northern Kingdom (I might exaggerate a bit )

We cornpones have a saying… the proof is in the pudding

>>One may observe from this passage, that God here speaks of judgments and destruction to be poured out upon his people--figures of devastation. The religious events, the harvests, other events, all will cease because of the desolation of God's people. THAT is the focus of the passage,<<

“…all will cease…”

…has ceased.

“…the desolation of God's people…”

The Northern Kingdom, specifically.

“THAT is the focus of the passage”

Mais oui!

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

/ it seems you correlate the written laws of the COI and the laws supposedly inherent to the conscience of the gentile.

(if that were so… to what purpose then – would have been the written laws, as all mankind supposedly has inherent laws of conscience)

/ you’ve equated a “the moral Law” of “the whole world” and the TCs, eg…

---

Indeed, indeed, I do so correlate and equate the two as one and the same. In the Judgment Day, all mankind will be judged according to one and the same standard of right and wrong. The alternative would be (in terms of criminal justice) unthinkable, to this student. Ha! A prima facie denial of equal protection!! A fundamental violation of substantive due process! If God is to be fair, then everyone who has ever lived on this planet, must be judged by the same law.

Quote:

---

nullifying the fact that the TCs were given only to the COI per…

Rom 9:4 Who are

Israelites; to whom

[pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and

the giving of the law

, and the service of God, and the promises;

Ex 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words

I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel

.

---

I note, firstly, that the giving of the law pertains to the Jews. That statement does not, in and of itself, restrict the jurisdiction of that law to the COI. Paul elsewhere speaks of the Jews as being the custodians of the Law.

Quote:

---

The covenant and its attendant articles were between Gd and Israel only.

---

And what do you consider to be the covenant between God and the COI? Where might that be found in the OT?

Quote:

---

St Paul’s prologue suggests the subject is ‘Jewish Xtians’ and ‘Gentile Xtians’ – causing one to wonder if he, in these chapters, did not wander off indulging in hypotheses … as he notes that “neither Jew nor Gentile observed the law…”

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: v15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

…the Platonic ‘unwritten’ law?

---

Non, non, non! When Paul speaks of the Law, he speaks of "the Law." Not the 'Platonic law.' (Plato, indeed!)

Quote:

---

>>…if they admit to being under jurisdiction of that law,<<

What law is in focus here? The TCs or that which is taken to be inherent to one’s conscience? I favor the ‘naturalness’ of Romans 2 to indicate that ‘uncircumcision and ignorance of The Sabbath’ placed the natural gentile outside the economy of the COI and outside “THE Law”.

---

Actually, I was referring to contemporary believers who acknowledge the jurisdiction of 'the law of love,' Mt. 22 etc. Thereby, they necessarily acknowledge the jurisdiction of the moral law by which God defines love--the TC.

Quote:

---

What was it that you suggest was nailed to the cross?

---

Indeed, the ceremonies, the ordinances, which were shadows of Christ's sacrifice. As to that important issue, I should defer to Ted, the one and only Iron Deacon, to expound in more depth.

Meilleures Salutations,

Dave

[archierieus]

Now, before moving on to the next Bible verse which Ben included in his list-Acts 15:19 [and, I should add, the proceedings of the Council at Jerusalem] I should like to briefly summarize findings in regard to John 3:16 - 18.

1. This passage says nothing on its face about the Ten Commandments.

2. The Jewish understanding of the word in v. 16, translated 'believeth' in the KJV, encompassed more than the denotive meaning of the English word, 'believe.' The Jewish concept (continuing into the NT) entailed turning away from sin and a change in the entire life. (Kittel, article 'pistis,' 'pisteuw,' etc.)

3. The Biblical presentation of Christian 'belief' and faith, is inseparable from the believer's life. (e.g., James, 'faith without works is dead,' and 'show me thy faith by thy works.'

4. NT figures such as John the Baptist and Peter, called upon people to repent AND believe the gospel. Repentance and belief are inseparable.

5. The remainder of the passage in Jn. 3, clarifies that those who believe in Jesus will turn away from works of darkness and do works of light, acceptable to God.

6. In this Jn. 3 passage, I can find nothing to intimate that the Sabbath is no longer binding on the Christian, or that the Ten Commandments no longer have jurisdiction.

Once again, before moving on to the next passage in Acts 15, are there any additional observations or comments about John 3?

Regards, Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Hos 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

---

13 I will punish her For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense. She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, And went after her lovers; But Me she forgot," says the LORD."

Dave

---

Jasd,

This is one of those places where context allows us to clearly see that principle, allowing separation of God to be the primary reason for the loss of priviledge.

[:"red"] "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" [/]

Mark 2:27 KJV

[:"red"] "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." [/] Isaiah 58:13,14 KJV

Our Father does not insist that we observe the Sabbath.

[:"red"] "Love (God's love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way" [/] 1 Cor 13:5 AMP

[:"red"] "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" [/] Romans 14:5 KJV

However when we choose to use ways releasing ourselves from His guidance, we lose the promises that go with the pathway

He outlines. How far that loss goes depends on how far away from His guidance we choose to go.

Keep looking up!!

[archierieus]

So, moving right along, we come to Acts 15:19, which reads as follows (also including v. 20, since this verse has also been quoted in support of the idea that 'the Sabbath is not commanded upon NT Christians":

"Ac 15:19 "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,

20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." (NKJV)

Interesting. Only one of these items is referred to in the Ten Commandments--sexual immorality. How about the other three? The 'things polluted by idols,' perhaps a reference to the ongoing (at the time) controversy over foods offered to idols (which included, I believe, grain, produce, flesh foods, etc.) This, then, a nod to the Judaizers, who were quite vehement about the issue. How about 'things strangled, and from blood.' Both these items, I would chalk up to health reasons. Ritualistic? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps these items also had ritual meaning to the Jews. Health? Definitely.

Now, then, I pose a question to anyone who might be interested in responding. Nowhere in this letter from the Jerusalem Council, is there any mention of the following items:

1. Have no other gods;

2. Do not make graven images;

3. Do not take God's name in vain;

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy;

5. Honor your parents;

6. Do not kill;

7. Do not steal;

8. Do not bear false witness;

9. Do not covet.

Tell me, someone, are we to suppose, from the apostles' failure to mention these items, that neither the Church nor God were concerned about them? that the Gentile believers could murder, steal, lie, cheat, dishonor their parents, etc., with impunity? How about it?

Dave

[jasd]

>>…there is no Scriptural support for the idea that Christians are not accountable to observe the Sabbath.<<

Inasmuch as ‘Xtians’ is New Testamental – conversely, is there a text in the NT that the Xtian must observe what is today in our calendars, Saturday…?

>>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!<<

It may have been more properly stated that the Xtian community agrees that there remains a time set aside to gather and to worship the Lord. That said,

the same community of worshippers agrees that in the compendium of Writ which establishes the NT Xtian there is absent the command to worship on the particular day we now call Saturday. Where there is throughout,

a reiteration of the other nine ‘words’ or commands writ in stone, there lacks the command to observe the day now called Saturday.

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

Certainly, one wishes to be, through obedience, in Gd’s favor. However, having proffered Hosea’s prophecy of the removal of a portion of Gd’s favor, let me add…

Lam 2:6 …the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion,…

The man who wrote the above was declared by Gd to have been sanctified and ordained whilst in his mother’s womb – to be a prophet. He prophesied to the Southern Kingdom, that same kingdom that went into captivity from which but a small portion emerged with only the vestiges of their own calendar corrupted with Babylon’s reckoning. And so it remained until Hillel II,

and so it remains until this day –corrupt. Even the Karaite Jew differ among themselves.

It is the burden of the interested exegete to provide the text(s) or passage(s) wherein Gd reinstituted His calendar and His days; otherwise, there is only that which has been removed, that is, ‘caused to cease or to be forgotten’.

Please…, humor me

The cov'nant, 'tis breached… abandonar! threni, threni, lamentations! the wicked trod His rest…

Hide, hide an' shroud now, afore the profane sear o'wizened eye lies foul 'pon that holy made!

Hide, hide an' turn'way, the debauched form that altar-lay, obscene scent o'mortal deed!

Horror, an' shuddering flesh to see the rag o'Gd-torn veil made wove a caul o'membrance kept…

Deh! sanctus, sanctus Deis Sabbati! Lord Gd o'power an' might, His day, His holy rest,

Deh, aspicio… behold! now holy shrined midst holiness, pr'served, concealed 'til crowns are gi'en!

I had fun doing the above and couldn’t resist…

Who cannot understand that Gd – having blessed and sanctified a day of singular expression unto Himself, covenantly sharing it to honor both the posterity and the man with whom He had blood-covenanted: upon

witnessing it incessantly blasphemed and profaned… would remove that day for safe-keeping until a time of renewal? In the meantime,

there is a day by which the Xtian honors Gd.

>>Every person on earth is "under law" to some kind of national or community authority. What shall we say of the NT Christian?<<

What precepts that have not been removed by de facto and/or by de jure are written in the heart of the NT Xtian.

>>Does the kingdom of heaven - God's kingdom and throne - have a jurisdiction wherein His Law is the Law of His kingdom?<<

But of course.

>>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?<<

Yes, inasmuch as is given to know.

>>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.<<

That is incorrectly extrapolated. Xtians admit to the “jurisdiction” of that written in the heart, which is to say, much more than that ever etched on stones.

>>In short, it's a denial of God's sovereignty and authority over the Christian.<<

Only insofar as the charge that “Christians are not under any kind of Law” obtains.

>>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.<< [ed.]

Strawman? First, I shouldn’t think that any Xtian professes that “under grace” relieves him or her from any duty to Gd. Second, define “God’s sovereign Law” – entirely.

>>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.<<

“…to claim that Christians are not under any kind of Law … I find relatively few who make the case Christians have no obligation to righteous behavior because of grace…”

Umm, ouroborean?

>>So again, I come back to the point - what does it mean to be "under Law",<<

To place oneself under the artificiality of “Law” is under law.

>>…and "under grace"?<<

…to abide by the divine influence of Christ in one’s heart and to be zealous in deposit – the tender of condign merit to one’s heavenly account.

>>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"<<

KJV Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; v13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

YLT Rom 2:12 for as many as without law did sin, without law also shall perish, and as many as did sin in law, through law shall be judged, v13 for not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be declared righteous: --

St Paul first distinguishes in v12 between those “without law (no article)” and those “under the law” – before he proceeds in v13 to deal with those under the law, as being justified by ‘doing … law’

>>Death is the end for both the "ignorant" non-believer and the disobedient believer alike.<<

…as he argues in chapter 5 about the corporate guilt of Adam and its derivative – death.

>>All are...under Law.<<

Indubitably.

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

All are....under grace.<<

Not if one chooses to live by the law rather than in the free gift of grace... for he who lives by the law shall die by the law.

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

The above advances an incorrect hypothesis in that the it implies the “grace camp” is sans obedience.

Otherwise, it seems to be St Paul who is hypothesizing in these chapters.

>>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?<<

Possessing ‘the indwelling of the baptism by fire’ – then by all means, “their codes of behavior and professions”.

>>But there's that word, "Jew" there. How so many Christians really hate using that word.<<

How true. One using the word “Jew” nowadays, treads carefully or, however unwarranted it may be – risks stigmatism. A sad reflection, indeed.

>>…developed the Israel/Church dichotomy…<<

Is it a dichotomy? I mean, “…the church in the wilderness…” who were they except Israel?

>>…but freeing the Christian to do....whatever.<<

It was an act of the Saviour Jesus Christ, Jew – who freed mankind, especially the cognizant Xtian, and elected that eminently Jewish scholar, St Paul, to exposit upon the philosophical underpinnings of that freedom.

>>I have found that a large amount of incorrect/illogical theology having as a source this artificial "Jew/Church" separation...<<

“Israel/Church” dichotomy, “Jew/Church” separation… /me, blep-blep] Which, what is it?

>>…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.<<

Please, …expand.

>>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?<<

Is this rhetorical? or is it a focus upon Jewishness? or is it meant to be expositional?

>>Looks like a vicious circular trap -<<

Ahh, …the ouroborean reduction.

>>…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!<<

Hmm, the illogical leap… isn’t Christ Jewish?

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

Tsk, tsk, …indeed. (is this focus an amicus for Jewishness?) Is it needed? Why?

[jasd]

>>Hmmm...more fancy footwork. No matter.<<

Yes! great matter… that’s my favorite emoticon, the little tinkerman jumpin’ from foot to foot – havin’ to whiz sooo bad!

>>JASD, I was kind of hoping that my post would ellicit precisely this response. I was not disappointed.<

Well, aim to please.

>>To the response for my comments on Matthew 5:19-19...

Unless you've been raised in a sheltered life, "replaced" is the exact terminology used by the "Law of Love" advocates in every place I've seen this conversation take place. That Dave called it for what it is first is not the construction of a strawman argument.<<

I must have been raised in a sheltered life,

>>The strawman arguement is the concept the Law can be kept perfectly once, by one person, and this negates the obligation for all other citizens of the kingdom of God to do likewise.<<

…reaallly sheltered. I’ve never heard that proposed by anyone, ever, before… ‘til the above. St Paul expresses that neither Jew nor Gentile observes the Law, and St Peter demurs as to its burden.

>>Ahhh...here comes the ol' bait and switch, or red herring, tactic...blur the sacrificial system in with the Ten Commandments...<<

As I recall, Christ linked law and prophets; seems he also mentioned jots and tittles in practically the same breath, as did you. It was not I who introduced law, prophet, jots, or tittles; however, speaking of which,

I provided what I thought a most salient example of the dissonance between the suggested enduring nature of jots and tittles vs actuality. So, in what manner of speaking

did Christ intend the enduring nature of jots and tittles be understood? Oh, …no herrings

>>The book of Hebrews makes it very clear that the laws regarding the sacrifices and feasts were to be considered distinct and apart from the Ten Commandment Law.<<

I’ll take your word for it… but how did it do so?

>>The 10 Commandments give us a transcript of God's character.<<

A trascript? So, Gd lies? is neglectful? no commandments against those…

>>The laws of feasts, sacrifices, and sacraments were given as the OT gospel to demonstrate how God was going about taking care of the issue of sin, pointing forward to Christ’s work on the cross.<<

…and the fall feasts/convocations of the LORD? those of the trumpets, of atonement, and of tabernacles? So,

“…pointing forward to Christ's work on the cross.”

there yet is/are sacrifice(s) in the fulfillment of types?

>>Since then, Hebrews is quite clear that these particular laws still have an application,<<

Agreed, insofar as we speak of the fall sabbaths.

>>…but in the heavenly temple, not the earthly.<<

We disagree.

>>And yes, every little jot and tittle still applies,<<

Perhaps not presently applicable, however, obtaining.

>>…because what Moses received on earth is but a copy of what God had already instituted in heaven.<<

Not exactly.

>>That Christ has yet to come means He is still engaged in His work as our High Priest…<<

So, he presently wears the hat of a carpenter, the hat of an advocate, and the hat of a High Priest…? and his order of priests… who are they? and are they presently ministering, as well?

>>…- indicating (to me, at least) that He is still engaged taking care of those jots and tittles, even as you read these words.<<

But what of the jots and tittles I’d already mentioned, you know, the misplaced Ark of the Covenant and the sprinkled blood of atonement?

>>I would hazard to say that the process of confession, repentance, and intercession is creating a testemonial record affirming that one perfect and sufficient sacrifice...over and over again.<<

And speaking of the book of Hebrews and “over and over again”…

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

…just how “over and over again”?

>>Paul writes quite well that as many who are ignorant of the Law ("without" the Law) still perish in their sin...but sin is not held acountable unless there is Law to define it!<<

St Paul is sometimes -opaque.

>>However, ignorance is no excuse!<<

“…the Law” … I think we, and St Paul, ought to hesitate before we draw too fine a point.

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

>>Paul here is not contending that Christ, by virtue of His perfect life and sacrifice, ended any obligation to obey the Law of His kingdom!<<

…and who preaches lawlessness?

One does well not to become focused upon this one verse. There are others affirming the same ‘ending’.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

However, having proffered Hosea’s prophecy of the removal of a portion of Gd’s favor . . ."

---

Let's look, once again, at the passage in Hosea:

"Ho 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, Her feast days, Her New Moons, Her Sabbaths-All her appointed feasts.

12 "And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, Of which she has said, 'These are my wages that my lovers have given me.' So I will make them a forest, And the beasts of the field shall eat them.

13 I will punish her For the days of the Baals to which she burned incense. She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, And went after her lovers; But Me she forgot," says the LORD."

Notice the items that God said would cease:

mirth

feast days

new moons

sabbaths

vines

fig-trees

My question for you: Did God do away with fig-trees? How about vines? And what about mirth? No, He didn't do away with them. There are still fig trees and vines, and there is still mirth. And, there is still the weekly Sabbath. Of course, for the Northern Kingdom, there was desolation, coupled with the promise of Restoration, a few verses later.

It simply would not be accurate to attempt to make this passage focus on the weekly Sabbath, or make any kind of statement about the fate of the weekly Sabbath. The issue is not the Sabbath. The issue is desolation upon the Northern Kingdom, coupled with the promise of restoration. I also point out that the prophet refers to the 'sabbaths.' The word, 'sabbaths' in the OT, was a general reference to holy days, which could fall on any day of the week. See, for example, Lev. 23:29.

As for the WEEKLY Sabbath, yes, it continued to be kept, right down into New Testament times, and thereafter for centuries, until the Church of Rome, through a couple of church councils (Laodicea, for one) prohibited its observance, and was eventually able to enforce its mandate with military power. Still, the Sabbath continued to be kept by the faithful for centuries, for example by the Waldenses, until the papal persecution came to an end. Today, a number of faith groups keep the Bible Sabbath, including SDA's, 7th-day Baptists, Church of God 7th Day, and a growing number of Christians of various denominations.

Quote:

---

Lam 2:6 …the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion,…

---

Once again, the subject of this passage is not the Sabbath. Read the entire passage, from Lam. 2:

"La 2:1 ¶ How the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion With a cloud in His anger! He cast down from heaven to the earth The beauty of Israel, And did not remember His footstool In the day of His anger.

2 The Lord has swallowed up and has not pitied All the dwelling places of Jacob. He has thrown down in His wrath The strongholds of the daughter of Judah; He has brought them down to the ground; He has profaned the kingdom and its princes.

3 He has cut off in fierce anger Every horn of Israel; He has drawn back His right hand From before the enemy. He has blazed against Jacob like a flaming fire Devouring all around.

4 Standing like an enemy, He has bent His bow; With His right hand, like an adversary, He has slain all who were pleasing to His eye; On the tent of the daughter of Zion, He has poured out His fury like fire.

5 The Lord was like an enemy. He has swallowed up Israel, He has swallowed up all her palaces; He has destroyed her strongholds, And has increased mourning and lamentation In the daughter of Judah.

6 He has done violence to His tabernacle, As if it were a garden; He has destroyed His place of assembly; The LORD has caused The appointed feasts and Sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion. In His burning indignation He has spurned the king and the priest.

7 The Lord has spurned His altar, He has abandoned His sanctuary; He has given up the walls of her palaces Into the hand of the enemy. They have made a noise in the house of the LORD As on the day of a set feast.

8 The LORD has purposed to destroy The wall of the daughter of Zion. He has stretched out a line; He has not withdrawn His hand from destroying; Therefore He has caused the rampart and wall to lament; They languished together.

9 Her gates have sunk into the ground; He has destroyed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the nations; The Law is no more, And her prophets find no vision from the LORD."

Jerusalem was destroyed by the king of Babylon. That is the gist of what the prophet says here. Some decades later, Jerusalem was rebuilt, as was the temple, the services instituted, the feasts observed, etc. This passage cannot be used in support of the idea that God intended to do away with the observance of the Sabbath. In fact, the book of Nehemiah describes how careful the governor was that the Sabbath should be honored each week, and the book of Ezekiel prophesies how the temple would be rebuilt and, if I recall correctly, also speaks of special services on the Sabbath. And, yes, the gates of the city were rebuilt, Ezra read the book of the Law, the the prophets received visions from the Lord. IOW, everything was restored. This is referred to as the "restoration."

Of course, when Jesus was here, He kept the Sabbath, and said that "the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." He also, looking down the years after He should ascend back to heaven, told His disciples to pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath day.

Regards, Dave

[Ted Oplinger]

Let's see, jasd, let's see....

Quote:

---

Inasmuch as ‘Xtians’ is New Testamental – conversely, is there a text in the NT that the Xtian must observe what is today in our calendars, Saturday…?

---

Actually, there is, unless you're looking for a "Thou Shalt..."...then again, none of the rest of the commandments are mentioned with a "Thou Shalt...", either, so why would Christians want to single out one commandment to make such a hullabaloo about? Eeks! Must be that "Jewish legal works" thing again...if it appears Jewish, then it can't be Christian, right? The Christian is allowed to keep all 9 other commandments and call it "under grace", but the seventh-day Sabbath commandment can't be kept being "under grace", but instead is a "thing of Law". Hmmmm....tell that to every Sunday preacher using the exact same texts Adventists use to command keeping Sunday - the first day of the week - as a holy "Christian" Sabbath.

Something about those points just don't ring honest to this pilgrim. BUT I have digressed. My apologies. Back to topic..

My reference will be to the very often quoted, but also often misunderstood and parsed, text in Hebrews 4:1-11. By itself, the passage seems to have a bit of punch to being a Sabbath "proof text". However, when read in it's entire context beginning with Chapter 3 to the end of Chapter 4, it becomes very apparent that the "rest" remaining to us has as part of that rest a participation in the same rest God participated in at Creation AND had given to the nation He had redeemed from Egypt. There is only one rest this could possibly be referring to: the seventh-day Sabbath. And there is only one way to enter that rest (and in the process, keep the seventh-day holy), and that is found at the end of Chapter 4: coming to the throne of grace in our time of need.

Here's the passage - Hebrews 3:7-4:16. This is in KJV (as that's what my Bibleworks text version is currently set on, and I'm a bit too lazy to click a few buttons to get another version!)

"7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

We, as a modern generation, may love to parse up the Scriptures into little sound bites and proof texts, but that really doesn't do a teaching good, nor the Scriptures, for that matter.

What we have here is 35 verses, artificially parsed up into little verses and chapters that really didn't exist at the time this letter was read to the believers in Christ in the Apostolic Age.

There is a 13 verse build-up in what we call chapter 3 concerning the failure of professed believers of God to enter into God's rest, due to hardened hearts and unbelief.

Within this build up, we see some specific points mentioned: those coming out of Egypt, the wandering in the wilderness for forty years, and the appeal to...King David?

This "rest" God swore His provocateurs would never enter into isn't specifically singled out and tied down to any specific religious institution - it is based solely on the willingness of the hearer NOT to harden the heart in unbelief. This is where Chapter 3 ends.

Chapter 4 begins, "4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

This promise of entering into God's rest wasn't limited solely to Israel (apologies to any Israel/church separatists whish may read this!) - this was a promise the Christian church was called to participate in.

Why would Paul (or whoever wrote this epistle - still debated) make this assertion? Because Paul has elsewhere made the case that the Christian church has been made heir to the promise God made to Abraham and Isaac, and embodied in Christ.

So we have a rest to enter into.

Chapter 4:2 - "2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them : but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

So, the Gospel isn't a NT thing after all!

When were the Jews ever given the Gospel? Can anyone make a suggestion?

My answer is what Israel received through Moses at Siniai wasn't a code of works, as so many Christians love to believe. They received the Gospel, in embryo, in the form of shadows and figures God directed in the Sanctuary service. And they were placed at the crossroads of the world to evangelize the world with the pre-cross Gospel.

But the OT Gospel didn't profit Israel a bit. Why? Because they failed to mix faith with it - they failed to see the grace of God at the Mercy Seat, in spite of Moses' personal example (he could go into the Holy of Holies anytime he wanted, whereas Aaron could go ONLY once a year, and that with specific preparation).

Without seeing the grace that allowed such a faith Moses exercised, Israel turned the Gospel of God into an institution of works...much like what the Papacy has turned the face of Christianity into.

verse 3: For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Believed in what? that Saturday is the seventh-day Sabbath of commandment? No, we who have believed in Christ Jesus...

verses 4-6:

4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Unless one wishes to go on record to say that that the writer of Hebrews misquoted OT Scriptures to suit his argument...he is tying the Sabbath commandment directly to this rest that Chrisitian believers are to enter into.

verses 7,8:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Yes, I know, better translations will replace "Jesus" with "Joshua", but the writer's point remains the same: if the promise of entering into God's rest had been fulfilled by Joshua's entry into the Promised Land, God would not have later spoken of it through the Psalms of David.

verses 9,10:

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Are Christians to be referred to as the people of God? Or is this only a reference to Jews? Somehow, limiting this reference to mean "only Jews" would bring a huge rebuttal from both OT and NT sources, I would figure.

Read those verses very carefully...what is the Sabbath rest supposed to symbolize? That one has CEASED their struggle to earn their way/work their way into heaven!

And yet, the Sabbath is labelled the epitome of being under Jewish Law, a denial of grace!

Is it any real wonder why I now take the Israel/church separatists with a few tons of salt?

verse 11:

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

The exhortation to enter that rest - as referred to above via the 4th commandment Sabbath. If we repeat the same unbelief as the Jews, we will fail to realize God's rest, regardless of whether we try to keep either Sabbath or Sunday as the day of worship.

Yet I can hardly think that keeping any day "holy" apart from what God has declared hallowed and blessed, is the example of "grace" that would draw us into that rest we are to enter into. Nor is it just "graciously bestowed" because we "believe" - the Scriptures there say it is something we must "labour" to enter into... Labour under grace?

I guess we need to refer to the rest of the chapter...

The rest of the chapter upholds the Word of God as the foundation for the preceding argument as well as the foundation for entering into that rest. It finishes up with the appeal that because we are God's people in Christ, we may come boldly to the throne of grace - anytime, just as Moses was allowed - to find our help in time of need - to enter that rest promise just a couple of verses back.

Before I became an SDA, I studied this text through the lens of dispensationalism. It just didn't play right to push down the 4th commandment's seventh-day on the one moment, then exalt the first-day in the next breath. It didn't make much sense.

Allowing the context speak for itself pointed only in one direction: that God has 1 people, 1 rest to enter into, and 1 day which links God's resting from works to our resting from works.

That day isn't Sunday. Nor is it Monday - Friday.

It's after midnight here...I feel the pumpkinskin forming around me already

Later, all!

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Tell me, someone, are we to suppose, from the apostles' failure to mention these items, that neither the Church nor God were concerned about them? that the Gentile believers could murder, steal, lie, cheat, dishonor their parents, etc., with impunity? How about it?

Dave

---

Hmmmm. No takers?

[archierieus]

Very well. The solution to this question is, I submit, fairly evident. Obviously, the few items listed in the apostles' letter, do not encompass the totality of the believer's daily life. Several 'nots' there? Well, there are more 'nots' than the ones listed. Surely--surely, I say, God and the apostles would NOT want the believers to commit murder. Surely, He would not want them to steal, correct? In fact, Paul admonishes him that stealeth, to steal no more. And, of course, the NT mentions to flee idols, to not have other gods, to honor one's parents, "for this is the first commandment with promise." Etc., etc.

Thus, the apostles' letter clearly was not intended as a comprehensive catalog of Christian behavior. Its scope and purpose were limited. Limited to what? To the issues raised by some in the party of the Pharisees. Circumcision and the ceremonial laws. The controversy was limited to those issues. When that is understood, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

Okay, any thoughts?

Regards, Dave

[jasd]

Quote:

---

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

jasd said

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

---

>>Not the point I was trying to reach at all, but nice try anyway.<<

As I’ve stated, …aim to please

>>By the way, you affirmed the very argument I've posted elsewhere: the real rub is the Sabbath,<<

And why not? legitimately, it is the divide; however, interestingly, it is also the one word, commandment, law… NOT reiterated as such in the NT… would an inference, naturally, be drawn from such an omission?

>>…and the artificial Israel/church dichotomy.<<

There is that artificially constructed; however, let me back up and ask, what do you mean by the artificial Israel/church dichotomy?

>>You say that obeying the OT Sabbath is placing one's self "under Law"<<

Forensically, for the wrong reasons, yes.

>>...I guess the same could be said about making graven images (tell that one to the followers of the Papacy...),<<

We carry images of our loved ones in our billfold, don’t we? …not graven? Okay… images printed on bills in that same wallet? images on the small change in our pockets? even holographic images on that little plastic altar of credit! I suppose we don’t hesitate to pay usury to acquire any of those images we borrow either…? (OT capital offense… and in Matthew 25 Christ relates that if the ‘good master’ is thought to be cruel, taking what does not belong to him, that is, a bandit and a thief… but then, what the hey! wha’s the problem?) Anyway,

the RCs claim they venerate (much as we do our photos) rather than worship. Is there a difference between veneration and worship? how about where $s are concerned?

>>…taking God's name in vain (also known as swearing false oaths before God), and honoring our mothers and fathers. After all, these commands bracket the Sabbath commandment.<<

It is only the Sabbath commandment that has been removed. The others are reiterated in the NT.

>>As I said before, the real rub is trying not to be seen as "Jewish",<<

…please, feel free to elaborate.

>>…and thus obviously working one's way to heaven under Law.<<

Papacy/Jewish/ heaven under Law: quixotic?

>>Those declaring for Christ must need be keeping up appearances before other Christians that we are "under Grace"...however they define that...right?<<

Goes to interpretation. As many set precepts as there are within the Protesting community, the RCs seem striving to emulate in divergence. Anyway,

the NT is flat-out replete with the doctrine of Grace… I suppose one needs depend upon that written on the heart for understanding and commitment.

>>But it is my position that mankind has been "under grace" ever since the Fall of Adam and Eve...<<

Absolutely. However, laws were added – adulterating that grace.

>>…for they rightly should have died right when they sinned, according to the Word of God there in Genesis.<<

It may be they did. They devolved from creatures bearing the stamp of Gd upon their very beings to being lower/less than angels… that speaks to three orders. Three orders in our present understanding is the difference between us and insects. Were its like to happen to me,

anything after would simply be anticlimactic. To effect, they died twice.

>>So how is "under Law" and "under Grace" to be Scripturally understood? I have yet to hear a good expository on this by the "Law of Love" supporters that doesn't make an artificial distinction between believers and faith before and after the cross (a distinction of which I have yet to see as being Biblically sound as well).<<

Well, I am not a “Law of Love” supporter. Gd , beginning the Xtian era with the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira is dissuasive.

Quote:

---

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

jasd said

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

---

>>I believe I made the case that the human race stands both under Law and under Grace in the same moment.<<

Yes, humanity may be said to be under Grace. And yes, there is always law, codified or no. It is my understanding that when ‘under Law’ or ‘THE Law’ is mentioned vis-à-vis the Xtian community of believers – it is in reference to the economy of the Mosaic system. The Xtian is not under that/those laws, including the TCs, as formally constituted. That said,

there remains law to the Xtian… for the greater part – proscriptions or allowances arising from the heart, sin to the one individual, or not – to another. Per the part of humanity having no knowledge of things Biblical

there remains the natural – or unwritten laws…

However, unless I misread the .Org’s position… it embraces a doctrine of Law which withstands Writ, as advanced through both Hosea and Jeremiah, that is, amended law. That would be artificial and would place the doctrines of the .Org -- ‘under Law’.

>>The fact that the Blood of Christ has already been applied to to the human race (as a whole) does nothing to change this fact.<<

It’s a matter of how one views law/Law and the efficacy of the Blood of Christ.

>>In fact, it has been the Blood of Christ that allowed mankind to stand in a state of Grace under Law...<<

Prolambanein? more a state of Grace and abeyance, I’d say…

>>…when the sin issue is to be resolved once and for all.<<

Ahh, that begs the question – when?

>>Hint on that last one: how can the unholy ever keep what is holy and pure, holy and pure?<<

By sanctification.

Job 1:5 …that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings…

Sanctify:

/ To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.

/ To make holy; purify.

[jasd]

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?)

[…]

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<<

“…seems to preclude an abridgement,”

The defining article, per the .Org’s own dialectics, renders the above surmise – incorrect. There remains [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath/rest… What would [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath rest be, as opposed to [:"red"]the[/] Sabbath rest?

>>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.<<

I suppose that would be a matter of whether the subject had been gutted or simply nuanced.

>>[:"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<<

“EVERY WORD”.

But, of course. That would be ‘every word’… rightfully divided, whether or not doctrinally politic.

(interestingly, it is probable that Moses wrote in what might be best described as Proto-Hebrew… a bastardized manufacture of both the Proto-Canaanitish {pictographic} and the hieroglyphics of Egypt. I suppose a modern equivalent might be the sometimes picture-characters of a few Oriental languages… That said,

one then expects that every letter/character of the Proto languages, pictographic/hieroglyphic, contain entire patterns of thought – very dissimilar to ours wherein we might need a string of alphabets in an entire sentence to produce the equivalent of what might be contained in one character of the early Proto languages. Moreover,

those same ‘characters' contained their numerics)

>>[:"red"]…but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. "[/] Deut 8:3 NASB<<

Including, one expects, that which proceeded from the Minor and Major Prophets Hosea and Jeremiah?

:proofed

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

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

“…seems to preclude an abridgement,”

The defining article, per the .Org’s own dialectics, renders the above surmise – incorrect. There remains [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath/rest… What would [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath rest be, as opposed to [:"red"]the[/] Sabbath rest?

---

FYI the Greek contains no article. Grammatically, this would identify it as "the" Sabbath rest--the one and only. Also, the word is 'sabbatismos' which, according to BAGD, means "sabbath observance."

Regards as always,

Dave

[jasd]

Thanks for pointing that out (my posts are often too loose).

>>FYI the Greek contains no article.<<

That would make the phrase “per the .Org’s own dialectics” – fortuitous, and,

“…seems to preclude an abridgement,”

would still be incorrect.

Quote:

---

jasd said:

The defining article, per the .Org’s own dialectics, renders the above surmise – incorrect. There remains [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath/rest… What would [:"red"]a[/] Sabbath rest be, as opposed to [:"red"]the[/] Sabbath rest?

---

My error. I should have enclosed in quotes that extracted from the referenced quote, that is, “[:"red"]there remains a Sabbath rest[/]” rather than to have simply relied upon the ellipsis

>>Grammatically, this would identify it as "the" Sabbath rest--the one and only.<<

Not necessarily, …though there exists an argument, eg:

"Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality." [ed.] --Dana and Mantey: A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pg. 149)

The above being so, sabbatismos in Hebrews 4:9 does not provide the ‘proof’ allowing one to infer a definite article. And, as you’ve noted,

that same lack neither allows that an indefinite article (not that the indefinite exists in Greek grammar) be implied. There remains

that the text reads rather… ‘rest keeping’ – no first day, no seventh day, no hump day argued in the text, imho. It speaks to another ‘rest’.

>>Also, the word is 'sabbatismos' which, according to BAGD, means "sabbath observance."<<

Well, so BAGD more properly phrases it than I

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

that the text reads rather… ‘rest keeping’ – no first day, no seventh day, no hump day argued in the text, imho. It speaks to another ‘rest’.

---

As I recall, without looking it up to confirm, the word used in Heb. 4, referring to God's rest, is 'katapausis' which, as I recall, means literally to 'shut down.' This, a clear reference to the seventh day. 'sabbatismos' literally means 'sabbath observance,' not a general rest-keeping. Perhaps later today, I can get some actual cites. Actually, though, I have never considered the Heb. 4 verse as that definitive. Good for corroboration, perhaps, but not a passage to hang one's hat on. I think there are other facts which are more persuasive. More on that after the chores are done (I HATE housework!!!)

Ahh, Dana & Mantey--well, you are quite a student. Which leaves me puzzled as to why you didn't want to translate.

Regards, Dave

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

And how does one define love?

---

"Love worketh no ill toward its neighbor."

Problem is, the self-serving and self-deceived can excuse all manner of "ill" by simply refusing to define it as such. Not everything "ill" appears ill on the surface or to the onlooker. People can be smiling and nodding and speaking in soft tones and exhibiting presumably "impeccable" manners and behavior while at the same time they are stabbing you in the gut. A veneer of decorum, a politeness without real heart-holiness, real divine love, is what Jesus denounced when He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees as whitewashed tombs.