Skip to content

Does Psalms 110 Say that Christ is not God?

So yeah, I’ve heard this argument from a Jewish as well as a Christian “Jesus is not God” perspective.

The assertion is that when Psalms 110 says (in English) The LORD said to my lord, that the second word can’t be talking about God an any way because the Hebrew word is adonei. Why is that a problem? Well apparently if you are talking about God you would use adonai. But let me show you how this detail is not the thing that will answer such a question one way or the other.

The word in Psalms 100  is לַֽאדֹנִ֗י and if we take off the first letter which is a preposition meaning “to” we are left with אָדֹנִ֗י. Now consider that the vowel points (and other marks) were added later, so the original spelling would be אדני.

Now let’s look at the other word adonai אֲדֹנָ֗י . Consider also that this word was originally written without vowels, so it would have looked like this אדני.

So guess what? These two words are spelled exactly the same!

Please Stop Translating “continuous” as “continually” (NT Greek)

Perhaps I’ve missed something. Maybe someone will refer me to a page of a grammar that will say something different. However, I have gone through many, and they all say that present tense is continu-ous, not that it is done continu-ally.

I’ve seen this come up most often in Hebrews 10:26. KJV, for example, says:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

So the common thing going on now is that people will come here and say, “Well, really the verb ‘sin’ is continuous in Greek, so what it says more accurately is ‘For if we continually sin wilfully…” or perhaps “For if we continue sinning… “

But no, wait, like I said above… continuous is not continually. This is a Greek present tense, which always have a continuous aspect to it. There’s no other way to do it. Most of the time it doesn’t get translated into English in a continuous way because it’s to weird to say things like. “Truly I am saying to you, whoever might not be receiving the kingdom of God…etc”. So yes, that is what continuous looks like in English… a “be” verb followed by a “-ing” word.

If we want to be more literal, the verse from Hebrews would instead say, “For if we are sinning wilfully…” By the way, there is a construction in the same chapter that can be translated “continuous”, and it is in verse 1.

The Jairus Contradiction… and How Translation Solves it

 While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and  bowed down before Him, and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.” Matthew 9:18 NASV

22  One of the synagogue officials named Jairus *came up, and on seeing Him, *fell at His feet 23 and *implored Him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live.” Mark 5:22-23 NASV

41  And there came a man named Jairus, and he was an  official of the synagogue; and he fell at Jesus’ feet, and began to implore Him to come to his house; 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying. But as He went, the crowds were pressing against Him. Luke 8:41-42 NASV

In these three accounts of Jairus trying to get his daughter healed, it seems that Matthew says she was already dead when he got the message, and was not quite dead yet in Mark & Luke. This is the same story where a lady grabs Jesus’ cloak to get healed. If you remember, Jesus knew that something had been done, but he didn’t know who did it.

Well, because of all that hubbub, somebody comes and tells Jesus to nevermind, because the girl now is dead.

So what’s up with Matthew? Well it’s probably a translation problem. See later in the story, when the girl is dead the word is θνῄσκω (or ἀποθνῄσκω depending on the account), which is the usual word for “die”. So what are the words in the above quoted verses?

Luke: at the beginning says she was ἀποθνῄσκω (was dying), and then later they say don’t bother the teacher anymore because the girl has θνῄσκω (has died).

Mark: at the beginning says something like she “is lastly having” (translated idiomatically into English). Later they say don’t bother the teacher anymore because the girl ἀποθνῄσκω, that is to say in this verse the verb is a simple past: “died”.

Matthew: at the beginning says she is “just now τελευτάω” whose basic meaning is “to finish” or “to complete”. Possible translations are: is “now finished”, is “now come to an end”, and yes also can also be about finishing a life and this thus becomes “now died”. We use the English word “finish” in much the same way. Later Jesus himself says she “did not ἀποθνῄσκω” (same tense as Mark). And btw, even in Matthew’s account, at this point in the story, everyone surely thinks that the girl is dead and that Jesus can’t do anything about it.

So first off, not all the writers here are putting down word-for-word exactly what was said… and maybe none of them are. Second, in all these accounts, Jesus is a known healer, but no one thinks that he can heal death. Third, we’re already left wondering a bit about what exactly the words in Mark mean, and we should also be wondering what Matthew means since “finished” can mean different things, depending. As in, if she’s already dead, why didn’t Matthew just say “dead” (ἀποθνῄσκω) like he does just a paragraph or two later? Therefore if we translate Matthew literally, then guess what? There is no contradiction.

 While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and  bowed down before Him, and said, “My daughter is now finished; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.” Matthew 9:18

Thou shall not kill, or murder?

Thou shall not kill. Exodus 20:13

So some translations in Exodus say “You shall not murder”. Is this the correct understanding? Is it kill or murder? Well, it’s complicated because neither one of these words seems to convey to us the idea presented here. Is accidental death murder? Executions? Killing a burglar? War? Let’s see what we can find out. (BTW, all bets are off when we go into the NT, so we’ll just keep this article to the context of the OT Law)

Here’s the verse in Hebrew:

לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח Exodus 20:13

The root word of “kill” being:

רצח

I’m using two dictionaries today. One is Brown, Driver, & Briggs, the other is Gesenius.

These have definitions of break, kill, slay & in the BDB, murder. So it does seem that the basic idea of this word, in the context of harm to a person, is kill. To translate it as murder would require more context.

So how else is the word used? Especially when we get to The Law? Let’s look at some different situations. Ex 21:12-13 talks about someone killing another person. Literally it talks about one who “strikes a man and he dies”. This seems to be synonymous with רצח since the penalty is that you should also die (more on this later). However, here we see an exception of sorts. If he didn’t “lie in wait” for him, which I take to mean he wasn’t trying to kill him, then nothing happens to him because he didn’t actually murder…. no wait, what it actually says is that he should flee to a special place. We find out later that he pretty much has to stay there. So this really seems like this goes back to the instruction not to רצח, since there is a punishment, it’s just that the punishment is not death because the circumstances don’t require it.

If that wasn’t solid enough, this instruction is echoed in Deut 4:41-42 when 3 cities are chosen that such a person could flee to. That same person who wasn’t trying to kill someone is described here as someone who רצחed his neighbor. Such a person in this verse did this literally “with-failure-(of)-knowledge”.

Having established that “strikes a man and he dies” = רצח, let’s look at Ex 22:2:

2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. 3 But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. –NASV

Let’s make this a little more literal…

2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck and he dies, it will not be to him bloods. 3 But if the sun has risen on him, it will be to him bloods. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3

Which seems to say, if someone breaks into your house and just wants to steal some stuff, then if you accidentally רצח him because you couldn’t see well, then you are off the hook.

Numbers 35:27 speaks of the “avenger of blood” whose duty it was to kill those who killed someone from their family. It says that if the above person leaves the city, and the avenger of blood רצחs the רצחer then it is not “to him blood”… meaning that the avenger of blood is not breaking The Law when he does this. Numbers goes on to describe a general lawful execution in verse 30, where it uses רצח.

30 ‘If anyone kills a person, the murderer(רצח) shall be put to death(רצח) at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

What רצח is not

So it seems that every kind of killing in regards to a person can be referred to as רצח. But there is one possible use in the OT that does not occur. It is not used to describe the Israelite battles. It is simply stated that so-and-so died. If they describe the killing it is often with a synonym, or with the words “the Lord delivered them into their hand”. This also describes what happened when Abraham (Abram?) went and attacked some kings to get his nephew Lot back.

Perhaps a good translation of this OT command would be “Do not kill unlawfully”. Footnote: accidental death in most cases is not lawful, but the punishment is not death.

Three different words for Hell or Three different words?

You may be wondering why there’s no hell in the OT, or possibly why some see Satan in Isaiah 14. Maybe you’re wondering why your Bible doesn’t have the word “hell” in it at all… Well, let’s begin the road to understanding by looking at the main words that get translated as such.

Hades: Not the Greek god, but rather the place of the dead that god is named after. This is not necessarily a place of punishment. This is where you go when you die regardless of if you were good or bad. This is the word that was used to translate the Hebrew word “Sheol” into Greek… the same word that sometimes gets translated into English as “The Grave”. This is what “hell” meant in the days of the KJV translators. This is probably not what you think of when you hear the word today. Modern translations for the most part do not translate this as “hell” anymore.

The parable (if you want to call it that) of Lazurus and the rich man in Luke 16 says that the rich man “in Hades lifted up his eyes”. This is to be expected, since he has already died, and the next words specify that he was “being in torment”.

Some say that Hades can be used to describe the waiting place to go into hell, and Paradise can describe the waiting place to go into heaven. I’m not 100% on this, since Peter says that Psalms 16 is talking about Jesus, and 16:10 says “you will not abandon my soul to Sheol/Hades” and Jesus tells the thief on the cross that “today you will be with me in paradise”.

Gehenna: Most references to Hell, as we would traditionally think about it, comes from this word. I think translations at large have done us a disservice by not just saying “Gehenna” or its literal translation “The Valley of Hinnom”. I say that because this is an actual location next to Jerusalem. This word is also in the Old Testament because it is the Hebrew word for that place. You can see a picture of it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Hinnom_(Gehenna).

Now why would someone translate this as hell instead of simply using the name of the valley? Well, in the NT, it’s clearly not being used to talk about the actual place, but to describe some sort of afterlife punishment. That’s because some bad stuff happened there in that valley, and was afterward referred to in a VERY bad context.

We miss the connection to the OT, because in English (and I imagine many other languages) Gehenna in the OT and NT are not translated the same way, . That is to say that most modern translations use Sheol/Grave/Hades and Hinnom/Gehenna in the OT, but in the NT they use Hades and Hell. KJV doesn’t use the word Hades very much at all. Talk about confusing!

Since our definition of Hell is being jostled around, let’s see some of what the Bible says about Gehenna.

Matthew 10:28: ….rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Mark 9:43: It is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into Gehenna into the unquenchable fire.

and much of this probably goes back to statements from the OT like:

Isaiah 30:33 For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it

“Tophet” or “Topheth” being a location in the valley of Hinnom. (2 Kings 23:10,etc.)

BTW if you heard something about how the valley was the city dump and always on fire, that idea comes from a 13th century Rabbi David Kimhi, and there’s no real evidence to support this.

Tartarus

There is only one occurrence of this.

2 Peter 2:4

For if God didn’t spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

Here Peter uses a concept from Greek mythology to describe a place where these angels went. However in this verse it seems we are talking about a holding cell rather than a final judgment.

Lake of fire, outer darkness, etc.

These phrases probably refer to such things as I have been talking about in this article, but since there’s no translation problem I’m aware of, I’m going to say anything about it.

Appeal for removing this word form the English Bible.

While recognizing that there is a final judgment and punishment, I propose that we remove “hell” from our Bibles in the vein of the Latin Vulgate & YLT, rather than the all encompassing translations of “hell” from Wycliffe, Tyndale & KJV.

Is Genesis 3:15 Messianic? (A non-committal True/False)

I’ve been looking at Genesis 3:15 quite a bit lately. I cannot yet seem to come to a final conclusion about the question of a messianic prophecy. It seems lacking however. I say that because if we assume that the seed of the woman is specifically Jesus, then what in the world does it mean in the statement before that there is enmity between Jesus and the SEED of the snake?

However I would like to collect here some things that seem clear in a TRUE/FALSE format.


The snake can’t be Satan because he is later seen “walking” in the book of Job. How can you walk without legs?

FALSE. At the end of this story in genesis the snake leaves. It is “walking” there too. The verb used in both places is a very common verb that can mean “walk” or simply “go”.


The “he” can’t be the “seed” because the LXX uses a masculine “he” but “seed” is neuter.

FALSE. The LXX consistently uses masculine pronouns to refer back to the neuter “seed”. Case in point — Isaiah 61:9


Since “seed” is masculine in Hebrew, the pronoun is forced to be “he”. So, “he” could be translated as “she” in languages like English where noun gender is not a thing.

TRUE. Mostly. But you would need some pretty good context to do that sort of thing legitimately, and the context seems to be lacking here. It could just as well be “it”; this is what KJV used. (There is no “it” in Hebrew)


“he” could be “she” since it’s just a matter of vowel points, which were added later.

TRUE The word is ה֚וּא and it’s the usual word for “he”. However, in verse 12, before the verse in question, it says “…she gave me from the tree…” “she” is הִ֥וא. Then, later in verse 20 where it says “…she was the mother…”, it is again הִ֥וא. It’s spelled exactly the same; the extra marks came later. That means that in this chapter, it clearly refers to the woman (at least) twice using the same 3 letters as you would for a man. All the others “she”s are part of a verb. So this possibility looks legit.

In the Pent., הוא‎ is of common gender, the fem. form הִיא‎ occurring only 11 times, viz. Gn 14:2, 20:5, 38:25 (v. Mass. here), Lv 11:39, 13:10, 13:21, 16:31, 20:17, 21:9, Nu 5:13, 5:14. –BDB

However, to be fair, without the later vowel points, there is no “she” in the second part. It could be “you will bruise his heel” or “you will bruise our heel” because of the verb.

(This section was heavily edited after I started reading the rest of the chapter and saw verse 20. The usual word for “she” that I was expecting has a yod as the second letter.)


The “seed” of the woman is one person since a singular pronoun is used.

TRUE apparently. “seed” in Hebrew can be used collectively, or not. Going back to Isaiah 61:9, that is an example where “they” is used, meaning that “seed” must be collective.


The head will be “crushed” but the heel will be “bruised” (or other such dichotomy).

FALSE. The two verbs are the same in Greek and Hebrew texts.


Romans 16:20 supports the idea that this is about Jesus and Satan, since the verb is the same.

FALSE. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. Romans 16:20 It is really hard to connect this verb “crush” with the verb in Genesis 3:15. The Hebrew verb is not very common, and many dictionaries give you a one-word definition, or try to guess what it means by looking at related languages. If you use the LXX, which many early Christians did, it is point blank a different verb than Romans… τηρέω “to guard, watch”. In some translations they do make this all the same, at least the “crushing Satan/snake” part. The better statement would be that TRANSLATIONS sometimes support the popular idea in Genesis.


Ezekiel 28 says that Satan was in Eden

FALSE. Back up a few verses to verse 12, this is about the king of Tyre. It’s probably a metaphor.


Revelation 12:9 says that Satan is “the old serpent”

TRUE. In fact I consider this the strongest evidence that Genesis 3:15 is Messianic. However, caution must be used in using “facts” from a highly figurative book. That’s what Apocalypse is — a highly figurative literary style. This could be a metaphor, meaning a simile without any word like “like” or “as” to tip you off. Satan is “like” the serpent of old. Not a statement I would ever disagree with.


Revelation 12:9 is literal

UNVERIFIED


In Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, he refers to the seed as “she”.

FALSE A later translation of Josephus says this. Try to find it in an old translation… you can’t. In fact he indicates that it’s all about killing actual snakes.

He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place. — Antiquities of the Jews book 1 Chapter 1 end of paragraph 4.

Preserve his words? (Psalm 12)

The KJV only debate has many points to it, many which I won’t go into today. However I would like to address using Psalm 12 as support for such a view. The claim is that God said he will preserve his words in verse 7. Now without going into the idea of God preserving his words, I want to show how using THIS verse to support that is grammatically impossible. Not grammatically in KJV mind you, but in Hebrew. So here’s the relevant passage:

5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the LORD;
“I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”
6 The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O LORD,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.

Psalms 12:5-7 KJV

Now, I probably overdid it a bit, but I tried to label every noun according to its grammatical gender. Since English doesn’t have such a thing, it gets lost in translation. Many words are put into 2 categories which often has nothing to do with being a girl or boy. Nouns have gender, verbs are conjugated for gender, and suffixes are often added to verbs as a direct object that also have gender.

What I want you to notice is that “them” is masculine, and “words” is feminine, therefore it is grammatically impossible for verse 7 to be talking about keeping and preserving words. Instead it is talking about preserving the “poor” and “needy”.

Additional notes:

“Preserve them” should be “him” if when you go with the vowel marks of the Masoretic text. It could be “us” if you ignore the marks. “him” dovetails nicely with the last half of verse 5.

Greek LXX says “keep us” and “preserve us”. There are some medieval Hebrew manuscripts that say the same thing (also could be read “him”)… curious, I pulled out a 1611 KJV facsimile, and there was a marginal note for the second “them”. It says “Hebrew him, in other words, every one of them”

Worship Part 2: Three different words for worship, or three different words?

In the last article, we pointed out that, in English, The Bible never tells us what specific things are worship. Many commentaries on worship will say this at the beginning of their book. (My question would be why are we defining something that The Bible doesn’t define… but I digress.)

Today, I want to look that the “Big 3” of worship. There are three main words in Greek that are often translated “worship”. Now, what usually happens is that someone will use a dictionary to find out what these words mean, and then combine the meanings together to give us the full definition of what worship is. We must ask the question, however, is this a legitimate way to define a word? Or to put that another way, if there are 3 words with 3 different definitions, why would the next step be to make them all the SAME word?

#1 is σέβομαι (sebomai). I must say this really does look like it’s the word for worship. The older meaning is “to feel awe or fear before God, to feel religious awe, feel shame“. This doesn’t quite sound right, but after the time of Homer — who was long before the NT — it means “revere” or “worship”. There seems to be no direct Hebrew equivalent of this newer meaning. In the LXX “non-apocryphal books”, σέβομαι is used with the older meaning… fear of God.

So you say “aha, now I’ve got you mr. Persnickity”– but wait, this word is only in the NT 10 times, all in Acts 13-19, and this famous line: Matt 5:13/Mark 7:7 “…in vain do they worship me…” I could come up with 4 or so more occurrences if I looked for the root “sebo”. More if we include the name of the emperor as stated in Acts “sebastos”. Note that in these verses there are no specified “acts of worship”, but sebomai is mostly used to define the kind of person someone is. What are the specific teachings that we can pull of these verses about worship? Pretty much nothing.

Please note that the “sebo” root is also translated into English using words like “devout” and “religious”. Indeed in English, worship can mean “to regard with devotion”. So that means we could also translate Matt 5:13 to say “…in vain are they devoted to me…” or “…in vain do they regard me with devotion” and this would not be wrong. So now we’re back to the bottom line of “just do what God wants”. (And in the context do what God wants, and not what your little group has come up with that God wants.)

#2 is λατρεύω (latreuw). The meaning of this is very clear. It means to serve. Now you could be a hired hand, a slave, or serving a god… but the verb is serve. As English translations go on, more occurrences that were, in the past, translated as “serve” are now being translated “worship”. Check the end of Romans 12:1 in some old translations vs new ones. You’ll see what I mean. Hebrew, of course, also has a word for serve which has much of the same translation, um, error as λατρεύω. This is not a word for worship. Sorry.

#3 is προσκυνέω (proskunew). This is the “bow down” thing I referred to in part 1. It’s time to get a bit more precise. This is the word most routinely translated as worship. It’s basic meaning is “to make obeisance“. Well wow, let’s look up what obeisance means. Ok, Merriam Webster says “a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission” or “acknowledgment of another’s superiority or importance”. I’m going to say that neither one of these sound like the worship we are looking for. The default movement of the body IS specified in the Greek dictionary…. bowing down. Again we think back to what Jesus said “The true ones bowing down will bow down in truth and spirit”. You could replace bowing down with making a movement of the body. This indicates that the followers of Jesus are no longer going to be concerned with outer “religious acts”, but inward ones. So now we’re back to the bottom line of “just do what God wants”.

So let’s look at these 3 words again. “worship”,”serve”,”make obeisance”. These are often related, but mean different things. Let’s start treating them as such. By the way if you’d like to backcheck me, there’s some good dictionaries at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.

What is Legalism?

Legalism is one of those words that are not actually in the Bible that many people use to describe something that they see in the Bible. You might hear someone say something like: “Paul in his letter to the Galatians was fighting against Legalism”.

But here’s where this starts to get weird. It is pretty much agreed today that Legalism is a bad thing, but there is disagreement as to what it actually is. The Bible is not a help here, since the word is not found in it.

I have found at least 4 definitions of what Legalism is:

1) A strict application of God’s laws.

2) Believing that the Bible is the literal word of God (ie., we don’t have to literally follow the instructions/laws)

3) Following the OLD Law.

4) Following the 10 commandments.

So you can see what people mean by this word is quite divergent. Seems to me that most people go with #1. If forced to choose one, I personally would go with #3. But, as it turns out NO ONE used the word “Legalism” to describe any of this until the 1800’s. The first time it appears in print is The Marrow of Modern Divinity in 1850. You can find it on the internet. It records a debate involving a Legalist and an Antinomista (anti-legalist).

There are two strange things about this. First, apparently there was some kind of Legalist movement at the time (I can’t imagine that happening today). Second, the Legalist himself defines such an idea as following the 10 commandments. This means, when I put two and two together, that those who say they are not Legalists today are probably Legalist by the original definition.

So how about we avoid using words that are not in the Bible to talk about the teachings of The Bible? It’s making my head hurt.

The 10 Commandments are not in The Bible

The 10 Commandments are not in The Bible. What? You say. How can that be? Everyone knows it’s in The Bible. Well I don’t mean that the list that you know isn’t in the Bible, just that it’s not called that. According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Terminology no Bible used the words “10 Commandments” until the Geneva Bible in about 1560.

And that’s because in the Hebrew AND the Greek LXX, these are literally called the 10 words (or you might say 10 sayings). Is this a significant change of terminology? Well it certainly can make us connect things that were not connected before. In the New Testament there are references to following “the commandments”. Like John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” and 1 John 2:3 “By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments.” (By the way, these are both “the commandments” the “the”s just get wiped out when we have to put the sentence in English word order)

In verses like these, are we talking about the “10 Commandments”? This becomes quite doubtful when they are not actually referred to as Commandments. And you know, the first statement made in the 10 words is “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt”, Exodus 20:2 NKJV. I must say that I was not brought out of Egypt. Nor were my ancestors.

There’s a sudden reaction when I say stuff like this. Something along the lines of “Hey wait, are you saying we can steal now? Are we going to pick and choose which of the 10 we want to follow?” No I am not saying any of that. But the words of Jesus in the NEW Testament tells me that I should not do these things, not God in the OLD Testament, since I was not included in the group he was talking to. And btw, God clearly didn’t like these things before the 10 words were around. That is to say, this is not a list of 10 surprising things that God said to the Jews.

The only hitch we face now is *Dum dum dum* keeping the Sabbath. Well, guess what, we are not told to keep it in the New Testament. We are told to pretty much (multiple times) not to do the things in those 10 words except for that.

So to recap: New Testament Christians do not “keep the 10 Commandments”, but rather, the Commandments of the New Testament — of which there is quite a bit of overlap, but they are not the same. In fact great emphasis is put on these two commands (and I paraphrase): 1) Love the Lord your God, 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. These commands are found in the Old Testament Law, but not in those 10 words. If we are going to simply say we’ll keep the 10 words and the rest of the Law is gone, then these are gone too.

If this doesn’t change your mind, I still hope it makes you consider.