Uh oh, I’ve received the Bacchiocchi “kiss of death”.

Seriously, I am not attempting to be conformed to any particular theologian’s view, rather, I’m trying to speak my conscience and do justice to the biblical text.  I am not the last word and I know we won’t all agree on it either, because this is the nature of fallible human interpretation.

Regardless, it is my hope and prayer that God will see past our inability to pull the exact meaning out of the Bible, so long as our faith is in Jesus.

May He sanctify us by His Word, because His Word is truth (John 17:17), and may we handle it well (2 Timothy 2:15).

Greg

I am sorry to keep referring to the thread on FAF, but there is a fairly dramatic post by river, and you can tell the struggle occuring in this man’s mind, who himself is not a former SDA, but he has had quite a presence on FAF:

[quote author="river"]
Colleen,
Your quote: Chris, I completely agree with you. River, I appreciate your explanation above, and I understand your perspective, but I believe that if we are not under the law, then using the New Covenant and the New Testament need to be the place we turn to for instruction in righteousness.

Well, if you agree with Dennis, and I certainly agree with ever word he said, then why would you even hint that a person is limited to preaching to the lost from the New Testament?

Chris wrote: Does this conform to the approach taken in the book of Acts to spreading the Gospel? I think not.

Did I say something in my original post that brought confusion? All I was saying in my original post was that the Ten C,s can be a valuable tool in preaching to the lost, not Christians.
I understood what Chris said although I thought it quite shocking.

Here is what the Bible says about it.
Timothy II 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Timothy II 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Not just some of it, all of it. Does this agree with your statement?

Now my quote: So we are free to use the law lawfully and yet we ourselves are bound only by the law of love in Christ Jesus.
Here is what the Bible says: Timothy I 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
Timothy I 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
Timothy I 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

I just do not get why anyone would skirt the 10 C,s because of the forth commandment.
Have my brains leaked out?
As Dennis so aptly put it: It is actually very easy to explain that the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial with its shewbread and double sacrifices pointing to Jesus.

Now your quote:” I agree with you, Dennis–there is never an excuse to say or even hint that the moral principles of the Ten Commandments are done away with. Romans 1 through 5 really explain that God’s moral principles preceded the law. God and His own morality (which He puts in our hearts when He indwells us when we are born from above) are eternal–and humanity has never been without God’s moral principles in the world, either before or after the law.”

Then what does not conform to the gospel message in using the 10 C,s in pointing to the fact that we have all sinned and pointing to the savior?”

---------------------------------------------------------

That thread has been interesting to read, and mirrors the same struggles with this topic that Christians have had for a long time.

Well said Greg in your posts above.

If all scripture is given by inspiration of God, then so is the Decalogue. But my only objection, Guibox, to Bacchiocci, on this topic, is not seeing the larger spiritual implications of the Sabbath commandment as I said above:

“The fourth commandment as a particular day was meant for Israel alone. (See Exodus 31, and Leviticus 23 where the Sabbath is equated with all the other feast days, and in Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2) we see that the Sabbath is now an ongoing 24/7 command to enter into God’s rest. This is clearly what the 7th day Sabbath symbolized, and in fact it was a symbol of Holiness, as well as a picture of salvation. This is the only explanation as to why the man in Numbers 15 was stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. The penalty in the OT for breaking the Sabbath was a capital punishment. If Sabbath breaking was such a serious crime in the New Covenant, and the Sabbath was to be the final test of salvation, then, why did not the apostles who wrote the epistles think the Sabbath was important?”
---------------------------------------------------------

So the New Covenant view of the Law would seem to command a Sabbath rest in Christ 24/7, and the Sabbath pointed to Christ, who lives in our hearts in the New Covenant age, and enables us to obey God in a way that Old Covenant community was not able. Ths is why Jesus and the apostles expand on the basic decalogue and proscribe even a higher standard of righteousness. But it seems troubling to say that the moral law of God was nailed to the cross.

Thanks Greg for the words of that hymn “It is well with my soul”

Stan

Stan or Greg,

Can you tell me what Dennis is talking about in regard to the sacrifices and shewbread and the Sabbath? Is there a particular chapter or section of the Bible he is referring to?

Glenn, this appears to be a reference to Leviticus 24:5: “You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf.” The theologian A.W. Pink referred to this in his book “Gleanings in Exodus,” saying:

[quote author="A.W. Pink"]
The cakes were made of “fine flour” (Lev. 25:5) in which was no grit or unevenness, foreshadowing the moral perfections of the Word as He tabernacled among men. “Pure frankincense” was placed upon them, emblematic of the active graces of Christ, and assuring us that those who are in Christ are ever before God according to the value and fragrance of His blessed Son. Every Sabbath these cakes were renewed, so that they were “before the Lord continually” (Lev. 24:8); never was the Table un-supplied. “The loaves being placed on the Table every Sabbath day may accord with the fact that it was when the spiritual sabbath, the rest for our souls, obtained by Christ’s atonement, was gained, that He took His place in the presence of God for us” (Mr. C. H. Bright). Each cake contained two “tenth deals” or omers of flour (Lev. 24:5). This is indeed precious. A double portion is the thought suggested (contrast Exodus 16:16, 36), foreshadowing the truth that Christ is the Food or delight of both God and His people. In Leviticus 21:21 it is expressly called “The bread of his (the priest’s) God.”

I’m not certain about the sacrifices and I am quick to admit my ignorance when it comes to the Levitical sanctuary service. Maybe Stan or someone else can answer this more definitively.

What I think Dennis was showing was that the Sabbath was infused with ceremonial practices that are clearly no longer practiced by even the most staunch Sabbatarian today.  Nobody “keeps” the Sabbath in the way God commanded the Israelites to keep it, again pointing to its specific purpose for a particular people at a particular time in a particular geographic region.  This observance cannot be duplicated outside of the Jewish theocracy as it existed over two thousand years ago and therefore, the argument for keeping the Sabbath as a purely moral law is weak.

Greg

Numbers 28-29 specify required offerings (Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Yearly, Special)

Weekly Offerings:
Num 28:9-10 NASB ‘Then on the sabbath day two male lambs one year old without defect, and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and its drink offering:  (10) ‘This is the burnt offering of every sabbath in addition to the continual burnt offering and its drink offering.

Thanks, Greg and Brian for the references.

[quote author="Greg"]the argument for keeping the Sabbath as a purely moral law is weak.

What does it mean to say that a law is “moral”?

[quote author="Stan"]But my only objection, Guibox, to Bacchiocci, on this topic, is not seeing the larger spiritual implications of the Sabbath commandment as I said above:

“The fourth commandment as a particular day was meant for Israel alone. (See Exodus 31, and Leviticus 23 where the Sabbath is equated with all the other feast days, and in Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2) we see that the Sabbath is now an ongoing 24/7 command to enter into God’s rest. This is clearly what the 7th day Sabbath symbolized, and in fact it was a symbol of Holiness, as well as a picture of salvation. This is the only explanation as to why the man in Numbers 15 was stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. The penalty in the OT for breaking the Sabbath was a capital punishment. If Sabbath breaking was such a serious crime in the New Covenant, and the Sabbath was to be the final test of salvation, then, why did not the apostles who wrote the epistles think the Sabbath was important?”

Stan, I’m not sure I follow regarding the larger spiritual implications of the Sabbath. That is, I don’t think the fact that a specific command had a larger spiritual implication necessarily means that it’s more specific and immediate meaning is irrelevant.

Consider the prohibition against idolatry. It’s most immediate, specific meaning has to do with not worshipping material idols, figurines meant to depict gods and goddesses in the heavens or on the earth (2nd Commandment). But there were also larger spiritual implications and meanings to the commandment about idolatry (1st Commandment), those pertaining to the idolatry of the heart in which the something is placed in value above God, and could be an image or something else tangible or something that was less tangible, say an attitude or particular ambition. Likewise, Jesus gave wider spiritual applications to just about all the Ten Commandments, including murder and adultery, but this didn’t meant that the tangible, actual implications of those commandments were eradicated.

I’m not sure I follow why you think the death penalty was applied in the case of the person gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Are we children of the bondwoman or of the free? Wow! It seems that there is such an aversion to living according to the Spirit, such an aversion to not being under the law(10C), such an aversion to accepting that Christ is the END of the law for righteousness for those who believe.

A comment was made that “Jesus was the first person to get into heaven by His good works.” Poppycock. Which is greater; heaven or the Creator of heaven? Christ’s righteousness is not law(10C) based.

It is imperitive that we hear the law(10C). The law was given specifically to sinners who, by their very nature, could not fulfill it. It speaks to exacting righteous attitudes and deeds. And precisely because it does so, and because sinners do not measure up, it’s real purpose is one of condemnation.

But the law(10C) does not and can not condemn those who believe and accept Christ as the end of the law for righteousness. To those who do so, the old covenant/law(10C) is obsolete and is passing away for we cry out “Abba, Father”. We are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

The law(10C) is against sinners, the unbelievers. It condemned sinners when given and it condemns sinners now. That is its ‘lawful purpose’. The intended result is to have us look to Christ for life. He has made us free from the only ‘lawful purpose’ of the law and we are free indeed!

Condemned by the law, no longer. That’s what I see in Ramone’s pictures.

BrianL, thanks for the additional Bible references.  I’d be surprised if many Sabbath-keepers know what an ephah is, much less that they are supposed to offer two-tenths of one along with their two male lambs.

Please forgive my sarcasm.  I’ll go back to obeying Romans 14:5-6 now.

Glenn, you ask good questions.  I am short on time at the moment, but my understanding of a “moral law” is a law that has been true for every nanosecond of time throughout history, flowing directly from God’s character.  Examples include “thou shalt not kill” and “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength”.  Examples of what would not be moral laws include Sabbath (at least the form of the Sabbath God commanded the Jews to keep–see my last post above), circumcision, dietary restrictions and tithing.  This specific distinction is not found in the Bible, but we see that it effectively exists in the minds of the apostles as they simultaneously downplay the “non-moral” (some would say ceremonial) laws while endorsing and expanding the “moral” laws.

Along those lines, it’s interesting to see how Jesus chose several commandments to expand upon in the Sermon on the Mount, choosing from both “moral” and “ceremonial” laws, infusing them with a new and deep moral significance.  Later, Paul brought deeper (moral) meaning to circumcision, but argued strongly against the purely ceremonial component.  (As an aside, he seems to argue that anyone who enjoins these ceremonial laws onto Gentiles is obligated to keep the “whole law”, implying a division–see Galatians 5:3.)

While neither Jesus nor Paul ever specifically treated the Sabbath this way, Gabriel made a compelling argument for this in another post.  Also of note, Jesus was said to have “broken” the Sabbath by the apostle John (John 5:18), but we find no references to such with regards to the moral law.  Stan has made some very good points about how the Sabbath law as observed by the Jews was most certainly ceremonial in nature, please see them above.

In the past, I’ve argued against a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws but I have changed my mind on this after seeing the moral laws magnified and used by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

It makes more sense to consider a division in the law when you realize that the Jewish people lived under a theocratic government requiring certain statues that would set them apart as a distinct people, in contrast to the timeless moral laws flowing from God’s character that Gentiles are also subject to.  Ephesians 2:14-16, for example, makes more sense when read from this perspective.

As always when dealing this way with the law, it’s very important to note that law-keeping does not lead to justification (Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7).

Greg

Thanks for joining us Anonymous...you are always welcome here.

If you’ll do me the favor of answering two quick questions, I think it will clear up a lot of confusion.

Is a life “in the Spirit” opposed to the moral qualities of the law as described by Jesus in Matthew 5-7?  Further, do you agree with the apostle Paul, who said “I delight in the law in my inner being” (Romans 7:22)?

Also, I think you may be interested in the Law and Gospel series, which echoes much of what you wrote in your comments.

Blessings in Christ,

Greg

I’m not sure I’d agree that just because a commandment or law was practiced a certain way in OT times which can’t be exactly replicated today means that the commandment is null and void.

Pretty much all the ten commandments had a particular application in OT times, which may not perfectly fit the situations of future generations or our day. The tenth commandment, for example, against coveting, specifically includes references to male and female slaves ("servants") and ox and cattle and so forth. I don’t think anyone would negate this commandment because it’s particulars referenced issues not relevant for our day. It’s still a principle that we should not covet what is our neighbors, whatever he or she or they possess.

The broader issue, it seems to me, is how the apostles understood and applied “moral” law in the New Testament. In itemizing the fruits of the spirit, and their antitheses, in Galations 5, Paul sort of sets out a new system of thought and behavioral patterns that the Christian is expected to uphold. Many of these relate to the Ten Commandments, but most seem geared towards the immediate settings of the apostle’s listeners.

I think the issue largely centers around whether the tablets of stone containing the ten commandments were themselves of some eternal purpose. Most Christians assume so. I’m not so sure. But I’m not completely decided on this point.

Then again, many Christians go beyond the Ten Commandments in describing moral law--SDA’s say the dietary laws and the law about tithe are still binding. Non-SDA Christians will refer back to the OT if a particular command or standard from that time is useful for a similar preference today. 

[quote author="glennspring"]
I’m not sure I’d agree that just because a commandment or law was practiced a certain way in OT times which can’t be exactly replicated today means that the commandment is null and void.

Glenn, I see your point.  The only observation I would add is that the reference to servants and cattle in the tenth commandment are merely examples of any object that could be coveted.  The moral quality of this commandment easily applies to our current experience.

The Sabbath is different, because with Sabbath observance as commanded by God, specific actions were required which nobody actually does today.  Here’s a list of things that were required, taken from an earlier post in the Law and Gospel series:

- No work for anyone who lives in our around your house, including any guests, servants and animals (Ex. 20:10, Ex. 31:14-15, Deut. 5:14)

- No harvest activities (Ex. 34:21)

- No kindling of fire (Ex. 35:3)

- No gathering of materials for a fire (Num. 15:32)

- Offerings and sacrifices are required (1 Chron. 9:32, 1 Chron. 23:31, 2 Chron. 2:4, 2 Chron. 8:13, 2 Chron. 31:3, Eze. 45:17)

- No buying of food or supplies (Neh. 10:31, Neh. 13:15-22, Amos 8:5)

- Do not do your own pleasure (Isa. 58:13)

- Do not carry a load or bear burdens (Jer. 17:21-2, 27)

- Do not engage in sexual relations (Neh. 13:22, Lev. 15:16)

- Do not cook food (Ex. 16:23)

- Do not speak idle words (Isa. 58:13)

- Do not leave your home (Ex. 16:29, Lev. 23:3)

When you consider this list, particularly taking into account the required sacrifices, the reference to the Israelites being brought out of Egypt (Deut. 5:15) and the dependence upon a reasonable day-night cycle (as well as Stan’s points above), the ceremonial qualities become evident.  Seeing this, it’s understandable that Paul would treat the Sabbath as a shadow that pointed to Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

Greg

Oh, I don’t know, Greg, some of those prohibitions are still advocated today.

Except the part about leaving your home to attend church.

However, I believe that Christ Himself changed the structure of the Sabbath from the OT to the NT just as he did with the adultery and murder commands (You have heard..but I say’).

Jesus’ approach of the Sabbath was to not do away with the ceremonial aspect of the Sabbath as being fulfilled in His eternal Sabbath rest. He did away with the legalism and rituals by applying a greater principle of love. “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”. Such a command is meaningless if the spiritual application does away with the literal keeping.

Regardless of whether or not hating my neighbor means I’m breaking the spiritual commandment doesn’t negate that if I take a knife and stab my neighbor to death that I haven’t broken the literal commandment. The commandment is there, it is merely intensified and magnified. The same applies to the Sabbath.

What is the greater meaning of the Sabbath, the spiritual meaning? It is not about slothfulness or worrying about carrying a hanky too far. Is what I’m doing bringing help and good to someone? Is God being glorified and suffering being eased? Also, it does bring into account the ‘spiritual rest’ of Christ. ‘Come unto me all who are heavy laden and I will give you rest’. The physical Sabbath is a ‘reminder’ and ‘precursor’ of the greater salvation rest. The Sabbath was tied into redemption with Israel, it is also tied in with Christ’s saving work in our lives.

However, like the command of lusting and hating, the spiritual meaning doesn’t negate the literal but the literal points us to and magnifies the spiritual

Bacchiocchi brings this and many other great comments out in his book ‘Divine Rest for Human Restlessness’ in chapter 5

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/rest_restlessness/5.html

I think it is a shallow view of the Sabbath to simply say it was merely a ‘day given to the Jews’. There is historical, eschaetological and Messianic significance to it that many who don’t delve into it miss.