Legislating the 4th Commandment

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No sooner had Moses brought the Law down the mountain, or he shattered it on the ground ... and it was trampled upon like dust -- to show how Jesus God's Ultimate Law, would be trampled underfoot ... by a dancing crowd of sun-worshippers! The calf was a symbol and image of the sun-god Baal.

The Law was given on Shavuot; and it was on the Seventh Day Sabbath. Man's contempt for the Fourth Commandment started from very early on!

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry to disagree, here.

First, "the Law" did not make "Himself void:", nor "cause" the Lord Jesus to empty himself. He did that on His own and willingly, not under "cause". (Phl'p. 2:5-9)

That is true.

God's solution was not to "empty the law" or "undercut the law" or "destroy the Law" ... God's solution in salvation was to UPHOLD the Law for in ALL cases when the requirements of the Law are fulfilled the results is that it is UPHELD.

He had "another choice". He could simply abolish the Law of God by ignoring it -- save mankind and ignore the law. THATsolution ALWAYs results in making the law VOID and empty - defunct - ended.

But when the penalty that Law specifies IS upheld - IS provided (even at infinite cost to heaven itself) then the law is being UPHELD.

It was not only "What" but "Who" was sacrificed on the Cross. The "what" was the Lamb of God; the "Who" was the Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 5:7)

Excellent point. God was not placing His Law "on the cross" so it would suffer and die for mankind - but placing His SON on the cross to FULFILLL - to UPHOLD - to SUPPLY the penalty that HIS OWN Law required.

The law, i.e. the Law of Commandments, or the 'Law of Moses' was personally "nailed ... to the Cross" by the Lord Jesus Christ, himself.

That is the fiction for which we have no Bible text at all.

However - given your posting of it -- does that mean you would also vote to have laws that try to enforce a day of worship repealed? (Back to the OP and the actual point of the thread).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Opposed. Non Christians should not be forced to obey Christian commandments, and it is a violation of their rights as Americans.

love,

Sopranette

I agree.

Also, I read what Jesus said about the Golden Rule at Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. As a Christian, I would not want to be forced to observe a non-Christian religion's precepts, so I do not believe it is right to force non-Christians to observe Christian precepts.

Also, the Seventh-Day Adventist who started this thread raises an interesting point. Really: why Sunday? Why not Saturday, as Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists have for their religious day of the week? Why not Friday, like the Muslims?

How about a law where every employer is required to give every employee a set five-hour block
1) during one of the seven days of the week,
2) during the normal two shifts: 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
when they cannot be scheduled to work, and the employee must choose one? To avoid discrimination, this would required to be set after the person is hired.

If you are a `Sunday Christian,' your five-hour block can be 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. if your services are in the mornings. If in the afternoon, say 2:00 p.m., perhaps 1:00-6:00 p.m. might be best. If you are a `Saturday Christian' or Jew, the same respectively. If you are Muslim, the same for Friday.

If the person does not have a religion with set assembled-worship days, or is atheist, agnostic, or has no religion, s/he would still be required to set a five-hour block. This way, any religious person can get their time, but no religion is given privileged status, and unbelievers are not discriminated against.

 

[EdSutton]

That is true.

God's solution was not to "empty the law" or "undercut the law" or "destroy the Law" ... God's solution in salvation was to UPHOLD the Law for in ALL cases when the requirements of the Law are fulfilled the results is that it is UPHELD.

He had "another choice". He could simply abolish the Law of God by ignoring it -- save mankind and ignore the law. THATsolution ALWAYs results in making the law VOID and empty - defunct - ended.

But when the penalty that Law specifies IS upheld - IS provided (even at infinite cost to heaven itself) then the law is being UPHELD.



Excellent point. God was not placing His Law "on the cross" so it would suffer and die for mankind - but placing His SON on the cross to FULFILLL - to UPHOLD - to SUPPLY the penalty that HIS OWN Law required.



That is the fiction for which we have no Bible text at all.

However - given your posting of it -- does that mean you would also vote to have laws that try to enforce a day of worship repealed? (Back to the OP and the actual point of the thread).

in Christ,

Bob

I would not try to have any duly enacted laws repealed, unless I were in a legislative capacity, except perhaps to speak against them. I would and do vote for individuals whom I think are the most likely to consider the opinions that I hold.

That is not a dodge, BTW, but a recognition that a legislative body can enact whatever it chooses, that are not un-Constitutional. (Also a promise form a politician that he or she will "get a law changed" is more reason to vote for another candidate, than vote for the individual making such a promise, especially running for the top executive office in the US, the State, or the county. That is the job of the elected representatives of the legislatures, not the Chief executive, BTW. His or her role is only to "recommend ... such measures ...".

There is no requirement, anywhere, that a law has to make "good sense".

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR/Ed S:
"God's solution was not to "empty the law" or "undercut the law" or "destroy the Law" ... God's solution in salvation was to UPHOLD the Law for in ALL cases when the requirements of the Law are fulfilled the results is that it is UPHELD.

GE

You don't 'undercut' the Law; you cut it apart. The Law of God is One: His Word, Jesus Christ. Whatever God does to His Law He does to Jesus Christ; whatever men were able to do to God's Law they do to Christ. The Letter-Law is never to 'remain valid' again. Because it was Jesus Christ who was nailed to the cross to destroy the Written Law whereby nothing but death ever came. But Christ wrought LIFE!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No matter who said it -- The Truth:
"It was not only "What" but "Who" was sacrificed on the Cross. The "what" was the Lamb of God; the "Who" was the Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 5:7) "

No matter who said it -- of this Truth the direct negation, contradiction and rejection :

"God was not placing His Law "on the cross" so it would suffer and die for mankind - but placing His SON on the cross to FULFILLL - to UPHOLD - to SUPPLY the penalty that HIS OWN Law required."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"But when the penalty that Law specifies IS upheld - IS provided (even at infinite cost to heaven itself) then the law is being UPHELD."

In Jesus' suffering, dying and death, the Law in Him and with Him is being dragged through depth and fires of eternal damnation. The 'infinite cost to 'heaven' was the Law's annihilation; or rather Annihilation with a capital letter; for the very destruction of the Law was that of Christ's. But the Law is UPHELD in that Jesus Conquered death and hell and grave and sin in that He rose from the dead again.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That, beloved brothers in Jesus Christ, is how the Fourth commandment too, survived the ordeal, or rather, revived from the ordeal. Faced with the resurrected Christ, you are faced with the revived, stronger, purged and purer Sabbath-Law of the LORD your God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"The law, i.e. the Law of Commandments, or the 'Law of Moses' was personally "nailed ... to the Cross" by the Lord Jesus Christ, himself.

That is the fiction for which we have no Bible text at all."

GE
O no? "I have the power to lay down my life ... I lay it down Myself." Jesus said His will - or life; or pleasure - was to do the Father's will. Jesus is in Person the Law we call the Law of Moses but was God's Law every step of the way.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Since when do you deny, BR, Moses' Law was God's Law?

I think myself, since always, the way the legalists have looked upon it!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by Sopranette
Opposed. Non Christians should not be forced to obey Christian commandments, and it is a violation of their rights as Americans.

love,

Sopranette


Darron Steele,

I agree.


GE
Besides, it's wishful thinking they could! They can't because no one can. God GIVES obedience to His Law -- which to the Christian is one thing only - to follow Christ. No one is able to of himself come to Christ. 'Steps to Christ' the greatest and most famous lie; 'Steps with Christ' - a bit truer; 'Steps of Christ "to-usward": There's the Full Truth most infamous and insulting to the legalists.

 

[BobRyan]

BR:
"But when the penalty that Law specifies IS upheld - IS provided (even at infinite cost to heaven itself) then the law is being UPHELD."

In Jesus' suffering, dying and death, the Law in Him and with Him is being dragged through depth and fires of eternal damnation. The 'infinite cost to 'heaven' was the Law's annihilation; .

Law does not work that way in real life or in scripture. When the Judge UPHOLDS the penalty that the law demands -- the law is being ESTABLISHED rather than abolished.

Abolished laws - have no penalty paid.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I agree.

Also, I read what Jesus said about the Golden Rule at Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. As a Christian, I would not want to be forced to observe a non-Christian religion's precepts, so I do not believe it is right to force non-Christians to observe Christian precepts.

Also, the Seventh-Day Adventist who started this thread raises an interesting point. Really: why Sunday? Why not Saturday, as Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists have for their religious day of the week? Why not Friday, like the Muslims?

How about a law where every employer is required to give every employee a set five-hour block .

Good point -- and that is the problem with legislating "worship" or Laws "that enforce some aspect of worship". The first four commandments (and possibly the 10th commandment) are not "legislatable" without getting into the human rights abuses of the dark ages.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Bob: From how my post was quoted, it could be misperceived that I consider Seventh-Day Adventists to be non-Christians.

In that post, I referred to "`Sunday Christians'" and "`Saturday Christians.'" I certainly consider Seventh-Day Adventist Christians to be Christians.

I know you did not intend to make me seem to think otherwise. I just wanted to preempt a misunderstanding.

 

[BobRyan]

Understood -- I did not think your intent was to define Sabbath keeping Christians as "not really Christians". No problem there at all.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Law does not work that way in real life or in scripture. When the Judge UPHOLDS the penalty that the law demands -- the law is being ESTABLISHED rather than abolished.

Abolished laws - have no penalty paid.

in Christ,

Bob

GE
In the Scriptures it does. What would you have said is the Law's function? its only 'good'? Not, 'To bring us to Christ'? Well then, "Knowing the Goodness of God (which is Christ out and out) leadeth thee to repentance", what need one the Law therefore? Without any use left, the Law has been 'pensioned off', says Paul. -- I mean, the 'Law' as you see the Law. But see Christ the Law of God, the Law of God overcame death which is sin's reward: NOT the Law's penalty.

 

[BobRyan]

GE
In the Scriptures it does.

Well we can all see that in real life that reasoning does not work.

And in scripture we see Paul saying that the Law is NOT abolished but rather "ESTABLISHED" just as we see happening in REAL life when the law's penalties are UPHELD rather than "ignored".

Having this confirmed BOTH in real life and in scripture is pretty "helpful" for the POV I have been recommending.

However - It does not seem to help your suggestion above.

 

[BobRyan]

Having said that - I am not arguing this side-point with GE as if to say that laws regarding worship should be legislated by the state. (Which is the topic of this thread).

In fact - the majority here who voted seem to get that point clearly.

It is good to see that reason prevails!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Chris Davenport]

definitely should follow the 10 commandments