Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Exodus 20:8 ¶ "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Exodus 20:8 ¶ "Remember the Sabbath (seventh) day to keep it holy (set apart, dedicated to God). |
Subject: Are we free from KEEPING the Law? |
Bible Note: The NT does not contradict the OT. "If the New Covenant were to contradict previously given scriptures in the Law or the Prophets, then the New Covenant would not be true" (Seven Pillars of Messianic Judaism, Asher Intrater, 2003**). Rowdy: I have nothing against you as an individual. It's just that I don't buy your contention that the OT is abolished, destroyed, and done away with. For starters, I strongly disagree that the purpose of the OT is to aid us in our understanding of the NT. It's the other way around. Clearly the NT sheds light on, builds on, expands upon, explains and applies the OT. "Fulfill" does not mean "abolish". The OT is the foundation upon which the NT is built. To build a house, one usually starts by laying the foundation (the OT). Then the house (the NT) is built upon the foundation. After the construction of the house is complete, even if it were possible, one would not dig up the foundation and discard it. The foundation is still needed. In like manner, God, after building the NT, does not rip out, tear up and throw away the foundation -- the OT. I have posted more than a dozen submissions on the continuing validity of the Law, complete with relevant Scripture references and arguments (points offered as proof). You haved directly replied to few or none of them. I would be interested in your direct response to the points I have raised in my posts. "I keep supporting my statements with scriptures and you keep dodging the points contained therein. Will you please respond to my posts with specific statements directed to my points...?" You wrote the above paragraph, enclosed in quotes, to flinkywood. I ask you the same question. Ironically, I feel that what you wrote to him is also applicable to you regarding my posts. I hope that in reply you have something to say besides repeating over and over that we are not under the Law. Rowdy, we are free from the penalty of the Law. We are not under legalism. We are not under oral tradition. Further, you keep insisting that there is a "conflict" between the Law and Jesus' teaching in the sermon on the mount. You say that Jesus' teachings contradict and do away with the Ten Commandments, when Jesus plainly said he did not come to do away with the Law. There is no conflict between Moses' commandments and Jesus' teachings on them in which He gives the 'complete, full spiritual sense to be understood and obeyed'. For example, where is the conflict between a command to not murder your brother and a command to not be angry with him? Far from there being a conflict, both of these commands -- don't be angry and do not murder -- are in harmony with each other. Jesus never said it's not OK to be angry, but now it's OK to murder. So where does this idea come from that when Jesus explains a commandment he is at the same time abolishing it? It wouldn't make sense to explain a commandment and in the same breath cancel it. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17 This verse states the theme of the entire Sermon on the Mount -- in which six times the Messiah says, "you have heard of old time" the incomplete meaning or a distortion, "but I say to you" the complete, full spiritual sense to be understood and obeyed. I write this Note not to criticize or hurt you. Instead my purpose is to make my position clear. Grace to you, kalos |