God's Ten Commandments? Still valid?

[BavarianWheels]

This is where we disagree.

Jesus isn't a perfect Law keeper?

I think Jesus is making the total opposite point in Mark 2 to what you are asserting.
In Mark 2 Jesus is equating working on the Sabbath (which is unlawful) with eating consecrated bread (which is also unlawful).

He's not equating them...otherwise He'd be guilty of the Sabbath command as originally uttered by Himself ( John 1:1 ) at creation. He's, then, making a distinction between their TRADITIONS of "keeping Sabbath" or what they called "sin" and what isn't a sin...picking grain.

This is similar to what Jesus does later in Mark 7.
Even though it was unlawful to eat certain foods, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declared all foods to be clean.
Again Jesus is drawing a distinction between what was considered to be 'unlawful' under the Law and behavior that is truly sinful.

There is no law in the Decalogue concerning foods...different declaration on different law.
.
.

[DBowling]

This is where we disagree.

Jesus isn't a perfect Law keeper?

Jesus is perfectly sinless.
Which is very different from your definition of perfect "law keeper" as Mark 2 and 7 demonstrate.

I think Jesus is making the total opposite point in Mark 2 to what you are asserting.
In Mark 2 Jesus is equating working on the Sabbath (which is unlawful) with eating consecrated bread (which is also unlawful).

He's not equating them...

Sure he is... it's right there in the text of Mark 2:23-28

Jesus is explicitly equating picking grain on the Sabbath with David eating consecrated bread.
Which is why I keep coming back to two key questions which you still haven't answered:

Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?
Was it a sin for David to eat consecrated bread?

[BavarianWheels]

Jesus is perfectly sinless.
Which is very different from your definition of perfect "law keeper" as Mark 2 and 7 demonstrate.

I don't know...how do you know what sin is, or for that matter what it means to be "sinless"?

Sure he is... it's right there in the text of Mark 2:23-28

Jesus is explicitly equating picking grain on the Sabbath with David eating consecrated bread.
Which is why I keep coming back to two key questions which you still haven't answered:

Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?
Was it a sin for David to eat consecrated bread?

Neither is sinful. There is no mention of eating a certain way on Sabbath in the Decalogue. Picking grain is only sinful on the Sabbath if you're a farmer picking/harvesting grain on the Sabbath to sell for your living, i.e. working on the Sabbath.
.
.

[DBowling]

Sure he is... it's right there in the text of Mark 2:23-28

Jesus is explicitly equating picking grain on the Sabbath with David eating consecrated bread.
Which is why I keep coming back to two key questions which you still haven't answered:

Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?
Was it a sin for David to eat consecrated bread?

Neither is sinful.

Ok... I think you answered my second question... and we agree.
It was not sinful to pick grain on the Sabbath.
It was not sinful for David to eat consecrated bread.

However, the first question then becomes very significant.
"Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?"
You haven't answered that question yet... (but Jesus does answer that specific question in Mark 2:26)

There is no mention of eating a certain way on Sabbath in the Decalogue.

Does this mean that your definition of "perfect Law keeper" is limited only to the 10 Commandments... and doesn't include the rest of the Law?

[BavarianWheels]

However, the first question then becomes very significant.
"Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?"
You haven't answered that question yet... (but Jesus does answer that specific question in Mark 2:26)

According to the passage, the bread was ok for the men to have if they were clean...
So it wasn't unlawful.

There is no mention of eating a certain way on Sabbath in the Decalogue.

Does this mean that your definition of "perfect Law keeper" is limited only to the 10 Commandments... and doesn't include the rest of the Law?

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

What "rest" of the law?
.
.

[DBowling]

However, the first question then becomes very significant.
"Was it lawful or unlawful for David to eat consecrated bread?"
You haven't answered that question yet... (but Jesus does answer that specific question in Mark 2:26)

According to the passage, the bread was ok for the men to have if they were clean...
So it wasn't unlawful.

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.

Again this a comparison that Jesus is explicitly making in Mark 2.

There is no mention of eating a certain way on Sabbath in the Decalogue.

Does this mean that your definition of "perfect Law keeper" is limited only to the 10 Commandments... and doesn't include the rest of the Law?

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

Acting against the will of God...

What "rest" of the law?

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

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

[DBowling]

I am still seeking answers from Christians about why many professed Christians sin against God's Commandments:

IMHO: I consider the ten commandments God's law and are therefore very important and to ignore His Laws is a grave sin against our Lord God.

Some thoughts on the OP...

The Scriptures tell us a number of things about "the Law" and some of those can appear to be in tension:
I think the two ends of the spectrum can be represented by Hebrews 8:13 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Hebrews 8:13 tells us

13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

So what does the "Old Covenant" becoming obsolete have to do with the 10 Commandments?
The 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law is part of the Old Covenant that God made with his covenant people Israel. And the Mosaic Law contained moral, ceremonial, and civil laws for God's covenant people Israel.

In Romans 7:7 Paul tells us that the Law shows us our sinfulness.
However, According to Hebrews 10:4, the Law is unable to take away sins. And according to Galatians 2:16 no one is justified by works of the Law.
So even though the Law shows us that we have a sin problem, the Law is unable to resolve the sin problem.

Which brings to Jesus. Scripture tells us some additional things about the Law as it relates to Jesus the Messiah.
Hebrews 10:1 and Colossians 2:17 tell us that the Law was a shadow of the reality that would come in Jesus Christ.
And Galatians 3:24 refers to the Law as a tutor that leads us to Christ.
So when the Word (who was God and who was with God) became flesh and dwelt among us, the reality that the Law pointed to took precedence over the shadow. And when Jesus actually resolved the sin problem through his death and resurrection Jesus fulfilled/accomplished/completed the Law.

So after the reality (who is Jesus) took care of the sin problem, the shadow (the Mosaic Law) became obsolete and God's covenant people were no longer required to obey the Mosaic Law.

However, that does not mean that God's covenant people are no longer required to obey God. In Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus shows the difference between obeying a list of laws and godly heart attitudes. Jesus is more interested in heart attitudes than works, because proper works will naturally flow from the proper heart attitude.
In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus summed up all the Law and Prophets with the following:

37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

Again the focus of Jesus was a heart attitude of love... love for God first, and then love for others.


So if the Old Covenant is 'obsolete' and God's covenant people are no longer required to obey the Mosaic Law, does that mean that we can throw away our Old Testaments?
Absolutely not!

This is where 2 Timothy 3:16-17 comes into play...

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

As the inspired Word of God the Mosaic Law is still "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"
The Mosaic Law still gives insight into the heart of God.
The Mosaic Law still shows us our sinfulness.
And the the Mosaic Law still points us to Jesus the Messiah.

Galatians 3:24-29

24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

[Philip]

OK, DB, so now differentiate the Mosaic Law from the Ten Commandments.

Also, what is your take on whether Christians today, no longer under The Law, should keep A Sabbath (but not THE Jewish one), or NO Sabbath at all? And if we are to still keep A Sabbath (of our own choosing), what aspects of keeping it are still (or no longer are) valid?

As I think those are some of the key points of argument. I see all of the Ten Commandments as still being valid today - except, perhaps, that I don't believe it matters WHICH day one honors God with A Sabbath.

[DBowling]

OK, DB, so now differentiate the Mosaic Law from the Ten Commandments.

I don't try to differentiate between the Mosaic Law and the 10 Commandments because the 10 Commandments ARE part of the Mosaic Law.

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.

Also, what is your take on whether Christians today, no longer under The Law, should keep A Sabbath (but not THE Jewish one), or NO Sabbath at all? And if we are to still keep A Sabbath (of our own choosing), what aspects of keeping it are still (or no longer are) valid?

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.

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.

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.

[Philip]

DB, I agree with your analysis. I guess one one the key confusions is that, excepting the Sabbath, those other commandments (of the ten) are still moral absolutes for all time - which is why I thought you might distinguish them apart from The Laws of the old covenant that we are no longer under. Some things were for a particular people for a particular time, and others are still relevant - and so the argument is much about what, exactly, are we to still observe, and what no longer applies.

[Philip]

I haven't had time to read through it, but this guy differentiates between the two:

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/different_laws.html

[neo-x]

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.

[DBowling]

DB, I agree with your analysis. I guess one one the key confusions is that, excepting the Sabbath, those other commandments (of the ten) are still moral absolutes for all time - which is why I thought you might distinguish them apart from The Laws of the old covenant that we are no longer under. Some things were for a particular people for a particular time, and others are still relevant - and so the argument is much about what, exactly, are we to still observe, and what no longer applies.

I would expect the moral absolutes of the teachings of Jesus and the moral absolutes of the Mosaic Law to be the same for a couple of reasons.
- in his humanity Jesus was a Jew
- in his Divinity, Jesus was the same YHWH who gave the Mosaic Law to his Covenant people Israel

However, the focus of Jesus was different from the focus that we see in the 10 Commandments.
For instance, let's look at what Jesus says about murder in his Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:21-26

21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

The focus of the 10 Commandments is on the behavior itself "You shall not murder".
The focus of Jesus is on the heart attitudes of anger and hatred which lead to murder, and other sinful behaviors.

So if a person has the heart attitude of love.
And if a person follows the teachings of Jesus 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 the behaviors resulting from that heart attitude of love for God and others will be consistent with the moral component of the Mosaic Law.

Which is why Jesus says
"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Stu]

DB, I agree with your analysis. I guess one one the key confusions is that, excepting the Sabbath, those other commandments (of the ten) are still moral absolutes for all time - which is why I thought you might distinguish them apart from The Laws of the old covenant that we are no longer under. Some things were for a particular people for a particular time, and others are still relevant - and so the argument is much about what, exactly, are we to still observe, and what no longer applies.

I would expect the moral absolutes of the teachings of Jesus and the moral absolutes of the Mosaic Law to be the same for a couple of reasons.
- in his humanity Jesus was a Jew
- in his Divinity, Jesus was the same YHWH who gave the Mosaic Law to his Covenant people Israel

However, the focus of Jesus was different from the focus that we see in the 10 Commandments.
For instance, let's look at what Jesus says about murder in his Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:21-26

21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Was Jesus referring to fellow Christians here, or anybody?

What if someone says that Jesus was not the son of God, can we as Christians not say to them, "You fool."?

[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...?
.
.