| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 15219 Registered: 12-2003  |
Paul Carden sent this link over the weekend. This person's arguments about the Ten Commandments reflect classic covenant theology reasoning. Truly, reading the New Testament just as it is, allowing the words to mean what the words say...believing that we now live not under the Law but the law of Christ and that, according to John 16 the Holy Spirit now convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment—this understanding is shocking to most Christians. And yet....to resist seeing the reality of the utter sufficiency of the Lord Jesus leaves one in the crazy-making place of adding to the gospel. I'd love to hear your reactions to this article: http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/669516-the-sabbath-commandment-is-still-binding.html Colleen | ||
| Free2dance Registered user Username: Free2dance Post Number: 741 Registered: 2-2010 |
"For one to know whether the Sabbath commandment is still binding today, one ought to first understand its position in the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses). Far different from the ceremonial rites and laws that Moses himself wrote and were “having a shadow of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1), the Sabbath is enshrined within the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) written and delivered by God Himself in the two tablets from Sinai." There is nothing in scripture that separates the decalogue from the rest of the Mosaic covenant. Hebrews calls the decalogue the words of the covenant (9:4) which is described as "obsolete" in 8:13. "It is worthwhile to note that Moses’ ‘book of the law’ was; (1) written by Moses and (2) placed beside the ark i.e. ‘in the side of the ark.’ In contrast, the Decalogue was; (1) spoken and written directly by God (Exodus 20:1; 31:18; 34:1; Deuteronomy 4:13) and (2) placed inside the ark (Hebrews 9:4). The Decalogue was the covenant into which God entered with the children of Israel. If they observed and followed it, they would be a peculiar treasure – a people consecrated – unto God (Exodus 19:5-6)." My father-in-law, an SDA pastor, used this argument with me as "biblical evidence" that God separated the Mosaic Covenant into two parts and that is why we are bound to the decalogue and not the other laws. Interestingly, the passage in Hebrews I mentioned above teaches us that there WAS an old covenant but that it is now obsolete and we come before God under a New Covenant. When the author of Hebrews describes the covenant that is now obsolete he includes the decalogue in the ark of the covenant! When I read that for the first time I remember right where I was sitting and I just sat and wept. That was the moment I knew without a shadow of a doubt that I had not been deceived into leaving the Sabbath, up until repenting of Adventism I was using the Sabbath as my "spare tire" doctrine just in case leaving meant losing salvation; in other words, keeping the Sabbath was keeping me from faith in Christ alone. Oh the rest of that article is just bad hermeneutics, dishonest scholarship, and inapropriate uses of the human imagination to describe God and His intentions. Seriously, he thundered to show them He is the best husband? Is this writer Adventist? This kind of teaching makes me feel crazy inside. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong! We need more of our Christian churches to be teaching hermeneutic classes to the members so that people are not so easily deceived by over confident biblically illiterate "teachers". This is unnerving. | ||
| Free2dance Registered user Username: Free2dance Post Number: 742 Registered: 2-2010 |
It must be said that the author of that article has NEVER read Hebrews all the way through. If he has, he didn't understand it! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 15223 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well said, Free! I agree with you and also wondered if the author was or has been SDA. It's possible, though, that he was taught traditional "covenant theology"...but his arguments sound as if he's had SDA influence. You know how it is...we can almost "smell" SDA reasoning. It's got a slightly peculiar odor... Colleen | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 574 Registered: 4-2014 |
Jewish Courts were given plenary and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 17. This exclusive jurisdiction over the law was reaffirmed by Jesus in Mathew 23:1-3. The Jewish Courts have NEVER ruled that the Ten Commandments can be separated from the rest of the 613 Commandments of the Old Testament: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm Adventists have succeeded in reviving the Judaizing Heresy and teach precisely the "other Gospel" that is so resoundingly-condemned in Galatians. But they also have the law itself wrong! They are disobedient to Deuteronomy 17 and Mathew 23:1-3! | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 1830 Registered: 2-2011  |
Resjudicata~ Thank-you so much for this information! I did a "cut & paste" of the page to send to some of my sda friends~ I have found this much more effective than just sending a 'link'~ when the entire page "pops-up" its like "kinda in their face"~! ~mj~ | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 577 Registered: 4-2014 |
Mjcmcook, You might also want to send them the decisions of the Jewish Courts (pursuant to their exclusive, plenary God-given authority in Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23); that Gentiles who attempt to keep the Sabbath are to be put to death. In fact, a Gentile that tries to keep a day of rest ANY day of the week is to be put to death! I have analyzed this at length in the 9th Edition of "Lying for God" in a chapter entitled "Israel's Dual Court system." If you can send me an email, I will email you a copy. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 1831 Registered: 2-2011 |
Resjudicata~ I sent you an e-mail~ ~mj~ | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 579 Registered: 4-2014 |
Mjcmcook, Sorry about that. I have updated my email address. Click on my profile for the correct one. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 1832 Registered: 2-2011 |
Resjudicata~ Thanks for the update~ #2 e-mail sent ! ~mj~ | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 581 Registered: 4-2014 |
You should have the chapter entitled "Israel's Dual Court system and the Noahide Laws!" Enjoy. | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 1835 Registered: 2-2011 |
Resjudicata~ Thank-you very much! ~mj~ | ||
| Free2dance Registered user Username: Free2dance Post Number: 750 Registered: 2-2010 |
Colleen, do I understand right that Covenant Theologians believe that the 10 Commandments are separated from the rest of the Torah and are still binding in the New Covenant? Or do they just say that since they are scripture they are useful for teaching? (Message edited by Free2dance on September 03, 2015) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 15232 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well, I'm not sure I can explain this in detail, but they believe that the Mosaic covenant has aspects (such as the Ten Commandments) that are relevant for the church. They would not see it as completely obsolete but as being more or less added onto the Abrahamic covenant, and the new as being added onto those. So, the sacrificial parts of the covenant and also the temple/tabernacle service they would see as fulfilled in Jesus, but they would say the moral components are still binding. From my perspective, it looks to me as if they see the moral components of the Mosaic covenant as continuing rather than as seeing the moral components as reflecting God's eternal identity with or without a covenant. Now, I'm using my own words to say this...and I'm sure I'm saying it badly. But they would not articulate the Old Covenant as completely, irrevocably ending, but that it continues in some modified way. Covenants become the framework on which Scripture is understood. I agree that the covenants are essential to understand. I would argue, though, that it is the Lord Jesus and our redemption that are the framework on which the Scripture hangs. Covenants are simply part of the salvation plan of God. Colleen | ||
| Xenonlion Registered user Username: Xenonlion Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2014 |
In Adventism, I was mainly taught that the new covenant is just the old covenant told in a different way. In the Bible, we're told that the new covenant is not like the old covenant. | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 606 Registered: 4-2014 |
Colleen, I can find nowhere in the New Testament that Christians were given any authority whatsoever to interpret the Mosaic Law. Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23:1-3 are flatly unmistakable who has that exclusive authority. Jesus's command in Matthew 23:1-3 flatly incorporates the Oral Law of the Mishnah Torah and the Talmud, since he specifically orders obedience to the Pharisees. Only the Pharisees accepted the Oral law, of all of the Jewish sects of the time. Neither the Sadducees or the Essenes did. Thus, the interpretations of Covenant Theologians stand in stark disobedience to the clear commands of God on how his law must be interpreted, and carried out. When Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23:1-3 are fully-comprehended and obeyed, several things stand out: a). Only members of the Jewish nation can be given authority to interpret the law. And only the Judges appointed by God have that authority within the Jewish nation. Gentiles cannot be given authority to interpret or enforce God's law. Only Jews can. b). Gentiles that attempt to interpret the Law are to be put to death. Gentiles that attempt to keep a Sabbath under the law, or ANY day of rest are to be put to death. c). Nowhere in Jewish legal rulings is something called "The Ten Commandments" identified. Such a thing is flatly contradictory to the unitary nature of the 613 Commandments, all of which are equal with each other. This has been confirmed repeatedly by Rabbinical authority, which again, has the exclusive authority to interpret and enforce the Law. c). Nowhere have those appointed Judges authorized the removal of the Ten Commandments from the rest of the 613 Commandments. Nowhere have they authorized a translation that would mean the "Ten Commandments," which is flatly contradictory to the Hebrew text. d). Nowhere have God's appointed Judges divided God's Law into "moral" and "ceremonial" components. When these obvious characteristics of the law, and how it MUST be interpreted and enforced are taken into effect; it is very clear that NONE of the law has any relevance whatsoever to Christianity. | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 607 Registered: 4-2014 |
God's ordained Judges have repeatedly ruled that the overriding policy of the Mosaic Law was to divide and distinguish Jew from Gentile. Many different parts of the law were designed to effectuate this policy: - The 7 Noahide Commandments were exclusively the law that was applied to Gentiles. Israel was emphatically a dual-court system, much like apartheid was in South Africa. The way that the Noahide Law against adultery was applied to a Gentile was dramatically different than how the Mosaic Law's prohibition against adultery was applied to a Jew. A Gentile was frequently "put to the sword" for adultery, whereas a similarly-offending Jews could be spared. A Jew, under the law, could be rehabilitated, a Gentile could not. Testimony by a Gentile was severely circumscribed and preemptively invalid. Rarely could a Gentile expect to receive real justice in a court proceeding, since "the deck was stacked" in favor of Jewish litigants. - Jews were prohibited from selling or renting real estate to a Gentile. Their labor contracts with Gentiles were interpreted vastly different than a labor contract between two Jews. In many cases, it was appropriate and legal for a Jewish employer to cheat a Gentile laborer out of their wages. - The laws against intermarriage were rigid and unbending and were facilitated by circumcision. A Gentile woman who was raped by a Jew was to be put to death. - The ritual cleansing and purity laws were harshly applied against Gentiles. Gentiles were ritually "unclean," similarly to dead bodies and menstruating women. Oddly, Adventists only accept the ritual purity food laws, and none of the rest of the purity laws. - The ritual purity kosher food laws had nothing to do with health. They had EVERYTHING to do with the prevention of eating and socializing with Gentiles. - The laws demanded that the Children of Israel piteously slaughter every man, woman and children in a conquered city. The Mishnah Torah drastically tempered this commandment, by allowing Gentiles to swear allegiance to the 7 Noahide Commandments, and spare their lives. These are just some of the examples of how the law's overriding policy of separation and distinguishing Jews from Gentiles was implemented. The Great Commission is starkly, 180 degrees at odds with the Mosaic Law. The Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 (Acts 15) made a stark decision: The Mosaic Law was incompatible with The Great Commission. Gentile Christian Converts were not required to convert to Judaism to become a Christian, as many Pharisee-converts to Christianity were demanding. Since the Pharisees had exclusive jurisdiction and power to interpret the law (Matthew 23:1-3), in effect the Council of Jerusalem "pulled the rug out from underneath" the Pharisees. The Apostles were clearly acting within the scope of their authority given to them under the Great Commission and Matthew 18:18. - The Sabbath itself was a key distinguisher and separator between Jew and Gentiles. Gentiles were prohibited from observing the Sabbath, or any day of rest, upon pain of death. Jews had many rigid requirements for keeping the Sabbath, NONE of which were repudiated in the New Testament. Given all of the above, there is simply no place for the Mosaic Law, the "Ten Commandments;" or the Sabbath for any Christian. | ||
| Resjudicata Registered user Username: Resjudicata Post Number: 608 Registered: 4-2014 |
In summary, Several different forms of direct disobedience to God must be willfully practiced in order to apply any of the Mosaic Law, including the so-called "Ten Commandments" to Gentile Christians (that would be you and me): a). You MUST willfully disobey the stark and clear commands in Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23:1-3, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to Jewish Law judges to interpret and enforce the Mosaic Law. No Gentiles has been given authority to interpret the Mosaic Law. Only Jews have that God-given authority. In order to practice the Ten Commandments and apply them to your life, you must "interpret" them. That would be in direct disobedience to Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23:1-3.; b). You MUST willfully disobey the repeated rulings of those God-ordained courts, which have repeatedly ruled that the Mosaic Law has absolutely no application to Gentiles. You MUST willfully disobey their repeated rulings that only the 7 Noahide Laws can be applied to Gentiles. You are NOT given the option of disobeying those courts in Deuteronomy 17 and Matthew 23:1-3. There is no wiggle room given in either texts; c). You MUST disobey the clear ruling of the Apostles in Acts 15, which ruled that Gentile Christian converts need not follow the Mosaic Law. Nothing in that ruling by the Apostles "saved" the "Ten Commandments" from the meat-axe destruction of the Mosaic Law in Acts 15. d). Since God's-chose law Judges have ruled repeatedly that the overriding policy of the Mosaic Law was to separate and distinguish Jew from Gentile; then it follows that to adopt any part of the Mosaic law means that one MUST be in defiant rebellion of the vision given to St. Peter, whereby he was commanded to fellowship with Gentiles. Fellowship between Jews and Gentiles is simply prohibited under the repeated and clear interpretations that God's-appointed Judges have given the Mosaic Law. It is in gross violation of the ritual purity laws. e). One MUST be in defiant disobedience to the Great Commission, which commands that the Gospel is to be taken to "all nations." The initiation into the Gospel is effectuated with baptism. That is it. To be initiated into the Old Covenant required circumcision and agreeing to be bound by ALL 613 Commandments of the Torah. By grafting parts of the Mosaic Law onto the Great Commission, you are "adding to" the Gospel, which is prohibited in Revelation 22. f). One MUST be in stark disobedience to God's-anointed Judges to discover some sort of distinction between the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law" in the Mosaic Law. God's Judges have never authorized such a distinction. Nor have God's Judges ever authorized separating and emphasizing the "Ten Commandments" from their context of all 613 of the Torah Commandments. In short, to make the Ten Commandments applicable to Christians, one much accomplish the unthinkable: One must simultaneously disobey the law AND the Gospel! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 15239 Registered: 12-2003 |
Res, yes. Galatians 4:8-11 explains that returning to the Mosaic law now is like pagans returning to idolatry. There is a demonic power associated with observing the Mosaic law...because the Mosaic law is the shadow of Jesus. And the Ten Commandments are the heart of the Mosaic law...the very "words of the covenant" (Ex. 34:28). To embrace the law is to turn one's back on Jesus. As you said, "One must simultaneously disobey the law AND the gospel" if one returns to the law...or if gentiles presume to "keep" it. Colleen | ||
| Terryohare Registered user Username: Terryohare Post Number: 16 Registered: 2-2012  |
Sorry I'm a little late to this post. First of all, the article above was a second response to a heart-felt opinion posted on 1 June by Dr. Okoth Josue, who observes a decline in respect for Sunday as a Christian holiday. He is perturbed (among several things) that a nation that is 80% Christian has a government that allows discrimination against Christians who do not want to work on Sunday. His view is similar to the complaints of Reformed Christians in America and the British Isles for over the past 50 years. The first response on 4 June was by Charles Okecha, who appears to believe in a fulfilled Sabbath, but is inclusive enough to allow people of faith to observe either Saturday or Sunday. This was followed by the article referenced above by Nicholas Munu, who admittedly shared the opinion of the original contributor. From my background, "Covenant Theology" is Reformed theology in opposition to "Dispensational Theology." Basically, the difference is in how one comprehends the flow of history presented in the Bible. There is also a "New Covenant Theology" that is not dispensational, but is attributed to those of the Reformed point of view who believe the Sabbath is a fulfilled ceremonial commandment. My assessment of the author is that he is a Christian with a Reformed or Covenantal view of Scripture. I agree with Free that they don't have the best understanding of the Sabbath, and that begins with several unconfirmed assumptions, i.e., that the Ten Commandments MUST contain only moral legislation. This reverence for the Decalogue has centuries of traditional teaching behind it, stemming from the fact that the New Covenant does not entirely ignore the Old Covenant, but is free to use it to inform and guide believers in Jesus Christ (See Beale and Carson's "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament"). The Reformed treatment of the Sabbath, in my opinion, is not consistent with their treatment of other ceremonial commands. I do not believe that the Reformed or Covenantal view of Scripture necessitates the continuity of the Sabbath. There are several views concerning the relationship of the Old and New Covenants, as evidenced by books like "Five Views on Law and Gospel." We form our opinions with study, but may we also inform our study with grace. |
