Heresies rise when the teachings of Christ are wearisome. Malachi reflects the state of false teachers today. In Malachi 1:12, he prophesied, “But you profane it, In that you say, ‘The table of the LORD is defiled; And its fruit, its food, is contemptible.'” Is that not what many are saying now about the Lord’s Supper? Have they not profaned “the table of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21)? In Malachi 1:13, he reported,
“You also say, ‘”Oh, what a weariness!” And you sneer at it,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick; Thus you bring an offering! Should I accept this from your hand?’ Says the LORD.”
Why are so many professing Christians wearisome of New Testament worship? Why do they degrade the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper? Why do they sneer at acceptable worship? This is “Because you have not kept My ways, But have shown partiality in the law” (2:9).
This all comes back to a lack of love for God since those who love God will keep the commands of Christ (John 14:21–24; 1 John 5:3). The Spirit of Christ instructs in Hebrews 10:25, “not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” See what Christ’s words from the Apostles and prophets say about the Lord’s Day.
Among the Churches on the Lord’s Day
What was the Spirit of Christ revealing through John when he said, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10)? What is the Lord’s Day? This Lord’s Day is not the Day of the Lord’s coming evidently or the book of Revelation would have been too late and it would not have been written. On this “Lord’s Day,” John heard a loud voice behind him like a trumpet, and it was the voice of Christ telling John to write a book and send it to seven churches of Asia (Rev 1:11). When John turned around, he saw the One who looked like the son of man in the midst of seven lamp stands. This son of man is clearly Christ from the rest of the description in Revelation 1.
What is significant is that Christ is in the midst of the seven lamp stands, which are the 7 churches of Asia (Rev 1:20). Christ was in the midst of the churches on the Lord’s Day. “In the midst” is from 2 Greek words en meso, which is also found in Matthew 18:20, where Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Clearly, John has presented that Christ was in the midst of the churches on the Lord’s Day. The Lord’s Day is the Day of the assembly, and importance is seen the exhortation to not forsake the assembly in Hebrews 10:25.
Add to this information about the Lord’s Day that the Greek word for “Lord” in Revelation 1:10 for “the Lord’s Day” here is kuriakos, which is found only one other place in 1 Corinthians 11:20 referring to “the Lord’s Supper,” which again was only when the Christians were gathered together did they partake of this memorial meal of death of Christ in partaking of bread in remembrance of Christ’s body and fruit of the grapevine in remembrance of Christ’s blood. Apparently the Lord’s Day is the day of the Assembly in which the Lord’s Supper was partaken. First Corinthians 5:4 also refers to the gathering of the disciples as being in Christ’s name. The Lord’s Day was certainly a specific day. A day known by all Christians especially those of whom Christ writes to in Asia Minor. The command for the assembly and the Lord’s Supper clearly include the Lord’s Day. Which day is this day of the Lord’s Supper and assembling?
The First Day of the Week
What is “the first day of the week”? It is “when the disciples have been assembling to break bread” (Acts 20:7a). Acts 20:7 defines the Lord’s Day. The first day of the week was the day of assembling for the disciples to break bread. This breaking of bread was the Lord’s Supper as 1 Corinthians 11:33 says this is when Christians came together to eat the Lord’s Supper in the assembly excluding common meals (1 Cor 11:21–22). In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul referred to the Lord’s Supper as “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Paul, Luke, their associates, and all the disciples knew that the Lord’s Day was first day of the week and so they kept this day with assembly. The day of Jesus’s resurrection.
The Day that Christ Rose from the Dead
This is the Lord’s Day for which John wrote. Christ rose on this day (Matt 28:1; John 20:19). Jesus blessed the bread for the Lord’s Supper on this day (Luke 24:30, 35). The Church was established on this day (Acts 2:1; cf. Lev 23:15–16). The collections of churches were on this day (1 Cor 16:1). The day of Jesus’s resurrection is repeatedly specified as the “third day,” which is the Lord’s Day (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 27:64; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4).
Conclusion
The Lord’s Day is the first day of the week for the assembly in Christ’s name. This is the Day of the assembly to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and on this day, Christ is in the midst of His churches. Should Christians assemble on the Lord’s Day? If they love Him, they will (John 14:21, 23; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6). Christ’s Spirit said in Hebrews 10:24–25,
“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting the assembly, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Similar posts:
The Breath of God 
Acts 2:42 is not daily. Acts 2:46 is clearly that they ate together daily their meals in their houses. Acts 20:7 shows “the first day of the week” being defined by the perfect participle of “when the disciples assembled”. Not just any disciples, but specifically “the disciples” regularly met on the first day of the week. The purpose of the regular assembling Acts 20:7 is “to break bread” as seen in 1 Cor. 11 and Heb. 10. “To break bread” is an infinitive and would not have an article to specify the breaking. Adding an article would change the meaning of the infinitive phrase. The whole congregation did meet on one place to partake of the Lordly Supper together (1 Cor. 11:17ff, 14:23). The regularly assembly for the Lord’s Supper is clearly the purpose of the Assembly as implied in Acts 20:7 as the reader would be expected to know. Remember John 1:1 that an anarthrous noun does not lack the specificity of an article rather in Koine Greek the article operates as much like the words, “this”, “that”, “these, and “those”. Add to this: the specificity of 1 Cor. 10:16 showing that “the bread that we break” is the Lord’s Supper or Lordly Supper.
And, although the patternists derive from Acts 20:7 “When the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread” the idea that the “Lord’s Supper” MUST be observed every Sunday and ONLY on Sunday — we find in Acts 2:42-46 that the disciples continued DAILY in the apostles’ doctrine, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and payer, and broke bread DAILY from house to house. And HONEST patternist would require the Lord’s Supper to be observed EVERY DAY. But look how they pick and choose which “approved example”s to turn into binding commands.
You are misquoting “daily” here in Acts 2:42 and 46. You are also neglecting the difference between the breaking of bread and just breaking bread. You are overlooking 1 Cor. 10:16’s reference to the break of bread being the Lord’s Supper for which we assemble. Jesus blessed the breaking of bread on the first day of the week in Luke 24, which was the day that He was resurrected.
I find no daily Lord’s Supper in the scriptures. Breaking bread is also a common meal as in Acts 20:11.
“You are also neglecting the difference between the breaking of bread and just breaking bread.”
Acts 20:7 does NOT say “the breaking of bread”!!!!! It says “When the disciples came together on the first day of the week TO BREAK BREAD” which is the same as Acts 2:46 “And they did BREAK BREAD daily from house to house.”
“You are misquoting “daily” here in Acts 2:42 and 46. ”
You clearly didn’t read verse 46. Or did your translation say “day by day” rather than “daily”? I have seen that before.
As to the word kuriakos it actually means “lordly” whereas kuriou means “of the Lord” or “Lord’s”.
When Paul says “when you come together into one place, this is NOT to eat the kuriakos deinpon” (1 Cor 11:20) what is he really saying?
In context Paul is railing against a big potluck dinner, one that we could call a meal fit for a king, or (dun dun dun) a LORDLY SUPPER. When you come together it is not to eat a lordly supper. The name of the communion, then, is not “Lord’s Supper” — this is the result of mistranslation. Furthermore the kuriakos day in Revelation is not “the day of the Lord” of Jesus’ day, but a day of celebration regarding Caesar, a Roman holiday.
You interpreting this noun to be an adjective, which it is. The translation is good as “Lordly”, “of the Lord”, or “Lord’s”. The point is clear in Greek that the Supper is identified with the Lord.
I totally disagree with your speculation and mischaracterization of Rev. 1:10, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”.
I think you’d make stronger case from passages like Rom. 14:5-7 and Col. 2:16-23.
He says “When you come together it is not to eat” whatever this is. If this thing then is the Lord’s Supper then he is saying we are NOT supposed to eat the Lord’s Supper when we come together. This is how it is clear that he is talking about their big potluck and it means “a lordly supper” not “the Lord’s Supper.”
Please, go read 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 again.
“Why are so many professing Christians wearisome of New Testament worship?”
Here’s why. You go to church on Sunday morning and all you hear in the sermon is about how you should come to church on Sunday night or you “aren’t what you ought to be”. You come Sunday night and all you hear in the sermon is how you should come on Wednesday night or you “aren’t what you ought to be”. You come on Wednesday night and all you hear in the sermon is you must come on Sunday morning or you’ll go to hell. And this repeats ad infinitum, only to be interrupted occasional by a sermon on not deviating from the pattern for the Lord’s Supper. When all you hear preached on is the “worship service” or “assembly” or whatever else you might want to call it, eventually you get sick of the assembly because all the assembly is about is the assembly. You assembly only to hear about how you should assemble. There is never any edification.
Furthermore, when the preacher pretends that the WHOLE SUBSTANCE of Christianity is the “worship service” (or Assembly if you want to be a stickler on terminology) that makes real Christians sick to their stomach. If all there is to Christianity is the assembly and the Lord’s Supper, my what a barren religion. Too bad this is all most church of Christ preachers know anything about.
That would be a sad practice for a congregation.
You said, “Shouldn’t you be able to show in the words of Christ that we need to move on this interaction?”
Do you really not see that “the way” is through the death of self?
Are you familiar with the term, “insight?” Do you not see that insight is a wonderful way of teaching spiritual truth? Are you so addicted to words that you cannot see the “insightful” messages contained within them? Does your intellectual process of decoding words prohibit you from seeing the spiritual message that these words reveal to those who have ears to hear? Maybe you don’t have ears to hear. Maybe you are wired for literal and technical word-processing. I don’t know, you just seem to be spiritually challenged regarding spiritual language.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
“1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
This is true of those who reject the Scriptures and say that there is something more revealed about Christ’s life, His words, or other than by His Apostles and prophets.
You totally miss the point of this scripture and imply that all we have to do is read the text to be in compliance with Spirit. It basically CONDEMNS the illiterate to hell THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Have you not considered this?
This “only the spiritual can understand the Bible” type of argument is the sort of argument only Calvinists use. Church of Christ people don’t use that kind of argument because their doctrine is that everyone can just read Scripture and understand it — that’s the whole point of the “Restoration Plea.” Saying only the spiritual can understand it is equivalent to saying only the elect can understand it, which means you can’t make this argument unless you believe in a personal and arbitrary predestination. (Unfortunately Paul seems to lapse into that kind of lame thinking when he has problems convincing other people to submit to his authorita. What you don’t buy my lame arguments? Well then its because you aren’t elect!) So I wonder about you, whether you are one of those neo-Calvinists in the church of Christ.
Clearly when Paul devolved in 1 Cor 2 into teaching that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” he has devolved into a sort of Gnosticism, for he begins the chapter speaking of hidden “mysteries” saying “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom” and he clearly is using this concept to set aside moral teachings: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” This is the trouble people get themselves into when they believe Paul is infallible and inerrant.
Yes. There was a philosophical reinterpretation of Christ and His revelation, which would result in “gnosticism”. Paul is not inerrant, but the Spirit of Christ is who spoke through Paul in scripture (2 Pet. 1:16-21, 3:15-16).
“There was a philosophical reinterpretation of Christ and His revelation, which would result in ‘gnosticism’. ”
People often define gnosticism in two ways: 1. Rejection of Jesus’ flesh/humanity. 2. A doctrine that teaches secret knowledge. Certainly the doctrine of original sin is gnosticism in the first way for it rejects Jesus’ flesh/humanity by making him have to be of a different type of flesh than us to avoid original sin — all Protestants are guilty of this form of gnosticism. But the doctrine that commands are to be created from examples is the second form of gnosticism. When you interpret “the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread” to mean you cannot have the Lord’s Supper on any day other than Sunday, and that if a Christian misses one Sunday service they will go to hell, and that it is wrong to meet in your hotel room on vacation and you must fly back to the States to attend a ‘established church’ — if you make all those commands out of this example, you are asserting that you have secret knowledge. Nobody can just pick up the Bible and come to the same conclusions as you. Nobody can read Acts 20:7 and come up with your rules — you must have secret extrabiblical knowledge to get those result. What, then, o patternists, is your secret source of apostolic succession by which you have gnostically received these secret lawmaking interpretations of example passages like Acts 20:7?
I’m not aware of the ideas and those who possess them whom you oppose. I do not of those who you oppose who so condemn people to hell for missing one assembly. This outside my findings of the grace of God. You may take that opposition to them.
I don’t see Acts 20:7 as law or command. I just see a defining example, a precedent for assembling on the 1st day of the week.
From reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, I see that gnosticism is another special knowledge as many people claim today. I find gnosticism embedding Christ into Stocism’s worship of (30) virtues.
I guess I don’t follow your definition of the “Restoration Plea”. No, I’m not a neo-Calvinist. I do believe these scriptures among the whole:
Christ’s Spirit said, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). That is not Calvinism. This is truth.
Jesus said, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:19-20).
“how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:” (Eph. 3:3-5).
“(1 Cor. 2:14). That is not Calvinism.”
Its Calvinism. Only Calvinists use that verse.
Christians use that verse.
Scott, everything is not spelled out in the NT. You must become interactive with Christ the Spirit and what I have discovered will be made clear to you. You are addicted to words and cannot think beyond them.
Shouldn’t you be able to show in the words of Christ that we need to move on this interaction?
Yes, I readily admit that I’m addicted to the words of Christ. For Jesus said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63).
When Jesus says for example that “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” — the idea is that the Sabbath was made to help man, to allow him to rest, not to become a legalistic observance so strictly enforced that it makes man’s life on earth into a living hell. This is what many churches of Christ do to the Assembly. But as with the Sabbath, the Assembly was made for man, not man for the Assembly.
Or again, when he speaks the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Priest and Levite walk on the other side of the road and do not help the man. How many people in the church of Christ would refuse to help someone in need because that help might take too long and prevent them from making it to the Assembly or make them late to the Assembly? Isn’t the point of that parable that men are more important than ritual — surely the Priest and Levite had some ritual concern in mind, ceremonial purity or some such — to touch this man who may be dead, why it would render me unclean according to the Law! Let me pass on the other side then.
Or what of the stories of Jesus healing on the Sabbath and then commanding the newly healed paralytics to carry their beds home on the Sabbath (and thus violate the Sabbath, as in John 4 or 5)? When the Pharisees are upset about Jesus’ healings, does he not make the point that human beings are more important than perfect Sabbath observance? Not only “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath” but also “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? or only evil?” For the scribes did evil on the Sabbath in preventing Jesus from healing, but Jesus did good.
Very judgmental. Very prejudice.
I know our brethren who stop and help those in needed regularly, so that they miss the Assembly or are late. Yet, that is not forsaking the Assembly to miss the Assembly. There are those who are sick and those who caring for the sick who cannot always meet.
Amen that the Assembly is for man. For we who hold our confession being cleansed with pure water assemble to stir one another up to love and good works (Heb. 10:22ff). I’m sorry if that this is not your experience, but I would encourage you to meet with two or three in your home. Read the scriptures, understand the Assembly prayerfully, and obey the Assembly for your edification and those of like conviction. May God bless you in this. I understand your experience, because cultural traditions can hinder the edification that the Assembly provides. The Hebrew writer did command and encourage Christians to not forsake the Assembly, and I will do the same. That is no legalistic command or observance.
“The Hebrew writer did command and encourage Christians to not forsake the Assembly,”
Again, the text clearly says “not forsaking the assembLING” — to make your legalistic doctrine work, you change the word.
The word for assembly is episunagogei, which is a noun with article for “the Assembly” and it is not a participle so as to be definitively translated “assembling”, but Assembly does imply assembling (Heb. 10:25).
39 You study[a] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
This is what you do, Scott!
Again, you slander. I do not search to have life by the scriptures of the OT.
I seek life in the words of Christ. Jesus said that the words that He spoke are spirit and life (John 6:63).
You said, “Again, you slander. I do not search to have life by the scriptures of the OT.”
That’s correct, but you do search the scriptures to have life by the text of the NT. What’s the difference? Your methodology is by text and not by Spirit. You live by words and do not promote anything but obedience by means of the text of the NT, as if the NT is just another letter of law. Sorry, but this is not honoring the essence of NT teaching. I have shown you many scriptures that testify to this fact but you ignore them.
2 Corinthians 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2 Corinthians 3:6
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The text does not give life, Scott. Why do you promote such a false method of Christianity?
There is nowhere else to find the words of Christ but in the scriptures revealed by the Spirit, who gives life (Eph. 3:3-5).
Is not the Spirit the Truth?
Did not Jesus say that He would send scribes among prophets and wise-men?
Are not Jesus’ words spirit and life?
You said, “There is nowhere else to find the words of Christ but in the scriptures revealed by the Spirit, who gives life (Eph. 3:3-5).”
This is absolutely false.
Hebrews 8:10
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
1 Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
God works in out hearts and minds, not with audible words but with Spiritual words moving us in the direction we must go.
Scott, words are symbols. They are not the thing they symbolize. You emphasize words as if it is the words that have the power. If words had power then every word would create the same meaning for everybody. We know this is not true.
You need to open your heart up and listen to God’s laws that are written there. Nothing wrong with studying the bible, but hyper-focus on literal words distracts from the purpose of or Christian quest, and that is to become Spiritually transformed so that we are led by the Spirit and not just by the text.
The following verse demonstrates a very important principle.
Mark 2:27
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Likewise, the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible.
The law in the heart clearly relates to what Paul says in Romans 2 about the Gentiles who do not have the written law being able to do the (moral) things of the Law “by nature.” The truly essential laws of God are written on everyone’s heart, much as Micah says in Micah 6:8 “He has told you O man what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God?” This he says in response to a question about what sacrifices the LORD wants–this answer implies ‘none’.
Yes, part of moral instruction is embedded, but Jesus still taught. Jesus did not allow the heart to direct itself into Hell. That law of the heart, the conscience, will only condemn. The law cannot save. My family and I are going to seek a greater light of moral teaching in Christ.
Don’t twist the scriptures.
Quote Jesus’ outside of the Bible. I said that Jesus’ words of life can only be found in one place. Can you quote Jesus without scripture? Where are the quotations of Jesus Christ outside of the Bible? You keep saying that these greater revelations are in your heart, and you have yet to reveal, quote, or show them in your life.
As I said, “There is nowhere else to find the words of Christ but in the scriptures revealed by the Spirit, who gives life (Eph. 3:3-5).”
Who has twisted the scriptures here? The laws are written on the heart of man as stated in Hebrews and other scriptures. You have created your own conclusion and have perverted the scriptures to meet your personal preference. It’s impossible to deal with your preconceived ideas of what you want the scriptures to say. You seems to live by words and not by faith. Outer conduct has it’s place but as NT Christians our life is about inner consciousness. When you perform your obedience from words you are putting emphasis on your conduct more than your consciousness. This is clearly wrong and is how the Pharisees tried to find justification.
John 12:24
Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
Do this and the rest will occur to you. You must die to yourself, Scott. You don’t seem to get this principle. Instead you promote the system of self-motivation and egotistically teach that there is strength in human effort, which is contrary to the teaching of Christ.
John 5:39,40.
lol Scripture that proves your point! Or some basis to move on from scripture. :-)
If the flesh is weak and incapable of pleasing God (Romans 8) then why would a command to act from the mind of flesh be given? There are two means by which to obey commands. One way to obey is from the flesh. This obedience requires human effort and personal willpower and discipline to do so. Yet the NT state that we cannot use this method to please Him. Romans 9:16
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Galatians 3:3
Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? However, the presence of God’s Spirit living within us is the other means by which we obey. However, these laws and commands are written on our hearts and are to be the means by which Christian deeds are carried out, and not the written text. Can you not see this?
Anyone can successfully obey commands from the flesh but this method is contaminated by the negative aspect of this mind. This mind of flesh (that you promote) is the same mind that disobeys and causes sin. They are the same mind. How can the cause of war be the cause of peace? It can’t!!! This is the mind that is divided and unstable …However, when we choose not to live in this fleshly, ego-intellect based mind this decision naturally invokes the mind of the Spirit, which lives from a Higher Nature which is not contaminated by anything that opposes It because the Spirit is single-minded in nature. So it’s not a matter of whether we choose to obey or not, it’s a matter of where we choose to dwell, flesh or Spirit. If we dwell in the flesh we will occasionally win the battle with the opposing forces of this nature, and obedience will happen, but be from an unacceptable source. Again, the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8). When we dwell in the Spirit and then we are obedient because that is the essence of the Spirit.
This is rather deep and does require some deep insight to understand this. I hope you’ll use the insight that is given in the scriptures and your spirit toward this conclusion. Then your obedience won’t be mechanically done from the written text but from the heart, the seat of the Spirit.
Yet, you give none of the words of Christ to support your ideas.
Reblogged this on Seeing God's Breath.
You are still approaching NT Christianity from the idea that we are to follow commands as if doing so justifies us. How many times does the NT say that we are no longer under this type of covenant???? Everyone should go to church on Sunday but not for the purpose of doing so because of the fact that we are commanded to so. When we approach the NT scriptures from this mindset it distracts us from the real purpose of our NT quest, and that is to become transformed of mind and spiritually regenerated so that our mind becomes Christ-like and then from this consciousness we live our NT Christianity, and not the commands and laws.
You have totally missed the essence of NT Christianity, Scott! Nothing wrong about doing your best to keep commands and laws unless it distracts from the real purpose of our quest.
Galatians 3:19
Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
The “Seed” is the “New Consciousness,” the transformed mind that replaces the mind of flesh that you promote to use as that which obeys laws and commands.
Do you think that the Apostle Paul missed your concept? Why did Paul even give commands if everything he said missed that he really didn’t have to give commands but rather a mindset? Why did Christ’s Spirit ever give a command through Paul when we could just follow our heart and he never really had to give a command? “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). What was wrong with Jesus’ mindset of giving commands for people to obey? Did Jesus not realize that it is more about the mind and purpose? Why didn’t Jesus learn to try to one-up and patronize people with presumptuous questions?
Personal obedience to commands requires personal effort and self-discipline. Do you agree with this?