This article was written in response to a challenge put forth on the inter-net. A critic of Adventism declared that we must change our view of the law, and after debating with other Adventists, declared the following issues are unanswerable by Adventists who remain true to their understanding of God's commandment law. We let the reader judge if his "unanswered" issues are really unanswerable.
#1
It is claimed by the Dual Law people that the Sabbath at creation was an "evening and morning" Sabbath, and such a Sabbath will be kept in the New
Earth.
Is 66:23 "from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD."
This is often given as a proof text of the Evening/Morning Sabbath being kept in the new earth. However it also includes a reference to the New
Moon festival, which Christian's don't keep. When I pointed out the reference to the New Moon festival Jose claimed it wasn't a festival ("I don't see
any festival here John"), and when I then referred him to other parts of Isaiah which refer to the New Moon festival nothing more was said.
New Moons happen once a month and often connoted something important in the Jewish calendar. So it will be in the new earth! In Revelation 22:2 we read more on the new earth where there is the tree of life bearing twelve crops of fruit, and it yields its fruit every month. And all nations will come for healing.
Isaiah 66 continues with the righteous seeing the wicked burning — I'm surprised this critic did
not throw that in as well as most do. However, that text only confirms the truth that this is indeed after the thousand years.
On 21st September I posted a series of questions which distinguish Protestantism from Catholicism. Since we were discussing the law it seemed
useful to check if those participating in the discussion were "Protestants" or "Catholics". For 4 weeks there was no reply, then Jose posted an "amen"
to a reply which scored mostly for a Catholic view of the law. Since then nothing has been heard.
If you are honest you will soon realize the issue is not obedience or none obedience — the issue is man's laws vs. God's laws. Until a person sees that issue, they will never realize the true meaning of worship or the place of God's commandments. Nor will they realize the true problem presented to the world by the Catholic Church who, through the centuries imposed a man made commandment to replace one of God's commandments and enforced it by legal measures.
"In vain they worship me," Jesus said, "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Note too, that Jesus is making reference here to one of the ten commandments that has been transgressed by doctrines of men. "Honour your father and mother" "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your traditions?" Jesus asks?
As to the argument, and it is a well known argument -- one that I've answered at some length in the past. The covenant is NOT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS! To use the text above is like taking one line out of a contract and declaring that the whole contract is composed of that one line. Yes, God's moral law is a central part of each and every covenant. The purpose of the covenants is God's dealings with sinful people. All are sinful because they have transgressed God's law. Sin is the transgression of the law. Keeping the commandments never saved any sinner, not in the old covenant or the new, that is why there must be a covenant if there is any hope for salvation or restoration of a sinful people into a right relationship with God. The covenants of which God makes with sinful people are promises of deliverance from sin! To say the old covenant was the ten commands is saying the commandments had the ability to save people under the old covenant, which they did not. Because the people were sinners in violation of God's law, the covenant was a promise of how God will bring sinners back into righteous relationship with him. And yes, the law has an important part in the whole process in all of God's covenants.
Remember, the ark of the covenant also has a mercy seat. Remember too, that the old covenant was ratified with blood (typifying Christ's blood) and sinners were forgiven by the sacrifice system (typifying Christ's sacrifice for sinners whose blood alone really took care of the sins).
Many have given quotes on "the law" that they unquestioningly apply to the ten commandments. I have shown repeatedly that the term "the law" is
used to refer to the TORAH, the whole law of Moses, no one has ever responded to these arguments.
As far as I'm concerned the NT makes it plain that it is the ceremonial law of the sanctuary with it's priests and sacrifices which is no longer needed. Those have been ended, but not once does it abolish the moral law. The difference is obvious! Not once does it say, the law against stealing, lying, murdering, worshiping other gods etc. is abolished!
Often those arguing for the ten commandments applying to gentiles say the TORAH is divided into the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law". I have that thse terms do not appear in Scripture and that the Bible never divides the law in this fashion. Indeed it goes against the whole concept a covenant with Israel, whole details are contained in the book of the law, whose agreement is signed by God in the words of the covenant, and which is kept in the ark of the covenant. No one has shown the law can be separated from the covenant.
No, the moral law is not separated from ANY covenant — For God will write the HIS LAW within the heart, these are the words applied to THE NEW COVENANT — So we see that the moral law is upheld by the apostles. We see that the sacrifices and ceremonies of the earthly temple are declared abolished — anyone who honestly reads the NT will be able to see that. So why do we encounter so much antangonism to God's moral law? It is because the dragon (Satan) is very angry with those who keep the commandments of God, so he introduces all manner of ideas into men's minds for THEY MUST GET RID OF THE SABBATH ( the enemy of souls will enforce a rival commandment to substitute God's plain words) so, to do this, they throw out the whole moral law -- even though it is totally plain and obvious that the moral law is upheld by the apostles.
Hebrews 8.10
According to this critic, the law always refers to the Torah, or the whole book of Moses. So by this is he saying it would mean that God is writing the TORAH upon the hearts of new covenant Christians— while the ten commandments, which according to his definition, is the old covenant is abolished! Talk about getting things backwards and then attacking others who agree with the Bible that it is the earthly sanctuary services which are ended, being fulfilled by Christ's death and work in the heavenly sanctuary, but the moral law is still applicable to our lives and is written upon the hearts of God's children.
Some argue for applying the ten commandments to gentiles by quoting Jesus telling the rich young ruler how to gain eternal life - "keep the
commandments". However Jesus telling a Jew to keep the TORAH does not make them applicable to gentiles. No one has responded to this obvious
fact.
The critics will probably shrug with equal nonchalance at Christ's words
in Matt. 7.21-23:
And Paul makes the issues pretty clear as well:
This text is often cited in defense of the ten commandments, however the term "law and the prophets" is just another way of referring to the Old
Testament. I have pointed out that saying "Jesus does not destroy the Old Testament, he fulfils it" makes perfect sense and certainly does not imply
the ten commandments apply to gentiles, but this has not been responded to. Following this text comes the phrase "one jot or tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" which is just another way of saying the same thing.
But, I guess, according to the critic's logic:
This is a strange claim, although often made. This simply denies the text "it was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant" (Deut 5:3).
It is true that there was no written copy upon tables of stone before Sinai, God's words were passed down by word of mouth, but the principles of all the moral law were known and practiced long before Sinai, because people knew what sin was long before Sinai, and the law identifies sin.
God made a covenant with Adam and Eve promising to put enmity between them and evil (writing the law in their hearts?)
Why does Genesis 26.5 say
Consider too: why was it wrong for Cain to kill Abel? Or Jacob to steal the birthright?
Why did Joseph say to Potopher's wife: "How can I do this and sin against God", if there was no law to define it as sin against God?
Consider as well, that the ten commandments are specifically mentioned as the part of the covenant— yes they are part of the everlasting covenant! And so is the Sabbath!
See
Challenge #9
Quotes from John, where Jesus says "keep my commandments" are cited as referring to the ten commandments. However I have often pointed out
that "the law" and "commandments" in John mean two totally different things. Law always refers to the Jewish TORAH, "commandments" to Jesus new commandments. No one has replied to this fact.
The law refers to the old covenant, it is the law of Moses: "the law was given through Moses" (1:17),
This new commandments issue, is an old argument that basically says:
All this talk about new commandments is deceptive.
Mark 12:29-34 tells us what the "New" commandments are. The New Commandments are none other than to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul— this is the summation and outgrowth of the first four commandments. When we love God with all our hearts, we do not have any other gods before Him, nor do we make images to worship, but worship only Him. If we love God we do not dishonor His name and we do not rob Him of the time He has set aside to spend with us and we with Him.
The command to love your neighbor as yourself is but the summation and magnification, of the last six commandments. In fact both Jesus and Paul use this command to love our neighbors, with a recitation from the last six commandments. (Matt. 19:18-19, Romans 13:9)
I have pointed out that the writings of John always refer to "commandments" to mean Christ's new commandment to love one another. They use the
term "law" to refer to the law of the Old Testament. The term "law" is never used in Revelation. I have not had a response to this.
It would seem people would be a little more alert to the statement— IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME— that is a strong statement! When a person willfully sets aside a plain "Thus says the Lord" and follows man made commandments that replace it — they are walking on dangerous ground indeed.
Somehow our critic forgot that Christ also said the GREATEST COMMANDMENT is to love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul ---
Those texts in Revelation are key texts in discovering what the mark of the beast and the false worship warned against in the last days is all about. The Bible's most fearful warnings are uttered against those who receive the mark of the beast, while those who keep God's commandments and have the faith of Jesus are declared to be the SAINTS. "Worship Him who made heaven and earth" the angel of warning shouts with a loud voice. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy for in six days God made heaven and earth" the commandment echoes.
First of all, why did our critic cut that sentence "Gentiles, who do not have the law....?
As to the sentence: "Paul's writings
reveals that by "the law" he means the whole TORAH."
The importance of the commandments is shown in Romans 13:8-10
Paul's understanding of the law is Christ centered. While he strongly drives home the truth that the law cannot justify anyone, he upholds the law as the standard for Christian living.
He does not do away with obedience to the commandments but stresses mankind's inability to keep it apart from the Holy Spirit in their lives. He makes it plain that God demands more than outward conformity. God wants the heart— Outward obedience is not where its at, obedience must come from a willing and changed heart. Therefore, only those who walk "according to the Spirit" can fulfill "the just requirements of the Law." (Rom 8:4)
This is very misleading information which the critic has here. As we can see by the additions I have added to his list, there are many words and many meanings to connote "laws" and "commands."
I like the translation in my German Bible on these texts. It reads "He proclaimed to you the ten commands which are your duty in the covenant which God made with you, and wrote them upon two tablets of stone." The book of the law, which Moses wrote, was put by the side of the ark of the covenant, NOT INSIDE, like the two tablets of stone with God's 10 Words. Those "ten words" GOD wrote on those stones with His own finger. God spoke those "ten words", and only those "ten words,"with His own voice, to the people, from the mountain. (Duet. 31:26)
The word TORAH is both the name given to the books of Moses AND a general term meaning law. In Judaism, Torah, in it's broad sense meant "the substance of Divine revelation." "God's revealed teaching or guidance for man." In a more restricted sense it became synonymous with the Pentateuch--the first five books of Moses.
"nomos" is the equivalent to TORAH. So there is no "translation" problem here either.
_
Psalm 119.10-12
"With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
Thy words have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
When Hebrews says, God will write His law upon the hearts of His New Covenant believers, He is not talking about the whole Torah, as in cerimonial laws, etc. He is talking about His eternal principles found in those 10 Words or commandments — the moral law of God. God will write His revealed will in our hearts.
#14
____
The critics will do the same with all the references that Paul worshipped
upon the Sabbath and even invited the Gentiles to come hear him next SABBATH and the whole city came into the city square to hear Paul preach to them the next SABBATH. (Acts 13:42- 44)
But you will often hear people who knock the 7th day, promote Sunday, because Paul preached Saturday night (eve of First day) as proof that Sunday is the New day!
As far as the circumcision law--
Also note that Luke, a Gentile Christian, who traveled often with Paul, wrote in his gospel account, about thirty years AFTER the cross: "And they rested the Sabbath day according to the COMMANDMENT." No hint here that he thought it was an obsolete commandment or an old commandment. He says, simply, "they rested on the Sabbath according to the Commandment."
Oh, some critics will say, but John says "Friday was the JEW'S PREPARATION DAY", so John makes that distinction. But wait. Look again. The word "day" is supplied. It isn't in the original. (John 19:42) It just says they had to bury Jesus quickly because of the preparations of the Jews. The Jews were worried about the bodies being on the cross upon the Sabbath, so they maneuvered things to get them down. (John 19:31) This simply shows the futility of trying to keep holy the Sabbath while rejecting the "Lord of the Sabbath", the One Who created the Sabbath for mankind in the beginning, (Mark 2:27) and without Him, mere ritual resting is useless.
Without the Lord of the Sabbath, it is impossible to keep the Sabbath day holy.
It is claimed Jesus used the term "law of Moses" to refer to the ceremonial law, see for example Matthew 19:7-9 on divorce, in which the law of
Moses can be changed.
Jesus does not use the term "law of Moses" in this text. Jesus compares the law given through Moses with how it was in "the beginning", so he is not
comparing the (eternal) Ten Commandments and the (temporal) Ceremonial Law, but one part of the books of the law (Genesis) with another
(Exodus). Jesus immediately following this text quotes from the law "love your neighbour as yourself" (Matt 19:19; Lev 19:18) - not in the Ten
Commandments and "honour your father and mother" (Matt 19:19; Ex 20:12), which is. So Jesus happily mixes the Ten Commandments and the rest
of the law together. Jesus often refers to "the law and the prophets" (Matt 5:17; Matt 7:12; Matt 11:13; Matt 22:40) showing he treated "the law"
in the traditional Jewish manner as the books of Moses.
Jesus is simply re-establishing the principle in the ten commandments. Which have been in effect since the beginning. It was only because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses permitted divorce. But Jesus adds, it results in breaking the 7th commandment. "Thou shalt not commit adultery. Far from abolishing the commandment, Jesus makes it so strong here, the disciples recoiled in amazement.
The Sabbath (Gen. 2:1-3) and Marriage sanctity (Gen. 2:24) were established in Eden, not at Sinai. There is no way either has been abolished for the present age.
God's commandments were magnified in the NT, the ten commandments are still the foundational principles of the moral law.
Yes, Jesus often redefined the "laws of Moses" BUT you will
notice in this, and every instance — he did NOT abolish the ten commandments, but magnified them.
Jose claimed that in Romans 7 Paul refers to two laws, "God's law" and the "law at work in the members of my body". This supports the dual law theory.
I have argued that Paul uses the term "the law" the same as other writers in the Bible, to refer to the TORAH, the covenant with Israel. There has
been no response.
Paul does not refer to the TORAH (whole book of Moses), nor does he refer to the ceremonial law in Romans 7. He uses the term "nomos" which means "a law". He quotes directly from the
ten commandments, "Thou shalt not covet". This law is said to "point out what sin is". He uses the term "commandments" "entole" (the same word John uses for commandments) interchangable with "law" in this passage..
The words in Romans seven, are very plain — He delights in the law after the inward man, but...ANOTHER LAW IN MY MEMBERS IS AT WAR WITH THE LAW IN MY MIND — the law of sin in my members --
There are definitely two laws here and neither of them are the TORAH. The law is "Thou shalt not covet" and he finds himself lusting after and doing things he shouldn't.
That is his example. The ten commandments which identify sin, are resented by the law of the carnal nature that desires sin.
Paul asks, Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary we establish the law.
Chapter 7 says we must die to one law so we can serve another law.
This passage is too plain— it shows the war that takes place between two laws. The law of sin in our members and the righteous, holy, law of God. The way to deal with this war is not to abolish God's law, but to surrender to the Holy Spirit. Paul does not in anyway abolish God's commandments, in these chapters, but shows how only with the Spirit filled life can one put to death that carnal law within and fulfil the righteous will of God. For the Spirit writes God's law upon the heart and internalizes it.
A semantic difference means we agree on the basic issues but are arguing over terminology. This debate is not therefore semantic, as we disagree
over whether the "words of the (Jewish) covenant" apply to Gentiles. I argue they do not, you argue they do. We are not therefore agreed on the basic issue.
The call goes forth, "come out of her my people that you do not partake of her sins and that you receive not her plagues." (Those sins are defined by God's Holy Commandments) It is by setting aside the commandments of God, that people like our critic are trying to shift the mind set of all who would still recognize God's moral law, into accepting the mark of the beast —
the accepting of the "vain worship" in the last days, that is in reality rebellion, not worship at all, to God.
Jose writes "By attacking the law as a whole, you seek to destroy principles which are eternal in nature."
Others have argued that if the law is not applicable to Gentiles it will lead to an increase in sin. I have repeatedly pointed out that the New
Testament argues that the law causes sin, rather than suppressing it. No one has been able to challenge this interpretation.
This is why the whole drama of sin and suffering is allowed to play out it's devastating results; to show the universe what it is like when created beings are "released from the obligation of keeping God's law."
Yet despite all the evidence of what a world, that has cast aside God's law is like, people, like this critic, stand up in God's name and say it is God's law that causes sin.
Paul clearly points out that law identifies sin, it does not lead to sin-- it reveals sin and declares it as exceedingly sinful. The law heightens the awareness of sin and causes people to do one of two things:
Yes, those who resist the Holy Spirit's promptings to keep God's law will go to great lengths to deny God's law, so they can obey the carnal law of sin in their members. The carnal law of sin IS in direct opposition to God's Holy Law.
Paul points out that the carnal
nature resists restraint and cannot obey the law --
"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:25) they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit," (Rom. 8:8,9) For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if you, through the Spirit do put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live. (Rom. 8:14)
Legalism is not part of the package, we do not earn salvation by keeping the commandments, we can't change our own natures. The issue is surrender of our self centered wills to the will of God and following the Holy Spirit, Who will write God's law upon our hearts and enable us to walk with Christ in the light, and stay out of the darkness of lawlessness.
Romans 6.16-18
God's ten "words" are promises of deliverance from the bondage of sin. Through His Holy Spirit He will free us from the bondage of hate and bitter thoughts against others and we will not be lead to murder anyone, but to love even our enemies. (6th commandment in magnification) He will free us from the discontented thoughts of covetousness and desires for things we can't have, and we will not be lead to steal, but will find contentment and peace (10th and 8th commandment) He will free us from the bondage of deceptive dealings and make us honest individuals, with integrity. ((9th commandment). He will deliver us from the mad rat race of worldly pursuits and lead us into a sanctuary of time with our Lord and Savior, when we rest for a full day each week, in close fellowship with Christ (4th commandment), in a way a person cannot achieve in the work demanding weekly days.
I have frequently argued that we need to look at God's covenants in the Bible in order to understand the law. After all, the Ten Commandments are
"the words of the covenant". However no one has suggested an alternative way to understand covenants which conforms to the Dual Law theory.
Yes, the TEN COMMANDMENTS are part of the covenant, the everlasting covenant! Their principles, in all their amplified form, are the very basis of God's government. Sin is the rebellion against God's government and God's law. Sin is rebellion against God's commandments. Paul makes it perfectly clear, that NO ONE, living in rebellion to the principles of God's law will enter the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9,10) To restore sinful mankind, there must be a change in him from being a rebellious creature, into one who delights in the law of God. The covenants are God's revelation of the plan of restoration. It is God's purpose, in his covenant promises, to offer a way that sinful human beings can be FORGIVEN and RESTORED, and to lovingly exhibit the principles contained in those "ten words".
The old covenant contained the whole ceremonial system (a model of the gospel-- mercy and forgiveness were found in the sanctuary services. But these services were based on promises of things that were yet future and only typified the future reality with their animal sacrifices and and earthly priests proforming services. In themselves they could not provide salvation, they only pointed forward and illustrated, the sacrifice of Christ and His work in the heavenly sanctuary. The new covenant is based on better things, for the precious blood that cleanses from all sin has been shed, and Christ, Himself is now the minister and priest in the heavenly sanctuary above.
The commandment law is to be written upon the heart! It is still there in full magnification of it's principles, which is to pervade the whole being of the Christian surrendered to Christ.
There have been a number of quotes from Bacchiocchi on keeping the Sabbath. However Bacchiocchi never addresses the question of the law, or
looks at the principles involved in Gentiles keeping the Torah. My responses to Bacchiocchi's arguments have never been denied.
Hebrews has a detailed discussion on the law and Christianity, which I have argued confirms my views on the law. No one has responded to these
claims.
The old covenant is abolished -- but the old covenant is not the ten commandments -- it's the
earthly priestly sanctuary system.
The new covenant is Christ's ministry -- (the better blood, better priest, better sanctuary,
better promises) it's the real thing, the old was just to typify Christ's work in the heavenly. The law is not done away with in Hebrews— it is written upon the hearts of God's convent people.
The covenants are set up to deal with the root as well as the results of sin. (Sin is the breaking of God's laws) The covenants' promises involve forgiveness of sins and restoration from sin--a changed life. The moral law, which identifies sin, is very much the basis of both the new and old covenant.
But Paul's very frequent encouragement of believers to high standards IS backed with references to the ten commandments quite frequently.
We need to take Paul's words warning to heart when people, like this critic say we are not under obligation to follow the 10 commandments.
Romans 13:8-9 "He that loves another hath fulfilled the law.
Finally, this discussion appears negative - it is attacking a Traditional Adventist doctrine. However its purpose is positive. Seventh-day Adventism is
the completion of the Reformation. How can it be the completion when it still holds doctrines on the law inherited from the Catholic church and not from the Bible? Adventism has changed doctrines before and can do so again, truth is not something to be afraid of.
This whole effort on the part of countless critics descending upon any that would stand by the commandments of God, is to knock the foundation out from under us which declares that "In vain they worship me," Jesus said, "Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, setting aside the commandments of God to observe the traditions of men." (Matt. 15:3,6,9)
Yes, our critic would complete the reformation — completely destroy it.
Let's see what one reformer has to say about God's commandments:
"'I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' . . . Without question, His meaning in this place is (consistently with all that goes before and follows after),--I am come to establish it in its fullness, in spite of all the glosses of men: I am come to place in a full and clear view whatsoever was dark or obscure therein: I am come to declare the true and full import of every part of it; to show the length and breadth, the entire extent, of every commandment contained therein, and the height and depth, the inconceivable purity and spirituality of it in all its branches."--Wesley, sermon 25.
Wesley declared the perfect harmony of the law and the gospel. "There is, therefore, the closest connection that can be conceived, between the law and the gospel. On the one hand, the law continually makes way for, and points us to, the gospel; on the other, the gospel continually leads us to a more exact fulfilling of the law. The law, for instance, requires us to love God, to love our neighbor, to be meek, humble, or holy. We feel that we are not sufficient for these things; yea, that 'with man this is impossible;' but we see a promise of God to give us that love, and to make us humble, meek, and holy: we lay hold of this gospel, of these glad tidings; it is done unto us according to our faith; and 'the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us,' through faith which is in Christ Jesus. . . .
"In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ," said Wesley, "are they who openly and explicitly 'judge the law' itself, and 'speak evil of the law;' who teach men to break (to dissolve, to loose, to untie the obligation of) not one only, whether of the least or of the greatest, but all the commandments at a stroke. . . . The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is that they who are given up to it, really believe that they honor Christ by overthrowing His law, and that they are magnifying His office while they are destroying His doctrine! Yea, they honor Him just as Judas did when he said, 'Hail, Master, and kissed Him.' And He may as justly say to every one of them, 'Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? It is no other than betraying Him with a kiss, to talk of His blood, and take away His crown; to set light by any part of His law, under pretense of advancing His gospel. Nor indeed can anyone escape this charge, who preaches faith in any such a manner as either directly or indirectly tends to set aside any branch of obedience: who preaches Christ so as to disannul, or weaken in any wise, the least of the commandments of God."-- Ibid . 264
Quoted from this original challenge site
In my experience Adventists have a number of misunderstandings on the law
To hopefully avoid this repetition and move the debate forward I have come up with a list of 21 items I regularly mention in discussions but which get
overlooked.
It would be interesting to hear some responses to them.
Evening and Morning Sabbaths
"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me...from one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all will come and bow down before me," says the Lord." The text is plain enough that from one Sabbath to another we will worship together in the new earth.
In Rev. 20:7-10 — when the saints are in the New Jerusalem and the wicked move to attack the city, fire will come down from heaven to consume them — and the righteous within the city will be very much aware of it.
Protestants or Catholics.
Has it ever occurred to you that the issue here is not obedience or none obedience to a moral law? Not everything the Catholics believe is false and not everything the Protestants believe is truth. The bottom line is what does the Bible teach. We then discover that the issue is obedience to God's laws vs. Obedience to man's law? You cannot read far in the NT without reading that God's people "KEEP" commandments— argue what you may — the Bible says they "KEEP" commandments.
"You have made the commandment of God of no effect with your traditions--hypocrites — you honor me with your mouth, but your heart is far from me, you worship me IN VAIN, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. 15:3-9)
"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
"And Jesus said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7:6-8)
Are the Ten Commandments "the words of the covenant" (Ex 34:28)?
"And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the ten commandments."
Jose has repeatedly quoted from Exodus where God writes the Ten Commandments, arguing that this makes them eternal and applicable to all
mankind. I have repeatedly said that such a description is not found in Scripture. Instead the Bible says the Ten Commandments were written by God
and are special because they are "the words of the covenant", the central agreement between God and Israel. Jose has not responded to this.
My response:
First of all— please note what was written upon the tables of stone!
This will be of great value as we look further at the 21 supposedly unanswered issues.
It was specifically mentioned that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were written upon those tablets!
The term "the law" in the Bible.
It takes too much time to look up all his arguments —but I think, by the time we are finished with all 21 issues, the arguments will be answered. We've heard the challenge before, — how can you tell the difference between all those laws given to Moses, from the ten commandments?.
As far as I'm concerned it's just a bunch of loop hole hopping and evasion tactics that only make
one sick at heart —
First of all, God spoke the ten commandments, from Mt. Sinai — it was the ten commandments that were written upon the tablets of stone with God's finger, they received very special emphasis! The rest of the law was given to Moses. But consider also the obvious: The New Testament upholds ALL the moral law — the ten commandments and their magnification — moral living (with the appeals to commands in the ten commandments) these are very much upheld in the NT, including the declaration that Christ created the Sabbath for mankind and that He is Lord of the Sabbath day. ( Mark 2:27,28 Col. 1:16)
The "ceremonial law"
Just because a person doesn't have "ceremonial law" "moral law" spelled out, they can still see that the practice of sacrificing lambs and goats, etc. has ended, but the law forbidding murder, stealing, lying and adultery, worshiping other gods, etc. is still very much in force in the NT.
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"
Jesus and the rich young ruler
This is another old argument — Jesus WORDS are relegated to the old covenant, which to me is
blasphemy.
Jesus is not referring to the whole TORAH — the commandments are quoted right there in the passage!
They are all from the last six of the ten commandments and then Jesus sums them up as "love your
neighbor."
"Not every one that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work lawlessness."
Ephesians 5.3-6
"But fornication, and all uncleanness,(7th commandment breakers) or covetousness, (10th commandment breakers) let it not be once named among you, as becoming saints;
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting,( 7th, 3rd , 9th commandment breakers)
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, (7th commandment breakers) nor covetous man, (tenth commandment breakers) who is an idolater, (1st and 2nd commandment breakers) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."
Jesus has not come to destroy the law and the prophets.
Read on — the text continues and says the person who breaks and teaches others to break God's law receives the lowest possible marks in the kingdom of heaven. Not only that, Jesus tells us that we must keep the commandments MORE fully — not do away with them! He magnifies the moral law in this chapter (Matt. 5) he certainly does not abolish it. Are you going to tell me the WORDS OF THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF do not apply to ALL people. Did not God speak to US "by His Son, Who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being. (Hebrews 1:1-2) How could any finite, mortal human being, stand up and say Christ's words do not apply to Gentiles?
Christ also said heaven and earth would pass away before the law passes away— seems heaven and earth are still here.
Gentiles can lie, steal, kill, commit adultery, covet, swear, worship Idols etc. all in the
effort to escape the Sabbath. --- HARDLY TRUE— I can't buy that logic. We already know why there is this campaign against God's holy, righteous law. It is to destroy God's Sabbath of rest and enforce a man made tradition in it's place, for even if the critic himself is not aware of where he is pushing people, all roads lead to the final showdown. That showdown is: will we be engaged in the vain worship of the beast of Revelation, or will be among the patient saints who keep God's commandments and have not set them aside to honor the traditions of men.
The ten commandments applied to Adam, Abraham and those before Sinai
Of course the critic is building on the false idea that the old covenant is the ten commandments which God made with Israel. However the commandments are part of EVERY covenant— they are part of the EVERLASTING covenant — God's covenant of salvation and restoration to sinners who have broken His God's laws and who will respond to His mercy.
God made a covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.
Gen. 17.7-9
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations
for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land...
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations."
"Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
Yes, Abraham obeyed God's direct charge to him, but how could he also obey those commandments and statutes and laws if there were no commandments, statutes and laws before Sinai?
See the Sabbath in the New Covenant
The term "commandments" in the writings of John
But "command" is the new commandment of Christ: "a new commandment I give you: love one another" (13:34), "if you love me you will obey what I
command" (14:15), "whoever has my commands and obeys me, he is the one who loves me" (14:21), "I do exactly what my Father has commanded
me" (14:31), "if you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love" (15:10), "my
command is this: love each other as I have loved you" (15:12),
Indeed, John shows that "the law" belongs to the Jews and has nothing to do with the new age, "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" So although "commandment" ("entole" in the Greek) is generally synonymous with "law" ("nomos" in the Greek) in the New Testament, this is not the case in the writings of John. As we have seen above, in John the term "law" and "commandments" are used to have
specifically different meanings. It is misleading to simply quote "commandments" from John and imply it is used in the same sense as the rest of the New Testament. In particular, it most certainly is *not* the same as the Jewish law!
__________
My response:
I wrote a whole page on my website on the "Antole" and law of John's writings ---
See Antole and Commandments
We now have the freedom to define what is right and wrong in are own eyes— we make up our own commandments, where we determine what is right. As long as we can justify our actions to ourselves, that it is the "loving" thing to do, it is right. But that is not Biblical, that is humanism! That is liberation theology, straight from the Jesuit organization. And the critic says we are following Catholic ideas?! I think it is he, that is leading us into Catholic Liberation theology.
John, himself, says they are not new:
"This is the message you have heard from the beginning," he says, "we should love one another."
" I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you have heard from the beginning." 1 John 3:11
Indeed, it was not new, even though it sounded new to them, and was presented as new, for Jewish tradition had lost sight of the concept of a heart response to God's commandments-- they had lost sight of the role of love in obedience. But look what we read in the books of Moses:
Duet 6.5-6
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Duet. 10.12-13
And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the LORD,
Lev. 19.17-18
You are not to hate your brother in your heart:..
You are not to avenge, nor bear any grudge, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the LORD."
Psalms 119
This Psalm with its praise for the law is often cited as being in praise of the ten commandments. However I have shown that "the law" refers to the
TORAH, the Psalmist is praising the covenant between God and Israel ("he remembers his covenant for ever" (Ps 111:5). This has not been
responded to.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
First declaring that the covenant is the ten commandments and then saying the Psalmist is not speaking of the commandments, but praising the covenant between God and Israel.
David is praising the righteous ways and laws of the Lord, which is certainly not what we see the critic doing, especially when we get to challenge # 18.
Seems you are going in circles here. David is praising the righteous ways of the Lord— God's covenant— yes! Which offers salvation. But he also delights in the moral guidelines for the full life. Psalms 40.8
"I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart."
Just like Paul, who wrote in Romans 7.22,
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:"
#11
Revelation 14:12
"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus" (also And the dragon was
wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus
Christ. Rev. 12:17)
The verse says "The commandments of God". It is doing violation to the verse to say it means some new commandment which Christ introduced. Christ Himself referred to the commandments of God in Matt. 15, and quoted the 5th commandment. He then said it was useless to worship Him when one sets aside God's commandments and replaces it with a commandment or tradition of man. And that is exactly what modern Christianity has done.
They have set aside the direct commandment of God to keep holy the Seventh-day and have placed the day of the sun in it's place.
This is the summation of the first four commandments — No other gods before Him, no graven images, not bringing dishonor to the name of God, and not robbing God of our time which He wants to spend with us. The fourth commandment is the greatest expression of love a people can give to their God — to give Him their time, putting aside all their work and resting in Him.
Did Paul use the term "the law" to refer to the ten commandments?
Examples:
Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
It is claimed in examples such as the above that Paul used the term "the law" to refer to the Ten Commandments. However studying Paul's writings
reveals that by "the law" he means the whole TORAH. He associates the law with the covenant made with Israel ("Gentiles, who do not have the law"
Rom 2:14; Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God" (Rom 3:1); "the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship" (Rom
9:4); "the law, introduced 430 years later" (Gal 3:17), "one covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves" (Gal 4:24) etc).
No
one has substantiated the claim that Paul uses the term "the law" to only refer to the Ten Commandments.
____________
I respond:
Here's the whole sentence: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness."
So what do the Gentiles have written upon their hearts?
They DO THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW....so do they do the whole TORAH? According to the critics definitions we must assume that. But what is it that they really do?
We know what they do, they honor God, don't take His name in vain, beg Paul to preach to them the next Sabbath, (Acts 13:42) they don't hate and kill, they live moral lives, they don't steal from their neighbors, they are honest in all their dealings, not covetous. In other words, God's moral law is written in their hearts and they DO THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW — the ten commandment law which is summed up as loving God with all their hearts in loving obedience to the first four commands and loving their neighbor as themselves as in the last six commands,
Surely any serious scholar would throw that sentence out --
Paul uses the word law in a wide variety of ways. The same term Paul uses to refer to the Mosaic Law, he, in other places uses to refer to the entire old testament (1 Cor. 14:21; Rom 3:19,21) In other passages the term "law" is the will of God written in the heart of Gentiles (Rom 2:14-15) evil inclinations (Rom 7:21) guidance of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), and yes, in places it does refer to the ten commandments. (Romans7:7)
Here Paul admonishes the Christian to love his fellow man and then tells us exactly what the criteria of that love is: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. We fulfil that law, by not stealing, not murdering, not committing adultery, not coveting and not violating any of the other commandments.
Translations of "the law"
Jose claimed: "Your selective use of the Word Torah to encompass both is not doing just to the translation."
I have demonstrated that "TORAH" is by far the most common Hebrew word for law, for example, here are the various Hebrew words translated as
"law" in the Old Testament:
18 DATH
(means "law", "royal edict", or statue, commission, command. It is actually translated as law only 9 times and as decree, 9 times. The Aramaic version of "Dath" is translated as law 11 times and decree 3 times and includes Daniel's statement "he shall think to change times and laws" Does this mean man will make a decree to change God's commandment)
4 CHOQ
This word is usually translated as "statute" in the Bible, (87 times), "ordinance" 9 times, "decree" 7 times, and "law" 4 times.
1 CHAQAQ
1 MITSVAH
This word is almost always translated "commandments" Abraham kept my "mistvah". (Gen 26:5) It is used in the second commandment "Them that love me and keep my "mistvah".(Ex. 20:6) It is used repeatedly in Psalms 119 as David sings praises about God's commandments. Mistvah is translated 173 times as commandments in the old testament.
1 MISHPAT
215 TORAHTorah simply means "law" and is used as such in the Bible.
By far the most common term is TORAH. The only possible contender to TORAH meaning Law is DATH, which is used to refer to the general principle
of 'law', as in laws of other nations, for example, these texts are all translations of DATH into "law":
"let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media" (Es 1:19)
"laws of the Medes and Persians" (Dan 6:8)
"laws of Medes and Persians" (Dan 6:12)
TORAH is always the word used in the books of the Law to translate "law".
_________
I respond:
The distinction between the ten commandments and the rest of the laws is plain. There is a distinction! It was those tablets of stone, with the 10 WORDS of God that were placed under the mercy seat in the ark of the covenant, and that ark of the covenant is seen again in Revelation 11:19 after the 24 elders which sit before God declare that the "hour of judgment has come."
(See Ex. 31:18, Duet. 4:13, Duet. 5:7-22, Duet. 10:4-5)
This is a most wonderful revelation. The ten commandments are God's ten WORDS of promise. Promises of healing and deliverance from sin.
For the Greek translations for law:
1 agoraios
183 nomos
1 nomikos
1 paranomeo
1 krima
3 krino
1 nomotheteo (receive the law)
1 anomia (lawlessness)
1 ennomos (under the)
4 anomos (without law)
I respond:
"nomos" simply means "law", and "entole" means "commandments".
This does not in the least prove that God's ten "Word's" are the whole Torah, or that they are abolished. When the New Testament says, "keep the commandments" it means keep the commandments of God, not some vague, undefined idea about love.
This is so important to understand, for the whole false worship system will be based on setting aside the commandments of God and enforcing, with economic sanctions and death threats, the commandments of men. Jesus said, "In vain, uselessly, they worship me" "Why do you transgress and violate the commandment of God for the sake of the rules handed down to you by your forefathers." (Amplified Bible, Matt. 15:9,3)
The Jesus example as proof for the Ten Commandments
Jesus kept the Sabbath, showing he kept the Ten Commandments.
The texts cited show that Jesus used the Sabbath as a day of worship (he "went into the synagogue, as was his custom" (Luke 4:16), however the
fourth commandment does not say to keep the Sabbath as a day of worship, but as a day of rest, so these texts do not actually support the claim.
In any case, Jesus, being a Jew, not only attended the synagogue but was circumcised (Luke 2:21-24) - are we to follow this example also? There
has been no reply to this response.
My response:
The fourth commandment says to keep the 7th day holy. A person can't keep anything holy without the holy presence of Christ. A person must be resting in Christ upon that day in order to keep it holy and that entails worship.
Again there is the constant belittling of Christ in these debates. The words and life of Christ are all swept away as not meaningful to the Gentiles. Yet, He is the Word of life — He is the ONE we should listen to and see as our example.
1 Corinthians 7.19
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."
Please note again how the commandments are defined—
They are the commandments of GOD!
Jesus and the law of Moses
I respond:
The principles of the ten commandments are upheld here by Jesus. Any careful reader will see this. The commandments says "Don't commit adultery" --stay true to your marriage partner for life. In the beginning this principle was set forth. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall be one. What God has joined let no man seperate" (Gen. 2:24)
We've also already discussed that the command to "Love your neighbor" is often placed at the end of a recitation of the last six commandments. The phrase is the sum up of the last six commandments. That's what the phrase is doing in Matt. 19:19. (Also Romans 13:10, James 2:8,11)
He attacked the petty rules, but always lifted up the principles of the ten commandments and
explained them with a more internal relevance (don't kill — don't even hate)
Paul refers to the "God's law" and the "law of sin"
My response:
Do we continue in sin (the transgression of the law) so that grace may abound? Certainly not! When we are baptized we signify a dying to the old way of life and a rising to newness of life. Sin is to no longer have dominion over us.
Chapter 6 is strong that we must die to the carnal nature and rise to a new life with Christ-- no longer slaves to sin.
It goes on to explain there is a law of sin in our members that wars against the righteous law of God. We need to be delivered from this law whereby we are held. For even though we want to serve the law of God, with the flesh we serve the law of sin. Therefore we must die to the law of sin so we are free to serve the law of God! In chapter 7 it repeats again and again that the problem is sin dwelling within, and then in chapter 8 -- we have the solution -- it is by the Spirit --when He dwells within, that the carnal nature is put to death and we live by the Spirit, as justified children of God, doing the will of God.
Is the debate just one of semantics?
My response:
No this debate is not one of semantics, though it is at times over the meaning and application of words. The two sides of the issue are totally at opposite sides of the Great Controversy of sin and salvation. Our critic would lead us straight into Babylon, where God's laws are replaced by man's laws, feelings and rationalizations. The prevailing misconception that Christ has released Christians from the observance of the commandments of God is the greatest insult to the government and Lordship of God! It is paramount to treason against the most High God. That is what the whole end time scene in Revelation revolves around. People in the end times will be engaged in vain worship . They have, just as Christ said, set aside the commandments of God for the traditions and rationalizations of men. The word "worship" reappears over and over again in Revelation 13 and 14. Most will be worshiping the beast and his image, only a few will stand patiently and preservingly by God's commandments.
Does not following the Law lead to sin?
My response:
This is blasphemy in my eyes. It is paramount to saying that God is the author of sin.
This has always been the devil's lie: It is the serpent who tells us that if God wouldn't restrict His created beings with His law all would be happiness — we would be like gods! That is what he told Eve in the garden of Eden. "God isn't telling you the truth, Eve, you won't die if you eat of this tree, God placed that restriction upon you, because he knows you will become like him in knowledge, if you eat."
1) Turn to Christ for salvation, for all have sinned, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life and it is only through the grace of God that we are transformed in new creatures that love to do the righteous ways and law of God.
2) Or they turn away in opposition to God's ways, just like Lucifer in the beginning, they break forth with greater determination to do their own will, which is foolishness and leads to ultimate destruction.
BUT the law, he says is NOT SIN. IT IS JUST AND HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS. The answer to the war our carnal nature wages against God's law is NOT to abolish the law, but to DIE to the LAW OF SIN that reigns IN OUR MEMBERS. The carnal nature must die! We must die to the law of sin which reigns in our members, for it is this carnality within, which wars against the righteous law of God, --it is by the Spirit that we die to this inner carnal law of sin and are given the heart to serve righteousness. For it is the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts and writes God's holy, just and righteous law upon the heart.
"Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
But God be thanked, that you were the servants of sin, (in bondage to the law of sin in their members) but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness."
God's " law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12
Covenants and Obedience
My response:
If the "ten words" or ten commandments are specifically "separated" and identified from the rest of the laws in the books of Moses — how can their be any question about their being separate and distinct from the other laws?
Bacchiocchi and the Sabbath
My response:
Prof. Bacchiocchi wrote an excellent chapter on this very subject in his book "The Sabbath Under Crossfire" pp. 183-235 He can well defend himself on these issues.
Exerpts from his book can be found at
Paul and the Law" and
Paul and the Sabbath
Hebrews and the Sanctuary in Heaven
My response:
Hebrews says the old covenant is gone, and the earthly sanctuary services are gone, it does not in any place say the commandments of God are gone. The whole purpose of Hebrews is to take peoples eyes away from the earthly sanctuary and fix them upon the heavenly high Priest in the heavenly sanctuary above. It speaks of the better blood, the better priesthood, the true removal of sins, the better sanctuary, the better promises, but no where will you read of better laws. The only verse that says the law was changed refers to a "cerimonial law" that says the priest has to come from Aaron's line— the laws pertaining to the earthly sanctuary are done away with
or else Christ could not be priest. It definitely says the services of the earthly temple are now
ended (they were only a figure of the work Christ would do and could not do the work in themselves) and now Christ has taken up the work in the heavenly sanctuary which the old sanctuary typified.
Some people have also argued that we need the law to define sin. Again, Paul very frequently encourages believers to high standards of behaviour. Not once, in all these writings on Christian behaviour, does he say keep the Ten Commandments, or use the Ten Commandments to justify
Christian behaviour.
My response:
Of course Paul does not say the commandments justify. For only Christ can justify and that is without the law.
Ephesians 5.6
"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience."
What are we to obey? Paul in the previous texts described some natural traits of people who have laid aside the commandments of God. Sin is defined by the commandments, if there are no commandments there is no sin — Paul makes that clear in Romans 7.
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. "
Seems to me Paul is basing the standard of love your neighbor as defined by the 10 commandments. The TEN WORDS spoken to mankind directly by God.
My response:
The Reformation freed people's conscience from the tyranny of the Roman political church. The reformers would, and often did, give their lives to free us from the heavy hand of persecution of the Roman Catholic Church. Now the whole emphasis is on reuniting all Christians, and the Roman Church has made it very clear in the last few months that she means to be the head of this union. What is there to be afraid of? What is there to be afraid of indeed?
John Mann © 2000
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism