The Ten Commandments are the Covenant, did you know?

  • 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.
I posted this before here is context to Col2:16 which starts much sooner for those who are interested

There are several different Sabbaths in the Bible that uses the same word, but has very different meanings.

There is the seventh day Sabbath- instituted at Creation Exo20:11 Gen2:1-3, came before sin, reaffirmed in the Ten Commandments Exo20:8-11, written by God personally Exo31:18, placed inside God’s ark Exo40:20 God called it “the holy day of the Lord” Isa58:13

There are the annual sabbath(s) feast days that are always tied to animal sacrifices, they don’t always fall on the seventh day can be on any day and came after the fall and were handwritten by Moses, placed besides the ark of God’s covenant came after sin.

  • 1st day of Unleavened Bread
  • 7th day of Unleavened Bread
  • Pentecost
  • Trumpets
  • Day of Atonement
  • 1st day of Tabernacles
  • 8th day of Tabernacles
We see these in Leviticus 23 and these are additional feasts besides the Sabbath of the Lord- the seventh day Sabbath Lev 23:37-38

There is the Day of Atonement Sabbath where fasting is required Lev16:31 Lev 23:27-32
There is the seventh year Sabbath that is every 7th year where the land should rest Lev25:1-7
The Jubilee Sabbath (50th) year Lev 25:8-17


So I think we are being quick to assume by seeing the word Sabbath that has different meanings and assuming it means the Holy Day of the Lord that comes with God's blessing and sanctification , without looking at the context that Paul carefully gave and we should let the Bible interpret itself.

Col 2:14 KJV Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

Col 2:14 NASB having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Greek word for handwriting: χειρόγραφον (cheirographon)
Literally: “something written by hand

Ordinances
τοῖς δόγμασιν (tois dogmasin)
Meaning: “decrees,” “regulations,” “legal demands”

It is a legal document that condemns sinners why Paul used the word “against us” and “contrary to us”. The law does not condemn the righteous, it condemns the sinners.

Just from this context that Paul gave we can eliminate the Ten Commandments, but lets let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Who wrote the handwritten ordinances?

2 Chron 33:8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.

What law is the law that was contrary and against?

Deut 31:24-26 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;


It appears from the text that this is not referring to the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments that was written by God Himself by His finger Exo31:18 placed inside the ark of the covenant, not besides like the annual sabbath(s) connected to animal sacrifices.


This is the law that was taken away at the Cross.

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:

This is the exact language referring to the annual sabbath(s) that were handwritten by Moses, placed besides the ark that refer to annual feasts days, sacrifices and offerings that some were also called sabbath(s)

Eze 45:17 and it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.


What did Jesus say He would come to put an end to? (compared to magnifying another law- by placing it in our hearts Isa42:21Heb8:10)


Dan 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.


Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ

What are the shadows laws? Lets let the Scriptures define what they are

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once []purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

5 Therefore
, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, []O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been []sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all

This fits the context of this passage perfectly and makes the Bible harmonize because we see Sabbath-keeping (every Sabbath) 30+ years after the Cross just as Jesus Himself indicated Isa 56:6-7 Acts 13:42, Acts 13:44 Acts 15:21 Acts 18:4 and up to His Second Coming Mat24:20-30 and forever Isa66:22-23

Last edited: Jan 1, 2026
 
  • Like
Reactions: vassal
Amen! Happy preparation day Sabbathblessings!

And let us not get caught as to think we can discern their hearts as to why they don't see. To many here play like they have the all seeing eye that only God has.

Something else that is missed by many is the fact that verse 21 starts with the word "for" .
As we know the word "for" assigns a reason for what was previously stated.

So why just the four laws? Because Moses is read every Sabbath. In other words they will be fed in due time, no sense in overwhelming them as we were. You seen how that worked.

What many failed to realize is upon hearing the word of God at Sinia they jumped the gun in that they could not endure the voice of God entering their heart but cried out due to their stiff neck and hard hearts asked for Him who sustains all to stop speaking and have Moses, a man tell them what it is He wanted.

We seen how that worked huh?

So did God. That is why God said that He had a New Covenant for them Prior to them entering into the Promised Land in Deut 29:1. Not like tha one at Horeb, Mt Sinia. Then in verse 30:14 He says what that is. He says that He has placed His Word in their hearts and mouths that they do it. So, we see that that that better promise that Heb 8 speaks of was available back than also.

We also see why many could not enter their promised rest of the promise land due to the same rebellion and hardened heart Eze20:13 as today, sadly Heb3:7-19

Eze 20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.

God Himself relates profaning the Sabbath as going after idols.

No wonder why we are plainly told in the NT not to follow their path of disobedience Heb4:11 I pray we all hear the voice of the Holy Spirit calling on us today Heb3:7-19

Happy Preparation Day! God bless!
 
  • Like
Reactions: vassal and Qt
So why just the four laws? Because Moses is read every Sabbath. In other words they will be fed in due time, no sense in overwhelming them as we were. You seen how that worked.

.
Really? So God's applicable laws are arbitary, you can pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you can pick and choose whether you commit sin or not?
The argument fails anyway, years later the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) ONLY asking gentiles to follow the same four laws, none had been added Acts21:25
Im afraid it is an indisputable fact, if you are correct the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentile converts a licence to sin as sin is the transgression of the law
 
The 12 already preached the ten commandments including the sabbath that Jesus explained, and taught. the jesusalem council just added 4 more from the OT because at that time everywhere where gentiles, these sins were prevalent. as you know many of the laws of mosed CANNOT and SHOULD not be followed today like preisthood and sacrificial, atonement laws.... the jesuralem council did not want to turn the gentiles into little pharisees, certainly not. they could listen in, but were told what to do by the disciples, they followed the disciples instructions, as we must do so today.

Blessings
Well one of the four Paul said it was alright to do in 1Cor ch8, eating food sacrificed to idols
 
I didn’t say that obeying God’s commandments is living under fear.

If you’re going to misrepresent my words and thereby bear false witness, I’m going to question your integrity.
You're not on your own, they bear false witness against me too, apparently without a care in the world, or apology for doing so
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
Only the laws of Moses were being discussed, what Paul termed disputable matters in Rom14:1 There was much debate, there wouldn't have been if murder, adultery and stealing were being discussed, huh?
So your stance on the four laws has just expanded.

Regardless your quip does not address the fact that vers 21 in acts 15 starts with the word for after stating just the four laws. There would be no reason to bring up Moses being spoken every Sabbath if there was not more to learn.

You bounce out of Given text to another to say that the given text doesn't say what it says within the Context it is in a lot.

That is poor exegesis.

Be that what it is; Romans 14 is misunderstood by most. For one vers 14:1 shows us that the context is not even speaking about the Book of the Law but about man's surmising and opinions.

How do we know?

Because the first argument revealed in verse 2 is about people believing they are to only eat vegetables. Though it is part of the original diet after the fall and Daniel gives a testimony about it in His book. Nowhere in the Book of the Law is given as a mandate

Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.

The second issue that is stumbling block for most is in verse 5. This also is resolved when one realizes that the context is not the Book of the Law at all but man's opinions through surmising. Take not that the Sabbath is mentioned either. Which why most even quote it in the first place

Rom 14:5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind.

The third issue is found in verse 14. Once again this debate is one resulting from man arguing over their opinions based on their surmising and not on the Book of the Law. The first thing one needs to know is that word translated unclean in a lot of translations is a mistranslation. The word for unclean is a different word. The word that is actually there is a word that means common. That is how it is translated in most places everywhere else in the NT. Like in Acts 10. There a distinction is made between the two class of animals. Those in which were unclean as described in the Book of the Law and those which were common. Which sometimes were assumed to be common because not knowing were the animals have been or how they were prepared. I think however out side of that the one thing most miss is God never mentions cleansing the unclean in verse 15 only the common.

The latter is why it is here in Romans 14. They did not know where the animals in question came from or how they were prepared. Hence the wording in verse 14 saying what it says, "to any one reckoning to be common, to that one it is common."

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing common by itself; except to any one reckoning to be common, to that one it is common.
 
So your stance on the four laws has just expanded.

Regardless your quip does not address the fact that vers 21 in acts 15 starts with the word for after stating just the four laws. There would be no reason to bring up Moses being spoken every Sabbath if there was not more to learn.

You bounce out of Given text to another to say that the given text doesn't say what it says within the Context it is in a lot.

That is poor exegesis.

Be that what it is; Romans 14 is misunderstood by most. For one vers 14:1 shows us that the context is not even speaking about the Book of the Law but about man's surmising and opinions.

How do we know?

Because the first argument revealed in verse 2 is about people believing they are to only eat vegetables. Though it is part of the original diet after the fall and Daniel gives a testimony about it in His book. Nowhere in the Book of the Law is given as a mandate

Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.

The second issue that is stumbling block for most is in verse 5. This also is resolved when one realizes that the context is not the Book of the Law at all but man's opinions through surmising. Take not that the Sabbath is mentioned either. Which why most even quote it in the first place

Rom 14:5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind.

The third issue is found in verse 14. Once again this debate is one resulting from man arguing over their opinions based on their surmising and not on the Book of the Law. The first thing one needs to know is that word translated unclean in a lot of translations is a mistranslation. The word for unclean is a different word. The word that is actually there is a word that means common. That is how it is translated in most places everywhere else in the NT. Like in Acts 10. There a distinction is made between the two class of animals. Those in which were unclean as described in the Book of the Law and those which were common. Which sometimes were assumed to be common because not knowing were the animals have been or how they were prepared. I think however out side of that the one thing most miss is God never mentions cleansing the unclean in verse 15 only the common.

The latter is why it is here in Romans 14. They did not know where the animals in question came from or how they were prepared. Hence the wording in verse 14 saying what it says, "to any one reckoning to be common, to that one it is common."

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing common by itself; except to any one reckoning to be common, to that one it is common.
It really does not matter what you write, God's applicable laws are NOT arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not. Maybe you believe you can
 
It really does not matter what you write, God's applicable laws are NOT arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not. Maybe you believe you can
No one said you can. The ten are the bases and were never in question in Acts 15.

And once again you did not answer the points of the post. But I bet you think you did...
 
You're not on your own, they bear false witness against me too, apparently without a care in the world, or apology for doing so
I suggest we call them out on it... every single time... and call it what it is. If they are truly saved and have the Holy Spirit within them, their hypocrisy will eventually begin to eat at them. If they aren't, perhaps the conviction of their failure to obey perfectly will draw them to repentance and knowledge of the truth.
 
No one said you can. The ten are the bases and were never in question in Acts 15.

And once again you did not answer the points of the post. But I bet you think you did...
I wouldn't even bother frankly, nor do I need to. If you are correct, as to what is applicable law it is an indisputable fact the leaders of the first century church gave gentiles a licence to sin. And Im not going to let you deflect from that with your reasoning
 
I suggest we call them out on it... every single time... and call it what it is. If they are truly saved and have the Holy Spirit within them, their hypocrisy will eventually begin to eat at them. If they aren't, perhaps the conviction of their failure to obey perfectly will draw them to repentance and knowledge of the truth.
The irony of all of this is, as I have witnessed so many times, the people who most casually transgress what is written in the TC are those who insist you MUST obey them
 
I suggest we call them out on it... every single time... and call it what it is. If they are truly saved and have the Holy Spirit within them, their hypocrisy will eventually begin to eat at them. If they aren't, perhaps the conviction of their failure to obey perfectly will draw them to repentance and knowledge of the truth.
I was going to ignore this, but since you want to make an issue out of it. I am going to get involved. Whereas I can see you did not say "Why would you think obeying God’s commandments is living under fear instead of living by faith and love John14:15 1John5:3. Faith does not void the law of God Rom3:31" I can see why she might of seen that you did if she skim read your post.
If you can't I don't know what to tell you.
Your lists are cherry-picked. Good fruit of trusting God at His word in the new testament is peace and confidence. Bad fruit of living under the law is fear, unwarranted caution, and self-righteousness.
 
No that is not true. And you know it. The reason you don't is you can't.
I see you cut the rest of the post out. Happy to repeat it, your deflections won't work Im afraid. God's laws are NOT arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not.
If you are correct, it is an indisputable fact the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin. As long as you ignore this, I will keep on posting it
 
I am not sure why people miss that the council of the Gentiles included Sabbath-keeping just as Jesus Himself indicated Isa 56:6-7 Mat2:27-28

Acts 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

It’s how the Gentiles were learning about the word of God, not that they had to keep 4 things only
You are making an error of logic, assuming that the existence of an action results in a rule requiring that action. The reality is that Moses was preached in synagogues on the Sabbath! Gentiles could attend and would hear his words. That does not in any way suggest that gentiles must observe the Sabbath! It is possible that the implication (admittedly unstated) is that "all this preaching hasn't even resulted in consistent obedience by Jews; why would it apply to gentiles?"

Acts 13:42 [n]So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.

Acts 18:4 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.
More of the same logical error. When did the Jews gather and preach God's word? On the Sabbath. Do you think, just maybe, that gentiles knew this and simply requested out of convenience rather than some implied or actual obligation?

God’s predictions always come true.
There is no "prediction" to be discussed here so I have to wonder why you made this comment.
 
The 12 already preached the ten commandments including the sabbath that Jesus explained, and taught. the jesusalem council just added 4 more from the OT because at that time everywhere where gentiles, these sins were prevalent. as you know many of the laws of mosed CANNOT and SHOULD not be followed today like preisthood and sacrificial, atonement laws.... the jesuralem council did not want to turn the gentiles into little pharisees, certainly not. they could listen in, but were told what to do by the disciples, they followed the disciples instructions, as we must do so today.
Eisegesis at its worst!

Here are the critical words that utterly refute your position:

Acts 15:28-29 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
 
I was going to ignore this, but since you want to make an issue out of it. I am going to get involved. Whereas I can see you did not say "Why would you think obeying God’s commandments is living under fear instead of living by faith and love John14:15 1John5:3. Faith does not void the law of God Rom3:31" I can see why she might of seen that you did if she skim read your post.
If you can't I don't know what to tell you.
You are defending her post as the result of skimming rather than reading carefully. That requires that she made a hasty reaction without adequate thought.

I've done that... and had to apologize. If that's what she did, then she needs to apologize. If, however, it was just an attempt to refute my position, then she is guilty of misrepresentation... and she needs to apologize.

There is no need for your interference.
 
Dont you agree with the following Vassal, as you gave it a cross, would you like to explain why?:
'''I see you cut the rest of the post out. Happy to repeat it, your deflections won't work Im afraid. God's laws are NOT arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not.
If you are correct, it is an indisputable fact the leaders of the first century church, including Peter, James and Paul gave gentiles a licence to sin. As long as you ignore this, I will keep on posting it'''
 
Eisegesis at its worst!

Here are the critical words that utterly refute your position:

Acts 15:28-29 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Are you saying we are not keep the 10 Commandments? are these a burden to you? that would be teaching LAWLESNESS.
 
Are you saying we are not keep the 10 Commandments? are these a burden to you? that would be teaching LAWLESNESS.
Is it not a burden to you to obey the letter of the TC?
If you say no, you have problems
But with your views, how can you say yes?