What did Christ say about the Law?

[Hobie]

There are many people that say they lift up Christ, yet scorn and reject Gods Law which comes from love. It is nothing but a snare from evil which has been set up to excuse sin, the Law shows Gods love for man in how to love God back and how to love our fellowman, and by showing us His love in sending prophets and teachers to explain and illustrate His Law. So what did Christ say about the Law?

Matthew 5:17-19 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, since Jesus knew what laws His death would fulfill, would He be saying this about the Ten Commandments if He were going to fulfill them? He was talking about Moses’ ceremonial law which pointed to the coming of the Messiah, which He fulfilled. So there was a law which was abolished, which Christ "took out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Paul calls it "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." This ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be binding upon the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings and services were to be abolished. Paul and the other apostles labored to show this, and resolutely withstood those Judaizing teachers who declared that Christians should observe the ceremonial law. But the Ten Commandents were not done away, Christ makes it clear in the following verses:

Mark 12:28- 31 -28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

What law was Jesus citing, clearly the Ten Commandments and if you check, you will notice the 10 Commandments are arranged in two groups; the first group (commandments 1-4) deal with out relationship to God, the second group (5-10) deal with our relationship to one another. When we read Matthew 22:37-40, it should be obvious that it is the Ten Commandments Jesus is talking about. Let’s look at those verses:

Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It is these two precepts (love to God and love to one another) that constitute the entire moral law of the Ten Commandments. Jesus Christ was reaffirming the Ten Commandments as He does in this verse:

John 15:10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 

[Packrat]

The "moral law" (i.e. loving God with your whole and loving your neighbor as yourself) was not found in the Ten Commandments but with the rest of those laws that have supposedly been abolished. Also not found in the Ten Commandments is the law against homosexual acts. Would it be holy in God's eyes for a Christian to pursue a homosexual relationship? If not, then why? The New Testament rebukes homosexual behavior, but can this be accounted for if the law against homosexuality has been abolished along with the rest?

 

[Hobie]

The 'moral law' is the 10 Commandments, it shows man whas sin is. The Commandments were described in the Bible as being written on stone with Gods finger (Exodus 31:18) not handwritten by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:9). Also that God’s law was not grievous to us (1 John 5:3) as Moses’ law was a witness against us (Deuteronomy 31:26). So loving God and loving our fellow man is what the 10 Commandments are all about.

The Mosaic Ceremonial Laws dealt with meat and drink offerings and various holydays; the 10 Commandments did not. Also, Mosaic laws did not judge a man, that was not its purpose; those laws were added BECAUSE of transgressions and did not DEFINE the transgression as the Ten Commandments do. Then we have what Christ says and scripture makes clear:

Mark 10:19 - Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Which set of law was Jesus citing from here?(also see Luke 18:20)

1 John 2:3-4 - And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 5:2-3 - By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Revelation 12:17 - And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 14:12 - Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Revelation 22:14 - 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.

John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Ecclesiastes 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.

So the 10 Commandments are Gods Law and man cannot say they accept Christ and reject the Law which He says to keep, now there is another view which the snake at the Garden of Eden gave which caused man to transgress the Law of love to God and fellowman and we can see where that led....

 

[Drew]

There are many people that say they lift up Christ, yet scorn and reject Gods Law which comes from love. It is nothing but a snare from evil which has been set up to excuse sin, the Law shows Gods love for man in how to love God back and how to love our fellowman, and by showing us His love in sending prophets and teachers to explain and illustrate His Law. So what did Christ say about the Law?

Matthew 5:17-19 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Now, since Jesus knew what laws His death would fulfill, would He be saying this about the Ten Commandments if He were going to fulfill them? He was talking about Moses’ ceremonial law which pointed to the coming of the Messiah, which He fulfilled. So there was a law which was abolished, which Christ "took out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Paul calls it "the law of commandments contained in ordinances."

I do not see an Biblical argument for driving a wedge between the "ceremonial" element of the Law of Moses and the "moral" aspect. After all, in Matthew, Jesus seems to affirm that all the elements of the Law of Moses are bound together in virtue of their being summarrized in the 2 great commandments:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So I see case at all for splitting "moral" law from "ceremonial law".

I believe that the New Testament teaches that the entire written code of the Law of Moses was, in fact, "abolished" or retired at the cross. Remember - the 10 commandment are just as much "written ordnances" as are the elements of you call the "ceremonial law".

Consider Romans 7. There Paul says that we have been freed from the written code and are now following the Spirit. Is he excluding the 10 commandments from this code from which we have been freed? Clearly, he is not. When elaborating on what the written law consists in, Paul makes a clear allusion to the "you shall not covet" commandment:

6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Note what is going on here. Having just stated (verse 6) that we are released from the law, Paul is making an argument about how, despite the fact we have been thus released, this does not mean that the Law was evil. So there really is no out here. In the mind of Paul the written code from which the Jew has been released - the Law of Moses - indeed includes the 10 commandments. Paul would not make the statement he makes (above) about how the "do not steal" commandment was not an evil thing, if he did not believe that this commandment, and by implication the rest of the 10 commandments, were not an element of the written code whose fundamental goodness he is affirming despite his declaration of its abolition. The logic of his argument entirely falls apart unless the 10 commandments are part of the written code that has been abolished.

Consider an analogy. Suppose that some leader figure had written down a set of 500 "rules". Let's say some of them were obvious "moral" in character, such as "thou shalt not kick puppies". And suppose some of them were ceremonial, such as "you must wear a red hat on Friday". Now suppose someone named Fred comes along and writes that we have been freed from this written code (analogous to what Paul writes in Romans 7:6). Even if it were not otherwise obvious that this includes the "do not kick puppies" law (since it is indeed a part of the written code), suppose Fred also follows up his assertion about being freed from the code with this statement:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not kick puppies"?

Fred would never make such statement, if he did not believe that the written code, just declared to have come to an end, did not include the "do not kick puppies" command.

Back to Paul: Paul says that we have been freed from the written code. Fine. Does that include the 10 commandments? Obviously it must precisely because Paul feels obliged to tell the reader that even though the code has been abolished, it is not being abolished because it was evil. And when he affirms that the written code is not evil because it told him "thou shalt not steal", it becomes clear beyond question that Paul considers the 10 commandments to be part of the written code that has been abolished.

 

[Drew]

The 'moral law' is the 10 Commandments, it shows man whas sin is. The Commandments were described in the Bible as being written on stone with Gods finger (Exodus 31:18) not handwritten by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:9).

I see what you are saying here, but I really do not think is enough to draw a distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the "written law". As I have just argued, it is clear that Paul considers the "do not covet" command to be part of the written code. I really see no possible to read Romans 7 and come to any other conclusion.

Beside, even though God did the "writing", the 10 commandments are still written. So I see no reason to think anybody, such as Paul, would think that they are excluded from references to the "written code".

But Romans 7 seals the deal - that text cannot be read any other way than that the 10 commandments are part of the written code.

 

[Packrat]

The 'moral law' is the 10 Commandments, it shows man whas sin is. The Commandments were described in the Bible as being written on stone with Gods finger (Exodus 31:18) not handwritten by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:9).

I see what you are saying here, but I really do not think is enough to draw a distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the "written law". As I have just argued, it is clear that Paul considers the "do not covet" command to be part of the written code. I really see no possible to read Romans 7 and come to any other conclusion.

Beside, even though God did the "writing", the 10 commandments are still written. So I see no reason to think anybody, such as Paul, would think that they are excluded from references to the "written code".

But Romans 7 seals the deal - that text cannot be read any other way than that the 10 commandments are part of the written code.

Nicely done, Drew. But we could go even further with this. In the same way that you showed the ceremonial laws were one with the Ten Commandments we can also see that the laws to love God with our whole and to love our neighbor as ourselves are one with the ceremonial laws. They are all contained by the Torah. Matthew 22:35-40 illustrates this by an expert of the Torah asking Jesus which are the greatest commandments in the Torah (i.e. this "Law" that has been abolished). Jesus then cites Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Note that the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves is found within the writings of Leviticus which are heavily ceremonial in nature. How then can the law of love be accepted when the rest is rejected?

I think this warrants a careful examination of Romans 7:6. In what way have we been released from the Law if we are still commanded to keep it? Perhaps we have died to legalism (i.e. service only to the letter - the written code - rather than to both the letter and the purpose) and can now serve God in the way that he intended us to obey his laws?

 

[Drew]

I think this warrants a careful examination of Romans 7:6. In what way have we been released from the Law if we are still commanded to keep it? Perhaps we have died to legalism (i.e. service only to the letter - the written code - rather than to both the letter and the purpose) and can now serve God in the way that he intended us to obey his laws?

While we agree that there cannot be a division of the Law of Moses into a "moral" part and a "ceremonial" part, I am confident we disagree about the status of the Law of Moses.

I think it is entirely abolished, retired, done away with, finito, etc. This, of course, does not mean that we are free to murder and commit adultery. It simply means that the promptings of the Holy Spirit, not the written instruction "do not murder" is now the guide for the Christian.

It would appear that you think the entire Law is still in force.

Do you think that we should therefore stone adulterers?

Nevertheless, and at the risk of sounding self-promoting, it appears that you agree with the Romans 7 argument - there is simply no sensible way to read that text and discern a distinction between a "moral" law and a "ceremonial" law.

 

[Packrat]

Here's my commentary on Romans 7:4-6:

Verse 4: "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." So we've died to the law? What does this mean? Let's keep reading.

Verse 5: "For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death." So when we were controlled by our sinful nature we wanted to sin all the more because the Law told us not to. This was not serving according to the Spirit by obeying his Law. Therefore observing his Law cannot be an issue here, especially since only one controlled by their sinful nature wishes to disobey it and we are not supposed to be controlled by our sinful natures.

Verse 6: "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." So now by dying to what once bound us - our sinful nature - we have been released from sin which derives its power from the Law. Now we can obey the Law by serving in the new way of the Spirit of God rather than wanting to disobey God.

In summary, the Law was written down but not upon our hearts. We were sinful and wished to disobey that which was holy. Now it has been written on our hearts, so let us obey it. I see your reasoning, Drew, that the Law increased sin, but it only served to increase sin since sin drew its power from the Law. Once we died to sin, as shown above, we were released from this power to obey God in the new way of the Spirit.

 

[Drew]

In summary, the Law was written down but not upon our hearts. We were sinful and wished to disobey that which was holy. Now it has been written on our hearts, so let us obey it. I see your reasoning, Drew, that the Law increased sin, but it only served to increase sin since sin drew its power from the Law. Once we died to sin, as shown above, we were released from this power to obey God in the new way of the Spirit.

Perhaps this is plausible. But it is also plausible that Paul is telling us we are entirely released from the law. I agree with your analysis about the "sinful nature". But I trust you see that one can also read this passage as affirming the abolition of the Law. The fact that it can be read you read it does not mean that this is the only plausible reading.

I think that Ephesians 2 includes a clear abolition of the Law of Moses - Paul asserts that the "written ordnances" have been abolished. It seems like a stretch to take this to mean that we are still obey that law, but instead in a different way.

Besides, as Paul forcefully argues in the text that surrounds this Ephesians 2 statement about the abolition of the "ordnances", the result of that abolition is the bringing of Jew and Gentile together.

When we remember that the Law of Moses was given to Jews only (if I recall, I think you disagree about this), the ideal way to bring Jew and Gentile together is to get rid of the Law which set the Jews apart.

So I am quite confident that Paul thinks that the Law of Moses is over.

Again, if you believe otherwise, do you believe we should be stoning adulterers?

 

[Packrat]

I think it is entirely abolished, retired, done away with, finito, etc. This, of course, does not mean that we are free to murder and commit adultery. It simply means that the promptings of the Holy Spirit, not the written instruction "do not murder" is now the guide for the Christian.

So now that we are freed from our sinful natures to follow God more obediently (i.e. follow his Law since whatever he says is Law) the body of Law has now been abolished? Doesn't make much sense to me.

It would appear that you think the entire Law is still in force.

Yes and no. To illustrate this point, Israel could not have properly observed a great many of the commandments found in the Law when they were exiled to Babylon. However, I think we will both agree that the Law was still in effect during the Babylonian exile (i.e. well before Christ's fulfillment).

 

[Packrat]

In summary, the Law was written down but not upon our hearts. We were sinful and wished to disobey that which was holy. Now it has been written on our hearts, so let us obey it. I see your reasoning, Drew, that the Law increased sin, but it only served to increase sin since sin drew its power from the Law. Once we died to sin, as shown above, we were released from this power to obey God in the new way of the Spirit.

Perhaps this is plausible. But it is also plausible that Paul is telling us we are entirely released from the law.

When I read the Bible I take it as a whole. Zechariah 14:19 would seem to point to my plausible explanation as the most logical.

Again, if you believe otherwise, do you believe we should be stoning adulterers?

It is my hope you can see how I've answered this in the post just after yours. If you would like me to thoroughly explain my opinion on it then I can try. But I'd like you to explain why in the future God inflicts plague upon the Gentiles in Zechariah 14:19 for not observing the Law that was given only to the Jews.

And when you make a distinction between Jew and Gentile I think you're missing the point in the New Testament (as well as the Old) that we have been grafted in with Israel and made one with them. We are God's people due to our faith. What "tribe" affiliation we have is somewhat indistinct since we do not live within the land. However, our neglect to see ourselves as God's people does not mean that we are not God's people.

Moreover the argument that "'murder is wrong' has been written upon our hearts now" is not quite a valid argument. Most ancient civilizations knew and felt that murder was wrong (at least in some cases), for from their hearts and minds came their body of laws. So I believe it's much more plausible that God's Torah was written on our hearts so that we would want to obey it all the more and in the proper way.