Why jew got 613 commandments, but christian got 10 only?

[VW]

It's true that to believe in Jesus is a command. The command to love is, I think, simply a summary statement as I pointed out earlier.

I think we need to be careful about saying things like "We only have one command now (or two or ten)!" First of all, I don't see any logical or Scriptural basis for saying that we only have one. Scripture treats love as a summation of the law, so love can't be seen as something contrary to it. Scripture also seems to be very clear that God's moral prescriptions still apply: do not steal, do not commit murder, do not commit adultery. These are commands, right? Moral laws?



This sounds similar to an old dispensational idea that God never intended to give them the law. He only offered it to test them, and wanted them to reject it, but they failed the test by accepting the law. But this has absolutely no Scriptural basis and I'm not aware of any dispensationalists who still hold to this idea.

But what you're saying looks a bit different. It sounds like you're saying that God gave them some commandments as a form of punishment. But I don't see any basis for this either.

Scripture only describes God's law in *very* positive terms (cf. Psa. 119). Even in the NT this positive quality of the law is taught:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–19)

“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. ” (Romans 7:12)

“For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. ” (Romans 7:14)

“Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ” (Romans 7:16)

“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. ” (Romans 3:31)

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ” (1 Timothy 1:8)

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. ” (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

And there are many other places where Paul quotes particular laws in a positive fashion, assuming that it still has a morally binding quality to it (e.g. do not muzzle the ox).

The fact that we cannot keep the law doesn't make the law bad. And there are not good laws and bad laws. The Bible depicts the laws in a unified fashion:

“For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. ” (James 2:10–11)

The New Testament repeats the command to "Be holy" as the Lord is holy (1 Peter 1:16; Leveticus 11:44). But who can live up to that standard? I don't think anyone can, but to say that, therefore, the command is bad seems very odd to me. Isn't it more reasonable to say that we cannot keep the command and therefore *we* are bad?

We are not held under commandments, but we are held under the Spirit, the life of God in us. We are in relationship with God which is not legal, but is by birth. The scripture also states that the Law could make nothing perfect, but we are perfect in Jesus, by birth.

I don't know why we are afraid to state things the way that they are. God has given us birth into His family, we are His born children, lead by the Spirit, filled with His love and His life and He has made peace with us through His cross. The Law and the commandments did none of this, could not do this, for if they could, then Jesus would not have had to die.

 

[nisha_philips]

i dnt think christians got only dese 10 commandments infact in new testament der r lot more commandements. and if v look into what Jesus taught, v also sumwat follow d 613 commandements

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

We are not held under commandments, but we are held under the Spirit, the life of God in us.

"Held under" is obviously a figure of speech. As such, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it. Let me ask you this: are we command to not murder? Are we under obligation not to murder?

If so, then the commandment "do not murder" still has authority over us. There is nothing wrong with that idea, from what I can see.

We are in relationship with God which is not legal, but is by birth. The scripture also states that the Law could make nothing perfect, but we are perfect in Jesus, by birth.

I don't know why we are afraid to state things the way that they are. God has given us birth into His family, we are His born children, lead by the Spirit, filled with His love and His life and He has made peace with us through His cross. The Law and the commandments did none of this, could not do this, for if they could, then Jesus would not have had to die.

I agree with all of this, but it has nothing to do with whether we are still obliged to obey God's moral precepts. We are made righteous by faith. We are adopted etc. all by God's grace. But does this mean we can go on a killing spree? No, we should not murder, because we are still under the moral precepts (not that we are to follow them in order to be righteous, but we follow them because they are a reflection of God's character, which we are obligated to conform to). If we were not under the moral law "do not murder" then we couldn't say that we should not murder, because "should not" presuppose you are under some authority or obligation.

 

[VW]

"Held under" is obviously a figure of speech. As such, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it. Let me ask you this: are we command to not murder? Are we under obligation not to murder?

If so, then the commandment "do not murder" still has authority over us. There is nothing wrong with that idea, from what I can see.





I agree with all of this, but it has nothing to do with whether we are still obliged to obey God's moral precepts. We are made righteous by faith. We are adopted etc. all by God's grace. But does this mean we can go on a killing spree? No, we should not murder, because we are still under the moral precepts (not that we are to follow them in order to be righteous, but we follow them because they are a reflection of God's character, which we are obligated to conform to). If we were not under the moral law "do not murder" then we couldn't say that we should not murder, because "should not" presuppose you are under some authority or obligation.

Yes, it does, and here is why. If we are following the Law, it shows us to be believers in God, which would seem to be a good thing, but is it really? The children of Israel believed in God, and they crucified Jesus, and it is obvious that many of them were not righteous. But they followed the Law.

Jesus wants us to be known as His followers. In other words, when someone sees us, they will know that we are followers of Jesus, that we are different from any other people in the world. And we are different, because we are born children of God. But He was emphatic when He gave us His new commandment, that only if we kept this commandment would the whole world know that we are His disciples. If righteousness was by the Law, then there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

I see christians holding on to the principles of the Law as in an even worse trouble. The Law is one, a whole, and every part is needed, or not any of the parts work. That is the trouble with the Law, if you do not do even the smallest part, you have not done any of it. Yes, it is true that we should not murder. But our morals are not God's morals, and they can never be His morals except by being born of Him. So God took care of the trouble and gave us birth as His children by His Spirit.

Our new birth is of faith, and it is not apart of the Law, it is the better way that replaces the Law. In the Law, the adherients were not required to hear the voice of God, and in fact would not even listen, but had to have a priest who would speak to them for God. Jesus said that we are to hear His voice. The writer of Hebrews said that if we would hear His voice, then we must not harden our hearts as did those who provoked God in the wilderness, and of who He swore that they would not enter His rest.

Oh well, I have tried,
In His love,
vic

 

[VW]

By held under, I am stating a simple fact. Those who follow the Law are responsible for the Law, the whole Law. If you follow the Law, then you are a debtor to the Law.

As natural man knows in his heart that it is wrong to murder, (as Gentiles, we have a form of the Law in us naturally, as Paul wrote about,) this is not righteousness. This can never be righteousness. Jesus said plainly that if our righteousness did not exceed that of the scribes and pharrisees, then we could not enter the kingdom of heaven. These guys kept the Law perfectly, but were unrighteous. Righteousness is by faith, and that faith for us is in Jesus giving us His life to be our life. As He lives, so shall we live, in Him. And this is by His Spirit in us.

And so we are freed from the requirements of the Law, which could never give righteousness anyway, and are instead in Christ Jesus, with His commandment, which is fulfilled in Him, that we love one another with His love.

Oddly enough, this is the gospel.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

By held under, I am stating a simple fact. Those who follow the Law are responsible for the Law, the whole Law. If you follow the Law, then you are a debtor to the Law.

As natural man knows in his heart that it is wrong to murder, (as Gentiles, we have a form of the Law in us naturally, as Paul wrote about,) this is not righteousness. This can never be righteousness. Jesus said plainly that if our righteousness did not exceed that of the scribes and pharrisees, then we could not enter the kingdom of heaven. These guys kept the Law perfectly, but were unrighteous. Righteousness is by faith, and that faith for us is in Jesus giving us His life to be our life. As He lives, so shall we live, in Him. And this is by His Spirit in us.

And so we are freed from the requirements of the Law, which could never give righteousness anyway, and are instead in Christ Jesus, with His commandment, which is fulfilled in Him, that we love one another with His love.

Oddly enough, this is the gospel.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere in Scripture that it says we are freed from the law. I can think of several places that say we are freed from sin though... What passage did you have in mind?

Your remarks about obtaining righteousness are beside the point. I already said that I agree we cannot become righteous by keeping the law. But this doesn't mean we are not obligated to keep the (moral) law.

The Israelites in the desert could not be made righteous by the law, but they were still obligated to keep the law. Correct?

 

[resurrection33]

The Jew use Hebrew Bible similar as the christian do, but why the commandments of Jew is 613 but the christian is only 10? anyone know?

In my opinion, at the very minimum, Christians are to obey all the teachings of Jesus, as found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Yes, it does, and here is why.

Not sure what you are answering "yes it does" to.

If we are following the Law, it shows us to be believers in God, which would seem to be a good thing, but is it really?

The Bible says the law is a good thing. I already quoted those passages.

The children of Israel believed in God, and they crucified Jesus, and it is obvious that many of them were not righteous. But they followed the Law.

I think the NT indicates that in many ways the Jews were not following the law. They had "hedged" it about with their traditions and by doing so made the law "void". The Pharisaical idea of the law was a perversion.

But He was emphatic when He gave us His new commandment, that only if we kept this commandment would the whole world know that we are His disciples.

I tried to explain earlier that "love" is simply a summary of the law. So if you understand that what it means to love one another as Jesus loved us means "do not commit adultery... etc" then I agree.

If righteousness was by the Law, then there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

I agree, but this is because we are already sinners. If Adam had never sinned, there would also have been no need for Jesus to die. But now that we are sinners, it is impossible to be made righteous by obeying the law. This is because obeying the law is simply doing what we are supposed to do. So it can't make up for us doing what we are not supposed to do.

“Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Luke 17:7–10)

I see christians holding on to the principles of the Law as in an even worse trouble.

The principle of the law is love, so this makes no sense.

The Law is one, a whole, and every part is needed, or not any of the parts work.

That's because they are all based on the principle of love. But this doesn't mean that applications of the law cannot change. For example, the ceremonial laws found their truth in the life and death of Christ. So those shadows have passed away, having found their heavenly reality.

But our morals are not God's morals, and they can never be His morals except by being born of Him.

I have no idea what this means.

Our new birth is of faith, and it is not apart of the Law, it is the better way that replaces the Law.

If you are still under the command "do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery," then in what way has the law been replaced? Which law has been replaced? If you say the "law of faith" (or whatever you are saying) replaces the command "do not murder" what does it replace it with? If you say it replaces it with the new command "do not murder" then you are only talking in circles.

In the Law, the adherients were not required to hear the voice of God, and in fact would not even listen, but had to have a priest who would speak to them for God.

The law was a record of the voice of God spoken to Moses. So, yes, they were required to "hear" (obey) the voice of God. But maybe you mean "hear" in a different sense.

 

[livingbygrace]

Not sure what you are answering "yes it does" to.



The Bible says the law is a good thing. I already quoted those passages.


Can I ask you? What do you think Paul means here?

For when we were controlled by the sinfull nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies so that we brought fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and nort in the old way of the qwritten code. Rom7:5&6

What did Paul mean when he said the sinful passions in us are aroused by the law?

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: For I had not known lust, except the law had said. 'Thou shalt not covet.'
But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence(sexual desire). For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came sin revived and I died
And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment deceived me and by it slew me. Rom7:7-11

Why when Paul strove to uphold the Ten Commandments/moral law did sin vastly increase in him, and all manner of lust/concupiscence was wrought in Him?

 

[VW]

Look, the Law is in its best a shadow of what was to come in Christ, and life in Him. We are in no way obligated to the Law, and if we think that we are, then to the very same extent that we think we are obligated, to that extent we are excluded from the life of God in Christ.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Can I ask you? What do you think Paul means here?

For when we were controlled by the sinfull nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies so that we brought fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and nort in the old way of the qwritten code. Rom7:5&6

What did Paul mean when he said the sinful passions in us are aroused by the law?

The fact that the law arouses sinful passions seems obvious enough. Like if I were to set a 4 year old in room with a green button and a red one and said “Don’t touch the green button” he would suddenly have an impulse to touch the green button. Why? Because we have wicked hearts. The law brings that out. It provides an opportunity for our hearts to express themselves. If I hadn’t said “don’t press the green button” the child couldn’t have sinned, even though the condition of his heart would have been the same. We die to the law insofar as it comes with a curse and condemnation: the soul that sins will die. That condemnation is what we are freed from; we are freed from the curse of the law. The law brings death *because* we transgress it.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: For I had not known lust, except the law had said. 'Thou shalt not covet.'
But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence(sexual desire). For without the law sin was dead.
For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came sin revived and I died
And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment deceived me and by it slew me. Rom7:7-11

Why when Paul strove to uphold the Ten Commandments/moral law did sin vastly increase in him, and all manner of lust/concupiscence was wrought in Him?

Because it gives him opportunity to sin and it acts as a light shining upon the heart, revealing the depth of its depravity that could not have been known apart from the law. And it seems to me that all of this is due to the fact that we are sinners, not because the law out of some necessity causes sin. After all, Jesus kept the law perfectly, yet it did not cause him to sin and it did not cause him to die. In fact, because Jesus kept the law and yet was without sin, we can have life.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Look, the Law is in its best a shadow of what was to come in Christ, and life in Him. We are in no way obligated to the Law, and if we think that we are, then to the very same extent that we think we are obligated, to that extent we are excluded from the life of God in Christ.

Earlier you said we should not murder. The words "should not" assume an obligation. If I'm under no obligation to drink Pepsi rather than Coke then it would make no sense to say I should not drink Coke rather than Pepsi.

If there is no obligation to drink Pepsi rather than Coke than I might as well do whatever pleases me with [wrong word: I mean peace]. If there is no sense in which we are obligated to keep the command "do not murder" or "do not commit adultery" then I might do either one of those things with perfect peace.

 

[livingbygrace]

The fact that the law arouses sinful passions seems obvious enough. Like if I were to set a 4 year old in room with a green button and a red one and said “Don’t touch the green button” he would suddenly have an impulse to touch the green button. Why? Because we have wicked hearts. The law brings that out. It provides an opportunity for our hearts to express themselves. If I hadn’t said “don’t press the green button” the child couldn’t have sinned, even though the condition of his heart would have been the same. We die to the law insofar as it comes with a curse and condemnation: the soul that sins will die. That condemnation is what we are freed from; we are freed from the curse of the law. The law brings death *because* we transgress it.



Because it gives him opportunity to sin and it acts as a light shining upon the heart, revealing the depth of its depravity that could not have been known apart from the law. And it seems to me that all of this is due to the fact that we are sinners, not because the law out of some necessity causes sin. After all, Jesus kept the law perfectly, yet it did not cause him to sin and it did not cause him to die. In fact, because Jesus kept the law and yet was without sin, we can have life.

I like your first answer. In regards to the second question though. Why when Paul strove to obey the Ten Commandments/moral law did sin vastly increase in Him. The law did not just reveal the sin, all manner of lust/concupiscence was wrought in Paul. I think it is faiir to say that he was in a worse state than before he strove to obey the Commandments. He said this himself. He said the good law of lGod that was intended to bring life instead brought death. And this is one of the Ten commandments/moral law

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I like your first answer. In regards to the second question though. Why when Paul strove to obey the Ten Commandments/moral law did sin vastly increase in Him. The law did not just reveal the sin, all manner of lust/concupiscence was wrought in Paul. I think it is faiir to say that he was in a worse state than before he strove to obey the Commandments. He said this himself. He said the good law of lGod that was intended to bring life instead brought death. And this is one of the Ten commandments/moral law

I think I did answer that question. The particular command "Do not lust" provides an opportunity for the wicked heart to manifest sin in a way that it cannot do without the command "Do not lust."

 

[FrostyInc]

The Jew use Hebrew Bible similar as the christian do, but why the commandments of Jew is 613 but the christian is only 10? anyone know?

Actually, the gentile only has 7.

 

[livingbygrace]

I think I did answer that question. The particular command "Do not lust" provides an opportunity for the wicked heart to manifest sin in a way that it cannot do without the command "Do not lust."

I agree with this. Good answer. So if we are we under the moral law/Ten commandments ie Do not lust, then surely sin can again do to us what it did to Paul

 

[VW]

The fact that the law arouses sinful passions seems obvious enough. Like if I were to set a 4 year old in room with a green button and a red one and said “Don’t touch the green button” he would suddenly have an impulse to touch the green button. Why? Because we have wicked hearts. The law brings that out. It provides an opportunity for our hearts to express themselves. If I hadn’t said “don’t press the green button” the child couldn’t have sinned, even though the condition of his heart would have been the same. We die to the law insofar as it comes with a curse and condemnation: the soul that sins will die. That condemnation is what we are freed from; we are freed from the curse of the law. The law brings death *because* we transgress it.



Because it gives him opportunity to sin and it acts as a light shining upon the heart, revealing the depth of its depravity that could not have been known apart from the law. And it seems to me that all of this is due to the fact that we are sinners, not because the law out of some necessity causes sin. After all, Jesus kept the law perfectly, yet it did not cause him to sin and it did not cause him to die. In fact, because Jesus kept the law and yet was without sin, we can have life.

The Law is not the light.

Jesus is the light of the world, not the Law.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I agree with this. Good answer. So if we are we under the moral law/Ten commandments ie Do not lust, then surely sin can again do to us what it did to Paul

No. We can never be put under the condemnation of the law (which is that the soul that sins will die). We can still transgress and receive punishment, as a Father punishes his child. But we have been freed from the curse of death.

 

[VW]

I agree with this. Good answer. So if we are we under the moral law/Ten commandments ie Do not lust, then surely sin can again do to us what it did to Paul

The problem with this answer is that we are not to have a wicked heart, but a new heart which is after the heart of Jesus.

 

[VW]

No. We can never be put under the condemnation of the law (which is that the soul that sins will die). We can still transgress and receive punishment, as a Father punishes his child. But we have been freed from the curse of death.

The scripture did not say condemnation of the Law, but condemnation period.