God said: Remember the Sabbath day (Ex 20:8) - but from which past event?

[Gary K]

Where does Moses imply the 10 are the only moral law?

The 4th also fits your condition for ceremonial since it has a focus of the master giving rest to those without an authority to take rest. It's points to the master (Christ) who give us salvation which we are unable to take ourselves

You mean Moses has to tell you he is implying the 10 commandments are a moral law? What need is there of that? It's perfectly obvious it is a moral law as it deals with morality.

 

[DamianWarS]

You mean Moses has to tell you he is implying the 10 commandments are a moral law? What need is there of that? It's perfectly obvious it is a moral law as it deals with morality.

In the sense of dichotomising law yes, since there are very clear examples of moral laws outside the 10 that are less clear how they point to Christ and there are examples of laws like the 4th commandment where pointing to Christ is clearer than its moral components.

 

[Gary K]

In the sense of dichotomising law yes, since there are very clear examples of moral laws outside the 10 that are less clear how they point to Christ and there are examples of laws like the 4th commandment where pointing to Christ is clearer than its moral components.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain yourself more clearly than that. I can't follow your reasoning.

Meaning of dichotomy in English​

dichotomy
noun [ C usually singular ]
formal

us

/daɪˈkɑː.t̬ə.mi/ uk

/daɪˈkɒt.ə.mi/


Add to word list


a difference between two completely opposite ideas or things:
There is often a dichotomy between what politicians say and what they do.

That's the Cambridge's dictionary definition of dichotomy and I see nothing in the definition that describes the difference between the 10 commandments and any of the ceremonial or civil laws of Israel. They are not opposed to each other as in completely opposite ideas.

 

[DamianWarS]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain yourself more clearly than that. I can't follow your reasoning.



That's the Cambridge's dictionary definition of dichotomy and I see nothing in the definition that describes the difference between the 10 commandments and any of the ceremonial or civil laws of Israel. They are not opposed to each other as in completely opposite ideas.

dichotomizing law would be splitting the law into 2 parts that have contrasting focuses. you've referenced ceremonial and moral calling the 10 commandments moral law and everything else ceremonial. you've used this terminology to show why you think the 10 should still be kept yet the rest are no longer relevant (thus the contrasting focus).

you've stated:

The only law given in the Bible as a moral law is the 10 commandments. All the ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ and thus are not moral laws

this is the dichotomy that I'm speaking of as you've isolated the 10 from all the other laws and given them a label of "moral" which leaves everything else for ceremonial. Yet there are very clear laws outside the 10 that are unclear how they fit ceremonial but their moral aspect is very clear. there are also laws within the 10, like the 4th commandment where its moral component is not clear yet has direct aspects that point to Christ and thus ceremonial (not to mention it is literally a ceremony of rest). This dichotomy is not sustainable based on your own definition. that's just the logic of it, but even outside the logic scripture does not dichotomize law like this, not explicitly, nor implicitly.

(if you take issue with the word dichotomy/dichotomize feel free to replace it with "separation/separate")

 

[Gary K]

dichotomizing law would be splitting the law into 2 parts that have contrasting focuses. you've referenced ceremonial and moral calling the 10 commandments moral law and everything else ceremonial. you've used this terminology to show why you think the 10 should still be kept yet the rest are no longer relevant (thus the contrasting focus).

you've stated:

this is the dichotomy that I'm speaking of as you've isolated the 10 from all the other laws and given them a label of "moral" which leaves everything else for ceremonial. Yet there are very clear laws outside the 10 that are unclear how they fit ceremonial but their moral aspect is very clear. there are also laws within the 10, like the 4th commandment where its moral component is not clear yet has direct aspects that point to Christ and thus ceremonial (not to mention it is literally a ceremony of rest). This dichotomy is not sustainable based on your own definition. that's just the logic of it, but even outside the logic scripture does not dichotomize law like this, not explicitly, nor implicitly.

(if you take issue with the word dichotomy/dichotomize feel free to replace it with "separation/separate")

So how do your ideas not make these laws opposed to each other? No moral law is opposed to any other moral law.

I also question your idea that we can understand the purposes for all God's laws as we have, and are, finite beings with finite minds which means the vast majority of His ideas and methods are beyond our ability to understand. The only things we can understand about God are those things He has chosen to reveal to us and He has done that attempting to stretch our mental capacities.

 

[DamianWarS]

So how do your ideas not make these laws opposed to each other? No moral law is opposed to any other moral law.

I also question your idea that we can understand the purposes for all God's laws as we have, and are, finite beings with finite minds which means the vast majority of His ideas and methods are beyond our ability to understand. The only things we can understand about God are those things He has chosen to reveal to us and He has done that attempting to stretch our mental capacities.

God hasn't reveled a dictomised law that isolates the 10 from the covenant it was created in and calls everything else ceremonial, those things aren't even remotely in the bible. Scripture does form a different dichotomy of law called the old covenant and the new covenant. What's the constrast? We are under the new and not under the old. Thus the dichotomy of under/not under and new/old.

The bases of the dichotomy is not that the new conflicts with the old, but that one is new and the other is old and the word "new" is the opposite of the word "old". This is the same with under/not under. This doesn't mean the new covenant is in conflict with the old covenant it means under/not under are opposites and used to establish what we follow. This is a scriptural dichotomy and I didn't make it up. Unlike this dichotomy of moral/cerimonal you're suggesting.

The old is not in conflict with the new because the purpose of the old points to the new. For example a sign is not in conflict with the city it points to but being in the city is different than being at the sign outside the city. So there are contrasts but they can be said to still have the same goal.

 

[Gary K]

God hasn't reveled a dictomised law that isolates the 10 from the covenant it was created in and calls everything else ceremonial, those things aren't even remotely in the bible. Scripture does form a different dichotomy of law called the old covenant and the new covenant. What's the constrast? We are under the new and not under the old. Thus the dichotomy of under/not under and new/old.

The bases of the dichotomy is not that the new conflicts with the old, but that one is new and the other is old and the word "new" is the opposite of the word "old". This is the same with under/not under. This doesn't mean the new covenant is in conflict with the old covenant it means under/not under are opposites and used to establish what we follow. This is a scriptural dichotomy and I didn't make it up. Unlike this dichotomy of moral/cerimonal you're suggesting.

The old is not in conflict with the new because the purpose of the old points to the new. For example a sign is not in conflict with the city it points to but being in the city is different than being at the sign outside the city. So there are contrasts but they can be said to still have the same goal.

I agree with a lot of what you say about the NC perfecting us. But, and this is a big but, the NC was announced in the OT when the understanding of the man who prophecied it was to come understood it to be the OC moral law. I agree with him on that and thus accept the 10 commandments as the rule of my life.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree with a lot of what you say about the NC perfecting us. But, and this is a big but, the NC was announced in the OT when the understanding of the man who prophecied it was to come understood it to be the OC moral law. I agree with him on that and thus accept the 10 commandments as the rule of my life.

Except the bible doesn't isolate the 10 as moral law. All law is moral in the context it's made in so there is an issue when you separate the 10 from the rest of the law using this dichotomy approach that can't be found in scripture.

The OC is not universal but it is based on universal constructs that predate the law, this is how it points to the new, or how it has laws that we can still agree with. For example the law didn't make stealing sinful it was always sinful to steal so there was a preexisting moral code even before creation. The 8th commament is based on this moral construct but it is fragmented and incomplete as I may never steal but this doesn't teach me how to share or give or love. So although it is based on a perfect moral construct it is imperfect.

Christ tells us this when he says all the law and the prophets hang on these 2 commandments (law of love). Christ reveals to us something that predates law itself that law is based on. So we know there is code above the law that the law is based on. Christ shows us that we may break Sabbath rest to do good and this is lawful (mat 12) this shows us that there is a code or moral that is above the law and it always lawful regardless if it doesn't follow the letter of the law.

So if saving sheep is lawful then I could become a sheep saver and know that regardless of the day it is always lawful not motivated to skip the law, but so I may save sheep. (Some may call this a fisher of men) this is the charge of the Christian but it is an ancient charge, in fact the first given to man which is the commandment of multiplication first given on the 6th day. It all starts at creation as creation foreshadows and mirrors the new creation (which should be implict from its name) and the new creation is our focus today. Paul calls this "faith expressed through love" and it's what our focus should be (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). No day should rest this work.

 

[Gary K]

Except the bible doesn't isolate the 10 as moral law. All law is moral in the context it's made in so there is an issue when you separate the 10 from the rest of the law using this dichotomy approach that can't be found in scripture.

The OC is not universal but it is based on universal constructs that predate the law, this is how it points to the new, or how it has laws that we can still agree with. For example the law didn't make stealing sinful it was always sinful to steal so there was a preexisting moral code even before creation. The 8th commament is based on this moral construct but it is fragmented and incomplete as I may never steal but this doesn't teach me how to share or give or love. So although it is based on a perfect moral construct it is imperfect.

Christ tells us this when he says all the law and the prophets hang on these 2 commandments (law of love). Christ reveals to us something that predates law itself that law is based on. So we know there is code above the law that the law is based on. Christ shows us that we may break Sabbath rest to do good and this is lawful (mat 12) this shows us that there is a code or moral that is above the law and it always lawful regardless if it doesn't follow the letter of the law.

So if saving sheep is lawful then I could become a sheep saver and know that regardless of the day it is always lawful not motivated to skip the law, but so I may save sheep. (Some may call this a fisher of men) this is the charge of the Christian but it is an ancient charge, in fact the first given to man which is the commandment of multiplication first given on the 6th day. It all starts at creation as creation foreshadows and mirrors the new creation (which should be implict from its name) and the new creation is our focus today. Paul calls this "faith expressed through love" and it's what our focus should be (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). No day should rest this work.

The Bible doesn't need to specifically set the 10 commandments aside as moral law as it is implied throughout both the OT and the NT. Using implied reasoning is valid reasoning. Much of reason uses it.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Bible doesn't need to specifically set the 10 commandments aside as moral law as it is implied throughout both the OT and the NT. Using implied reasoning is valid reasoning. Much of reason uses it.

there no implication of the 10 being separated.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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.

Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

Galatians 5:3
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

if you don't keep the smallest part of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing. This is not inside a 10 commandments vacuum. so by separating the 10 and ignoring the rest, you break the 10 regardless of what you call the 10.

 

[Gary K]

there no implication of the 10 being separated.

James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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.

Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

Galatians 5:3
Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

if you don't keep the smallest part of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing. This is not inside a 10 commandments vacuum. so by separating the 10 and ignoring the rest, you break the 10 regardless of what you call the 10.

Read my latest post in the "moralism has failed me" thread and you will understand my position much better.

 

[DamianWarS]

Read my latest post in the "moralism has failed me" thread and you will understand my position much better.

Knowing God is salvation.

Indeed, knowing God is salvation. The goal of the law ultimately is restored relationship with God that was broken because of sin but as a mechanism to know God it has its failure points. The law points to Christ, creation points to Christ, even the fall points to Christ and it is through Christ that we are perfected where we can know God and this is the new creation. When light separated the darkness in our lives, a salvation experience, the goal is the restoration and completion of day 7 so that we may abide in him and he in us. It all points to Christ and is unachievable without Christ.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Remember = don't forget what I'm telling you.

 

[Gary K]

Indeed, knowing God is salvation. The goal of the law ultimately is restored relationship with God that was broken because of sin but as a mechanism to know God it has its failure points. The law points to Christ, creation points to Christ, even the fall points to Christ and it is through Christ that we are perfected where we can know God and this is the new creation. When light separated the darkness in our lives, a salvation experience, the goal is the restoration and completion of day 7 so that we may abide in him and he in us. It all points to Christ and is unachievable without Christ.

I don't see how you maintain the dichotomy between the law has it's failure points and that it all points to Jesus for pointing to Jesus is it's entire purpose. Like Paul says it is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

I don't know about you, but I need constant reminders to stay close to Jesus. My flesh is strong and works hard to influence my behavior. I have to do the same thing Paul did, die daily.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't see how you maintain the dichotomy between the law has it's failure points and that it all points to Jesus for pointing to Jesus is it's entire purpose. Like Paul says it is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

I don't know about you, but I need constant reminders to stay close to Jesus. My flesh is strong and works hard to influence my behavior. I have to do the same thing Paul did, die daily.

because it's a false dichotomy and it shouldn't be how we approach the law. the law is like a forest but this dichotomy approach is like drawing a line in the dirt around 10 trees and saying look at these 10 I'll call them the moral trees and these are the ones we should follow. The 10 are part of the forest and drawing a line around them doesn't change that nor does calling them moral make them more moral than other laws or make the other laws less moral. When isolate the 10 we make them incomplete and thus their message incomplete because they function with in system not outside that system. the law points to Christ, and the more law we include in this the better it points to Christ. breaking one aspect of the law still breaks the entire law, the 10 are not special in this regard, and we are still guilty if we break something outside the 10 as we are inside the 10.

The law exposes our guilt and this is it's function but it does not nor it cannot fix our guilt. because we are guilty it creates a demand for something greater than the law to fix us and this is Christ. The fall of man has a similar focus. Ths purpose of the fall shows we are in a fallen state that we cannot get out of or fix ourselves this need something or someone to redeem us which again points to Christ. Summed up, the fall and the law accomplish the same as Rom 3:23 summed up "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" without events like the fall or without the law telling us we guilty we may come to the concluson we do not need a redeemer... some sort of Pelagianism heresy or that we are gods outselves.

equality with god is part of the motivation of the original sin. The snake's reply is "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". upon eating the fruit it infact did the opposite and separated us from God. Abstractly though we don't need to eat a fruit to be separated from God. We are separated with God because we are not God and despite being made in his image we are not limitless in all ways. Adam needs a redeemer before the fall as much as he did after the fall simply because Adam is not God. if Adam didn't need a redeemer before the fall then this is tantamount to calling Adam a god himself. The point of the fall shows us we are not God and we are in a state in need of redemption in order to approach God but we will never be God himself. The creation account shows us first there was darkness that light is spoken into, and this was well before the fall of man. A priestine sheet of paper burns up just as quick as a tarnished one if thrown into the fire so it really doesn't matter how "perfect" we are, we still need a redeemer so that we may approach God. This is the role of things like the fall and the law. they both point to Christ by showing us our need for a redeemer. Well before the law and well before the fall there was darkness in need of light which is the core of the gospel message. We don't need the fall or the law to know light needs to be spoken into darkness and since darkness seemingly preexits the creation account Christ was always needed and there was never a time when Christ was not needed.

We're not children anymore and these aren't sunday school stories. We need to approach the bible knowing it has revealed to us a truth that wasn't known in by Moses or Adam. All these accounts have a common goal and meaning, they are not arbitary and they have immense depth and purpose. We need to approach these accounts like we beleive this.

 

[Gary K]

because it's a false dichotomy and it shouldn't be how we approach the law. the law is like a forest but this dichotomy approach is like drawing a line in the dirt around 10 trees and saying look at these 10 I'll call them the moral trees and these are the ones we should follow. The 10 are part of the forest and drawing a line around them doesn't change that nor does calling them moral make them more moral than other laws or make the other laws less moral. When isolate the 10 we make them incomplete and thus their message incomplete because they function with in system not outside that system. the law points to Christ, and the more law we include in this the better it points to Christ. breaking one aspect of the law still breaks the entire law, the 10 are not special in this regard, and we are still guilty if we break something outside the 10 as we are inside the 10.

The law exposes our guilt and this is it's function but it does not nor it cannot fix our guilt. because we are guilty it creates a demand for something greater than the law to fix us and this is Christ. The fall of man has a similar focus. Ths purpose of the fall shows we are in a fallen state that we cannot get out of or fix ourselves this need something or someone to redeem us which again points to Christ. Summed up, the fall and the law accomplish the same as Rom 3:23 summed up "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" without events like the fall or without the law telling us we guilty we may come to the concluson we do not need a redeemer... some sort of Pelagianism heresy or that we are gods outselves.

equality with god is part of the motivation of the original sin. The snake's reply is "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". upon eating the fruit it infact did the opposite and separated us from God. Abstractly though we don't need to eat a fruit to be separated from God. We are separated with God because we are not God and despite being made in his image we are not limitless in all ways. Adam needs a redeemer before the fall as much as he did after the fall simply because Adam is not God. if Adam didn't need a redeemer before the fall then this is tantamount to calling Adam a god himself. The point of the fall shows us we are not God and we are in a state in need of redemption in order to approach God but we will never be God himself. The creation account shows us first there was darkness that light is spoken into, and this was well before the fall of man. A priestine sheet of paper burns up just as quick as a tarnished one if thrown into the fire so it really doesn't matter how "perfect" we are, we still need a redeemer so that we may approach God. This is the role of things like the fall and the law. they both point to Christ by showing us our need for a redeemer. Well before the law and well before the fall there was darkness in need of light which is the core of the gospel message. We don't need the fall or the law to know light needs to be spoken into darkness and since darkness seemingly preexits the creation account Christ was always needed and there was never a time when Christ was not needed.

We're not children anymore and these aren't sunday school stories. We need to approach the bible knowing it has revealed to us a truth that wasn't known in by Moses or Adam. All these accounts have a common goal and meaning, they are not arbitary and they have immense depth and purpose. We need to approach these accounts like we beleive this.

I have never claimed the law can save anyone. It is Jesus who saves and sanctifies us by His grace. He enables us through His grace to keep the law as we have no power within ourselves to do so. I thank Him for that and for the pure conscience I have because of His grace.

 

[DamianWarS]

I have never claimed the law can save anyone. It is Jesus who saves and sanctifies us by His grace. He enables us through His grace to keep the law as we have no power within ourselves to do so. I thank Him for that and for the pure conscience I have because of His grace.

Then why dichotomise the law? It's product ends up placing the 10 in a unbliblical position above the rest of the law. It's all law/Torah and we are not under it which is explicit in the NT. Saying we are by labeling it a universal moral is also unbliblical and forces us to approach the law in ways in ways it's not intended, it also not logical as the 4th commandment fits a ceremonial practice. Moral things are always moral, they aren't just moral once a week, if it's the latter than that's a signed its a ceremonial practice. Sabbath points to Christ as we have no authority to take spiritual rest/salvation/communion with God and it must be given to us by the master, similar to the relation between animals/slaves and their master. This is the meaning of the Sabbath and we should never allow physical rest to get in the way of this goal.

 

[Gary K]

Then why dichotomise the law? It's product ends up placing the 10 in a unbliblical position above the rest of the law. It's all law/Torah and we are not under it which is explicit in the NT. Saying we are by labeling it a universal moral is also unbliblical and forces us to approach the law in ways in ways it's not intended, it also not logical as the 4th commandment fits a ceremonial practice. Moral things are always moral, they aren't just moral once a week, if it's the latter than that's a signed its a ceremonial practice. Sabbath points to Christ as we have no authority to take spiritual rest/salvation/communion with God and it must be given to us by the master, similar to the relation between animals/slaves and their master. This is the meaning of the Sabbath and we should never allow physical rest to get in the way of this goal.

God placed the 4th commandment within His moral law and I am not about to dispute His authority and right to do so as He is both creator and sustainer of all His creation. If you choose to do so that is your right but I would never join you in that move for I see it as rebellion against God.

 

[BobRyan]

Then why dichotomise the law? It's product ends up placing the 10 in a unbliblical position above the rest of the law.

turns out "The Bible is biblical"

Deut 5:22 "God spoke the TEN commandments ... and added no more" - only the ten were spoken by God from the cloud directly to the people.

Only the TEN were kept inside the Ark of the Covenant

Your argument is "how unbiblical" of the Bible to note those details?

I find that odd.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today and holds to the 1 Cor 7:19 distinction that Paul gives for ceremonial law vs moral law.

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul

 

[DamianWarS]

God placed the 4th commandment within His moral law and I am not about to dispute His authority and right to do so as He is both creator and sustainer of all His creation. If you choose to do so that is your right but I would never join you in that move for I see it as rebellion against God.

Again with the unbliblical dichotomising of the law. There is no basis to uniquely call the 10 moral law or to extract them out of the covenant they are created in.

God called the 4th commadment a sign of the covenant between God and Israel (Ex 31:13) and enscribed on it on "two tablets of the covenant law" (Ex 31:18) then placed them inside the ark of the covenant. Do you see a theme here?

The 4th commandment, and by extension the 10 commandments are defined within their covenant they are created in as is repeated multiple times. They are not uniquely moral law they are uniquely covenant law, a covenant we are not under. Calling them moral doesn't change that they are bound within their covenant. You can call them moral law with hot fudge sauce and a cherry on top and its still an unbliblical definition and it still doesn't change them.