Gamera

Yep, they are binding, unless you accept grace and escape their condemnation, which is the entire point of the gospels.



Romans 7:4 - Likewise, my
brethren, you have died to the law
through the body of Christ, so that
you may belong to another, to him
who has been raised from the dead
in order that we may bear fruit for
God.

Romans 7:6 - But now we are
discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive, so that
we serve not under the old written
code but in the new life of the Spirit.


Galatians 2:19 - For I through the
law died to the law, that I might live
to God.

Galatians 3:10 - For all who rely
on works of the law are under a
curse; for it is written, "Cursed be
every one who does not abide by all
things written in the book of the law,
and do them."

Galatians 3:23 - Now before
faith came, we were confined under
the law, kept under restraint until
faith should be revealed


Galatians 5:3 - I testify again to every man
who receives circumcision that he is bound
to keep the whole law

Galatians 5:4 - You are severed
from Christ, you who would be
justified by the law; you have fallen
away from grace.

Galatians 5:18 - But if you are
led by the Spirit you are not under
the law.

Ephesians 2:15 - by abolishing
in his flesh the law of
commandments and ordinances,
that he might create in himself one
new man in place of the two, so
making peace,

Hebrews 7:12 -
For when there
is a change in the priesthood, there
is necessarily a change in the law
as well.

Hebrews 10:1 - For since the
law has but a shadow of the good
things to come instead of the true
form of these realities, it can never,
by the same sacrifices which are
continually offered year after year,
make perfect those who draw near

James 1:25 - But he who looks
into the perfect law, the law of
liberty, and perseveres, being no
hearer that forgets but a doer that
acts, he shall be blessed in his
doing.


James 2:10 - For whoever keeps
the whole law but fails in one point
has become guilty of all of it.

Toto

But then you quote Paul (and other epistle writers), not the gospels. :huh:

Chris Weimer

Can you show how he is destroying the Law?

I can't agree with you here. Γενηται comes from γινομαι (γιγνομαι) which means "to happen, to occur, to be born". Fulfilled is understood by Matthew's context, but either way it is saying that it the law is in effect until everything is completed, until whatever needs to be done happens. I cannot see either of the three words you offered as being preferred in this passage.

Er, unless you assume that the author of Matthew and the author of Revelation shared the same beliefs, this is not valid. All that matters is that Matthew thought that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

spamandham

Yes, and a very simple one too. In those days, the Jewish scriptures were known to them as "the law and the prophets". When Jesus refers to "the law", he is referring to the Jewish scriptures, not some set of rules. A contextual translation would be "I have not come to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them." It's a bit of a play on words, which is common for Jesus.

Now what does that mean? Obviously, he is referring to the fulfillment of prophecy. He is claiming to be the Messiah, and it has nothing to do with setting aside ceremonial laws.

The better argument from a Christian perspective, which you rarely hear, is that the ceremonial rules were laws for the nation of Israel, and god's covenant with that nation depended on those laws. Jesus' covenant is not with any particular nation, but directly with believers, who are not bound by those rules. Unfortunately for fundy nutters, if you take such a tact, you have to throw the cherished 10 commandments out as well, and tithing, since both were part of the covenant with the nation of Israel that has nothing to do with the "new and everlasting covenant".

This is what the text actually means in context, but even most preachers get it wrong.

Cege

I like this simple explanation, but is it valid?

In Matthew 5 the word Jesus uses for Law/law is nomos which Strong's Concordance says is "law" and specific to law of Moses. In other places in the gospels Jesus uses the word graphe to refer to "scripture".

If the writer of GMatthew wanted to show that Jesus referred to all the Jewish scriptures rather than to the Law of Moses, why wouldn't he have used graphe instead of nomos?

Matt 5's context includes "Do not murder" and "Do not commit adultery", both of which are in the 10 commandments.

Gamera

I did quote the gospels. Review my posts again.

squiz

Although you can find some versus that support most of these prohibitions, the strict application of such rules goes explicitely against the idea that one should live by faith and not the law.

Specifically:
All of the alcohol passages forbid drunkenness and not having a glass of wine with a meal or a beer after work with your mates. Catholics look down on drunkenness too, but certainly do not forbid alcohol. The evangelicals are guilty here of religious legalism. I hear that baptists don't even have alcohol in the communion wine. I have even heard it claimed that Christ turned water into grape juice. :grin:

Smoking:
Of course smoking didn't exist before the discovery of the New World. These oft-quoted passages are pretty generic and could just as easily (or actually more easily) be interpreted to require that Christians abstain from junk food, keep from getting fat, stay out of the sun (to prevent skin cancer), and generally stay fit. Catholics don't forbid smoking. The Dutch reformed church doesn't forbid smoking. The English-speaking evangelicals have made it a legalistic religious issue and not just a health issue.

Cussing:
Ok I'll give you this one, but only due to the first passage, which I had forgotten about (it's been a long time). I'll give you that unwholesome talk is forbidden in the first passage and would apply to crudity. The second passage seems to be more referring to deceitful speech. The third is talking about cursing. In middle to early modern English originally, cursing referred only to calling a curse down upon someone, whereas an oath referred to swearing an oath to something. Such exclamations as "God/Jesus" or "hell", probably came from "by God/Jesus (I swear it's true)" or "go to hell" etc. The modern English sexual exclamations are a fairly recent phenomenon and are by no means universal. The Swedes still say "go to the devil", the Germans only say "Scheiße", the southern Europeans go into exquisite detail describing your parentage. I'll give you, however, that it doesn't come across as very wholesome.

Gambling:
Very generic and could just as easily refer to someone starting a business. Such passages have been turned into a New Law. My mother didn't even approve of the kids playing (non gambling) card games with each other. Ridiculous legalism and totally contrary to the spirit of much of the NT.

Hats in Church:
Clearly prescribed in the NT, true. However don't such rules contradict living by faith and not the law.

Dancing:
This is not specifically talking about dancing at all. The use that evangelicals have made of such passages to proscribe what is often an innocent pleasure and art form is another clear case of imposing a new legalism based on a flimsy extrapolation. You might as well forbid cake, as it could lead to gluttony.

I think that evangelicals are guilty of creating a new legalism, often based on certain scriptures (often loosely). If only they would put more emphasis on some other passages such as "Judge not, that ye be not judged" etc.

Chris Weimer

Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, James...no gospels?

Cege

I agree that interpretations of those scriptures I listed have been used to apply legalistic religion rather than stress a life based on faith. Like I said before, it's sho'nuff lacking literal interpretation but that doesn't stop evangelicals for attempting applications.

And you're right about contemporary Baptists not using wine for communion (referred to as the Lord's Supper). It's straight grape juice.

Living by faith wouldn't eliminate all rules/law, though. The NT is specific about avoiding sins like sexual immorality, lust, greed, idolatry.

The "law" of the new covenant with God might be the directions attributed to Jesus in the beatitudes (Matt 5): don't kill, don't even remain angry with anyone; don't commit adultery, don't even lust in your heart; love your neighbors, love even your enemies; etc

I haven't yet decided exactly what composes the "law of Christ" Paul refers to that is supposed to have replaced the Law of Moses.

Gamera

You just didn't bother to look very carefully:


That's what makes Matthew 5 (which I assume you're refering to) so revolutionary. Jesus declares that your rationale, your intent determines the moral quality of your conduct, and thus created the idea of an internal life, which was pretty foreign to the Hellenic world. A bad intent that result in a good result is worse than a good intent that results in harm.

Hence his radical claim that not loving people is as bad as murdering them:

Matthew 5:22 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23