John 14:15 Christ and Moses in conflict??

John 14:15 "" If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Some have supposed that Christ taught His people that Christ’s commandments “are not God's Commandments" or at the very least “are not Moses’ commandments” – that possibly this John 14:15 statement is an indication pre-cross that Christ’s ministry was focused on getting away from God the Creator’s Ten Commandments, or “Moses the Law Giver’s Ten Commandments”.

For those doubting that anyone would actually go to such “lengths” in eisegesis – here is a good example of one case.

Let’s consider the implication of that gross error for a moment.

#1. Suppose DHK really means “Moses authored the Ten Commandments not God”.
a. That means that when we see God speaking in Exodus 20 – either “Moses put Him up to it” or “Moses is lying when He claims God is speaking”.
b. Christ said of the OT text “Scripture can not be broken” (John 10:35) – This means God the Father and God the Son authoring scripture – would be pretty impressed by the fact that Moses TOO can “author scripture” and that his Word along with their’s “Can not be broken”!!
c. Moses was somehow able to “Come up with 9 commandments” that God considered applicable to “all mankind” and a Sabbath commandment that would be “applicable to ALL mankind” in the New Earth (Isaiah 66 points that out [/b]“From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship”[/b]). They must have said of Moses “WoW! Look at that guy go!” as he just ‘came up” with those “commandments” for mankind!

#2. Suppose DHK really manes “Moses and God the Father” authored the Ten Commandments – not God the Son.
a. That solves the problem of “how” Moses’ Word” was so “well authorized for mankind”
b. However it requires that we divide God the Son against God the Father so that the Word of the Father is NO LONGER to be considered the Word of the Son!
c. It also requires us to view Christ’s ministry as designed to direct people AWAY from the Word of the Father – toward Christ and HIS Word instead. Designed to “break God’s Word” at the very start of His Ministry.

DHK says of Christ’s ministry to the Jews – at the start of Christ’s Gospel ministry in Mark 2

DHK argues that the very “existence of Christ on earth” at the START of His ministry was all that was needed to abolish all the Word all the LAW of God – being “breaking the Sabbath my fellow Jews for it is part of the LAW of God and I am here – so it is abolished!” says Christ in DHK’s model.

Of course D.L.Moody flatly denied the DHK model – and so Moody expressly argues against it.

What do your traditions tell you on this subject?

What does scripture tell you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The DHK-model above is refuted by the following scriptures -.

#1. – Christ “starts” His ministry with a denial of DHK’s claims! Which means that DHK’s views must be “pretty old”

#2 What does Christ actually say in the Gospels about "His Commandments" vs the Father's Word? Does He place Himself in opposition - or in contrast - the Father's commandments? The Father's Word.

It is the Father that is speaking through Christ. It is Christ (The "I AM" of the OT Johh 8) speaking at Sinai and it is the Father Speaking through Christ in all cases. Instead of abolishing the Father's Commandments of Death and replacing them with Christ's commandments of life - it is the Father's Commandments that are Life and Christ is speaking in perfect pre-Cross Harmony with the Pre-Cross Commandments of the Father - indeed His word IS the Word of the Father.

Does Christ represent God's Pre-Cross commandments as commandments of Life or Death and how does He relate the Commandments of God to HIS OWN Word?

#3. In fact Christ is here (John 14:15) quoting FROM the Ten Commandments and the sacred writings of scripture regarding them.

What is THE GREAT commandment highlighted by Christ in HIS ministry?

#4. Here Christ Affirms this Mosaic Law of Deut 6:5 is "THE foremost" and "The GREAT" commandment of the Father - that HE supports fully.

And Again - Christ Affirms the Mosaic Law (of Lev 19:18 in this case). -

See how Daniel prays to God without priest or sacrifice and bases his prayer directly to God on this key in the 10 commandments

A. Christ has already denied that His Word is some “other message” that is ‘not the Words of God” or opposed to the Law of God – in vs 14:10, 12:49, 8:28, 5:19

B. The “Law of God” continues to be upheld in both OT and NT. (Rom 3:31, Romans 7:22-25) 1Cor 7:19, 1John 5:2-3, Rev 12:17, Rev 14:12

In CHrist,

Bob

 

A second failed alternative to the DHK speculations above (in the OP) – is the one given by the Church of Christ –

In this model – Gal 4 is relied upon to admit that “Christ was born under the Law” and so He lived in perfect harmony and conformity to the Law of God.
#1. So Christ perfectly fulfilled, kept and taught obedience to scripture – the OT – the “Law of God” as we saw in Matt 5:17-19
#2. Never did Christ promote abolishing God’s Law – any of it, nor did He ignore it in any way.
#3. Perfect fulfillment meant “perfectly keeping the Law” and “in heart” perfectly agreeing with it, teaching it etc. Christ’s commandments are THE commandments in this model.
#4. For that reason they class both the Gospels AND the OT as “Old Covenant” and “not applicable to saints today”.
#5. Then they conclude -- To read the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ before the Cross is to hear his perfect support and endorsement for the Law of God that He is perfectly in harmony with – perfectly fulfilling under the OT “Gospel (Old Covenant) of works” a “saved by works system” where obedience to God’s Word is important. "Hence" they argue "we should not read them as if they applied to us today".


While this “two Gospel” model does have the advantage of not splitting up Christ against OT scripture – as the DHK models would have us doing – it fails because it needs to slice up scripture into 43 unacceptable books vs 23 accepted books of scripture.

Further it requires that Christians ignore the Words of Christ found in the Gospels because it is assumed that such agreement and perfect conformity is no longer in the heart of the people of God for the Law is assumed in this view to have been nailed to the cross and abolished by Christ at the cross.

 

Love your Neighbor as yourself Lev 19:18 - was "quoted by Christ" in the Gospels - precross.

Love God with all your heart Deut 6:5 was "quoted by Christ" in the Gospels and also by the Jews.

Christ said in John 14:15 before the Cross "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" He did not say "IF you love Me ignore my Word - don't worry about reading scripture, or the Commandments of God - just do whatever you like it will all be ok".

But there are many that seem to think that is precisely what they would find in scripture if they read it.

My argument is that we all do well to read the text itself and pay attention to it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK

First, “Keep my commandments” John 14 in no way refers to the Ten Commandments . They are the commandments of Christ. That is why he said MY commandments. They were HIS, not Moses’s commandments.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3919/15.html?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the post again. DHK argues that the Ten Commandments absolutely ARE NOT Christ's Words! He argues that INSTEAD they are "MOSES'". DHK argues that "KEEP MY commandments" PRE-CROSS meant "Some OTHER commandments" NOT those that you read IN scripture! Not those that the disciples would see IN scripture - as God speaking them -- as in Exodus 20!

DHK argues that the Exodus 20 set belong to MOSES -- but CHRIST's commandments are something else and should not be thought of as "The Ten Commandments".

This is an important detail - if you miss this you are missing the entire point of the OP.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is why I show the "two available options" for the choice that DHK has made - in my OP.

 

And "yes" that includes the first 5 books of the Bible.

And "yes" that includes the first 5 books of the Bible.

The "cut and paste" model and the "pick and choose model" where some scripture belongs to Moses and other texts to "Christ" - is explicitly rejected by the NT authors.

As Christ stated "The Scripture CAN NOT be broken" (John 10 quoted above). That is not because "Moses is so smart he can write text that CAN NOT be broken" -- it is because ALL scripture is given by God!


In Christ,

Bob

 

On another thread - Eric has argued that the Mark 2 statement of Christ is in perfect harmony with the original scope and intent of the Sabbath and that "no change" was being announced by Christ at the start of His ministry in terms of HIS OWN creation memorial - the 7th-day Sabbath of Gen 2:3.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/22.html#000321

I don't see that as fitting into the two options given in the OP for DHK's views. I am not sure Eric takes the "Ignore the Words of Christ pre-cross" view that was added in the next post as "another option".

So what view is the one Eric takes of Mark 2 when HE says Christ is perfectly keeping and endorsing HIS OWN Sabbath pre-cross Mark 2:27 AND we should pay attention to scripture in this case EVEN if it is Christ pre-cross?

In Christ,

Bob

 

In my view Eric shows Christ and Moses to be "in harmony" pre-cross by not taking the Mark 2 statement of Christ declaring that "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" and trying to "edit it" as DHK does to say "MADE for JEWS ONLY"

DHK then adds his views that Christ began teaching Jews in Mark 2 to "break" the Sabbath that HE created.

Thankfully Eric did not go to such extremes.

So that is "something".

In Christ,

Bob

 

If we avoid the "point counter-point" method of researching the differences in views over one doctrinal point - how do we "learn" to distill the differences to their key points and then "weigh those points" to see where the Bible weight of evidence supports or denies them?

In other words - if the point of comparing notes is just to say "you're ok, I'm ok" then we have a forum for that. Certainly it is clear that Christians differ on doctrinal subjects and that does not make "one side lost and another saved".

But that still leaves a huge field open for review, comparison and investigation - which presumably is the purpose of this area of the board.

I highly value the oppturnity to compare RC doctrines against the Bible. I like having my own views challenged and I like the fact that the more focused Bible teaching and less emotional response that those who debate me can muster - the more I learn and the more have to add to my library of knowledge on any one given Bible subject.

In Christ,

Bob