Works Relation to Salvation

[Fervent]

It can't. Unfortunately DamianWarS says the 10 commandments aren't moral.

That's not how I read his post, but rather that the categorizing some as "moral" as if others aren't moral is a false dichotomy. The Mosaic law is a complete unit, so if part of it must be kept then all of it must be kept. Arguing that the 10 commandments are still in force because they are "moral" while dismissing the sacrificial laws, food laws, laws about not harvesting the whole field, laws about putting to death family members who entice you to follow other gods, laws about putting to death false prophets..etc, etc..must equally be enforced because they are also "moral."

 

[Gary K]

That's not how I read his post, but rather that the categorizing some as "moral" as if others aren't moral is a false dichotomy. The Mosaic law is a complete unit, so if part of it must be kept then all of it must be kept. Arguing that the 10 commandments are still in force because they are "moral" while dismissing the sacrificial laws, food laws, laws about not harvesting the whole field, laws about putting to death family members who entice you to follow other gods, laws about putting to death false prophets..etc, etc..must equally be enforced because they are also "moral."

All those laws were given through a theocracy, and some came to an end at the death of Jesus because they pointed forward to Him as the antitype of the sacrificial system God gave the Israelites through Moses. In essence they were prophetic and when the event they prophecied happened they lost their meaning.

We no longer have a theocracy so the laws associated directly with it have come to an end. That's not an attempt to do away with anything. It's just recognizing reality.

 

[Fervent]

All those laws were given through a theocracy, and some came to an end at the death of Jesus because they pointed forward to Him as the antitype of the sacrificial system God gave the Israelites through Moses. In essence they were prophetic and when the event they prophecied happened they lost their meaning.

We no longer have a theocracy so the laws associated directly with it have come to an end. That's not an attempt to do away with anything. It's just recognizing reality.

The whole law points to Jesus, including the 10 commandments, and the centerpiece of that theocracy was the 10 commandments. Which is why the tablets were kept in the ark of the covenant which was typical of the type of covenant that the Israelites entered into at Sinai. Scripture makes no such division of the law, nor does it allow for the law to be so divided.

 

[Gary K]

The whole law points to Jesus, including the 10 commandments, and the centerpiece of that theocracy was the 10 commandments. Which is why the tablets were kept in the ark of the covenant which was typical of the type of covenant that the Israelites entered into at Sinai. Scripture makes no such division of the law, nor does it allow for the law to be so divided.

Well, I'm glad you recognize the moral authority of the 10. I differ with you on the rest of it though. The 10 commandments were the only law stored under the mercy seat meaning violations of them are covered by God's mercy. The rest of the laws were kept outside the ark in a pocket on it's side.

Deu_31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

 

[Fervent]

Well, I'm glad you recognize the moral authority of the 10. I differ with you on the rest of it though. The 10 commandments were the only law stored under the mercy seat meaning violations of them are covered by God's mercy. The rest of the laws were kept outside the ark in a pocket on it's side.

I'm aware of where it was kept, but your reasoning doesn't line up with the historical context. The Sinai covenant is essentially a Suzerain-vassal treaty, or at least it bears all of the hallmarks that such treaties had in the Ancient Near East. In these types of treaties it was common for the laws that were enjoined upon the vassals to be kept in a summation/symbolic form. The tablets were the tokens of that treaty, and the specific regulations how those major divisions were meant to be kept. Every law in the book of the law finds its ultimate reason within the 10 commandments, for example the laws about parapets come from the command "thou shall not murder." In fact, the whole book of Deuteronomy is structured like the written form such treaties took with its historical prelude, overarching commandments, specific regulations, blessings and curses and similar features.

 

[Gary K]

I'm aware of where it was kept, but your reasoning doesn't line up with the historical context. The Sinai covenant is essentially a Suzerain-vassal treaty, or at least it bears all of the hallmarks that such treaties had in the Ancient Near East. In these types of treaties it was common for the laws that were enjoined upon the vassals to be kept in a summation/symbolic form. The tablets were the tokens of that treaty, and the specific regulations how those major divisions were meant to be kept. Every law in the book of the law finds its ultimate reason within the 10 commandments, for example the laws about parapets come from the command "thou shall not murder." In fact, the whole book of Deuteronomy is structured like the written form such treaties took with its historical prelude, overarching commandments, specific regulations, blessings and curses and similar features.

Oh, so Moses kept track of the laws of heathen nations and followed their laws? Funny how scripture tells us a different story. I remember Moses chose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than be the king of Egypt. He then spent 40 years in the wilderness tending sheep in Midian. Looks to me he had left all thoughts of following the practices of the heathen nation's power structures way behind him.

But if you want to deny the evidence have at it.

 

[Fervent]

Oh, so Moses kept track of the laws of heathen nations and followed their laws? Funny how scripture tells us a different story. I remember Moses chose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than be the king of Egypt. He then spent 40 years in the wilderness tending sheep in Midian. Looks to me he had left all thoughts of following the practices of the heathen nation's power structures way behind him.

But if you want to deny the evidence have at it.

That's quite the man of straw you've got there.

 

[Leaf473]

I'm aware of where it was kept, but your reasoning doesn't line up with the historical context. The Sinai covenant is essentially a Suzerain-vassal treaty, or at least it bears all of the hallmarks that such treaties had in the Ancient Near East. In these types of treaties it was common for the laws that were enjoined upon the vassals to be kept in a summation/symbolic form. The tablets were the tokens of that treaty, and the specific regulations how those major divisions were meant to be kept. Every law in the book of the law finds its ultimate reason within the 10 commandments, for example the laws about parapets come from the command "thou shall not murder." In fact, the whole book of Deuteronomy is structured like the written form such treaties took with its historical prelude, overarching commandments, specific regulations, blessings and curses and similar features.

Not wanting to take the thread off topic, but that is fascinating.

If we think of the ten commandments as the 10 words, then what was kept in the ark was stone tablets with 10 words on them. On the outside of the ark was the explanation of those 10 words.

Stone tablets containing all of the laws would probably have made the ark way too heavy to carry.

 

[Gary K]

That's quite the man of straw you've got there.

Explain how it is a man of straw by the evidence of Moses' life story

 

[Fervent]

Explain how it is a man of straw by the evidence of Moses' life story

Because Moses wasn't the one who set the terms or decided the form of the covenant. His knowledge of legalities is irrelevant to it appearing nearly identical in form to the dominant political treaties of the day, nor that it would have been readily recognized as such by contemporary observers. So your railing against Moses' knowledge or lack there of is of zero relevance to the structuring of the covenant.

 

[Gary K]

Because Moses wasn't the one who set the terms or decided the form of the covenant. His knowledge of legalities is irrelevant to it appearing nearly identical in form to the dominant political treaties of the day, nor that it would have been readily recognized as such by contemporary observers. So your railing against Moses' knowledge or lack there of is of zero relevance to the structuring of the covenant.

Oh, so you think God followed the practices of the heathen nations when He gave His covenant to Israel? By the way, I noticed you completely ignored my request that you demonstrate from scripture that I created a straw man.

I'm not dishonest and that is a dishonest practice.

 

[Fervent]

Oh, so you think God followed the practices of the heathen nations when He gave His covenant to Israel? By the way, I noticed you completely ignored my request that you demonstrate from scripture that I created a straw man.

I'm not dishonest and that is a dishonest practice.

God revealed His covenant in a form that was readily understandable within its historic setting. And its rather bizarre of you to demand that I demonstrate from Scripture that you created a strawman, as if Scripture is going to have this forum thread within its pages. Whether you intended to create a strawman or not, your attacking Moses' knowledge of the treaty forms was no where within the scope of what I was saying and was entirely something of your own invention, making it a strawman.

 

[Gary K]

God revealed His covenant in a form that was readily understandable within its historic setting. And its rather bizarre of you to demand that I demonstrate from Scripture that you created a strawman, as if Scripture is going to have this forum thread within its pages. Whether you intended to create a strawman or not, your attacking Moses' knowledge of the treaty forms was no where within the scope of what I was saying and was entirely something of your own invention, making it a strawman.

Historic heathen setting. He doesn't follow heathen practices. Never has and never will.

So what if it was outside the setting of your explanation? I was pointing out that God doesn't, nor did Moses. follow heathen practices. Your entire point was to judge what God and Moses did according to heathen standards.

 

[Fervent]

Historic heathen setting. He doesn't follow heathen practices. Never has and never will.

So what if it was outside the setting of your explanation? I was pointing out that God doesn't, nor did Moses. follow heathen practices. Your entire point was to judge what God and Moses did according to heathen standards.

Right, all the parallels between the Suzerain-Vassal treaty are entirely accidental and not purposeful. The historic context of the Bible is inappropriate for understanding it, instead we should understand it from the conventions 2400 years(at a minimum) removed from it. Makes sense.

 

[Gary K]

Right, all the parallels between the Suzerain-Vassal treaty are entirely accidental and not purposeful. The historic context of the Bible is inappropriate for understanding it, instead we should understand it from the conventions 2400 years(at a minimum) removed from it. Makes sense.

Thank you.

 

[Icyspark]

There are various ways to count how many laws are in the OT, such as whether a command to do multiple things should be counted as one command or whether each part counts as its own command, or whether multiple commands to do similar commands should be counted as the same command or unique commands. So the count of 613 commandments is a tradition, which is related to Gamatria, and not something directly stated in the Bible, but it is not itself a command, so it is not adding to what God has commanded.

The Bible does use Hebrew words to categorize God's laws, such as in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the mishpatim and the chukim, which are the two main categories of law in the Torah, though most Christians don't trust the Spirit's guidance farther than just the mishpatim.

Hi Soyeong,

I have no problem with a supposed number of 613 total laws in the old covenant. My issue lies with those who claim such, "SDAs are masters at segregating laws." That SDAs and others rightly segregate the Ten Commandments from the 603 laws, decrees and ordinances. @Bob S has no response for why God placed a numeral in the title of His covenant of commandments. If it's a covenant of 613 commandments then what does the number ten have to do with anything? God said He "added nothing more," yet Bob S thinks it's totally cool to add to it. That's the issue I'm addressing about "adding to what God has commanded."

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Soyeong]

Hi Soyeong,

I have no problem with a supposed number of 613 total laws in the old covenant. My issue lies with those who claim such, "SDAs are masters at segregating laws." That SDAs and others rightly segregate the Ten Commandments from the 603 laws, decrees and ordinances. @Bob S has no response for why God placed a numeral in the title of His covenant of commandments. If it's a covenant of 613 commandments then what does the number ten have to do with anything? God said He "added nothing more," yet Bob S thinks it's totally cool to add to it. That's the issue I'm addressing about "adding to what God has commanded."

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

While the Bible does make a distinction between the Ten Commandments that were in the Ark of the Covenant and the other commandments that were outside of the ark, it does not saying anything along the lines that we are only required to obey the Ten Commandments and a free to disobey everything else, or that only the Ten Commandments are the moral law while it is moral to disobey everything else. There are other laws that are not listed as part of the Ten Commandments like those against committing rape, favoritism, and kidnapping that I think that SDA would support keeping, so it is by no means limited to just the Ten Commandments, but rather the whole Torah is what God instructed in Deuteronomy 5.

 

[Icyspark]

While the Bible does make a distinction between the Ten Commandments that were in the Ark of the Covenant and the other commandments that were outside of the ark, it does not saying anything along the lines that we are only required to obey the Ten Commandments and a free to disobey everything else, or that only the Ten Commandments are the moral law while it is moral to disobey everything else. There are other laws that are not listed as part of the Ten Commandments like those against committing rape, favoritism, and kidnapping that I think that SDA would support keeping, so it is by no means limited to just the Ten Commandments, but rather the whole Torah is what God instructed in Deuteronomy 5.

Hi Soyeong,

Not to pick on Bob, but he's a convenient example of what icy on a regular basis from those who are trying to excise (i.e. subtract) the one commandment of the Ten which says "remember."

I believe the numeral attached to the commandments—written on stone by God's own finger—limits the total commandments to just 10. Not 9. Not 613. Any appeal by one of the Bible authors to one of these commandments is an appeal to the set of 10. So when Paul says he would not have known what sin was "if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet,'" that is not an appeal to the entire 613, but to the unit of 10. Paul is obviously not saying that the only commandment which identifies sin is the one which prohibits coveting. James bears this out when he says, "For he who said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' also said, 'You shall not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." And if you're a transgressor of the law, then by definition you're a "sinner," because sin isn't taken into account where there is no law. For those who claim there is no law then they are effectively sinless and have no need of a Savior.

In your view do you believe that the ordinances pointing forward to the Christ are still in effect? Iow, do you believe the sacrificial system is still necessary and unaffected by the death of Christ?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[DamianWarS]

Here are your words:



Just because the Bible doesn't use the word moral doesn't mean the 10 commandments aren't a set of laws that legally define what is immoral behavior. To argue against that is foolishness plain and simple. And to argue that I am trying to make the 4th commandment a moral law is just as foolish. I didn't write the 10 on two tables of stone with my finger. That's so far beyond my capabilities it's nuts to make that argument.

No where are the 10 separates from the rest and called moral. You are conflating the "written on stone with the finger of God" as a universal moral the 10 are never describes this way in Scripture. Who was the tablets made for is also not a question you seem willing to address. Again "finger of God" is being conflated with a meaning that is never revealed in Scripture.

You see only black or white in this for some reason, either it's all moral or I'm saying there is nothing moral in the 10. I'm not saying thst, and in no way does this mean there are no moral competents in the 10 but that is different than uniquely declaring the 10 as universal moral law.

Go ahead and tell your neighbour they are being immoral for doing yard work on a Saturday and see how well that works. All you will effectively do is estranged your neighbour from the gospel. Yard work or not yard work on a Saturday is not a gospel matter, except when it's used to show love, son instead of wagging your finger run over and help them out. You will see a heart instantly change and greater access to share the gospel.

 

[DamianWarS]

The dichotomy really only functions to turn us from doers of the law to judges, since even if it were supported which laws fall into the various categories is also not found within the text nor would the Israelites have considered particular laws moral and others non-moral. The whole law was moral, because it was God's commands for maintaining their status as His peculiar people and receiving right standing before Him. The only way to separate bits and pieces of the law is to deny that the rest of it was given by God, and completely misses the point of being under a new priesthood.

Yes, this false dichotomy is really only driven by justifing why ABC is not kept or taught but XYZ are. It is themed biblically, so it "feels good" but requires key components to be added to understand law this way that's not biblical endorsed. If God says it then its always moral for the indented audience and there is no such thing as a moral dichotomy of law, or universal dichtotomy. It all is law, and it all has the same goal that testifies as one voice to the new.