PDA

View Full Version : How Should Christians View OT Law?



Dravenhawk
Sep 30th 2009, 04:18 AM
This one really has me spun. The bible teaches that Gods word is eternal and when he makes a promise or lays it out His word does not change. I am wondering about OT law as God laid it down to Moses and the prophets. My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was perfect and covers attonement for sins. Sacrifice of animals was no longer necessary after the resurection of Jesus. I hear alot of talk in Christian circles things like "we are no longer bound by the Law because of grace." So does that mean that the Law is void and we needn't bother with it because grace and such negates it? then there is Romans v28 - 31

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.

So now I am thinking that as a Christian that the Law somehow still applies as some kind of guide line to hold fast to. Matthew 5:17 - 20 imply the law is still in effect.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Is is because Christ lived a perfect life to the last detail that the law has is negated? I hear this alot in Christian circles and quite frankly I am confused. I conclude that Jesus is the redemption not obedience to the law. As a christian individual I am to obey the law and that grace is there when I fall short. When I fall short I repent to Jesus and through his blood that covers the transgression in Gods eves.

How does this apply in a view of governing a society? Do we say through grace we let all the lawbreakers go and hope they come to Christ? How would a civilization handle the problems of murder, robbery, assault etc...? How does the whole thing about Matt 7:1 play into how a society meters out justice?

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If everyone on a jury is afraid to give a convicted fellon the death peanalty based on Matt 7:1 and he gets out on early parole and commits another crime that ends up harming more victims then what? Does God hold the blood of the victims of the second crime against the jury who granted leinancy? And if this same jury gives this fellon the death sentence does God judge them using the measure they judged the fellon? Does grace cover this and how much?

Some clarity here please because this has me confused. :B

Dravenhawk

-SEEKING-
Sep 30th 2009, 12:30 PM
How Should Christians View OT Law?

I think they are great for living a good life. HOWEVER, they do not make us right with God. The law only showed us we were sinners. Jesus fulfilled the law's requirements by His sacrifice. So we hold on to Him for our justification.

I got this from Biblegateway. Galatians 3:24

24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.
Footnotes:

Galatians 3:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal.%203:24&version=HCSB#en-HCSB-29299) The word translated guardian in vv. [24-25] is different from the word in [Gl 4:2]. In our culture, we do not have a slave who takes a child to and from school, protecting the child from harm or corruption. In Gk the word paidogogos described such a slave. This slave was not a teacher.

George_Matt
Sep 30th 2009, 12:46 PM
The law condemned man - all men were sinners and men returned to their habitual sins after making the necessary sacrifice. Satan could continue to accuse man each time he fell. (refer book of Job)

God wanted to defeat this design and hence sent Jesus to the world. We are no longer condemned because of our inability to remain sinless at all times. Rather God sees us as his children irrespective of sin, because he has purchased us with the blood of Jesus. Just as we do not diswon our kids when they misbehave, he no longer alienates his people when they disobey. This does not mean we can rely on grace and then continue on with a life of sin! Rather he gently reminds his children of their sins (via the Holy Spirit) and prods them on to higher maturity levels.

markdrums
Sep 30th 2009, 12:56 PM
I'd say that Christians should view OT laws as FULFILLED. ;)

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the laws, he came to FULFILL them. Meaning, we are no longer under the laws of the OT.

That's different than the COMMANDMENTS though. (Which we're still to follow).

However, the Jews felt compelled to continue living under the laws & traditions of the Old Covenant. (And still do today) They rejected Christ as the true Messiah they were looking for, and chose "tradition" instead.

The OT laws were "types" that forshadowed the future coming of Jesus, and what his sacrifice for us would accomplish, as far as Salvation & fulfillment of the OT laws.

-SEEKING-
Sep 30th 2009, 12:58 PM
That's different than the COMMANDMENTS though. (Which we're still to follow).

Interesting. I've never heard this angle before. How do you view the law and commandments differently? I'm really curious.
Thanks.

markdrums
Sep 30th 2009, 01:21 PM
Interesting. I've never heard this angle before. How do you view the law and commandments differently? I'm really curious.
Thanks.

Well, my friend, I'm glad you asked! ;)
The 10 Commandments are absolutley still relevant to this day:

I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

The Old Covenant laws however, Such as: Ceremonial sacrifices, Clean/unclean food laws, working on the Sabbath... etc.... have been fulfilled in Jesus. We're no longer required to live under those "laws", but still required to follow the "Commandments".

:)

Know what I mean?

-SEEKING-
Sep 30th 2009, 02:17 PM
Know what I mean?

Yes I do my friend. Well put. Thanks.

markdrums
Sep 30th 2009, 02:34 PM
Yes I do my friend. Well put. Thanks.
Anytime man!!! :)
I know that can be a little confusing for some people.... especially early on; Wondering what the difference is between the OT "laws", (That we're no longer under) and the "10 Commandments" (That we're still required to follow)?

I'll admit, not too long ago I didn't understand the difference myself. :P

Vhayes
Sep 30th 2009, 02:42 PM
Jesus said in Matthew 22
36 - "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 - And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38 - "This is the great and foremost commandment.
39 - "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
40 - "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

If you love God with all your heart, soul and mind, you will not worship "things" and you will not put anything else ahead of Him in daily living. You will rest each day in Him.

If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will not steal from the, lie about them or want what they have.

In my opinion, the Big Ten have been distilled down into the Big Two - and they both hinge on one thing - love.

BroRog
Sep 30th 2009, 03:27 PM
So then, since Jesus fulfilled the law, then I am no longer required to stop at a red light or obey the speed limit?

Vhayes
Sep 30th 2009, 03:37 PM
So then, since Jesus fulfilled the law, then I am no longer required to stop at a red light or obey the speed limit?
Would the red light law be a part of the Old Testament Law?

-SEEKING-
Sep 30th 2009, 03:43 PM
So then, since Jesus fulfilled the law, then I am no longer required to stop at a red light or obey the speed limit?

Well that wasn't one of the laws He fulfilled. But chances are if you do you may get a ticket. There's that whole pesky law of the land. :cool:

ZAB
Sep 30th 2009, 03:48 PM
This one really has me spun. The bible teaches that Gods word is eternal and when he makes a promise or lays it out His word does not change. I am wondering about OT law as God laid it down to Moses and the prophets. My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was perfect and covers attonement for sins. Sacrifice of animals was no longer necessary after the resurection of Jesus. I hear alot of talk in Christian circles things like "we are no longer bound by the Law because of grace." So does that mean that the Law is void and we needn't bother with it because grace and such negates it? then there is Romans v28 - 31

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.

So now I am thinking that as a Christian that the Law somehow still applies as some kind of guide line to hold fast to. Matthew 5:17 - 20 imply the law is still in effect.

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Is is because Christ lived a perfect life to the last detail that the law has is negated? I hear this alot in Christian circles and quite frankly I am confused. I conclude that Jesus is the redemption not obedience to the law. As a christian individual I am to obey the law and that grace is there when I fall short. When I fall short I repent to Jesus and through his blood that covers the transgression in Gods eves.

How does this apply in a view of governing a society? Do we say through grace we let all the lawbreakers go and hope they come to Christ? How would a civilization handle the problems of murder, robbery, assault etc...? How does the whole thing about Matt 7:1 play into how a society meters out justice?

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If everyone on a jury is afraid to give a convicted fellon the death peanalty based on Matt 7:1 and he gets out on early parole and commits another crime that ends up harming more victims then what? Does God hold the blood of the victims of the second crime against the jury who granted leinancy? And if this same jury gives this fellon the death sentence does God judge them using the measure they judged the fellon? Does grace cover this and how much?

Some clarity here please because this has me confused. :B

Dravenhawk

People confuse this concept because they confuse the covenants. We live under the New Covenant, therefore we must see what the Bible teaches concerning Old Covenant laws and rituals, and their place in the New Covenant.

There were three divisions to God's Law (divided via association):
1) the Moral Law (10 commandments)
2) the Civil Law (civil, health and hygiene laws for society)
3) the Ceremonial Law (laws that governed the priesthood, sanctuary, etc)

Some aspects of this Law were nailed to the cross of Christ and abolished, while others are repeated in the NT for our observance.

The Moral Law was repeated in the NT by either Jesus or the apostles:
- No other gods before Him (1 Cor 8:4-6; Mk 12:29-30)
- No graven images (1 Cor 10:14; 1 Jn 5:20-21)
- No taking God's name in vain (Rom 2:24; 2 Tim 2:19)
- Remember the Sabbath (not repeated - this has become a New Covenant spiritual reality)
- Honour father and mother (Lk 18:20; EPh 6:1-4)
- Do not murder (Matt 5:21; Rom 13:9; 1 Jn 3:15)
- Do not commit adultery (Matt 5:28-32; Rom 13:9)
- Do not steal (Eph 4:28; Rom 13:9)
- Do not bear false witness (Matt 5:18-20; Rom 13:9)
- Do not covet (Rom 7:7-8; Lk 12:15; Col 3:5)

These were not nailed to the cross. When Paul teaches that the believer is "not under law, but under grace", he was not teaching that grace is lawlessness. This moral law has gone from external to internal; from tables of stone to the tables of our hearts. Love is the fulfilling of this law (Rom 13:8-10).

The Civil Law is still used by many nations today. Without such laws concerning property, relationships between man and man, etc, there would be chaos. These laws are needed for a well governed society. Western governments have been founded on these Judeo-Christian ethics.

The Ceremonial Laws have indeed been nailed to cross. These things include Old Covenant circumcision, sabbaths, animal sacrifices and oblations, festival days, holy days, the Tabernacle and Temple services, and the Old Covenant priesthood. At the cross, these things have been abolished (as to their religious value and other "letterism"). They pass through the cross and into a new and higher spiritual level in the New Covenant; they were simply shadows of greater things to come. Note Colossians 2:14-17.

Z.

BroRog
Sep 30th 2009, 03:55 PM
Would the red light law be a part of the Old Testament Law?

Yes, by analogy. It's easy to forget that the Mosaic Law was the equivalent of a traffic law today. To answer the OP, we need to consider the question contemporaneously, as if we were living at the same time period. How would the Jews living in Jesus day have heard his statement that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it?

Suppose, by analogy, that Jesus came to your town and said, "I did not come to abolish the law concerning traffic lights; I came to fulfill it." Would you assume that he meant, "Now that I stopped at a red light, no one else needs to stop at a red light?"

I don't think that is what he meant. He said, "I did not come to abolish . . ." which means, he did not do away with the law of Moses. He didn't mean, "Since I have "fulfilled" the law, you no longer have to obey it." In essence, there is no difference between abolishing the law and causing everyone to ignore them. But he didn't mean that, I don't think.

Vhayes
Sep 30th 2009, 04:02 PM
Yes, by analogy. It's easy to forget that the Mosaic Law was the equivalent of a traffic law today. To answer the OP, we need to consider the question contemporaneously, as if we were living at the same time period. How would the Jews living in Jesus day have heard his statement that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it?

Suppose, by analogy, that Jesus came to your town and said, "I did not come to abolish the law concerning traffic lights; I came to fulfill it." Would you assume that he meant, "Now that I stopped at a red light, no one else needs to stop at a red light?"

I don't think that is what he meant. He said, "I did not come to abolish . . ." which means, he did not do away with the law of Moses. He didn't mean, "Since I have "fulfilled" the law, you no longer have to obey it." In essence, there is no difference between abolishing the law and causing everyone to ignore them. But he didn't mean that, I don't think.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying - but I've been known to have that problem with lots of things now and again...

Two things came to mind -
1. If Jesus came today and said He had fulfilled the Law and I said, "Cool - no more traffic lights!!" I think Jesus would have told me that would be loving myself before my neighbor and that isn't what He meant at all. My neighbors safety and well-being should matter to me just as much as my own. That's the measuring stick, at least in my head.

and

2. If I "fulfill" the obligations of a mortgage , I am no longer obligated to make a payment to the bank each month. That is over, complete, fulfilled. It's a whole new ballgame.

Does that make sense? At all?
V

markedward
Sep 30th 2009, 05:15 PM
Grabbed this from my personal studies:


The cornerstone of the gospel is that Christ saved people despite the fact that they broke the Law. But Christ reserved his ministry for "the lost sheep of Israel"—dealing with the Gentiles was a matter he left to the apostles. So, when the Gentiles began to follow Christ on a widespread basis, the Jewish followers of the New Covenant (making up the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the initial converts) were confronted with the issue as to whether the Gentiles needed to follow the Law.

According to some of the "Jewish Christians", the new "Gentile Christians" had to be "circumcised according to the custom of Moses", or else they would not be saved. This went on to become a major issue dealt with by Paul in his epistles. If Jesus saves people despite the fact that they broke the Law, why should Gentile Christians (or Jewish Christians, for that matter) absolutely be required to follow certain parts of the Law in order to be saved? The argument was completely circular. Under the authority of Christ, all men must follow these two commandments:


Love and follow after the One God (יהוה), with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind.
Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

But, under the authority of the apostles, Gentile Christians only need to worry about the following, regarding the Torah Law:


Abstain from eating blood. [Leviticus 17.10-16]
Abstain from meat which was strangled. [Leviticus 17.10-16] (Strangling an animal to death causes the blood to remain within the meat. This is simply a technical extension of the previous command.)
Abstain from sexual immorality. [Leviticus 18]
Abstain from idolatry, particularly food sacrificed to idols. [Leviticus 19.4]

(In 1 Corinthians 8, it initially appears that Paul leaves this issue of eating food sacrifices to idols as "morally gray". His understanding is that, since idols are not alive, food cannot truly be sacrificed to them. But, he still encourages Christians to abstain from eating such food, in case it causes a "weaker brother" to stumble. That was the purpose of the Jerusalem council's decision. They know that the food in itself is not unclean, but the knowledge that the food was sacrificed to idols can pollute the mind of "weaker" Christians; hence, the apostles decreed abstinence from idol-offered food.)

Paul's epistles (particularly Romans) do not make light of the apparent dilemma. The Law, of course, is not sinful, nor is it sinful to follow the Law. The Law, in truth, exposes sin for what it is. The problem is when an individual tries to follow the Law in order to obtain salvation. This was the problem with those few Jewish Christians who stated that salvation could only come from being circumcised according to the Law. Salvation comes apart from the Law. Salvation comes from believing in the name of Christ, and that alone.

The reason, then, that the apostles (who were Jewish Christians) made such a minimal set of requirements for the Gentile Christians (abstain from blood, from sexual immorality, and from idolatry) is because these were recognized as sinful long before the Torah Law was given. (Read through Genesis to find examples of all four of those commands.) These sins are absolutely incompatible with the Christian lifestyle. Taking part in these actions on a consistent basis do not only show disregard for the "weaker brother". A Christian cannot actively live in such a sinful lifestyle and still claim to follow Christ. "No one can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and mammon." It betrays an unrepentant heart.

But what of the followers of Christ who identify themselves as "Jewish Christians", then? To what extent should they follow the Law? To find the answer to this, one must study the book of Hebrews. As it just so happens, the book of Hebrews was written specifically to deal with the problem of Christians turning in favor to following the Old Covenant system, and abandoning the freedoms found in the New Covenant of Christ. The author repeatedly shows the superiority of the New Covenant to the Old. Christ's as High Priest is greater than the Levitical priesthood. Christ's true temple is greater than the earthly temple building. Christ's once-for-all-time sacrifice is greater than the daily and yearly sacrifices. Case in point: everything of the Law that had to do with the Old Covenant "system" of sacrificial services has been overridden by the equivalents of Christ's New Covenant. Following such parts of the Law is an affront to the salvation brought by Christ's actions. These Laws have been fulfilled by the works of Christ.

This still leaves a good number of other commands in the Law for the "Jewish Christians" to deal with. Obviously, they should follow the same two commands of Christ (Love God, love your neighbor) and the four commands of the apostles (abstain from blood, from sexual immorality, and from idolatry). But other than these? It is wholly up to the individual. If the follower of Christ is convinced in their own mind to keep those parts of the Law (e.g. no tattoos, not marring the sides of their beard, eating only kosher food, etc.), then they should keep those Laws, strictly under the knowledge that following those Laws will not bring them salvation.

There are still a great deal of commands found throughout the New Testament Scriptures. The apostles continually provide direction on how to live a less sinful lifestyle, and these commands should surely be followed. But it must always be recognized that only by placing faith in Christ can one find salvation. He did the work for us. He followed the Law perfectly where none of us could. Only in Christ can we be saved.

BroRog
Sep 30th 2009, 05:47 PM
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying - but I've been known to have that problem with lots of things now and again...

Two things came to mind -
1. If Jesus came today and said He had fulfilled the Law and I said, "Cool - no more traffic lights!!" I think Jesus would have told me that would be loving myself before my neighbor and that isn't what He meant at all. My neighbors safety and well-being should matter to me just as much as my own. That's the measuring stick, at least in my head.

Okay, that's good. We ask Christians need to make a distinction between a "law" and a "moral good." I can see your point about stopping at a street corner out of concern for my neighbor. This is ethical and moral behavior.

But does this answer the OP? The question concerns itself with OT Law, not OT morality. As you point out, Jesus says that the OT Law can be summed up as two moral imperatives. When he says this, however, isn't it understood that these two moral imperatives do not discharge a citizen of Israel from obeying the civil and religious rules? After all, didn't Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax?

I think we need to make a difference between a moral imperative, which is something that ought to be done whether a law exists on the books or not. As you rightly point out in your example, we stop at an unmarked intersection out of concern for the safety of others. And we would do this regardless of whether a law commanded it or not. The absence of a law does not discharge us from loving our neighbor and/or seeking his welfare.

This gets us closer to answering the OP. As Christians we should look at the OT Law, first as a set of laws that are enforced by a court and a police force. We must not forget that when Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, he wasn't asking his kinsmen to disband the courts and let anarchy reign.

Second, we shouldn't make a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws in this regard. The Ten Commandments were not only moral imperatives but they were civil laws to be obeyed and enforced by the courts.

If we say that Christians are obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, we need to be clear that we keep them, not because they are laws, but because they are moral imperatives -- things that ought to be done whether they were explicitly commanded or not.

For instance, in discussions with Seventh Day Adventists I usually point this out. The SDA insists that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath Day, the fourth Commandment, because it is part of the Ten Commandments. However, while it is true that the Seventh Day Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, the question is whether the Sabbath is a moral imperative or not. That is, are we obligated to keep the Sabbath because it is intrinsically right and we ought to do it whether we have an explicit commandment or is this one of those laws that is extrinsically unique to a people living under the Old Covenant?


and

2. If I "fulfill" the obligations of a mortgage , I am no longer obligated to make a payment to the bank each month. That is over, complete, fulfilled. It's a whole new ballgame.



Okay, in this case you have fulfilled your obligation to pay your mortgage while at the same time you haven't abolished contract law itself. The "new ballgame", for you personally, is a life of freedom from debt.

th1bill
Sep 30th 2009, 06:30 PM
This one really has me spun. The bible teaches that Gods word is eternal and when he makes a promise or lays it out His word does not change. I am wondering about OT law as God laid it down to Moses and the prophets. My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was perfect and covers attonement for sins. Sacrifice of animals was no longer necessary after the resurection of Jesus. I hear alot of talk in Christian circles things like "we are no longer bound by the Law because of grace." So does that mean that the Law is void and we needn't bother with it because grace and such negates it? then there is Romans v28 - 31

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.

So now I am thinking that as a Christian that the Law somehow still applies as some kind of guide line to hold fast to. Matthew 5:17 - 20 imply the law is still in effect.
Draven,
... This is another of those subjects that have caused me a great deal of trouble, I have even been dismissed from forums over this one. No one, not even Abraham has ever been saved by any other means than God's grace but that does not remove the purpose of the Law. God knew in the Garden that Eve would eat of the forbidden fruit and He knew that Adam would lust so for his wife that he would eat before he would give her up. Since God knew that man could not keep one law He certainly knew that we would never keep 613 of them. However the purpose of the Law has remained throughout time and will continue to do so.
... First, Jesus is the God of creation (John 1) and it is He that gave us the Law. Just as Jesus modeled the life we are to aspire to live so does the Law. The Law is the model of God's perfection in written form and always has been. The argument is a hollow argument. They contend that the Old Testament was an oral recounting of the story only, not true. God gave to Moses two stone tablets with the first ten laws on them, they were written and Moses wrote out the first five books of the scriptures, himself. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt where written records were kept for 400 years, there were, among them, the educated slaves.
... The Ten Commandments and the other six hundred and three laws are the perfection God wishes for us to seek. He knows we have already failed and that is why there is grace... to begin again.


17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Is is because Christ lived a perfect life to the last detail that the law has is negated? I hear this alot in Christian circles and quite frankly I am confused. I conclude that Jesus is the redemption not obedience to the law. As a christian individual I am to obey the law and that grace is there when I fall short. When I fall short I repent to Jesus and through his blood that covers the transgression in Gods eves.
... You are spot on!


How does this apply in a view of governing a society? Do we say through grace we let all the lawbreakers go and hope they come to Christ? How would a civilization handle the problems of murder, robbery, assault etc...? How does the whole thing about Matt 7:1 play into how a society meters out justice?

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

If everyone on a jury is afraid to give a convicted fellon the death peanalty based on Matt 7:1 and he gets out on early parole and commits another crime that ends up harming more victims then what? Does God hold the blood of the victims of the second crime against the jury who granted leinancy? And if this same jury gives this fellon the death sentence does God judge them using the measure they judged the fellon? Does grace cover this and how much?

Some clarity here please because this has me confused. :B

Dravenhawk
... That verse is the world's favorite verse from the Bible and of course they never read chapt. 6 nor the remaining verses of seven. This verse, when read in context teaches us to judge! It teaches us to judge in the same manor that we seek to be judged. All heresy originates from scripture, scripture out of cotext!
... God bless.

Vhayes
Sep 30th 2009, 06:46 PM
Okay, that's good. We ask Christians need to make a distinction between a "law" and a "moral good." I can see your point about stopping at a street corner out of concern for my neighbor. This is ethical and moral behavior.

But does this answer the OP? The question concerns itself with OT Law, not OT morality. As you point out, Jesus says that the OT Law can be summed up as two moral imperatives. When he says this, however, isn't it understood that these two moral imperatives do not discharge a citizen of Israel from obeying the civil and religious rules? After all, didn't Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax?

I think I may be the odd man out here, so to speak. The Old Testament Law was, in my opinion and based on my studies, put in place for two reasons.
Reason One - to point to the coming Messiah. A tutor, or word pictures, that show the characteristics and attributes of a living Savior.

Reason Two - to keep the Israelites as healthy, happy and prosperous as possible in a world of that era. Most of the "laws" were pretty far advanced hygenically speaking. Most of the laws governing the Hebrews daily lives were extremely just while keeping in mind the dangers that existed back then as far as health issues were concerned.

God had promised Abraham that the Messiah would come through his bloodline. God kept that bloodline alive and well in large part because of "the law".


I think we need to make a difference between a moral imperative, which is something that ought to be done whether a law exists on the books or not. As you rightly point out in your example, we stop at an unmarked intersection out of concern for the safety of others. And we would do this regardless of whether a law commanded it or not. The absence of a law does not discharge us from loving our neighbor and/or seeking his welfare.

This gets us closer to answering the OP. As Christians we should look at the OT Law, first as a set of laws that are enforced by a court and a police force. We must not forget that when Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, he wasn't asking his kinsmen to disband the courts and let anarchy reign. I think you may be mixing secular with theocratic. As I said above, the "rules" were put in place to keep the people healthy and prosperous. Once Messiah came, the entire reason for the law was indeed fulfilled.


Second, we shouldn't make a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws in this regard. The Ten Commandments were not only moral imperatives but they were civil laws to be obeyed and enforced by the courts.

If we say that Christians are obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, we need to be clear that we keep them, not because they are laws, but because they are moral imperatives -- things that ought to be done whether they were explicitly commanded or not. Again - I am the odd man out - I think the Ten were fulfilled as well. As Christians, when we have God the Holy Spirit living within us and directing our steps through our conscience, we will automatically do what God wants. We have to be in fellowship, in close contact, but it's the heart that is doing "right" because it's the right thing. If we "obey" because it's a "law" and we really don't see why we should, it becomes a useless ritual and the lesson it was to teach is lost.


For instance, in discussions with Seventh Day Adventists I usually point this out. The SDA insists that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath Day, the fourth Commandment, because it is part of the Ten Commandments. However, while it is true that the Seventh Day Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, the question is whether the Sabbath is a moral imperative or not. That is, are we obligated to keep the Sabbath because it is intrinsically right and we ought to do it whether we have an explicit commandment or is this one of those laws that is extrinsically unique to a people living under the Old Covenant? The Sabbath was set aside as a day when people could dwell upon the mighty works of God and how He provided for them and their needs, through sacrifice, through offerings, through His very Presence in the Ark of the Covenant.

Christ came to earth and at this present time, tabernacles in each and every child of God. Each day is a Sabbath Day where I rest in the finished work of the Lord Jesus. Each moment of each day should be spent dwelling upon how He provides for all my needs because of His sacrifice.


Okay, in this case you have fulfilled your obligation to pay your mortgage while at the same time you haven't abolished contract law itself. The "new ballgame", for you personally, is a life of freedom from debt.Yes - a NEW Covenant - one where all the debt has been paid. The New Covenant is no longer about sin and death, it's about the second birth and liberty in Christ Jesus.

Sorry for the length!
V