God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[BavarianWheels]

That's not what Jesus says...
"In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat."

Jesus states that the consecrated bread was "lawful only for priests to eat".
So according to Jesus, David eating consecrated bread was "unlawful".

So as Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus declared that even though picking grain on the Sabbath (like David eating consecrated bread) was "unlawful", it was not sinful... just like David eating consecrated bread was not sinful.

Sorry, no.

Any CLEAN individual is lawfully able to eat the consecrated bread. The only reason it was only PRIESTS is that they were the only ones that cleaned themselves properly. Read 1 Samuel 21:1-6 The priest had already made it lawful in that he stipulated that the condition was that the men had not been with women...and the bread he was giving him may've been day-old bread to boot!

There exists no law against food in the Decalogue so the comparison you're forcing is not the comparison Christ was making.

There was nothing wrong with Christ and his disciples picking grain because picking grain to eat is not unlawful on the Sabbath or any other day. There is no law against picking grain for PERSONAL consumption. It is, however, unlawful to pick grain for MONETARY gain as that would be considered WORK on the Sabbath.

The grain is not consecrated so it has nothing to do with the point being made by the Pharisees NOR Christ. It was about the ACT of picking grain, the Pharisees considered "work".

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Well...you tell me. How is sin defined?

Acting against the will of God...

And how do you know what God's will is? Does He speak explicitly into your personal ear that you know?

You're conveniently leaving out the manner in which the NT plainly states how we know what sin is...to your detriment.

What "rest" of the law?

At the time of Jesus, the Law generally referred to the Pentateuch as a whole.

True...but when the U.S. congress is debating laws in session, do you believe they are debating the speed law that you're obligated to obey in front of a school or do you believe they are talking about certain laws?

Clearly there is the whole of the law, the Pentateuch. But there exists only ONE law that was written in stone and that Law DOES NOT POINT TO CHRIST AS MESSIAH...it points to Christ as CREATOR. The purpose, then, of that LAW is because God is Creator and therefore deserves worship in the manner of Commands 1-4.

The ceremonial laws, those laws of the temple, the sacrifices that signified the promise that would come in the form of a Messiah, a Lamb of God...THOSE laws pointed to Christ the Lamb.

Those are the laws nailed to the cross.

Now your turn...
What is your definition of the Law?

Which? The 10 commandments, the Ceremonial laws, secular moral laws, federal law, state law, my association laws, the rules/laws that I enforce in my home...?
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Lets not forget that it is not the day which is important since all of the law, Including the sabbath and ot was a shadow of the real thing to come - Christ.

That's not true.

Christ was not "to come" when the Sabbath was made holy. The Sabbath was made holy on the Seventh Day of Creation when there existed NO SIN in the world and it was established, not as a shadow of things to come but as a reality of what had JUST happened.

The commandment is plain: Read it.

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

Why?

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

.
.

[BavarianWheels]

However, if we as Christians obey the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 22 to " love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself" then our behavior will be consistent with the behavior that we see described in the 10 Commandments.

No! You're insisting you only need be consistent with 9 of the 10. If you're going to claim the above, then you must consider the 4th commandment in the same manner as you do 1-3 or 5-10!

Observing a Sabbath as described in the Mosaic Law is no longer a requirement for anyone. Paul makes that pretty clear in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17.

Then why is it Cain's offering was not acceptable if it was HIS gift to God? You must reconcile what the scriptures actually teaches vs. what you believe the scriptures teach THROUGH men's traditions.

I do not believe that Sunday is the "Christian Sabbath" that somehow replaces the Jewish Sabbath. The Church generally chooses to gather together on the first day of the week to celebrate and commemorate the resurrection of Jesus, but I don't think worshiping on Sunday is a Scriptural requirement.
The guidance Hebrews 10:25 provides is that we should not forsake the gathering of ourselves together whenever and wherever the local body that we worship with gathers together.

Seems odd since there already exists a celebration, if you will, of the death and resurrection of Christ in which Christ HIMSELF celebrated with his disciples and said he wouldn't celebrate again until in the Kingdom of God. See Luke 22:14-20

I do think the concept of a Sabbath rest is a Scriptural concept that does go beyond the Mosaic Law, but we are not required to commemorate that Sabbath rest in any particular manner (Romans 14:5).
Hebrews 4 talks about how we as believers enter in to God's Sabbath rest without a reference to worshiping or celebrating on any particular day of the week.

Again...if this is the proper interpretation, then why is it Cain's offering was not pleasing to God? If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, ( Hebrews 13:8 ) then the interpretation is that we have rest in Christ DAILY and we don't have to wait for the temple sacrifices of the ceremonial laws to cleanse us. We are cleansed daily...but again the Sabbath is not a matter of being cleansed, but a celebration, an ACT of worship BECAUSE:

11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

.
.

[DBowling]

That's not what Jesus says...
"In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat."

Jesus states that the consecrated bread was "lawful only for priests to eat".
So according to Jesus, David eating consecrated bread was "unlawful".

So as Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus declared that even though picking grain on the Sabbath (like David eating consecrated bread) was "unlawful", it was not sinful... just like David eating consecrated bread was not sinful.

Sorry, no.

Any CLEAN individual is lawfully able to eat the consecrated bread. The only reason it was only PRIESTS is that they were the only ones that cleaned themselves properly.

Again... it is Jesus that you are disagreeing with.
Here's what Jesus says.
"In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat."

In fact in the Matthew 12 parallel account of this incident, Jesus goes even further and compares the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath to preists "breaking the Sabbath".
Matthew 12:5

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

So Jesus compares the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath with...
- David eating consecrated bread, which Jesus specifically identifies as "unlawful"
- Priests in the temple, who in the words of Jesus, "break the Sabbath"
And while all three actions were considered "unlawful"...
Jesus declares that the disciples who picked grain on the Sabbath, David who ate consecrated bread, and the priests who "break the Sabbath" were all innocent.

Well...you tell me. How is sin defined?

Acting against the will of God...

And how do you know what God's will is?
There are many ways that God communicates his will to us.
- The Word of God.
- The Holy Spirit
- The law written on our heart
- Other people
- Life circumstances
- Our consciences
etc...

What "rest" of the law?

At the time of Jesus, the Law generally referred to the Pentateuch as a whole.

Clearly there is the whole of the law, the Pentateuch. But there exists only ONE law that was written in stone and that Law DOES NOT POINT TO CHRIST AS MESSIAH...it points to Christ as CREATOR.

I'm not sure where you find the distinction that you are asserting in Scripture.
I assume that you are well aware that Greek Christ = Hebrew Messiah.
So the distinction between "the Messiah as Messiah" and "the Messiah as Creator" is not really a distinction... and certainly not one that is based on Scripture.

[BavarianWheels]

That's not what Jesus says...
"In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat."

Jesus states that the consecrated bread was "lawful only for priests to eat".
So according to Jesus, David eating consecrated bread was "unlawful".

So as Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus declared that even though picking grain on the Sabbath (like David eating consecrated bread) was "unlawful", it was not sinful... just like David eating consecrated bread was not sinful.

Sorry, no.

Any CLEAN individual is lawfully able to eat the consecrated bread. The only reason it was only PRIESTS is that they were the only ones that cleaned themselves properly.

Again... it is Jesus that you are disagreeing with.
Here's what Jesus says.
"In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat."

In fact in the Matthew 12 parallel account of this incident, Jesus goes even further and compares the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath to preists "breaking the Sabbath".
Matthew 12:5

Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

So Jesus compares the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath with...
- David eating consecrated bread, which Jesus specifically identifies as "unlawful"
- Priests in the temple, who in the words of Jesus, "break the Sabbath"
And while all three actions were considered "unlawful"...
Jesus declares that the disciples who picked grain on the Sabbath, David who ate consecrated bread, and the priests who "break the Sabbath" were all innocent.

Well...you tell me. How is sin defined?

Acting against the will of God...

And how do you know what God's will is?
There are many ways that God communicates his will to us.
- The Word of God.
- The Holy Spirit
- The law written on our heart
- Other people
- Life circumstances
- Our consciences
etc...

What "rest" of the law?

At the time of Jesus, the Law generally referred to the Pentateuch as a whole.

Clearly there is the whole of the law, the Pentateuch. But there exists only ONE law that was written in stone and that Law DOES NOT POINT TO CHRIST AS MESSIAH...it points to Christ as CREATOR.

I'm not sure where you find the distinction that you are asserting in Scripture.
I assume that you are well aware that Greek Christ = Hebrew Messiah.
So the distinction between "the Messiah as Messiah" and "the Messiah as Creator" is not really a distinction... and certainly not one that is based on Scripture.

Again...you're confusing Christ's use of that law with the actual law, the 4th commandment which the Pharisees were accusing Christ and His disciples of breaking. There is no law against eating grain on the Sabbath! Therefore the point is not in the grain being holy, but the ACT of it. Christ was using THEIR OWN RECKONING of keeping Sabbath against them...because the priest in 1 Samuel 21:4 ALREADY made it "ok"

Here...let me quote it for you;

4But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

It was only unlawful if the men had not kept themselves from women. So there is a LAWFUL manner of eating consecrated bread as there is a LAWFUL manner of PICKING grain on the Sabbath! It's not working to feed oneself.
.
.

[DBowling]

However, if we as Christians obey the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 22 to " love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself" then our behavior will be consistent with the behavior that we see described in the 10 Commandments.

No! You're insisting you only need be consistent with 9 of the 10. If you're going to claim the above, then you must consider the 4th commandment in the same manner as you do 1-3 or 5-10!

I do consider all 10 Commandments the same. All 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law.

Observing a Sabbath as described in the Mosaic Law is no longer a requirement for anyone. Paul makes that pretty clear in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17.

Then why is it Cain's offering was not acceptable if it was HIS gift to God? You must reconcile what the scriptures actually teaches vs. what you believe the scriptures teach THROUGH men's traditions.

I'm not sure what the acceptability of Cain's offering has to do with the Sabbath.
And as Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17 demonstrate, you are on the wrong side of the Tradition vs Scripture argument here.

I do not believe that Sunday is the "Christian Sabbath" that somehow replaces the Jewish Sabbath. The Church generally chooses to gather together on the first day of the week to celebrate and commemorate the resurrection of Jesus, but I don't think worshiping on Sunday is a Scriptural requirement.
The guidance Hebrews 10:25 provides is that we should not forsake the gathering of ourselves together whenever and wherever the local body that we worship with gathers together.

Seems odd since there already exists a celebration, if you will, of the death and resurrection of Christ in which Christ HIMSELF celebrated with his disciples and said he wouldn't celebrate again until in the Kingdom of God. See Luke 22:14-20

And the NT Church regularly gathered together to celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week.

I do think the concept of a Sabbath rest is a Scriptural concept that does go beyond the Mosaic Law, but we are not required to commemorate that Sabbath rest in any particular manner (Romans 14:5).
Hebrews 4 talks about how we as believers enter in to God's Sabbath rest without a reference to worshiping or celebrating on any particular day of the week.

Again...if this is the proper interpretation, then why is it Cain's offering was not pleasing to God? If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, ( Hebrews 13:8 ) then the interpretation is that we have rest in Christ DAILY and we don't have to wait for the temple sacrifices of the ceremonial laws to cleanse us. We are cleansed daily...but again the Sabbath is not a matter of being cleansed, but a celebration, an ACT of worship

There are many other celebrations (including Sabbath celebrations such as the Jubilee), and methods of worship (such as the sacrificial system) that are part of the Mosaic Law and that I think we agree are no longer required under the New Covenant.

And as I mentioned above Paul speaks directly to the Sabbath in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17.

[BavarianWheels]

I do consider all 10 Commandments the same. All 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law.

Show me where the "covenant" exists in the 10 Commandments. Then we'll move on to Cain and his offering.
.
.

[DBowling]

Again...you're confusing Christ's use of that law with the actual law,

I'm afraid that I am going to have to be content with Christ's use of the Law... and Paul's use of the Law... and the use of the Law by the author of Hebrews.

[DBowling]

I do consider all 10 Commandments the same. All 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law.

Show me where the "covenant" exists in the 10 Commandments. Then we'll move on to Cain and his offering.

Which of these two statements do you disagree with...
- The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law
- The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant

[BavarianWheels]

I do consider all 10 Commandments the same. All 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant Mosaic Law.

Show me where the "covenant" exists in the 10 Commandments. Then we'll move on to Cain and his offering.

Which of these two statements do you disagree with...
- The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law
- The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant

The 10 were written by God Himself...

So again, show me wherein the 10 exists the "covenant"? You're the one making the claim.
.
.

[DBowling]

The 10 were written by God Himself...

Agreed
And Exodus 20:2 also tells us who the 10 Commandments were written to
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

As does the use in the 10 Commandments of God's covenant name with Israel "YHWH your God" instead of the more generic Elohim.

So again, show me wherein the 10 exists the "covenant"? You're the one making the claim.

And again, to answer your question, I need to know which of the two premises below you disagree with
- The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law
- The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant

[BavarianWheels]

The 10 were written by God Himself...

Agreed
And Exodus 20:2 also tells us who the 10 Commandments were written to
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

As does the use in the 10 Commandments of God's covenant name with Israel "YHWH your God" instead of the more generic Elohim.

So you were not a slave to sin? You were not doomed to an earthly death in sin? God isn't your God?

So again, show me wherein the 10 exists the "covenant"? You're the one making the claim.

And again, to answer your question, I need to know which of the two premises below you disagree with
- The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law
- The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant

Show me where the 10 commandments have ANY mention of a covenant.

God wrote them with His own finger and they came on stone.

Commandment 1... through Commandment 10. Then a full stop.

Now...show me where this covenant in the 10 exists, plz.
.
.

[DBowling]

The 10 were written by God Himself...

Agreed
And Exodus 20:2 also tells us who the 10 Commandments were written to
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

As does the use in the 10 Commandments of God's covenant name with Israel "YHWH your God" instead of the more generic Elohim.

So you were not a slave to sin? You were not doomed to an earthly death in sin? God isn't your God?

Of course I was a slave to sin prior to putting my faith and trust in Jesus!
Of course the wages of my sin was death prior to putting my faith and trust in Jesus!
Of course God is my God!

I have never said anything to indicate otherwise.
I don't understand why you feel the need to resort to absurd straw man arguments here?

So again, show me wherein the 10 exists the "covenant"? You're the one making the claim.

And again, to answer your question, I need to know which of the two premises below you disagree with
- The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law
- The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant

Show me where the 10 commandments have ANY mention of a covenant.

Ok let's take this one step at a time then...
Do you believe that the 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law?
If we can establish that Scriptural fact first, then we can proceed on to the Scriptural link between the Mosaic Law and the 'Old Covenant'.

But I have already mentioned a couple of indicators within the 10 Commandments themselves.
God explicitly states in Exodus 20:2 that the 10 Commandments were written to Israel (his covenant people).
And throughout the 10 Commandments, God uses the name YHWH, which is God's covenant name with his covenant people (Exodus 3:13-15)

[DBowling]

So again, show me wherein the 10 exists the "covenant"? You're the one making the claim.

Actually Moses makes the claim... but here we go...

Exodus 19-24 describes the covenant that YHWH made with his covenant people Israel at Sinai. And the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20:1-17 are part of the covenant that God establishes with Israel.
Here is how the stage is set in Exodus 19:3-6

3 Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself. 5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

We see two important things in Exodus 19
1. In Exodus 19:5 God explicitly refers to the contents of Exodus 19-24 as a "covenant".
2. In Exodus 19:3 God tells us that the covenant is with "the sons of Israel"

After Moses receives the commands in Exodus 20-23 from YHWH, the narrative continues in Exodus 24
Exodus 24:3-7

3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!” 4 Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

When he returns to the people, Moses writes down the commands that he received from God in Exodus 20-23 (which includes the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20).
Then he takes the "book of the covenant" which he had written down and reads it to the people.
The people of Israel agree to obey God's commands, and Moses ratifies the covenant between YWHW and the people of Israel by sprinkling the people with "the blood of the covenant".

So Exodus 19-24 explicitly states that the 10 Commandments are part of a Covenant that YHWH established between himself and his covenant people Israel.

[neo-x]

Plus it starts with, hear O Isreal...lol. If that didn't make it clear to whom the law was addressed.