Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Matthew

[Newbie]

I have somewhat had this conversation with my father but I can't prod too much because I care about him and don't desire to hurt his feelings.

I've heard people say cherry picking which rules to follow from the old or new testament is hypocritical but I have heard my father mention a "new covenant" or something along those lines. Something about Jesus washing away the old laws and making the new ones.

Is that scripturally based or is that just a way of justifying ignoring all of the outdated morally bankrupt laws of the old testament. Didn't Jesus say he didn't come to abolish the old laws or something to that extent?

Also isn't the law prohibiting homosexuality in the old testament? So wouldn't the new covenant or w/e it is called void that law?

All this circular logic and wishy washy flip flopping just confuses me and I am hoping someone much more knowledgeable than myself could give me some clarity on this. Is this a thing in the Bible or is it just playing politics so people wont look down on Christianity for being pro-slavery, anti-women, and being bigoted towards gays? Basically an attempt to save face.

[jimwalton]

Wow, that shows a bias before the discussion even begins. Outdated, morally bankrupt laws? And you want a serious conversation? Pro-slavery, anti-women, and bigoted towards gays? Actually slavery was undone in this country and England because of Christianity, Christianity is only anti-women if you don't have a clue what the text says, and it is not bigoted toward gays. it says homosexuality is a sin, but our place is to love and not judge. That's not bigotry.

As far as the core of your question, Matt. 5.17 says Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general, not just part of it. He fulfilled it in that he did hat the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell his people that they should have certain attitudes. god did that by commanding actions (the Law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Mt. 5), but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Phil. 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (Jn. 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is that we follow Christ's example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law (all of it), because if we follow Christ's example, we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. But we don't do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Jesus, and our behavior now is not based at all on the law, but on Jesus' example (Rom. 13.8-10). The coinciding o with many point of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of Law.

The Law is still there, but it has been superseded. Picture a volcano on a barren plain. It is the law. From wherever the people are on the plain the can look to the law for direction. It stands awesome and ominous.

When Jesus came two things happened. First of all the land, instead of being barren and sterile began to bear fruit, obscuring the mountain a little. Secondly, the volcano erupted and grew into a mountain that completely engulfed and dwarfed the original. This mountain is Jesus. Now we, rather than living in a wilderness, live in a well-watered garden land, and when we need direction we look to Jesus, and not to the law at all. The law is still there, but we don’t see it. It has been fulfilled. Now we look to Jesus, and him alone. The law is void; Christ is the standard.

Listen, I'd be glad to discuss any of these further, but you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Rhode Island. Let's talk, not abuse.