Why jew got 613 commandments, but christian got 10 only?
- Thread starter lightMe
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
I'd say it's in the process of sanctification. The Bible uses the term salvation sometimes to refer to the definitive act of justification and sometimes to refer to the entire lifelong process (justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification...etc). Sanctification is spoken of in the same way: there is a past aspect and a future aspect to it.
What I was saying, is that the Law is one thing, and love is another. What you are not realizing is that even though love your neighbor as yourself might fulfill the Law, it will not fulfill the new commandment of Jesus, which is to love one another even as He has loved us.
We, as Gentiles, were never a part of the covenant of which the Law is a part, and so we were never under the Law, because we were excluded by birth. But we have been made one with those people, the nation of Israel, by Jesus, that is, by His death, in which He removed the barrier between us and them, which was the Law.
If one follows the Law, they have no part in Christ.
We, as Gentiles, were never a part of the covenant of which the Law is a part, and so we were never under the Law, because we were excluded by birth. But we have been made one with those people, the nation of Israel, by Jesus, that is, by His death, in which He removed the barrier between us and them, which was the Law.
If one follows the Law, they have no part in Christ.
It is because we are not under the law that sin loses its power in our lives. The pull of sin must lessen because
The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56
It was the law that aroused the sinful passions in us, but 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 not in the old way of the written code.
In the OT the Israelites never really wanted to follow God in their hearts, they kept rebelling.
But under the new covenant our hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit and God's lkaws have been written on our hearts and minds. This means that now in our hearts we want to live as God would have us live, therefore, we do not need the law which can only condemn us.
Christ died for every sin the sincere Christian could ever commit. Therefore for the Christian.
Bind up the testimony, seal up the law ampong my disciples. Isiaih8:16
Because we can rest in faith in Christ who died for us on the cross, and that alone is what makes us acceptable for Heaven we do not need to fear the law, or strive to obety it in any way to keep our salvation, because our salvation is assured. Therefore sin can no longer do to us what it did to Paul. But rmember, in our hearts we want to live as God would have us live, so we are free
BTW Dont get bigheaded lol, but the answers you have given here are the best I have ever received to this subject, most people shy away from the verses I quoted.
The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56
It was the law that aroused the sinful passions in us, but 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 not in the old way of the written code.
In the OT the Israelites never really wanted to follow God in their hearts, they kept rebelling.
But under the new covenant our hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit and God's lkaws have been written on our hearts and minds. This means that now in our hearts we want to live as God would have us live, therefore, we do not need the law which can only condemn us.
Christ died for every sin the sincere Christian could ever commit. Therefore for the Christian.
Bind up the testimony, seal up the law ampong my disciples. Isiaih8:16
Because we can rest in faith in Christ who died for us on the cross, and that alone is what makes us acceptable for Heaven we do not need to fear the law, or strive to obety it in any way to keep our salvation, because our salvation is assured. Therefore sin can no longer do to us what it did to Paul. But rmember, in our hearts we want to live as God would have us live, so we are free
BTW Dont get bigheaded lol, but the answers you have given here are the best I have ever received to this subject, most people shy away from the verses I quoted.
C
I already presented an argument to the effect that love is a summation of the law and, as such, it makes no sense to see them as separate or to think you can be loving while acting contrary to the law (murder doesn't seem like a loving thing to do to me). I haven't seen your response to that (although maybe I posted that argument in a different thread).
I don't buy the idea that these two laws are opposed to one another or that they are fundamentally different. Jesus provided the example of what true love looks like. The command in Leviticus wasn't intended to express a lower form of love, it just didn't have the perfect example of Jesus.
As I read through the law I get the impression that the law is a reflection of God's moral character. As such, it isn't subjective in the sense that it is good for one group of persons to commit adultery but bad for others (or that homosexuals deserve death in some societies but not in others, but that opens a whole different can of worms and I'm not say that we, in America, should put them to death). God has one standard of morality and that standard applies to all persons.
Le 24:16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
Le 24:22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.
Ex 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.
Nu 15:15–16 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
Nu 15:29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.
Dt 4:5–6 See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
Dt 5:12–14 ‎“‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
It seems clear to me from these verses that God didn't just hold the Israelites to his moral standard. He did, however, enter into a unique covenant with them which made them especially responsible for his law: to whom much is given, much is required. The fact that we don't see Israelites putting a person to death who lives in another country is only because Israel didn't have jurisdiction over those other countries. It would be like saying that because America can't prosecute French people who illegally immigrate to England that therefore it must not be wrong for French people to illegally immigrate to England. Whenever it was possible, the authorities were to hold Jew and Gentile under the same law, because the same law applies to all.
I don't buy the idea that these two laws are opposed to one another or that they are fundamentally different. Jesus provided the example of what true love looks like. The command in Leviticus wasn't intended to express a lower form of love, it just didn't have the perfect example of Jesus.
As I read through the law I get the impression that the law is a reflection of God's moral character. As such, it isn't subjective in the sense that it is good for one group of persons to commit adultery but bad for others (or that homosexuals deserve death in some societies but not in others, but that opens a whole different can of worms and I'm not say that we, in America, should put them to death). God has one standard of morality and that standard applies to all persons.
Le 24:16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
Le 24:22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.
Ex 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.
Nu 15:15–16 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
Nu 15:29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.
Dt 4:5–6 See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
Dt 5:12–14 ‎“‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
It seems clear to me from these verses that God didn't just hold the Israelites to his moral standard. He did, however, enter into a unique covenant with them which made them especially responsible for his law: to whom much is given, much is required. The fact that we don't see Israelites putting a person to death who lives in another country is only because Israel didn't have jurisdiction over those other countries. It would be like saying that because America can't prosecute French people who illegally immigrate to England that therefore it must not be wrong for French people to illegally immigrate to England. Whenever it was possible, the authorities were to hold Jew and Gentile under the same law, because the same law applies to all.
C
It seems to me that what Paul means by "not under law but grace" is that we are not under the *condemnation* of the law. The law *itself* is not opposed to grace, Scripture indicates that its being given is itself an act of grace: “...graciously teach me your law! ” (Psalm 119:29)
I would say the same as I did earlier. We are not free from the law in that we can now murder freely, that should be obvious. We are free from the law in that when we are no longer under it's death penalty.
I agree that we have been renewed in heart and that the law is written on our hearts. But when that prophecy was given in Jeremiah, what law do you think the Israelites thought would be written upon the heart? Do you think they had in mind a new law, one they had never heard of? I doubt it and Jeremiah never indicates that there will be a different law.
I'm not sure what it means to say we do not need the law. Perhaps as a schoolmaster? It is true that a good bowler doesn't need gutter bumpers, but that doesn't mean he can start bowling in the gutter.
I agree with all of this.
Well I'm glad if it's correct and of use. But I'm not saying much new here. John Murray and many others have said the same. I also agree a lot with what Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry say in their respective books on this subject; however, they call (or called, Bahnsen is dead) themselves theonomists and I don't think I would call myself that and I wouldn't agree with all of their conclusions.
I would say the same as I did earlier. We are not free from the law in that we can now murder freely, that should be obvious. We are free from the law in that when we are no longer under it's death penalty.
I agree that we have been renewed in heart and that the law is written on our hearts. But when that prophecy was given in Jeremiah, what law do you think the Israelites thought would be written upon the heart? Do you think they had in mind a new law, one they had never heard of? I doubt it and Jeremiah never indicates that there will be a different law.
I'm not sure what it means to say we do not need the law. Perhaps as a schoolmaster? It is true that a good bowler doesn't need gutter bumpers, but that doesn't mean he can start bowling in the gutter.
I agree with all of this.
Well I'm glad if it's correct and of use. But I'm not saying much new here. John Murray and many others have said the same. I also agree a lot with what Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry say in their respective books on this subject; however, they call (or called, Bahnsen is dead) themselves theonomists and I don't think I would call myself that and I wouldn't agree with all of their conclusions.
Last edited:
C
Then what does it mean to die to the law?
Do you doubt that a sincerely converted Christian will have the urge to lust or commit adultery?
agreed.
In this sense I agree. But at the same time it would be just as unlawful to the person who loved his country to assassinate the Prime Minister as it would be for the person who hated his country. My point is that the same standard applies to both. The standards are still applicable, even though one of the persons doesn't need to worry about it like the other person does.
Maybe the best place for an introduction would be Gentry's God's Law in the Modern World. But you can get some of Bahnsen's stuff for free online (like at this link), but they are much longer and not suitable to online reading.
Do you doubt that a sincerely converted Christian will have the urge to lust or commit adultery?
agreed.
In this sense I agree. But at the same time it would be just as unlawful to the person who loved his country to assassinate the Prime Minister as it would be for the person who hated his country. My point is that the same standard applies to both. The standards are still applicable, even though one of the persons doesn't need to worry about it like the other person does.
Maybe the best place for an introduction would be Gentry's God's Law in the Modern World. But you can get some of Bahnsen's stuff for free online (like at this link), but they are much longer and not suitable to online reading.
What do you think Paul meams here.
If while we seek to be justified in Christ it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners. Does this mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rewbuild what I destroyed I prove that I am a lawbreaker. Gal2:17&18
Why would Paul feel the need to ask the question concerning the new Christian.
Does Christ promote sin?
If while we seek to be justified in Christ it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners. Does this mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rewbuild what I destroyed I prove that I am a lawbreaker. Gal2:17&18
Why would Paul feel the need to ask the question concerning the new Christian.
Does Christ promote sin?
C
I guess so. When your a good bowler you aren't striving to not get a gutter ball, you're just aiming for the strike. (I'm a horrible bowler by the way, so I don't know why I'm thinking of these bowling analogies.)
I don't see why. I think if I were married and caught a man cheating with my wife I would probably have the compulsion to murder. I can think of similar circumstances that might give rise to that compulsion within a Christian.
Paul is responding to the objection of the judaizers, I think, that he is sinning by seeking justification through Christ rather than by law. He asked the rhetorical question because this is the charge of the judaizers, I think. Paul obviously dealt with people falsely accusing him of being antinomian throughout his ministry.
I don't see why. I think if I were married and caught a man cheating with my wife I would probably have the compulsion to murder. I can think of similar circumstances that might give rise to that compulsion within a Christian.
Paul is responding to the objection of the judaizers, I think, that he is sinning by seeking justification through Christ rather than by law. He asked the rhetorical question because this is the charge of the judaizers, I think. Paul obviously dealt with people falsely accusing him of being antinomian throughout his ministry.
The way I see it is that to Paul upon conversion we are to look to Christ and trustr in hi, and rejoice in our salvation, not concentrate on ridding ourselves of the deep rooted sin still in us. We are saved by faith and stand by faith and rejoice in our salvation. To me Paul confirms this when he says
Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed I prove that I am a lawbreaker.
In other words if I try and rid myself of my sin(which must be according to obediance to law) to be acceptable to God I will fail and prove I am a lawbreaker.
I believe it is by living by faith in Christ and a reliance on the Holy Spirit's power that we see the victory over sin in our lives.
May I add here, that I believe sin must be viewed in two ways. There is the deep rooted sin that we carry into our Christian life from our previous life, and there is the wilful, deliberate sin we may commit by turning from looking to Christ and going our own way. This sin we would indeeed need to come before God with deep repentance. For we would not then be following after the Holy Spirit and focusing on Christ and trusting him in our hearts
Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed I prove that I am a lawbreaker.
In other words if I try and rid myself of my sin(which must be according to obediance to law) to be acceptable to God I will fail and prove I am a lawbreaker.
I believe it is by living by faith in Christ and a reliance on the Holy Spirit's power that we see the victory over sin in our lives.
May I add here, that I believe sin must be viewed in two ways. There is the deep rooted sin that we carry into our Christian life from our previous life, and there is the wilful, deliberate sin we may commit by turning from looking to Christ and going our own way. This sin we would indeeed need to come before God with deep repentance. For we would not then be following after the Holy Spirit and focusing on Christ and trusting him in our hearts
The Law is the bare minimum of God's moral character. Not even close to what He is like truly. Jesus showed us this with His discourse in the sermon on the Mount.
Love your neighbor as yourself was the minimum requirement, because at the time of the Law, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and the gifting of God's love was not available. You could see God's love, especially in the prophets, but it was not possible for the new commandment of Jesus to be fulfilled, because it is only fulfilled in and by the Spirit in us. For the love of God is shed abroad in in the world through our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, a new commandment. Not a reiteration of the old commandment.
Love your neighbor as yourself was the minimum requirement, because at the time of the Law, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and the gifting of God's love was not available. You could see God's love, especially in the prophets, but it was not possible for the new commandment of Jesus to be fulfilled, because it is only fulfilled in and by the Spirit in us. For the love of God is shed abroad in in the world through our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, a new commandment. Not a reiteration of the old commandment.
C
I'm not sure I would agree with the interpretation of the sermon on the mount that this implies. For instance, where you see the phrase “You have heard that it was said...” (Matthew 5:27) some people assume that Jesus is referring to the OT law. But I don't think this is the case. I think what Jesus is referring to is rabbinical interpretation of the law. I agree with Craig Blomberg when he states, "Jesus shows himself to be the Law’s sovereign interpreter, explaining how it applies in the new age he is inaugurating" (Jesus and the Gospels 250). Jesus interprets the law, he doesn't do away with the Law (5:17-19) or replace it.
You keep repeating this, as though to "love your neighbor" is somehow simple or is done away with or is superseded. You're apparently basing all this on Jesus statement in John 13:34. But as I understand that passage, the only new element is Christ's sacrificial example. But this doesn't mean it's a fundamentally different commandment and it doesn't provide any basis for saying that all the other laws (do not murder) are somehow nullified (this especially wouldn't make sense in light of Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-19). I also find it interesting that the other writers in the NT don't understand Jesus command in the way that you apparently do. I've already laid this out, but I can't remember if it was in this thread or not. But here it is again:
“For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. ” (Romans 13:9–10)
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. ” (James 2:8)
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ” (Galatians 5:14)
Now, I think James and Paul obviously were aware of Jesus "new command" but apparently they didn't find that it had the same meaning and implications that you do. How do you explain this?
You keep repeating this, as though to "love your neighbor" is somehow simple or is done away with or is superseded. You're apparently basing all this on Jesus statement in John 13:34. But as I understand that passage, the only new element is Christ's sacrificial example. But this doesn't mean it's a fundamentally different commandment and it doesn't provide any basis for saying that all the other laws (do not murder) are somehow nullified (this especially wouldn't make sense in light of Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-19). I also find it interesting that the other writers in the NT don't understand Jesus command in the way that you apparently do. I've already laid this out, but I can't remember if it was in this thread or not. But here it is again:
“For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. ” (Romans 13:9–10)
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. ” (James 2:8)
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ” (Galatians 5:14)
Now, I think James and Paul obviously were aware of Jesus "new command" but apparently they didn't find that it had the same meaning and implications that you do. How do you explain this?
C
I find it odd that you would say this after I quoted James:
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. ” (James 2:8)
I agree that our ability to love is of a lesser quality than God's. I don't see how I said anything that implied the contrary.
“If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. ” (James 2:8)
I agree that our ability to love is of a lesser quality than God's. I don't see how I said anything that implied the contrary.
