Commandment keeping

[DHK]

contempt for God is a broad category - not mentioned in the 3rd commandment.

The Jews mentioned nothing about "contempt for God" in their complaint - rather they argue "specifically" that Christ was claiming a power that only God can rightfully claim - thus if Christ HAD NOT been God - his claim WOULD have been blasphemy.

But Ex 20 says nothing about "claiming to forgive sins" that is not the specific sin being addressed. Rather in Ex 20 the specific sin is taking God's name in vain.

IF you are willing to "GENERALIZE" each of these commandments so that ANY variation is "contempt for God" -- then in the same way the Sabbath can be "generalized" to "Worship" - and in that case every mention of "Worship" in the NT becomes a "quote of the 4th commandment" using your short-sighted solution here.

Perhaps you would like to try another one.

in Christ,

Bob

I never referred to or quoted the "3rd command of God." Where did you get that from? You mentioned blasphemy, and in a wrong context. I don't see the word blasphemy in the the third command, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BobRyan]

But the violation of the third commandment; called "blasphemy", is condemned all over the place in the NT. There is never any condemnation of sabbathbreaking! That's why just the mention of the sabbath there does not equate to a command to still keep it.

It was you that joined in that discussion between Eric and me and then attempted to generalize the 3rd commandment into "blasphemy" - I simply point out that your idea of generalizing to get the 3rd commandment into the NT - would by that same mechanism have Sabbath in the NT every time "worship" is mentioned and that this did not solve your real objective.

However as you said previously - you often don't read the posts so maybe you were not aware of the context for this dicussion. Who knows?

 

[DHK]

It was you that joined in that discussion between Eric and me and then attempted to generalize the 3rd commandment into "blasphemy" - I simply point out that your idea of generalizing to get the 3rd commandment into the NT - would by that same mechanism have Sabbath in the NT every time "worship" is mentioned and that this did not solve your real objective.

So learn what blasphemy is. I didn't attempt to generalize anything but gave you a direct definition of the word.

However as you said previously - you often don't read the posts so maybe you were not aware of the context for this dicussion. Who knows?

Blasphemy is one thing. The 3rd commandment another.

 

[Cutter]

And the beat goes on, yea the beat goes on...:sleep:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Cutter: And the beat goes on, yea the beat goes on...:sleep:

HP: Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. :godisgood::thumbs:

__________________

 

[BobRyan]

Blasphemy is one thing. The 3rd commandment another.

Well then you are left with "no repeat of the 3rd Commandment in the NT".

You position leaves you with even more difficulties than the solution that Eric suggested.

Congrats!:thumbs:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Well then you are left with "no repeat of the 3rd Commandment in the NT".

You position leaves you with even more difficulties than the solution that Eric suggested.

Congrats!:thumbs:

in Christ,

Bob

What does the 3rd commandment say Bob?

 

[BobRyan]

What does the 3rd commandment say Bob?

Good question DHK - we will have to go to the OT and find out - since it is not in the NT -

So let's see - it is in there some place - hmm... Ex 20 found it!




7 "" You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

 

[DHK]

Good question DHK - we will have to go to the OT and find out - since it is not in the NT -

So let's see - it is in there some place - hmm... Ex 20 found it!




7 "" You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Now, look up the word blasphemy.
What is the meaning?
How does it apply to this verse, which doesn't have the word blasphemy in it?

 

[BobRyan]

Now, look up the word blasphemy.

Ok - "looking up" - in scripture. Particularly as it is used in the NT

Here is the Word of God that you are so anxious to ignore -


In Matt 9 Christ is accused of blasphemy because Christ claimed the power of God alone - to forgive sins.

1. Matthew 9:2-3
   2And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes."

In Matt 12 the Jews claim that the work Christ does to heal the sick and cast out demons - is the work of Satan. Christ charges that to credit to Satan - the work of the Holy Spirit is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

1. Matthew 12:31
   " Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
   

In Matt 26 Christ is accused of blasphemy because he claimed the right of God again - to sit on the right hand of the Father and appear in the clouds of heaven before mankind at the 2nd coming.

1. Matthew 26:64-65
   64Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
2. Mark 2:7
   "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Thus blasphemy is seen to apply to cases where one who is not God -- claims some priviledge or power that belongs to God alone or in the case of someone who attributes to Satan - the work of God the Holy Spirit.



Webster may have expanded that to a higher umbrella term that covers just about every thing one says that God would not like - but that is like saying that "worship" is a higher umbrella term - and that worship on Sabbath is a specific focused instance of the more general concept of worship. Thus the broad term blaspheme is not a specific instance of a reference to "not taking God's name in vain" any more than every reference to "worship" in the NT is a specific instance of "worship on Sabbath".

Again -- I am speaking here "as if" you take your argument seriously.

But time will tell.

Been there -- done that :thumbsup:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Ok - "looking up" - in scripture. Particularly as it is used in the NT

Webster may have expanded that to a higher umbrella term that covers just about every thing one says that God would not like - but that is like saying that "worship" is a higher umbrella term - and that worship on Sabbath is a specific focused instance of the more general concept of worship. Thus the broad term blaspheme is not a specific instance of a reference to "not taking God's name in vain" any more than every reference to "worship" in the NT is a specific instance of "worship on Sabbath".

Again -- I am speaking here "as if" you take your argument seriously.

But time will tell.


Been there -- done that :thumbsup:

in Christ,

Bob

In each case, generally speaking, the Pharisees show contempt for Christ when he claims to be God. It is an attack against him. It is blasphemy.

It had nothing to do with the third commandment. I think you just agreed with me on that, so I am not sure why you have been disagreeing with me.

 

[BobRyan]

DHk -

This round started with Eric claiming that all the Commandments are repeated in the NT except the Sabbath commandment.

I pointed out that the 3rd commandment is not repeated in the NT and that the 4th commandment actually is quoted in part in the NT as well has having the strong affirmation of it in Heb 4 "there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God".

then Eric claimed that blasphemy is the way that the 3rd commandment is getting covered in the NT.

I respond that if you take that solution then you are claiming that a "generalization" for the 3rd commandment (claiming that Blasphemy is a more general term - that applies to any reference to-or-even-about God that is not acceptable) -- then using that same generalization rule we find that Sabbath is simply a special case of the more general concept "worship".

I then argue that it would not be right to claim that every instance of a reference to "worship" in the NT is in fact a reference to "Sabbath" - any more than every reference to blasphemy in the NT is a specific refernce to the 3rd Commandment.

It is at that point that you jumped in - and it "appeared" you were trying to find a way to support Eric's point.

Or were you trying to affirm mine?

If so - I truly missed it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

As already stated - your are generalizing the command "not to take God's name in vain" ( you even include the idea of making "a claim in vain" as also "taking God's name in vain) so that any variation (such as claiming to forgive sins) is considered a form of "disrespect" or some other generalization you are trying to insert into the 3rd commandment text - so as to claim that it is quoted or commanded in the NT.

Then Jesus is guilty of this same "generalizing" here:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:31 ¶ It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

But in so doing you open the door to the generalization of the Sabbath commandment as "Worship" and thus every mention of worship in the NT also becomes a reference to the 4th commandment.

Once you open the door to "generalization covers the commandment" then the Sabbath is easily included in the NT using the same rules.

Nobody here, or at least neither of us still debating this with you, have said that references to "worship" cover the sabbath. I don't even know where you got that from (it sounds like a diversionary tactic), though maybe someone else said something to that effect.

But in the case of the Sabbath we have the exact references "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

in the case of the 3rd commandment - no such exact wording "Taking God's name in vain REMAINS off limits to the people of God".

In fact in Acts and in Rev 14 we have an excerpt of the unique Sabbath commandment language "maker of heaven and earth and the seas" -- a phrase found only as a quote of the Sabbath commandment in all of scripture.

But in the case of the 3rd commandment - no exact excerpt "not take the Lord's name in vain" or "he will not hold him guiltless who takes the Lord's name in vain" etc.

So you're using a key word method when it suits you. The actual command for the sabbath is not "maker of heavens and earth". That's not a command; that's a description of God that He included int he command to identify who He was.

The command is :

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
[in the seventh] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates.

That's a command. And it's not seen in the New Testament. Not even in Hebrews. Notice, in Hebrews, it is changed from "thou shall not do any work" to "cease from his own workS". "workS" carries a totally different meaning in the NT from daily "work" required to make a living.

In each case, generally speaking, the Pharisees show contempt for Christ when he claims to be God. It is an attack against him. It is blasphemy.

It had nothing to do with the third commandment. I think you just agreed with me on that, so I am not sure why you have been disagreeing with me.

The connection to the third commandment in that case was not what the Pharisees said; it was what Jesus was being accused of. they were accusing Him of blasphemy.

Using the orinciple I cited above from the Sermon on the Mount, if a person however indirectly, attributes to himself the authority or characteristics of God, do you think he could really claim to be innocent of violating the third commandment? Of not taking God's name (even by implication) in vain? Just think of the person who "only" lusts or divorces, or "only" calls someone a name in anger, and thinks he hasn't "literally" broken any command.

Bob should understand this more than anyone, because the SDA's have a booklet called "The Christian Atheist" showing that to break one commandment you indirectly break them all. In fact, that is a common sabbatarian statement. They are all connected.
The reasoning in this booklet goes, that by breaking the fourth commandment, he is bringing death upon himself ("the wages of sin is death"), thus also violating the sixth commandment, and then that leads to another one being broken, until all ten have been violated.
While some of those may sound farfetched (and of course, we disagree with them on the sabbath), still it shows the connection. So I think we would agree that there is more evidence in the New Testament of the third commandment still being mandated in its original literal application, then the fourth. He's claiming there is less evidence for the third than for the fourth. So if we say we don't have to keep the fourth, then we don't have to keep the third either.

Blasphemy, but the Greek definition of the passage in question, is

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

That clearly violates the third commandment.

 

[BobRyan]

As already stated - your are generalizing the command "not to take God's name in vain" ( you even include the idea of making "a claim in vain" as also "taking God's name in vain) so that any variation (such as claiming to forgive sins) is considered a form of "disrespect" or some other generalization you are trying to insert into the 3rd commandment text - so as to claim that it is quoted or commanded in the NT.

Then Jesus is guilty of this same "generalizing" here:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Mat 5:31 ¶ It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Nobody here, or at least neither of us still debating this with you, have said that references to "worship" cover the sabbath.

That is because they "want" to use generalizations to "cover the 3rd commandment" regarding "not taking God's name in vain" - since they have no other way to get it into the NT -- but then they do NOT want to "notice" that the use of "generalizing" to get a commandment not quoted in the NT - to be "found in the NT" would also of necessity bring the Sabbath into the NT via the generalization of the fact that Sabbath is an act of worship.

The point remains.

The actual command for the sabbath is not "maker of heavens and earth".

The commandment is as follows -
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

That's not a command; that's a description of God that He included int he command to identify who He was.

Take it up with scripture. That is how God chose to word His own Sabbath Commandment.

Using the orinciple I cited above from the Sermon on the Mount, if a person however indirectly, attributes to himself the authority or characteristics of God, do you think he could really claim to be innocent of violating the third commandment? Of not taking God's name (even by implication) in vain?

If the use of "generalization" is used to insert "do not take God's name in vain" or the use of James "to break one is to break them all" (James 2-- not an SDA document) is used as the way to bring the wording of the 3rd commandment into the NT text - then you have covered the 4th commandment as well - BOTH ways.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

That is because they "want" to use generalizations to "cover the 3rd commandment" regarding "not taking God's name in vain" - since they have no other way to get it into the NT -- but then they do NOT want to "notice" that the use of "generalizing" to get a commandment not quoted in the NT - to be "found in the NT" would also of necessity bring the Sabbath into the NT via the generalization of the fact that Sabbath is an act of worship.

The point remains.


The commandment is as follows -
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Take it up with scripture. That is how God chose to word His own Sabbath Commandment.

Still; "heaven and earth and sea" are not the actual command. God is the same then and now. If He was maker of heaven and earth and the sea then, then He is also now. It doesn't mean He still commands the same things then and now just because one scripture from then, and one for now mention the same timeless attribute.
This is totally flimsy reasoning.

If the use of "generalization" is used to insert "do not take God's name in vain" or the use of James "to break one is to break them all" (James 2-- not an SDA document) is used as the way to bring the wording of the 3rd commandment into the NT text - then you have covered the 4th commandment as well - BOTH ways.

But we're not using "wording" to "bring the third commandment" over. We're using what the command means. Blasphemy is by definition, a way of taking God's name in vain. Now, if I took the word "blameless" for the third commandment, and then pointed to Luke 1:6, where the word is also used, and then used that as my sole evidence of the third commandment in the NT; that would be like what you are doing.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no possibility of stripping down the 4th commandment to less than what it says - even though the imperative component could be emphasized above or in addition to the narrative and "Reason" for that imperative.

Notice that in Isaiah 66 the imperative to come before God and worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath" remains as the duty of "all mankind".

But it is instructive that God says that the "Reason" man is obligated to keep the Sabbath - is that God' gave us that model - in Creation week.

The commandment is as follows -
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

God has a greater model than the original work of creation with its Sabbath that is now under the curse of sin. The work of redemption by Christ with the first day Sabbath is a better model that anticipates a better sinless creation to come which begins in the Eighth eternal day after the seventh thousand year millennium.

There is no possibility of stripping down the 4th commandment to less than what it says - even though the imperative component could be emphasized above or in addition to the narrative and "Reason" for that imperative.

But it is instructive that God says that the "Reason" man is obligated to keep the Sabbath - is that God' gave us that model - in Creation week.

The commandment is as follows -
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[BobRyan]

God has a greater model than the original work of creation with its Sabbath that is now under the curse of sin. The work of redemption by Christ with the first day Sabbath is a better model that anticipates a better sinless creation to come which begins in the Eighth eternal day after the seventh thousand year millennium.

An interesting idea -- what scripture says that?

In Isaiah 66 we have the same Sabbath as fits the context for Isaiah writing before the cross - being kept in the New Earth.

In Rev 21 - we see that the time of the New Earth is well beyond the time of the cross.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Still; "heaven and earth and sea" are not the actual command. God is the same then and now. If He was maker of heaven and earth and the sea then, then He is also now.

indeed He is - thus His statement in Is 66 that even in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath" ALL 'mankind will come before Me to worship" shows the unchanging nature of the unchanging Creator's Sabbath.

It doesn't mean He still commands the same things then and now just because one scripture from then, and one for now mention the same timeless attribute.
This is totally flimsy reasoning.

If a direct quote OF the 4th commandment does even count as a reference in the NT to the 4th commandment - then you have no chance at all with the 3rd commandment for which we do not even have a direct quote in the NT.

IF you go for "The command is simply a special case of the broader command against blasphemy" solution for the 3rd commandment - then you have the Sabbath in the NT - in triplicate under the broader concept of worship of the Creator PLUS a direct quote of the 4th commandment in Rev 14.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not necessarily. Psalms 118:20-24 was written long before Isaiah wrote. Leviticus 23 was written long before Isaiah wrote. The purpose stated in Deuteronomy for observing the Sabbath was written long before Isaiah wrote. There is no question that the prophetic types in the Leviticus feasts point to the New Covanant established by Christ rather than the Old established under Moses and they are contrasted (Heb. 8-9). There is no question that emphasis upon first day Sabbaths are found in Leviticus 23. I believe it can be reasonbly be demonstrated that Psalm 118 predicts another Sabbath day established by Christ to memorialize the resurrection.

An interesting idea -- what scripture says that?

In Isaiah 66 we have the same Sabbath as fits the context for Isaiah writing before the cross - being kept in the New Earth.

In Rev 21 - we see that the time of the New Earth is well beyond the time of the cross.

in Christ,

Bob