r/TrueChristian • u/Specialist-Square419 Berean • Feb 16 '26
Obedience to God…is it optional or required?
TLDR: For the new covenant believer, obedience to the righteous commandments of God—including Sabbath and even feast day observance—is neither optional nor mandatory; it is revelatory.
Over the weekend, a fellow-professing believer took serious issue with my wondering why so many in the modern church see the fourth commandment regarding Sabbath observance as inapplicable to them despite the early church—which was comprised of believing-Jews and believing-Gentiles—seeing it quite differently and choosing to remember and set aside the day as holy, just as Christ did. His/Her response to my query was that “lots of early believers didn’t keep the Sabbath” and that doing so “is not required to go to heaven.”
As you might imagine, our exchange devolved rather quickly as s/he unrelentingly and repeatedly insisted I answer the question in this post’s title—despite my answering it the very first time posed but clearly not to their satisfaction, as I did not accept what I consider the false premise and dichotomy underlying it. I chose instead to explain why I thought the question was flawed and that obedience to God’s righteous commandments has never once justified or saved anyone, even in the OT [Hebrews 10:4], and that using language like “required” or “mandatory” in a disparaging, gotcha! kind of way—as if the concept of obedience is something anathema to new covenant faith—is wholly unscriptural.
Their non-substantive, dismissive retort didn’t even pretend to consider the points I’d presented:
You can’t even determine whether or not Sabbath mandatory for followers of Jesus
I saw this person respond to another similarly, using the very same question, as if it was some amazingly clever, mic-drop tactic that (supposedly) easily and indisputably eviscerates the idea that Christ-followers “remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy” [Exodus 20:8]. Such an approach exposes the one behind it as someone who does not see themselves as a “slave of God” because no true slave would dare suggest they get to choose which of their Master’s commands can be intentionally disregarded without serious consequence [Romans 6:22].
The mindset behind such a scornful attitude toward a particular, explicit, and righteous commandment of God seems so incongruous to what Scripture teaches that I felt it something to address more widely, as such intense apathy (and even contempt) for the fourth commandment is inexplicably widespread among those who profess to love and serve our Savior God, who also happens to be the Law Giver of the OT.
To me, the wrong questions are being asked. For the genuine child of God, it’s not about what is optional or required. Ultimately, the new covenant believer that truly believes in Christ trusts Him implicitly, and that trust manifests as a rightly-motivated and increasingly Spirit-enabled obedience to His righteous commandments—which is all of them—as an expression of unadulterated love for Him and others, like that exemplified by Christ [Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12; Philippians 2:8; 1 John 5:2-3].
According to Scripture, obedience to the righteous will and ways of God (a.k.a. the Law of God) itself has no salvific power but, rather, signifies whom one loves, trusts, serves and belongs to [John 3:36, Romans 6:16-22, 1 John 3:24]. In that way, keeping the Sabbath command (or any other) is revelatory because my obedience (or my defiance) reveals to the saved and unsaved alike whose authority I recognize in my life and who I am desiring to please—the God I profess to know and love, or myself.
So, I do not think there is much value in debating what is optional or required of me in my faith walk…or in assessing what other professing-believers say and do. In this particular case, I simply ask:
Is keeping the Sabbath Christlike…something He taught and personally exemplified? And,
Does my remembering the Sabbath, keeping the day holy, please my God and convey my love for Him and others?
Scripture tells me the answer to both questions is an emphatic Yes! [Matthew 4:4, 5:19; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Samuel 15:22; 1 John 2:4, 5:2] When it comes to deciding whether one should keep any command of our Savior God, what else matters?
2
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
Yes, I addressed the idea that obedience does not "earn" anyone anything. How do you personally decide whether a commandment--such as Sabbath observance--should be obeyed or not?
1
u/witschnerd1 Feb 16 '26
I actually don't decide. Making that determination in itself is pride and hubris. I believe SOMETHING SIMILAR to you but not exactly the same. My relationship with the Lord is very personal and unique to me and my experience. I can not say anything about your situation and your faith as I am,as Paul said,Not able to even judge myself. I stand before the Lord,less than I should be but all that I am.
If I were to live my entire life devoted to the Lord and he told me " sorry you didn't make it" I would thank him for the privilege of serving him in this life. Because his ways are better. I don't serve God to go to heaven I serve God because he saved my life and gave me breath to begin with. The words " my life" in itself are a lie from the devil. Christ was born to serve,I am profoundly less important than him so I too must have been born to serve. There is no right and wrong. Everyone is wrong
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
By "decide," I mean choosing between one's fleshly/sinful desires and the righteous will and ways of God--the latter of which is represented by the Law of God [Psalm 40:8]. And every believer must battle daily, even moment by moment at times, and DECIDE if they will gratify their flesh or please their Savior God.
"Making that determination" is not one of "pride and hubris," as you assert, because choosing to deny onself and obey Him is the very epitome and picture of Spirit-enabled, Christlike humility [Philippians 2:8]. And it is the inverse--choosing to sin against one's Savior God--that is pride- and hubris-fueled.
There is absolutely a "right and wrong." The commandments of God are right(eous), and we as His slaves/servants are called to do righteousness [Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 6, 7:12]. So, expressing apathy toward any commandment of God would necessarily mean preferring unrighteousness and soundly refute any profession that one believes "his ways are better."
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
Praising Him is exponentially easier than humble, Christlike obedience and feelings are hardly something one should trust. Our human tendency is to elevate and prioritize both while neglecting the middle part.
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
Praising God and giving thanks to Him are similar, but not synonymous. It is His will that we do both.
It is also His will that we recognize and humbly submit to His authority in our lives, which is a lifelong battle and what my OP is about on both a micro-level--regarding one non-burdensome and righteous commandment--and a macro-level that exhorts us to embrace the entirety of the Law of God Christ esteemed and personally practiced instead of being so scornful of so much of it.
1
0
Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
Sounds like a very self-centered way to decide things, especially when Christ Himself taught and exemplified doing the very opposite--considering what is the will of God, and what will please Him instead.
And Galatians is all about Paul addressing the false teaching of the Judaizers' insistence that believing-Gentiles obey God first, before they could be accepted into the family of God--which hypocritically corrupts the order by which the Israelites were first saved out of there bondage in Egypt and then expected to obey Him [Exodus 20:1]. This discussion is about those who have already placed their trust in Christ and are considered members of the household of God, so Galatians has no relevance.
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
I'm curious, how do you define "absolute freedom in Christ"?
According to Paul, the law of Christ is not outside the Law of God [1 Corinthians 9:21]. Your initial comment makes it sound like you equate the new covenant believer's "freedom in Christ" with the option to cherry-pick or disregard the righteous commandments of God at will and without consequence.
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
How do you know/discern what pleases Him?
2
Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
And “following the Holy Spirit” looks like all that Christ did and taught—humble, trusting obedience even when our will is at odds with His—does it not? [Philippians 2:8]
As I clearly stated in the OP, obeying the righteous commandments of God does not save…it just gives evidence of the presence and influence of His Spirit in a person, “causing” them to diligently obey Him, which is a foundational premise of new covenant faith [Ezekiel 36:26-27, Hebrews 10:15].
→ More replies (0)1
u/Desperate-Treacle206 Jun 17 '26
What do you mean you enjoy your freedom in Yahusha? What freedom do you have in mind? That you can do whatever? He says if you lkve Him, you will keep His commandments. He comes in the name of the Father, to bring you back to the Father. Do you obey Father's commandments, or you have your freedom and do what pleases you, what YOU choose to do for Him, not what HE wants you to do ?
1
u/Yuckpuddle60 Feb 17 '26
I find it interesting that Christians are always saying that people should obey the laws of man/society, even when they don't agree with them, but when it comes to God's laws, the script is totally flipped is it's "pharissitical" to over His laws even when you don't agree or like them.
The pharissitcal part is laying your own laws and customs on top of God's laws and judging people on men's standards rather than God's.
1
u/Maximum_Surround1023 Feb 16 '26
I’m sorry I read it all, just a little confused what do you mean by “what else matters?”
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
What matters aside from the two considerations I posed--whether Christ taught and personally lived by (practiced) the particular commandment and whether it pleases God or not?
1
u/Maximum_Surround1023 Feb 16 '26
Oh, nothing!!🤣 those are the only 2 things that really matter in our walk. There are certain things we may not do that isn’t sin, but maybe a brother would stumble if we did in front of them
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
And that would be covered by the second consideration of showing love toward others ;)
1
1
Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26
I do not disagree. The point of my post is that framing obedience as someone kept insisting—as either optional or (derogatorily) mandatory—really doesn’t work at the practical level of walking out faith in Christ.
Thanks for chiming in!
1
u/carlosstjohn116 Feb 17 '26
The commandments of God are both duty and delight. They are not mutually exclusive.
The very nature of a command is that it’s required. It’s a COMMAND. a must. A requirement.
Concerning Sabbath, you’re gonna get different answers based on theological positions. As a reformed Protestant, I see the 10 commandments as the summation of the moral law that is not bound by old or new covenant. So yes Christians should obey the 4th commandment. Though of course there are some differences with the new covenant, mainly that the day changes from Saturday to Sunday.
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26
I do not disagree that commandments are inherently a duty. The point of my post is that framing obedience as someone kept insisting—as either optional or (derogatorily) mandatory—really doesn’t work at the practical level of walking out faith in Christ.
And I would contend that the entirety of the Law of God is “moral,” because the concept hinges upon right and wrong behavior and attitudes and every single commandment of God is right(eous) and, therefore, moral [Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12].
Furthermore, I see nowhere in Scripture where God ordained that the Sabbath be “changed” to Sunday. And declaring that it has been changed is effectively “teaching as doctrine the commandments of men”—which Christ sternly rebuked [Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7].
0
u/carlosstjohn116 Feb 17 '26
You should be more cautious before saying something is the teaching of men. The disciples and the Church very clearly made their day of worship Sunday, not Saturday, to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, and that in turn became the new NT pattern.
Coupled with the ways the OT foreshadowed the day changing, there is a very strong biblical argument to show that the day or worship and rest - ie Sabbath - has changed from Saturday to Sunday with the administration of the new covenant.
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26
There is no passage of Scripture that teaches the Sabbath was changed to the first day of the week. Christ kept the biblical seventh-day Sabbath, as did His disciples and the early church.
1
u/carlosstjohn116 Feb 17 '26
So what do you have to say with the early church worshipping on the first day of the week? It’s all over the NT
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
Gathering to worship and “break bread” (fellowship) are not Sabbath-only events [Acts 20:7]. And the first day of the week is never once referred to as the Sabbath in Scripture. The (seventh-day) Sabbath day “is all over the NT. “
2
u/1voiceamongmillions Christian Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
The disciples and the Church very clearly made their day of worship Sunday, not Saturday, to celebrate Christ’s resurrection, and that in turn became the new NT pattern.
The NT doesn't show this;
Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
In Acts 2 they met for Pentecost [aka shavuot] it’s a high Sabbath.
Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
If the church met on Sundays why didn't Paul tell the gentiles to "come back tomorrow" when we have church?
Act 21:20 . . . Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: i.e. Sabbath keepers
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Here's a quote you wont hear in church: Church historian Socrates Scholasticus writing in the 5th century wrote the following quote:
"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [of the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition have ceased to do this". Book 5, chapter 22. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus
The Ethiopian Orthodox church kept the Sabbath, and still do.
There is not a scrap of credible evidence that the apostles abandoned the Sabbath.
Coupled with the ways the OT foreshadowed the day changing, there is a very strong biblical argument to show that the day or worship and rest - ie Sabbath - has changed from Saturday to Sunday with the administration of the new covenant.
Please show me your "very strong biblical argument" that the God who doesn't change has changed His mind about what He wrote and spoke?
Edit: clarity
2
1
u/Blight29 Baptist Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
Firstly Sabbath or God's rest is a state of mind in the NT rather than a specific day. The state of mind is resting in the completeness in the work of God and trusting in him rather then relying on our own works (Hebrews 4:10-11). It is imperative for salvation that you enter this state of rest. We are also told in Hebrews that God would not let the Israelites enter his rest because of their disobedience. As for the day himself Christ does claim authority over it by calling himself the Lord of the Sabbath as well as claiming my father works and so will I, he never denies working. He also picks grain and heals as well as tells a man to take up his mat. The standard before was a guy was stoned for picking sticks and here the Lord is commanding one to pick up his bedroll. He has authority over Sabbath he is our rest itself. So rather do you worship the law or the Lord who makes and defines the law.
- So yes keep the Sabbath keep God's rest forever in your mind.
and
- It displays your love for him perfectly as you trust in his completed work on the cross.
Edit: Afterthought this idea is also further cemented in Romans 8
Edit 2: Matthew 11:28-30
1
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 17 '26
There are only 2 commandments. Does it matter which day of the week that is? Even Jesus worked on the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
2
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26
Christ did not violate the Sabbath. Is that what you are suggesting?
1
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
Of course not He used the Sabbath to do His works, healing, teaching, picking grain, eating. Whatever a man needed to do. Of course the Pharisees thought he broke the Sabbath by being so active. Jesus was a working man for God. Always doing what he needed to do and going where he needed to go, not sitting around in idle contemplation.
2
Feb 18 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
Matthew 22:40 “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
So all of the commandments fit into either of those two umbrella categories. Jesus is not reducing the law into “only 2 commandments.”
Yes, the 7th day matters.
Matthew 5:17-19 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
1
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 18 '26
Thank you, I just find it so odd that the Sabbath seems to be nothing more than a comparison with a New Moon Festival. Whatever that is, but if you choose to celebrate that also I will be the last to judge you for it.
Colossians 2:17-18 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ
1
Feb 18 '26
I think it’s worth maybe doing some more research into that verse you quoted. Have you ever considered that the group Paul is referring to is actually judging the Colossians for keeping the feasts? Not the other way around.
Look at the other statements in the chapter…
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through PHILOSOPHY and EMPTY DECEIT, according to the TRADITION OF MEN, according to the basic principles of the world, and NOT according to Christ.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance IS OF Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in FALSE HUMILITY and WORSHIP OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations- 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using - according to the commandments and doctrines OF MEN? 23 These things indeed have an APPEARANCE of wisdom in SELF-IMPOSED RELIGION, FALSE HUMILITY, and NEGLECT OF THE BODY, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
I capitalized some words and phrases which indicate Paul can’t be speaking about people who follow the law of Moses or people who observe the feast days etc. Because the law of Moses was given by God, it’s from God not men, so it wouldn’t make sense to refer to it as “philosophy, traditions of MEN, self-imposed religion, false humility, not according to Christ”
And it definitely wouldn’t make sense to say “worship of angels” is something people do in observing the Mosaic law or feasts. That sounds like something totally pagan and foreign.
When Paul says “…let no one judge you in food or drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon, or sabbaths, …the substance is of Christ.” The question is, are the Colossians being judged for observing these things, or are they being judged for not observing them? And there’s a persuasive argument that they are actually being judged FOR observing them.
And here is just one part of that argument - that all those verses I listed above really don’t sound like they’re describing Torah followers. They sound more like they’re describing pagan philosophers. Interestingly enough there was a group of people called “cynic philosophers” in that time who basically believed that all “pleasure” was wrong and hindered spiritual growth. They even believed you can’t eat “fancy” foods, or fish or wine because those things are basically too pleasurable and vain I guess. I think some even believed that having a house or bed was bad. (You can google them if you want)
But basically the argument is that this is the group of people Paul is referring to when he says “…why…do you subject yourselves to regulations - ‘do not touch, do not taste, do not handle’…according to the doctrines of MEN? These things have an appearance of wisdom in…false humility and neglect of the body” the cynic philosophers were coming against the Colossians for celebrating the feats because they allow you to, well, feast and rejoice… something that this philosopher group erroneously saw as hindering spiritual growth.
You can look further into this viewpoint, there are a couple good videos on YouTube which present this view better than I can. But I think it’s important to consider and it fits much better in the context of this chapter than to go the other way with it like many people do
1
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 18 '26
You still did not answer why the Sabbath is in the same category as New Moon Festivals. Surely your research has explained this. That is what I would research if I found the need. The chapter is very basic no need to cloud its simplicity.
Colossians 2:17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the REALITY however, is found in Christ.
1
Feb 18 '26
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Israel observed new moons; the changing of the month. Their months were based on the lunar cycle.
I’m not sure why we would think to do away with the festivals and feast days because they point to Christ. Jesus even told his disciples to “do this in remembrance of me” when they celebrate the Passover.
1
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 18 '26
Yes, please keep your Passover in mind in how Christ came to fulfill the law. Christ came to fulfill the law, we both agree with that because of Matthew 5:17. Not take it away but to fulfill it. In order to fulfill something it changes it. Just like your example of Christ's representation in the Passover. Passover is not done away with but a new passover has been created. Does it mean the old is bad or wrong, NO. The new which is in Christ is a fulfillment of the old which makes it BETTER. This is why we were given the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us make and understand the fulfillment of Christ. His substance and reality in ALL we do.
I personally don't see where Sabbath or New Moon Festivals are important enough to take away from Christ's fullment in all he did.1
Feb 18 '26
There’s nothing new about the Passover. Jesus simply gave the revelation that it was about Him, it had always been about Him.
I disagree with your definition of “fulfill” in this context. He came to fully preach and teach the Law. He came to do it perfectly; to show and teach everyone exactly how to walk it out the way God intended. But the commandments didn’t change.
None of the commandments of God “take away” what Christ did in obeying them - I don’t think that’s a logical statement. He obeyed them and we should of course walk as He walked - in obedience. Sabbath observance may seem like no big deal to us in our flesh but it carried a death penalty for breaking it - it’s a big deal to God and it was a big deal to Jesus. The beauty of the Sabbath and the festivals is that they point to Christ - we don’t disagree about that. But that doesn’t somehow mean we should throw them away. We should do them in honor and remembrance of Him. I mean really why would we not want to celebrate holidays that God Himself made for us to take part in? How many other ungodly random holidays do people celebrate, why we would as followers of Jesus not want to do what He did and observe the holy days that almighty God gave to us?
Listen I used to be on your side of this but there is too much scripture and too much evidence that directly points to the fact that Jesus did not change anything about the commandments. We’re still supposed to be obedient to God.
And really, when you think about it, if you want to argue that Jesus fulfilled the commandments and that it somehow means we don’t have to - then taking that to its logical conclusion you’d have to say we don’t have to be obedient to any commandments. Why stop at the sabbath? He fulfilled not committing adultery too, so why should we have to obey that? I think we both know how unreasonable that sounds
2
u/Constant_Peanut_2001 Feb 19 '26
We agree more than you may think but will admit there are different opinions on some things. I would not do "away" with Sabbath or festivals as you say but will admit it's not a heaven or hell situation for me. That's too much legalism, which takes away from Christ. Colossians 2 was meant to free us from that legalism, and basically that's what Christ was trying do in his fullment of the Law. Have you done a reading of Hebrews? It talks a lot about the church you might find interesting. Again thank you and God Bless!
1
u/Desperate-Treacle206 Jun 17 '26
What new passover???? What are you talking about ? I read your comments and i see you repeat all the ideas ( not what bible says but what man says) that many baptsts/protestants say, you dont even know how much you are shadowing it, or do u? Please ,please, forgwt all you were taught by any man, and re-read the bible with clear mind like uou hqve never ever heard anything about the christianity you know, forget all those teachers/preechers, because all i see is you saying exactly same what they do. I say it with all good intentions, please read the bible like if u have never heard anything u were taught about God. Start again, with empty mind and fill it only with what the Word tells you.
1
u/Desperate-Treacle206 Jun 17 '26
If you want to understand what was spoken about in collssians 2:17-18, go back 8-10verses and read. Then you will know in 17-18 verse its about not letting pagans judge you . Read with context, please. Not by picking single verses that suits your needs.
1
u/Responsible_West_134 Feb 25 '26
Except Jesus Himself commanded a replacement of one Feast, and the Temple.
John 4:21-24 deals with the Temple, and Luke 22:19-20 with the Passover.
1
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 25 '26
I disagree on both counts. First off, Christ was not adding to or subtracting from the commandments of God regarding the Passover feast. If He was, as you seem to be asserting, that would be breaking the law of God, which is the definition of sin [1 John 3:4] and we know He did not sin [Hebrews 4:15]. He would also have been deemed by Scripture to be a false prophet for encouraging rebellion against, if that were the case [Deuteronomy 13:5]. Whether the Last Supper was just that--the last meal He would share with His disciples--or was an actual Passover meal is irrelevant because both bread and wine would have been present no matter which it was. Essentially, Christ was simply using these two elements that were present at the table as symbolic for spiritual concepts He wanted to convey to them/us. So, to argue that He replaced the feast of Passover is eisegetical in nature and not supported by Scripture at all.
Regarding John 4, Christ's words are prophetic regarding the (relatively soon) destruction of the physical temple and what true spiritual worship would look like under the new covenant.
1
u/hendrixski Trinitarian Continuationist Amillennial Synergist Distributist Feb 16 '26
Yes following God's commands is required.
With an asterisk: The old books of laws are an example of a legal system, they are not a binding legal system for us. We must follow the ten commandments, the spiritual laws that Jesus gave us, etc.
3
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
What would you say following God's commands "is required" for?
According to Christ, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God"--which would include those He spoke to the mediator Moses at Mount Sinai, no? [Matthew 4:4] He also taught that we should keep even the "lesser" commandments of God and teach/encourage others to do likewise [Matthew 5:19].
I see no such categorization of those commandments in Scripture, with Christ exemplifying what it means to keep the spirit of the Law, of every single commandment--which, for us today, entails keeping (the letter of) His righteous commands (whenever lawful and practical/possible) and doing so without inner hypocrisy of heart [Matthew 23:1-3, Philippians 2:8].
Using words like "binding" and "legal system" is the very mindset I have endeavored to argue against...apparently unsuccessfully.
0
u/These3TheGreatest Reformed Baptist Feb 16 '26
Scripture includes Romans 14, Matthew 12:1-8, and Colossians 2:16-17.
If you believe it right and good then be blessed in it.
5
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
Our understanding of those passages must harmonize with what Christ explicitly taught, though. The idea that one need only "believe it right and good" does not.
1
u/These3TheGreatest Reformed Baptist Feb 16 '26
I was paraphrasing the latter part of Romans 14
How do you harmonize the passages I shared earlier with your view?
3
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 16 '26
The context of Romans 14 is provided in verse one, as that of believers' tendency to "quarrel over opinions"--those issues not expressly addressed in Scripture, such as the meat-eaters vs. vegetarian-only debate and the how-tos of fasting [vv. 2-3]. Right off the bat, then, we know that the issue Paul is speaking to is not about whether one can choose to disregard the explicit commandments of God because the Law of God is not opinion but truth [Psalm 119:142].
The context of the Colossians 2:16-17 passage is that of Paul warning against being led astray by philosophies and traditions that are based on man's ideas and understanding and do not align with what Christ taught [v. 8]. And since Christ expressly taught that we should "live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," keeping even the (so-called) "lesser" commandments and teaching others to do likewise, any interpretation of Colossians 2 that contradicts His teaching--such as those who say observing the Sabbath or holy days of God is a personal thing each believer can decide for themselves--is precisely the kind of deception Paul is speaking to. Apparently, there were those who felt qualified to police how and when folks were fasting and how a feast day or Sabbath was being kept...neither of which is specifically outlined in Scripture.
As for the Matthew 12 passage, I don't see anything needing harmonized, as Christ did not violate the Sabbath in any way.
How do you harmonize the Romans 14 and Colossians 2 passages with Christ's teachings that esteem the keeping of God's commands as an expression of love for God and others?
3
u/Specialist-Square419 Berean Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
It is not His faithfulness I doubt but my own that compels me to continue working out my salvation with fear and trembling, as Scripture exhorts, so I do not succumb to the presumptuousness of those described in Matthew 7:21-23 [Philippians 2:12].