| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1011 Registered: 5-2007 |
Here is one of those aprehension thoughts. EGW was commenting on the story about a prhphet that was told to take a specific path home by the direct Word of God. Another person changed the instruction and the prophet thinking it was a legitimate message , disobeyed God and was killed as a consequence. Her comment was , since God gave a Direct order to him. Only God could countermand that order. And you can see where this is going, God wrote the Ten Comandments on the tablets. I find a lot of aprehension in that I should have faith in the message (as I understand it) that it was changed or countermanded. This is why I keep trying to find some passage that is more direct, from God, in the OT that clearly says the 10C will be discontinued. It is a tripping point, a road block that causes the doubts I have. Gal 3: 23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. J: Where does Paul get his insight? Where and how did he extract this formulation to be able to say that we are no longer under the supervision (obligation to) the law. Other than Jerimiah, I do not see much in teh way of paticulars regarding the New Covenant freedoms. It is as if it was manufactured after the cross. Even the Gospels did not address it. I have read over and over again the concepts of the New Covenant as Paul has expressed it. I get it to the extent of what he is saying. But validating it eludes me. I am trying to find scriptually projected permission in the OT, or from Christ's words that release the tablets of stone. My questions all seem to have one common denominator. How did we get to having permission to let go of the 10c. You see, I am also able to apply these teachings of Paul as a means to arriving at the objectives of the 10C Spiritualy, accepting that we are not capable of doing it codified letter perfect. We have no problem with 9, but the 4th kind of muddy's the theological formula either way I go. Jim | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1473 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jim: How about inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Hec | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3477 Registered: 10-2004  |
Jim, The entire Bible is God's actual Word, direct from Him. It is not only the "thoughts" that are inspired by God (as Adventism teaches), but the very words themselves. Thus, both the OT and the NT are God's direct words to us. However, the concepts of the New Covenant and the Law being fulfilled are not absent in the OT or the Gospels (including Christ's [God's] words while He was living on earth). Compare Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (a prophecy of Christ and His new Law) with Luke 9:28-36 and Mark 9:1-8. And Jesus Himself said:
See also Matthew 11:13 and John 1:17. Also see Matthew 12:1-8, where Jesus proves that the Sabbath is not a moral law, but instead categorizes it as a ceremonial law. Also, take a careful look at Jesus' words in Matthew 5:
Notice the "until all is accomplished" at the end. Compare this to the following two passages in the Gospels:
Now, there are several different Greeks words used in these verses, but that doesn't meant that we can't compare them in our English Bibles. (The same Greek word for "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 is used in Luke 24:44.) Clearly, in Matthew 5 Jesus is speaking of the entire Law ("the Law or the Prophets") and not just the Ten Words, so even if we were to ignore the "until all is accomplished," the rest of verse 18 would mean that we must keep every jot and tittle of the entire Law, including all sacrificial commands, etc. But the fact is that Jesus has fulfilled the Law, and all has been accomplished. This is why Paul can say in Ephesians 2:15 that the Law has been abolished (different Greek word than Matthew 5:17) by Christ's death. It is very helpful to look at the differences between these two Greek words for "abolish": Matthew 5:17: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2647&t=KJV Ephesians 2:15: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2673&t=KJV Looking at the above Greek words, we can see that Jesus, by His death, rendered the Law inoperative, but did not subvert or overthrow it or "tear it down"--but instead "filled it up"/fulfilled it/completed it/finished it. It is also important to remember that God clearly gave the Law (including the Sabbath specifically) to Israel only, and Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on November 06, 2010) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1502 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; just as Jeremy quoted Jesus saying in Matthew 5:17,18 that not one jot or one tittle of the law or the prophets would pass away until all was fulfilled, so that would mean that if all wasn't fulfilled, then the Jewish people would still be under obligation to do all the sacrifices, etc. I say Jewish people, because Gentiles were never given the law. - Romans 2:14. Jim; I know that you're an intelligent man so don't be offended when I point this out. (Actually no matter how intelligent a person is, they can't "get it" anyway without God's help because God's word is "spiritually discerned" - 1st Cor. 2:14.) Jeremiah 31:31-34 says that God will "make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers..." Here God says that He will make a "new covenant." Now again don't be offended, but it says "new" not "the same covenant written in a different place." Adventists think that the covenant is the same - just written on the heart instead. What is the old covenant? Jeremy could give a whole bunch of verses telling what it is, but I know of a few. One is Deuteronomy 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." And in Deuteronomy 5, Moses goes on to say that that covenant wasn't given to their fathers, but with them [Israel], those who were there alive at the time. | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 249 Registered: 5-2009 |
Jeremy said: "It is also important to remember that God clearly gave the Law (including the Sabbath specifically) to Israel only, and Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with. " To me, this is the most important thing to understand. You are not held accountable to do things that God never intended for YOU. | ||
| Believer247 Registered user Username: Believer247 Post Number: 187 Registered: 3-2009 |
I agree with Cloudwatcher, Jeremy, Asurprise, Hec. Also, have you ordered the book "Tablets of Stone" by John Reisinger? Reisinger brings out in this book that the 10 commandments were the covenant with Israel and the Sabbath was the sign of that covenant. You can order this book at Amazon.com. | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1014 Registered: 5-2007 |
This is significant, if the law was unchangeable until all fullfilled, and we know the sacrificial system ended, the law had in fact changed. I have to think on this. This never occured to me and yet it is obvious that a change had occured. I need to pray about this. PS: I am not offended, I am trying to be open to recieving what I am missing. Sometimes truth is right in front of us and we cannot see it. Thank you for the book reference. Thank you all. Jim | ||
| Believer247 Registered user Username: Believer247 Post Number: 188 Registered: 3-2009 |
Jim, read Hebrews. It talks about the superiority of Jesus' high priesthood over the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews 7:11-13: "Therefore if perfection were through the Levitical preisthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar." | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11957 Registered: 12-2003  |
One more thing, Jim—Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 24:20 say that Israelites were to respond to injury in kind, an eye for eye, wound for wound, etc. Yet Jesus, in Matthew 5:38-42, changed the law. He said,
Jesus changed the law! Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1015 Registered: 5-2007 |
I have ordered the Tablets of Stone book. Oddly enough, my thoughts in view of the key pointed out yesterday were along the line of indeed there was a change in the law. In my continued effort to piece together the big picture I invaribly come back to the opposition texts and try to rightly apply them to determine if my new discovery holds together. Also, if I cannot defend each step, then I cannot defend my faith or be an efective wittness to another. The next passage that circles back into view is the one that says, do we then make void the law of God through faith, God forbid we establish the law. This takes me back to reconsider two things. We know that a change in the law took place. But Paul who obviously did not subdivide or define the sectors or types of law, still said we do not make void the law , we establish it. The other: If Paul is referring to a type of law to be preserved, then this lends credence to to the idea that there was implied divisions of the law as is evident by the contempoary view of moral laws being reinstated while the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were ended at the cross. The fact that the 10 were hand written by God set them apart logically as a set. I have not been able to (with conviction) subdivide them as yet. If Paul is saying that we are establishing a new set of laws this would be implied by the examples of the Spiritual nature. But that would also be reading into his text on that verse. This is more of the If = then reasoning. I am not resisting here. Please understand my sincerity. I don't want to be presumptious with truth. It has been pointed out that God reveals truth by His Holy Spirit. I agree. This may be a path of learning the hardway, piece by piece. I do not know why it has taken this long. But it is important that I do not give up. Agnosticism is what is left. Jim | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3478 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jim, Hebrews 7:12 actually says, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." (NASB.) There is no definite article in the Greek--it does not say "the law," it only says "law." So, according to this verse, there is not a "change in the law" but rather there is is "a change of law." In other words, the author of Hebrews is saying that there is a "change" (literally, "transference") from one Law (with it's specific [Levitical] priesthood) to a different new Law (with it's own [Melchizedek] priesthood), also called the Law of Christ (Messiah) in the NT. In fact, there could not simply be a change in the Law. As Paul says in Galatians 3:15: "Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it." (NASB.) In other words, it can't be changed. The Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant/law did expire and was fulfilled (see verse 19 of Galatians 3), but it could not be "changed." Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on November 11, 2010) | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1016 Registered: 5-2007 |
do we then make void the law of God through faith, God forbid we establish the law. Jeremy, do you think Hebrews 7:12 (having no definite article) could apply to the above verse? You stated : In other words, it can't be changed. J: I have not considered that at all. That would be a whole other line of thinking. Do you have other examples that would firm up that construction? Jim | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 1811 Registered: 6-2006  |
Jim, A couple of people here have presented to you that the law was given only to the Children of Israel, and not to gentiles. I haven't seen you answer about that. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. I really appreciate how you are trying to get everything straight, but who the law was written for in the first place is kind of a big one to consider... Leigh Anne | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2127 Registered: 4-2000  |
Since Christ is the Christian's High Priest and He was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi, His priesthood is clearly beyond the law which was the authority for the Levitical priesthood. This is proof that the Mosaic Law had been abrogated as a cohesive unit. The Levitical system was replaced by a new Priest, offering a new sacrifice, under a New Covenant. Christ abrogated the law by fulfilling it (Matt. 5:17) and providing the perfection which the law could never accomplish. The law dealt only with the temporal existence of Israel. The forgiveness which could be obtained even on the annual Day of Atonement was temporary. Those who ministered as priests under the law were mortals receiving their office by heredity. Indeed, the Levitical system was dominated by matters of physical existence and transitory ceremonialism. Because He is the eternal second person of the Godhead, Christ's priesthood cannot end. His priesthood, is not by virtue of the law, but by virtue of His deity. All in all, it is important to note that the eternal moral elements of the law were not abrogated but rather are established through faith (Romans 3:31). Jesus Himself guarantees the success of His New Covenant of salvation. Interestingly, it is claimed that there were eighty-four high priests who served from Aaron until the destruction of the temple by the Romans in A. D. 70. The lesser priests' numbers were much larger. By its nature, the covenant of law was primarily external, but the New Covenant is internal. Dennis Fischer (Message edited by Dennis on November 11, 2010) | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1484 Registered: 3-2009 |
How can faith establish the law which is not of faith? Gal. 3:11-12: The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith... Something which is not of faith being established by faith? Hec | ||
| Christo Registered user Username: Christo Post Number: 244 Registered: 2-2008 |
Hec, Dennis made an important point in THE LAW OF FAITH discussion, I agree whole heartedly with this part of his statement. Quote ((1) by providing a payment for the penalty of death, which the law required for failing to keep it; ) Jesus's death on the cross fulfilled the law, thereby establishing its purpose, and completion. "IT IS FINISHED" Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11964 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Chris. In context, Jim, that "establish the law" verse is about its function as God's tool to reveal and increase sin. The law had a function, and it was vital. Just as a living trust has a function, the law's function was unique and irreplaceable. But, as Romans 7 explains, a will (or a trust) is fulfilled when the writer of it dies. The written will is no longer needed. Everything it demanded is done and carried out; the written rules are now fulfilled, and the greater reality is in place; everything the will promised is disbursed and realized. So with the law. We can't say the law is irrelevant. NO! The law, according to Jesus Himself (Luke 24:44) foreshadowed Jesus and had to be fulfilled. That law still exists to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. Without the law to look back on, how would we be able to validate the claims of Jesus? Ditto for a will or trust. If there is any question upon the death of the owner of the trust, the written will confirms the reality of the ultimate disbursement. We establish the law. It is an irreplaceable piece in the entire unfolding of salvation history. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1017 Registered: 5-2007 |
Leigh Anne, I agree that the law/covenant was given to the Children of Israel. I suppose I have linked the universal application of the law to all mankind. There was the Noacian law, and I understand that if a person wanted to join the faith they were expected to keep the law. Then when Jesus gave them the commission to go into the whole world and teach us to observe all things whatsoever He commanded, by implication that included the 10C. That said, I understand that if these other points that show the law has ended, if I can wrap my head around that, if I can settle the things that are causing me to hold back, then I will hopefully find the conviction I need. I have been rereading the books I have already bought. Ordered another one and it is taking me time. One of the things I thought may help is to start journaling the keys as I discover and rediscover them. There may even be a book that organizes it for me. Books are important because it tends to be formatted. But even in books there will be pages that go over your head, or you miss the point because it gets abstract or wordy and you gloss right on by it. On second and third readings, sometimes I say , whoa , I missed that ! I don't mean to ignore points. It is really that sometimes I am not prepared to respond to a given point or it does not click at the moment. I'm trying. Jim | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2295 Registered: 5-2007  |
Jim, When Jesus said to obey all things he commanded, the New Covenant makes it very clear he wasn’t referring to ‘the Law of Moses’. In reality we are held to a much higher standard than performing the requirements of the old law. This higher standard can only become a real with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ himself and the indwelling seal of the Holy Spirit. Fearless Phil | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 2128 Registered: 4-2000 |
Hec, The law establishes and fortifies the gift of faith in the sense of the sanctification process. Those who truly love Jesus will always want to honor Him by their lifestyle, obedience, etc. In short, there are no lawless Christians. Although the law is NOT salvific in any way, believers always delight in God's divine will for their lives. The "law of Christ" and "law of the Spirit" expressions refer to the Gospel and not to some new list of do's and don'ts. When Jesus was asked which commandment is the greatest , He wisely answered the Pharisees by quoting the Shema passage in Deut. 6:5 (also Lev. 19:18,33) from the Torah that were an abbreviated reference to the Ten Commandments. Our sovereign God doesn't leave us guessing what precisely constitutes living a holy life. Thus, Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments as a standard of behavior. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OT Statement NT Restatement 1st Polytheism (Ex. 20:3) Acts 14:15 2nd Graven Images (Ex. 20:4) 1 John 5:21 3rd Swearing (Ex. 20:7) James 5:12 4th Sabbath (Ex. 20:8) Col. 2:16 nullifies 5th Obedience to Parents (Ex. 20:12) Eph. 6:1 6th Murder (Ex. 20:13) 1 John 3:15 7th Adultery (Ex. 20:14) 1 Cor. 6:9,10 8th Theft (Ex. 20:15) Eph. 4:28 9th False Witness (Ex. 20:16) Col. 3:9,10 10th Coveting (Ex. 20:17) Eph. 5:3 Dennis Fischer |
