Originally posted by Eric B:
And this is all we are saying. Though it is true that some of us do carelessly say "the law was abolished", what that really refers to the issue of certain applications of the letter of the Law.
It is this type of rationalizing or caviling that leads directly to antinomianism and that is why I make no discernment between your doctrine and antinomianism. Your eisegetical appeal to “certain applications of the letter of the law” falters upon the scriptural evidence that Yahshua came to magnify the law and make it honorable (Isaiah 42:21).
• “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill… But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” Matthew 5:21-22
• “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28
The transgression of the law is not only in the deed or letter but in premeditation also! The letter embraces the deed while the spirit is concerned with premeditation. Yahshua did not mitigate the deed or letter of the law; he magnified it and embraced the spirit, which concerns premeditation of the deed also. Ipso facto—the spirit of the law is more encompassing than the letter—but NERVER mitigates the letter!
For instance, it is still sin to make and worship graven images according to the letter, but avoidance of the aforementioned does not mitigate idolatry of money, nationalism, and etcetera—which are conditions of the heart and mind. Holding the title of the Creator in irreverence in deed is still transgression of the letter, but that irreverence or sin commences in the heart and mind. There is absolutely no relaxation of the letter concerning the Decalogue. Your doctrine is specious and leads to antinomianism!
Moreover, your position on the distinction between the ceremonial and Decalogue is also mere caviling. While the Hebrews new no such distinction under the Old Covenant that does not preclude that the distinction existed and the evidence of this is in the New Testament.
“For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law…. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” NIV Hebrews 7:12, 18-19
We are not left to guess or interject our own ideas how the law changed according to your doctrine. It is clearly revealed that there are certain laws that are set aside; nowhere is their mention that there is departure or mitigation of the letter for the spirit; that is a man-made contrivance. The regulations or laws that were set aside concerned Yahshua priesthood and the criterion is that they were weak and not intended to make anything perfect. We find the criterion amplified in the same book.
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.” NIV Hebrews 10:1-2
The Decalogue is NOT a shadow of good things to come to be set aside; the Decalogue merely points to sin and is still profitable for that very purpose in letter and spirit. The criterion points to the sacrificial system or the ceremonial laws that were truly set aside.
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” NIV Hebrews 10:15-18
The sacrificial system was set aside because it made no one perfect and Yahshua, being of the tribe of Judah, could not become our high priest so long and the aforementioned continued to have standing. The sacrificial system ceased to have any significance and was set aside by the remission of our sins at the cross, but the necessity to expose sin still persists and is the purpose of the Decalogue, which is the law for heart and mind above. There certainly is a distinction between the ceremonial and moral Decalogue in the New Testament, even if the Hebrews of the past were ignorant of it.
Originally posted by Eric B:
It was audibly given and kept inside the ark ecause it was the summary of the ntire Law of Moses. That's what is meant by saying the 613 hung on the Ten. But nowhere do we see any criterion that being audibly given or kept in a certain place ment they were the universal laws for all mankind of all tiem. Still, the Ten were addressed to Israel. The rest of the world had seven basic laws, of which included several were shared with the Ten.
That the laws of the sacrificial system hung on the Decalogue does not preclude the ephemeral nature of former and perpetual and moral nature of the latter revealed in Hebrews above. Clearly, the significance that Yahweh wrote and audibly gave the Decalogue, as opposed to the positive statues of the ceremonial laws, is greater than your doctrine. By placing the fourth commandment in the center of the Decalogue it is clear that the Father gave the commandment the same standing as the other nine. The other nine are moral and perpetual and by no means ephemeral; the forth has the same standing according to Yahweh.
Originally posted by Eric B:
There is no such criterion given in the Bible as to this being why some laws continue and not others. Circumcision required no theocracy either. And some groups still believe the annual ceremonies are still binding as well.
As I’ve shown in Hebrews, your view on the criterion concerning the law is erroneous. Moreover, Paul makes it clear that if one attempts to put oneself under the PERFORMANCE of the ceremonial law again, they are cursed if they continue in not all things written thereof.
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Galatians 3:10
Of course Paul’s main dispute centers on circumcision and this concerns performance, the object of the ceremonies—which circumcision fell under. Under the first covenant the Hebrews were required to PERFORM certain ceremonies and if they did not perform them according to the letter of the law they were cursed and this supports my previous position that without a physical temple all those who hold themselves under the ceremonial laws again are ultimately cursed.
The Decalogue concerns abstinence not performance; the object of the expression “thou shalt not”. By grace we can abstain from stealing and find righteousness. By grace we can abstain from taking the name in vain and find righteousness. By grace we can abstain from work and doing our own pleasure on the Sabbath and find righteousness. Even the fifth, if by grace we abstain from dishonoring our parents then there is no performance involved. There is no performance involved in the Decalogue and again this distinguishes it from the ephemeral nature of the ceremonial laws.
Originally posted by Eric B:
The "standing" was to Israel, whom the Ten were addressed to. After all, it was the "sign" that THEY were His people, so yes, it had a very central position. But God never expected anyone else to keep it. If they joined the nation of Israel, then they would, but their not keeping it when not in Israel was never judged as apart of the "sins" of "the nations" like idolatry, lasciviousness, etc. Remember, God was working in stages, and a "nation" being a "light to the world" was only necessary in the first place because of the Fall. But this nation was just as sinful as anyone else even with the whole Law, so then God moved to the next stage of His plan, and it was no longer about people joining the Old Covenant nation of Israel with its physical "signs". It was now a spiritual Israel with spiritual signs (Rev.14:1, notice the absence of "hands"); "written in the heart" as you mentioned.
We’ve already been through this; Yahweh certainly did expect the nations around it to keep it for the Sabbath was made for man generic, not just genetic. The object of Israel was to ultimately subject the Ethnos under Yahweh’s people that all flesh keep the Sabbath.
“
He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet. He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah…. God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.” Psalms 47:3-4, 8-9
“And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 66:23
Originally posted by Eric B:
And we say that it is, and Hebrews 4 is one explanation of how it is. Once again, it is no longer about physical signs, for that is not in the heart. Nobody would be naturally convicted of the need to keep this without reading the letter of the Law. They are, however, convicted of the moral law. The sabbath is not a moral law. It is not "Love to your fellow neighbor". It would have fallen under "Love for God", but even there, it is not universal like the prohibitions against other gods, idols and blasphemy.
What is moral is perennially exact and as we saw this truly concerns abstinence not performance. If man were not continually convicted that it is moral to allow for periodic abstinence from work then we would not have secular society acknowledging the need for periodic rest, but we see even secular society acknowledging the morality of periodic rest from work.
But the perennial moral precept concerning this rest stems truly from Yahweh because He knew that man was not only a physical creature but a spiritual one that needed perennial periodic abstinence from toil and the revitalizing of his spirit in the domestic moral precept of the Sabbath. That is why Yahweh sanctified and blessed the seventh-day for man, generic, and gave it to man from the beginning. It is simply myopic to not to acknowledge that, just as Yahweh attended to mans’ needs for companionship in a mate, He also attended to mans’ physical and spiritual needs in the Sabbath. There is no evidence in the New Covenant that Yahweh abrogated the Sabbath or sanctified another day; man has merely attempted the hubris to think he can change the day and moral precept.
Clearly, the moral law is embodied by the Decalogue and Yahweh is still using it to write upon the minds and hearts of those under his New Covenant. As I stated above, Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing as the moral law and that simply can’t be avoided.
Michael