God's Law

blhowes · #1 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:05 AM

I've been looking at the law in the scriptures recently, particularly those verses in the NT that talk about aspects of the law (sacrifices) that Christians are no longer expected to observe, and others that they are (moral law). I'm trying to get a handle on what the verses collectively say about the law. I'm sure I'll have a lot of questions as time goes on.

I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

I'm thinking God said "Thou shalt not..." once, that's enough. Unless He says differently in the NT, the commandment stands.

greenbaggins · #2 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:06 AM

WCF 19 is excellent on this, as is LC 99.

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

Charles Ryrie--Dispensationalism.

Joshua · #4 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:15 AM

You've got a PM, Brother Bob.

blhowes · #5 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

WCF 19 is excellent on this, as is LC 99.

Thanks. I did take a look at the 1689 coverage of the law. They (1689 and WCF) sure do give a good starting point for such a study.

NaphtaliPress · #6 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:29 AM

For those who don't have the Larger Catechism, here is Q&A 99, with some commentary from my text study for interest.

Quote:

Q.99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:

(1) That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience, forever; so as, to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. (o)

(2) That it is spiritual; and so, reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul, as well as words, works, and gestures. (p)

(3) That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. (q)

(4) That, as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; (r) and, where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded: (s) so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; (t) and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. (u)

(5) That, what God forbids, is at no time to be done; (w) what he commands, is always our duty, (x) yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. (y)

(6) That, under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. (z)

(7) That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. (a)

(8) That, in what is commanded to others, we are bound according to our places and callings to be helpful to them; (b) and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them. (c)

o PSA 19:7; JAM 2:10; MAT 5:21 to the end. [MAT 5:20 to the end; first verse given in text though is verse 21. Also in Duncan and 1771np. Corrected by KNCDa.

p ROM 7:14; DEU 6:5; With MAT 22:37-39; MAT 5:21-22, 27-28, 36 to the end. [Dunlop and L&Rbc drop the MAT 5 reference altogether. RP retained it.] [Rothwell etc Compared With]

q COL 3:5; AMO 8:5; PRO 1:19; 1TI 6:10 [RPc had AMO 8:3]

r ISA 58:13; DEU 6:13; With MAT 4:9-10; MAT 15:4-6 [Rothwell ibid]

s MAT 5:21-25; EPH 4:28 [Dunlop and L&Rbc drop vs 25 from the MAT reference].

t EXO 20:12; With PRO 30:17 [Rothwell ibid]

u JER 18:7-8; EXO 20:7; With PSA 15:1, 4-5; And PSA 24:4-5 [Rothwell Compared With and And With]]

w JOB 13:7-8; ROM 3:8; JOB 36:21; HEB 11:25

x DEU 4:8-9

y MAT 12:7

z MAT 5:21-22, 27-28; MAT 15:4-6; HEB 10:24-25; 1TH 5:22; JUD 23; GAL 5:26; COL 3:21 [JUD 22 in RPc].

a EXO 20:10; LEV 19:17; GEN 18:19; JOS 24:15; DEU 6:6-7

b 2CO 1:24

c 1TI 5:22; EPH 5:11

Variants:
1)The rules for rightly understanding the Ten Commandments in Larger Catechism 99 seem to have first been numbered in the Dillingham Latin translation first published by John Field in 1656 (DLL). MAX did not number them, but RTHb does so, as do THIRD, SNDRS, and SWTNab. See Coldwell, “The Development of the Traditional Form of The Westminster Standards” CPJ 1.169.
2)“commandments these rules”: MSa.
3)(1) observed.”: MSa; MAX; RothB; RPa. (2) “observed;” MSb; L&Rc. (3) “observed,”: THIRD; FOURTH; COX; DNLP; L&Rb. (3) “observed:”: E.Rob?; but may be broken type and a semi-colon. Duncan and 1771np have the semi-colon.
4)In Rule 1: “conformity, in”: MSb.
5)“whole man, unto”: MSS.
6)“obedience forever; so”: MSa; W1438; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob. (2) “forever, so”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; E.Rob. (3) “so as to”: W1438; Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob; RPc.
7)“and, to forbid”: MSb.
8)In Rule 2: “spiritual, and”: MSS; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
9)“so reacheth”: FOURTH; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob.
10)“soul; as”: Dunlop; L&Rbc. [corrected; typo of “soul; and” in previous files]. E.Rob has the comma.
11)“works and”: MSa.
12)In Rule 3: “same things”: MSb.
13)“required, or”: MSS.
14)“forbidden, in”: MSa.
15)In Rule 4: (1) That as where”: MSa; Dunlop. (2) That as, where”: RP; L&R; E.Rob.
16)(1) “is forbidden &, where a sin”: W1438. (2) “forbidden, and where”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (3) “forbidden; and where”: Dunlop; RPa; L&R. (4) “forbidden,— and where” … “included, — and where”: RPc.
17)(1) “forbidden, the contrary”: MSb; AM; Tyler; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob. (2) “forbidden; the”: W1438.
18)“commanded; so”: RP; E.Rob.
19)(1) “so where”: W1438; FOURTH; Dunlop. (2) “and where”: W1438; Dunlop; RPc.
20)(1) “included: and”: Tyler. (2) “included, and”: E.Rob. (3) “and where”: E.Rob.
21)In Rule 5: “That what”: MSa; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX; Dunlop; E.Rob.
22)“forbids is”: MSa.
23)(1) “done: what”: MSa. (2) “done, what”: Tyler; MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX.
24)commands is”: MSa.
25)(1) “duty; yet”: MSa; W1438. (2) “our duty, and yet”: MAX; RothB; THIRD; FOURTH; COX. (3) “our duty; and yet”: Dunlop; RP; L&R; E.Rob. (4) “our duty: and yet”: RPc. Rothwell ‘A’ (MAX) added the “and” prior to “yet.”
26)In Rule 6: “That under”: MSS; FOURTH; Dunlop; L&R.
27)“sin, or duty”: MSa.
28)“forbidden, or”: MSa.
29)“commanded; together”: Dunlop; L&R; E.Rob.
30)“occasions and”: RPa.
31)In Rule 7: “That, what”: MSb; RP.
32)“bound according”: Dunlop.
33)“forbidden, or”: MSa.
34)“avoided, or”: MSa.
35)“performed, by”: MSb.
36)“to, the duty”: AM.
37)In Rule 8: “That in”: MSa; Dunlop; L&Rb. The comma is in L&Rc; 1771np.
38)“others we”: FOURTH.
39)“bound, accordingly”: MSb; RPc.
40)“places, and”: MSa.
41)“callings, to”: MSS; E.Rob; RPc.
42)(1) “them, and”: MAX; RothB; FOURTH; COX; RP; E.Rob. (2) “them and”: THIRD.
43)“and, to”: MSS.

blhowes · #7 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:33 AM

Its a shame sometimes the law gets such "negative coverage" sometimes. Here's something good to keep in mind with any study about the law, taken from a blog entry that Josh wrote:

First, what does God’s Word say about God’s Law? Many things. My personal favorite follows thus from Psalm 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold;sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.
11 Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

More good thoughts here.

blhowes · #8 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

For those who don't have the Larger Catechism, here is Q&A 99, with some commentary from my text study for interest.

Thanks, Chris.

blhowes · #9 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Charles Ryrie--Dispensationalism.

I'll try and google it, but do you know off the top of your head why he said God needed to repeat the commandment(s) in the NT?

Pilgrim · #10 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

Charles Ryrie--Dispensationalism.

This is why dispensationalists typically will say that the 4th commandment has been abrogated, arguing that it wasn't explicitly restated in the NT as the other 9 were.

Dispensationalism certainly popularized this teaching and it may have originated with dispys. But it goes back further than Ryrie.

Contra_Mundum · #11 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 02:15 PM

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Its amazing to me to note how there is more direct and indirect teaching by Jesus on this 4th commandment than on any other of the 10. And yet people quickly assert "I don't have to remember it."

timmopussycat · #12 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blhowes

I do have one question for starters that I've sometimes wondered about. Some people say that the 10 commandments are valid (for lack of a better word) today to the extent that they're repeated somewhere in the NT. I was just wondering where that idea came from. Is there some biblical support for that kind of thinking?

I'm thinking God said "Thou shalt not..." once, that's enough. Unless He says differently in the NT, the commandment stands.

Those who say that that the commandments are valid only if repeated in the NT are missing something. There is more in the OT than the Mosaic/Sinaitic/Old Covenant made specifically with Israel. There is also pre-Mosaic instruction given to all men such as the death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6). These instructions have never been revoked by God and remain valid today. Included in these instructions are the moral law written on the hearts of all men and women from Adam down to the latest newborn.

But if God says "Thou shalt not..." in a Sinaitic stipulation the case is a little more complicated. That covenant was made between God and Israel not God and all men. It reiterated the moral law as the decalogue, and contained ceremonial and civil stipulations as well. When that covenant was superseded by the new, it ended, and is no longer covenantally obliging on any today.

Yet although the ceremonial laws have been "abrogated" in Christ's new covenant fulfillment, the substance of the decalogue and some of the civil laws remain obligatory for different reasons than covenant obligation. The decalogue remains obligatory by virtue of the fact that it is the moral law given to all men pre-Sinai and never revoked, and some of the civil stipulations will remain obligatory because they remain just despite the change in covenants.

timmopussycat · #13 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Why do you think a weekly sabbath is meant here? In context, Heb. 4:9 appears to refer not to a weekly sabbath but a more permanent condition under the name of sabbath rest, something that believers are exhorted to enter into.

satz · #14 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

Blueridge Believer · #15 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?

satz · #16 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?

James... thanks for that... however, I was thinking about references in the apostles (meaning the epistles) and not the gospels. I'am aware of the many references to the sabbath in the gospels, I just can't think of any in the epistles, apart from hebrews.

Daniel Ritchie · #17 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of course, the fourth commandment was "repeated" in the New Testament, that is, assuming you think that Jesus' sanction and corrective teachings respecting it are as normative as the rest of his doctrine. And elsewhere in the apostles; and see the book of Hebrews, e.g. 4:9.

Could you point me to the references where the apostles repeat the fourth commandment? I can't think of any at the moment...

There isn't a direct one, however there is none that tell us that the 4th is repealed either.
The Lord says:

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Is the sabbath still made for man?

If men made in the image of God still exist (which they do), then there must still be a Sabbath rest for their good.

blhowes · #18 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

James... thanks for that... however, I was thinking about references in the apostles (meaning the epistles) and not the gospels. I'am aware of the many references to the sabbath in the gospels, I just can't think of any in the epistles, apart from hebrews.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Isn't that a reference to the sabbath?

Blueridge Believer · #19 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:35 PM

Pay close attention to what the apostle Paul says in Acts 24. This was spoken after he had written 1&2 Cor, Romans, and Galatians for sure:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

He says he still beleives all things written in the law and the prophets. Would that include the sabbath?

satz · #20 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Pay close attention to what the apostle Paul says in Acts 24. This was spoken after he had written 1&2 Cor, Romans, and Galatians for sure:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

He says he still beleives all things written in the law and the prophets. Would that include the sabbath?

Surely it would, but it would also include the animal sacrifices, levitical priesthood etc etc. I don't think that verse is an argument for keeping the sabbath.

By the way, I am not making pushing any position here. I was just wondering if I missed any verses on this topic.

Joshua · #21 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Of