| Author | Message | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2006 |
I have a history question that relates to the Law. I believe that the Bible teaches that The 10 and the rest of the Law are a package. Am I right to assume that the Jews (and Jesus and the early church) considered them as such a package? I think so, because Jesus points out that they were allowed to break the sabbath (The 10) to do circumsicision (the rest of the Law), and also that the priests are allowed break the sabbath to perform their duties. (This does not seem to indicate that The 10 superceeded the rest, but that they all worked together.) Well, at what point was it decided that The 10 were so all important and the "ceremonial law" had been done away with? In other words I wonder, if they were given as a package and understood as a package then WHEN were they broken apart? WHO was responsible for that? HOW did it happen? This is not an SDA thing. It is pervasive in many many Christian Churches as much as I know of, that The 10 are considered something special and different and more binding on Christians - consider the 10 Comandments Day celebration that they just had. Do Jews still consider The 10 and the rest as a package or do they have extra signifigance in The 10 as well? Am I wrong, has this always been the case? It just seems to me that understanding that the whole thing goes together is important to making a smooth transition from the Old to the New Covanent and that when you split it apart it opens up a whole different ball of worms, so to speak in that a person can now "pick and choose". If anyone of you know the answer to this historical question or what the Jews think about it now, I will be most interested. Thank you in advance. Pegg | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 533 Registered: 7-2004  |
I will try to find them tomorrow evening. Around Oct '04 I made a couple posts that included some history around the first records of a "ceremonial" law split. It was long after them time of Christ. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1269 Registered: 10-2004  |
Pegg, The Jews have always (and still do) consider the 10 and the rest of the Law of Moses as a package--in total, 613 commandments (mitzvot), which make up the Law of Moses. Here are a couple of interesting links: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Jewish_understanding As for Christianity, I don't know exactly how or when the Law was "split," but I think it is safe to say that this idea was passed onto Protestants from the Catholic Church. I do know that the early church fathers understood the Law to be an undivided whole and the fact that Christ made the Law obsolete. Jeremy | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 683 Registered: 7-2004 |
Great question, Pegg. I am looking forward to hearing the historical background to this breaking apart of the whole law (all 600 + regulations). I think you are absolutely right that the key to understanding the trasition from the Old to the New Covanent is that the 10 commandments are not separate from the rest of the law. I have done a study of Genesis this year. One thing I have come to appreciate regarding the New Covenant is that it is really not a new concept to God. In Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed in the Lord and "He (God) reckoned it to him as righteousness." God later tells Abraham's son, Isaac, he has a part in the orginal covenant "Because Abraham obeyed Me and Kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (Gen. 26:5). This cannot be the 10 commandments (or any written law)- they hadn't been given yet! God's purpose for all mankind was a complete rest and faith in Him through a daily walk and connection with Him! This was His plan at Creation, for Abraham and his family, the nation of Israel, the disciples and now for us today! Give me Jesus, Denise | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3952 Registered: 12-2003  |
Pegg, McGregor Wright addressed the subject of when the law became "divided" into parts in his article, "the Unity of the Law" in the July/August issue of Proclamation last year. You can read the article in the online version of the issue at this link: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf Colleen | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 456 Registered: 7-2004  |
This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. I also recognize and have been frustrated that the majority of churches incorrectly teach a separation between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Law. If more churches understood the facts about that unity, SDA's would have far less draw for any potential converts. I think the confusion is related to the tendency of people to want to contribute to their salvation, or have a checklist to monitor themselves with. Many mistakenly assume that those of us who understand we are no longer under the Law (including the 10), are "antinomians" and think we can behave anyway we want to. Instead, we are under the Law of Christ, which is the only "eternal" principle --"love God and love man." It's interesting that it's theoretically possible to rigidly keep every one of the 10, without having any love for anyone. Instead of pointing people to the Law, The NT is filled with "love one another" verses. Also, how many churches like to pick and choose which OT laws they think are still binding? For example, SDA's like to say the clean and unclean meat laws still apply as well as tithing (although they changed the method of tithing from the way it was given in the OT). Most other churches at least continue tithing, yet again doing it their own way. A few churches do the feast days. As far as I know, even Messianic Jews pick and choose. For example, I think most don't bother with the tassles on the clothing and beard requirements. I am so thankful salvation has always been about what Jesus does for us, not what we do! And He has removed the curse of the Law and the dividing wall so all we do is rest in Him and let the Holy Spirit work through us to love others. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3959 Registered: 12-2003 |
Raven, you have some excellent insights. I think you've "hit the nail on the head" when you say, "I think the confusion is related to the tendency of people to want to contribute to their salvation, or have a checklist to monitor themselves with." Even the first teasing apart of the law in the very early days of the Catholic church was, I believe, related to possessing a means of evaluation and control on people. If one leaves people in the hands of God to be taught by the Spirit, one cannot demand nearly so many monetary and behavioral duties. Interestingly, the NT clearly teaches church discipline for those persistently living in sin. But the issue is about refsuing to live according to the Spirit and about dishonoring Christ and His body the church, not about breaking the 10 Commandments. Great points. Raven. Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 212 Registered: 7-2005  |
One of the favorites ideas in adventism is the pride of being the people who "keep all the commandments", the standard established by God Himself. All other christians, who don't keep the sabbath are just lowering the standard of God's law, making one suited for themselves. they make God in their images, an idol. But the adventists are the only who don't change the law of God as antichrist of Daniel 7 did. But on the practical way they pick and choose what they believe from Ellen White, what rules established by her to follow. The same they do with the keeping of the Sabbath. I made an experiment. Because my adventists friends were displeased with me speaking against Ellen White, I entered the role of promoting Ellen White. I started using her abberant requirements about sabbath keeping, like renouncing to shave or not polishing the shoes in Sabbath. But they dismissed these things very easily. How can they do this, I asked myself, if they believe that her words were inspired? How can they pick and choose? Well, the answer is so simple. They choose the 10 commandments, and the rest is dismissed. No, not all. They made another selection, they choose the food laws, and the tithe. The unity of the law never crossed their minds. They never thought that they are lowering the standard of Moses law by doing these things. But their choices are contradictory. First, they said that the Decalogue is the eternal law of God, but after this they said also that the food laws are permanent, and also the tithe is permanent. There are non-negotable, but neither of these rules are included in the Decalogue. In this way because they don't believe in the unity of the law, they set themselves on the path of contradicting themselves, and living with it. The rationalization process which starts when someone present an idea contrary to their belief system, has it's source in this separation of law, between what's ceremonial and what's moral and eternal. The only logical and consistent position is to sustain the unity of the law. See only the problems of adventists, and how they actually learn to become unbelievers in the Bible. It's only a step further to dismiss as not being inspired some part of the Bible. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 2190 Registered: 11-2002 |
Raven, you can go to the website of the Bible Sabbath Association and read about numerous Sabbath observing churches in North Americam. Most listed give a breif description of their beliefs and doctrines. There are several that require tassles and/or fringe be on the botton=ms of clothing. some are into snake handleing and many of them are way super farout. It's kind-of a fun read. i have actually visaited some of the more interesting and unusual congreations here in california that are listed. I ended up once in a really loud penticostal type church one sabbath. i think you can link to the Bible Sabbath association through the links on Dirk's site. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3963 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, your observations are very good. You are right about the step-by-step way Adventism dismisses both the reliability of Ellen and also of the Bible. They are in a dilemma, actually; on the one hand they claim the Bible as their sole authorityóand they quote a false prophet who claims the Bible is the sole authority. Then the false prophet states that her own writings are to be accepted in their entiretyóeither all or none of them are from Godóand that to dismiss them means loss of salvation. So, Adventists actually have two foundations of authority: the Bible and Ellen White. Because they cannot adequately make all of Ellen's works "hang together" as a unified whole (because she contradicts herself so much), they are forced to pick and choose what to believe. Then, because their own false prophet said the Bible is authoritative, they must also accept itóbut it disagrees with the prophet, so they are forced to pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. Thus, they do not believe either of their foundations to be completely trustworthy. They are left only with their own logic and biases. Colleen | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thank You All for your posts. This has really been a help. I can see that you agree that having broken the law into sections is a foundation to confusion. I've had a really hard time getting my head around the fact that it's all one package. Now I think that my head knows it, but my heart keeps on forgetting. Then I get scared! If I'm "wrong", I can take responsibility for myself. But I'd never want to lead another person "astray". Jeremy, that first link answers exactly what the Jews believe. Thank you for that. It seems to me like they should know. Coleen, I was able to download your link and am about to read it now. Another friend also recommended it to me. I'm anxious to see it. Raven, me too! I think if the law is a package, then it's easy to see that we're just left with Jesus. Satan doesn't want it to be that clear! Jackob, it's a slippery slope, isn't it?! Again, thank you all for your thoughts and support. Let's all keep searching! Pegg | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 514 Registered: 1-2003  |
Merely an observation: In the Jewish Synagogues I've attended there is often a representation of the "10 commandments" exhibited on the wall or on the doors of the "ark" where the scrolls are kept. I don't know if they include them in the 613 comandments that you mention. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 7 Registered: 2-2006 |
Coleen! Thank you again for that terrific article (linked above). It was very good, and also simple enough that I could understand the meaning of almost all of the words. (I'm not a biblical scholar!) So now I know that the separation of the package into moral, civil and ceremonial happened during the middle ages. (page 7) That's a long time after the beginning of the church. This really doesn't matter, but I'm still curious. I wonder if we have any indication WHO thought up this idea and FOR WHAT PURPOSE? It seems like there would have had to be a compelling reason to make this change after many centuries. On page 8 of the RK McGregor Wright article it says: "The real motivation for the threefold classification is that the NT teaches that the Law was fulfulled in Christ. This teaching presents a problem, however, for those who believe that the moral law was not fulfulled at all.." For sure!!! But that has to be meaning about now. It refers to after the tradition of the whole law as a package had been discontinued. It seems logically that for as long as the church considered the whole to be a package, it would have been very obvious what had been fulfilled and done away with. End of story...no arguments...until someone got the idea to reclassify the parts. Ric - I'm looking forward to your promised comments whenever you get around to it. We may never know this and again, it's not up there on the importance scale. But it would lend credibility and logic to what can be an emotional discussion. Again, I thank all of you. Let's keep searching. Pegg | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 538 Registered: 7-2004 |
Pegg-- Sorry for the delay. Here was the historical information I had posted before: http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/2174.html?1097702301#POST30280 | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 10 Registered: 2-2006 |
Ric! Thank you! Thank you! I know that I'm "late coming". It was a reason that, for a long time, I would only lurk and didn't dare to post. I could see that many of the discussions had already been had. This question finally pushed me over the edge. I have to study what you wrote and the entire discussion more, and then I'll add more comments here...probably more questions. I hope that's okay. Thank you for directing me to the former discussion. Let's keep searching! Pegg | ||
| Pegg Registered user Username: Pegg Post Number: 11 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thank you all for your posts and interest in helping me on this subject. I think it's important to me because understanding that The Law is one whole piece makes the transition from Old to New Covanent so clear for me. Ric - Your post puts the split at about the same time as the article in the Proclamation post (above). Your finding seems to indicate that the split originated in Christianity. It's interesting because Jeremey's jewfaq post (above) is clear that they currently believe in The Law as a package. I got an answer back from Sal on allexperts.com. The jist of what he had to say was that he didn't know and it didn't seem like of any importance to him. He pointed out that James says if you break the least thing you break it all, which he took to mean that it was all one package. Well, the WHO and WHY are not important, just interesting! History often has subtle things to teach us and often more interesting thoughts come from what you learn as you dig around. Let's Keep Searching! Pegg |
