How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

I never said I didn't know which Laws. There you go, just like the others, putting words in people's mouth, and not listening to what they actually say. It's your side that thinks you know, yet you have to come up with these ridiculous criteria never spelled out by scripture, ("greatest" and least"; "positive" and "negative", "inside the ark", "thundered down from the mountain", etc) yet you pick prooftexts and infer them in, and tell me this is so clear I'll be judged over it; and you're not even consistent. You say that only the Ten, but then keep other select commands from "the rest" (dietary, etc). (And then, the SDA adds on top of that and says we shouldn't eat meat at all.) Meanwhile, I have been explaining the universal seven laws which some of which conincide with some of the Ten, and you all gloss over this, because it is muich easier to keep throwing out accusations of lawlessness.

Don't forget, missy, you too will stand before God, and if you want to judge on the Law of Moses, then you'll see how well you did. We'll see if He accepts people spending all sabbath day on the computer as true sabbath-rest and not personal recreation. As you judge so shall you be judged. Instead, Jesus says the one who smote his breast and says "God be merciful to me, a sinner" is the one who is justified, not the one who judges and compares himself and his works. You yourself (IIRC), even recently cited the passage that if you do what God commands you should say "I'm an unworthy servant". Well, that's not the attitude I am seeing here. All I see is judgement, and you cannot even back it up with scripture in its proper CONTEXT without turning our words around so that you can claim we are teaching lawlessness. Straw man, after straw man, after straw man, after straw man! Cleverly crafted, but ultimately flimsy arguments. Why are these tactics so necessary if your position is so "clear"?

 

Judging?

Eric,

I truly dont understand where you are getting some of the things that you are saying to me?

First of all, I never judged you. I am just trying to have a conversation about this. I dont know why you feel like you are being accused of anything by me?

With each topic, one person takes one side and another takes the other side. Why do you take this one so personally and feel like you are under attack?

Then you say I am accusing you of lawlessness? I dont think so. Perhaps you are a person who believes in keeping the law? But you think it has nothing to do with your salvation? Is that correct? Thats the impression I got.

If so, then THAT is what I am talking about, your idea that keeping the law has nothing to do with your salvation. It has nothing whatever to do with accusing you of anything.

I do however take exception to the fact that normally persons on these chatboards claim that those of us who believe that keeping the law has something to do with your salvation are "Legalists". Its just not true at all.

Im just wondering, how does one express his or her view that the law has something to do with your salvation, if any time you mention it, people take it personally and feel they are being "attacked"? Its hard to even talk about it.

Honestly, to me it feels like you are trying to intimidate people and make them feel afraid to even bring up this subject for fear you will hollar they are persecuting you. At least thats how Im feeling right now. I mean, why cant you just discuss the topic with out accusing people of accusing you? Just discuss it and dont take it so personally. Im not trying to accuse you of anything.

All I am saying is that I believe the Bible talks ALOT about the Law having something to do with the Judgment.

Jms:2:12: So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Rom:2:13: (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Eccl:12:13: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Rv:20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rv:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Rv. 22:
12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13: I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Now if you think thats judging you or accusing you, well its the Bible doing that and not me.

 

Why are you still harping on "relaxation"? If it's not biblical, then jump on your cohorts for first coning it. I was only giving back what your side tossed at me. Forget relaxation. The letter was cancelled for the spirit? (Rom.2:29, 7:6, 2 Cor.3:6)Happy? (But so you don't have an opportunity to jump on that as lawlessness, this isn't saying there are no more laws, because there are still the spiritual laws).

that doesn't say that the only things that were shadows were rituals. That is overgeneralizing. And the sabbath is not a moral law. We cannot have a relationship with or neigbor if we kill, steal, take each other's wives, lie and covet. We cannot have a relationship with God if we worship other Gods, or fail to respect His name. Those are universal, and if you say the sabbath is universal in rest, most people are able to have a relationship with God and with their neigbor and function in society without one particular day. You say you can be on the computer all day, and that is still good, so you prove more than anyone else that it is not universal. It was a specific sign given to Israel throughout THEIR generations. (Ex.31:13) Use God's definitions of what's "mora" or universal, not your own.

Not ONE of those examples SAYD (DEFINES) "This makes all of these precepts on these stones universal for all and eternal". You just read it in there. You, like the other here think that the mere volume of book:chapter:verse references piled on top of one another proves a doctrine, despite the contexts, and you then call that "exegesis". That's proof-texting, whether it's one verse or a thousand.

No, you paste that passage together with all the others, and once again think that equals a proof. It doesn't.

You're the one making the circular arguments. And I showed you how Christ's "the least" is not talking of any difference between the Decalogue and the rest of the commandments. It's just not there. Even if it did refer to some commandments being universal and others tempoiral; it doesn;t define it along the lines of the Decalogue. The Decalogue was a SUMMARY of the WHOLE LAW anyway, Just like "Love God and Neighbor" is a summary of the Ten, and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Sums up the whole thing. The Law is not as cut and dry as you think it is. When I first went into Jewish bookstores and looked up books containing the list of 613, I expected to find 1-10 in Ex. 20, and then 11-613 afterward, but it's just not like that. The Ten themselves are divided among the 613.The Second "You shall not make any graven image" and "you shall not bow down to them" are two separate commands in that numbering system! So your dichotomu of the Ten and the rest is illusory.

Read how Hebrews applies it to today. It may not say "this is an allegory", but it conveys that fact by reapplying it to a spiritual reality. Instead of literally resting from all work ona a day of the week, He refers to that "certain day" as something spoken of in the past (v.4). Then, in v.10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own workS, as God did from his." You all gloss right over this and try to apply it back to a literal day, but it is clearly not.

And once again, show me one place where we are supposed to look back at this old creation passing away. Everything in the NT looks forward to the new Creation, and the same God that created the old cwill create the new.

You gloss over everything I say to bring out a charge of "contradiction", and tnow you have the nerve to say I'm feeling persecuted. You refuse to register that there were universal commands, that were already OUTSIDE the Decalogue. If these commands were REITERATED in the Decalogue and then the Decalogue gets cancelled, then those laws still stand outside of it! But any laws that existed only in the Decalogue are cancelled along with it. So simple! You're deliberately skimming over these points, because your whole arguing tactic is to try to cast the other person as so off the wall or just some lawless antinomian, that your arguments win by default, even though you haven't proven anything. Noone is an antinomian, or contradictory, because of your out of context prooftexting!

 

Well, then your argument is different then that of the SDA's here, for they claim Jesus was speaking of the Ten Commandments ONLY, since it says "not one jot nor tittle". Your argument here is the same as mine, because I kept trying to tell them about "UNTIL all be FULFILLED", and it just goes right over their head. They seem to think "fulfilled" refers to the end of the world, and thus all f the commandments Jesus was talking about are still in effect, so therefore it is the Ten. You are saying like me that the fulfillment was the Cross.

So then we're in agreement that one part of the law was weak and profitable, but the issue is the criterion by which fall into that category. You agree with the SDA's that it's "the Ten versus the rest", only they use a different approach to this passage in Matthew.
(What is your church anyway?)

Jesus is talking about little chidren (literal) that people were bringing to him, and the apostles were turning away, and now you have jumped the discussion to the disciples themselves, and positions in the Kingdom! Can't you take ANY scripture in CONTEXT without mashing together two unrelated things?

Looks like you are puffing up your pride to me. You would at least have more of an argument if you were stating your case, without going on the attack and hurling out accusation after accusation. And you can do it on the sabbath without staring at a computer screen all day. Once again, is that MENTALLY restful? Isn't the sabbath supposed to be about FELLOWSHIP (and computer discussions are no substitute for fellowship).
Don't forget, if you've seen it before, that I once was a sabbathkeeper, and heavily read SDA, Armstrong, and even Sacred Namer literature on how to keep the sabbath, and even though we didn't have the Internet back in the '80s, still; I know good and well spending hours engaging in discussions like this, as stressful as it can be, is not conducive to a sabbath rest. They all warned about getting hung up on such distractions, even if it was "about" God. I more recently had been tempted to say that this was my "personal time with God", but that doesn't fly either. It is corban, any way you look at it. Anyone who doesn't realize that hasn't grasped the holiness of God, and what He really requires, and that is the true antinomianism. Testifying and arguing/debating are two different things. One should be done anytime the opportunity comes up; the other can wait. What you're doing is like someone throwing the ox into the ditch to have a justification for doing work, and then still judging others who do not profess to keep it at all.

I'm the one on the defensive here, so I am giving you back what you are giving me. Notice, I do not initate cutting words like the ones you use; I only throw them back at you when you're found to be doing the same thing you accuse me of (contradiction, etc). If you hadn't come on here with such an accusatory tone, then I wouldn't react that way. It was totally unnecessary and inflammatory. "tough love" is no excuse. I am not your child or some alcoholic spouse. That's who tough love generally is for. The love we are to show to others, we are supposed to be "testifying" to is supposed to be much gentler and more civil than that. Also dealing with Claudia and Bob for some time, with pretty much the same tactics, also has me riled up. If you're going to call someone an antinomian and all of those other words, you had better have a stonger case than the unsubstantiated proof-texting you have presented. That is getting into ad-hominem, and it not a good debating tactic, unless you want a fight. You do what many debaters have done, and substitute verbal fervor for real proof. The fundamentalists do it all over the place, when attacking new evangelicals, and others on various issues, and often it's totally off the wall.
And now you infer that I am whining, but that's funny when the sabbathkeepers are always the ones coming with the conspiratorial language about how we are going to force Sunday on them in the future. And you had a martyr complex before when you thought I was trying to get you banned, and even mentioning how it would not be the first time, and all that.

 

Because it gets tiring being accused of antinomianism, teaching rebellion, and all the rest of the stuff your side has leveled at us, or told "just read the Bible's commands and and follow it", and then you accused me of [pretending to] not know what commands God expects of us, even saying "wake up". That was insulting, and was a total misrepresentation of my arguments. If you see someone here arguing that it is OK to live in adultery, or lying, killing, stealing, blasphemy, etc. then tell them that (1 Tim.1:8). But notice no one here argues anything like that. So there is no question on those commandments.
We all agree that God has rules He wants us to follow. We just disagree as to which on at least one point. Why can't you all come to the discussion on that point without telling us we are rebelling againt the Law and all of that stuff? That is inflammatory. You do not like it when people accuse sabbathkeepers of trusting in their works, and are therefore lost, and you have gone on persecution rants about that not too long ago. (in addition to the normal Sabbatarian conspiratorial jargon about Sunday enforcement and tha mark of the beast in all the EGW quotes). So why can't you return the respect?

Yea, I shouldn't take it too personally, and I really don't, but in the heat of the debate, it is stressful to open the page and find all of these strong words and accusations aimed my way, or even at my position when you are responding to someone else. You all like to set the tone in an accusatory, judgmental fashion, don't then ask why I react defensively.

See, you don't realize how the things you say comes across. "Just read the Bible's commands and follow them", and those stern warnings and the rest of that stuff you said the other night is saying that the person you are talking to is totally lawless.

"Nothing to do with"? Most of us believe (as we point out in the OSAS debates) that if a person is truly saved, then he will keep the commandments (though not necessarily all the ones you think they should). Salvation is by faith, and "If we love Him, we will keep the commandments". LOVE is the motivator, not trying to make it into Heaven. The SDA's believe in that (at least in theory), but the problem occurs when we get intot he sabbath issue, and some people explain it as "the Law is abolished", and then you start accusing all of us of "laemessness" or "rebellion is salvation" as Bob would put it. You;re not reading the whole story. (and many times, people do not explain it completely. that's why I, for instance, am now emphasizing the universal seven commandments, which have basically been ignored by mainstream apologetics).
So just because someone says "we are not under the Law", or "we are not saved by keeping the Law" it doesn't mean thay are lawless and need to be admonished on obedience.

Like I said, you don;t like it very much, do you? It seems almost as if you are trying to respond in kind, but you all have been doing so much propagandizing here lately, we are all on the defensive, so if someone responds with something liek that, it is giving you back what you are giving to them. And I have seen very fre say that. I certainly haven't.

Because you cannot seem to do that without throwing in accusations that we are advocating living in sin, or talking to us like we are common criminals, and you're the prophets reprimanding us into line. It's not just you; when the old line fundies do that in the music issue, we react similarly, but they have been nowhere near as relentless as you and Bob.

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, but it seems your side is the one trying to intimidate, and perhaps wear us out, by constantly repeating that we are teaching rebellion (particularly Bob), and then your warnings about lawlessness, and such. Then, we try to respond to some of you, and we just get our own words twisted up and thrown back at us construed to be teaching lawlessness, and then Bob even comes on taunting, like he is doing to J Jump now that he has given up that debate because of being tired out from Bob's tactics. That is bullying! (notice; it's not just about me).
So if I look intimidating, once again, it is only a strong reaction to match the strong opposition we are getting. It gets tiring after awhile; and having been on the side of the sabbath once, but then seeing how the slick tactics and clever arguments don't hold up to close scrutiny, yet your side keeps repeating them; I am very vehement in defending my position on this. It is similar to the debates with the CoC'ers on the issues of faith, works and salvation, and I may get a bit riled up with them, because they are like a brick wall. Baptism saves us because faith is works and grace is instructions because the walls of Jericho fall by faith, and all of the rest of the prooftexting. That is very tiring to deal with every day, and you all do that, and are more accusatory than even they are. mman and bmerr aren't calling us antinomians and teaching rebellion against the Law, so you can imagine how much more stressful the atmosphere will be here with you, Bob and Micheanu.

Quoting scriptures is one thing. But then when you all come accusing us of "ignoring, deleting, evading, rebelling against", etc them, [<Bob], and fail to acknowledge that we BELIEVE IN these scriptures, but simply don't agree on which "Law" they are referring to (Moses or Christ), then that is where the accusing is. If we kept throwing up Colossians, Galatians and Romans and saying "see, you're rebelling aginst these scriptures, and you're legalists and you better repent or God will judge you", you wouldn't like that, as you have already complained about it. I make my points without resorting tio such a tactic.

 

the law fulfilled?

Jesus DID fulfill the law of God, He kept it perfectly.. but the law itself shall not pass away till heaven and earth pass away, and its still here.

Mt:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

There are many things yet that must be fulfilled having tp do with the Law of God... for instance, the Mark of the beast will be urged upon the whole world and all men will reveal whether they are loyal to God or to man.

These things havent been fulfilled yet.. re-read the passage

 

Moses doesn't apply to gentiles

Still say there isn't one verse in Exo thru Deut that refers/applies to gentiles living in Houston. The blessings are geographical and temporal.

 

Claudia, your turn. Don't feel I'm picking on you.

If I'm understanding you right, you believe obeying the law is a condition of salvation? What exactly do you believe in regards to this? What happens if you transgress a law, do you just repent?

Excuse my questions but I have to admit I believe though the law still exist, that those who are covered with the blood of Jesus are no longer under the penalty of the law. So yes, I believe we obey the law but not to be saved, we obey the law because we are saved. I also don't believe the christian will be part of this judgment because there is no penalty. What good would it to do have a trial and convict a man of murder if he'll only go free in the end.

So as Paul put's it, does this mean we going around ignoring or living in transgression, GOD forbid!

Also, which priesthood do you feel we are under, Aaron, Melchisedec, Jesus, other?

 

Well, you disagree with Michael on that, because he says that the fulfillment was the Cross, and that "the least" were the ceremonial laws that would pass under the Cross. I agree with certain aspects of the Law passing at the Cross, and the issue is whether the sabbath is included in that. You say no, because "all fulfilled" is not the Cross, but "until Heaven and earth pass away". But the fulfillment can still be before the heavens and earth pass away, and it would still stand that not one jot nor tittle passed until the fulfillment, and that that RULE stood until heaven and earth passed. In other words, to this day, not one jot nor tittle ever did pass without being fulfilled. The fulfillment was past, even though heaven and earth passing is future.

So we see two different interpretations even within sabbatarianism. I think you're all misunderstanding most of this stuff.

 

destroy the law

Mt:5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus didnt say think not that I came to destroy the law but to destroy it, that makes no sense.

 

#1. NO text says that the Word of God "is cancelled".
#2. NO text says that "Gods commandments are Cancelled".
#3. NO text says "The Sabbath is Cancelled".
#4. NO text says "The Ten Commandments are Cancelled".
#5. God DOES declare of the FUTURE "From SABBATH to SABBATH SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66 so IF we were to "imagine something got cancelled" it can not be the CONTINUED Seventh DAy Holy day of Christ our Creator!
#6. God DOES say "The Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND not mankind MADE for the Sabbath" Thus speaking of the MAKING of BOTH (Just as we see in Gen 1-2:3) - SHOWING that the Sabbath scope at its ORIGIN is the same as we see in the FUTURE "All MAnkind"

And BECAUSE it is in the STARTING Condition for mankind (The Garden of Eden Gen 2:3) then it is GLOBAL in scope having its origin BEFORE the giving of the Ten Commandments as formal written code in Exodus 20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

1) Nobody is saying the Word of God was cancelled
2) some of "the commandments" were cancelled, or were the ceremonial laws all agree were cancelled not "commandments"? It's one thing to say they were weak and all that, but you all like to apply "commandments" to them alone when convenient. Now what about Heb.7:16? "commandment" there is the ceremonial law, right? Only thing is you have no scripture that changes the meaning of "commandment" from passage to passage like that.
3) We are told not to judge each other over days. Now you think that refers to annual days or whatever, but that is your own reading of the passages.
4) The Ten Commandments were apart of the Law addressed to Israel, as per #2.
5) Genesis is not a command and Isaiah is not a command for us today

It is not destroyed, but fulfilled, but you think fulfilled means still kept in entirety in the letter. Even Michael realizes that "fulfilled" refers to the Cross, and that some "commandments" would end there. You can argue that point with him.

Someone also explain why we are not having debates like this over adultery, murder lying , stealing blashpemy and idolatry. It is some conmspiracy against the sabbath? Or can you at least admit that it is not maintained in the NT like the others. I mean, we don't have to dig up some OT scripture on the Garden or future prophecy or paste together a bunch of other scriptures to prove that murder is still wrong.

 

Eric

as far as I am concerned we are having debates over whether all the commandments should be kept today. The problem is many Christians think its not ok to murder, steal, commit adultery but when you get to the Sabbath sudenly they think they can single out that commandment and say it was obliterated.

But personally I think the entire arguement is whether or not the ten commandments should be kept or not. And I see absolutely no reason to make like the Sabbath is any different than the rest. The first 4 commandments are about love for God and the last 6 are about love for your neighbor. Dont know where anyone gets the audacity to try to pick one commandment out of there and try to throw it away or change it.

 

I know you never used the term, and I never said you did. I used it way back in the past (stemming from discussion with Bob, and if I mentioned it to you, it was because I didn't realize you differed with the SDA's on that), and you have latched onto it and won't let it go.

OK, who really is "feigning" something now? You say "Hebrews CLEARLY STATES", but the only mention there is about "weak shadows", NOT "The rest of the Law outside The Ten Commandments are what is weak". You jump that over by INFERENCE, once again by your fallacy cycle of "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue is made up of universal commands."

I never said the spirit versus letter was MENTIONED there either, but then neither is the Decalogue. YOU keep bringing this passage up as some conclusive proof for your categorization. It recognizes a distinction, but that is all. It does not tell us the EXACT criteria, except for some being "weak shadows". We obviously have to look elsewhere to find out which are and which are not.

It does not say "condemnation" there. You all love to add that, just like Bob's "bill of debt". We are freed from the condemnation of course, but clearly we are freed from the Law, which BROUGHT the condemnation in the first place. Read v.2-4 also.

Read verse 3, please: 3:3 Forasmuch as all of you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart". You'll still say that that was no change, but then why back in v.6 is it said that "the letter KILLS, but the Spirit gives life", if the spirit is nothing but the letter all over again PLUS some spiritual meaning added?

There you go ignoring the fact that some commands like "thou shall not kill" were universal. You think because I say the letter of the Law of MOSES was cancelled, then all the universal moral laws contained in it were cancelled as well, but I keep telling you that they still exist OUTSIDE that law as universal precepts. And yes, it is magnified to you shall not even be angry at your bother without cause, and love those who do you wrong. Still, just the fact that "the spirit" is spoken of here shows that there is a change.

And I don't believe you dispute me on the spirit not changing anything and then turn right around and repeat this old line again. Don't you get it? It is obvious that parts of the Law were unprofitable, and that is what Paul was addressing in Romans and Corinthians.

Yes, all 613 had both letter and spirit, and the spirit of those laws continues on. Are you saying that the intent or principle of the sacrifices have been cancelled? That would render Christ's sacrifice null and void, and we are left without atonment. So as much as you try to eliminate letter vs. spirit, you just can't. And once again, your quotes above are insinuating "all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue contains universal commands." Or "no part of the Decalogue is weak and unprofitable because [some of] the commands are universal". But the sabbath is mentioned in NOT ONE such list in the NT. Are we to presume "well, they must have known it was included because 'it is apart of the same unit of the Decalogue'". But nce again, the reference above shows that the "tables of stone" are what are being deprecated in favor of the spirit, and while the universal moral laws (which can be found in Genesis before Moses) are retained and even magnified, the sabbath is carefully omitted every time. Put this together with the fact that the sabbath was said to be a "sign" of Israel under the Old Covenant, and then, you have verses in the NT telling us not to judge each other over days of worship, it seems much more clear than simply taking one passage in Hebrews and saying "some were unprofitable shadows, so there, that tells us it must be all except the Ten, because all commands in the Decalogue are universal because the Decalogue contains universal commands."

 

You continue to show your ignorance of the Law if you think there were only "Moral" and "ritual" laws and NOTHING ELSE in the entire code! But there's circumcision. that I'd think we'd agree, is one of the "unprofitable" commands that were shadows. But that's not a temple ritual. Neither is "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deut.22:10). Then, the entire body of penalties for various sins, and all the other details on how to live together as a nation. Those were apart of the 613. Those are not temple rituals. Do you keep the dietary laws or not? If you do (like the other sabbathkeepers), then that contradicts your whole category of "the Ten" versus "the rest". If not, then they too were not temple rituals.

You have narrowed thew whole Law down to "moral" versus "RITUAL" to try to isolate the 10 Commandments, but it is far more than just that. So you're the one who needs to think before you spew your thoughts.

I could make the same argument on some of those other commandments I just mentioned above. But we know they were still waek, and did in one sense or another point forward to the New Covenant.

You still forget that that writing with the finger and etcetera was ADDRESSED specifically to ISRAEL. "Hear O ISRAEL" it begins. So ye, it was on an equal standing TO THEM. In fact, it was their very SIGN of their covenant with God. Now you can argue that it was really supposed to spread to all, but God never did use the physical nation of Israel to spread the Gospel did He? They broke the covenant, and He started a NEW covenant.

OK, first, you are mixing up those categories. There are two primary divisions on the commandments; Like Jesus said, the TWO: "Love for God", and "love for neigbor". Moral involves "Morality", and thus our neighbor, the other involves our relationship to God. The last five are moral, and the first four are about God. The civil are all scattered throughout the rest of the law, and they are related to the last five, like the 9th "you shall not bear false witness" is definitely civil. The ceremonial are also scattered throughout the Law, and pertain to God.

Second, even though Exodus is before the final establishment of the Law of Moses, God did just give that commandment, as the Passover had also already been established. God was slowly giving parts of the Law as time went on, and then at Sinai, He finally delivered the whole thing. People always try to use ch15 as proof that something was before the Law, but no, that is still part of the Law in the process of being given.