| Author | Message | ||
| Logophile Registered user Username: Logophile Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2004 |
Jeremy, I read your post on Creation and the Sabbath, in which you suggest that the blessing on the seventh day in Genesis 2:3 is proleptic. Since you asked for thoughts on this, here they are. I'm not acquainted with Hebrew and so don't really know how much weight to put on the use, in some English translations, of the past perfect form of the verb "to rest." However, you may be right in suggesting that the wording "on it he *had* rested..." implies that God didn't bless the seventh day ON the seventh day but AFTER the seventh day. Nevertheless, since the reason why God blessed the seventh day and made it holy was because he had completed his creation by that day, I would question the claim that God didn't actually make the day holy until thousands of years later. (If it is instituted in Exodus 16 in honor of creation, doesn't it seem odd that 1) it came so long after the fact, and 2) there is no mention at all in Exodus 16 of the event it was to honor?) To me, it would seem more reasonable to think, as Genesis 2:3 implies, that he made the seventh day holy on that day or immediately thereafter. (I think this is the view taken in the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary at biblestudytools.net as well--though I don't know how reputable or representative that commentary is.) As for your observations about the Ten Commandments being made "not with our fathers, but with us," I'm honestly not sure of the significance of the statement; however, the text doesn't say it is only the fourth commandment from the covenant that was made "not with our fathers, but with us": it includes the whole covenant. Since one wouldn't infer that the other commandments were non-existent prior to Mount Sinai (even though many of them, I think, aren't mentioned previously), is it consistent to regard the "not with our fathers, but with us" qualification as evidence that the fourth commandment was new here? To me it doesn't seem so. So those are my thoughts. I do feel a little awkward about disagreeing with you right from the start--especially since I'm new--but, as other folks here have implied, this is a place where one can express one's perspectives and at times agree to disagree. Now, as for your question on Paul citing the ceremonial law... Refresh my memory, or educate me: where does Paul use the "ceremonial" law as an authority for the Corinthians? (I'm not familiar enough with the books to think of examples off the top.) logo | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 81 Registered: 7-2004 |
logo-- No need to feel bad or worry about disagreeing with someone from the start. Contrary to rumor, we don't always agree. But we do accept and value one another even in disagreement. Our unity is on the One we serve, not in doctrinal beliefs. We have a common experience, some relationship to SDAism. One of the Ellenism that I had to overcome was the teaching that the law was eternal and was the perfect reflection of God's character. This replaces the incarnate Jesus with the law. Which in hindsight is what I experienced plenty of within SDAism, more focus on the Law than on the Savior. The other teaching I had to come to understand was that there were never two laws, one ceremonial and one moral. Once I understood "one law" reading Paul's writings began making far more sense. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 207 Registered: 7-2004 |
Logo, I know exactly what you are saying and where you are coming from in what you say regarding Sabbath and the 10 commandments. I think every SDA who has lived and breathed these two subjects comes to the point you are at. Do not get discouraged with the various views you read here. It is much easier to just stick with the path you have been on then to wrestle with what to keep and what to throw out but we are promised a Helper who will teach us all things and give us peace so that we do not need to be troubled (John 14:26,27). One BIG Biblical truth that I feel was missing in my SDA Bible study was the role of the Holy Spirit. We have so many wonderful promises to lean on that have to do with the Holy Spirit living in our lives. John 16:5-15 tells us that the Holy spirit has a three fold ministry. Vs 6,7 - He comforts; Vs.8-11 - He empowers: Vs 12-15 - He teaches. Only with the Holy Spirit indwelt in us can we know who Jesus is - He glorifies Jesus. He will progressively lead us into all truth. I know you have Him in your life because the Bible is clear that all who believe that Jesus is their LORD and Savior receive His Spirit. He is always with us - we just have to utilize Him. I would like to challenge you to study Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews...all these New Testament books that speak of Jesus. As long as I am handing out suggestions... start with Galatians. Paul wrote Galatians after his first missionary trip to Iconium, Lystra, Pisidian Antioch, Derbe (Acts 13,14). Judaizers were teaching that salvation in Christ alone was not enough. They said a person also must be circumsized and keep the ceremonial and traditional laws. What Paul said to all these churches is the same thing he would say to us today. IT IS ALL ABOUT CHRIST LIVING IN ME NOT THE LAW. This said, I want to assure you that I am not belittling your beliefs. I firmly believe if you are in God's Word, the Holy Spirit will reveal to you what He wants you to see. But...the promise is directly related to being in His Word and not listening to my interpretation or anyone elses thoughts or insights. We here on the forum are all searching, learning and growing in Jesus. It will be a "project" for all Eternity. Best wishes, Logo. God has great plans for your life and I am happy He has led you to this forum. He uses you in my life just by you being here. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2004 |
Logophile, Thank you for your friendly tone. And don't feel bad about disagreeing--that's what discussion forums are for! ;-) I'll address your first two questions together.
First of all, the Bible nowhere says that the Sabbath was instituted "in honor of Creation"--I don't think that is exactly right. The Bible does say that it was a shadow pointing forward to Jesus, and also that God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath because He had brought them out of Egypt. When God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel, He did tell them that He chose the 7th day as Sabbath because that was the day that He had rested. (And, as I pointed out in that other post, it was not a "sabbath" ["intermission"] rest but a "ceasing" rest, when God rested.) Also, Exodus 31 makes it clear that the Sabbath was only for Israel, and was a sign between them and God. Ezekiel 20 also makes this clear and says that it was given after the crossing of the Red Sea.
I don't believe it does imply that. There are many instances like that, one of the best examples is the one I gave from Exodus 16:33-35: "And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations. As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept." This would seem to imply that this happened immediately also, unless we read the rest of the Bible. We really have no indication of when God first commanded the Sabbath to be kept by anyone, unless we look at the rest of the Bible. The first instance of God commanding the Sabbath to be kept is in Exodus 16. And those 3 passages I gave (Deuteronomy 5, Nehemiah 9:13-15, Ezekiel 20:10-12) say that the Sabbath was given after the crossing of the Red Sea. About the covenant not being made with the fathers, people did have consciences and knew right from wrong before the Law was given. Also, the 10 Commandments contain the sign of the covenant (the Sabbath). That's what the Sabbath is: the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. So yes, it is significant that the covenant was not made with the fathers. About Corinthians: Here is one instance where Paul uses the so-called "ceremonial law" to argue his point.
Notice that I've been saying "so-called 'ceremonial law'". I agree with Ric_b that there was only 1 Law given to Israel. It is not Biblical to say, as SDAs like to, that there is a "Law of Moses" (ceremonial law") and a "Law of God" (moral law/ten commandments). "Law of Moses" and "Law of God" are used interchangeably in some passages of Scripture. The Bible teaches that there was 1 Law given to Israel (which contains 613 commandments, according to the Jews' counting.) Also, if the 10 Commandments are the eternal, moral Law of God, and the rest of the Law is the "ceremonial law" that was nailed to the cross...then what about all of the moral laws contained in the rest of the Law (the "ceremonial law")??? Such as homosexuality, loving your neighbor, loving God??? And also lying, stealing, adultery, etc. which are also in the ceremonial law??? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for separating the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law! The reason the rest of the Law was given through Moses and not spoken by God was because the people said they couldn't handle listening to God speak anymore or else they would die!! Jeremy | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 208 Registered: 7-2004 |
Logo, I need to clarify...the Holy Spirit uses God's Word foremost in the directing and leading of our lives...but...He also uses people, their thoughts and insights, to tweak us and sharpen our vision. And, of course, there is another but...we must first be in God's Word so as discern the thoughts and words of those we communicate with. That goes for what you hear those of us on this forum say as well as what you read and hear from the SDA church. Jeremy, I know I have seen in my studies of the OT that Israel did in fact tell God they were tired of Him. I can't remember where that is, though - would you mind sharing your references? I appreciated your thoughts. I would like to say that Jesus was VERY open about which were the greatest commandments (Matt. 22:35-40). He is God. He MAKES the rules. If He were to add to it (ie. 1844, EGW, Sabbath as the Seal of God...), wouldn't He have told them then, "You shall love the LORD you God with all your hear and with all your soul and with all your mind...and your neighbor as yourself...and proof that you are living these two great commandments will be the way in which you "keep" the Sabbath Day - the seventh day of the week..."? He is not a God of confusion. Just a thought...  | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1111 Registered: 11-2002 |
Don't SDA's in the deepest parts of their beings believe the Holy spirit was given to EGW and by reading EGW's writings then the lowly sitting-in-the-pew SDA can get a glimpse into the leading of the Holy Spirit? I've just always had that opinion. Isn't that why EGW is nicknamed The Spirit of Prophecy by the SDA's? Because she has the Spirit of God and by extension everyone else can only get close to that Spirit by believing in EGW. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 91 Registered: 10-2004 |
Dd, It's in Exodus 20:18-19, immediately after God spoke the 10 Commandments: "All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, 'Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.' (NASB.) So, they weren't really tired of Him, they were just afraid! Isn't it funny that the two greatest commandments are not even in the "moral law" (ten commandments)? Susan, I think you're probably right. And to call EGW the "Spirit of Prophecy" is blasphemy! Jeremy | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1113 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jeremy, on that VOAF chat/discussion board EGW is constantly referred to as either Sister White or The Spirit of Prophecy. Both terms are creepy. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 92 Registered: 10-2004 |
I know, and it makes me sick. I'm glad I don't go there anymore. I sure don't miss it. Jeremy | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 747 Registered: 3-2004 |
As I think over my past I see that I never questioned what my parents told me or what the church told me. I just went along with it. Maybe that is why God started gently pulling me away more than 20 years ago. Before I was kicked out of the SDA church I did not like to hear EGW quoted in a sermon. I wanted to hear only the Bible, plus, I used to think that if there is a non SDA at the sermon, what would they think of us. I am no longer that compliant, go along with the crowd person and I thank God for that. He is so awesome for taking me and each of us out of that deception. Diana | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 78 Registered: 5-2004 |
This is a great discussion and so I'd like to chime in for a minute if ya'll don't mind One of the biggest "aha" moments in my studies of the Sabbath was in part, two-fold. In Exodus 16 I realized that the Sabbath was introduced to Israel at the same time as the manna. Actually, both almost in the very same event. It is already common practice to see the manna as a symbol of Christ JesusÖand this logic would also seem to signify that the Sabbath itself was a symbol of Him too. The symbols of His life as the ìBread of Lifeî, and rest in Him. Then, in studying the gospel account of the Sabbath, I came to see that whenever Jesus could, it seemed that He pushed the point of the Sabbath. What hit me was that ìsituational ethicsî are never right if there is a moral law. If the 10 commandments are the ìeternal law of Godî the law He runs the universe by, if they are the perfect representation of Him, then there would be no excuse for ever breaking them. Being a perfect God, He Himself would in effect, be tied to keeping themÖbecause He is perfectÖand His law would then be perfect too. But the law contained in the 10 leave wiggle room. You could hate a brother without killing him. As Jesus made the point in Matt 5:20-22 that if you so much as murmured in anger against your brother, you were liable. Then, consider these texts: Mt 12:1-14; Mk 2:23-3:6; Lk 6:1-11. Eating grain in the field was permitted, (Deut 23:24-25) but then so was gathering wood, but both were forbidden on the Sabbath. Jesus justified gathering food on the Sabbath, which was in violation of Ex 16:22-30, by jumping to David. Notice He doesnít actually say anything about this being an acceptable thing to do on the Sabbath, or defend Himself by any other means in any of these texts, but to compare Himself with others who broke the law. When David ate the showbread in 1 Sam 21:1-6, it was a double violation of the law of Moses because first, only the priests could eat it and second, the "day old" showbread was to be burned never eaten. (Lev 8:31; 24:9; Ex 29:33-34) The priests could break the Sabbath by their work in the temple. (The common Jew was forbidden to work, but then in the same passage, the priests were told do the work for them in Num 28:9-10; 18-19). So the same work on the Sabbath brought death to the common Jew and blessing to the Priests. *Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6, "I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice". The only way to interpret this passage in the context of Sabbath breaking, is that the Sabbath law (sacrifice) could be overruled by the human need of the moment. (compassion- "situation ceremonial ethics") In common law today, this principle is known as the "law of greater good". It means that a civil law can be suspended if there is a greater good achieved by breaking it. Examples of the "law of greater good" are that police and ambulance drivers are allowed to break the law by going through red lights. For that matter, in any emergency medical situation, any man is permitted to go through red lights if there is a pressing medical need that may be a matter of life or death. No one would wait at a red light for 60 seconds, just because it is red, when someone is dying in the back seat and needs to get to the hospital. This is exactly what Jesus argued when he defended the disciples breaking the Sabbath. * Also look at Luke 13:10-17, Luke 14:1-6, John 5:8-18: Each of these texts involve Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath day, and each time he appeals to the ìgreater goodî clause to justify. Even when the man on the pallet was in direct violation of the law by carrying his mat. The one I love is John 7:19-24 "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" 20 The multitude answered, "You have a demon! Who seeks to kill You?" 21 Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one deed, and you all marvel. 22 "On this account Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." When you look at this verse, Jesus was comparing a specific ceremonial aspect of the law to the Sabbath, and showing that the circumcision actually ìtrumpedî the Sabbath. This blew me away. Right here Jesus was showing that if a ceremonial law, is over the Sabbath, the only way that could happen was if the Sabbath itself was purely ceremonial. It wasnít until I fully realized that Jesus is the Sabbath, that I experienced the full joy and release of ìwalking away from the Sabbathî as Iíve been accused of doing. He is my everything. I rest in His COMPLETED work on Calvary and in the resurrection. My faith is sure, because HE IS SURE. My victory is complete because of HIM ONLY! If my salvation relied on anything I could or had to provide, Iíd be doomed because I will NEVER have what it takes to please the perfect God. I was born and live in sinÖand He is mighty and good and true and PERFECT. But, because God came to earth, and paid the price of sin for meÖhow can I fail (as Paul says) when God is for ME? So everything I used to give to the Sabbath day, I realized that God deserved. I give Him my rest in Him, my trust in Him to save me. He is able. And I have peace. And instead of ìwalking away from the Sabbathî, I have walked away from the shadowÖand dwell in Him every day and every second of my life. I hope that nobody is offended by my view on this. I still think that if you choose to keep the Sabbath day, it can be a beautiful thing between you and God. As Paul says, ì5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.î Rom 14. (* The starred paragraph is a direct quote from an article that I readÖbut canít seem to find the source right now. Please forgive me ) | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 211 Registered: 7-2004 |
Esther, Beautiful...thank you so very much. In Acts 15 some of the sect of the Pharisees who were believers were saying, "It is necessary to circumcise [the gentiles] and direct them to observe the Law of Moses" (vs 5). Peter then stood up and reminded them of the gentiles in Caesarea who believed in Jesus and the Holy Spirit was manifest in them (10:44-48) though they were not circumsized. Peter then asks the Judaizers why they would want to put the "yoke" back on when even their fathers could not bear it (15:10)? I love it that he used the term "yoke" to describe the "Law of Moses". Peter is saying that living under the law is a hard "yoke" to live with around you neck. Contrast that to another "yoke"...Matthew 11:28-30..."Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden and I will give you rest. Take My YOKE upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For My YOKE is easy and My burden is light." | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 43 Registered: 8-2004 |
Esther, Thank you so much for posting that! It gives me some leads to follow up in my own study. God bless you! Helovesme2 | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 946 Registered: 12-2003 |
Esther, great post above! I believe you're absolutely right--the Sabbath was a "ceremonial" law that pointed forward to Jesus (see Colossians 2:16), or Jesus wouldn't have deliberatley broken it. John 5:16-18 says, " 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.' For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." John here declares that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Now, I know the arugment that Jesus only broke the man-made rules that goverened the Sabbath, not really the essence of the Sabbath itself. Yet Jesus repeatedly did things the Old Testament law forbade, as Esther pointed out above. Not only did Jesus repeatedly break the Sabbath rules established by God and given to Israel through Moses, he consistently broke other OT laws as well. He touched lepers without ritual cleansing; he gtouched dead bodies and brought them to life with no ritual cleansing; He did not always wash His wash his hands before He ate. ETC. Yet never did Jesus break any "moral" law. He never--not in word or attitude or thought--broke commandments one through three or five through ten. Further, when the Pharisees accused him and His disciples of breaking the Sabbath by eating grain in the fields, He not only appealed to David in the OT (see Esther's post above again!), He called their attention to the temple and said, "One greater than the temple is here." The temple was the center of Jewish religion. It housed the law, and it traditionally housed the physical presence of God (the cloud of the presence). By saying He was greater than the temple, Jesus was saying He Was the presence of God. IN HIM was the law. All morality--and all Sabbath rest--is inside Him. The temple was a moot point after the crucifixion. The Sabbath was as much a ceremonial law as were the New Moons, the yearly feasts, the sacrifices, the Day of Atonement. All these things pointed to the reality that is in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17 again!) It was the sign of the covenant--and it was secondary to the entrance rite into the Israel, as Esther explained. Circumcision trumped the Sabbath if necessary. The transfiguration still says it profoundly: Peter, James and John fell on their faces when they saw Moses, Elijah, and Jesus transfigured before them.Peter was ready to built shrines to all three on the spot. God spoke and said, "This is my Son; listen to HIM!" When the disciples looked up, Moses (symbol of the law to JEws) and Elijah (symbol of the prophets to Jews) were gone. Jesus alone was before them. Then Jesus told the three not to tell anyone what they had seen or heard until after His death and resurrection. Why? Until then the law and the prophets were and would be God's revelation to His people. The New Covenant would not be in effect until JEsus had paid the price of sin with his eternal blood of the covenant and broken the power of death. Then the law would be fulfilled in Christ. Then hanging onto the law would mean hanging onto a shadow instead of the Real Thing! What day should we "observe"? There is no NT command to observe any day. We are each to do whatever we do as to the Lord. Jesus is Sabbath Rest. Jesus--the Sabbath now keeps me! The only reason I caution formers about continuing to observe Saturday is because I know from experience how we can hang onto Sabbath out of subliminal fear that we might actually be giving up something God expects of us. If Jesus alone is all we need, if NOTHING we observe or do is part of our salvation, then we must be willing to give up whatever it is that is "extra" beyond Jesus. It's like the Corinthinas being told they must not eat meat offered to idols although Paul himself could eat that meat because to him the idols were nothing. The Corinthians were Christians, yet Paul knew that the meat offered to idols would trigger habits and memories and beliefs in those Corinthians, and they needed to abstain from anything that would pull them toward the past and the heresies they had previously believed. I do believe, though, that former Adventists can possibly come to the point of keeping Sabbath without those old "tapes" playing deeply in their subconsious minds. Whatever the case, the day does not grant or remove salvation. Jesus alone is the Gate. I just know that until one knows he CAN give up Sabbath in deference to Jesus' completely finished work, there is still a bit of bondage in one's heart. That doesn't mean he's not necessarily saved. It just means that he hasn't fully embraced his true freedom in Christ. We have to be willing to give up EVERYTHING we believe and cherish and accept Jesus only! And Dd says it so well when she reminds us that the way to know God's will is to study His word with no other interpreters helping us except the Holy Spirit. We must pray with surrendered hearts for God to teach us what the Bible truly says and then be wiilling to embrace what He teaches us. He is faithful; He will reveal truth to us, one step at a time, as we seek Him and study! Colleen | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 79 Registered: 5-2004 |
Thanks for encouragement and Colleen, thanks for the extra insights on the topic as well. This forum is so valuable because we can all glean so much information from each other. Something you said sparked a memory of something else I read and have contemplated. ******** He called their attention to the temple and said, "One greater than the temple is here." The temple was the center of Jewish religion. It housed the law, and it traditionally housed the physical presence of God (the cloud of the presence). By saying He was greater than the temple, Jesus was saying He Was the presence of God. IN HIM was the law. All morality--and all Sabbath rest--is inside Him. The temple was a moot point after the crucifixion. *********** Well, If you go back to the original giving of the law and temple, the priests were allowed to do the duties (work) in place of the common jew whether on Sabbath or not. With Jesus stating that HE was greater than the temple...He was stating all the things you said Colleen, but also, in this instance, the disciples were in trouble for picking grain. With Christ as fulfillment of the temple, if the "old priesthood" was excempt from the laws by the association with the temple...then surely the disciples, in their association with Jesus, the fulfillment of the temple, were absolved as well.? Just another thought...not sure if it really carries alot of weight or not, but anyway. Thanks Colleen for bringing my attention back to the transfiguration! That is also one of my favorites | ||
| Logophile Registered user Username: Logophile Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2004 |
Wow, been away for just a day or two, and lots has been happening meanwhile. First, thanks all for such kind responses to my last post. This is starting to feel like a safe place to discuss things. Jeremy, I guess I wasn't precise in my wording when I said something about the Sabbath being "in honor of Creation." I was alluding, of course, to Genesis 2:2-3; and it was my way of paraphrasing the part of the text that says, "...because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." So maybe it would have been more accurate to have said that God made the seventh day holy because on it he had rested from his work of Creation. Still, it does seem to me that the specialness of the day is because of the completed Creation. As for sabbath being a shadow pointing forward to Christ--without a doubt there was that aspect of it, just as with the "religious festivals" and new moons. Of course, in the law, there are special offerings and sacrifices prescribed on those occasions; and I have thought that those parts were the shadow. (After all, in Genesis 2 and in Exodus 20, the focus of the Sabbath seems to be backward, to Creation, rather than forward, to Christ's sacrifice.) You're right about Paul quoting from the Law other than from the commandments. In addition to the verse you cited, there's a footnote in my Bible for 1 Corinthians 5:13 (with several references in Deuteronomy). So this raises an interesting question. Does the citation of an Old Testament passage give it a stamp of approval for New Covenant Christians, while passages not so cited aren't to be taken quite so seriously? Or does the fact that New Testament authors do quote from the Old Testament suggest that New Covenant Christians ought also to consider it to speak with authority? Either way, some challenging questions are raised. I think it's noteworthy that, in the verse you referred to about not muzzling one's ox (1 Corinthians 9:8-10), Paul doesn't endorse a literal application of that element of the Law; rather, he draws a general principle from it--the particular application being that those who invest their whole lives in apostolic ministry should be sustained by it. On the other hand, when Paul cites the fifth commandment, he pretty much takes it at its face value. Similarly, in Romans 13:8-10, Paul explains that the law is summed up as "Love your neighbor as yourself"; and he cites certain of the commandments. But his list isn't all-inclusive, and he adds "...and whatever other commandment there may be...," suggesting that he isn't just thinking of the particular commandments he cited but the whole "list" that they represent. Since he's expanding on "love your neighbor as yourself," is he endorsing only the last six commandments? I don't know that there's any passage in Scripture that explicitly expands on "Love the Lord your God"; however, given the explicit relationship between "love your neighbor" and the last six of the 10 commandments, is it such a stretch to infer a similar relationship between "Love God" and the commandments that pertain to a relationship with God? Something you said, "There is absolutely no Biblical basis for separating the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law!" Maybe I'm not understanding quite what you mean. The tablets of stone were distinguished from the rest of the Law, in that they alone were in the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy Place. But you're right about the fallacy of regarding the Law as comprising the 10 Commandments (moral) and "all the rest" (ceremonial). And as for what was "nailed to the cross"--the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us and stood opposed to us" (or however it's worded)--I'm actually not sure what that is, though it almost seems as though it has more to do with our sins than with some aspect of Law. I would think that the fact that the New Testament writers obviously still considered the Law "fair game" to quote from in occasional support of various admonitions indicates that, as far as they were concerned, it still carried authority (and so had not been "nailed to the cross"). On the other hand, I would agree with your implication that the law written on stone is not eternal, as there are many aspects that had no meaning until there were people who needed some particulars about how they ought to relate to one another and to God. logo | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 949 Registered: 12-2003 |
The New Testament author's quotations from the law were for the purpose of showing how the law are to be seen and observed from a New Covenant perspective. The statments in Colossians about the law being nailed to the cross (the handwriting of the orindances that were against us) as well as the many statements in Romans and Galatians are showing that in Christ, the curse that was an integral part of the law is no longer against us. Neither the demands nor the curse of the law are our authority when we are in Christ. Rather, Christ is our authority. Jesus took the curse of the law into Himself so we can become the righteousness of Christ. The law does not judge or condemn us now when we are in Christ. That means that we do not look to the law for direction for our living. Of course we must study the Old Testament--tne New Testament can only be deeply understood by understanding the powerful shadows of the Old Covenant and the history of Israel. But we now study the Old Testament through the lens and understanding of its fulfillment in Jesus. Just as a person cannot experience first-hand the reality of a material inheritance until their parent dies, so no human could experience the reality of standing in Christ's righteousness, holy and complete in the presence of God, before Jesus died. The law necessarily takes on a whole different position after the cross. Hebrews 7:12 even says, referring to Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of Levi, that where there is a change of the piresthood, there must also be a change of the law. The entire law--10 Commandments and all--were the ordinances that stood against us. They literally condemned all men to death, because no man could keep them. The curse for not keeping them was written into the law. All humanity was doomed, because all humanity was sinful and unable to fulfill the requirements of the law. Only in Jesus is the curse removed! Only in Jesus can we be righteous, because He became our curse (Galatians 3:13) we so can become His righteousness! (2 Corinthians 5:21) When we begin to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament instead of the other way around, suddenly a whole new reality opens up. Jesus is the final revelation of God, not the law! In Him the Old Testament begins to make cohesive sense, and it does not oppose the New Testament at all. Praise God for revealing truth in Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2004 |
Logophile,
No, the Sabbath sacrifices cannot possibly be what Paul is referring to in Colossians 2. He says, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17 NIV.) Each family did not offer a sacrifice on the Sabbath. There was only one or two sacrifices for all of Israel. So this was not something personal that people could judge you about. It has to be talking about the actual keeping of the Sabbath! So the Sabbath itself was a shadow of Christ, who is the "Substance" (NASB). Now that we have Christ we no longer need His shadow, the Sabbath! Regarding the Law, and what we are supposed to observe, no guessing is needed! The Bible says that we are not under the Old Covenant, but are under the New Covenant. A covenant only includes that which it specifically states, and not things from a previous or related covenant which it does not state. Just like America carried over some laws from Britain, but that doesn't mean that people had to obey the British laws which weren't carried over. Also, if say, the law about stealing was carried over from Britain to America's law, that doesn't mean that by refraining from stealing I am keeping/obeying British law. I'm obeying the new law, American law! My point about separating the 10 Commandments from the rest of the Law was that there is only 1 Law! I don't see how the tables being in the ark is significant to this point. When the Bible talks about "the Law" we don't have to guess which Law it's talking about. It's talking about the entire Mosaic Law as a whole--1 Law. The Colossians passage regarding nailing to the cross is not the only passage which says the Law is over, that we are released from the Law, that we are not under the Law. There are many such passages, including 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians (especially chapters 3, 4, and 5), Romans 6, Romans 7, Ephesians 2, Hebrews 7, 1 Corinthians 9, etc. The New Testament says that we are now under the Law of Christ (Messiah). Messiah has come and He has given His Law, a new Law, for us to live by. Hebrews 7:12 (NASB) states it this way, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." Allow me to quote from a post of mine on another forum:
Let me add something here. Notice that it says He would make a New Covenant not be like the Old Covenant! Also here's something I posted in another thread here:
Now back to my other post from the other forum:
And from another post of mine on that other forum:
One last quote from another post of mine:
Well, there you go. If you want to study the Sabbath/the Law/the Covenants further, the following links may be helpful: http://www.sdaoutreach.org/sabbath.cfm http://www.sdaoutreach.org/covenant.cfm http://www.sdaoutreach.org/law-study.cfm http://www.sdaoutreach.org/audio.cfm Jeremy | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 167 Registered: 2-2003 |
Very good points Jeremy, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 168 Registered: 2-2003 |
Just a minor point. Although I agree that the Gen 2 passage offers no real support that the Sabbath was instituted at creation, you can't use the verb tense to prove it. Hebrew is very sparse on tenses, it only has two: perfect and imperfect, and the range of uses of each is therefore rather broad. It is a bit complicated, but there is no pluperfect to show conclusively that one action occurred before another one in the past. Greek does have a pluperfect, but the LLX translation of Gen 2: 3 has all three verbs in the simple past (aorist indicative). As I said though, as Moses wrote Genesis, he may well have added an anachronistic explanation for the later institution of the Sabbath. One clear example of the use of an anachronism in Genesis, which happens not to be an Adventist issue, is the use of YHWH, the name of God. This name first occurs in Gen 2: 4b) and then in very many places throughout Genesis. For instance, Gen 12: 1 has, 'YHWH said to Abram..." In Exodus, however, we see that God reveals this name to Moses (in chapter 3), and Exodus 6: 3 says, 'God also said to Moses, "I am YHWH, I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty (El-Shaddai), but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them." As has been mentioned, the Bible is quite clear about when the Sabbath was revealed, and it was to Moses after the Isrealites had crossed the Red Sea. God bless, Adrian |
