Jesus and the Ten Commandments

[monoergon]

I am looking for an article that argues and demonstrates that Jesus kept each one of the Ten Commandments.

I want to share such article with some dispensationalist colleagues.

Please share if you know of one.

 

[Taylor]

I mean, the only alternative to keeping them is to break them, so...

 

[Joshua]

I am looking for an article that argues and demonstrates that Jesus kept each one of the Ten Commandments.

Will the Bible suffice for them?

Galatians 4:

4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.​

If He did not keep them, subsequently die as a perfect sacrifice, and rise from the dead, we are of all men most to be pitied, and without hope.

 

[rookie]

I am with Josh on this one. If there was any possibility that Christ had sinned, it would make his sacrifice absolutely in vain. Even in the old testament, when they were sacrificing animals, which for the most part, don't hold to "human sins", were all tainted by the fall of man. The sacrifices then were also pointing to a perfect sacrifice in the future, Christ.

 

[monoergon]

I agree with all of you.

I suppose some dispensationalists are trying to argue that Christians don't have to obey the 10 Commandments because they are not under the law, but under grace. These should correctly be identified as antinomians. I don't know about the US, but in Brazil there are a lot of antinomian laymen. Social network groups' of theology are full of these antinomian laymen.

 

[Taylor]

...some dispensationalists are trying to argue that Christians don't have to obey the 10 Commandments because they are not under the law, but under grace.

How in the world do these people put these two passages together?

"What then? Should we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not!" (Romans 6:15). "Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).

These two passages alone, without any other witness (and there is plenty) say that 1) we are not to sin just because we are under grace and not law, and 2) that sin is lawlessness. In other words, if these people would agree with Paul that not being under the law is not a license to sin, how do they define sin, if not by the law?

This is where sloppy hermeneutics and biblical theology leads people. It is so patently obvious from Scripture that we are not under the law in the sense that we are free from its curse. But we are most certainly not free from obedience to the law. In fact, ironically for these people, it is by our freedom from the law in the former sense that we are motivated unto obedience to the law, not disregard of it!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I understand the dispensational mindset though. They say that Christ kept the OT law perfectly so that his righteousness in keeping it is imputed to us- then they say that Christ in keeping it perfectly “fulfilled” the law so that it doesn’t apply to us anymore like it did to OT Israel. They would say that we’re “free” from keeping the Ten Commandments as given by Moses, and we’re only bound to those moral laws repeated in the NT. So they wouldn’t see Sabbath keeping as a moral law- We now have some wiggle room on the Sabbath, I guess they think.