PDA

View Full Version : Still Under the Ten?



VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 12:24 PM
I've noticed here on several occasions that folks distinguish between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments and say that one is passed away and the other is eternal. My question is where do folks get this belief?

Why are we not under the law of Moses but we are under the Ten Commandments?

I agree that the law is still very much active today, but it is of my opinion that a born again believer is not under ANY of the old law . . . including the Ten Commandments.

Opinions?

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 12:28 PM
Count me as one that makes that distinction. When God said in Hebrews, that he would write his law into our hearts, I believe it was the 10 that he wrote. Paul, when writing to Galatians spoke of the Law being summed up in one word, Love.

Rom 13:8-10

8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
NASB

We fulfill the law in the same way Christ did, through love. And...

Gal 5:13-15

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
NASB

Jesus is our example and we follow Him. We too can fulfill the law that is in us. Love is the law of Christ, which is the 10.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 12:30 PM
Count me as one that makes that distinction. When God said in Hebrews, that he would write his law into our hearts, I believe it was the 10 that he wrote. Paul, when writing to Galatians spoke of the Law being summed up in one word, Love.

Rom 13:8-10

8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
NASB

We fulfill the law in the same way Christ did, through love. And...

Gal 5:13-15

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
NASB

Jesus is our example and we follow Him. We too can fulfill the law that is in us. Love is the law of Christ, which is the 10.

I agree that we have a law written on our hearts, but does that mean that we are under law?

It is of my opinion that you can't be both under the law and dead to it at the same time.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 12:39 PM
I agree that we have a law written on our hearts, but does that mean that we are under law?

It is of my opinion that you can't be both under the law and dead to it at the same time.

I understand what you are saying. But look at what Jesus said in Matthew.


Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

He said he would not abolish the law. Then he does something very, very interesting. He starts showing the Law of God to be an issue of the heart and He starts contrasting the law of Moses with the Law of God.

First... Thou shalt not murder - law of God is all about love.

Matt 5:21-26

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 23 "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 "Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.
NASB

Next... adultery can be done in the heart.

Then... contrasting law of Moses with Law of God.

Matt 5:38-39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
NASB

Moses wrote "an eye for an eye" but Jesus said "turn the other cheek". It was HUGE. Then we go back to the first of the Sermon and understand that Jesus said the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away. But he was basically saying here (Matt 5:38-39), that the law of God trumped the law of Moses.

Now to your question about being under the law. Here is what Paul wrote. Notice too that he made a distinction between the different laws.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

He said that when he was with Jews, he kept the law of Moses. When he was with Gentiles, he acted as though he was not under the law. Yet, he was not without the law of God but under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is love which is the 10.

mpodlesny
May 14th 2008, 12:44 PM
are they not the same? maybe I am bit confused by what you are saying.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 12:59 PM
Matt 5:17-18

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

He said he would not abolish the law. Then he does something very, very interesting. He starts showing the Law of God to be an issue of the heart and He starts contrasting the law of Moses with the Law of God.

Oh, I definitely agree that He did not abolish the law. However, I do not agree that Jesus was "contrasting" the law of Moses with the Law of God but rather correcting false teaching about the law.



First... Thou shalt not murder - law of God is all about love.

Matt 5:21-26

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 23 "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 "Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.
NASB

Next... adultery can be done in the heart.

Then... contrasting law of Moses with Law of God.


Is He contrasting or just giving a deeper understanding instead of just what is on the surface? Even Moses' law was about loving your neighbor and so on. You can look at the Ten Commandments on the surface just as you can the law of Moses. One can look at the commandment not to murder and say that they shouldn't go kill anyone. That's one of the Ten. However, Jesus is saying that there is something much deeper than just the commandment stating not to murder. He's stating that the actual act of breaking one of those Ten Commandments began long before it was carried out when the person allowed hatred for their brother to form in their heart.



Matt 5:38-39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
NASB

Moses wrote "an eye for an eye" but Jesus said "turn the other cheek". It was HUGE. Then we go back to the first of the Sermon and understand that Jesus said the Law would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away. But he was basically saying here (Matt 5:38-39), that the law of God trumped the law of Moses.


See, I don't view this as contrasting the law of God with the law of Moses but rather giving a correct teaching of a law that had been applied in error. I do not believe the law of Moses ever intended for a person to be able to use the "eye for an eye" law as personal vindication, but rather this law was given for judgment by those placed in authority to judge.



Now to your question about being under the law. Here is what Paul wrote. Notice too that he made a distinction between the different laws.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

He said that when he was with Jews, he kept the law of Moses. When he was with Gentiles, he acted as though he was not under the law. Yet, he was not without the law of God but under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is love which is the 10


You see, I don't view that as Paul saying he was under the Ten Commandments but rather a greater law that encompassed the heart of the Ten Commandments.

In other words, Paul is not saying that he is under the Ten Commandments but rather something much greater. I believe Paul is walking "in the beginning".

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 01:14 PM
Oh, I definitely agree that He did not abolish the law. However, I do not agree that Jesus was "contrasting" the law of Moses with the Law of God but rather correcting false teaching about the law.

Yea. I agree with that too.


Is He contrasting or just giving a deeper understanding instead of just what is on the surface? Even Moses' law was about loving your neighbor and so on. You can look at the Ten Commandments on the surface just as you can the law of Moses. One can look at the commandment not to murder and say that they shouldn't go kill anyone. That's one of the Ten. However, Jesus is saying that there is something much deeper than just the commandment stating not to murder. He's stating that the actual act of breaking one of those Ten Commandments began long before it was carried out when the person allowed hatred for their brother to form in their heart.

Jesus started out showing the deeper meaning of the 10. That's what I was trying to say.


See, I don't view this as contrasting the law of God with the law of Moses but rather giving a correct teaching of a law that had been applied in error. I do not believe the law of Moses ever intended for a person to be able to use the "eye for an eye" law as personal vindication, but rather this law was given for judgment by those placed in authority to judge.

You are right about that. Romans 13 covers the government. But he was contrasting those here. In other places he speaks of divorce and how Moses gave that law because of the hardness of their hearts. But the point is, God was drawing a distinction in the passage in Matt 5 between the law of Moses that governed a nation and the Law of God that governed the individual. One was a regulation of the covenant, the other is not. Israel was in covenant with God and the laws of Moses were what regulated the covenant. The laws of God predated Sinai. Let me give a contemporary example, it is against the law for us to drink alcohol before we are 21 in my state. So, if I drink prior to 21, I have sinned against the government and therefor God. I broke his law in breaking of the governmental law. But when that governmental law is removed, I am no longer subject to it. Yet, God's law remains. It is permanent. I am still not to get drunk even if government says I can get drunk.


You see, I don't view that as Paul saying he was under the Ten Commandments but rather a greater law that encompassed the heart of the Ten Commandments.

In other words, Paul is not saying that he is under the Ten Commandments but rather something much greater. I believe Paul is walking "in the beginning".


And what happened in the beginning? Cain murdered and God intervened because "thou shalt not murder" was a law from the start. That's why I think it God's eternal law. Also, God established the Sabbath in the beginning when he rested on the 7th day. (You've probably seen my writings on that so I won't expound.)

Look at what God told Noah about what he could eat.

Gen 9:2-4
3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
NASB

But when Moses was given law, we got all the food laws, and other stuff.

So, in the beginning, we see evidence of the 10, but we don't see evidence of the laws of Moses. Those were instituted when God entered covenant with the nation of Israel.

What I am getting at is that which is eternal, not one jot or tittle will be removed from it till heaven and earth pass away. But the regulations of the covenant, they are gone. But we still live by the Spirit of those laws because God used them to reveal some things about the heavenlies. He used it to show us about the heavenly tabernacle, etc.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 01:18 PM
Oh, I definitely agree that He did not abolish the law. However, I do not agree that Jesus was "contrasting" the law of Moses with the Law of God but rather correcting false teaching about the law.



Is He contrasting or just giving a deeper understanding instead of just what is on the surface? Even Moses' law was about loving your neighbor and so on. You can look at the Ten Commandments on the surface just as you can the law of Moses. One can look at the commandment not to murder and say that they shouldn't go kill anyone. That's one of the Ten. However, Jesus is saying that there is something much deeper than just the commandment stating not to murder. He's stating that the actual act of breaking one of those Ten Commandments began long before it was carried out when the person allowed hatred for their brother to form in their heart.



See, I don't view this as contrasting the law of God with the law of Moses but rather giving a correct teaching of a law that had been applied in error. I do not believe the law of Moses ever intended for a person to be able to use the "eye for an eye" law as personal vindication, but rather this law was given for judgment by those placed in authority to judge.



You see, I don't view that as Paul saying he was under the Ten Commandments but rather a greater law that encompassed the heart of the Ten Commandments.

In other words, Paul is not saying that he is under the Ten Commandments but rather something much greater. I believe Paul is walking "in the beginning".See... one need read this because it important. Jesus did in fact do more than just "go deeper". Let's use the eye for an eye part as the example.

Here is the law itself according to the Law of Moses.

Leviticus 24:19 `And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Now... Jesus says, But I say unto you... turn the cheek. In other words... no more do unto others what they did unto you. We can go on about it being just deepened but you know... Jesus didn't just go deeper there because that Law written as is says what it says and Jesus says in essence... Moses says this BUT I say .... What Jesus said was a clear contrast.

Also look at another example.

Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY ?"
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Here is where they get this from...

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife,
3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife,
4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

Jesus makes it clear that Moses permitted it because of their hardness of heart... but that is something God never intended. So quite the contrast really if one looks at it for what it says. Adultery is the only rightful cause for divorce.

I do understand that all of this sort of kicks around some sacred doctrinal cows and I want to be careful here... but it is a little meat that needs chewed on for those that want to chew on some meat.

JenniferBerry
May 14th 2008, 01:28 PM
I don't see how that passage in Leviticus could even be translated do unto others as you would have them do unto you. No matter how I try to read it I can't make it say that.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 01:32 PM
And what happened in the beginning? Cain murdered and God intervened because "thou shalt not murder" was a law from the start.

Actually, I'm referring to the VERY VERY beginning before there was sin. Adam knew no sin until he chose to disobey God, and before he disobeyed God there was no need for law. Law was added because of transgression. The law of Christ encompasses the heart of the Ten Commandments because when one walks the law of Christ there is no sin. In love there is no sin.


What I am getting at is that which is eternal, not one jot or tittle will be removed from it till heaven and earth pass away.

Not one jot or tittle will be removed, but those who are born again are dead to every jot and tittle.


But the regulations of the covenant, they are gone. But we still live by the Spirit of those laws because God used them to reveal some things about the heavenlies. He used it to show us about the heavenly tabernacle, etc.

And that is the point I'm trying to make here. If we are living by the Spirit of the law then it isn't some law engraved on stone that shows us our sin. If we are walking the Spirit of the law our heart has been transformed, and it is no longer a written code we are living by but rather a righteousness that comes from above. We have returned to "in the beginning" where there was no law.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 01:43 PM
Actually, I'm referring to the VERY VERY beginning before there was sin. Adam knew no sin until he chose to disobey God, and before he disobeyed God there was no need for law. Law was added because of transgression. The law of Christ encompasses the heart of the Ten Commandments because when one walks the law of Christ there is no sin. In love there is no sin.

That's why Paul summed up the law this way...

Gal 5:14-15
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
NASB

When one loves God and loves his neighbor, there is no sin. But even in the garden there was this law "Love me by obeying me and do not eat this tree". Even the beginning had the law of loving God and neighbor. And not to get sidetracked, but had Adam loved God and Eve, he would have offered himself for Eve to God as the second Adam did. So we see that Adam broke both the law of "Love God" and "love neighbor" which are explained in the 10.

Look at it this way, from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. God spoke the 10 because they are in Him. I will agree with you in this, that he spoke them the way he did in order to reveal sin to us. Once we are under Christ, we move from "thou shalt not commit adultery" to "thou shalt love your neighbor as I have loved you".


Not one jot or tittle will be removed, but those who are born again are dead to every jot and tittle.

I hear you. However, lets look again at Corinthians.

1 Cor 9:20-21
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
NASB

I submit to you for consideration, that the law of God that Paul was not without, are the 10, and that the Law of Christ he is under, is the 10. But Jesus said "A new command I give you, as I have loved you so love you one another". The law of love is what breathed the 10 and encompasses the 10.


And that is the point I'm trying to make here. If we are living by the Spirit of the law then it isn't some law engraved on stone that shows us our sin. If we are walking the Spirit of the law our heart has been transformed, and it is no longer a written code we are living by but rather a righteousness that comes from above. We have returned to "in the beginning" where there was no law.

But there was law in the beginning. In the Garden, there was still law. "Do not eat of this tree". I think I explained that above. Now, I will say this, that the law of Christ writes the 10 differently. I already mentioned that we have moved from "thou shalt not" to "thou shalt". The 10 are used to show us how sinful we really are. When we move into Christ, they are written into our hearts of stone and our hearts are changed.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 01:48 PM
See... one need read this because it important. Jesus did in fact do more than just "go deeper". Let's use the eye for an eye part as the example.

Here is the law itself according to the Law of Moses.

Leviticus 24:19 `And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Now... Jesus says, But I say unto you... turn the cheek. In other words... no more do unto others what they did unto you. We can go on about it being just deepened but you know... Jesus didn't just go deeper there because that Law written as is says what it says and Jesus says in essence... Moses says this BUT I say .... What Jesus said was a clear contrast.

What is being said here, though, is that the teachings being applied were an errant application of what the law truly intended. The law never intended for you to grab a knife and jab out your neighbor's eye if your neighbor did something like that to you. It was a law for judgment by those placed in the authority to judge. However, this was not the teaching being taught by the Jews at the time Jesus addressed this issue. The entire sermon on the mount was about Jesus addressing false teachings and errant applications of the law.



Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY ?"
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


And this passage truly addresses my point. In the beginning there was no law because there was no sin. Likewise, since there was no sin and no lack of love there was no divorce.


Jesus makes it clear that Moses permitted it because of their hardness of heart... but that is something God never intended. So quite the contrast really if one looks at it for what it says. Adultery is the only rightful cause for divorce.

I disagree that adultery is a "rightful cause" for divorce, but that's another thread entirely. My point is that before Adam's transgression there was no law to be under. The law was added because of transgression. In the beginning there was only love, which is why there would be no divorce. The law of Christ was in the beginning. It wasn't the Ten Commandments that was eternal. It is the law of Christ that is eternal. The law of Christ encompasses the heart of the Ten. That is the Spirit of the law. Not a written code engraved on stone, but rather a matter of the heart that requires God's circumcision that cannot be done with hands.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 01:58 PM
When one loves God and loves his neighbor, there is no sin. But even in the garden there was this law "Love me by obeying me and do not eat this tree". Even the beginning had the law of loving God and neighbor. And not to get sidetracked, but had Adam loved God and Eve, he would have offered himself for Eve to God as the second Adam did. So we see that Adam broke both the law of "Love God" and "love neighbor" which are explained in the 10.

Look at it this way, from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. God spoke the 10 because they are in Him. I will agree with you in this, that he spoke them the way he did in order to reveal sin to us. Once we are under Christ, we move from "thou shalt not commit adultery" to "thou shalt love your neighbor as I have loved you".

Here's my point, though . . .

Before the fall there was no need for a law stating to "love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . " or "love your neighbor as yourself". Before the fall all that was a given. It wasn't until the transgression was made that the law came. And it wasn't until the law came that Adam died. Adam brought on the curse because of his disobedience. Before his disobedience there was no curse because there was no law. The law brings judgment. Without the law there can be no judgment. Therefore, if no sin is being committed there is no need for law. The law only came because of sin.


But there was law in the beginning.

I do not agree that there was law. The Word clearly states that the law was added because of transgression.



Galatians 3:19
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 02:08 PM
What is being said here, though, is that the teachings being applied were an errant application of what the law truly intended. The law never intended for you to grab a knife and jab out your neighbor's eye if your neighbor did something like that to you. It was a law for judgment by those placed in the authority to judge. However, this was not the teaching being taught by the Jews at the time Jesus addressed this issue. The entire sermon on the mount was about Jesus addressing false teachings and errant applications of the law.Okay... let's start here.

Leviticus 24:19 `And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Here is another verse saying the same when speaking of a false witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 ¶"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
18 "And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 "And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Now... what does it say. How does this allow for the "spirit of the Law" to show mercy on someone? The spirit of this law is do to them what they did to another. No pity... just do it and thus you purge the evil among you.

One who followed this Law was in fact following the Law of Moses and following it rightly.

Take for example... the lady caught in adultery. Now... he who was without sin was brilliant. But the thing is.. the Law didn't allow for mercy even among one who has ever sinned. And then there was Jesus... even using His own words... Jesus was without sin. According to the Law... Jesus would have been totally right to stone her Himself. Instead... Jesus showed mercy and instructed her to go, sin no more.

So here we have it... eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life... show no pity. Then Jesus says... BUT I say to you... if one strikes you on the cheek, turn to the other side. They want to sue you for your shirt... give them your coat too. Not sure how one doesn't see that as pretty much a total contrast of not just what was being "errantly taught" but what the Law itself actually makes right clear.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 02:15 PM
I'll get back to this in a bit, folks.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 02:16 PM
Here's my point, though . . .

Before the fall there was no need for a law stating to "love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . " or "love your neighbor as yourself". Before the fall all that was a given. It wasn't until the transgression was made that the law came. And it wasn't until the law came that Adam died. Adam brought on the curse because of his disobedience. Before his disobedience there was no curse because there was no law. The law brings judgment. Without the law there can be no judgment. Therefore, if no sin is being committed there is no need for law. The law only came because of sin.

What would you call "Do not eat from this tree"?


I do not agree that there was law. The Word clearly states that the law was added because of transgression.

I agree with that. That was why the Law of Moses was added. Had Israel not messed up, the law of Moses may have never been given. I will also admit that the way the 10 was worded had to do with increasing sin. That was what Paul said when he wrote about not coveting.

Look at Eve's temptation in the Garden. She saw the tree was "pleasing to look at" - lust of the eye, "good for food" - lust of the flesh, "desirable to make one wise" - boastful pride of life. The "Do not eat" command caused her issues. Why did God give it? Was it so that sin could abound? No. But the law was given later so that sin could abound.

How do we reconcile the two, "Do not eat" with "law was given because of the transgression". Also, keep in mind that in Hebrews 3 referred back creation, when God rested for justification of the Sabbath. IOW, he referred back to "in the beginning". God kept the Sabbath from the start and that is part of the 10.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 02:17 PM
I am going to post something here for you to ponder too and think about it a sec.

Red would be Ten Commandment Law... Blue will be other than the Ten.



Matthew 5

21 ¶"You have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER´ and `Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.´
22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, `Raca,´ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, `You fool,´ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
23 "If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 "Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent.
27 ¶"You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY´; (covered clearly on coveting the neighbors wife.)
28 but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 "And it was said, `WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE´;
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 ¶"Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.´
34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 "But let your statement be, `Yes, yes´ or `No, no´; and anything beyond these is of evil.
38 ¶"You have heard that it was said, `AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.´
39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 ¶"You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR, and hate your enemy.´ (red simply this... the royal law and blue simply the law of Moses)
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you
45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?
47 "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others ? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Notice... that in RED was expanded upon. Notice BLUE... total contrast.

Hawkins
May 14th 2008, 02:59 PM
I've noticed here on several occasions that folks distinguish between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments and say that one is passed away and the other is eternal. My question is where do folks get this belief?

Why are we not under the law of Moses but we are under the Ten Commandments?

I agree that the law is still very much active today, but it is of my opinion that a born again believer is not under ANY of the old law . . . including the Ten Commandments.

Opinions?

I think that we need to obey whatever is referred to as Law, that's why it's called Law. We need to even obey Caesar's laws the best we can.

Yet according to James, I think if we broke one we broke all.

James 2:10-11
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Exodus 20:8
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

I wonder how many of us still keeping this. If not, we already broke all. So when judged by Law, we are (like 90% :confused) already the dead. Our hearts are hardened to keep the whole Law.


Yet since the New Covenant is in place that we are no longer judged that way. It by no means says that we shall not keep the Law. We shall keep the Law the best we can, yet God knows before hand that our hearts will be hardened to keep the whole Law, that the New Covenant is already in place some 2000 years ago, such that we are still in the hope to be saved. And of course our only hope is our Lord Jesus Christ.

That's my opinion.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 03:52 PM
Leviticus 24:19 `And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Here is another verse saying the same when speaking of a false witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 ¶"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
18 "And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 "And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Now... what does it say. How does this allow for the "spirit of the Law" to show mercy on someone? The spirit of this law is do to them what they did to another. No pity... just do it and thus you purge the evil among you.

One who followed this Law was in fact following the Law of Moses and following it rightly.

So, then you would say here, PP, that our judicial laws and forms of punishment are, in your opinion, against what the Lord would command of us? If someone murders another is it appropriate to show mercy and let them go free or should they be held accountable for their actions? You see, here's the difference as I see it. The Jews were teaching that you could just act on this "eye for an eye" anytime you felt like it in your own personal life. However, this law was given as a source of judgment for those in authority to do so. In other words, if my neighbor punched me in the face, it was not lawful for me to haul off and punch him right in the nose. However, it was lawful for others to judge whether or not my neighbor was in the wrong and so on. Likewise, when someone murders someone today I do not feel it is right for the family of the dead to form a lynch mob and track down the accused. However, I do feel it is lawful and appropriate to bring the accused before a judge to determine whether they are innocent of this crime or guilty.


Take for example... the lady caught in adultery. Now... he who was without sin was brilliant. But the thing is.. the Law didn't allow for mercy even among one who has ever sinned. And then there was Jesus... even using His own words... Jesus was without sin. According to the Law... Jesus would have been totally right to stone her Himself. Instead... Jesus showed mercy and instructed her to go, sin no more.

Well, technically according to the law it was not lawful to stone her because they didn't bring both of the guilty parties with two or more witnesses. In other words, it seems to me like John 8 was more of the Jews testing Jesus rather than the Jews really trying to administer the judgment of the law.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 04:08 PM
What would you call "Do not eat from this tree"?

Guidance. Sort of like me saying to my child, "Look both ways before you cross the street."


I agree with that. That was why the Law of Moses was added. Had Israel not messed up, the law of Moses may have never been given. I will also admit that the way the 10 was worded had to do with increasing sin. That was what Paul said when he wrote about not coveting.

Why do you believe the Ten Commandments had to be given? Was it not to show sin? Therefore, they were given because of transgression. They were given to show sin. As Paul says in Romans 7, he would not have known covetessness if not for the commandment given saying "Thou shalt not covet". My question to you, BrotherMark, is how can you give something that's already been given?


Look at Eve's temptation in the Garden. She saw the tree was "pleasing to look at" - lust of the eye, "good for food" - lust of the flesh, "desirable to make one wise" - boastful pride of life. The "Do not eat" command caused her issues. Why did God give it? Was it so that sin could abound? No. But the law was given later so that sin could abound.

Look at it from our point of view. Do we obey God because He has laws telling us we have to? No. We obey God because we want to. We want to walk by faith believing Him to lead and guide us because that is what pleases Him.


How do we reconcile the two, "Do not eat" with "law was given because of the transgression". Also, keep in mind that in Hebrews 3 referred back creation, when God rested for justification of the Sabbath. IOW, he referred back to "in the beginning". God kept the Sabbath from the start and that is part of the 10.

But there wasn't a written law called the Ten Commandments that required the Sabbath. That's my point here. Jesus followed the Father not because there was law telling Him to. He followed God because that's just what someone holy does. We don't need law telling us to be holy. We have the Spirit of God that leads and guides us into holiness. The law will only reveal sin and lead to our death. However, being led of the Spirit will give life and life more abundantly. That's what the Spirit of the law is all about. It's not about written code, but rather being filled and led by that which is holy. If you are being led by that which is holy there is no need for a law.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 04:14 PM
So, then you would say here, PP, that our judicial laws and forms of punishment are, in your opinion, against what the Lord would command of us? If someone murders another is it appropriate to show mercy and let them go free or should they be held accountable for their actions? VR... I am not going to make this thread about capital punishment... right or wrong. That isn't the point made and this is just reaching and totally missing the point. Jesus didn't free a lady for murder. That is comparing an apple to a cucumber.

Nevertheless to your point... Here is what Jesus said in that passage about murder.

Matthew 5:21 ¶"You have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER´ and `Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.´

This was against the law of God... even before the Law was written it was sin. Notice as I pointed out a post or so down... Jesus did not contradict that law in the least. He simple expounded on that by letting them know that if they hated their brother... you've pretty much murdered your brother in your heart. He didn't not change anything about them being liable to the court.


You see, here's the difference as I see it. The Jews were teaching that you could just act on this "eye for an eye" anytime you felt like it in your own personal life. Jesus makes no such distinction. He didn't quote what they were teaching... He simply quoted part of the law of Moses. Then Jesus said something actually contrary to what that part of the Law reads.



However, this law was given as a source of judgment for those in authority to do so. In other words, if my neighbor punched me in the face, in was not lawful for me to haul off and punch him right in the nose. However, it was lawful for others to judge whether or not my neighbor was in the wrong and so on. Likewise, when someone murders someone today I do not feel it is right for the family of the dead to form a lynch mob and track down the accused. However, I do feel it is lawful and appropriate to bring the accused before a judge to determine whether they are innocent of this crime or guilty. And according to their judgment... an eye for an eye. Payback. No mercy.


Well, technically according to the law it was not lawful to stone her because they didn't bring both of the guilty parties with two or more witnesses. In other words, it seems to me like John 8 was more of the Jews testing Jesus rather than the Jews really trying to administer the judgment of the law.Technically is the exact thing that got the Pharisee in trouble. ;) Also technically is what brings people to the place where they totally miss the lesson taught.

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 04:16 PM
Guidance. Sort of like me saying to my child, "Look both ways before you cross the street."

It wasn't exactly a guideline though VR. It was a "don't do this or you will die". It was a law. Just as a side note, what does one need to know in order to judge? That tree is all about judgment and we still aren't to eat of it. ;)


Why do you believe the Ten Commandments had to be given? Was it not to show sin? Therefore, they were given because of transgression. They were given to show sin. As Paul says in Romans 7, he would not have known covetessness if not for the commandment given saying "Thou shalt not covet". My question is how can you give something that's already been given?

Sure they were given in a way that revealed sin. But look at it this way, we know that from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. These laws came from God's heart. They were in him. For instance, did he rest on the Sabbath before the 4th law was given? Yes. Why? Because it was in Him. It is an eternal thing. And that's what we see in Hebrews 3 and 4.


Look at it from our point of view. Do we obey God because He has laws telling us we have to? No. We obey God because we want to. We want to walk by faith believing Him to lead and guide us because that is what pleases Him.

Of course. I agree with that.


But there wasn't a written law called the Ten Commandments that required the Sabbath. That's my point here. Jesus followed the Father not because there was law telling him to. He followed God because that's just what someone holy does. We don't need law telling us to be holy. We have the Spirit of God that leads and guides us into holiness. The law will only reveal sin and lead to our death. However, being led of the Spirit will give life and life more abundantly. That's what the Spirit of the law is all about. It's not about written code, but rather being filled and led by that which is holy. If you are being led by that which is holy there is no need for a law.


But there was a spoken law in the Garden. "Do not eat". That was law. It is a law today that we are still not to eat from that tree. (That would make an interesting thread.) As for what is written, those laws are now written in our heart. The 10 are all there. So no longer do we have a covenant that is written in stone, but instead a covenant that is written in our hearts. The code is still written, it's just written in a different place. That's why Paul wrote he was "under the Law of Christ". That Law is now in Him. And what is that law? It is the law of Love "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". We don't do them because we have to do them. We do them because it is our nature to walk that way. They are now in us, but they are still written.

God kept the sabbath before it was ever a law. There's a reason for that. The sabbath is an eternal thing. It was in God in the beginning and will be in him at the end. Just as those laws are in us now.

The law of Moses was simply a covenant with Israel. The regulations are now fading away. Isn't it interesting that scripture says "we are dead to the law" but doesn't say the law is dead? Oh, the Law of Moses, the regulations of the covenant, they have faded away, but the Law of Christ, it still stands.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 04:33 PM
Jesus didn't free a lady for murder. That is comparing an apple to a cucumber.

Regardless, murder or a speeding ticket the point still stands. Society has laws that govern what people do, and I do not believe those laws are immoral or against what God would command of us. They are to serve a purpose just as the laws of God were given to serve a purpose. Now, if we lived in a perfect world with perfect people like in the beginning there would be no need for judicial laws because people wouldn't be doing imperfect stuff. The reason we need laws is because people are carnal and they do things that are really stupid.


This was against the law of God... even before the Law was written it was sin.

I agree. Murder is definitely a sin. However, do born again Christians need a law telling them "thou shalt not murder"? If they are truly born again they will have the Spirit of God informing them of this and they will know that obedience will lead to life and disobedience will put them right back under law. That is why Paul can say in Galatians 5 that those who walk in the Spirit are no longer under law like the one who walks in the flesh. The only reason the law was given was because the flesh deemed it necessary.


Notice as I pointed out a post or so down... Jesus did not contradict that law in the least. He simple expounded on that by letting them know that if they hated their brother... you've pretty much murdered your brother in your heart. He didn't not change anything about them being liable to the court.

I agree He did not contradict the law. He showed them why the law was needed. It was needed because mankind has a wicked heart that brings the evil fruit of murder. Without sin there would be no need for the law. The law showed the sin. That was the entire purpose of the law being given. If the sin was not there it would be unnecessary to give the law.


Technically is the exact thing that got the Pharisee in trouble. ;) Also technically is what brings people to the place where they totally miss the lesson taught.

I agree, but technically is the point of the law. The point of the law was to get VERY technical and show folks where they were in error.

Frances
May 14th 2008, 04:52 PM
It is of my opinion that you can't be both under the law and dead to it at the same time.

One difficulty seems to be that until we are 'dead to Sin' we are not 'dead to the Law'. So until I, personally, am totally 'dead to Sin' (never ever Sin) I am 'under the Law' of Loving God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and my neighbour as myself . . . . at which point the Law written on my heart will control 100% of my thoughts and actions 100% of the time.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 04:52 PM
It wasn't exactly a guideline though VR. It was a "don't do this or you will die". It was a law. Just as a side note, what does one need to know in order to judge? That tree is all about judgment and we still aren't to eat of it. ;)

On that note, however, do you believe then that it was God's judgment that killed Adam? Was God telling Adam that he would die if he ate that fruit because God was going to kill him or did God tell Adam that he would die because he would now know something that was contrary to God's perfection? The law brought judgment. I do not believe Adam was being judged. I think he was simply reaping what was of the flesh. Anytime we go contrary to God there are consequences. Not because God is judging us but because we are separating ourselves from that which is perfect and following another spirit that leads to destruction.


Sure they were given in a way that revealed sin. But look at it this way, we know that from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. These laws came from God's heart. They were in him. For instance, did he rest on the Sabbath before the 4th law was given? Yes. Why? Because it was in Him. It is an eternal thing. And that's what we see in Hebrews 3 and 4.

No, the law wasn't in Him. Righteousness was in Him. The laws showed His righteousness. The law was given to a sinful mankind to show man what God was all about. Without the sin the law wouldn't be necessary. The law was brought about to show man the righteousness of God.


But there was a spoken law in the Garden. "Do not eat". That was law.

Why do you believe it is law? If a police officer came to me today and said, "Don't walk too close to the edge of the bridge," would that be a new law that I would always have to follow along with others as well or is that simply the officer telling me what he feels is best for my safety at that moment?


As for what is written, those laws are now written in our heart. The 10 are all there.

But why are they written on our heart? God doesn't take a pen and literally etch the Ten Commandments on our heart. What God does is takes the wickedness that was our heart and changes it to be about His will and purpose for our lives. If our hearts are now out to please Him by faith then we will automatically fulfill the requirements of the law. Not because there is a written law that we must obey, but rather because we love God and want to follow Him in all His ways.


The code is still written, it's just written in a different place.

I think we are getting a little too technical with the written part here. The point here is that God is changing our hearts. He is changing the very reason why the letter had to be given. If our heart is changed and we are now about His righteousness and His holiness then there is no need for a written law telling us what is right and wrong and what we should do and not do. We have Him telling us that. We can now listen to His guidance and accept His direction because we want to please Him.


That's why Paul wrote he was "under the Law of Christ". That Law is now in Him. And what is that law? It is the law of Love "if you love me, you will keep my commandments". We don't do them because we have to do them. We do them because it is our nature to walk that way. They are now in us, but they are still written.

So, do you believe that Jesus Christ needs a law telling Him to obey His Father or does He just do it because that is the holy and righteous thing to do? I do not believe Jesus ever needed a law telling Him what to do. Jesus wanted to please His Father regardless of any written instruction. That was the difference between Jesus and Adam. Adam rejected God's guidance and took his own path that led to his destruction. Jesus walked the path of His Father in all things. Now that Jesus lives in us we can do the same thing.


God kept the sabbath before it was ever a law.

That's exactly my point. Just like God, we no longer do things holy because a law says so. We do things holy because it's simply what we want to do.


The law of Moses was simply a covenant with Israel. The regulations are now fading away. Isn't it interesting that scripture says "we are dead to the law" but doesn't say the law is dead? Oh, the Law of Moses, the regulations of the covenant, they have faded away, but the Law of Christ, it still stands.

The law will be active as long as wickedness is active. Until the Lord restores all things back to "that which is perfect" this world is still under the curse of the law.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 05:01 PM
One difficulty seems to be that until we are 'dead to Sin' we are not 'dead to the Law'. So until I, personally, am totally 'dead to Sin' (never ever Sin) I am 'under the Law' of Loving God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and my neighbour as myself . . . . at which point the Law written on my heart will control 100% of my thoughts and actions 100% of the time.

I do not agree that just because one might slip up and sin it now means that they are under the law or no longer dead to sin. That's what the perfect sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ was for. It was so that we would not have to be judged by the law any longer if we so happen to make a mistake and sin. We have His blood that will cleanse us if we repent of that sin and ask forgiveness. However, one who practices sin is another story all together.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 07:30 PM
I agree He did not contradict the law. He showed them why the law was needed. It was needed because mankind has a wicked heart that brings the evil fruit of murder. Without sin there would be no need for the law. The law showed the sin. That was the entire purpose of the law being given. If the sin was not there it would be unnecessary to give the law.



I agree, but technically is the point of the law. The point of the law was to get VERY technical and show folks where they were in error.But he did contradict the law of an eye for an eye... he did contract the law of making an oath. I mean those were flat out telling them... this is what you have heard in the days of old... but I'm telling you to make NO OATH at all. I am telling you it isn't no longer deed for deed... eye for eye. Take it... turn the other cheek. They want your shirt... give them your coat too. It's exactly the opposite of those two issues... right?

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 07:37 PM
But he did contradict the law of an eye for an eye... he did contract the law of making an oath. I mean those were flat out telling them... this is what you have heard in the days of old... but I'm telling you to make NO OATH at all. I am telling you it isn't no longer deed for deed... eye for eye. Take it... turn the other cheek. They want your shirt... give them your coat too. It's exactly the opposite of those two issues... right?

But again, what you're saying would be the same as saying that us having laws of society is something God doesn't permit. It wouldn't be right in the eyes of God for us to put an accused murderer in prison if he were to be found guilty because we are seeking justice rather than turning the other cheek. That is, of course, unless Jesus wasn't talking about judicial judgment here.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 07:44 PM
But again, what you're saying would be the same as saying that us having laws of society is something God doesn't permit. It wouldn't be right in the eyes of God for us to put an accused murderer in prison if he were to be found guilty because we are seeking justice rather than turning the other cheek. That is, of course, unless Jesus wasn't talking about judicial judgment here.
No... Jesus made it clear on murder. So did God in all honesty. If a person takes the life of another then that life is required of them. Told that even to Noah back in the day. We are not talking murder here though. Jesus did not correct the law against murder VR. That is very clear with just a very simple reading of the text.

But with precepts such as the oaths and eye for eye... Jesus didn't flat out said BUT I TELL YOU... no oaths at all. No more deed for deed. Instead of it now do unto others folk what those folk do to you... Jesus said I, grace and truth, tell you to turn the other cheek. Say no oath at all.

Is that not what Jesus said? I mean hey... if Jesus didn't say that then it's right there for you to read... so show me where I am wrongly speaking.

VerticalReality
May 14th 2008, 07:52 PM
No... Jesus made it clear on murder. So did God in all honesty. If a person takes the life of another then that life is required of them. Told that even to Noah back in the day. We are not talking murder here though. Jesus did not correct the law against murder VR. That is very clear with just a very simple reading of the text.

But with precepts such as the oaths and eye for eye... Jesus didn't flat out said BUT I TELL YOU... no oaths at all. No more deed for deed. Instead of it now do unto others folk what those folk do to you... Jesus said I, grace and truth, tell you to turn the other cheek. Say no oath at all.

Is that not what Jesus said? I mean hey... if Jesus didn't say that then it's right there for you to read... so show me where I am wrongly speaking.

But the law never taught an individual in their personal life "an eye for an eye", so why do you think Jesus was addressing this issue if the law never instructed it? The "eye for an eye" was a judicial law. It was not a law given for folks to use during their personal walk. That's what doesn't make sense about what you're saying, PP. Why would Jesus be addressing a judicial law while talking about the personal walk of a person (if someone slaps you across the cheek)? This is where it helps to know the historical context of what was being taught during this day. It's the same for your marriage example earlier. The reason the Pharisees were asking Jesus in Matthew 19 whether or not a man could divorce his wife for "just any cause" was because this was a VERY popular teaching in that day and time amongst a particular sect of Jews. You had one group that taught that a man could only divorce his wife for sexual immorality, but you had another group that was teaching people that you could divorce your wife for "just any cause". However, if one did not know the historical setting you would not have this information strictly by reading the text.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus is addressing many false teachings that were being taught during this time. Two of those issues was the "eye for an eye" and "oath" teachings.

Jesus was not changing or overriding the law of Moses as this would be in direct conflict with other Scriptures that said the law could not be changed or altered until the death of Jesus.

Let me take this further, PP. Jesus goes on to say this . . .



Matthew 5:43
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’


Where in the law of Moses did it instruct someone to "hate your enemy"? It didn't instruct such a thing. This was a teaching that was added by the Jews. So Jesus isn't changing the law or trying to show a contrast between the law of God and the law of Moses. Jesus is simply clearing up false teachings.

ProjectPeter
May 14th 2008, 09:26 PM
But the law never taught an individual in their personal life "an eye for an eye", so why do you think Jesus was addressing this issue if the law never instructed it? The "eye for an eye" was a judicial law. It was not a law given for folks to use during their personal walk. That's what doesn't make sense about what you're saying, PP. Why would Jesus be addressing a judicial law while talking about the personal walk of a person (if someone slaps you across the cheek)? This is where it helps to know the historical context of what was being taught during this day. It's the same for your marriage example earlier. The reason the Pharisees were asking Jesus in Matthew 19 whether or not a man could divorce his wife for "just any cause" was because this was a VERY popular teaching in that day and time amongst a particular sect of Jews. You had one group that taught that a man could only divorce his wife for sexual immorality, but you had another group that was teaching people that you could divorce your wife for "just any cause". However, if one did not know the historical setting you would not have this information strictly by reading the text.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus is addressing many false teachings that were being taught during this time. Two of those issues was the "eye for an eye" and "oath" teachings.

Jesus was not changing or overriding the law of Moses as this would be in direct conflict with other Scriptures that said the law could not be changed or altered until the death of Jesus.

Let me take this further, PP. Jesus goes on to say this . . .



Where in the law of Moses did it instruct someone to "hate your enemy"? It didn't instruct such a thing. This was a teaching that was added by the Jews. So Jesus isn't changing the law or trying to show a contrast between the law of God and the law of Moses. Jesus is simply clearing up false teachings.
Uh... you are making my point for me and can't even see it yourself. The judicial laws for governmental purposes is just fine. But it has nothing to do with one's spiritual state with God. That being said... murder does. Coveting does be that the neighbor's ride, house, land, wife, daughter, etc. Loving your neighbor as yourself... honor your parents... love God with all your heart, soul and mind. Those weren't judicial laws... they were God's law for mankind. He expects the Jew to follow it... the Gentile to follow it... etc. These will be required of all mankind. Now... boiling a kid in the mom's milk... eating a ham sandwhich... blending cotton with linen... stuff like that is fine for a judicial law. But has nothing at all to do with any man's walk with Christ.

I told Mark the other day... do you know when it becomes even a sin for me, a Gentile to eat a ham sandwhich.... that is when this country passes a law outlawing it. Then should I do that... I am not honoring those in authority over me. Then I have some issues. Until then... I can eat it or not eat it based on my own conscienceness and no harm, no foul.

As to the Law... Jesus was not changing it. Jesus was fulfilling it. When we walk in the Law of love... we do that just as well.

Think of it this way. If I was smacked back then... I could take it to the counsel and that person that smacked me would have been judged by the law. Eye for eye... deed for deed. My other option, Jesus' way... turn the other cheek. Take being wronged. There was no requirement for me to go turn them in and thus help in them bringing down the judgment of the law. My way, as a follower of Christ, would to be to not sweat it.

Same with taking the oath. No rule saying I had to take one... but according to the law... if I did take one then I am bound bigtime by that oath. Jesus said simply... don't swear an oath at all. It wasn't "negating" the Law. But it was in stark contrast to the Law. Same with divorce. I could get a divorce... just pick which religious folk I wanted to go to. It was very common place (I didn't just start doing this yesterday and have studied tons of the history) at that time. Truth be told... I don't hold much stock in some of the history because Jesus himself made it clear that Moses allowed it and and the reason why... their hard hearts. The fact that Jesus told them that God never intended that for save adultery... Jesus made the point pretty clear.

Partaker of Christ
May 14th 2008, 09:41 PM
Okay... let's start here.

Leviticus 24:19 `And if a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Here is another verse saying the same when speaking of a false witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 ¶"A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
18 "And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 "And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Now... what does it say. How does this allow for the "spirit of the Law" to show mercy on someone? The spirit of this law is do to them what they did to another. No pity... just do it and thus you purge the evil among you.

One who followed this Law was in fact following the Law of Moses and following it rightly.

Take for example... the lady caught in adultery. Now... he who was without sin was brilliant. But the thing is.. the Law didn't allow for mercy even among one who has ever sinned. And then there was Jesus... even using His own words... Jesus was without sin. According to the Law... Jesus would have been totally right to stone her Himself. Instead... Jesus showed mercy and instructed her to go, sin no more.

So here we have it... eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life... show no pity. Then Jesus says... BUT I say to you... if one strikes you on the cheek, turn to the other side. They want to sue you for your shirt... give them your coat too. Not sure how one doesn't see that as pretty much a total contrast of not just what was being "errantly taught" but what the Law itself actually makes right clear.

I agree with you Ken.
An eye for an eye is justice according to law, but we are to show grace and mercy.

The unmerciful servant was said to be wicked, but under the law his actions were just.
He first received grace and mercy from the king, but he thought little of it, and his heart was not changed. Having received grace and mercy, he then went and demanded justice under law.

Although we are not to act unjust towards others, we either live under grace or under law, but not both.
We should not need a set of written laws, if our hearts have been changed.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Deu 5:26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Deu 5:27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
Deu 5:28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spoke unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
Deu 5:29 O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!

Hawkins
May 14th 2008, 09:43 PM
I think that the oath eye for eye is still valid in that we need to let our Lord do the vengeance for us, we ourselves need to be peacemakers, to love our enimies and give them our "right cheek".

Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


Something changed (the covenant part), we/I don't know which part thou. Still I don't think it's important to identify them all as long as the New Covenant is in place, as we are no longer judged by those Law alone, we will be saved by His Grace through Jesus Christ.

My last take.

:giveup:

Brother Mark
May 14th 2008, 10:56 PM
On that note, however, do you believe then that it was God's judgment that killed Adam? Was God telling Adam that he would die if he ate that fruit because God was going to kill him or did God tell Adam that he would die because he would now know something that was contrary to God's perfection? The law brought judgment. I do not believe Adam was being judged. I think he was simply reaping what was of the flesh. Anytime we go contrary to God there are consequences. Not because God is judging us but because we are separating ourselves from that which is perfect and following another spirit that leads to destruction.

Of course there were consequences and I agree with you that is a HUGE reason to avoid sin. The point I was making about the tree was that we are not to sit in judgment of others. That's God's job.


No, the law wasn't in Him. Righteousness was in Him. The laws showed His righteousness. The law was given to a sinful mankind to show man what God was all about. Without the sin the law wouldn't be necessary. The law was brought about to show man the righteousness of God.They had to be in Him VR. Scripture says "From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." God spoke those laws from His heart.


Why do you believe it is law? If a police officer came to me today and said, "Don't walk too close to the edge of the bridge," would that be a new law that I would always have to follow along with others as well or is that simply the officer telling me what he feels is best for my safety at that moment?Well, one is for safety. But God didn't just give a warning, he gave a command. If it wasn't a command, then there would be no sin.

1 John 3:4

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
KJV

So it wasn't just a guideline. Had it been a guideline, it would not have been called sin. For sin, by definition, is a transgression of the law. Paul went so far as to say this...

Rom 5:12-14

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned — 13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
NASB

Now, sin was imputed unto Adam. Why? Because the law was in Eden.

When Eve ate the tree, she committed murder against herself. When she gave it to Adam, she committed murder. (Remember, Satan was called a murderer from the beginning. The beginning is Gen. 1.) Eve nor Adam loved each other as they loved themselves. Adam could have offered himself for her as the second Adam offered himself. Neither loved God fully. Eve coveted the tree. I could go on and on. All those laws were broken in the Garden even though God had not voiced them entirely.

Look, the law can be summed up in 2 laws, love God and love your neighbor. The Law of love is the 10. They are one and the same. But the biggest point, and please don't go by this one, is that Adam had sin imputed on him because he broke a law. That's why his offense was considered worse than all those from him to Moses.


But why are they written on our heart? God doesn't take a pen and literally etch the Ten Commandments on our heart. What God does is takes the wickedness that was our heart and changes it to be about His will and purpose for our lives. If our hearts are now out to please Him by faith then we will automatically fulfill the requirements of the law. Not because there is a written law that we must obey, but rather because we love God and want to follow Him in all His ways.Jesus is the author of our salvation and our example. He fulfilled the law. We are too. Look at this verse...

Gal 6:1-2
2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.
NASB

and

Gal 5:14
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
NASB

What God did when he saved us, was place Jesus, who is Love, in our hearts. That is His Law. The 10 are all about Love. That's what makes them eternal. Love never fails.


I think we are getting a little too technical with the written part here. The point here is that God is changing our hearts. He is changing the very reason why the letter had to be given. If our heart is changed and we are now about His righteousness and His holiness then there is no need for a written law telling us what is right and wrong and what we should do and not do. We have Him telling us that. We can now listen to His guidance and accept His direction because we want to please Him.OK.


So, do you believe that Jesus Christ needs a law telling Him to obey His Father or does He just do it because that is the holy and righteous thing to do? I do not believe Jesus ever needed a law telling Him what to do. Jesus wanted to please His Father regardless of any written instruction. That was the difference between Jesus and Adam. Adam rejected God's guidance and took his own path that led to his destruction. Jesus walked the path of His Father in all things. Now that Jesus lives in us we can do the same thing.No. Jesus IS the Law. He fulfilled it because Jesus is love and the law is love. The 10 are all about loving God and loving our neighbor.


That's exactly my point. Just like God, we no longer do things holy because a law says so. We do things holy because it's simply what we want to do.Right. But that doesn't mean the law is gone. The law of moses has faded away. But the law of Christ will never fade away.


The law will be active as long as wickedness is active. Until the Lord restores all things back to "that which is perfect" this world is still under the curse of the law.
There was no curse attached to the 10 when God gave them. But the law of Moses had a curse. ;)

Ekeak
May 15th 2008, 02:44 AM
Could it be that there are more than ten commandments, but we just don't have them written today? I believe there are millions, just waiting for that first cardinal or conceptual sin to break loose.

VerticalReality
May 15th 2008, 03:11 AM
Uh... you are making my point for me and can't even see it yourself.

Your point is that Jesus is trying to contrast the law of Moses (an eye for an eye) with the law of God, aka the Ten Commandments (turn the other cheek), correct? How am I making your point for you? I do not agree that this is what Jesus is doing. I believe Jesus is correcting a false teaching that said the eye for an eye law could be applied by anyone. To the contrary, I believe Jesus is teaching that in a person's personal walk (even under the law of Moses) they are supposed to turn the other cheek if someone slaps them rather than retaliate. I do not believe retaliation was permitted under the law of Moses. This is not what the "eye for and eye" law was intended for. This law was intended for those who had been placed in authority to administer. This was not a law for retaliation, but rather a law to deter sin. Therefore, I'm not supporting or affirming your position that there is a contrast between the law of Moses and the law of God going on here.


That being said... murder does. Coveting does be that the neighbor's ride, house, land, wife, daughter, etc. Loving your neighbor as yourself... honor your parents... love God with all your heart, soul and mind. Those weren't judicial laws... they were God's law for mankind. He expects the Jew to follow it... the Gentile to follow it... etc. These will be required of all mankind.

And why did God need to say "honor your parents", "love God", etc.?


Now... boiling a kid in the mom's milk... eating a ham sandwhich... blending cotton with linen... stuff like that is fine for a judicial law. But has nothing at all to do with any man's walk with Christ.

No argument from me there.


I told Mark the other day... do you know when it becomes even a sin for me, a Gentile to eat a ham sandwhich.... that is when this country passes a law outlawing it. Then should I do that... I am not honoring those in authority over me. Then I have some issues. Until then... I can eat it or not eat it based on my own conscienceness and no harm, no foul.

Agree.


As to the Law... Jesus was not changing it. Jesus was fulfilling it. When we walk in the Law of love... we do that just as well.

Well, it seems to me your interpretation here in Matthew 5 is that Jesus is overriding the law stating an eye for an eye and teaching that we should turn the other cheek instead. That sounds like a change to me. However, I do not believe this is what Jesus was doing. I believe He was simply clarifying the true intent of the "eye for an eye" law instead of the false application being applied during this time.


Think of it this way. If I was smacked back then... I could take it to the counsel and that person that smacked me would have been judged by the law. Eye for eye... deed for deed.

You could. However, this is not what was being taught, which is why I believe Jesus was making correction here and not an overriding of the law.


My other option, Jesus' way... turn the other cheek. Take being wronged. There was no requirement for me to go turn them in and thus help in them bringing down the judgment of the law. My way, as a follower of Christ, would to be to not sweat it.

So it seems to me that you aren't really comparing a contrast between law. You are comparing the difference between following a written law and walking by the Spirit. It seems to me we just have lot of religious speak going on here. I'm seeing a lot of, "We're dead to the law but we're really not" kind of talk.


Same with taking the oath. No rule saying I had to take one... but according to the law... if I did take one then I am bound bigtime by that oath. Jesus said simply... don't swear an oath at all. It wasn't "negating" the Law. But it was in stark contrast to the Law. Same with divorce. I could get a divorce... just pick which religious folk I wanted to go to. It was very common place (I didn't just start doing this yesterday and have studied tons of the history) at that time. Truth be told... I don't hold much stock in some of the history because Jesus himself made it clear that Moses allowed it and and the reason why... their hard hearts. The fact that Jesus told them that God never intended that for save adultery... Jesus made the point pretty clear.

If Jesus is talking about "in the beginning" in regards to marriage, why do you state that God viewed adultery as allowance for divorce when "in the beginning" there was no adultery? You're saying that God gave an allowance for something that wasn't in existence nor should it have been. The law allowing divorce did not come until after the fall of man, and adultery is not mentioned anywhere as something God intended to be an allowance for divorce. However, I digress . . .

Let's just cut to the chase here . . . are we dead to the law or are we not? It can't be both or somewhere in between. It is one or the other. What I'm seeing from these responses is that we are dead to the law but we're really not. That doesn't make much sense.

Steve M
May 15th 2008, 12:23 PM
I've noticed here on several occasions that folks distinguish between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments and say that one is passed away and the other is eternal. My question is where do folks get this belief?

Why are we not under the law of Moses but we are under the Ten Commandments?

I agree that the law is still very much active today, but it is of my opinion that a born again believer is not under ANY of the old law . . . including the Ten Commandments.

Opinions?
Also please note that all but one of the ten were explicitly restated by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. (cough, Sabbath, cough)

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 12:27 PM
Also please note that all but one of the ten were explicitly restated by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. (cough, Sabbath, cough)

Even the Sabbath was restated, just not in the form of a single day. (Heb. 3 and 4)

Steve M
May 15th 2008, 12:30 PM
Even the Sabbath was restated, just not in the form of a single day. (Heb. 3 and 4)
Agreed; but that's a little different than the explicit restatements for the others. Where they reinforce or restate the original ten, that one is both a little more complicated... and a little more controversial.

VerticalReality
May 15th 2008, 12:32 PM
Also please note that all but one of the ten were explicitly restated by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. (cough, Sabbath, cough)

Precisely.

The point I'm trying to make here is that when we refrain from coveting it is not because we are under the Ten Commandments that are eternal. It is because we are following the law of Christ which is eternal.

The difference is that one is just following a written code out of obligation while the other is following God out of our love for Him. Therefore, the reason we do not covet is not because there is one of the Ten Commandments stating that we shouldn't. The reason we do not covet is because we love God. Therefore, we are just as Paul when he said he had the law of law of God because he had the law of Christ.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 12:36 PM
Precisely.

The point I'm trying to make here is that when we refrain from coveting it is not because we are under the Ten Commandments that are eternal. It is because we are following the law of Christ which is eternal.

They are the same. That's why Paul wrote they could be summed up in one word, Love. God is love.


The difference is that one is just following a written code out of obligation while the other is following God out of our love for Him. Therefore, the reason we do not covet is not because there is a law stating that we shouldn't. The reason we do not covet is because we love God.

Correct. We do so because now they are in us because he is in us. We are not speaking of how we keep the commandments at all. That has to do with covenant and the new covenant is vastly different than the old covenant.

The new covenant enables us to do willingly what the old was powerless to do. Yet, the commandments never changed. That's why they were written again in the new, they are eternal. They are the law of Christ, which is "love". But the way we go about living them is vastly different.

Look at David, he saw the difference in the Laws of Moses and the 10 as well. Psalms 51 shows that in many ways.

VerticalReality
May 15th 2008, 12:56 PM
They are the same. That's why Paul wrote they could be summed up in one word, Love. God is love.

I do not believe they are the same. We cannot be dead to the law of Christ like we are dead to the Ten Commandments. Can you make the statement that you are dead to the law of Christ? Paul certainly made that statement regarding the Ten Commandments.

Romans 7:6-12
But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Paul is speaking here of the Ten Commandments. "Thou shall not covet" was one of the Ten Commandments. However, Paul is stating that he died to this law so that he could serve in something different. He is going from the law which brought death to the law of Christ which brings life. The law of Christ doesn't negate the righteousness of the Ten Commandments, so in that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled. However, the motive behind our service is different. What we are under is much greater than the Ten Commandments.


The new covenant enables us to do willingly what the old was powerless to do. Yet, the commandments never changed. That's why they were written again in the new, they are eternal. They are the law of Christ, which is "love". But the way we go about living them is vastly different.

And the reason it is different is because it's no longer the Ten Commandments that we are following. We are following something greater than that. We are following something that encompasses the righteousness of the commandment, but it's not the law itself that we are following. We are following God. You don't refrain from coveting because there is a law written saying that you should (which is what the Ten Commandments are). You refrain from coveting simply because you love God and you want to follow Him.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 01:27 PM
I do not believe they are the same. We cannot be dead to the law of Christ like we are dead to the Ten Commandments. Can you make the statement that you are dead to the law of Christ? Paul certainly made that statement regarding the Ten Commandments.

Romans 7:6-12
But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Paul is speaking here of the Ten Commandments. "Thou shall not covet" was one of the Ten Commandments. However, Paul is stating that he died to this law so that he could serve in something different. He is going from the law which brought death to the law of Christ which brings life. The law of Christ doesn't negate the righteousness of the Ten Commandments, so in that the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled. However, the motive behind our service is different. What we are under is much greater than the Ten Commandments.

He explained what he meant in that very passage... not by letter but by Spirit. That's why I said earlier that the way God wrote it is different. But the Spirit of the law remains. For instance, Jesus preached not only about adultery but about lust in our hearts. He went past the letter to the Spirit of the law. We are dead to the letter. That's why we no longer live by the priestly levitical laws. Yet, those very same levitical laws tell us how to be priest according to the tabernacle in heaven.

Look at it this way, God is love. 1 Cor. 13 speaks about what love is. It says that "love does not seek it's own". God penned the 10 commandments from love. The first 4 are about loving God the last 6 about loving man. The law of love from which the 10 came has not changed. It is the eternal law. The 10 are just as eternal because that is their source. Throughout all eternity we will be loving God and loving our brothers in Christ.


And the reason it is different is because it's no longer the Ten Commandments that we are following. We are following something greater than that. We are following something that encompasses the righteousness of the commandment, but it's not the law itself that we are following. We are following God. You don't refrain from coveting because there is a law written saying that you should (which is what the Ten Commandments are). You refrain from coveting simply because you love God and you want to follow Him.

Yet, without law, a sin cannot be committed. That's why we call it today, the law of Christ. Sin is the breaking of law. Law hasn't gone away. We just live by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.

Of course our motivations have changed and that is what covenant is about. But that doesn't mean the law was done away with. It still stands. Now, as believers, we are dead to the law yet, we live by the spirit of the law and not in oldness of letter. Just because I died to the law doesn't mean the law is not eternal.

Partaker of Christ
May 15th 2008, 02:02 PM
Why didn't God give these Ten Commandments, before Moses?

VerticalReality
May 15th 2008, 02:12 PM
He explained what he meant in that very passage... not by letter but by Spirit.

But if you are under the Ten Commandments you are under the letter. If you say that you keep the Ten Commandments you are saying that you are keeping the letter. Nobody can keep the letter.


That's why I said earlier that the way God wrote it is different. But the Spirit of the law remains. For instance, Jesus preached not only about adultery but about lust in our hearts. He went past the letter to the Spirit of the law.

Right, but the Ten Commandments did not go past the letter. The Ten Commandments did not go deeper than what was written. Therefore, one keeping the commandment may not be keeping the law of Christ. The law of Christ is what says that murder begins in the heart, not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments never said that it began in the heart. The Ten Commandments simply said, "Thou shalt not . . . "

Only those who walk by the Spirit can see past the letter. Again, it's about something much greater than just the law saying "Thou shalt not . . . "


We are dead to the letter. That's why we no longer live by the priestly levitical laws. Yet, those very same levitical laws tell us how to be priest according to the tabernacle in heaven.

Paul does not say that we are just dead to those priestly levitical laws. He says that we are dead to the Ten Commandments as well.


God penned the 10 commandments from love. The first 4 are about loving God the last 6 about loving man.

Someone trying to live out the Ten Commandments are not going to see that they are about love. They are just going to see the letter. That is why the law never brought life but only death.


The law of love from which the 10 came has not changed It is the eternal law.

But the law of love is not synonomous with the Ten. Even Jesus Christ stated that the Ten were not eternal.

Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says that when the current heaven and earth pass away it is then that the law (The Ten Commandments) will pass away. The law of Christ, however, is eternal. That is why Paul says to now abide in faith, hope and love because it is those three that will last.


The 10 are just as eternal because that is their source. Throughout all eternity we will be loving God and loving our brothers in Christ.

But Jesus says that the Ten Commandments are not eternal there in Matthew 5 . . .


Yet, without law, a sin cannot be committed. That's why we call it today, the law of Christ. Sin is the breaking of law. Law hasn't gone away. We just live by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.

But that is my entire point. The Ten Commandments are the letter of the law.


But that doesn't mean the law was done away with.

I've never suggested that the law has been done away with. I'm suggesting that it is not the old law that we as born again believers are under. We are under a different law.


Now, as believers, we are dead to the law yet, we live by the spirit of the law and not in oldness of letter.

But the Spirit of the law is not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are the letter of the law. It is the law of Christ that is the Spirit of the law.


Just because I died to the law doesn't mean the law is not eternal.

But Jesus says the Ten are not eternal. They will pass away with the old heaven and earth. The law of Christ, however, will go on forever.

Steve M
May 15th 2008, 02:32 PM
Why didn't God give these Ten Commandments, before Moses?
You know, God held man accountable to several of these laws BEFORE the 10 commandments were given.

Cain slew Able, and it was sin. Murder is a sin under the Law, before the Law, and after the Law.

Adultery was revealed to be wrong prior to the Law (what happened to Pharaoh and Abimilech when they coveted another man's wife?) during the Law, and after the Law.

And certainly we see that not honoring God had serious consequences before... during... after.

So I think the bigger question is.... which of the commandments was not given before, which of them was not given after?

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 03:45 PM
You know, God held man accountable to several of these laws BEFORE the 10 commandments were given.

Cain slew Able, and it was sin. Murder is a sin under the Law, before the Law, and after the Law.

Adultery was revealed to be wrong prior to the Law (what happened to Pharaoh and Abimilech when they coveted another man's wife?) during the Law, and after the Law.

And certainly we see that not honoring God had serious consequences before... during... after.

So I think the bigger question is.... which of the commandments was not given before, which of them was not given after?

He also held Satan accountable as well.

John 8:44-45
44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.
NASB

The beginning is Gen. 1. Hard to go back further than that in the history of mankind. Jesus goes on to mention other laws that were broken by Satan in the beginning, i.e. bearing false witness about God, having no other God's before him, etc.

Brother Mark
May 15th 2008, 04:01 PM
But if you are under the Ten Commandments you are under the letter. If you say that you keep the Ten Commandments you are saying that you are keeping the letter. Nobody can keep the letter.

I never said anything about keeping anything. I just said those laws were eternal. They flow from the law of love. Love will never fade.


Right, but the Ten Commandments did not go past the letter. The Ten Commandments did not go deeper than what was written. Therefore, one keeping the commandment may not be keeping the law of Christ. The law of Christ is what says that murder begins in the heart, not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments never said that it began in the heart. The Ten Commandments simply said, "Thou shalt not . . . "

Only those who walk by the Spirit can see past the letter. Again, it's about something much greater than just the law saying "Thou shalt not . . . "No issue with what you write here.


Paul does not say that we are just dead to those priestly levitical laws. He says that we are dead to the Ten Commandments as well. Maybe I am not being clear. The 10 are eternal laws because they come from love. "Love God and love your neighbor". They live forever. The law of moses has faded away. One is gone the other is not.


Someone trying to live out the Ten Commandments are not going to see that they are about love. They are just going to see the letter. That is why the law never brought life but only death.Those laws don't have the curse of death on them. Where did God put death on those laws? Paul rightly recognized that only through grace could we even begin to live unto God rightly. And you are right, the letter never did and never will bring life. It can't.


But the law of love is not synonomous with the Ten. Even Jesus Christ stated that the Ten were not eternal.

Matthew 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says that when the current heaven and earth pass away it is then that the law (The Ten Commandments) will pass away. The law of Christ, however, is eternal. That is why Paul says to now abide in faith, hope and love because it is those three that will last.

But Jesus says that the Ten Commandments are not eternal there in Matthew 5 . . . We differ on that interpretation. I think he is showing that he viewed the Law of Moses and the Law of God as two different things. We know from Hebrews 8-9 that the covenant, which was the law of Moses, has faded away and been replaced.


But that is my entire point. The Ten Commandments are the letter of the law. Can a believer sin today? If so, then there must still be some law. Because by definition, sin is the transgression of the law.


I've never suggested that the law has been done away with. I'm suggesting that it is not the old law that we as born again believers are under. We are under a different law. Right. We are under the law of Christ which sums up the whole law. Look, even Paul preached the ten.

Gal 6:1-2
2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.
NASB

And what is that law of Christ?

Rom 13:8-10

8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
NASB

We go even further and see that he even taught the Galatians about the 10.

Gal 5:13-15

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
NASB

It is still used as a tutor to bring us to the fullness of Christ. In Gal 5, Paul used that law to show how some of them were backbiting and breaking the "love your neighbor" law. In doing so, he then went on to instruct them to love one another. As we grow in love, our freedom increases and we move out from under the law more and more. It is not only a state of being, but also a practical working out.

Ultimately, the entire law can be summed up in 1 Cor 13. Since the 10 are a law of love, they will not go away. There will be a sabbath rest of eternity, there will be a God for eternity, there will be love for eternity.

And we will joyfully fulfill the law. Not because we are under it, but because he is in us.


But the Spirit of the law is not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are the letter of the law. It is the law of Christ that is the Spirit of the law.

But Jesus says the Ten are not eternal. They will pass away with the old heaven and earth. The law of Christ, however, will go on forever.No. He said not one jot or tittle would pass away until all was fulfilled. Some jots and tittles have already passed away. So much was fulfilled. I don't see where it says in that scripture that the whole law will go away. It only says that not one jot or tittle would pass until all was fulfilled.

The spirit of the law can be found in the 10. Look at King David and Psalms 51. He saw a difference between the 10 and the Law of Moses. The letter lives in "thou shalt not". The spirit of that law can be seen in "love your neighbor as yourself". A new command Christ gave us "even as I have loved you, so love ye one another". They all spring from the great law, the law of Christ. Until that law passes, how can the others pass? Will there be a sabbath rest in heaven?

VerticalReality
May 15th 2008, 05:28 PM
I never said anything about keeping anything. I just said those laws were eternal. They flow from the law of love. Love will never fade.

The law of Christ will never fade. However, I still contend that the law of Christ is not synonomous with the Ten Commandments.


Maybe I am not being clear. The 10 are eternal laws because they come from love. "Love God and love your neighbor". They live forever. The law of moses has faded away. One is gone the other is not.

But you don't believe God was not being loving when He told Moses to give the law, correct? Was Moses not doing what God wanted him to do by giving the law he did? However, I know you do not believe the law of Moses is eternal. What's the difference? If it all was what God wanted at that particular time, and what flows from God is love . . . why would the law of Moses not be eternal using that train of thought?


Those laws don't have the curse of death on them. Where did God put death on those laws? Paul rightly recognized that only through grace could we even begin to live unto God rightly. And you are right, the letter never did and never will bring life. It can't.

Paul states they absolutely have a curse of death on them . . .

Romans 7:7-12
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Paul is saying here that this commandment of "Thou shalt not covet" did absolutely 100% bring death. Not only that, but in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul calls the same commandments engraved on stones the ministry of death . . .

2 Corinthians 3:7-8
But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?


We differ on that interpretation. I think he is showing that he viewed the Law of Moses and the Law of God as two different things. We know from Hebrews 8-9 that the covenant, which was the law of Moses, has faded away and been replaced.

Where in Matthew 5 did He make this distinction? He says that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, and then He goes on to talk about such laws as "Thou shall not murder" and "Thou shall not commit adultery". Those were definitely part of the Ten Commandments. In context, I believe this is indeed including the Ten Commandments.


Can a believer sin today? If so, then there must still be some law. Because by definition, sin is the transgression of the law.

All of the law of God is still active today. None of it has passed away. Jesus says in Matthew 5 that it will not pass until the old heaven and earth are gone. In other words, it will last as long as there is imperfection in this world. Once the new heave and earth comes where there is no imperfection, this law will no longer be necessary.


Right. We are under the law of Christ which sums up the whole law. Look, even Paul preached the ten.

Gal 6:1-2
2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.
NASB

And what is that law of Christ?

Rom 13:8-10

8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
NASB


I've been saying this the entire thread. The law of Christ encompasses the righteous requirement of the law of God. However, they are not synonomous, and the Ten Commandments are not the same thing as the law of Christ. Again, one can keep the Ten Commandments and not be keeping the law of Christ. I can refrain from murdering someone and still not be keeping the law of Christ. I can not cheat on my wife but still not be keeping the law of Christ. They are not the same thing. The law of Christ will continue forever. The Ten Commandments will not.



We go even further and see that he even taught the Galatians about the 10.

Gal 5:13-15

13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
NASB


Again, everything I've said in this thread is in agreement with this statement by Paul. The law of Christ encompasses all the righteous requirements of the law, but they are not synonomous.


It is still used as a tutor to bring us to the fullness of Christ. In Gal 5, Paul used that law to show how some of them were backbiting and breaking the "love your neighbor" law. In doing so, he then went on to instruct them to love one another. As we grow in love, our freedom increases and we move out from under the law more and more. It is not only a state of being, but also a practical working out.

I don't see where I can agree that being dead to the law is something we have to work out more and more. The Word says we are dead to the old law if we are in Christ period. The only one who is under law is the one who continues in and practices sin. The old law served as a tutor because it showed the sinful condition of our heart. However, it does not change the heart. Only Jesus Christ can do that. When our heart is changed then we are no longer under the old law, but we are under the law of Christ that is from the heart. This law encompasses the righteousness of the old law, but it is not synonomous.


Ultimately, the entire law can be summed up in 1 Cor 13. Since the 10 are a law of love, they will not go away. There will be a sabbath rest of eternity, there will be a God for eternity, there will be love for eternity.

But the Ten Commandments do not say "Thou shall love . . ."

Do you see now the difference between the Spirit and the letter? When you state the Ten Commandments are eternal, you are saying that the letter is eternal. The letter is not eternal. There is no difference in the terms "Ten Commandments" and "the letter". They are synonomous. There is no difference in those two statements. That is why the law of Christ and the Ten Commandments cannot be the same.


And we will joyfully fulfill the law. Not because we are under it, but because he is in us.

But that's not what the Ten Commandments do. The Ten Commandments do not bring joyful fulfillment in us. The Ten Commandments only brought death as Paul pointed out. You seem to be looking at this from a "born again" perspective. When you fulfill the law you aren't keeping the Ten Commandments, but that is basically what you seem to be saying here. When you fulfill the law you are going much deeper than the Ten Commandments. When you fulfill the law it is not because you just didn't murder someone or cheat on your wife. You fulfilled the law when your heart is transformed to the fact that doing such a thing is against your nature and what you truly desire to do.


No. He said not one jot or tittle would pass away until all was fulfilled. Some jots and tittles have already passed away. So much was fulfilled. I don't see where it says in that scripture that the whole law will go away. It only says that not one jot or tittle would pass until all was fulfilled.

You just sort of contradicted yourself with this statement. You just confessed the truth of Scripture that NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE will pass from the law until all is fulfilled. Yet, in the same breath you said that some jots and tittles have passed. No jot or tittle can pass until every last one is fulfilled.


The spirit of the law can be found in the 10.

Then why can one keep the Ten and not be keeping the law of Christ? They are not the same thing. That's exactly what Jesus was saying when He began teaching on murder and adultery being a matter of the heart. The Ten Commandments never taught that murder and adultery were a heart matter. They simply said don't do it. However, the law of Christ is what says it's a heart matter. Again, they just aren't synonomous.


The letter lives in "thou shalt not". The spirit of that law can be seen in "love your neighbor as yourself".

And the Spirit of the law is the law of Christ . . . not the Ten Commandments.


A new command Christ gave us "even as I have loved you, so love ye one another". They all spring from the great law, the law of Christ. Until that law passes, how can the others pass? Will there be a sabbath rest in heaven?

The law of Christ has not and will not pass. What I'm trying to show you here is that the law of Christ and the Ten Commandments are not synonomous.

brakelite
May 15th 2008, 09:46 PM
VR saud...I think we are getting a little too technical with the written part here. The point here is that God is changing our hearts. He is changing the very reason why the letter had to be given. If our heart is changed and we are now about His righteousness and His holiness then there is no need for a written law telling us what is right and wrong and what we should do and not do. We have Him telling us that. We can now listen to His guidance and accept His direction because we want to please Him.

To say that we no longer need the written law because we have the Spirit in us, changing our hearts and guiding our actions, is fine for those who ...
a. know the law and
b. have the right Spirit.

But what of those who are deceived? What of those who do not know how to challenge the spirits to know whether they are of God? The reason we have so many sects and cults in the world is because they are being guided by demons. The reason they believe the spirits is because even though they have the law, they either don't read it or don't believe it. They are evidence that not only do we need the law, we should be constantly meditating upon it and studying it. Only by the written word can any of us be assured that we have the right Spirit.
Blessings
Brakelite

brakelite
May 15th 2008, 10:15 PM
I have great difficulty with the concept that if we obey the spirit of the law, then we don't need to worry about the letter because no-one can keep the letter.
I also have difficulty in dividing the 'Law of Christ' from the Ten Commandments.
They were both authored by the same Person. They were both exemplified by the same Person. The Law of Christ is the Ten Commandments, the only difference being in the focus of the 'keeping'.
Jesus kept the Ten Commandments how? By loving His Father and His fellow man perfectly. Right? That was the law of Christ. A law of love. He demonstrated that through love, one could keep the Ten Cs. He told us that it was upon the two great commandments of love that all the others hang. They are intimately and eternally connected. Love does not remove the ten, love enables us to obey the ten. The Pharisees were prime examples of those who were attempting to obey the law without love. Impossible. Jesus pointed this out to them in two ways.
First, even though they hadn't killed Him yet, He convicted them of sin by revealing their hatred. And though they may not have slept with their neighbors wife, He convicted them of sin by exposing their lust and covetousness.
So when the scriptures speak of writing the law upon our hearts, it is not referring to solely the ten comms or solely to the law of Christ. It is both. The Holy Spirit abides in us and we become partakers of the divine nature. That nature is love. It is the very love of God. That is the power we receive that we may become His children. The power of love. And that love, as we share it with God and our fellow man, demonstrates obedience to the Ten Cs, just as Jesus did. Thus we are enabled to walk as He walked. In full obedience to not only the spirit of the law, but also the letter.
After all, it would be very difficult to be obeying the spirit of the law and yet murder someone. How can you obey the spirit of the 7th commandment and not lust after someone, and not comply with what is written?

Partaker of Christ
May 15th 2008, 11:47 PM
You know, God held man accountable to several of these laws BEFORE the 10 commandments were given.

Cain slew Able, and it was sin. Murder is a sin under the Law, before the Law, and after the Law.

Adultery was revealed to be wrong prior to the Law (what happened to Pharaoh and Abimilech when they coveted another man's wife?) during the Law, and after the Law.

And certainly we see that not honoring God had serious consequences before... during... after.

So I think the bigger question is.... which of the commandments was not given before, which of them was not given after?


All the law hangs on these two things; Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.

Paul said, we can give all our goods to feed the poor, and give our bodies to be burned, but it means nothing if we have not love.

The point is, that since the fall, man cannot keep those two commands.
If you break one command in your heart, or your soul, or your mind, you break them all. So even if you think in your mind against the law, you have broken the first and greatest commandment.
Jesus said, every jot and title of the law will remain, so that includes sin committed in the mind.

God knows we are sinful, and that it is not in us to keep the whole of the law. He did not give the law to stop us from sin, but to expose our sin, so that we may see it.

God is not a wicked task master like Pharaoh, who would command the Israelites to build bricks without straw.

Deu 5:26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
Deu 5:27 Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
Deu 5:28 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spoke unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

Deu 5:29 O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!

The Israelites, said go and hear all that the Lord our God shall say to us, and will will hear and do it. God said that they have said well, but O that there were such a heart in them.

Naphal
May 16th 2008, 05:35 AM
I also have difficulty in dividing the 'Law of Christ' from the Ten Commandments.
They were both authored by the same Person. They were both exemplified by the same Person. The Law of Christ is the Ten Commandments, the only difference being in the focus of the 'keeping'.

Pardon? Only yesterday you made much effort to question the law of Christ had anything to do with any commandments:


It has been often repeated that the "Law of Christ" only includes those 9 commandments of the moral law reiterated in the NT and thus the Sabbath commandment, the 4th, is therefore not binding on Christians.
This is a very clever piece of deception because a closer study on what the "Law of Christ" actually is, shows that it has nothing at all to do with any of the commandments 9 or 10.

Ga 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

This is the only reference to the so called "Law of Christ". Where is there any reference to any commandment?


Did you change your mind on the law of Christ since yesterday?

brakelite
May 16th 2008, 08:35 AM
In order to avoid the Sabbath issue, the Law of Christ is made out to be a list of 9 commandments, thus 'proving' that the Sabbath no longer exists.
The 'Law of Christ' to my mind is Christ's righteousness. It is a way of living. A way of love. It is not a list of statutes as such, but a means by which those statutes can be obeyed.
The 10 Comms are the righteousness of God, being an expression of His character. Love is the same. In that sense, the Law of Christ and the Law of 10 Comms are the same, both being expressions of the nature and character of God.
The point being, the first was not done away to make way for the second. The second merely showed the way to fulfil the first. The first an obligation to obey, the second, the enabling.

Naphal
May 16th 2008, 08:45 AM
In that sense, the Law of Christ and the Law of 10 Comms are the same, both being expressions of the nature and character of God.

Can you comment on why you said the law of Christ has nothing at all to do with any of the 10 commandments?



This is a very clever piece of deception because a closer study on what the "Law of Christ" actually is, shows that it has nothing at all to do with any of the commandments 9 or 10.




The point being, the first was not done away to make way for the second.


Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.