@Bobbyaf,

You strike me as one who has a difficulty with interpretations, though I do not mean this in any derogatory way. It is one thing to hear or read the "what" of Scripture; quite another thing to know the "how" of what is read. Declaration id one thing; interpretation is quite another.

Bobbyaf:

m4malik link=topic=2754.msg527618#msg527618 date=1154077940:

Paul wasn't asking that Christians keep the Law - not at all. In fact, he underscores the practical impossibility of any man to do so -

Not true friend! Paul said no such thing. Paul said "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me"

This is quaint. So, Paul said no such thing as we read of in Gal. 3:11-12?? In other words, when he said he could do all things through Christ (Phil. 4:13), did he reference that in context of keeping the Law? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the substance of your argument.

Bobbyaf:

God said to Abraham "Be ye holy as I am Holy"

It wasn't to Abraham God made that statement; rather it was to the nation of Israel. Of course, Abraham's walk with God was holy; but the references for that quote all appear in Leviticus and were directed to Israel (see Lev. 11:44-45 & 20:7).

Bobbyaf:

While I will agree with you that Paul wasn't making a big issue of the law in Romans 7, and neithr am I, but one thing is sure He set out to clarify something, otherwise he would not have said what he said about the law. Besides, Paul never had to ask christians to keep the law of 10 commandments since christians are usually obedient naturally. If you profess Christ you aught to follow His instructions. Jesus said in:
John 14:15
If you love me keep my commandments

Now you tire me with misconstruing things the way you do. Alright, good to know that you agree Paul never had to ask Christians to keep the Law of the 10 commandments; but was it simply because Christians are obedient naturally? I'd rather not, because Paul's argument for not keeping the Law is that whoever pursues such an adventure was debtor to do the whole Law! See it in Gal. 5:3-4 >>

Gal 5:3  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

When Christ asked us to keep His commandments in John 14:15, you surely would not suppose for an instance that He was turning us back to the yoke of the Law that we could not keep in the first place! He knew that none of us could be justified by the Law, because the Law in itself made nothing perfect.

Bobbyaf:

The question is what aspect of law was Paul talking about here in Galations? This is where the confusion steps in all the time. In Galations Paul qualifies the situation, by saying that circumcision cannot save anyone. The issue was never about the sabbath. It was something else.

Calm down and read it again in its context of application, and you'll find that the Law in Paul's discourse in Gal. 3:11-12 was not just about circumcision but rather the whole scope of the Law as he consistently argued in chapter 5 where he mentions circumcision as well. "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Circumcision is not the only element of his treatment of "the Law" in Galatians; rather, the whole body of the Mosaic Law was in view.

Bobbyaf:

Now that you mention being justified by the law its funny how Paul says something totally different in another section of his writings. Read:
Romans 2:12,13
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
Is Paul contradicting himself? Obviously not! It all depends on the context of what he talks about. Here Paul uses the word law in one context, and in Galations he uses it in another context. Hence it behooves us to seek out exactly what he is talking about.

First, Paul never said anything totally different anywhere in the NT. Rather, in Rom. 2:12-13 he was developing a thesis to show how that even those who sought to be justified by doing or keeping the Law were actually not justified by the very Law that they sought to keep. Surprised? Well, look again - Romans didn't end in chapter 2, but the result of his argument is found in the next chapter: "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." (Rom. 3:20). This has been Paul's consistent message all through his career, for he received the understanding from God Himself that people could not be justified in His sight by the Law - "And by him (that is, Jesus Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." [Acts 13:39].

The contexts in which Paul used "the Law" in both Romans and Galatians are precisely the same as he employed the term in Acts 13:39 - "the Law of Moses".

Bobbyaf:

Notice it said sin shall not have dominion over you becasue true christians are obedient to God's instructions and really have nothing to worry about. Hence God's law cannot judge us when we are obedient. In fact when it says "not under the law" it means not being under the condemnation of the law.
Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to be under the law? The one who steals another man's wife, or the one who desists from yielding to temptation to do the same? Each time you set out to steal something what comes to mind? Isn't it "thou shall not steal"?

I beg to disagree with your reasoning here because it's not supported by Scripture. "Not under the law" does not speak of condemnation but obligation - so that where the text appears as such, it rather means that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Law as the means to gaining perfection or any grace from God. The idea that 'under the law' indicates 'condemnation' wuld make me wonder if that is precisely what God meant when He sent His Son under the law - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4). So, did God send His Son under condemnation? God forbid the very thought.

Bobbyaf:

I am not saying that we are saved by the law? We are saved by grace, but the ridiculous notion that God's law somehow has taken a back seat, and is no longer applicable to christians, is a deception, or a gross mis-understanding.

Well, here is how "ridiculous" you'll find it in God's Word (pardon the silliness):

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:23-26.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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 days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." - Col. 2:14-17

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." - Heb 7:18-19.

There is an abundance of texts in Scripture consistently arguing the same thing - that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law nor justified by it. That is why I offer that when God saved us by grace, He did not seek to turn us back to the Law which He Himself was setting aside. Not that we are a lawless people under His grace; but we are not under obligation to the Law to be justified thereby.

Bobbyaf:

Hhhhmmmnnn, are you a sinner? Are you yet perfect? If the answer is no then the law applies to you. You might not be out there killing anyone, or living an adulterous life, but you're not perfect as yet, are you? Listen to what Paul says about what sin is:
1 John 3:4
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

I am not a sinner nor have I reached perfection; but that does not necessarily mean that the Law applies to me. I know quite well what Christ has done for me, for I have been perfected forever by His one offering (Heb. 10:14) - and that was what the Law could not do, because the Law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19).

Your quote of I John 3:4 was by John and not by Paul (we all make slips like that); but it has nothing to do with applying the Mosaic Law to a Christian.

Bobbyaf:

Just out of curiosity name one of the 10 commandments you find to be a problem?

I never said there was a problem with any of the 10 commandments; but are we justified by the 10 commandments?

Bobbyaf:

I see we are going back and forth here. Do you mind if we use scripture alone to verify how Sunday keeping started.

I wonder why you keep going round in circles about this. Do you really need my permission to use the Scripture alone - the very thing I'd asked you to do??

Bobbyaf:

Do me a favour can you submitt all those texts in the NT that show how the transition took place from sabbath worship to the official gathering on the first day of the week?

But Bobby, do I take it that you don't really care to read people's posts and understand them before asking questions? You'd notice that I've consistently argued that there was no transition from Sabbath worship to official gathering of the first day of the week. This might help as a reminder -

m4malik:

Second, before the arrival of Constantine on the scene, Christians had been worshipping on Sunday - the first day of the week; rather than a transition imposed by the Emperor from Saturday (the seventh day). Again, see Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2.

Did I miss out anything? I don't see a transition but an established practice of Christian worship being held on the first day of the week before Constantine came along with his political schemes.

@ M4malik

I beg to disagree with your reasoning here because it's not supported by Scripture. "Not under the law" does not speak of condemnation but obligation

The expression "not under the law is more than likely referring to its condemnation rather than obligation. Here is why I say that. Listen to Paul's opening statement in Romans 7:1

1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?

St. Paul goes on to use marriage as a perfect illustration. In summary if a woman should marry another man while her husband is alive she is an adulturess. In this instance is she obligated to obey the law? Yes she is very obligated or she risks being called an adulturess. Common sense alone dictates that.

so that where the text appears as such, it rather means that Christians are not under obligation to keep the Law as the means to gaining perfection or any grace from God.

We are obligated to keep God's law, but not for the reasons you conviniently seem to want to attribute to me. I have repeatedly said that the law cannot save anyone, but somehow you have this notion that I am saying that. Well, let it be known that I am not saying that.

Romans 7:7-13
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law.

What is ths saying? The law of 10 commandments has a purpose and that purpose is to point out sin. Are we obligated to kow this fact? Very much so! We as christiasn are obliged to know whats right from wrong, so that there can be no confusion. If I marry and take my vows, am I obliged to obey the law or not? Of course I am obliged!!!

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet.

See above!

" 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

Here we have two sets of principles in operation. The law of sin and the perfect law of God. In our weakness and sinful nature we are naturally inclined to resist God's law, so sin capitalises on that weakness. It makes the law seem as if it is acting against us, when in truth it is for own good. Paul in the latter part of the statement said that if there was no law then there would never be a thing called sin. I other words there would have been no obligation to have to obey. We would not be accountable, and hence free to do what we desire to do.

9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

As was said before life is naturally proned to do as it pleases. Its selfish. Its the only thing we know. It makes us feel good. Now comes along that commandment that bids us do good, and so we find it a struggle, because that commandment is showing up how sinful we really are, and the only way we can overcome is when we eventually die to sin.

10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

What death is Paul talking about? I wonder! A death to self perhaps? Paul explains in verse 11 below:

11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

So it becomes obvious that all along sin was the problem and not the commandments. Paul finally concludes that:

12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The idea that 'under the law' indicates 'condemnation' wuld make me wonder if that is precisely what God meant when He sent His Son under the law - "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal. 4:4). So, did God send His Son under condemnation? God forbid the very thought.

That wouldn't be the same thing since Christ's mission was to save men from that condemnation. Under the law as used in your reference would carry a different and wider context of the entire Jewish system. As I have said before not in all cases does the word law mean the same thing.

In one instance it can mean the 10 commandments, and in another it can mean the overall Jewish torah.
___________________________________________________________

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:23-26.

The purpose of Paul's letter and the situation that demanded it is enough to qualify what legal code Paul addressed. This broad use of the term law covered the ceremonial law, among others, and including circumcision that some were trying to impose on others, to the detriment of faith that was needed for a relationship with Christ. This has nothing to do with God's moral law to which every person is obligated.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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 days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." - Col. 2:14-17

Same set of ceremonial laws are included in the above. Why do I say that? If in one breath David can say that the Law of the Lord is perfect, and Paul can say that the law is holy, just and good, then it becomes obvious that the only set of laws that can be contrary to us must be the same ceremonial laws that Jesus nailed to the crosss. When Jesus hung on the cross and died the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom, and in that way He Christ made a shew of them openly.

"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." - Heb 7:18-19.

I am not sure what context you pulled this one from, but the latter part of the text is sufficient enough to reveal that it spoke of the cereminial law that involved sacrifices. In fact the context of that chapter makes a comparison between Christ's sacrifice, and those of the rams and lambs. So there is agreement here.

There is an abundance of texts in Scripture consistently arguing the same thing - that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law nor justified by it.

God's 10 commandment law is not and can never in all honesty be called a Mosaic law. The Mosaic laws were written by Moses, and were meant to be temporal. God's law is eternal.

That is why I offer that when God saved us by grace, He did not seek to turn us back to the Law which He Himself was setting aside. Not that we are a lawless people under His grace; but we are not under obligation to the Law to be justified thereby.

Same old same old accusation. I am sorry it carries no weight!

Listen to what Jesus is saying to you:

Matthew 5:17-19
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 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. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I cannot speak any clearer!

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:

The expression "not under the law is more than likely referring to its condemnation rather than obligation. Here is why I say that. Listen to Paul's opening statement in Romans 7:1

Your efforts are appreciated, but you've scarcely added anything to my arguments and only came to acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that your previous assumptions were weak. "Under the Law" points to obligation and not condemnation; it is in applying the Law to our lives that something else (sin) brings about a condemnation - yes? So, the expression "not under the law" is not more than likely referring to its condemnation; rather it points to obligation - and your exegesis only came to prove that.

Bobbyaf:

God's 10 commandment law is not and can never in all honesty be called a Mosaic law. The Mosaic laws were written by Moses, and were meant to be temporal. God's law is eternal.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's only one Law Giver (see James 4:12). That which Moses wrote down was actually God's Law. So, if Moses' Law was temporal, by inference you'd be saying that God's Law was temporal. God gave the Law through Moses, and that's why Scripture speaks of it in several places as the Law of Moses.


Matthew 5:17-19

Bobbyaf:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 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. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Was Jesus actually asking Christians to keep the Law in this text? If that were the case, then it would seem as if Paul's teachings contradicted it. However, notice in verse 18 that the Lord Jesus made clear that all things in the Law must be accomplished (or fulfilled) - by who? By none else but Him! That is precisely what He stated in verse 17, for He would be the only One to fulfill them, and those who believe in Him would receive the blessing of His accomplishments. That is precisely what He taught after His resurrection - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning ME" (Luke 24:44).

This is why Paul's inspired discourse aptly conveys the understanding that it is through Christ's obedience that believers are made righteous - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:19).

It is one thing to quote the Scriptures; quite another to understand their application and meaning.

hi all, u guys must have seen my previous battle with 4get me

but can't u guys all see that there are so many mysteries, and it takes God's wisdom to be a able to understand what the bible actually means,

on this thread you find people using the word to counter each other's argument, does it mean that the bible contradicts itself? if one says the bible says this and another says no the bible says that,

the issue of the sabbath has always been a delicate issue, i've been an SDA for 6 six years, i am convinced that the sabbath is saturday and should be kept holy, i've argued with so many people but yet the same bible i use as my evidence is also the evidence of others that tell me we are not under the law,

forgive me for this but, i always pray for God's guidance in everything i do, he's neva disappointed me.

some times i also wonder when in the last statements of the bible, john says who ever takes out of the bible and who ever adds and so on

@lordimpaq,

'Preciate your concerns, but like I often say:
It is one thing to quote the Scriptures; quite another to understand their application and meaning.

I saw your discourses with 4get_me, and I'm persuaded that whatever we examine in Scripture should not be taken in isolation but be referenced in light of all that God's Word teaches on a subject. Jesus gave us a principle that I've always found helpful:

¤ Take heed what ye hear_{Mark 4:24}

¤ Take heed therefore how ye hear _{Luke 8:18}

It's not enough to quote 'what' the Scriptures declare; it's very important that we understand the meaning of a text - the 'how' of it. Jesus often used this principle in His discourses with the enquirers of His day:

¤ He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?_{Luke 10:26}

The issue of the Sabbath or any other matter should not be so problematic for us if we prayerfully apply this principle. God desires us to understand His mind on any subject; but He has also given us the necessary resources in the revelation of the Holy Spirit and the principle of Scripture exegesis for that. We are encouraged to be rightly dividing the Word of truth (II Tim. 2:15), and with that we need not be confused about any subject.

@ Malik

Your efforts are appreciated, but you've scarcely added anything to my arguments and only came to acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that your previous assumptions were weak.

Of course its very easy for you to convince yourself of that.  I have given you the word but each time you go around it.

"Under the Law" points to obligation and not condemnation;

Think about it for awhile, how can a law that points out sin not condemn the one who breaks it? Every law I know comes with the potential to punish if its tenets are broken. In the context of salvation if anyone should live contrary to what the law stipulates, it logical that that person will reap the full penalty of sin. There is no getting around that however hard you try.

it is in applying the Law to our lives that something else (sin) brings about a condemnation - yes?

Absolutely not! Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans 7, as I have already explained, that the real problem was sin and not God's holy and just law. Paul himself concluded to which you're blinding your eyes, that the struggle is between self and sin, but the law by reason of its nature makes it very difficult as a means of overcoming sin. It is pwerless to save us from our wretchedness and selfishness. ONLY GRACE CAN DO THAT.

So our goal as christians is to become submissive to God, so that His grace will take hold of our lives, and when we feel that love burning in our hearts, we will become obliged to do His will, and obey His voice.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's only one Law Giver (see James 4:12). That which Moses wrote down was actually God's Law. So, if Moses' Law was temporal, by inference you'd be saying that God's Law was temporal. God gave the Law through Moses, and that's why Scripture speaks of it in several places as the Law of Moses.

While I agree with you that there is one law giver, your understanding is very much flawed concerning God's 10 commandments law as they relate to the other Mosaic laws. Let me give you some comparitive differences between the two sets of codes:

                                                          
Moses law called "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22), God's law called "the law of the Lord" (Isaiah 5:24).

Moses law called "law, contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15), God's law called "the royal law" (James 2:. 

Moses' law written by Moses in a book (2 Chronicles 35:12), God's law written by God on stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:16).

Moses' law placed in the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), God's law placed inside the ark (Exodus 40:20).

Moses' law ended at the cross (Ephesians 2:15), God's law will stand forever (Luke 16:17).

Moses' law added because of sin (Galatians 3:19), God's law points out sin (Romans 7:7; 3:20).

Moses' law is contrary to us, against us (Colossians 2:14), God's law is not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Moses law can judge no one (Colossians 2:14-16), God's law judges all people (James 2:10-12).

Moses' law is carnal (Hebrews 7:16), God's law is spiritual (Romans 7:14).

Moses's law made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19), God's law is perfect (Psalms 19:7).

Any reasonable person looking at the biblical comparison can only conlcude that God's law was designed to govern the moral aspects of worship, while the laws that were written by Moses were so done to deal with the services and rituals that related to a particular type of worship. These rites and services all pointed to Christ who became the substance.

Listen as Jeremiah speaks about the basis of the New Covenant:
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Certainly you don't expect for the Lord to put those laws of rites in our hearts do you; or the laws of sacrifice in our hearts do you. So its obvious that the prophet is no doubt talking about God's moral law that determines right from wrong. If these laws were not laws to attract a moral sense of obligation why would God of all persons put them in our hearts/minds? Why even bother to mention them at all?

Who is the house of Israel? We are! The christiasn church is the house of Israel, which is a combination of literal Israel and spirtual Israel. As individual jews they have the freedom now to accept Christ just like us. Paul explained that in Romans 10 and 11, but in Galations 3:26-29 he says:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

The fact that the first converts to the message of Christ were Jews makes that point very clear. Now that the message was now opened up to the gentiles, and seeing that they were grafted into the natural olive tree, the church of Christ is now a kaledoscope of people from all races, peoples and tongues.

Was Jesus actually asking Christians to keep the Law in this text?

Thats the wrong question. The reason why Jesus said what said was because the Jewish leaders thought that He came to nullify the law. Look how many times Jesus healed on the sabbath, and to them it was considered blasphemy. Matthew 5 was Jesus' way of saying that HIS LAW would still stand despite what they believed.

If that were the case, then it would seem as if Paul's teachings contradicted it.

Thats because you like most others have failed to discern Paul's writings.

However, notice in verse 18 that the Lord Jesus made clear that all things in the Law must be accomplished (or fulfilled) - by who? By none else but Him!

I agree with that, but what do you understand by the meaning "fulfill" It certainly doesn't mean to put an end to, or to abolish, or destroy. It means to carry out or execute the purpose of something. All you married peopel out there when you fulfill your marriage vows do you destroy them or end them, or do you execute them on a daily basis?

Jesus fulfilled the law in two ways. He died in our place, even though we broke the law, so that the law condemned Him instead of us. The wages of sin is death, and what did the bible say sin was? Quoting from 1 John 3:4 it says: "sin is the transgression of the law. Jesus also fulfilled the law by being obedient to its requirements. He kept all of God's commandments perfectly. That is why we have the assurance that God's will can be achieved in our lives only if we allow Christ to take control. He knows our feelings and infirmities.

That is precisely what He stated in verse 17, for He would be the only One to fulfill them, and those who believe in Him would receive the blessing of His accomplishments. That is precisely what He taught after His resurrection - "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning ME" (Luke 24:44).

Sorry to disappoint you Malik, not everyything that were said of Jesus in the writings of the prophets are fulfilled as yet! Jesus' life and death were only a part of those fulfillment. Daniel, John prophesied about his being our High Priest and His role in the judgement in the courts of heaven. That judgement is still going on as we speak. So not everything is fullfilled as yet. In Daniel 7:13,14 this was prophesied

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Here in this passage the prophet goes all the way into the future and relates to the coronation of Jesus Christ which matches up with 1 Corinthians 15.

The reality is that not everything that was spoken about Christ in the book of the prophets are fulfilled already, hence the law still stands. Not one tittle or jot can pass away till all be fulfilled.

This is why Paul's inspired discourse aptly conveys the understanding that it is through Christ's obedience that believers are made righteous - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:19).

I agree with this 100%, but it still has no bearing on whether or not God's law is applicable here and now. I am not saying, although I have said it already, that the law saves. Grace saves, period, but like Paul asks does grace make void God's law?

What do you think the answer is? 

@Bobbyaf,

Of course its very easy for you to convince yourself of that.   I have given you the word but each time you go around it.

You're taking your eyes off the scriptures and letting your thoughst run ahead of you. I'd kindly ask that you go back through the posts again - yours and mine and see if you're not missing the essential link. Only afterwards would I have the time to pick out what you keep missing if you still can't get it.

Ditto

Okay, since you're still going round in circles, I'll come back after church and share with you a few things you missed.

Enjoy.

Eh. . . guys, no harm meant, but I think this is really spiralling out of context. You're reminding me of what the inspired apostle said:

1 Tim 1:7 - 'Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.'

I'm not an arbiter to judge between who's right and who's wrong. Rather, I'll just post my observations by first asking questions for now:

@Bobbyaf,

(a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

(b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?? (and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

(c) How exactly do you understand the ramifications of the Sabbath - that is,

     ¤ what are the consequences of keeping or not keeping it?

     ¤ to whom specifically was the Sabbath given - to Jews or Christians?

(d) what then is your summation about those texts in the NT that state that Christians are not under the Law?



@m4malik,

I'd ask pretty much about the same questions, although you've dealt with them in your previous replies. However,

(a) do you agree at all with Bobby that 'the Law' has various connotations in the various contexts where they appear in the NT?

(b) are there any portions of the Law that we should keep at all, or all the Law (in whatever contexts) should be thrown overboard?

(c) who determines what should remain and what to be "abrogated" (i.e., no longer to be applied) in NT Christian living?



Guys, cut the hot air and kid stuff of taunting each other - just focus on what's on ground for discussion so we can learn in as few words as possible. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday.

@ Syrup

Nice having you in the discussion!

@Bobbyaf,

(a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

No! There is only one law giver and that is God. God gave the 10 commandments directly outside of inspiration, and he gave the other laws indirectly through Moses using inspiration. Anyone who writes on God's behalf does it through inspiration.

(b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Good question! We are not saved by keeping them, but after we experience salvation by God's grace, we become obliged to do what he commands because we are motivated by love. So the 10 commandments only act as a standard or guide. So the motive is what determines how we keep them.

(and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

I gave a comparative list above in a previous post.

(c) How exactly do you understand the ramifications of the Sabbath - that is,

¤ what are the consequences of keeping or not keeping it?

¤ to whom specifically was the Sabbath given - to Jews or Christians?

God in His love gave us the sabbath for our own physical, mental, and spiritual well being, so that is one positive ramification. Like all other commandments among the 10 if you fail to keep one you become guilty of all.

The sabbath was given to mankind from creation. Its typically believed that the sabbath was made for the jews but that is not consistent with Jesus's own words when He said "the sabbth was made for man(mankind)" Mark 2:27 Who was the first man? Adam right? Then it measn that after creation, God instituted the sabbath for him to rest or refresh himself from his work in the garden. That explains why immediately after creation God Himself lead by example, and not becasue He was tired per se, but set aside that specific day for Adam and his descendents. This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews. Collosians speak of these sabbaths as shadows and types.

(d) what then is your summation about those texts in the NT that state that Christians are not under the Law?

It depends on what law you're talking about firstly, and secondly it depends on how you see the words "under the law"

If we are referring to the 10 commandments then the only ones who are under the law are those who break them. If we say we are christians then we have nothing to worry about since we follow the Lord by faith. In other words Paul assures us that we have nothing to be afraid of when it comes to the harsh expectations of God's perfect law, siince we walk by faith. ( see Romans 7)

syrup:

(a) do you agree at all with Bobby that 'the Law' has various connotations in the various contexts where they appear in the NT?

Yep.

syrup:

(b) are there any portions of the Law that we should keep at all, or all the Law (in whatever contexts) should be thrown overboard?

Nope.

syrup:

(c) who determines what should remain and what to be "abrogated" (i.e., no longer to be applied) in NT Christian living?

God.

syrup:

Guys, cut the hot air and kid stuff of taunting each other - just focus on what's on ground for discussion so we can learn in as few words as possible. Thank you and enjoy your Sunday.

Just did. You too.

there u go again, u guys are just not agreeing with each other,

the title of the thread is the sabbath what day is it, ?

its a simple question that needs a simple answer,

so far all wat everyone's posted is an expantiation of the fact that it is cannot be necessarily saturday that it can be anyday.

and also an expantiation of the differing between the old covenant and the new convenant,

and wat i see most glaringly is whether the new convenant replaces the old one or it completely overrides it,

God help us all,

there u go again, u guys are just not agreeing with each other,

the title of the thread is the sabbath what day is it, ?

its a simple question that needs a simple answer,

so far all what everyone's posted is an expantiation of the fact that it is cannot be necessarily saturday that it can be anyday.

and also an expantiation of the differing between the old covenant and the new convenant,

and what i see most glaringly is whether the new convenant replaces the old one or it completely overrides it,

God help us all,

So how would you explain Paul reasoning and debating with the greeks on Mars Hill. Thats how it is my friend. There are some threads that bear that characteristic. They easily go off course, but its all a learning experience anyway you look at it.

@Bobbyaf,

You've left me more confused than when you first began. Your reply was ambiguous and not succinct enough to convey a clear sense of your arguments.

>> (a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

Bobbyaf:

No! There is only one law giver and that is God. God gave the 10 commandments directly outside of inspiration, and he gave the other laws indirectly through Moses using inspiration. Anyone who writes on God's behalf does it through inspiration.

Pardon me, Bob, but you're not making any sense at all. God gave both the 10 commandments and the Law directly in communication to His people through Moses. As far as divine inspiration is concerned, the Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16), in which case there's nothing you read in God's Word that was not given by inspiration of God. And if there's only one Lawgiver, why are you snapping about a distinction between the one law He has given? You're making it sound like God's laws are different from Moses' Law.


>> (b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Bobbyaf:

Good question! We are not saved by keeping them, but after we experience salvation by God's grace, we become obliged to do what he commands because we are motivated by love. So the 10 commandments only act as a standard or guide. So the motive is what determines how we keep them.

I don't see what sense you've made here. The OT saints were motivated by love as well to keep God's commandments, so it's just not a NT thing. 'And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.' (Exo. 20:6). When God saves by grace, He nowhere turns us back to a rigid system of keeping the Law. The 10 commandments are codified in the Law, and why would God turn people back again to laws by which we could not be justified in the first place (Acts 13:39)?


>> (and which one - the Law of Moses as distinct and different from the Law of God?)

Bobbyaf:

I gave a comparative list above in a previous post.

Then I highly recommend you take a second look at your list and realise that you only copied and pasted your ideas from a concordance without carefully understanding what is what. I don't mean to be crude, but your list suggests that you were pitting Moses' Law against God's Law - to make it sound like there actually were two lawgivers and two sets of laws! Let me quote you again:

Bobbyaf:

While I agree with you that there is one law giver, your understanding is very much flawed concerning God's 10 commandments law as they relate to the other Mosaic laws. Let me give you some comparitive differences between the two sets of codes

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

Further, you're trying to force a notion that has no bearing in Scripture but which only conveniently helps your ideas by referring to the decalogue as "God's 10 commandments law" - it's rather simply "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" [ not ' 10 commandments laws' - Ex0. 34:28]. The full import of God's government over His OT saints are called His charge, laws, ordinances, statutes, commandments, and judgements - they are all His because they came directly from Him. See the following -

>> 'Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.' (Gen. 26:5).

>> 'And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?' (Exo. 16:28 - remember that this happened even before the ten commandments were given in chapter 20).

>> Moses himself recognized them as God's statutes and laws - 'When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.' (Exo. 18:16).

The point is that the laws and commandments were given by the LORD and thus were called God's Laws and commandments. But because they were given to the people through Moses, they were referred to as the Laws of Moses, or Moses' law:

>> 'And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.' (Lev 10:11).

>> 'These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.' (Lev 26:46).

>> 'These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai' (Lev. 27:34).

You will find this underscored in Scripture many times, and the big picture is that there are not two sets of codes as you suggested, but only one. The law of Moses is the very same thing as God's law, and to make them into two sets of codes simply shows that you haven't prayerfully studied the subject. Let's see another quote of yours:

Bobbyaf:


Moses law called "the law of Moses" (Luke 2:22), God's law called "the law of the Lord" (Isaiah 5:24).

Moses' law written by Moses in a book (2 Chronicles 35:12), God's law written by God on stone (Exodus 31:18; 32:16).

Any reasonable person looking at the biblical comparison can only conlcude that God's law was designed to govern the moral aspects of worship, while the laws that were written by Moses were so done to deal with the services and rituals that related to a particular type of worship.

Again, this shows clearly that you juxtaposed God's Law and made it into two laws and two lawgivers, regardless the denial you may have to the contrary. I'm persuaded to agree with m4malik that you should go back and prayerfully consider the texts before pouring out anything.

There was only one worship before God in the OT, and only one law served for that purpose. Moses' law was God's law because the former received it from the LORD Himself. Take a look at Luke 2:22 you quoted - "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." This is clearly in reference to Lev. 12:1-8 and the first thing you find in the very first verse is - "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying. . ."

Again, regarding the reference of Exodus 31:18; 32:16 about God's law written by God, you failed to see indeed that when Moses in anger broke the first set of stone tables, God made him produce another set of stone tables and write the exact words of the first by his own hand - it was Moses that wrote with his own hand what God asked him to:

>> "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.' (Exo. 24:12). . . 'And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he [i.e., Moses himself] wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments').

They were God's ordinances and laws - 'Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. . . Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.' (Lev. 18:4-5 & 19:37).

Bobbyaf:

The sabbath was given to mankind from creation. Its typically believed that the sabbath was made for the jews but that is not consistent with Jesus's own words when He said "the sabbth was made for man(mankind)" Mark 2:27 Who was the first man? Adam right? Then it measn that after creation, God instituted the sabbath for him to rest or refresh himself from his work in the garden. That explains why immediately after creation God Himself lead by example, and not becasue He was tired per se, but set aside that specific day for Adam and his descendents. This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews. Collosians speak of these sabbaths as shadows and types.

Don't go beyond what is written so you can be on safe grounds. God didn't give the Sabbath law to Adam, and nowhere do we read of a Sabbath law for Adam. What is stated is that after God finished His work, He rested (in the sense of 'hallow' that day). Second, you're mixing up issues because on the one hand you pedantically made reference to the 10 commandments (which included the Sabbath), and now you're slacking off by saying "This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews." Why then quote the 10 commandments for others if you don't want it to be confused with the special convocations specifically applied to the Jews?

m4malik:

Yep.

Nope.

God.

Just did. You too.

That was quite succinct, but I thought you'd expatiate a little on your answers.

i still believe the sabbath day is saturday

@syrup,

Well done - I would've said pretty much the same things as you did in your thesis.

However, I was being facetious about my reply to your questions because I didn't really want to repeat myself over an issue. Perhaps, if someone doesn't want to see the flaws in their arguments, it's just of no use holding it out.

@lordimpaq,

You're right that the sabbath day is saturday. However, the question before us lately has been about if Christians were supposed to keep the sabbath day as found in the Mosaic law. As Christians, is there anything wrong in not observing a Saturday sabbath and instead worship God on the first day of the week - Sunday?

@Bobbyaf,

You've left me more confused than when you first began. Your reply was ambiguous and not succinct enough to convey a clear sense of your arguments.

I believe I have done justice to the topic, but I believe your confusion is somewhat confusing to me when you stop to think of how detailed I explained what you needed to understand. Eyes they have but cannot see, and ears they have but cannot hear.

>> (a) In other words, there are two Laws and two lawgivers in the OT - one by Moses and the other by God?

I will repeat for emphasis. There is one law giver who is God, but different codes of laws for different purposes.

Pardon me, Bob, but you're not making any sense at all. God gave both the 10 commandments and the Law directly in communication to His people through Moses.

Since you're not enlightened about this topic I will facilitate you. I'd rather listen to what the bible has to say than your assumptions, because its obvious you love to assume. Let us see if you can continue to deny the word:

Exudus 31:18
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Clear as day! The 10 commandments were written by God Himself, and not by Moses. Here is yet another reference that is clear as day Syrup, , although I am not so sure you'll be sweet after this one:

Exudus 32:15,16
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

As far as divine inspiration is concerned, the Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16), in which case there's nothing you read in God's Word that was not given by inspiration of God.

Its obvious again you do not know what the process of inspiration involves. Let me repeat again for emphasis. Since the 10 comandments were written by God directly, as already confirmed by the passages I cited, they could not have come about by inspiration, whether or not they are found in the bible. It would be safer to say that the account about how the 10 commandments came into being is a result of inspiration.

The scriptures were put together by scribes. As the prophets spoke the scribes wrote. Which is quite a different matter. As for the laws that were written by Moses:

Moses' law was the temporary, ceremonial law of the Old Testament. It regulated the priesthood, sacrifices, rituals, meat and drink offerings, etc., all of which foreshadowed the cross. This law was added "till the seed should come," and that seed was Christ (Galatians 3:16, 19). The ritual and ceremony of Moses' law pointed forward to Christ's sacrifice. When He died, this law came to an end, but the Ten Commandments (God's law) "stand fast for ever and ever." Psalms 111:8. That there are two laws is made crystal clear in Daniel 9:10, 11.

Please note that God's law has existed at least as long as sin has existed. The Bible says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression [or sin]." Romans 4:15. So God's Ten Commandment law existed from the beginning. Men broke that law (sinned--1 John 3:4). Because of sin (or breaking God's law), Moses' law was given (or "added"--Galatians 3:16, 19) till Christ should come and die. Two separate laws are involved: God's law and Moses' law.

And if there's only one Lawgiver, why are you snapping about a distinction between the one law He has given? You're making it sound like God's laws are different from Moses' Law.

The scriptures make that abundantly clear!

>> (b) And what in essence are you saying in the application of the Law - that Christians are saved by grace but still need to keep the Law?

Would you commit adultery? Do you practise stealing? Are people free to murder? If your answers are no, then it means that the law of 10 commandments are very much alive and well. Unless of course you hav totally ignored what Paul said in Romans 7:7

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Since we are a people that like to rationalise sin, and refuse to call it by its right name, God's law serves to remind us when we fail to see sin for what it really is.

When God saves by grace, He nowhere turns us back to a rigid system of keeping the Law. The 10 commandments are codified in the Law, and why would God turn people back again to laws by which we could not be justified in the first place (Acts 13:39)?

Well, only someone like you would choose to see it that way. The motivation to obey is love. If we love God being obedient to Him will be no problem. Our obedience is never robotic, but natural.

Then I highly recommend you take a second look at your list and realise that you only copied and pasted your ideas from a concordance without carefully understanding what is what. I don't mean to be crude, but your list suggests that you were pitting Moses' Law against God's Law - to make it sound like there actually were two lawgivers and two sets of laws! Let me quote you again:

I didn't take it from a concordance. I took it from a study site, and I fully understand everything I posted. I can't help if you failed to see the imort of the comparison. The list of comparison isn't pitting anything against anything. There is one law giver, but the laws were given under different conditions and had different purposes as I said above.

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

And I doubt if you understand the context of what was said in these passages anyway. I suggest you go read the fine prints before commenting. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Don't confuse civic laws with the 10 commandments. Every race is subject to God's law of ten commandments.

I will leave your other posts on hold since I have already dealt with them before. In essence it is clear that God wrote His 10 command ments law, and Moses wrote another set of codes.

@ Syrup

Don't go beyond what is written so you can be on safe grounds. God didn't give the Sabbath law to Adam, and nowhere do we read of a Sabbath law for Adam.

So are you saying that Adam wasn't a man? Wasn't he the first man? If Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man who are you to not include the first man as desering of the benefits of such a noble institution?

I am certain if Jesus had said that marriage was made for man you wouldn't have had a problem associating Adam with such an institution, would you?

In fact both the institutions of the sabbath and marriage were made before sin manifested itself, and as I said before, the creation sabbath cannot be attached or pinned to a Jewish set of laws, confined only to them. Thats why I made it clear that the other sabbaths that were instituted during the time of Moses are what Paul refers to as a "shadow of things to come"

What is stated is that after God finished His work, He rested (in the sense of 'hallow' that day). Second, you're mixing up issues because on the one hand you pedantically made reference to the 10 commandments (which included the Sabbath), and now you're slacking off by saying "This sabbath must not be confused with the others that were created for special convocations specifically applied to the Jews."

, this doesn't even make sense. You're arguing the wrong issues. Common sense besides logic is what is needed to see that God's law being eternal, and which includes the creation sabbath, is different from Moses's laws which were meant to be transcient.

In time you will see that.

Why then quote the 10 commandments for others if you don't want it to be confused with the special convocations specifically applied to the Jews?

You missed the train again it seems! I was comparing the creation sabbath with the specially-instituted sabbaths just to clarify what was said in Paul's writing about the latter being a shadow of things to come. Surely the creation sabbath cannot be seen as a shadow since it began before sin began.

All things being referred to as shadows, must have come about when Moses was instructed to introduce them to the Jews, or Israelites.

My dear @syrup,

Now perhaps you see why my reply to yours was "succinct" earlier on - no use arguing with people who can't see what the scriptures say, because they can only see one verse and treat it in isolation.

Bobbyaf:

I will repeat for emphasis. There is one law giver who is God, but different codes of laws for different purposes.

>>>> suryp:

What you should understand here is that, just as m4malik said, Moses' law was God's law because God gave them through Moses to His people, and therefore there was only one Law, and no distinction that suggests a difference in what God has given. This is underscored a number of times in the OT - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Exo. 12:49); . . . 'Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.' (Lev 24:22); . . . "One law and one manner [/b]shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. (Num. 15:16). All that Moses passed on to them were actually God's Law and commandments.

One Law.       One Manner of Law.        One Law and One Manner.

Bobbyaf:

Since you're not enlightened about this topic I will facilitate you. I'd rather listen to what the bible has to say than your assumptions, because its obvious you love to assume. Let us see if you can continue to deny the word:

Is he really listening to the Word or pushing his own assumptions? And where is it stated that Adam kept the Sabbath - in the Word or his own assumptions?

Bobbyaf:

[b]Exudus 31:18
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Clear as day! The 10 commandments were written by God Himself, and not by Moses. Here is yet another reference that is clear as day Syrup, , although I am not so sure you'll be sweet after this one:

Exudus 32:15,16
15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written
16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
.

Exodus 32 does not end in verse 16!!

Exo 32:19 >>  And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Exo 34:1 >> And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Exo 34:2 >> And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Exo 34:27 >> And the LORD said unto. Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Exo 34:28 >> And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote  upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments

The commandment written by God's finger was broken; Moses was instructed to write the same words in the second sets of tables. It was written by the hand of Moses.

This is what happens when people treat verses in isolation to drive their assumptions. That was the reason I left off the argument - you can't make a man see what he does not want to see.

@m4malik

right you are, but if he writes what God has written before the only difference is the writer, logically its the same law,

isn't it, or except if the law written by the hand of God is different from the law written by the hand of moses _{(i don't expect it to be different though)}
so wat say you, ?

My broda @lordimpaq,

I'm not the one advocating the idea of two laws - and you can see who's been saying that time and again:

Bobbyaf:

I will repeat for emphasis. There is one law giver who is God, but different codes of laws for different purposes.

and . . .

Bobbyaf:

While I agree with you that there is one law giver, your understanding is very much flawed concerning God's 10 commandments law as they relate to the other Mosaic laws. Let me give you some comparitive differences between the two sets of codes

Now what have we been saying? The very same thing that you're now saying: "its the same law" (your quote), and you went on to reason out that -

lordimpaq:

except if the law written by the hand of God is different from the law written by the hand of moses (i don't expect it to be different though)

I have ever maintained that there is only one Law, not two laws or two sets of codes; and syrup has helped to make this point as clear as one could help it by quoting the references for that. If one has a difficulty accepting what the Scriptures have stated, and just instead quotes other texts in isolation, there's no use keeping up an argument thereto. One has to prayerfully read the Bible - contextually, carefully, fully - before pedantically holding on to one's private view or interpretation.

@m4malik

sorry i've been readin his posts but i don't seem to get it, he's confusing me,

@bobby

so wat are the comparative differences between the two sets of codes as he mentioned?

and wat makes the law written by the hand of moses any different written by the hand of God?

and if there is one law as u emphasize, then why are there comparative differences in the two codes?

lordimpaq:

sorry i've been readin his posts but i don't seem to get it, he's confusing me,

You're not the only one confused, and won't be the last - unless he comes round seeing what the Bible says.

lordimpaq:

and if there is one law as u emphasize, then why are there comparative differences in the two codes?

No, he's not convinced there's one law and that's not his emphasis. Rather, he sees one lawgiver with two laws, even though God Himself emphatically shows that there's only one law -

Exo. 12:49 - "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."

Lev. 24:22 - "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."

Num. 15:16 - "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."

well, so wats the fuss about,

I really wonder. Ask him.

@ Malik

Exodus 32 does not end in verse 16!!

Does it matter? The point is already made.

Exo 32:19 >> And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Exo 34:1 >> And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

What did the text say? "and I will write upon these tables, " who is the I in the sentence? God or Moses? Your guess!

Exo 34:2 >> And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Pretty straight forward so far!

Exo 34:27 >> And the LORD said unto. Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

What a jump from verse 2 to verse 27, wow! I wonder what happened between verses, and I am led to wonder as to what Moses was instructed to write. Let us see the context Malik. Look at what God said to Moses after He finished writing the 10 commandments again since that was the reason He called him there a second time.

Exudus 34:10-11
10 And he(God) said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

11Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Here after God finished writing the 10 commandments according to verse 1, He then turns to Moses and say in verse 10 "behold I make a covenant, "

What is a covenant? Its an agreement between two or more persons, and in this case it is between God and His people. The core of this covenant was the 10 commandments. Its like a platform on which all the covenant sat. The 10 commandments provided the basis of the agreement.

Exo 34:28 >> And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments

The word he in the latter part of the verse could not have been Moses, since logically the previous verses already confirmed that it was God who re-wrote the 10 commandments. Compare these two verses:

Exodus 34:28 "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

Deut.4:13 "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Compare the sentence construction of the latter with the top verse. Who is the he in Deut. 4:13, ? See what I mean? You have to both use common sense and context. If you were to read all the verses that surround verse 13 in Deut 4, would you get the sense that it was Moses who wrote the 10 commandments? Nope!

There are many instances in the bible where you find this apparent contradiction, where in one section it makes a clear statement only to reveal another statement that confuses the whole thing. That is why we must follow the principle of "line upon line"

You would very much like to accept that the "he" is Moses, but that acceptance would not be based on overall truth of God re-writing the 10 commandmnts. I will confess that at first when I saw that text some many years ago it had me thinking for awhile. However, when you study hebrew syntax you walk away with a better understanding, that sometimes certain passages can be difficult, not so much because they contradict truth, but because they were poorly translated.

A case in point would be what Jesus said to the man on the cross beside Him as it relates to being in paradise the same day. A simple misplacing of the comma in that sentence made it look as if the man went to paradise the same day, wehn in truth and in fact, the man is waiting on the resurrection call, and has not really gone to heaven as such.

The commandment written by God's finger was broken; Moses was instructed to write the same words in the second sets of tables. It was written by the hand of Moses.

Not according to this verse: Exo 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

That is your private interpretation coming out.

This is what happens when people treat verses in isolation to drive their assumptions. That was the reason I left off the argument - you can't make a man see what he does not want to see.

The same can be said about those who read the scriptures without applying common sense.

@ Lordimpaq

@bobby

so what are the comparative differences between the two sets of codes as he mentioned?

I have already made a comparitive difference above.

and what makes the law written by the hand of moses any different written by the hand of God?

Because the ones written by the hand of Moses were meant to be transcient. For example, the laws of ceremonies and rites. Those were written on parchment. These were a shadow of things to come.

On the other hand God wrote His 10 commandments on stone siginifying permanence and endurance. These 10 were the basis of the whole covenant agreement between God and His people.

and if there is one law as u emphasize, then why are there comparative differences in the two codes?

I have always said that there is one law giver, but different codes of laws. The word one in the phrase "one law giver" isn't qualifying the law but the person giving the law. In other words there is only one person whose description and prescription of what is absolute in terms of standards, and that person is God.

As to who wrote the covenants and the ten commandments in Exo. 34, I quote again -

Exo 34:27 >> And the LORD said unto. Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

"Moses, write thou" and Moses did. Whatever Moses wrote down was given by God, and there were no two laws.

As to who gives the one law and one manner of law, since it is God who does so (as you agreed it is He), you're suggesting that He gave a transient law and an absolute one.

@bobby

please what happened to the commandments written on the stone?

didn't moses break the stone written by the hand of God,

Exo 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

and did not write the commandments again by his own hand, i am askin is it the same commandment but u are saying,

"because the ones written by the hand of Moses were meant to be transcient. For example, the laws of ceremonies and rites. Those were written on parchment. These were a shadow of things to come."

so i am askin you the if the laws of ceremonies and rites were written by moses, or was it part of what God told moses to write down, it can't be because

God told moses to write down the words "after the tenor of those words"