PDA

View Full Version : We Shouldn't Teach the Ten Commandments



Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 02:14 AM
A lot of controversy comes up about obeying the Old Testament Law. Some people like to use the Old Testament against certain practices, such as getting tattoos. Other people feel like Christians are hypocrites because we eat pork or wear clothing of two kinds of fiber.

I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16.)

Some people have tried to divide the law into civil, moral, and ceremonial. they then say that Christians should obey the moral law, but not the civil and ceremonial, which was specific to Israel. I have two problems with that: 1. When you read through the Law, there is no categorization by such a system, all the laws are mixed together. The food laws are mixed with the sex laws, and the business laws, etc. 2. James 2 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

I think a better interpretation is that 1. The Law was given to the Jews and never applied to the Gentiles. A careful study of Amos supports this. 2. The Law has been fulfilled, completed, and abolished by the sacrifice of Christ. I have included some of the Scripture that teaches this at the end of this post.

Now, someone might say, 'but didn't Jesus say, "Until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5.)'

And I would respond, certainly, yes he did. However, the question is, What does Jesus mean by 'Heaven and Earth'? If we look at the contemporary literature and rabbinic writings, we find that the temple in Jerusalem was often referred to a 'heaven and earth' because it was seen as the place where heaven and earth united. For those of you who like math, it was seen as the intersection of heaven and earth. The temple was also seen to symbolize the whole earth. There was extensive artistic metaphor that depicted the courts as the seas and the chambers as the lands, etc.

So what Jesus is saying is, currently, you are still under the law, because I haven't died for sin yet, but you will know when you are no longer under the law because the temple will be destroyed. The temple was destroyed in 70AD by Roman armies.

I am not purposing that we as Christians should do whatever we want. There is certainly instruction on how to live in the New Testament. However, none of this teaching was written to us. It was written to specific ancient audiences with specific intentions in mind by the author, and in order to apply it to ourselves, we need to understand what the author was saying to the original audience, and extrapolate the theological principle behind it.


Verses that teach the abolition of the Law:
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31.)

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22.)

"When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second." (Hebrews 10.)

"Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 5.)

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (Romans 6.)

"All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up." (1 Corinthians 10.)

"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian" (Galatians 3.)

"If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Galatians 5.)

"He [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made us both [the Jews and the Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances." (Ephesians 2.)

"The one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing." (James 2, see also 1:25.)

"Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Hebrews 7.)

"Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near."(Hebrews 10.)

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand...

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." (Romans 14.)


*Please note that I am not purposing that the Ten Commandments are a bad idea, but they are not commandments to us. Furthermore, by emphasizing them over passages such as Matthew 5-7, we miss much of what we as Christians ARE commanded.

keck553
Oct 12th 2008, 02:18 AM
Please show me where the instruction for a man not to marry his sister is in the New Testament.

Thanks.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 02:31 AM
Please show me where the instruction for a man not to marry his sister is in the New Testament.

Thanks.


The Bible is not an exhaustive in its truth, nor in its moral stipulations. That is, there are sins that are not described by the Bible. Christians who are led by and obedient to the Holy Spirit will be able to discern what is sin. Scripture serves as a standard for us to evaluate what is leading of the Spirit, and what is not.

The purpose of the Bible is not and has never been primarily to serve as a moral code or a comprehensive set of sins. It is a record of God's acting in history by which we might understand God better. Through a clear understanding of the nature of God, we understand what is and is not pleasing to him. That is, what is and is not sin. More importantly, we understand how God has allowed for us to be in a right relationship with him through Christ, and how to accept such a gift.

The Bible was never a rulebook, and if we treat it as such, we will miss the entire meaning of our lives.

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Romans 13.)

keck553
Oct 12th 2008, 02:37 AM
Is a man marrying his sister moral in God's eyes?

danield
Oct 12th 2008, 02:50 AM
I think you are way off on your interpretation of Mathew 5 through 7. It did not abolish the 10 commandments but reinforced it.

Case in point

Matthew 5:19 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:21-22 21 ¶ "You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

This is just one of many scriptures that completely back’s up my point. The Ten Commandments say tho shall not murder, and Jesus is telling us that we should mean it in our hearts.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:03 AM
"Is a man marrying his sister moral in God's eyes?"

I would argue that it is not, because incest was understood to be within the meaning of the term 'sexual immorality' as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.

One could also argue that Genesis 2 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh," shows that the divine plan for marriage was that it be between members of different families. However, this is arguement is somewhat weaker because it is fairly inconsistant with the meaning of the passage.

Do you every wear clothes that are part cotton, and part polyester? Do you condemn farmers who grow hay and corn in the same field? Are dairy farmers who crossbreed cattle sinning? Because Leviticus 19:19 says,
"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

To me, this is the point James is making in ch 2 when he says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty."

If the Law is in force, those who wear cotton/polyester shirts are just as guilty of sin as those who are adulterers or murders, but James teaches that we should rather follow the law of liberty, that is, the new covenant.

markedward
Oct 12th 2008, 03:14 AM
Christ repeatedly pointed to the Old Testament in His teachings. Claiming we are to do away with them invalidates everything He said, because everything He said was rooted in the OT.

You can't just claim "sexual immorality" was "understood" to refer to incest. What about prostitution? Pre-marital sex? Rape? Bestiality? Etc.?

Christ spoke of "sexual immorality" as a sin. The only place to find out where "sexual immorality" is defined is the Old Testament laws.

The laws are entirely valid today, just as they were before Christ completed His work on the cross. The difference is that before, the Law condemned people. Today, the Law still condemns people in their sins, with the exception of those who have handed over their sin to Christ to be done away with. The ones who accept Christ's work upon the cross are forgiven of their sins. If there is no Law, there is no sin, because it is the Law that condemns people in their sin.

markinro
Oct 12th 2008, 03:15 AM
I'm curious. Where did you hear this or are you drawing your own personal interpretation ?

We are not to teach the 10 commandments, and therefore, according to your interpretation, we are not to obey them either.

Why would we obey commands but not teach it to future generations ?

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:16 AM
I think you are way off on your interpretation of Mathew 5 through 7. It did not abolish the 10 commandments but reinforced it.

Matthew 5:19 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:21-22 21 ¶ "You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

This is just one of many scriptures that completely back’s up my point. The Ten Commandments say tho shall not murder, and Jesus is telling us that we should mean it in our hearts.

I don't feel like you actually read my post. I didn't say that Matthew 5-7 abolish the old covenant, but rather they are the substance of the new covenant, which is built upon the old, and supersedes the old, and repeals the old.

The Old Covenant was actually suspended centuries before through the prophet Hosea, who said, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" which Jesus quotes to the Pharisees in response to their legalism in Matthew 9.

Jeremiah prophesied the eventual complete overturning of the Old Covenant with a New Covenant ont he ground that the Old Covenant has been broken and a new one is necessary. (ch. 31) Jesus fulfilled that prophesy at the last supper, (Luke 22) and inaugurated the new covenant.

As for Matthew 5:19, I already explained that. You seem to have ignored that. 'Heaven and earth' was a common expression that rabbis would use to refer to the temple. It has passed away. Furthermore, 'all' is accomplished, "Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit."

As Paul explains in Romans and Galatians, the Law has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer in force. Because the Old Covenant was broken, God in his authority replaced it with a New Covenant. He has the authority to do so.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 12th 2008, 03:21 AM
OK, now hold on everybody, let's not get carried away here. Chimon does have a point that some Christians go too far with Old Testament law and wind up descending into legalism. That is indeed something that should be avoided like the plague.

However, Chimon, neither do we need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament would make no sense. And while it is true that restrictions such as eating pork and fabric restrictions are not things that we need to be concerned about today, neither are those two things contained in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments (as well as a great deal of the rest of the Mosaic Law) are valuable for us today, if for no other reason than to be able to understand God's point of view regarding sin.

It's true that we don't need to be walking around in a constant state of panic over impending "judgment" raining down from Him since Christ already took that punishment for us, but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from it.

Oh, one more thing, the New Covenant does not repeal the Old Covenant - it fulfills it. We are still living under the Mosaic Law today. It's just that we don't have to worry about it, because Christ fulfilled it perfectly on our behalf, so we are granted judicial immunity through Him.

TrustingFollower
Oct 12th 2008, 03:26 AM
First thing that has to be considered in this. What was and/or is the law intended to do? Secondly we need to consider the two greatest commandments that Jesus taught about in the NT.

Paul spoke on this in great detail in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 7

7 ¶What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 ¶Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
14 ¶For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

So we can say without a law there is no sin. Now lets look back further and ask, were Adam and Eve under the law? Sure they were, they had one law. Do not covet. Did they keep that one law? Now lets look at the second thing we have to consider, the two greatest commandments.

Matthew 22

36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37 And He said to him, "`YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.´
38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.
39 "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.´
40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

We can see from these two commandments that it we do these two thing then we do keep all the ten commandments. So the ten commandment still apply to us as Christians today, just they are stated to us in a different way. The law is intended to point us to the need for the savior, and it points us to the savior. So in essence we have to become Jews spiritually before we can even become Christians. We have to be convicted by the law and admit the fact that we need a savior first. When we turn over our lives to Jesus as our savior then we become Christians. So you see I would have to say it is very important to teach our youth about the ten commandments.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:28 AM
I'm curious. Where did you hear this or are you drawing your own personal interpretation ?

We are not to teach the 10 commandments, and therefore, according to your interpretation, we are not to obey them either.

Why would we obey commands but not teach it to future generations ?


Well, I feel like a study of the Scripture I mentioned would lead you to this conclusion, but no, this is not only my opinion. Drs. William Marty (STM, ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary*) and Paul Penley (PhD. New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School*) affirm that the Law is not binding on Christians. This is actually a very common stance among evangelical scholars, and many more such theologians could be found to support this stance.

I regards to your other question, I think that the 10 commandments are generally good ideas, but we should teach all Scripture, but we generally teach the 10 commandments first to children. I think it would be more profitable to teach Scripture that applies to us more directly. The standard of Christian morality is not the 10 Commandments, but the Gospel.

*If you are suspicous of these scholars, you can look into it and you will find that both DTS and Trinity are conservative, orthodox, evangelical seminaries and that both of these theologians are in good standing with their academic/theological communities there.

danield
Oct 12th 2008, 03:35 AM
However, the question is, What does Jesus mean by 'Heaven and Earth'? If we look at the contemporary literature and rabbinic writings, we find that the temple in Jerusalem was often referred to a 'heaven and earth' because it was seen as the place where heaven and earth united. For those of you who like math, it was seen as the intersection of heaven and earth. The temple was also seen to symbolize the whole earth. There was extensive artistic metaphor that depicted the courts as the seas and the chambers as the lands, etc.

I read your post but your view of the expression of “heaven and earth” by rabbis is taken out of place. Christ is telling us that until the end of time God’s Law will be in place. It has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple nor is Christ suggesting anything about his death on the cross nor is it talking about an intersection of heaven and earth. He is simple stating that God’s law will be in place for all time for both heaven and earth, and if you teach people to break the law you will be the least in the kingdom of God.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:41 AM
We have to be convicted by the law and admit the fact that we need a savior first. When we turn over our lives to Jesus as our savior then we become Christians. So you see I would have to say it is very important to teach our youth about the ten commandments.

It was the purpose of the Law to convict of sin, but no longer, as Jesus himself taught: "Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned." (John 16.)


in essence we have to become Jews spiritually before we can even become Christians.

This absolutely false. This is known as the heresy of the Judiazers and is refuted by Acts 15.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:44 AM
I read your post but your view of the expression of “heaven and earth” by rabbis is taken out of place. Christ is telling us that until the end of time God’s Law will be in place. It has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple nor is Christ suggesting anything about his death on the cross nor is it talking about an intersection of heaven and earth. He is simple stating that God’s law will be in place for all time for both heaven and earth, and if you teach people to break the law you will be the least in the kingdom of God.

How do you know this? How are you able to arbitrate the meaning of such a passage? Isn't it warranted to consider how the historical context and cultural idioms reveal the meaning of Jesus' words to the original audience?

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:52 AM
However, Chimon, neither do we need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament would make no sense. And while it is true that restrictions such as eating pork and fabric restrictions are not things that we need to be concerned about today, neither are those two things contained in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments (as well as a great deal of the rest of the Mosaic Law) are valuable for us today, if for no other reason than to be able to understand God's point of view regarding sin.

I completely agree. I am in no way suggesting that we not study the OT, because without the OT we have no context for the NT. I am suggesting that we stop interpreting the OT as though it were written to us, because it wasn't. It may have been written for our benefit, but it was written to the ancient Israelites, and we can't apply it directly to our lives. We must interpret it through the lens of the Gospel.

Also, the OT itself predicts its own end in Jeremiah 31.


Oh, one more thing, the New Covenant does not repeal the Old Covenant - it fulfills it. We are still living under the Mosaic Law today. It's just that we don't have to worry about it, because Christ fulfilled it perfectly on our behalf, so we are granted judicial immunity through Him.

As I keep pointing out, one cannot make a distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law because James clearly states that one is either a transgressor of the whole law, or one is keeper of the whole Law. Therefore, says James, let focus on the new law, that is, the law of liberty or the new covenant.

Secondly, Paul says Jesus, "destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." If Paul specifically says Christ abolished the Law with tis commandments and regulations, and Scripture cannot be broken, how then can we say that we are still under the Mosaic law?

I think it is important to remember that the phrase 'Law" can refer to either the entire OT or the first five books (the Torah) but never refers to anything less than the Torah. That is, the term law includes both Leviticus 19 and Exodus 20.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 03:57 AM
My argument is not that the OT should never be taught but rather that it should not be taught as applying to us nor should it be taught first or foremost. The New Covenant, particularly the Gospel, should be used as the binding standard of morality, and should be taught far more extensively (The OT should still be referenced earlier on for context) than anything in the OT until believers are quite mature.

paidforinfull
Oct 12th 2008, 03:58 AM
The 10 commandments have NOT been done away with. They have just been perfected and fulfilled in Jesus.

Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

They should still be taught, otherwise how would children/people know that those things are wrong?

It certainly doesn't mean that Christians can sin and carry on as they please just because they have been/are being forgiven. No way! We love God - we want to please Him. We want to live as shining lights so that Jesus can be lifted up for all the world to see. We need to know what is right and wrong. Yes - the Holy Spirit will guide and teach us, but God has given us His Word, the Holy Bible, to do so as well. We can't decide that certain parts of the Bible are not 'suitable' to be taught to children or young Christians.

God bless.

TrustingFollower
Oct 12th 2008, 04:10 AM
It was the purpose of the Law to convict of sin, but no longer, as Jesus himself taught: "Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned." (John 16.)

This sounds all well and good, except we are not born with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Once we are born again of the Spirit, then the helper is in us. Hebrews tells us the God's laws are written in our minds and in our hearts.

Hebrews 8

10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Galatians 5

14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Why would Paul teach the way he did if the ten commandments did not apply? What law is he referring to? Why would God write the law on our minds and our hearts if they do not have any bearing to us? It is to point us to the savior. They way you are carrying on about not being under any law now, it sure sounds like you are saying you have a license to sin.

danield
Oct 12th 2008, 04:16 AM
How do you know this? How are you able to arbitrate the meaning of such a passage? Isn't it warranted to consider how the historical context and cultural idioms reveal the meaning of Jesus' words to the original audience?

When someone tells you until heaven and earth disappear what comes to your mind? You do not have to look up translations of ancient writings but a straight forward answer as to how long do you think heaven and earth will last. (We all know earth will not last forever but it is going to last a long, long time) This is how I know this. So many times we try to over think what Christ was telling us that we split hairs reading his message. It then leads to many unfounded doctrine.
I want to also point out the significance of Christ telling us

Matthew 5:19 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.
If he had meant something other than a straight forward expression that the 10 commandments remain God’s laws then he would have told us so here, but instead he reinforced his commandments. There is no need to unravel the OT based on rabbinic writings of what heaven and earth meant to them during their time. It is so straight forward that it would cause me great grief trying to think other wise no matter what I read from any rabbi of any time!

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 06:54 AM
This sounds all well and good, except we are not born with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Once we are born again of the Spirit, then the helper is in us. Hebrews tells us the God's laws are written in our minds and in our hearts.

Orthodox evangelicals would say that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in nonchristians, but He does interact with them. The Holy Spirit is involved in the illumination of Scripture to both believers and nonbelievers, the regeneration of a nonbeliever to a believer, the conviction of sin in all people, and the restraint of sin in the world. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin in the conversion process, not the law.



Why would Paul teach the way he did if the ten commandments did not apply? What law is he referring to? Why would God write the law on our minds and our hearts if they do not have any bearing to us? It is to point us to the savior. They way you are carrying on about not being under any law now, it sure sounds like you are saying you have a license to sin.

Paul, in Romans, is explains the technicalities of Roman Christian's salvation so that they would be seized with the joy of their salvation and be thereby motivated to more effectively and passionately spread the gospel.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say we were not under any law. I specifically said we are under the law of liberty. I also said that we are under the New Covenant and specifically mentioned Jesus teachings in Matthew 5-7 as applying to us. My point is not that the Torah is irrelevant, nor is my point that Christians are free to sin, Paul says specifically, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

My point is that God has made different covenants with people throughout history, and some of his covenants supersede others. For example, in the Abrahamic covenant, patriarchs could make sacrifices to God, but under the Mosaic covenant, only priests could make sacrifices to God. In the same way, the New Covenant supersedes the Mosaic Covenant. This was always God's intention.

If this is not so, explain to me what these verses mean:

"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian" (Galatians 3.)

"If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Galatians 5.)

"He [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made us both [the Jews and the Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances." (Ephesians 2.)

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 07:00 AM
The 10 commandments have NOT been done away with. They have just been perfected and fulfilled in Jesus.

Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

They should still be taught, otherwise how would children/people know that those things are wrong?

It certainly doesn't mean that Christians can sin and carry on as they please just because they have been/are being forgiven.

You are putting words in my mouth. Or, to use a rhetorical term, you are committing a strawman fallacy. When did I, or anyone else in this thread, suggest that Christians could sin and do what ever they want? Is your morality really dependent on the 10 commandments?

By 'those things,' I suppose you mean the things the 10 commandments prohibit. Let's take the example of breaking the sabbath. What does Paul have to say about that commandment?

"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God." (Romans 14.)

That sounds a lot like honoring the Sabbath (and obeying food laws) are personal choices. If that is not what Paul is saying in this passage, what is it that he is saying?

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 07:12 AM
When someone tells you until heaven and earth disappear what comes to your mind? You do not have to look up translations of ancient writings but a straight forward answer as to how long do you think heaven and earth will last. (We all know earth will not last forever but it is going to last a long, long time) This is how I know this. So many times we try to over think what Christ was telling us that we split hairs reading his message. It then leads to many unfounded doctrine.
I want to also point out the significance of Christ telling us

If he had meant something other than a straight forward expression that the 10 commandments remain God’s laws then he would have told us so here, but instead he reinforced his commandments. There is no need to unravel the OT based on rabbinic writings of what heaven and earth meant to them during their time. It is so straight forward that it would cause me great grief trying to think other wise no matter what I read from any rabbi of any time!


I think the issue we have here is a difference on the inspiration of Scripture. I believe that the inspiration of Scripture is in the WORDS of the ORIGINAL TEXTS as expressed by the author to the ORIGINAL AUDIENCE.

You seem to be treating the text as though the inspiration was in the words of your ENGLISH TRANSLATION as expressed from the book to YOU.

I, therefore, believe that it is important to understand historical context and original language and idiom in order to understand the author's expressed (or intended) meaning. You seem content with trusting the words in your English translation at face value without understanding context.

Since every respectable scholar and church figure I have read supports the use of a correct science of interpretation, or hermeneutics, I feel that there is more to interpreting the Bible than merely taking the words in my English translation at face value, without historical context.

I can also guarantee you that every accredited collegiate pastoral training program will teach hermeneutics that are in favor using literary, cotextual, and historical context to interpret Scripture. They will pay much attention to the original language and it's idioms, and they will certainly emphasize contemporary extracanoniacal literature as means of understanding the meanings of language.

I would be interested to know where you learned your interpretive techniques and why it is you think you have the authority to tell me that your interpretation is absolutely correct over mine.

justinbporter
Oct 12th 2008, 08:06 AM
Excellent discussion guys, this has been fun to read. I'd have to mostly side with Chimon, not that we should abolish the 10 commandments, but that the new two commandments should be focused on as a moral compass... they were mentioned previously, but here they are again.


37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37-40;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23908a)] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

All the Law and the Prophets hung on those two commandments because the unclean meats and all that were part of their society. Those things are not a part of our society today.

Ultimately, what Chimon is saying is that not all of the OT stuff applies to us in modern society, and it sounds like most of you agree. As long as you love God and love man, that's all you need to do. And that might look different in different societies and cultures. Obviously, there are some universal morals that are upheld in all societies (such as not murdering), but things like keeping the sabbath might only be a sin if it causes someone else to stumble or to think you are evil.

Paul sums this viewpoint up well in this passage out of Romans:

Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. (14) I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (15) Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. (16) Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; (17) for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (18) For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. (19) Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. (20) Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. (21) It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. (22) Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. (23) But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. [B]Romans 14:13-23

In conclusion:
Love God
Love man
Don't cause anyone else to fall away from God because of your actions

And I believe that is what we should focus on as modern Christians.

Firstfruits
Oct 12th 2008, 10:53 AM
How does either doing what is written in the law or not doing what is written in the law apply to the following which tell us that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Gal 3:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Have we truly put on the new man?

Col 3:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Have the old things passed away?

2 Cor 5:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2 Cor 5:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2 Cor 5:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2 Cor 5:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Are we a new creation/Man?

Firstfruits

ananias
Oct 12th 2008, 11:42 AM
Lawlessness in relation to what law?

"For the mystery of lawlessness (Greek: anomia ) is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst. And then the lawless (Greek: anomos ) one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming," (2Thes.2: 7-8)

"And many false prophets will rise and deceive many. And because iniquity (lawlessness: Greek: anomia ) shall abound, the love of many will become cold." (Mat.24: 11-12)

"And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (Greek: anomia ) (Mat.7: 23)

Firstfruits
Oct 12th 2008, 11:53 AM
Lawlessness in relation to what law?

"For the mystery of lawlessness (Greek: anomia ) is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst. And then the lawless (Greek: anomos ) one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming," (2Thes.2: 7-8)

"And many false prophets will rise and deceive many. And because iniquity (lawlessness: Greek: anomia ) shall abound, the love of many will become cold." (Mat.24: 11-12)

"And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (Greek: anomia ) (Mat.7: 23)


Rom 3:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Jesus is the righteousness of God that has been decalred by the law and the prophets and the Psalms.

So there is a difference between the two sets of scripture.

Does being neither Jew nor Gentile mean that we are lawless in regards to the scriptures you have given?

Is the New Man/Creature lawless?

Is Christ lawless?

Firstfruits

RoadWarrior
Oct 12th 2008, 12:07 PM
A lot of controversy comes up about obeying the Old Testament Law. ....

I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
...
.
I think a better interpretation is that 1. The Law was given to the Jews and never applied to the Gentiles. A careful study of Amos supports this. 2. The Law has been fulfilled, completed, and abolished by the sacrifice of Christ. I have included some of the Scripture that teaches this at the end of this post.

..
..
I am not purposing that we as Christians should do whatever we want. There is certainly instruction on how to live in the New Testament. However, none of this teaching was written to us. It was written to specific ancient audiences with specific intentions in mind by the author, and in order to apply it to ourselves, we need to understand what the author was saying to the original audience, and extrapolate the theological principle behind it.

*Please note that I am not purposing that the Ten Commandments are a bad idea, but they are not commandments to us. Furthermore, by emphasizing them over passages such as Matthew 5-7, we miss much of what we as Christians ARE commanded.

Chimon, I am very concerned about your thread. Is this what you are being taught in your Bible school?

If the ten commandments have been invalidated, then by your teaching it is ok to murder, lust after your neighbor's wife, curse in the name of God, etc.

Your OP document might get you good grades from your professors, but you can see that it causes consternation here on the board. As Christians, we believe in the whole Word of God, we don't throw away twothirds of it because it is "ancient". Nor do we disregard it because it was preached to "ancient peoples".

You take offense because another poster has not accepted your authority, but rather listens to a greater authority. We could all ask you the same question. Who gave you authority to teach the things you are saying?

Please be willing to hear what others (especially elders) have to say. You are not the first to bring these arguments to the board and I'm sure you will not be the last. But it is not a subject that edifies your brothers and sisters in the Lord, nor is it a good witness to the guest readers who may or may not be of the faith.

from your posted scriptures ...
.
.Therefore let us ...decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother..

So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. .." (Romans 14.)

markinro
Oct 12th 2008, 12:22 PM
Well, I feel like a study of the Scripture I mentioned would lead you to this conclusion, but no, this is not only my opinion. Drs. William Marty (STM, ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary*) and Paul Penley (PhD. New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School*) affirm that the Law is not binding on Christians. This is actually a very common stance among evangelical scholars, and many more such theologians could be found to support this stance.

I regards to your other question, I think that the 10 commandments are generally good ideas, but we should teach all Scripture, but we generally teach the 10 commandments first to children. I think it would be more profitable to teach Scripture that applies to us more directly. The standard of Christian morality is not the 10 Commandments, but the Gospel.

*If you are suspicous of these scholars, you can look into it and you will find that both DTS and Trinity are conservative, orthodox, evangelical seminaries and that both of these theologians are in good standing with their academic/theological communities there.

I read that William Marcy also does not think the 10 commandments should be displayed on public property. This is a typical liberal perspective and misapplication of the separation of church and state - which is NOT in the constitution but was later injected by liberal court justices. This is the guy who is guiding your thinking ??? He goes on to say that we should also display other religious symbols - muslim, jewish, etc. The United States of America is a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles INCLUDING the 10 commandments.

paidforinfull
Oct 12th 2008, 12:28 PM
You are putting words in my mouth. Or, to use a rhetorical term, you are committing a strawman fallacy. When did I, or anyone else in this thread, suggest that Christians could sin and do what ever they want? Is your morality really dependent on the 10 commandments?

By 'those things,' I suppose you mean the things the 10 commandments prohibit. Let's take the example of breaking the sabbath. What does Paul have to say about that commandment?


If we didn't know what sin was, we could not be held accountable for doing that which is wrong. The 10 commandments do just that - they inform us that certain things are wrong. God also knew that it would be humanly impossible to keep all the commandments. He wants humans to see that we are incapable of getting to heaven on our own steam. The 10 commandments do just that.

As I mentioned before:
We love God, and we want to do those things which please Him. We have the Holy Spirit and the Bible to guide us. We need to teach the whole Bible (including the 10 commandments).

Does the fact that we are allowed to eat anything or that a specific day should not be more important than another mean that we cannot teach the 10 commandments? No - they should be taught in conjunction with the relevant verses pertaining to these topics in the New Testament.

In the same way, people should also be taught that committing adultery is not the end of the matter either, but that the NT teaches us that we are not even allowed to commit adultery in our minds.

Bottom line - teach the whole Bible. The whole Bible does include the 10 commandments.

(And no - my morality is certainly not dependent on the 10 commandments. I have been saved by Grace alone, through my faith in Jesus Christ.)

God bless.

Joe D
Oct 12th 2008, 01:12 PM
I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16.)

I'm wondering, If I'm being guided by the Holy Spirit how many of the Ten Commandments will I be guided to break? And if any...Will it glorify Christ?

BHS
Oct 12th 2008, 02:01 PM
To take a verse from Amos and claim that God did not intend His instructions for anyone but Jews, can only be held by someone who has not throughly and carefully studied the rest of the Scriptures.

The Creator of the World has a sovereign right to impute His righteous standard upon it. And He does. When Adonai told Jonah to go to Nineveh to preach repentance to them – whose standard would they have been judged by, but a Holy God, alone?

Moses, as a prophet spoke repentance to the Israelites, as did all the other prophets in their history. When John came on the scene after 400 years of silence, preaching repentance – what standard were they to use for repentance?

To say that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth is bothersome if you do not know what that truth is. The Scripture defines it this way –


Psalm 119:160 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. Shin.

There is a righteous standard that everyone is to adhere to. It is to be taught diligently to our children and our children’s children.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If only for this one verse, I cannot agree with your position. The OT could not be used for reproof, correction or training in righteousness if it has no application.

Blessings,
BHS

ananias
Oct 12th 2008, 02:11 PM
Rom 3:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Jesus is the righteousness of God that has been decalred by the law and the prophets and the Psalms.

So there is a difference between the two sets of scripture.

Does being neither Jew nor Gentile mean that we are lawless in regards to the scriptures you have given?

Is the New Man/Creature lawless?

Is Christ lawless?

Firstfruits

Christ obeyed the Ten Commandments - perfectly. So no, He wasn't Lawless.

But we cannot come to Christ unless we realize our need.
We cannot realize our need unless we are convicted of our sin.
We cannot know what sin is except we know the Ten Commandments.

So to the statement (quote)

"I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit."

I will say, "stop teaching the Ten Commandments and you will have the seed of lawlessness in the church".

Roswell
Oct 12th 2008, 02:42 PM
The law was given to show us our sins, those who do not profess Christ and are not Christians remain under the law. They must, as Jesus said, be perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)(Leviticus 19:2)
But as Romans 3:23 says, no one can be without sin. 1 John says that if we say we have no sin then we have no truth in us. The law is a schoolmaster, this is how we know we need a savior. (Galatians 3:24) The law of the Lord is perfect... (Psalm 19:7)

After we are born again, the law becomes the very thing that proves our salvation. By our fruit, we show that God has indeed saved us. (1 John 2:3-9)

I would like to point out 1 John 2:2-3, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments
The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him..."



Notice I highlighted the "His" in the text. Who is this refering to? We seem to seperate the commands of Jesus from the commands of the Father... Why? Are they not God? Are they not of the same mind? If Jesus speaks, God is speaking. They are Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Three but one.


What were Jesus' cammands? They were the same commands that the Father gave us.

ananias
Oct 12th 2008, 02:56 PM
I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (John 16.)

Some people have tried to divide the law into civil, moral, and ceremonial.

"as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance, but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy.

And if you call on the Father, who without respect of persons judges according to the work of each one, pass the time of your earthly residence in fear, knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;" (1Pet.1: 14-19).

How do we know what holiness is?

The Ten Commandments are a reflection of the Holiness and standard of God. The Ten Commandments = the wll of God.

God requires obedience to the Ten Commandments. HOW?

"I say, then, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." (Gal.5: 16).

Thank God, Jesus perfectly oebeyed the Ten Commandments and all we who are IN HIM are clothed with HIS rightreousness.

But leave out the Ten Commandments and you've taken away the gospel with it.

Leave out the Ten Commandments and you create lawlessness - the thing which God hates.

danield
Oct 12th 2008, 06:15 PM
KJG Matthew 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
KJV Matthew 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
NAS Matthew 5:17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
NET Matthew 5:17 ¶ "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.
NKJ Matthew 5:17 ¶ " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
NLT Matthew 5:17 ¶ "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
TNT Matthew 5:17 ¶ Thinke not that I am come to destroye the lawe or the Prophets: no I am nott come to destroye them but to fulfyll them.
WEB Matthew 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.




KJG Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
KJV Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
NAS Matthew 5:18 "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.
NET Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.
NKJ Matthew 5:18 "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.
NLT Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.
TNT Matthew 5:18 For truely I saye vnto you till heven and erth perisshe one iott or one tytle of the lawe shall not scape tyll all be fulfilled.
WEB Matthew 5:18 For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



You asked the question what Christ meant by “heaven and earth.” Well in every translation they sentence structure calls for when heaven and earth pass or poasses away. The semantics point directly to the reference of time. Not a place where heaven and earth unite.




I would be interested to know where you learned your interpretive techniques and why it is you think you have the authority to tell me that your interpretation is absolutely correct over mine.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

I will argue that we should not teach the Ten Commandments in Sunday School because they are now completely invalidated by the new covenant. Christians are not bound by the old covenant, and are not responsible to follow any of its laws. We are instead responsible to obey new covenant (e.g. Matthew 5-7) and the leading of the Holy Spirit.


Well let me start off by saying that you are trying to diverge from most every major translation of the bible that has ever been written. So my interpretation of these passages comes from the countless men who have given much of their lives researching scripture. Many of who were extremely educated in Hebrew and Greek languages, and in each and every case the meaning of their translations remain basically the same on the issue you raised. And the meaning of that passage is collaborated countless times in the New Testament by Christ himself. Let’s look at what Christ told us through out the New Testament about following the commandments.

1) Exodus 20:3 3 ¶ "You must not have any other god but me.
Matthew 4:10 'You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.' "
Matthew 22:37 7 Jesus replied, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.'
Matthew 5:11-12 11 ¶ "God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way.

2) Exodus 20:4 4 ¶ "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea.
Matthew 4:10 'You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.' "
Matthew 22:37 7 Jesus replied, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.'
Matthew 6:24 24 ¶ "No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

3) Exodus 20:7 7 ¶ "You must not misuse the name of the LORD your God.
Matthew 22:37 7 Jesus replied, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.'
Matthew 6:9 Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.

4) Exodus 20:8 8 ¶ "Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Matthew 12:12 Yes, the law permits a person to do good on the Sabbath."

5) Exodus 20:12-17 12 ¶ "Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Matthew 15:4-9 4 For instance, God says, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.' 5 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.' 6 In this way, you say they don't need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, 8 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.' "

6) Exodus 20:13 13 ¶ "You must not murder.
Matthew 22:39-40 39 A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."
Matthew 5:21-22 21 ¶ "You have heard that our ancestors were told, 'You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' 22 But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

7) Exodus 20:14 14 ¶ "You must not commit adultery.
Matthew 22:39-40 39 A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."
Matthew 5:27-28 27 ¶ "You have heard the commandment that says, 'You must not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

8) Exodus 20:15 15 ¶ "You must not steal.
Matthew 5:23-24 23 "So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, 24 leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.
Matthew 22:39-40 39 A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."

9) Exodus 20:16 16 ¶ "You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.
Matthew 22:39-40 39 A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."


10) Exodus 20:17 17 ¶ "You must not covet your neighbor's house. You must not covet your neighbor's wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor."
Matthew 5:43-45 43 ¶ "You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike.
Matthew 22:39-40 39 A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."

So if your proposal was correct then there would be further fragmentation with in the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that directly challenged the law. And we only find countless scripture that supports following the Ten Commandments.

You ask what authority do I have to interpret translations over and above your ability, and my answer is that I have no authority. However, Christ has every authority to supersede what man twist to make his own law over and above God’s written law. This is what he says about people who do twist scripture to fit their own needs.



Matthew 15:3-9 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? 4 For instance, God says, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.' 5 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, 'Sorry, I can't help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.' 6 In this way, you say they don't need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, 8 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.' "


So when you claim that we should not look towards the commandments as a true guide to help us make decisions in our lives, you put the thought into men’s hearts that it is OK to over look wrongdoing, and in truth, your authority is from your own heart to try and manipulate scripture to fit your own idea of Christ. Christ told us to follow the commandments time and time again, and if anything he put more duties on us than what the original commandments laid out for us. If you are wondering why I am being so emphatic about your post, it is because you are planting seeds of man made ideas into the hearts of good men. There are many great Christians on this board who are searching deep in scripture for meaning of questions they have on their minds. And when someone says that it is OK to not worry about the original Ten Commandments, that is about as drastic deviation from what Christ taught us about being obedient servants of God.

God Bless

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 08:16 PM
So when you claim that we should not look towards the commandments as a true guide to help us make decisions in our lives, you put the thought into men’s hearts that it is OK to over look wrongdoing, and in truth, your authority is from your own heart to try and manipulate scripture to fit your own idea of Christ. Christ told us to follow the commandments time and time again, and if anything he put more duties on us than what the original commandments laid out for us. If you are wondering why I am being so emphatic about your post, it is because you are planting seeds of man made ideas into the hearts of good men. There are many great Christians on this board who are searching deep in scripture for meaning of questions they have on their minds. And when someone says that it is OK to not worry about the original Ten Commandments, that is about as drastic deviation from what Christ taught us about being obedient servants of God.

While I understand your concern, I think your accusation that I am a false teacher and a heretic is premature and illogical at best.

I said that we need not follow the ten commandments. That is not the same as saying that murder or adultery is okay. I am saying that the reason we, as Christians, know murder and adultery to be wrong should not be the Ten Commandments. I affirm a Christian morality, I merely deny that a Christian morality is based in the Torah.

I have never suggested that it is okay to overlook wrongdoing.

Nor am I manipulating Scripture to fit my own idea of Christ. This conclusion comes from a careful study of the totality of Scripture under some of the most educated, most conservative biblical scholars in the world.

Christ told us to follow his laws, by showing us that the ten commandments are insufficent measures of sin. Like so, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Mat 5.) So we see that, though Jesus is not in favor of violating the commandments, he teaches that they are insufficent, and superseded by his law, which in fact is stricter than the Old Covenant.

This is why it is so critical that we teach the New Covenant instruction first rather than the 10 commandments. Under the 10 Commandments, I may lust after a woman in my heart, but under the New Covenant, such is sin. By teaching the 10 commandments in Sudnay School rather than the New Covenant teachings, we are being permissive of a great deal of sin. For you to say that such a stance is a proposal of licensiousness is a complete misrepresentation of my statements. I my first post I specifically said, "Please note that I am not purposing that the Ten Commandments are a bad idea, but they are not commandments to us. Furthermore, by emphasizing them over passages such as Matthew 5-7, we miss much of what we as Christians ARE commanded." To twist my words so badly seems to me unloving and unchristlike. I would like to know why it is you feel the need to do this, rather than addressing the statements I have actually made.

I regards to your translations, I am not suggesting that there has been any mistranslation, the phrase heavens and the earth (ὁ οὐρανος και ἡ γῆ) appears in the original greek. My stance is that the phrase is a common Jewish idiom for the temple. Since there could be differing interpretations of this phrase, the translators followed custom as they should and translated the words, rather than the idiom.

You accuse me of manipulating Scripture on the basis that I do not take a certain phrase literally. In reality, much of the Bible uses figurative language and idiom, and proper interpretive technique requires that we take literary devices such as idiom into account when interpreting the text. This has been the convention of proper interpretation for thousands of years. If you think I am lying to you, you can ask you pastor about hermentuetics.

Your accusation that I have a low regard for Scripture is grave, closed minded, and unloving. There are people who have a high regard for Scripture who will still disagree with your interpretation. You say I am the one who has a poor regard for Scripture, and yet my arguement was based almost entirely on Biblical texts, none of which you have bothered to address. If what I am saying is not true, tell me what these passages mean:

"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian" (Galatians 3.)

"If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." (Galatians 5.)

"He [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made us both [the Jews and the Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances." (Ephesians 2.)

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:25 PM
Chimon, I am very concerned about your thread. Is this what you are being taught in your Bible school?

If the ten commandments have been invalidated, then by your teaching it is ok to murder, lust after your neighbor's wife, curse in the name of God, etc.

On the contrary, I was very clear that Christians are still under a moral standard. My point is that the moral standard is found in the new covenant (given by Jesus and the apostles) rather than the old covenant.


As Christians, we believe in the whole Word of God, we don't throw away twothirds of it because it is "ancient". Nor do we disregard it because it was preached to "ancient peoples".

This is not at all what I am proposing. I think it is important to be precise in understanding what I am saying. I believe I specifically said that we do not disregard the Old Testament, but we understand it as something written to the ancient Israelites, extrapolate theological principles, and apply those to our lives. This is the epitome of good interpretive techniques.


You take offense because another poster has not accepted your authority, but rather listens to a greater authority. We could all ask you the same question. Who gave you authority to teach the things you are saying?

On the contrary, I take offense because another poster is not willing to discuss this with equality and openness as brother, but rather supposed that they have the authority to declare the meaning of a passage of Scripture and declare me a heretic without even addressing my argument. I am not trying to get anyone to recognize 'my authority' for I claim none.



Please be willing to hear what others (especially elders) have to say.

That's good advice. I think it's important to listen to our elders in the faith. This interpretation of Scripture is based on the teachings of several of my elders, who are elders among elders and pastors of pastors in the Church. They are well respected and completely orthodox.


You are not the first to bring these arguments to the board and I'm sure you will not be the last. But it is not a subject that edifies your brothers and sisters in the Lord, nor is it a good witness to the guest readers who may or may not be of the faith.
.Therefore let us ...decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother..
So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. .." (Romans 14.)

I am completely willing to hear these arguments, and they are the arguments I was raised in. I contend that holding the 10 commandments so high 1. is spiritually destructive because it minimizes the more stringent and internal decrees of the new covenant, such as those in Matthew 5-7, 1 John 4, Romans etc. and 2. creates a poor witness. Why a poor witness? Because Christians do not obey much of the rest of the old testament, such as the majority of Leviticus. It makes us seem quite hypocritical when we pick and choose what Scripture we obey.

If however, Scripture teaches that we are not bound by the ordinances in the Old Testament, (but rather the teaching of the new testament) then we are obeying all Scripture, and we are not picking and choosing what to obey, and we are not at all hypocritical.

The basis for this idea is a more unified and noncontradictory view of Scripture.

Paul addresses the issue of Christians who condemn other because of 'actions that cause believers to stumble' in 1 Corinthians 10. This has always been in reference to participation in actions that some believe to be sin, such as eating food sacrificed to idols. Biblical teaching is never described in the Bible as an action to be avoided because it causes some to stumble. Those who stumble over Biblical teaching do so because they believe that which is false. 1 Corinthians 1: "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles."

"For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?" 1 Corinthians 10

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:27 PM
I read that William Marcy also does not think the 10 commandments should be displayed on public property. This is a typical liberal perspective and misapplication of the separation of church and state - which is NOT in the constitution but was later injected by liberal court justices. This is the guy who is guiding your thinking ??? He goes on to say that we should also display other religious symbols - muslim, jewish, etc. The United States of America is a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles INCLUDING the 10 commandments.

This is in no way about the display of the Ten Commandments. I have no idea who William Marcy is.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:29 PM
I'm wondering, If I'm being guided by the Holy Spirit how many of the Ten Commandments will I be guided to break? And if any...Will it glorify Christ?

I think you might be guided to break the fourth one, as Paul says in Romans 14 that some brother may consider every day alike, and some may consider one more sacred, and each should not judge the other, for each does so to the Lord.

Tanya~
Oct 12th 2008, 09:31 PM
1 Tim 1:5-11
5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
NKJV

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:32 PM
To take a verse from Amos and claim that God did not intend His instructions for anyone but Jews, can only be held by someone who has not throughly and carefully studied the rest of the Scriptures.

I didn't quote anything out of Amos...



To say that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth is bothersome if you do not know what that truth is. The Scripture defines it this way –
There is a righteous standard that everyone is to adhere to. It is to be taught diligently to our children and our children’s children.

I completely agree. That standard is found in the New Testament.



If only for this one verse, I cannot agree with your position. The OT could not be used for reproof, correction or training in righteousness if it has no application.

I did not at all state that the OT has no application. As I have said four or five times now, the OT should be interpreted in context and applied through a principlizing bridge to our lives.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:36 PM
We cannot know what sin is except we know the Ten Commandments.

False. Paul preached numerous sermons in Acts without reference to the Law. Also, John 16 teaches us that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin. Romans teaches that without having the law, the Gentile know their actions to be wrong.



I will say, "stop teaching the Ten Commandments and you will have the seed of lawlessness in the church".

The New Covenant is in fact a superior covenant (according to Hebrews) and is sufficient to protect against lawlessness.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:39 PM
Notice I highlighted the "His" in the text. Who is this refering to? We seem to seperate the commands of Jesus from the commands of the Father... Why? Are they not God? Are they not of the same mind? If Jesus speaks, God is speaking. They are Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Three but one.

What were Jesus' cammands? They were the same commands that the Father gave us.

His commandments are the teachings of Christ. While The Father's commands to Israel were just as inspired, they were commands to the Israelites, not to Christians.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:44 PM
"as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance, but according to the Holy One who has called you, you also become holy in all conduct, because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy.

And if you call on the Father, who without respect of persons judges according to the work of each one, pass the time of your earthly residence in fear, knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;" (1Pet.1: 14-19).

How do we know what holiness is?

The Ten Commandments are a reflection of the Holiness and standard of God. The Ten Commandments = the wll of God.

God requires obedience to the Ten Commandments. HOW?

"I say, then, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." (Gal.5: 16).

Thank God, Jesus perfectly oebeyed the Ten Commandments and all we who are IN HIM are clothed with HIS rightreousness.

But leave out the Ten Commandments and you've taken away the gospel with it.

Leave out the Ten Commandments and you create lawlessness - the thing which God hates.

This is by far the best argument yet. The Law does indeed teach us holiness, but so does the life of Christ and the ministry of the Spirit.

Why are only the ten commandments a reflection of God's holiness, and not the rest of the Law? If the the rest of the law is, why do Christians not obey Leviticus? If the rest of the Law is not, why does James say that he who breaks one ordinance is a transgressor of the whole law?

If the law is the perfect reflection of holiness, why does Christ say, ""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Mt 5.) If the law were a perfect reflection of holiness, Christ would not need to have elaborated on it.

Further, if the law were the perfect reflection of holiness, God would not have said, "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6.)

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:48 PM
1 Tim 1:5-11
5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
NKJV


This passage seems to support exactly what I am saying, that the law is not for Christians. Although I would say a better translation of verse 5 would be the ESV, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

This also supports a law of love rather than a law or the old covenant.

It would be easier to know what you were saying if you provided also your interpretation of this passage.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 09:50 PM
You can't just claim "sexual immorality" was "understood" to refer to incest. What about prostitution? Pre-marital sex? Rape? Bestiality? Etc.?

Christ spoke of "sexual immorality" as a sin. The only place to find out where "sexual immorality" is defined is the Old Testament laws.

In fact, I can claim such. If we can't claim to know the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words and phrases, what is the point of exegetical hermeneutics?

Tanya~
Oct 12th 2008, 09:56 PM
This passage seems to support exactly what I am saying, that the law is not for Christians.

What if the Christian is acting contrary to sound doctrine as Paul lays it out in the passage?


Although I would say a better translation of verse 5 would be the ESV, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."I'm not sure how that would make any difference really.


This also supports a law of love rather than a law or the old covenant.

It would be easier to know what you were saying if you provided also your interpretation of this passage.It relates to this:

Gal 5:19-26
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
NKJV

It doesn't matter if a person calls themselves a Christian. If they walk in the Spirit, there is no law against what they are doing. This is the "righteous person" for whom the law is not made.

But the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom, and for such persons the law can show them their sin so they can repent and be saved. That is the lawful use of the law.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 10:19 PM
What if the Christian is acting contrary to sound doctrine as Paul lays it out in the passage?

I'm not sure how that would make any difference really.

It relates to this:

Gal 5:19-26
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
NKJV

It doesn't matter if a person calls themselves a Christian. If they walk in the Spirit, there is no law against what they are doing. This is the "righteous person" for whom the law is not made.

But the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom, and for such persons the law can show them their sin so they can repent and be saved. That is the lawful use of the law.

Thank you. I completely agree. However, nonchristians can also be shown their sin without the use of the law, as Paul does in Acts 17:16 and onward. Paul also says this in Romans 1:18 onward.

Chimon
Oct 12th 2008, 10:22 PM
I read that William Marcy also does not think the 10 commandments should be displayed on public property. This is a typical liberal perspective and misapplication of the separation of church and state - which is NOT in the constitution but was later injected by liberal court justices. This is the guy who is guiding your thinking ??? He goes on to say that we should also display other religious symbols - muslim, jewish, etc. The United States of America is a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles INCLUDING the 10 commandments.

I think if you were a little less careless you would not jump to such conclusions. I must assume you are referencing Dr. William Martin, Ph.D. (http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-religious-symbols-be-displayed-on-public-property) while I clearly referenced Dr. William Marty, Th.D. (http://www.moody.edu/edu_FacultyProfile.aspx?id=4536)

Tanya~
Oct 12th 2008, 10:26 PM
Thank you. I completely agree. However, nonchristians can also be shown their sin without the use of the law, as Paul does in Acts 17:16 and onward. Paul also says this in Romans 1:18 onward.

Why then do you think Paul affirms the law in his letter to Timothy?

BHS
Oct 12th 2008, 11:37 PM
Here is the quote --




I think a better interpretation is that 1. The Law was given to the Jews and never applied to the Gentiles. A careful study of Amos supports this.

*Please note that I am not purposing that the Ten Commandments are a bad idea, but they are not commandments to us.

Again, a careful study of the OT reveals otherwise.

There certainly is a righteous standard found in the NT, but it originated in the OT.

If the 10 commandments are not for us today and you say the OT has some relevance, what application do you find in the OT for us today?

Blessings,
BHS

apothanein kerdos
Oct 12th 2008, 11:52 PM
This is a misunderstanding of the DTS position.

They do teach that we're not governed by the letter of the Law, but instead that we are covered by the Spirit of the Law (at least, this is what the DTS' Bible Knowledge Commentary teaches).

Thus, while we no longer have to literally sacrifice for atonement, we do have to accept THE sacrifice for atonement. That is the Law. You not longer are forbidden from receiving tattoos, but we should not fall into the ways of the world when it comes to certain acts.

If the Law were invalidated, then Jesus is a fool for saying the two greatest commandments are to love God with our being and love our neighbor as ourselves - considering this is a summation of the Law.

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 12:53 AM
This is a misunderstanding of the DTS position.

They do teach that we're not governed by the letter of the Law, but instead that we are covered by the Spirit of the Law (at least, this is what the DTS' Bible Knowledge Commentary teaches).

Thus, while we no longer have to literally sacrifice for atonement, we do have to accept THE sacrifice for atonement. That is the Law. You not longer are forbidden from receiving tattoos, but we should not fall into the ways of the world when it comes to certain acts.

If the Law were invalidated, then Jesus is a fool for saying the two greatest commandments are to love God with our being and love our neighbor as ourselves - considering this is a summation of the Law.

If the law is in force how is it that we are not forbidden from receiving tattoos?

keck553
Oct 13th 2008, 12:53 AM
"Is a man marrying his sister moral in God's eyes?"

I would argue that it is not, because incest was understood to be within the meaning of the term 'sexual immorality' as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.

One could also argue that Genesis 2 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh," shows that the divine plan for marriage was that it be between members of different families. However, this is arguement is somewhat weaker because it is fairly inconsistant with the meaning of the passage.

Do you every wear clothes that are part cotton, and part polyester? Do you condemn farmers who grow hay and corn in the same field? Are dairy farmers who crossbreed cattle sinning? Because Leviticus 19:19 says,
"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

To me, this is the point James is making in ch 2 when he says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty."

If the Law is in force, those who wear cotton/polyester shirts are just as guilty of sin as those who are adulterers or murders, but James teaches that we should rather follow the law of liberty, that is, the new covenant.

No, without Torah, you can not infer Paul's statement. God determines morality, not Sha'ul (Paul).
Torah showed what was justified in response. Y'shua showed us a better way to respond.

And yes, unequally yoked is a major problem.

God does not change. He changes us.

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 12:54 AM
Here is the quote --



Again, a careful study of the OT reveals otherwise.

There certainly is a righteous standard found in the NT, but it originated in the OT.

If the 10 commandments are not for us today and you say the OT has some relevance, what application do you find in the OT for us today?

Blessings,
BHS

Without the OT, we have no context for understanding the NT. Text without context is meaningless. I agree that the New Covenant is based in the old, however, in most sunday schools, we teach the old covenant instead of the new covenant. I am arguing that instead, we should teach the new covenant in the context of the old covenant.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 13th 2008, 12:55 AM
If the law is in force how is it that we are not forbidden from receiving tattoos?


Beautiful job ignoring what I said. Just masterful!


This is a misunderstanding of the DTS position.

They do teach that we're not governed by the letter of the Law, but instead that we are covered by the Spirit of the Law (at least, this is what the DTS' Bible Knowledge Commentary teaches).

Thus, while we no longer have to literally sacrifice for atonement, we do have to accept THE sacrifice for atonement. That is the Law. You not longer are forbidden from receiving tattoos, but we should not fall into the ways of the world when it comes to certain acts.

If the Law were invalidated, then Jesus is a fool for saying the two greatest commandments are to love God with our being and love our neighbor as ourselves - considering this is a summation of the Law.

keck553
Oct 13th 2008, 01:02 AM
How do you know this? How are you able to arbitrate the meaning of such a passage? Isn't it warranted to consider how the historical context and cultural idioms reveal the meaning of Jesus' words to the original audience?

In Deut 32:1, God Himself calls Heaven and Earth as witnesses. They stand until the end of time. If God calls an ordinance to be followed 'forever', He means it. Man cannot change what God puts into place, no matter how many phd's and theological titles they lug around..

RoadWarrior
Oct 13th 2008, 01:37 AM
...
God does not change. He changes us.

Whoah, that's good!

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 01:46 AM
No, without Torah, you can not infer Paul's statement. God determines morality, not Sha'ul (Paul).
Torah showed what was justified in response. Y'shua showed us a better way to respond.

And yes, unequally yoked is a major problem.

God does not change. We do.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying at all about being unequally yoked, nor about God not changing. While I agree that God doesn't change, it doesn't seem relevant.

I don't feel like using transliterated Hebrew has anything to do with your argument.

I really am not understanding what you are saying.

If you believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, then Paul's writings in Scripture are the words of God.

If you believe Jesus showed us a better way to respond, then the Law has been superseded.

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 01:49 AM
Beautiful job ignoring what I said. Just masterful!

I read exactly what you said, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see how it's in any way uncalled for for my to ask you to explain such a post.

I think the sarcasm in your response is really disrespectful and unloving, and I'm surprised that you would treat a brother in Christ trying to probe the Scriptures this way.

My heart's Desire
Oct 13th 2008, 01:55 AM
I didn't read the whole thread but my take is "I'm not a Law-keeper" and yet I am in love.
I think the 10 commandments are profitable and I don't have a problem with them being taught, if they are taught right in regards to the Law as already been fulfilled in Christ. In Christ, the highest law is LOVE and the 10 do indeed teach love. In this I believe they are profitable. Love is to not lie, steal or kill, for all is against your brother. Love does not covet. Love does not disobey one's Mother or Father, etc. Love is not that we love God but that He loved us first. I think the biggest one is not to covet, for if one covets it will lead to fulfilling the lusts of the heart in that they will kill, steal, lie, disobey because they cannot have what they covet to have.

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 01:55 AM
In Deut 32:1, God Himself calls Heaven and Earth as witnesses. They stand until the end of time. If God calls an ordinance to be followed 'forever', He means it. Man cannot change what God puts into place, no matter how many phd's and theological titles they lug around..

Deuteronomy is a completely different genre written in a different culture by a different author to a different audience. Don't you think that is worth considering?

Degrees aren't just titles, they show in depth research and study of God's word. Don't you think that is worth considering?

Doesn't Christ often speak in metaphor, parable, and cryptic phrases? How do you know he is not doing so here?

This article purposes an orthodox view of interpretation of the Bible: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/Hermeneutics.htm

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 01:56 AM
I didn't read the whole thread but my take is "I'm not a Law-keeper" and yet I am in love.
I think the 10 commandments are profitable and I don't have a problem with them being taught, if they are taught right in regards to the Law as already been fulfilled in Christ. In Christ, the highest law is LOVE and the 10 do indeed teach love. In this I believe they are profitable. Love is to not lie, steal or kill, for all is against your brother. Love does not covet. Love does not disobey one's Mother or Father, etc. Love is not that we love God but that He loved us first.

What about the Sabbath? How do you interpret the 4th commandment in light of Romans 14?

apothanein kerdos
Oct 13th 2008, 01:58 AM
I read exactly what you said, I don't have much of a problem with it. I don't see how it's in any way uncalled for for my to ask you to explain such a post.

I think the sarcasm in your response is really disrespectful and unloving, and I'm surprised that you would treat a brother in Christ trying to probe the Scriptures this way.


I never said the law was in full force though. I said the spirit of the law was in force, not the letter of the law. All the law does (and did) was condemn people, it never saved us.

It does, however, serve as a guiding moral light. Notice how Jesus never said the Law was abolished, but instead that He was giving the proper understanding of the Law.

My heart's Desire
Oct 13th 2008, 02:01 AM
What about the Sabbath? How do you interpret the 4th commandment in light of Romans 14?
That I have the Sabbath rest in Christ Jesus My Lord. Besides, have you noticed that the verses in Romans 13:8 have 5 of the commandments but the Sabbath one is not there? And that all the commandments are summed up in those and that love is the fulfillment of the Law?

BHS
Oct 13th 2008, 02:08 AM
in most sunday schools, we teach the old covenant instead of the new covenant.

That has not been my experience and if this is true, why are so many Christians, including myself ignorant of the OT? (I think you may be referring to stories, rather than actual doctrines and instructions)


I am arguing that instead, we should teach the new covenant in the context of the old covenant.

While I would agree with this statement, I do not see this in practice. How do you propose this should be done? This is how I would suggest the NT needs to be taught -- not in contrast to one another, but showing continuity.

Blessings,
BHS

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 02:54 AM
I never said the law was in full force though. I said the spirit of the law was in force, not the letter of the law. All the law does (and did) was condemn people, it never saved us.

It does, however, serve as a guiding moral light. Notice how Jesus never said the Law was abolished, but instead that He was giving the proper understanding of the Law.

God says through Paul that Jesus abolished the law in Ephesians 2, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances"

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 02:57 AM
That I have the Sabbath rest in Christ Jesus My Lord. Besides, have you noticed that the verses in Romans 13:8 have 5 of the commandments but the Sabbath one is not there? And that all the commandments are summed up in those and that love is the fulfillment of the Law?

I would suggest that is is because, for a Christian, under the sacrifice of Christ, every day is now as holy as the Sabbath was to be to be under the fourth commandment.

Exodus says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." But now every moment of the Christian life is equally devotional and holy to God, as Paul says in Romans 14.

Vhayes
Oct 13th 2008, 02:59 AM
God does not change. He changes us.
I agree that God does not change and I agree that He changes us. But I will say I think God deals with us in different ways - we no longer walk in the garden with Him as did Adam and Eve, we are no longer led by a pillar of fire by night to give us heat and light nor as a cloud by day to give us shade.

God never changes in His character or His attributes but He certainly changes the manner in which He deals with His children.

Hope that helps a tad.
V

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 03:02 AM
That has not been my experience and if this is true, why are so many Christians ignorant of the OT?
(I think you may be referring to stories, rather than actual doctrines and instructions)

While I would agree with this statement, I do not see this in practice. How do you propose this should be done? This is how I would suggest the NT needs to be taught -- not in contrast to one another, but showing continuity.

For example, instead of painting the ten commandments on the wall of a church, put up Matthew 5-7, or Romans 13-14. (Or a summary thereof.)

Doesn't the book of Hebrews contrast the Old and New Covenants constantly? It seems this is one of of the ways the OT defines the NT, by contrast.

I think showing the fulfillment of prophecy in the OT by the NT is another way.

Also, we can learn a great deal about the nature of God from the OT, as well as his zeal for holiness, justice, and love. When we interpret any Biblical text, we need to understand that it had an ancient audience it was written to, and that defines how it applies to us, whom it was written for, but not directly to.

Also, my whole argument is to bring the OT into a noncontradictory unity with the NT. If we don;t understand that the law has been superseded and abolished by Christ, why don't we have a temple, fabrics of one material, and a Sabbath service on Saturday? This understanding reconciles the difference in the Christian life taught in epistles from the Jewish life taught in the law.

danield
Oct 13th 2008, 03:03 AM
Let’s accept your translation of heaven and earth’s meaning as being the temple. Now we substitute the temple in any of the translations, and the meaning still remains the same. For instance let’s take the NLT

Matthew 5:18-19 18 I tell you the truth, until the temple disappears, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. 19 So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
It still tells me that even the smallest of God’s law remains in place. And anyone who teaches to break the law will be the least in the kingdom of heaven. It does not say that you will not enter the kingdom of heaven but it says you will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

I also want to point out that there is a purpose to everything that God does. He gave us his special law through Mosses for a reason, and it has its place in our hearts just as Christ refined this law through his teaching. He showed us how we are to be pure in our hearts and actions as opposed to just following the law. But not teaching the law is putting the cart before the horse. It is a natural progression of learning God’s will just as all the stories of the Torah. I am not so sure why you are so eager to do away with the teaching of the Ten Commandments. Your proposal of denying the commandment to people seems confusing to say the least.

When you call the commandments invalidated because we are to follow the new covenant, it leads people to believe that you have a whole new covenant open for debate about what is right and wrong based on how the spirit leads you. It may lead you one way then it may lead another person another way. It sets up confusion among believers on who has the proper authority, and that is one of the reasons it is important to have a binding law to check back to especially in this day and age where so many new doctrines are being created every day.

I can only assume that you are trying to show that we Christians are above the law, and that is a very dangerous mindset to take. I make that assumption in this statement

I am not purposing that we as Christians should do whatever we want. There is certainly instruction on how to live in the New Testament. However, none of this teaching was written to us. It was written to specific ancient audiences with specific intentions in mind by the author, and in order to apply it to ourselves, we need to understand what the author was saying to the original audience, and extrapolate the theological principle behind it.

I can only retort this by saying that Christians are in the law not above the law. Some people do not understand the difference and it cause great confusion. I guess a good analogy would be the current law of the land. We have many laws on the books on how to be responsible citizens and many people abide with in those laws not because they have to but because they want to. However, it is important to know the law so that you do not go beyond it limits. What you are proposing is to do away with the basic law and only teach the finer details of the law. It is like sending students to law school before they even finish grade school. In any event what you are proposing is dangerous.


If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

If you are led by the spirit you can not be under the law because the Holy Spirit is the law. It can not exist in our hearts with conflicts occurring in the law.

Tanya~
Oct 13th 2008, 03:05 AM
Exodus says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." But now every moment of the Christian life is equally devotional and holy to God, as Paul says in Romans 14.

What Paul says in Romans 14 is that some observe the day as holy, and some consider every day alike. Paul doesn't give a prescription against the Sabbath in Romans 14, it is to teach believers not to judge one another about their convictions about such things.

Moral issues are completely different. Stealing for example is still not allowed.

Chimon
Oct 13th 2008, 03:08 AM
I agree that God does not change and I agree that He changes us. But I will say I think God deals with us in different ways - we no longer walk in the garden with Him as did Adam and Eve, we are no longer led by a pillar of fire by night to give us heat and light nor as a cloud by day to give us shade.

God never changes in His character or His attributes but He certainly changes the manner in which He deals with His children.

Amen! Thank you!

God has the prerogative to deal with different people in different ways. God does not change, but because of his mercy he meets us where we are, and that means different actions (stemming from the same character) in different time periods.

God is dealing with Christians differently than the Jews, his laws are different. This does not mean God has changed, only that God is dealing with us differently because we have changed.

If God wishes to deal with us differently, He is sovereign, who are we to judge God?

Vhayes
Oct 13th 2008, 03:39 AM
What Paul says in Romans 14 is that some observe the day as holy, and some consider every day alike. Paul doesn't give a prescription against the Sabbath in Romans 14, it is to teach believers not to judge one another about their convictions about such things.

Moral issues are completely different. Stealing for example is still not allowed.
If we love our neighbor as ourself, we will not steal from him.

threebigrocks
Oct 13th 2008, 03:47 AM
Pending mod review, this thread is closed.

If you have any questions, please bring them into the Chat to the Moderators forum.