Intruiging stuff. Not sure if you want to expand on it, but in case you do, I'm also listening since I wasnt aware of this relationship between the texts. I thought it would be a case of turn the other cheek when appropriate and eye for an eye when appropriate. This made sense to me because since both covenants are with God, why would His stance change? Whatever the reason is for that change, why can't it change again? Again though, I understand if you don't want to discuss.
Because after Jesus paid for everyone sins, the law of justice was fulfilled and we became indebted to God instead. Hence, God sets the rules as particularized to our circumstances/capabilities so we can show our devotion him.
In a nutshell, the standard of the law was impossible for a human being to ever meet. Therefore, we were all dead in our sins. No one was worthy of entering the Kingdom of God. The death of Jesus on the cross paid our sin-debt and freed us of the standard of the law. Jesus paid the price that no human was capable of paying.
I understand why you wouldn't bother answering, but I wanted to point it out for people who don't know much about the religion, like the OP. But, I don't really want to go down that rabbit trail, especially during month-end close. I just think, in a broad definition of the Bible and the religion for the uninitiated, you want to be careful to keep denominational beliefs separate from simple description.
It’s not a change really. It’s a completion. A fulfillment. Romans is a good book for explaining this. Here’s a bit of a summary passage, but I recommend reading Romans, especially the first maybe 6 chapters, and if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them and tell you what I believe it means. Romans 3 Righteousness Through Faith 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&version=31
Do you know where it says this? I've heard it forever but I've never seen it in the Bible. I believe that this is an interpretation doesn't have any basis in scripture.
Then why did Jesus say, "Heaven and earth will disappear before the smallest letter disappears from the Law"?
lol, yea, well, I'll admit this is a rather Mormon approach to the question. Its better than the answers anyone else gave though.
Check the book of Hebrews. I'll search for some serious text in a little bit. The idea is that the old covenant was done away with. Jesus himself states this on a few occasions. It's not to say that the Law of God is obsolete, but rather it's no longer a requirement for salvation. Faith is the requirement.
Where in my post did I saw that the Law was done away with? The Law is what it is, it's just that the standard of the Law is no longer on you as a Christian. Jesus paid the price for our inability to ever fulfill the law.
The standard of the law never had anything to do with salvation. You are still supposed to follow the law, according to Jesus.
You’re right. If you scratch the surface of this issue a bit some significant issues come up. Offhand I can’t think of a church that would disagree that through Jesus God established a New Covenant with man as outlined in Romans 3 above, but in practice things can look very different. There are a number of churches that put a lot of emphasis on the OT and that talk about the Law in a very OT way. A number of other churches don’t believe they can justify that position, and that’s the issue that leads to the more lively discussion, about legalism and other related issues.
It doesn't. Have a look at the last verse in that quote, verse 31. "31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." I wish I had a bit more time to elaborate on this, but try reading the earlier part of Romans 3. Also remember that Christians are to live by the Spirit of God rather than the Law, and to thereby live out the fruits of the Spirit. That's a loaded two sentences, I know, but you might remember some of the discussions we've had previously on this.
Yeah. From a historical perspective, the OT was written at a time when Western civilization was still in its infancy, so the level of culture and understanding wasn't as in depth as it comparatively is today. The NT reflects a greater awareness of other cultures. Paul reached out directly to the surrounding cultures and gave several strong arguments to each of them. I think there are many who still find use in the OT to help them understand what God's word is with the mindset that it's a supplement of the NT. I'm not sure how much I can put in the OT. It's a bit too contextual for me to pick up off the bat.
I've wondered for years how people can ignore some verses but embrace others. I'm not talking about the old Testament; there seems to be a consensus that we don't really need to follow what it says. But the New Testament contains some verses that I think most Christians ignore. For example: "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." -1 Corinthians 14 Now, in every church I've ever been to, women have spoken. I've asked this before in churches/bible studies and am met with responses like "The culture was different back then." This coming from biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the "true, God-breathed word." So what allows us to brush off this particular New Testament verse that declares this act "disgraceful"? Why aren't the verses on hot political wedge issues such as homosexuality considered not applicable because the culture has changed? In all honesty, I think peoples' own prejudices make them interpret the Bible any way they want. I remember someone once telling me that contemporary worship music was met with scorn when it first debuted and when more churches started utilizing it. Older Evangelicals found the music vulgar and offensive, and a true disrepect to God. They believed that hymns were the only acceptable form. Now worship music with drums and guitars is the norm in the American evangelical church. Likewise, people not that long ago saw this Corinthians verse as the norm and the only acceptable way for women to "behave." So, something has changed, right? The culture has evolved in a way that renders this verse archaic and/or obsolete, or at least not applicable for most people. There was an outcry when women were allowed to vote. There was an outcry during the women's rights movement. There is/was an outcry over women being able to serve as elders or pastors in the church. It's my personal belief that this struggle between present day culture and religious culture, therefore, isn't a "moral erosion" as the religious like to put it but rather more or less "growing pains." I wholeheartedly believe that the stigma surrounding homosexuality, for example, will be MUCH less important in a few years. It all evolves. Thoughts?
Nice post. Passages like the one you referenced are indefensible, and so it's not surprising that few Christians attempt to defend them. Many Christians seem to exclusively cite those passages that fit with their beliefs, while ignoring the less palatable ones. I quoted Matthew 4:17-19 above, which has Jesus clearly stating that the old law is to be followed (and even taught). Yet almost every Christian in this thread has said the exact opposite, that the old law is no longer binding, without providing any textual support. What it comes down to is that most Christians couldn't care less what the Bible actually says. They are too busy repeating the lines that are drummed into their heads at Sunday school.
