Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[Randy Kluth]

The 10 commandments have to be part of the overall law (whatever that means), because they are law.

No, I have laws in my County and the 10 Commandments are not part of it. What makes the 10 Commandments part of the overall law is the fact that they were given at the same time and to the same people as the rest of the Law.

Here's where I run into some difficulty with your claims. You seem to be saying that the ten commandments are not distinct from the laws that prefigured Christ and have now been done away.

No, I didn't say that at all! I said the 10 Commandments are a *subset* of the Law of Moses. That means that even if they are being distinguished as a set within a larger set of laws, they are all part of the same set of laws, the Law of Moses. The 10 Commandments are a subset of the overall Law of Moses in the same way that the Law of Feasts were a subset of the overall Law of Moses. These categories were all part of the same Law of Moses!

The notion that the Sabbath is yet again something that has been discarded from the whole is not supported by Scripture, either. 50 years ago, Christians simply thought that Sunday was the Christian Sabbath. You may think it is pointless to refer to a point in time such as 50 years ago, but I would have to ask, have we become so enlightened in the last 50 years that we see now the mistake that Christians were making for the first 1900+ years of the Christian era? I don't think so.

There may or may not be something to what you're saying. I grew up thinking Sunday was a sort of "Sabbath Day," as you indicate. This is still being taught today, as if Sunday Worship is in obedience to the command to "honor the Sabbath Day."

But this kind of theology is poor, even if it means well. We do not observe Sunday Worship out of obedience to the 10 Commandments. Rather, Sunday Worship was started as a tradition, to set a pattern for regular Christian gatherings for fellowship. Since the Early Church began in Israel, the Sabbath had already been established as a Jewish time for gathering. And so, the Christians fashioned their own gathering day after the day of Christ's resurrection.

There is nothing legalistic about this. It was just an arbitrary choice as a sort of memory device. Everybody can remember to meet on the day of the week that Christ rose from the dead. Sabbath Law and a supposed law of Sunday or Saturday Worship are not biblical--rather, it's a form of legalism.

You can call them whatever you want, but they outline the moral code for human beings--not Israelites--and, as I've said countless times, putting a disposable, ritual law in the middle of the moral code for humans is a dirty trick that I just can't believe a God of love would do.

God did *not* put a moral code for all human beings in the middle of the Law of Moses. It was all for Israel, and not for pagan Gentiles. Today, we can look back and recognize that God wrote these things down for Israel as a model for all nations. But today, we have to apply them not in their exclusively Israel context, but now in an international context. And we can't look at them in the vestiges of their OT paraphernalia--now we must look at them as fulfilled in Christ.

We don't observe feast days and Sabbath Days--rather, Christ fulfilled every legal obligation under the Law of Moses, and showed Israel that neither they nor the world can fulfill the Law of Moses except by turning to God's provision for redemption and atonement. And the only way to get that without failure and for all time is through Christ--not through a failed Law that never was meant to bring final atonement.

Thank you, again, for your opinion that the Sabbath is not timeless and universal. Problem is, it just ain't so, and most of your objections/questions seem to indicate that you didn't bother to read the evidence I provide in the first few posts of the thread.

I read and understood everything you wrote. I just am not convinced by your arguments. Apparently you're not convinced by my arguments either?

I would leave you with the 2 most important elements in my argument.
1) The Law of Moses failed. It was given to Israel and in her history she apostacized, thus failing in this legal agreement. It caused the agreement, along with its promises, to fail. And ultimately, its requirements are no longer being applied, since the entire agreement has been scrapped.

I would point out that even though God set forth these reasonable laws, and brought faith and hope to many in Israel, God knew the nation as a whole would fail. There would have to be a process of separation between those who hinder faith and those who learn by faith.

2) The Law of Moses provided a temporary means of redemption. It brought blessings to the nation of Israel through obedience, but it could not obtain eternal life. Her sins were only temporarily atoned for because Israel had a sin nature, and would sin again and again, needing atonement over and over again.

The only way to bring this process to an end was through Christ, the final atonement for all sin, past, present, and future. So when Christ came, his suffering for Israel and for all of humanity became the basis of forgiveness for all sin for all time. It was the final atoning sacrifice for sin--something that animal sacrifices had only presaged.

To turn back to the Law of Moses in any of its parts is to fail to recognize that the system as a whole has now been necessarily replaced by Christ. It is to turn back to temporary atonement, and to a system that has already proven to be a failure for entire nations. Turning to Christ is the only way forward, biblically.

 

[BarneyFife]

Why then would we expect someone living outside of Israel to obey the laws of Israel?

Indeed, why? I certainly wouldn't.

Why do You say that those living outside the country of Israel are obligated to obey the Ten Commandments?

Because they are not the law of Israel. They are the moral code of humanity.

If you asked a question like this 50 years ago, you might have been locked up. And not for being a heretic, but for mental illness.

It is amazing to me the job the devil has done on the ten commandments. It's just unbelievable.

And the only one of the ten commandments that Christians ever really object to is the 4th. If you heard a sermon on idolatry, theft, murder, etc., there would be no objections.

I didn't put the Sabbath commandment in the middle of the moral code for humanity. GOD DID.

Think about it.

Thinking about how to justify forgetting something that God plainly said to remember is rebellion. I'd pass on that.

What is the difference between a "law" and a moral imperative?

Where does the Bible use the term "moral imperative?" It is a fabrication of rationalization to disobedience. If you don't want to obey God, just say so, put your feet up, and relax. When you have to answer for it, just remember I warned you that disobeying God was a really bad idea.

 

[BarneyFife]

I would leave you with the 2 most important elements in my argument.
1) The Law of Moses failed. It was given to Israel and in her history she apostacized, thus failing in this legal agreement. It caused the agreement, along with its promises, to fail. And ultimately, its requirements are no longer being applied, since the entire agreement has been scrapped.

I would point out that even though God set forth these reasonable laws, and brought faith and hope to many in Israel, God knew the nation as a whole would fail. There would have to be a process of separation between those who hinder faith and those who learn by faith.

2) The Law of Moses provided a temporary means of redemption. It brought blessings to the nation of Israel through obedience, but it could not obtain eternal life. Her sins were only temporarily atoned for because Israel had a sin nature, and would sin again and again, needing atonement over and over again.

The only way to bring this process to an end was through Christ, the final atonement for all sin, past, present, and future. So when Christ came, his suffering for Israel and for all of humanity became the basis of forgiveness for all sin for all time. It was the final atoning sacrifice for sin--something that animal sacrifices had only presaged.

To turn back to the Law of Moses in any of its parts is to fail to recognize that the system as a whole has now been necessarily replaced by Christ. It is to turn back to temporary atonement, and to a system that has already proven to be a failure for entire nations. Turning to Christ is the only way forward, biblically.

All of this and more are addressed in the opening posts of this thread. If you don't want to take the time to read the material carefully, that's fine.

If God knew the law would only be temporary (which is not the case), how could it be seen as failing if it served His purpose?

There is no such thing as temporary atonement. Every soul that has ever been saved has been saved by the blood of Jesus.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)

The purpose of the law of Moses was three-fold: to give an object lesson on the process of atonement (ceremonial law); to keep peace and order to a camp of approximately 2 million barbarians (civil law); and to keep their close proximity, poor hygeine, and lifestyle from killing them off (health and hygiene law).

The separate, distinct law of God, the ten commandments, was to instruct them in living a sanctified (holy) life.

Christ said: And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:17)
So it is certain that the law serves some purpose forever.

If you don't buy it you don't buy it. That's fine. I wouldn't challenge your right to religious liberty. But when you stand before God trying to explain why you believed and taught that everyone should forget the one commandment that begins with the word "REMEMBER," don't say I didn't warn you that it was a really bad idea.

 

[Randy Kluth]

All of this and more are addressed in the opening posts of this thread. If you don't want to take the time to read the material carefully, that's fine.

If God knew the law would only be temporary (which is not the case), how could it be seen as failing if it served His purpose?

There is no such thing as temporary atonement. Every soul that has ever been saved has been saved by the blood of Jesus.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)

The purpose of the law of Moses was three-fold: to give an object lesson on the process of atonement (ceremonial law); to keep peace and order to a camp of approximately 2 million barbarians (civil law); and to keep their close proximity, poor hygeine, and lifestyle from killing them off (health and hygiene law).

The separate, distinct law of God, the ten commandments, was to instruct them in living a sanctified (holy) life.

Christ said: And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:17)
So it is certain that the law serves some purpose forever.

If you don't buy it you don't buy it. That's fine. I wouldn't challenge your right to religious liberty. But when you stand before God trying to explain why you believed and taught that everyone should forget the one commandment that begins with the word "REMEMBER," don't say I didn't warn you that it was a really bad idea.

I'm not worried. It's you judging me--not God. I've taken the time to read your arguments, but I don't see you responding to mine, except that you're denying that the OT atonements were temporary. But then you quote the very Scripture that says they *are* temporary! What's the matter with you? If you quote a Scripture that says they are temporary, then why do you condemn me for agreeing with what that very Scripture says?

Indeed, it is not possible for the blood of animals to take away sins. It is obviously not saying that they did not take away the guilt of sin temporarily because that's precisely why God asked for them, to take away sins temporarily! But inasmuch as they could not remove the Sin Nature, they could not take away sins on a permanent basis!

Heb 8.4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises...
9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

What the above says is that the OT system was a *temporary* system, and the gifts offered there were *temporary* gifts! Your denial of that gives me pause, wondering what the basis is for your own salvation? Is it application of your obedience to a Law that could never justify, or casting yourself upon Jesus, the only eternal sacrifice for sin and the only pathway to eternal life?

The Law of Moses was not a ceremonial "object lesson," but rather, a real Covenant between God and Israel, indicating that they could obey God and be deemed righteous, although all this fell short of getting eternal life. It was a temporary system until Christ, the source of eternal life, came. Following the ceremonial rituals was just as important as following the 10 Commandments, because they were all a human response to God's command. They all equally constituted righteousness before God, and adherence to His word.

Separating the Moral Law from the Ceremonial Law is something we talk about in the NT era, because we can look back now and see that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law by completing what it foreshadowed--eternal redemption. And we know that Moral Law continues to be valid in the NT era, because following God's image has been Man's mandate from the beginning.

But the Moral Law in the NT does not require adherence to any aspect of Law that in the OT represented, symbolically, NT redemption. And this includes Sabbath Law. If you want to preach your Church, and not Christ, then it's a free world! As for how I stand before God, you had best look to yourself. God is my judge--not you.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I'm not worried. It's you judging me--not God. I've taken the time to read your arguments, but I don't see you responding to mine, except that you're denying that the OT atonements were temporary. But then you quote the very Scripture that says they *are* temporary! What's the matter with you?

Agreed. No one would ever be able to convince me that the Atonement of king David was temporary, nor that of Abraham. David, after all, is the Father of Jesus.

Matthew 1:1 KJV - "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Psalm 51:6 NIV - "Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Agreed. No one would ever be able to convince me that the Atonement of king David was temporary, nor that of Abraham. David, after all, is the Father of Jesus.

Matthew 1:1 KJV - "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Psalm 51:6 NIV - "Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place."

The animal sacrifices required under the Law in the time of King David did not apply as an eternal offering for our Sin Nature. Rather, it was a temporary reprieve, bringing the forgiveness of sins, to perpetuate a covenant that brought blessings upon the obedient. This Covenant of Law looked forward to what Christ would do in bringing us eternal life. In obeying the Law, King David was showing good faith in the hope that Christ would complete his obedience through our redemption on the cross.

 

[Tong2020]

Separating the Moral Law from the Ceremonial Law is something we talk about in the NT era, because we can look back now and see that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law by completing what it foreshadowed--eternal redemption. And we know that Moral Law continues to be valid in the NT era, because following God's image has been Man's mandate from the beginning.

With all respect, may I add, Christ also fulfilled the moral aspects of the Law, even the Ten commandments.

@BarnyFife

It is either you are under the Law or under grace. It can't be both. If your conviction is that you are under the law, which to you are the ten commandments, then you are to keep them all, for breaking any one of them, you will be guilty of all. The Law judges and condemns and brings wrath, but not so with grace.

The people of God now are under a new covenant, one of grace and not of Law, one of the Spirit and not of the letter.

By the way, have you thought and pondered about why it is that under the Law, if you break one, you are said to be guilty of all? Why will one who covet his neighbor's goods for instance, said and taken to be guilty of all ~ murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, and all, even breaking the Sabbath?

Tong
R1533

 

[Tong2020]

Agreed. No one would ever be able to convince me that the Atonement of king David was temporary, nor that of Abraham. David, after all, is the Father of Jesus.

Matthew 1:1 KJV - "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Psalm 51:6 NIV - "Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place."

If you are not convinced of something (pertaining to scriptures) unto belief, then the Holy Spirit is not convincing you of that. It's nothing different if one who hears the gospel preached is not convinced unto genuine belief, then the Holy Spirit is not convincing him.

I'd like to know your view of the atonement under the old covenant. What is your understanding of it? Perhaps you can tell me what you think was their purpose, why were the sacrifices offered continually year by year, and so on.

Tong
R1534

 

[Randy Kluth]

With all respect, may I add, Christ also fulfilled the moral aspects of the Law, even the Ten commandments.

@BarnyFife

It is either you are under the Law or under grace. It can't be both. If your conviction is that you are under the law, which to you are the ten commandments, then you are to keep them all, for breaking any one of them, you will be guilty of all. The Law judges and condemns and brings wrath, but not so with grace.

The people of God now are under a new covenant, one of grace and not of Law, one of the Spirit and not of the letter.

By the way, have you thought and pondered about why it is that under the Law, if you break one, you are said to be guilty of all? Why will one who covet his neighbor's goods for instance, said and taken to be guilty of all ~ murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, and all, even breaking the Sabbath?

Tong
R1533

Hi Tong: I get this a lot, and I think much of this is about semantics, but I do consider it a serious issue, because too much of an emphasis on grace and there is little room for law. To have a lawless Christianity is an oxymoron. Christianity is, by definition, being lawful, pleasing God in word and in deed.

Again, this is a lot about the semantics of the word "law." If you think you can be a Christian and not observe law at all, you are quite mistaken. To obey Christ's commandments is to obey his *law.* So when the Scriptures speak of our not being under the Law, it is talking about the Law of Moses.

Christ fulfilled both the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law connected with the Law of Moses, but with respect to the new creation, we live under the Law of Christ, in which we give up our own way in favor of Christ's way. This is a choice we make, and in doing so we actually obey the Law of Christ, being enabled by his Spirit to fulfill this Law.

If you are not under any Law at all, then forget about obeying anything Paul, Peter, and John said to you in the NT. And forget about what James said about faith requiring works. Quite simply put, we do works in the NT, but they are not OT works any longer, nor are they works done independent of God's word.

One sin is indeed breaking the Law of God as much as any other sin. That doesn't mean all sins are the same, or that all are equal. But it does mean that they all equally keep us from having eternal life unless we cast ourselves upon the mercy of Christ, who has made atonement for all sin.

To say we are no longer under the "letter of the Law" simply means we are no longer under the Law of Moses. At one time, if you were a Jew, this was the only way by which you could, as a nation, live in covenant with God. You had to keep the letter of the Law, by which you were blessed, but which could not grant you eternal life.

If you broke the Law, you would come under a curse. You were not, under the Law of Moses, expected to be perfect under the Law. But every infraction, in a sense, kept you from having eternal life, just as a single sin kept Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and away from the Tree of Life.

So following the "letter of the Law" is not perfection, as is often supposed. Rather, it is just following the Law, as written, which required a basic adherence both to the commands of God and to the means of remaining in covenant with God as imperfect people. This happened through recourse to a temporary redemption provided by making animal sacrifices.

But now, under the New Covenant, we are no longer trying to maintain the standards of the Law for the purpose of blessing. That Law had been created as an intermediary step towards the redemption of Christ, but could not, in itself, provide that final step.

So Paul is telling us not to trust in the Law any longer, since it never could lead to eternal life, and was only preparatory for Christ's coming to complete our redemption. Now that salvation has been completed, there is no longer any need to keep the letter of the Law.

What we have now is the spirit of the Law, which is observed simply by following after Christ, and not after the 613 requirements of the Law. We follow his personal example, by recognizing his spirit and by putting it into use in our own lives. There is only the thought to be loving like Christ, and not to keep requirements under the Law that are already fulfilled in Christ.

Israel never had to be perfect to be in covenant with God under the Law. And we don't have to be perfect either to be in covenant with Christ. All we have to do is adhere to Christ by making him our Lord and by letting him dwell in the center of our being.

His act of redemption provides redemption and cleansing for all our imperfections. We have eternal life because Christ has the right to give it to us and also because we've made him the exclusive source of our spirituality.

If you think Grace means you follow a spirit, but obey no laws, you are sadly mistaken. You would be right if you said we don't follow laws that belong to a particular written code or elaborate ritual.

But you would be wrong to say that in following Christ we become lawless. That would be absurd! We do obey Christ's commandments, and this is both a choice we freely make, and an effort we make in conjunction with the enablement provided by the very word from God that commands us.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Correction: Nailing, displaying it on _His_ cross

 

[Tong2020]

Hi Tong: I get this a lot, and I think much of this is about semantics, but I do consider it a serious issue, because too much of an emphasis on grace and there is little room for law. To have a lawless Christianity is an oxymoron. Christianity is, by definition, being lawful, pleasing God in word and in deed.

Again, this is a lot about the semantics of the word "law." If you think you can be a Christian and not observe law at all, you are quite mistaken. To obey Christ's commandments is to obey his *law.* So when the Scriptures speak of our not being under the Law, it is talking about the Law of Moses.

Christ fulfilled both the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law connected with the Law of Moses, but with respect to the new creation, we live under the Law of Christ, in which we give up our own way in favor of Christ's way. This is a choice we make, and in doing so we actually obey the Law of Christ, being enabled by his Spirit to fulfill this Law.

If you are not under any Law at all, then forget about obeying anything Paul, Peter, and John said to you in the NT. And forget about what James said about faith requiring works. Quite simply put, we do works in the NT, but they are not OT works any longer, nor are they works done independent of God's word.

One sin is indeed breaking the Law of God as much as any other sin. That doesn't mean all sins are the same, or that all are equal. But it does mean that they all equally keep us from having eternal life unless we cast ourselves upon the mercy of Christ, who has made atonement for all sin.

To say we are no longer under the "letter of the Law" simply means we are no longer under the Law of Moses. At one time, if you were a Jew, this was the only way by which you could, as a nation, live in covenant with God. You had to keep the letter of the Law, by which you were blessed, but which could not grant you eternal life.

If you broke the Law, you would come under a curse. You were not, under the Law of Moses, expected to be perfect under the Law. But every infraction, in a sense, kept you from having eternal life, just as a single sin kept Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and away from the Tree of Life.

So following the "letter of the Law" is not perfection, as if often supposed. Rather, it is just following the Law, as written, which required a basic adherence both to the commands of God and to the means of remaining in covenant with God as imperfect people. This happened through recourse to a temporary redemption provided by making animal sacrifices.

But now, under the New Covenant, we are no longer trying to maintain the standards of the Law for the purpose of blessing. That Law had been created as an intermediary step towards the redemption of Christ, but could not, in itself, provide that final step.

So Paul is telling us not to trust in the Law any longer, since it never could lead to eternal life, and was only preparatory for Christ's coming to complete our redemption. Now that salvation has been completed, there is no longer any need to keep the letter of the Law.

What we have now is the spirit of the Law, which is observed simply by following after Christ, and not after the 613 requirements of the Law. We follow his personal example, by recognizing his spirit and by putting it into use in our own lives. There is only the thought to be loving like Christ, and not to keep requirements under the Law that are already fulfilled in Christ.

Israel never had to be perfect to be in covenant with God under the Law. And we don't have to be perfect either to be in covenant with Christ. All we have to do is adhere to Christ by making him our Lord and by letting him dwell in the center of our being.

His act of redemption provides redemption and cleansing for all our imperfections. We have eternal life because Christ has the right to give it to us and also because we've made him the exclusive source of our spirituality.

If you think Grace means you follow a spirit, but obey no laws, you are sadly mistaken. You would be right if you said we don't follow laws that belong to a particular written code or elaborate ritual.

But you would be wrong to say that in following Christ we become lawless. That would be absurd! We do obey Christ's commandments, and this is both a choice we freely make, and an effort we make in conjunction with the enablement provided by the very word from God that commands us.

I basically and generally share the same view as you do there. And I understand your concerns.

When I said “The people of God now are under a new covenant, one of grace and not of Law, one of the Spirit and not of the letter.”, I was not at all meaning to say that in the new covenant, there is no law. But that we no longer are bound by the written code in letters engraved in stone and written in the book of the Law of Moses under the old covenant, but bound by the Law of Christ which is written in our minds and hearts.

Tong
R1537

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because they are not the law of Israel. They are the moral code of humanity.

Do you have Biblical support for that idea Barny? I don't think so.

Thinking about how to justify forgetting something that God plainly said to remember is rebellion.

Undoubtedly, but of course, you need to PROVE that the so called Ten Commandments are a moral code applicable to all humanity. The Sabbath Law is NOT universally applicable to Humanity as we see in the following passage.

Exodus 31:12-13
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.

Are you a son of Israel, living in the land?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Where does the Bible use the term "moral imperative?" It is a fabrication of rationalization to disobedience.

No, a moral imperative is a behavior that arises from our sense of right and wrong. According to Genesis, God endowed humanity with a sense of right and wrong. Satan told Eve that when she ate from the Tree, she would be wise and know good from evil. The lie was that she already knew good from evil. God would not expect her to follow his commandment if she couldn't understand that following a commandment of God was a good thing to do or that disobedience was a bad thing.

Mankind knows, without being told that murder is wrong. We know that stealing is wrong, and we know that lying is wrong. We know that avoiding such things is not only be completely necessary but commanding. Humanity didn't need God to give us a written code so that we might know right from wrong. We know it instinctively. He created us to know it.

Laws are different than moral imperatives in that Laws are adjudicated and enforceable by courts. So, for instance, when God said, "thou shalt not murder" he wasn't giving Israel a moral imperative, especially one they already knew. He was giving them a Law, something that if disobeyed would be punished by a government. Remember Lamech who bragged to his wife that he killed a boy. Murder is always wrong, but without a government and a law against murder, he remained unpunished. He also bragged to his wife that he would take vengeance on anyone who attempted to take vengeance out on him. Before governments and laws, there was only vengeance and personal retribution.

While the so called Ten Commandments give expression to moral imperatives, they are essentially laws of the land of Israel. The moral imperative is to "remember the Sabbath Day" to keep it holy. The enforceable law that goes along with that imperative is "rest every seventh day of the week."

In this way we come to understand that God's law contains his moral vision; it contains his opinion on what behavior is moral behavior. All of humanity is obligated to obey God's opinion on what is moral. Only Israel, however, is obligated to give expression to that moral vision through practical laws to obey. While all of humanity is obligated to remember the Sabbath Day, not all of humanity is obligated to cease work every seven days of the week. Gentiles remember the Sabbath Day in other ways.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

If you think Grace means you follow a spirit, but obey no laws, you are sadly mistaken.

GOOD!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So following the "letter of the Law" is not perfection, as if often supposed. Rather, it is just following the Law, as written, which required a basic adherence both to the commands of God and to the means of remaining in covenant with God as imperfect people. This happened through recourse to a temporary redemption provided by making animal sacrifices.

Sadly mistaken.... Following the the Law is not perfection, as is often supposed. Rather, it is just following the Law, as written, which requires a basic adherence by faith both to the commands of God and to the means of remaining in covenant with God as imperfect people -- which again, is by faith through grace-- free grace from our free God who remains faithful despite our imperfection and lack of obedience as well as of our lack of faith and grace. This -- forgiveness and justification, happened through recourse by faith alone to the Eternal Supply of Grace and Redemption PRO-VIDED by GOD IN CHRIST, BACK THEN AS NOW. Making animal sacrifices meant one BELIEVED IN GOD IMMANUEL JESUS ANOINTED SAVIOUR OF ALL SAVED ONCE FOR ALL AND EVER....
....or it meant nothing and was a curse rather than a help in the time of dire need of The Only Helper.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

In this way we come to understand that God's law contains his moral vision; it contains his opinion on what behavior is moral behavior. All of humanity is obligated to obey God's opinion on what is moral. Only Israel, however, is obligated to give expression to that moral vision through practical laws to obey. While all of humanity is obligated to remember the Sabbath Day, not all of humanity is obligated to cease work every seven days of the week. Gentiles remember the Sabbath Day in other ways.

called inconsistency and self-contradictoriness ... EXPECTED OF GOD -- ONLY, ONLY, TO RID ONESELF OF HIS SABBATH DAY! <sadly mistaken>
The right option is to admit one’s guilt of sin and plead the available grace of forgiveness for our transgression (and take heart from the fact of reality that no one is more, or less, guilty than the best – we are all sinners EQUALLY and have access to the Throne of Grace EQUALLY by The Only Way, The Way of Grace and Forgiveness through the Saviour of ALL the saved, Jesus Christ God the Son of God, God the Son of Man.)

[[Or admit jealousy and spitefulness and pray, O Lord, please obliterate all believers of the Jewish sabbath. Then I'll be happy.]]

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Speak of the Law of Love.... Christians.... hypocrites!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Undoubtedly, but of course, you need to PROVE that the so called Ten Commandments are a moral code applicable to all humanity. The Sabbath Law is NOT universally applicable to Humanity as we see in the following passage.

According to all your other moral codes applicable to all humanity, dear Lord, the Law of Love, obliterate the immoral Sabbath and with it all the immoral believers of the Sabbath Day. Then I'll believe in your Commandments, o Righteous One, and love You only.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I didn't expect you to understand or accept the truth.

You abused the scholars you quoted. You deduce, conclude falsely, untruth from what they wrote where you quoted them.

You MISQUOTED AND YOU ADDED YOUR OWN CONTRADICTING WISHFUL THINKING.

And I bet you did not get your ‘quotes’ from the authors’ works, you JUST COPYCAT another nincompoop. Want to bet?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I'd work in Colossians 2:9-15. If you don't add the Circumcision of your Heart to your Faith, the Faith of Abraham that saves, the beliefs you listed above are worthless. Not trying to be rude or hurt you, but just telling you of the Core of the Gospel as well as the Core of the entire Bible.

Please start being kind and gentle to your "brothers and sisters," for this is proof that Christ has Circumcised the Sinful Nature from your heart. With the Curse of Adam and Eve lifted from your heart, you would never berate, belittle or throw stones at any of us. Instead, you would love us. Please be kind to all people . . . both here and everywhere you go.

I plead guilty. I ask God for forgiveness. I promise no improvement because I am all the same old man still, even after God's forgiveness. See, I get angry when PROVOKED to anger, and belittle when BELITTLED. Check it up if I'm lying, because that is ONE thing I hate too much to do knowingly.
.