I did not come to destroy the Law

[Sola scriptural]

How are we to interpret our Saviors words?  I don't mean canned, Sunday School answers either. 

The phenomenon of the Messianic movement (not necessarily an endorsement) has opened up many Christian believer' eyes to the appreciation of not only The Law, but to how The Law and Jewish tradition are  interwoven throughout all of the NT (many scholars now concede that Sermon on Mount was a polemic on the 10).

Systems of theology have sought to minimize the Torah as essentially a good history tale, but of no NT "age" efficacy.

How do you view The Law?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Completed.

Why would anyone look to that which was completed. Why LOOK to the ONE that completed/fulfilled the law. He's so much better than the condemnation the law brought.

 

[Sola scriptural]

Fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Completed.

Why would anyone look to that which was completed. Why LOOK to the ONE that completed/fulfilled the law. He's so much better than the condemnation the law brought.

What about ethics?  Do we, as believers, practice only a NT ethic?  Is there nothing to be gleaned from the OT. 


Psalm 19:7-14

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

If the Law is able to aid in the conversion of the soul, should we not have a heavy dose of it?

 

[Fresh Air]

I have two chapters dedicated to that answer in the book ad that haunts the forum. (Sorry about that.) Jesus completely fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Although He would start the church - which is clearly NOT a Jewish organization - and thus bring an end to those ceremonial observances He did not in this destroy the Law. He actually pointed men to a genuine observance of the lasting portion of the Law - the moral Law - in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the basic theme of the first third, at least, of the Sermon on the Mount.

...and in my view the epistles are just a Christian outworking of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus' life/ministry/words/actions led directly not to the destruction of the Law but to its complete fulfillment, both in His own life immediately and in ours gradually and finally.

 

[Sola scriptural]

I have two chapters dedicated to that answer in the book ad that haunts the forum. (Sorry about that.) Jesus completely fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Although He would start the church - which is clearly NOT a Jewish organization - and thus bring an end to those ceremonial observances He did not in this destroy the Law. He actually pointed men to a genuine observance of the lasting portion of the Law - the moral Law - in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the basic theme of the first third, at least, of the Sermon on the Mount.

...and in my view the epistles are just a Christian outworking of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus' life/ministry/words/actions led directly not to the destruction of the Law but to its complete fulfillment, both in His own life immediately and in ours gradually and finally.

He "fulfilled" it in not breaking any of it, living all of it, and becoming the substitutionary blood sacrifice required in it, but he didn't "destroy" it. 

What does that mean for us?

I get it, we don't need to follow it for salvation, grace suffices.  We aren't bound to ceremonies (we aren't Jews anyway). 

What do we miss by not studying it intensely, though?  What significance  do we miss?  The NT is a very Jewish document, and all the writers (except Luke) had Jewish blood and saw the world through Jewish eyes.

Are we too Gentile in our approach to Theology?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have two chapters dedicated to that answer in the book ad that haunts the forum. (Sorry about that.) Jesus completely fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Although He would start the church - which is clearly NOT a Jewish organization - and thus bring an end to those ceremonial observances He did not in this destroy the Law. He actually pointed men to a genuine observance of the lasting portion of the Law - the moral Law - in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the basic theme of the first third, at least, of the Sermon on the Mount.

...and in my view the epistles are just a Christian outworking of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus' life/ministry/words/actions led directly not to the destruction of the Law but to its complete fulfillment, both in His own life immediately and in ours gradually and finally.

He "fulfilled" it in not breaking any of it, living all of it, and becoming the substitutionary blood sacrifice required in it, but he didn't "destroy" it. 

What does that mean for us?

I get it, we don't need to follow it for salvation, grace suffices.  We aren't bound to ceremonies (we aren't Jews anyway). 

What do we miss by not studying it intensely, though?  What significance  do we miss?  The NT is a very Jewish document, and all the writers (except Luke) had Jewish blood and saw the world through Jewish eyes.

Are we too Gentile in our approach to Theology?

Who are you talking about?  I study the "law and the prophets", and just about everyone I know who studies the Bible at all does, too.

 

[Sola scriptural]

I have two chapters dedicated to that answer in the book ad that haunts the forum. (Sorry about that.) Jesus completely fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Although He would start the church - which is clearly NOT a Jewish organization - and thus bring an end to those ceremonial observances He did not in this destroy the Law. He actually pointed men to a genuine observance of the lasting portion of the Law - the moral Law - in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the basic theme of the first third, at least, of the Sermon on the Mount.

...and in my view the epistles are just a Christian outworking of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus' life/ministry/words/actions led directly not to the destruction of the Law but to its complete fulfillment, both in His own life immediately and in ours gradually and finally.

He "fulfilled" it in not breaking any of it, living all of it, and becoming the substitutionary blood sacrifice required in it, but he didn't "destroy" it. 

What does that mean for us?

I get it, we don't need to follow it for salvation, grace suffices.  We aren't bound to ceremonies (we aren't Jews anyway). 

What do we miss by not studying it intensely, though?  What significance  do we miss?  The NT is a very Jewish document, and all the writers (except Luke) had Jewish blood and saw the world through Jewish eyes.

Are we too Gentile in our approach to Theology?

Who are you talking about?  I study the "law and the prophets", and just about everyone I know who studies the Bible at all does, too.

Study and practice are two different things.  Medical doctors study Medicine, but then put the study to practice as they see first hand that what they've studied is applicable to saving physical lives.

This is why I mentioned a biblical ethic, not just a NT ethic.  In one of your posts (yesterday I believe) you quipped about not mixing fabrics (evidently a play of words on the Polygamy thread).  Alashanee quickly noted the purpose of that law....conservation of clothes, and cleanliness.  These are all ethics to live by.

I'm sure you study the Law, but how many study it to that degree to draw out the ethics?  I know plenty of Christians have yearly reading plans that cover the Torah, but to what depth, and to what degree?

When James says he shows his faith by his works, I believe (PERSONAL COMMENTARY HERE) that would include the works of the Law, as we study to know the mindset of God.

How many times have you heard preachers say..."oh, the Law,  yeah, that means the 10!  All else is not applicable under Grace....that was for the Jews."    Really????

 

[Fresh Air]

Are we too Gentile in our approach to Theology?

Yes, or at least too Western or too modern. Reading a Christian Jew (Edersheim) and his 1500 pages on the life of Christ (read it 3x) completely changed my understanding of, appreciation for, and in some real sense application of the New Testament. It put Him, His words and works (to quote Dwight Pentecost, who also wrote a good book on the life of Christ) into the context of His own time. Understanding that time, that culture, and those dynamics makes the New Testament much different.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The law is not divided. Ceremonial and etc distinctions are man made. If Christ did not fulfill the entire law, then you are dead in your sins.

 

[Sola scriptural]

The law is not divided. Ceremonial and etc distinctions are man made. If Christ did not fulfill the entire law, then you are dead in your sins.

I don't believe it is either.  If anything I wrote led you to that conclusion, that's my poor writing...sorry.

But even in the ceremonial aspects of the law, we find precious nuggets of truth.  Now some might say that it's just a study for the ancient ceremonies we are not bound to.  But, HOW does Christ fulfill all of it?  The NT only scratches the surface in the epistles and Hebrews.  Tom Brennan mentioned Edersheim.  I am not familiar with him.  I have read from messianic Jew Michael Brown.  In his more famous writings, he breaks down the OT and NT and shows just how much of a handshake they really have. 

Beyond just the Jewishness of the NT, what benefits beyond what is just written in NT, do we miss without devoted, in depth, deliberate study of the Law, and how much of that is to our detriment?

Romans 7:7... What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Personally, I believe a sinner needs a whole lot of law, before he can fully understand Grace.