We have been discussing the meaning of the term "the law" in the Bible. My contention is that the Bible always uses the term "the law" to refer to the whole set of laws given to Moses by God. This means the 10 Commandments are to be treated the same as the rest of the law. Your contention is that the Bible treats the 10 Commandments differently to the other laws given to God by Moses. I shall now discuss each of the arguments you use to defend your position and reply. I might add that you don't appear to have worked this out for yourself at all. Your quotes all come from Adventist books - in one case you didn't even copy out the verse number correctly - whereas my understanding comes directly from studying the Bible. This means I spend hours going through the Bible cross-checking texts etc, and you sit down for 5 minutes and copy the references from your Adventist book. I think you'll find sitting down with the Bible for a few days and cross-checking all the references to "the law", and reading through the books of the Law, will give you a better understanding than copying the "answers" out of a book. Quote: -------- There is a definite difference between the laws. God wrote the Ten Commandments Himself, Moses wrote the ceremonial laws. After Moses threw down the tablets of the Law in anger, God had him hew two more tablets out of stone and bring them back up so that He could re-write them. Why do you think He did that? Where do you think we get our phrase for permanence "written in stone?" -------- The 10 Commandments are written in stone, I agree. However your claim that because God wrote the 10 Commandments this makes them more permanent is not correct. God spoke the other commandments to Moses - the phrase "then the LORD said to Moses" occurs many times in the books of the law (Ex 30:11, Ex 30:17, Ex 30:22, Ex 30:34, Ex 31:1, Ex 31:12 etc etc), so are we to suppose these were less important, or less permanent? "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law" (Deut 32:46) Deut. Chapters 29-31 makes it clear the law as a whole was given to Israel, for them and their children to keep. There is no indication that the 10 Commandments are separate or different to the rest of the law. Quote: -------- But rather than debate whether or not we think there is a difference, let us look to the Bible for an answer. 10 Commandments: Is called the "royal law" James 2:8 Was spoken by God Deuteronomy 4:12,13 Was written with the finger of God Exodus 31:18 Was placed in the Ark Exodus 40:20, Hebrews 9:4 Is to "stand forever and ever" Psalms 111:7,8 Was not destroyed by Christ Matthew 5:17,18 Called the Law of the Lord Isaiah 5:24 Will stand forever Luke 16:17 Points out sin Romans 3:20; 7:7 Not grievous 1 John 5:3 Judges all people James 2:10-12 Spiritual Romans 7:14 Perfect Psalms 19:7 -------- Is called the "royal law" James 2:8 James 2:8 makes no reference to the 10 Commandments. The text is "if you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbour as yourself" you are doing right" - this text is found in Lev 19:18 - in the "written" law of Moses! Was spoken by God Deuteronomy 4:12,13 All the law was spoken by God, as we have noted above, so this does not constitute a difference. Was written with the finger of God Exodus 31:18 Correct. Was placed in the Ark Exodus 40:20, Hebrews 9:4 Correct. Is to "stand forever and ever" Psalms 111:7,8 This is not a reference to the 10 Commandments. The text reads "The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. They are steadfast for ever and ever, done in faithfulness and uprightness". Note the text refers to "all this precepts" - so this shows the opposite of what you want to claim, as it says all God's precepts are steadfast for ever and ever. Was not destroyed by Christ Matthew 5:17,18 This makes no reference to the 10 Commandments. The text reads "think not that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". Again, this shows the opposite of what you claim, for rather than separating the law into two parts, this text says "not the smallest letter" will disappear from the Law, and makes references to "the least stroke of a pen", whereas the 10 Commandments were not - as you have pointed out - written with pen, but the finger of God. Called the Law of the Lord Isaiah 5:24 This makes no reference to the 10 Commandments. The text simply refers to "the law of the LORD Almighty". Will stand forever Luke 16:17 This makes no reference to the 10 Commandments. The text refers to "the Law and the Prophets". Points out sin Romans 3:20; 7:7 These texts make no mention of the 10 Commandments. They only refer to "the law". Not grievous 1 John 5:3 This makes to mention of the 10 Commandments. The text refers to "his commands". Judges all people James 2:10-12 This makes to mention of the 10 Commandments. The text refers to "the law". Spiritual Romans 7:14 This makes to mention of the 10 Commandments. The text refers to "the law". Perfect Psalms 19:7 This makes to mention of the 10 Commandments. The text refers to "the law". In summary, of the 13 texts which you claimed referred to the 10 Commandments, only 3 did so! Why then did you quote them? Because you copied them out of a book instead of finding out for yourself (these are "classic" traditional Adventist texts)! Try reading the books of the Law and find out about them, then decide what the Bible teaches. Quote ------ Mosaic Law Is called the law contained in ordinances Ephesians 2:15 Was spoken by Moses Leviticus 1:1-3 Was written by Moses in a book II Chronicles 35:12 Was placed in the side of the Ark Deuteronomy 31:24-26 Was nailed to the cross Colossians 2:14 Was abolished by Christ Ephesians 2:15 Called the Law of Moses Luke 2:22 Ended at the cross Ephesians 2:15 Added because of sin Galatians 3:19 Contrary & against us Colossians 2:14 Judges no one Colossians 2:14-16 Carnal Hebrews 7:16 Made nothing perfect Hebrews 7:19 ------ Again, these don't refer to some other law called the "Mosaic Law". Is called the law contained in ordinances Ephesians 2:15 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", the text just says "the law". Was spoken by Moses Leviticus 1:1-3 No reference to the "Mosaic Law". Also, this text says God spoke the law to Moses, so this comment isn't event correct. Was written by Moses in a book II Chronicles 35:12 No reference to the "Mosaic Law" - the "Book of Moses" refers to the books of the law. Was placed in the side of the Ark Deuteronomy 31:24-26 No reference to the "Mosaic Law". This simply says the Book of the Law was placed by the side of the ark. Was nailed to the cross Colossians 2:14 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", the text refers to the "written code". Was abolished by Christ Ephesians 2:15 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", the text refers to "the law". Called the Law of Moses Luke 2:22 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", the "Law of Moses" is another name for the Law. Ended at the cross Ephesians 2:15 No reference to the "Mosaic Law". This text has already been used, see above. Added because of sin Galatians 3:19 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", the text refers to "the law". Contrary & against us Colossians 2:14 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", this text has already been used, see above. Judges no one Colossians 2:14-16 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", this text as aleady been used, see above. Carnal Hebrews 7:16 No reference to the "Mosaic Law" - the text you want is 7:18, so you didn't even copy it down correctly, and it refers to "the law". Made nothing perfect Hebrews 7:19 No reference to the "Mosaic Law", text refers to "the law". Of the 13 texts given, *none* refer to this set of laws called the "Mosaic law", they either refer to "the law" or "the Law of Moses", or the "written code". Again, nothing to show the Bible identifies two laws. Quote ----- > Its just "the" law. All of it given by God. Absolutely, however some aspects of the law were completed by the death of Christ. The death of Christ can in no way be said to have completed the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are in no way contrary or against us - as they are the law of love. ----- No quotes given to support this I see. The Bible does not say the 10 Commandments are the law of love. Quote ----- > Sacrifice was part of it, instituted by God > himself in the garden. But it and the rest has been nailed to the cross. Rom. 7:6 in the > Amplified states it well " But now we are discharged from the law and have terminated all > intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve > not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [ under obedience to the > promptings ] of the Spirit in newness of life." So now it is ok to murder? Now it is ok to have sex with your neighbors wife? Now it is ok to take the name of your Saviour in vain? Now it is ok to worship other gods? Now it is ok to worship idols? Now it is ok to break the Sabbath? How can anyone think that the Ten Commandments hold them captive or in bondage? It certainly does not come from Scripture, possible from a misunderstanding of Scripture. ----- This is just you arguing with Scripture. If you disagree with Scripture, fine, but don't pretend that if you can't agree with Scripture then Scripture has to change to agree with you. Quote ----- > Do we just go sin with reckless abandon ?? No, > it is the Holy Spirit who leads us now, not into sin but newness of life, since we have been > raised together with Christ Jesus and seated in heavenly places. The Holy Spirit will never lead you to work on the day of rest - God's Holy Sabbath. ----- Again, this is assuming the 10 Commandments are not part of the law. Quote ----- > And Paul did have something to say about the sabbath. Don't tell me that Col. 2:16 is taken > out of context because it is not. Verses 11 - 14 deal with being circumsised now in the spirit > not in the flesh, of being made alive "together" with Christ. Now Ive heard all about how the > plural "days" in verse 16 means a feast sabbath, however, "days" is in italics, it was added > in. Therefore, it properly reads as "the Sabbath". Also, before that, in the verse, paul > already deals with feast days, religious festivals as well as foods. Col. 2:16 "Let no man > therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or > of the sabbath." A shadow of things to come, the sabbath of the old testament could never give > man true rest, only Jesus can do that. And as Paul says, judge no man. We should not judge > those who keep it or who don't. And if that is the case, I can hardly see it as the "truth of > God's law" or His "seal" in end times. I am not going to argue that it is not speaking about the Sabbath here, in fact it may very well be. However it does not say that the Sabbath is no longer to be kept as a holy day either now does it. ----- We're off the subject of the law now. Once it is realised "the Law" refers to the whole of the books of the Law, the nature of the Sabbath follows. Quote ------ Modern scholarship has established that the "written document-cheirographon" that was nailed to the Cross, has nothing to do with the Mosaic law in general or the Sabbath in particular. First, because as E. Lohse points out in his Commentary to Colossians, "in the whole of the epistle the word law is not used at all. Not only that, but the whole significance of the law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his gospel, is completely absent" (p. 116). Recent studies on the use of the term cheirographon, literally "handwritten document," which occurs only once in the Scripture (Col 2:14), have shown that this word is used in apocalyptic literature to denote the "record-book of sins" or a "certificate of sin-indebtedness" but never the moral or ceremonial law. By this daring metaphor, Paul affirms the completeness of God's forgiveness. Through Christ, God has "canceled," "set aside," "nailed to the cross" the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us. The legal basis of the record of sins was "the binding statutes, regulations" (tois dogmasin-2:20) but what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins. The document nailed to the Cross is not the Old Covenant in general or the Sabbath in particular, but rather the record of our sins. Any attempt to read into it a reference to the Sabbath, or to any other Old Testament ordinance, is an unwarranted, gratuitous fantasy. Does Paul Condemn the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16? Having refuted the theological speculations of the Colossian false teachers by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the fulness of His redemption (2:8-15), Paul turns to some practical aspects of their religious practices, saying: "Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (2:16-17). Many have interpreted Paul's warning: "Let no one pass judgment on you" as being addressed to the Colossians believers who were not to judge one another "on the importance of the Sabbath and other Old Covenant observance" since they were nailed to the Cross (p. 75). This interpretation cannot be supported by the context. because Paul is warning the Colossians believers not against judging another, but against false teachers who passed judgment on how to eat, to drink, and to observe sacred times. The judge who passes judgment is not Paul or the church members as such, but the Colossian false teachers who impose "regulations" (2:20) on how to observe these practices in order to achieve "rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body" (2:23). By warning against the right of the false teachers to "pass judgment" on how to observe festivals, Paul is challenging not the validity of the festivals as such but the authority of the false teachers to legislate on the manner of their observance. The obvious implication then is that Paul in this text is expressing not a condemnation but an approbation of the mentioned practices, which include Sabbathkeeping. It is noteworthy that even Prof. De Lacey reaches this conclusion in the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord's Day, produced by seven Sundaykeeping scholars at Cambridge University. In spite of his view that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to observe the Sabbath, De Lacey writes: "Here again (Col 2:16), then, it seems that Paul could HAPPILY COUNTENANCE SABBATHKEEPING . . .However, we interpret the situation, Paul's statement 'Let no one pass judgment on you,' indicates that no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of festivals" (p. 182; emphasis supplied). These comments on Colossians 2 were taken from Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's letters and books on the subject. ----- I've already commented on this elsewhere. Essentially Bacchiocchi is hair splitting - no, the Colossians were probably gnostics not Jews, but the arguments against Holy Days and Holy Foods are the same. Quote ----- > Also, you calim that Rom 14:4-6 excludes the sabbath, but can you offer any proof other than > just because the late E.G.W. said so ?? Certainly... Can the Sabbath be legitimately read into this passage? In my view this is impossible for at least three reasons. First, the conflict between the "weak" and the "strong" over diet and days can hardly be traced back to the Mosaic law, because nowhere does the Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from wine, or a preference over days presumably for fasting. That the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also indicated by the term "koinos-common" which is used in verse 14 to designate "unclean" food. This term is radically different from the word "akathartos-impure" used in Leviticus 11 (Septuagint) to designate unlawful foods. Apparently the dispute was over meat which per se was lawful to eat but because of its association with idol worship was regarded by some as "koinos-common," that is, unfit for human consumption. The whole discussion in Romans 14 is not about freedom to observe the law verses freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential" scruples of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect in this matter. Second, Paul applies the basic principle "observe it in honor of the Lord" only to the case of the person "who observes the day." He never says the opposite, namely, "the man who esteems all days alike, esteems them in honor of the Lord." In other words, with regard to diet, paul teaches that one can honor the Lord both by eating and by abstaining but with regard to days, he does not even concede that the person who regards all the days alike does so to the Lord. Thus Paul hardly gives his endorsement to those who esteemed all days alike. Third, if as generally presumed, it was the "weak" believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself with the "weak" since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4,19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as "strong" (15:1); thus, he could hardly have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days. Support for this conclusion is provided also by Paul's advice: "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind." It is difficult to see how Paul could reduce the observance of holy days such as the Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost to a matter of personal conviction, without ever explaining the reasons for it. This is all the more surprising since he labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not binding upon the Gentiles. If Paul had taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbathkeeping as a personal matter, Jewish Christians would readily have attacked his temerity in setting aside the Sabbath law, as they did regarding circumcision. The fact that there is no hint of any such controversy in the New Testament indicates that Paul never discouraged Sabbathkeeping or encouraged Sundaykeeping instead. The fact that Paul devotes 21 verses to the discussion of food and less than two verses to that of days suggests that the latter was a very limited problem for the Roman Church, presumably because it had to do with private conviction on the merit or demerit of doing certain spiritual exercises such as fasting on some specific days. In the Roman world there was a superstitious belief that certain days were more favorable than others for undertaking some specific projects. The Fathers frequently rebuked Christians for adopting such a superstitious mentality. It is possible that Paul alludes to this kind of problem In light of the above consideration, we conclude that it is hardly probable that the Sabbath is included in the "days" of Romans 14:5 ----- Again, the issue is "the law" - once it is recognised that this is the whole Mosaic law, it follows that Paul sees keeping special days and special diets as unnecessary. Quote ------ Why does all this matter? 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 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12 Note well that the saints are those who keep the commandments of God. ------ Yes, the "Commandments" and "Law" for John were opposed - the "Law of the Jews" and the "Commandments of Jesus" are opposed in the Gospel of John, this needs to be recognised to understand Revelation. Quote ------ > Yes, the author of Hebrews speaks of a sabbath rest, > but read it in context, it is a spiritual rest in the Lord. Where did Jesus tell us to find > rest, in Himself. Matt. 11:28 - 29 "Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I > will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in > heart, and you will find rest for your souls." This does not explain the fact that it is speaking of a "rest" which "remains," therefore it had to be there originally for it to "remain." What better way to accept this promise of Jesus than to keep the day created for rest? ------ This is not the clear meaning of this passage, which is to show the "rest" from works is keeping the Sabbath. This is why the day "Today" is important. Quote ----- > If the ten commandments are God's absolute eternal law then why did the late E.G.W. state in > her book "The Great Controversy" that satan was the "first transgressor of God's holy law." If she indeed did say so, although you have not given a page for reference, she would still be correct because God's holy law is eternal. What law do you think Satan broke to be banished from heaven, and ultimately destroyed, if it was not God's law? ------ The 10 Commandments cannot be eternal, they are described as the words of the Covenant, which was not given to "your fathers". Quote ------ > Now I agree that satan is the author of sin, but how could that holy law he transgressed in > his revolt be the ten commandments since this was long before the tablets of stone on Sinai or > even the first sabbath, if the sabbath is the "truth" of God's law, how could satan have > transgressed that law before there even was a sabbath, and if the ten commandments are God's > eternal law why were they not given to the Patriarch's ?? They had sacriffice ?? why not the > ten commanments ?? Why were they not judged by them when they broke them personaly ?? Who says that they did not have the Law of God? Tell me, by what law was Cain punished for killing Abel? Was not that the Law of God? Just because God had not written it in stone before that time in no way suggests that His Law did not exist. To say so would be accusing God of impartiality against those before the law as opposed to those after the law. ------ Again, you are trying to put your theories into the Bible. It doesn't say Abel broke the 10 Commandments. Quote ----- 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. So you see, the Bible makes it plain that indeed the Law of God existed in order for Adam and Eve to have sinned, in order for Cain to have sinned, even in order for Lucifer to have sinned. "where no law is, there is no transgression." ----- The term "the law" is used, not 10 Commandments. Quote ----- > I have a > feeling the eternal spirtual laws of God are much more than "the" law which was nailed to the > cross (ten commandments included) since to the Jews, the Law is the Torah. You may be correct, but explain the fact that the Bible states that we will even keep the Sabbath in the New Earth which is to come. ------ This is at the end of Isaiah. Many texts in the Prophets cannot be taken literally, as it also refers to the "New Moon" festival - which Adventists don't keep.