tom55 said:
You didn't answer my most burning question. What does your name mean? :huh:
I'm sorry, I missed that one.. I know, my name is a silly one and I regret using it, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time. It is a combination of words. Uppsala is a city in Sweden where I presently live and Dragby is a small town out in the country where I lived some years ago.
I agree he didn't specifically say keep the Sabbath but He referred to five of the ten commandments which is a very heavy implication of keeping the ten commandments with one of them being keep holy the Sabbath. Do you think He intentionally left it out because it wasn't important?
Well I can see what you are getting at, but I don't think he left the others out because they weren't important, but because at that time their understanding of these commands was flawed, just as 2 Cor 3:14 says:
"But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away."
They didn't understand what the law was all about. The law was powerless to solve the problem at hand. It didn't give them any moral fibre. On the contrary, it served to increase sin, not decrease it. Just as the apostle Paul pointed out. The law itself is not sin, but it was "added so that the trespass might increase".
Also, the law was made for "lawbreakers", not for the righteous, which as a very misunderstood point. Once we are born again we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 3:25). Why not? Doesn't removing a law, for example against stealing imply that it is "alright to steal"? No, of course not! Such a law is only necessary for theives, because it their "nature" to steal. Therefore they need a law to supervise them. Someone who is reborn in Christ has God's nature "shed abroad in their hearts" and that is what supervises them.
To willingly place oneself under the Mosaic law is an implicit admission that one is a lawbreaker, because that law was given to such people. However to place oneself under the Law of Christ, which is a law for the righteous, guarantees that we remain in Christ and inherit the promises that God has given us.
I agree He did not say that "obeying the commandments were enough". He fully answered the question by saying, "go and sell your possessions and give to the poor". But what does that have to do with the original question put forth in the original post by Gracealone? Jesus said keep the commandments and we all know that keep holy the Sabbath is one of them. Therefor the original question put forth by Gracealone has been answered with biblical support from the old and new testament.
Well I don't quite agree with that. Jesus could easily have answered the question by saying "obey the ten commandments", which would have been much easier than listing five of them, but he didn't. He could also have said "obey the law", but the result would have been the same. I think Jesus was fishing - getting this man, and everyone else, to understand the futility of legalism. He was polarizing acts of "righteousness", which can be based on selfish ambition, with acts that are based on compassion and faith. Remember what the Law of Christ is - to believe in the Son of God and to love one another.
No! Because it is off topic and I didn't see anything in there referencing the question from the original post. Also, you were talking to someone else, not me. So why would I comment about it? Does that answer satisfy your curiosity?
OK, fair enough, I just wanted to avoid repeating myself. I have quite a few conversations going on right now...
You misquoted your reference...It doesn't say "end of the law" it says "culmination of the law". Culmination is a final point of activity or bringing something to a climax. So couldn't the quote mean he has brought the laws to their final point? Meaning He has added to the laws and no more can be added?
Both the KJV and the NIV and most other translations say "end of the law" and so does Stongs so how can you claim that I "misquoted" anything? Besides, I base my claims on the testimony of "two or three witnesses" not just one verse that "could" mean something else.
I assume what you mean by the "old covenant" you mean (at least in part) the ten commandments? If so, I do not believe that the old covenant (ten commandments) has been set aside.
I mean the entire Mosaic law including the 10 commandments. The only exception are those that new covenant scripture explicitly makes, such as "loving one's neighbor as oneself".
If you would be honest enough to quote the entire scripture (Hebrews 8: 7-13) your reference to Hebrew would be in context. If you put it in context, your own argument has been defeated. The covenant is the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him. It seems to me you are saying that the entire old testament has been nullified because "he has made the first one obsolete". At least that what I think you are trying to say, but maybe I'm wrong?
Please do not imply that I am being dishonest. If you have a point then I will consider it. I am quite willing to be corrected and I don't claim that I never miss anything, but I am definitely not being dishonest. Having said that, I don't understand what you think there is in the context of Hebrews 8:7-13 that "defeats my argument".
Raeneske said:
I hope by conscience based you don't mean that whatsoever we feel is right in our heart, that do. Remember the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. There are good consciences and bad consciences. Some may say "My conscience doesn't condemn me for not keeping the commandments of God". There is enough Scripture to prove that one should keep all the commandments, including the Sabbath. We have freedom to choose whichever way we want to go. But we need to make the Word of God our guide.
Well that is a discussion that could lead just about anywhere at all, so I don't know if it is worth responding to. Of course I am not saying something along the lines of "anything that feels good, just do it". We need to remain in the Word, just as we need the Holy Spirit to reveal what scripture is saying. However, the fact of the matter is that scripture supports a certain amount of freedom as far as how we serve God as individuals. "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
Paul makes an argument about obeying the spirit of the law.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
I'm afraid that the words "spirit of the law" does not appear anywhere in that verse (nor anywhere else in the NT). It is very important not to add things to scripture that are not there. Scripture is complete. It was not left open so that we could project our own thoughts into the text.
Paul is telling us to serve in the newness of spirit, instead of the oldness of letter: That is, we should keep ever keep in mind serving the law in the spirit, instead of looking at just the letter. But when you keep the spirit of the law, you will also be found keeping the letter of the law. Jesus taught the spirit of the law. For example, murder:
Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Again, Paul never teaches us that we should focus on the law, with or without the Spirit. You are going beyond what is written. What Jesus was pointing out in Matthew 5 is that the mosaic law is limited in its ability to restrain evil thoughts. The only thing that can do that is focusing on Jesus, not the mosaic law. If anyone remains in Christ and fellowships with him, then evil thoughts are weeded out by the Spirit. The law is powerless to do that.
Does the newness of spirit nullify the law? No, it does not. You must keep thou shalt not kill. The same follows for adultery. You must spiritually keep it and literally keep it. Do you see where I am going with this?
Yes, you are implying that without the law we end up breaking the law, which actually nullifies the reason Christ was crucified. The law was not given to the righteous, but to lawbreakers. If you think you need the law in order to be righteous then you are rejecting the righteousness that we have received from God.
Someone who has been made righteous through faith is "no longer under the supervision of the law". But saying that you need the law to supervise you, you are doing nothing more than implicating youself as a lawbreaker.
The Sabbath commandment is no different. How can one say they are keeping the Sabbath, yet they are blatantly disobeying it? It makes no sense. It makes as much sense as saying I love my wife so much, I don't cheat on her in my heart, but I will literally cheat on her.
The sabbath commandment IS different. Scripture teaches us that it is a shadow, and Hebrews 3:7-19 and Hebrews 4:1-13 explains the reality that the shadow points to. The promise of "rest" was given to the Israelites through Joshua, not Moses, and since they rejected that rest, they were given a mere shadow. The promise however "remains" for everyone who believes.
NOTE: I have exceeded the number of quote boxes I can use, so your comment are now in blue.
"Just because we are not in the same covenant doesn't mean that some of the principles of the Old Covenant aren't in the New Covenant. Romans 3:31 says the law is established."
If you go up in Romans 3 to verse 21 you can read "a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify". Sure, the Law and the Prophets testify about this righteousness. However, it is a righteousness "
apart from the law", not "together with the law", as you are suggesting.
"Romans 6:14-15 tells us we may not sin though we are under grace."
Did I say that we should sin because we are not under law but under grace? There is an obvious missunderstanding here. Paul is not saying that we should be under the law in order to avoid sinning If that was the case then he would have been contradicting his entire doctrine!
No. Paul is alluding to what he said in the previous chapter:
"The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more".
Obviously this verse could be twisted by unstable people to mean that since sin made grace increase, then perhaps we should go on sinning in order to get even more grace. Paul condemned such ideas. We are not to sin, but being under the law does not help us accomplish that task. What we need to do is what new covenant scripture teaches us to do - fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.
"1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is the transgression of the law. Therefore: The 10 commandments are established in the new covenant. We may not break the ten commandments though we are under grace."
John never even mentioned the 10 commandments! What he was talking about was the law that applies to us - the law of Christ! Otherwise you might as well get curcumcised. John himself points out what that law is:
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." 1 John 3:23
"As the Jews were delivered from slavery in Egypt, so are we delivered from slavery from sin. We are given the strength to obey God, and that we are to do. This includes keeping the Sabbath."
Excellent. You recognize that being freed from bondage in Egypt is a shadow of salvation through faith, and yet you don't recognize that observing the 7th day sabbath is a shadow of that same faith, despite the fact that scripture tells us that it is! What's wrong with this picture?
"Paul is not saying the ten commandments have been done away with. This would be something Peter says about having things in them (Paul's epistles) that some things are hard to be understood."
Peter said nothing whatsoever to confirm you interpretation of what that misunderstanding was. I believe, based on scripture that it has to do with what I wrote above. And even Romans 3:8 confirms this:
"Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved."
What Paul was teaching was that the law not only made sin increase, but also grace. But as you pointed out he also said:
"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."
Notice here though that it is because you are under grace, (and not under law) that you prevent sin from being your master! The law only makes sin increase.