ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Moral Ceremonial Civil Health

Are there different categories of "the law" in scripture (moral, ceremonial, civil, health), or are they "one law"? Is this the "law" written on our hearts in the New Covenant? If not, what is (according to the Bible)?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Ten Commandments Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 3/21/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in MEAT OR IN DRINK, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come

Lev 23:37 These are the feasts of the LORD,.. offer.. a meat offering, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day:

Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present,.Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in MEAT OFFERINGS and DRINK OFFERINGS,..imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come,

So meat and drink here referrs to the meat offering and drink offering of these feast days, which were also sabbathS
The offering of bulls and goats are a shadow of Jesus
---francis on 3/28/12


David_J._Conklin //Pay attention to what the words "in respect of" mean. Paul is talking about the eating and drinking ON the days that are then mentioned.

I do not think that is true because the church at Colossae was largely Gentile and would not had much knowledge of Jewish customs.

Col. 2:16ESV Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, OR with regard to a festival OR a new moon or a Sabbath.
---lee1538 on 3/28/12


David_J._Conklin:

That there is an or between each thing mentioned. It does NOT say:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, in respect of an holyday or new moon or sabbath days".

This is not two sets of things (foods not to eat, and days not to eat them). It is ONE set of things that one should not judge others on.


francis:

Paul's words are simple and direct. They contradict your pet theology, so you must explain them aways and make them void - just as the Pharisees did in Mark 7:7-13. We are Christians, not Jews. We are not subject to the convenant of Moses. We are part of the covenant of Jesus.
---StrongAxe on 3/28/12


David_J._Conklin: You bring up an interesting point. It was not the holy days themselves that Paul proscribed judging, but rather the eating and drinking on them!

As to MarkAxe's contention that Paul "didn't seem to think that keeping the sabbath was something it was important for people to be worrying about", just who is Paul to think he had authority to change one of God's Ten Commandments (or to make another day holy). This contention also makes Paul an hypoctite, in that he routinely kepth the Sabbath himself.


---jerry6593 on 3/28/12


>Colossians 2:16
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

Pay attention to what the words "in respect of" mean. Paul is talking about the eating and drinking ON the days that are then mentioned.
---David_J._Conklin on 3/27/12




Col 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you..in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come---StrongAxe on 3/27/12

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth,.. And it shall come to pass, that from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

So we can see that the sabbath is not a shadow because it continues in heaven with Jesus

Col 2:16-17 is a reference to Leviticus 23 where the feasts of God are given, and the weekly sabbath is seperated from those. Pntecost, day of atonement are all sabbath dayS and shodows of heavenly things
These shadows are given four times in the bible and explained in Hebrews 8 and 10
---francis on 3/27/12


jerry6593 and francis:

Why keep constantly flogging this horse that Paul declared dead almost 2000 years ago?

Colossians 2:16
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

Clearly such an eminent authority on Christian theology (since he penned most of it himself) didn't seem to think that keeping the sabbath was something it was important for people to be worrying about, so why should you?
---StrongAxe on 3/27/12


---StrongAxe on 3/27/12
Church is a unique creature.
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church:
Ephesians 5:23 Christ is the head of the church:

the theology of the church is set by jesus

I urge you to read my earlier post on compare and contract daniel 7 and matthew 5

So when the church rulers make a rulling even if it reflects the majority view it may still be wrong.

No man gets to choose the theology of the church. I would like to point your attention to Luke 9:5962 for further discussion on another blog since we are almost out of time on this blog
---francis on 3/27/12


francis:

I wasn't talking about basing a theology on a majority vote by the public. I was talking about church rulers setting policy. Surely when a church sets policy, it is set by church leaders, and those leaders typically reflect the majority opinion of various leaders in that church. Church councils typically arrive at decisions by concensus (which usually tends to follow majority opinion), or when a concensus cannot be reached, by majority opinion anyway.
---StrongAxe on 3/27/12


Jerry //Exo 20:8 Remember the SABBATH day, to keep it holy.

Yes, the Bible does command the observance of a day,however not for the church, and that is where you are clearly wrong.

Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Did either you or your ancestors ever slaves in Egypt? Did they do straw or the mud when making those bricks?
---lee1538 on 3/27/12




//---StrongAxe on 3/26/12
Good question. Who bases thier theology on what the MAJORITY believes?

If the MAJORITY of God's saints hold a view of theology, then the probability is very high that it represents the truth as seen in Scripture.

The theory a view that is a minority view is always the correct view cannot always be defended either by scripture or simple reasoning as all too often the minority view has the least defense.

Often it is the cults that claim to be Christian that promote a minority view.
---lee1538 on 3/27/12


---CraigA on 3/26/12
Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Does he have to cook on the sabbath or should he prepare his meals on friday " the Jews' preparation day?"John 19:42

Mark 2:27 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

See Judges 19 hospitality for a stranger
---francis on 3/27/12


COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
Daniel 7:23 The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,..Daniel 7:25 and he shall.. think to change times and laws:

WITH

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:

What is the most likely source of an attempted change is Gods laws and times: Jesus, His disciples, his church, or the forth beast(ROME)
---francis on 3/27/12


---StrongAxe on 3/26/12
Good question. Who bases thier theology on what the MAJORITY believes?

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and MAJORITY there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets,
Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
---francis on 3/27/12


Leest: "The Bible does not command the observance of any day"

You are wrong!

Exo 20:8 Remember the SABBATH day, to keep it holy.

Luk 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the SABBATH day according to the COMMANDMENT.

Note that Christ's disciples continued keeping the SABBATH COMMANDMENT after the cross.

From the time of Adam until now, God has always had a SABBATH COMMANDMENT-keeping people.


---jerry6593 on 3/27/12


Who is worse?

One who keeps the Sabbath but then relies upon others to cook for them at a restaurant

Or the one who doesn't keep the Sabbath but cooks the food for the hungry?
---CraigA on 3/26/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


francis:

So, in each case, it was a fringe group who clung to obsolete Jewish observances, to which the majority of Christians did not.

Because if it HAD been the majority keeping them, such rules could never have been passed.
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12


Could you tell us just WHICH church kept the sabbath for the past 2000 years?
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12

I added calvin in there to show that even in calvins sayd there were people who continued to keep the sabbath

I placed chonology to christainity to show that sunday ws never the norm for the church, it was done by antisemitism, and fear of death
---francis on 3/26/12


Could you tell us just WHICH church kept the sabbath for the past 2000 years?
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12
1: Church of Ethiopia reference:Sabbath Roots: The African Connection, by Charles E. Bradford.
2: THE WALDENSES
3: 364 AD Council of Laodicea decrees death for Christians who keep 7th day Sabbath reference: Chronolgy of christianity
5: Calvin "regarded the external observance of the Sabbath rest as a Jewish ceremonial ordinance and no longer binding on Christians." He said of Sabbatarians that they "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition" (p.19).
---francis on 3/26/12


---StrongAxe on 3/26/12
Deuteronomy 14:21 Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it, or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God.

ACTIVE: they could say: here I found this animal dead in my field I think it was strangled.

They could not say: here eat this pig
---francis on 3/26/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


francis:

Could you tell us just WHICH church kept the sabbath for the past 2000 years?

(And also, how the old testament teaching about blood is qualitatively different than that about pigs, since the Apostles forbade the first but not the second?)
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12


David_J._Conklin//Actually, most of the Christian church around the Med was STILL keeping the Sabbath at least as late as the 5th century.
---
Not according to most church historians including SDA Samuele Bacchiocchi.

Yes, if you read From Sabbath to Lord's Day, a biblical, historical, & theological compilation edited by DA Carson, you will see that Sabbath observance, thro in the minority, was observed thruout the centuries. Some churches even observed both the Sabbath and Sunday.

However, much later the church decided Sunday would be the Sabbath arguing that Christ and/or the Apostles changed it. We see that in the Westminister Confession of Faith.

The Bible does not command the observance of any day Romans 14.
---lee1538 on 3/26/12


>And that is why you see the church no longer observing the Jewish Sabbath or the dietary laws by the beginning of the second century.

Actually, most of the Christian church around the Med was STILL keeping the Sabbath at least as late as the 5th century.
---David_J._Conklin on 3/26/12


And that is why you see the church no longer observing the Jewish Sabbath or the dietary laws by the beginning of the second century.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12
You are dead wrong
The church has NEVER spopped keeping the sabbath.

History and prophecy shows that the 4th beast would TRY to change the laws and times of God ( DANIEL 7). But the church has always kept the sabbath and dietary laws

The SDA church did not all of a sudden come up with sabath. There were people who kept the sabbath way before SDA was formed.
---francis on 3/26/12


Send a Free Salvation Tract


francis:

The Jews could not eat things strangled, but they could let gentiles eat them.

The Jews could not eat pigs, but they could let gentiles eat them.

How is one of these different from the other? And if they are not, why did the Apostles teach one and not the other?
---StrongAxe on 3/26/12


Leest: Again and again you quote the conclusion of the Jerusalem council that we refrain from things strangled and from blood. Yet you continue to eat blood-filled meat! Can you explain your actions and the impression of hypocrisy it leaves?

Back on the blog subject, do you now agree that there is one, all-inclusive Law from the OT that comprises that which is written on the heart in the New Covenant?


---jerry6593 on 3/26/12


//the church continued in the apostles doctrine.

And that is why you see the church no longer observing the Jewish Sabbath or the dietary laws by the beginning of the second century.

If you are going to interpret Acts correctly as to what was taught in the early church you really need to delve into what the early church believed and taught as that would reflect on what the Apostles and their immediate successors taught.

Sorry to put you back on the ropes on this one, but it is all too easy to see that Adventists ignore church history in order to promote their unique beliefs.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12


Francis //This is part of the apostles doctrine: Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Yes, every church historian will agree the earliest church gathered at the Jewish synagogues. However, they will also tell you due to conflicts between believers and non-believers the early church later met in homes.

Did the early church teach adherence to Jewish laws? No, according to Acts 15 howbeit there was some compromise made for Jewish Christians to continue in their beliefs.

Sorry to knock you to the floor on this issue, but it is obvious your problem really lies in lack of knowledge of what the Apostles and their immediate successors taught.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


lee1538 Can't you see your error?
the bible in acts speaks about the church
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine
Acts 2:47 And the Lord added to THE CHURCH...

The church did not start in the second century. You can read all about the church in the book of Acts in the first century. the church continued in the apostles doctrine

This is part of the apostles doctrine: Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

what you are reading is not apostles doctrine, is it how long it took the church to go into APOSTACY

Do you follow ALL the church's teaching in the 2nd century?
---francis on 3/25/12


//If you truely believe that church history is acceptable as scripture then you shuld be a Roman Catholic, or orthodox.

Simply put, if the early church did not teach Jewish laws to Gentile believers, there is really no other option than to accept the fact that neither the Apostles nor their immediate successors did not teach them.

//By the way, why are you not Roman Catholic?

Unlike Adventists, we do share with Roman Catholicism those beliefs that are totally supported by Scripture.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12


>Even the blind should be able to see that the church by the beginning of the 2d century no longer observed laws that were strictly Jewish - the Levitical dietary laws, the Sabbath observance, etc.

They were still keeping the Sabbath at least as late as the 5th century.
---David_J._Conklin on 3/25/12


---lee1538 on 3/25/12
LOL LOL if you are looking at the 2nd century for the early church you are truely blind
LOOK IN ACTS: Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Acts 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Acts 18:22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
---francis on 3/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Francis //Only those who are spiritually blind cannot see dietary laws and sabbath in the new covenant:

Even the blind should be able to see that the church by the beginning of the 2d century no longer observed laws that were strictly Jewish - the Levitical dietary laws, the Sabbath observance, etc.

If Old Covenant laws were required of the church, then why did not the Apostles and their immediate successors teach them to believers?

The simplest answer is that these were no longer required of believers.

So sorry that you are willfully ignorant of early church history as there is no support for your Judaizing beliefs.

You religious peddlers cannot force what is false onto Christians that know the truth.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12


And church history tells us that by the early second century, the church did not teach or observe laws that were strictly Jewish in nature. Even Adventists church historians can tell you that much.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12
Church History also telle me about " the crusade" "the inquisition"

If you truely believe that church history is acceptable as scripture then you shuld be a Roman Catholic, or orthodox

By the way, why are you not Roman Catholic?
---francis on 3/25/12


Francis //Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled and from blood ...

Allowance has to be made in the early church for those who wished to continue in the tenets of Judaism.

True the earliest church was nearly all Jewish and continued to met in the synagogues but as conflicts arose between Christians and non-Christians, the early church no longer met in synagogues but in homes.

And church history tells us that by the early second century, the church did not teach or observe laws that were strictly Jewish in nature. Even Adventists church historians can tell you that much.
---lee1538 on 3/25/12


---StrongAxe on 3/25/12
cannot just take part of the dietary laws without taking all.

There is a special reason why he spoke about things strangled, and blood to the gentiles, you will have to read it for yourself in the the dietary laws.

well maybe i will just tell you

Jews could not eat things strangled, but they could give it to gentiles to eat

Now that these gentiles were converted, they had to keep the same dietary laws as did all jews
---francis on 3/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


francis:

Acts 15:20
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood ... and from pork, and from shrimp, and from catfish, and from hares, and ..."

Oh wait. The part after the "..." seems to be missing in any of the Bibles I have seen. I would think that if the Apostles had meant to include those too, they would have said so.
---StrongAxe on 3/25/12


Jerry //You are confused! Do you really believe all the Israelites knew that God had a new law in mind when He had Jerimiah write Jer 31:33?
---
Confusion is all too often characterizes those that belong to cults. In your case, you are stuck under the smelly skirts of one that was kicked out of a church that preached the gospel.

I believe that Israelites looked forward to the coming of their Messiah and a new dispensation that would be UNLIKE the old Sinai covenant God made with them.




---lee1538 on 3/25/12


For instance, physical circumcision, Levitical dietary laws, the Sabbath and other observance were tenets only of the Old Covenant, but are NOT found as tenets of the New Covenant.
---lee1538 on 3/24/12
Only those who are spiritualy blind cannot see dietary laws and sabbath in the new covenant:


Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled (DIETARY LAW Deuteronomy 14:21), and from blood (DIETARY LAW Leviticus 17:12).

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. ENCOURAGES CONVERTED GENTILE TO CONTINUE KEEPING THE SABBATH
---francis on 3/25/12


Leest: You are confused! Do you really believe all the Israelites knew that God had a new law in mind when He had Jerimiah write Jer 31:33?


---jerry6593 on 3/25/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Jerry //It's a New Covenant, Lee, not a New Law.

Screwball thinking!

A covenant is an agreement between parties having various tenets that are agreed upon by those involved.

As such the Old and New Covenant differs in its specifications. For instance, physical circumcision, Levitical dietary laws, the Sabbath and other observance were tenets only of the Old Covenant, but are NOT found as tenets of the New Covenant.

Sorry Jerry but you should really gather your thoughts together on these issues before you post.
---lee1538 on 3/24/12


Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

The old covenant contained no divine power to israel to keep the law

The New covenant is different in that we are partakers of the divine to enable us to keep the law

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
---francis on 3/24/12


This is the OLD COVENANT:

Exodus 19:5 if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

An agreement that they will obey God and God will be their God and bless them. The covenant is not the law, but an agreement to keep the law
---francis on 3/24/12


Exodus 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ORDINANCES and LAWS,...
Leviticus 26:46 These are the STATUES and JUDGMENTS and LAWS,

ORDINANCES: STATUTES: JUDGMENTS

If they were just one law God would not see fit tio put them into seperate categories
---francis on 3/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Leest: "Jerry //Do you really believe the Ezekiel and all the Israelites knew that God had a new law in mind when He had Ezekiel write: Jer 31:33"

No! Why do you ask? It's a New Covenant, Lee, not a New Law! The Covenant is an agreement to keep the Law, not the Law itself. I know that this is pretty deep stuff for you, but you can grasp it if you try.


---jerry6593 on 3/24/12


And then there is the

DUMB LAW:

Mt 15:16 And he said, "Are you also still without understanding?"

Francis needs to learn that regardless of what the law is or what type we can categorize it, that -

it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.Gal. 3:11b -12

And francis still ignores the laws he does not like.

Exodus 35:3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
---lee1538 on 3/24/12


Yes Francis, we can see the different types of laws in the Bible, however, the Bible in itself does not make any distinction. The categorization is really ours!
---lee1538 on 3/24/12
Except for this:
Exodus 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ORDINANCES and LAWS,...
Leviticus 26:46 These are the STATUES and JUDGMENTS and LAWS,

So the bible itself does a lot of the breaking down for us.

And the bible speaks in context for the mnost part
example
Exodus 20: moral laws
Exodus 21: mainly civil laws
Exodus 25: mainly cerimoniall laws
Deuteronomy 14: mainly health laws
---francis on 3/24/12


Jerry //Do you really believe the Ezekiel and all the Israelites knew that God had a new law in mind when He had Ezekiel write: Jer 31:33

You are consistently wrong as you ignore the context. The preceding verse (31:32) states that this covenant will be not according to the covenant God made with Israel when he lead them out of Egypt. And that was the old covenant He made with them at Mt. Sinai.

And this new covenant is not a rehash of the old but an entirely new one with its own tenets.
---lee1538 on 3/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


MORAL LAWS:
Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

CEREMONIAL ORDINANCES:
Numbers 9:14 keep the passover unto the LORD, according to the ordinance of the passover,

AGRICULTURAL STATUES:
Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:

CIVIL LAWS:
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another [wife], her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

HEALTH LAWS:
Leviticus 17:12 No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
---francis on 3/23/12


Yes Francis, we can see the different types of laws in the Bible, however, the Bible in itself does not make any distinction. The categorization is really ours!

When the Bible speaks of law, for instance when it states Christians are not under the law, it makes no distinction as to type of law. The interpretation is really what our religious preference is.

But in any interpretation of scripture, we must support our view with other scripture, historical interpretation as held by the church as well as good sense.
---lee1538 on 3/24/12


francis is making a division based on nothing more than the traditions and precepts of men.

francis, do you have an indoor toilet, or do you follow the Biblical command to go outside of the city to relieve yourself and bury it with the shovel the Bible commands you to carry for that purpose?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/24/12


CIVIL LAWS:
Exodus 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

HEALTH LAWS:
Deuteronomy 23:13 thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon, and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

BUILDING STAUTES:
Deuteronomy 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

WAR STATUTES:
Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
---francis on 3/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


\\If Cluny is right, and there is only one, all-inclusive LAW, then that must, of necessity, be the LAW of the New Covenant.\\

Hurray, jerry!

You're starting to catch on!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/23/12


While there is ONE LAW, it is characterized by what we view as its various types.
---lee1538 on 3/23/12

It is just too easy to see that both circumcision, the Levitical dietary laws, and the Sabbath were laws that were distinctly Jewish in nature. Again, moral laws were never an issue but the Sabbath is NOT a moral type law because it is merely an observance and not inherent in man's nature.
---lee1538 on 3/23/12

When scripture speaks of law, it makes no distinction as to types.
---lee1538 on 3/21/12

Take some time, gather your thought, and explain if the bible maes no distinction you have come up with a moral law, and laws that are strickly jewish in nature.




---francis on 3/23/12


//If Cluny is right, and there is only one, all-inclusive LAW, then that must, of necessity, be the LAW of the New Covenant.

While there is ONE LAW, it is characterized by what we view as its various types.

As much as you would hate to admit it, the entire law whatever it may be, is summed up and fulfilled by love of neighbor. And that is exactly what Romans 13:9-10 states.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Jerry are you really to admit you are nothing?
---lee1538 on 3/23/12


//Christ came and fulfilled the laws of the sanctuary by being that inocent lamb of God who took our death.

The sacrifice that Jesus made for sin was not in the sanctuary but outside the gate.

Hebrews 13:12-13 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
---lee1538 on 3/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Francis //Paul did not rank against honoring father and mother, nor did he speak against worshiping one God.

True, however my comment was that the Judaizers "were trying to pervert the gospel by introducing laws that were Jewish in nature".

It is just too easy to see that both circumcision, the Levitical dietary laws, and the Sabbath were laws that were distinctly Jewish in nature. Again, moral laws were never an issue but the Sabbath is NOT a moral type law because it is merely an observance and not inherent in man's nature.

Glad to clarify that issue with you.
---lee1538 on 3/23/12


Paul wrote the letter to counter the Judaizing of the churches he founded.
---lee1538 on 3/22/12

Paul did not ralk against honouring father and mother, nor did he speak against worshiping one God.

So clearly he was speaking about a seperate law than the one which says thou shall not kill, and thou shall have no other gods before me.

And that is what this blog is all about. There is a distinction between laws. While paul spoke against circumcision for example, the ten commandments speak nothing of circumcision

circumcision and ten commandments would thus be distinct laws
---francis on 3/22/12


Leest: Apparently, you have added a fifth category to Old Testament Law. Do you really believe the Ezekiel and all the Israelites knew that God had a new law in mind when He had Ezekiel write:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the LORD, I will put MY LAW in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

If Cluny is right, and there is only one, all-inclusive LAW, then that must, of necessity, be the LAW of the New Covenant.


---jerry6593 on 3/23/12


1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,

The ONLY law that shows death for sin, is the law of the sanctuary. When one sinned inocent blood was shed in the sanctuary.

Christ came and fulfilled the laws of the sanctuary by being that inocent lamb of God who took our death.

A distinction is made between the ten commandments which tell what sin is, and the sanctuary laws which demonstrates what the wages of sin is. Once Jesus died we no longer have to kill an inocent animal in faith of Jesus death, if we fail in one of the ten commandments we come boldly by the blood of Jesus to the holy of holies for forgiveness
---francis on 3/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Francis //That promise is seen in the sanctuary.

NO! the only promise mentioned in Galatians is the one God made to Abraham that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

This promise involved being justified by faith apart from the law and having all the blessings of salvation (3:6-9).

The promise is not by the obedience of law given some 430 years later but by faith in the same way that Abraham possessed the blessing.

3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Where on earth did you come up with this sanctuary stuff? Reference PLEASE!
---lee1538 on 3/22/12


Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

THAT PROMISE IS SEEN IN THE SANCTUARY. THAT CHRIST WOULD BE THE SIN OFFERING, AS WELL AS HIGH PRIEST. SO ALL WHO BELIEVED OFFERED SACRIFICES BY FAITH IN THE PROMISE OF THE COMMING MESSIAH

Galatians 3:23
BEFOE JESUS CAME, THEY FOLLOWED THE SANCTUARY LAWS

Galatians 3:25
ONCE CHRIST WAS REVEALED AS LAMB, HIGH PRIEST, AND SO ON, THEY NO LONGER NEEDED THE SANCTUARY

N.B. AFTER JESUS WE STIL PREACH AGAINST TAKING GOPD'S NAME IN VAIN, AND COMMITING ADULTERY, BUT NOT ANIMAL SACRIFICE

THIS SHOWED TWO DISTINCT LAWS,
SANCTUARY AND TEN COMMANDMENTS
---francis on 3/22/12


Francis //Before you tell me what others say, I just want to know what YOU have to say.

Always viewed the law in Galatians are being all the law as presented in scripture.

The fact is that your view the law in Galatians speaks of the sanctuary law is totally incorrect in consideration that Paul wrote the letter to counter the Judaizing of the churches he founded.

Judaizing meaning that these people were trying to pervert the gospel by introducing laws that were Jewish in nature such as circumcision, the Levitical food laws, and observance of religious holy days. "You observe days and months and seasons and years!" (4:10)

While you have my opinion, it is also the studied view of Bible expositors.

---lee1538 on 3/22/12


In which case what we need to do is to consult those who have been called into the ministry of teaching. ---lee1538 on 3/22/12

Before you tell me what others say, I just want to know what YOU have to say.

What are you thought and why

forget others for now tell me what LEEJ things and why
---francis on 3/22/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Francis //What law to you say it is?
---
If you read that section in its context, the law as a schoolmaster in 3:24 would be the law in which we were held captive (imprisoned), the law that has concluded all of us under sin. Nothing to do directly with any sanctuary.

Gal. 3:22-23 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

The SDA sanctuary theory is an example of very bad exegetics of scripture as we were never held captive or imprisoned by any sanctuary law!
---lee1538 on 3/22/12


francis//we appear to have a difference of opinion on exactly what law was our schoolmaster.

In which case what we need to do is to consult those who have been called into the ministry of teaching. And in doing that, you will not find any expositor of the Bible that agrees with your interpretation.

Our interpretation of the Bible should rarely be in conflict with what the body of Christ holds.

Otherwise, we would end up thinking like Eloy.
---lee1538 on 3/22/12


---lee1538 we appear to have a difference of opinion on exactly what law was our schoolmaster.
I say that it is the law of the earthly sanctuary which taught us as a schoolmaster of Jesus as: High priest, veil, passover lamb, shedding of blood for sin, the bread, the living water and so on based on all that was in the sanctuary.

What law to you say it is?
---francis on 3/22/12


Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then [erveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,

A Law was ADDED because people trangressed.

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years

That law came 430 years after God made Abraham his promise

Yet about Abraham God sais:
Genesis 26:5 Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

and before God gave that law God said: Exodus 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

So we are talking two different laws here
---francis on 3/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


When the Bible speaks of "the law" it makes clear distinction of what type of law, by reading the context of the passage where the word "law" is used. When people misapply a definition to the word, or take the word outside of its context then they will have false doctrine. To answer your question, Yes, there are different categories of the law. The "Law" written on our hearts is "Love", "Love for the Lord God first: and Love for your neighbor, as the love you have for yourself".
---Eloy on 3/21/12


Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:

Now, in which of the laws of God so we see death ( curse of the law)

Leviticus 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that [is] for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
This animals death, represent the death that should be the death of the sinner. This is the curse which Galations speak of that is found in the law

Christ took that death for us
That is why this verse refers to the earthly sanctuary which as a schoolmaster taught us how christ would die for our sins.
---francis on 3/21/12


//Clearly one can see how the earthly sanctuary law as a schoolmaster, taught us the plan of redeemption until Jesus came and carried out the plan in his flesh
---
Pure garbage! as the subject in Galatians 3 has little or nothing to do with any sanctuary. What is does have to do is with the law being simply the means by which we came to FAITH in Christ.

Wherefore the law was our guardian to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified (declared righteous) by faith. Ever read Gal. 3:11?

During Paul's day, the Judaizers attempted to bring the churches of Galatia back unto the Jewish laws - "you have begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh"- meaning accomplishments by religion.
---lee1538 on 3/21/12


\\Some have to do with feast / ceremonies: Passover, and so on. these are called ordinances\\

Not by the Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 3/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Galatians 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

When we consider all the laws in the bible that serve to teach us about christ, which will also be discontined after Christ, only one comes to mind: THE SANCTUARY LAWS

Christ became our passover
Christ body served as temple veil
Christ became our high priest and serves in the heavenly sanctuary
Christ is our light
Christ is our bread
Christ is our living water

Clearly one can see how the earthly sanctuary law as a schoolmaster, taught us the plan of redeemption until Jesus came and carried out the plan in his flesh
---francis on 3/21/12


Francis //The bible makes distintion of the various laws:

Yes, I can agree that we ourselves may classify the laws given in the Bible, BUT the Bible itself does NOT in general make any distinction when it mentions law.

For instance consider Galatians 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The verse does NOT say that law here is moral, ceremonial, health or civic. However any good exegetics of scripture would say that since we are to walk by faith, the law whatever it was to reveal sin, simply became the means to lead us to faith.
---lee1538 on 3/21/12


The bible makes distintion of the various laws:
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws

Examples of statutes: Building codes: Deuteronomy 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

Some laws are health laws and are still practiced today. Example: Quaranting a potentially infected person, burrying human waste, washing hands under running water.

Some laws are about human rights ( CIVIL LAWS):Exodus 23:9 thou shalt not oppress a stranger:

Some have to do with feast / ceremonies: Passover, and so on. these are called ordinances
---francis on 3/21/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.