|
|
Did Jesus Abolish The Law or Not? (Editor's Note: Recently I ran an article in the newspaper "Our Bible Is Not A Clock" making the point that we cannot pick and choose which passage of scriptures we want to go by. I made the point that some want to take part of the Law of Moses to authorize instrumental music in worship, Sabbath day observance, and other practices. I received the following response. Dear Rev. Tucker, Neither can you pick and choose bible quotes randomly to prove your point. See: Did Jesus abolish the Law or not? Matthew 5:17 1. No. (Matt. 5:17), "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." 2. When Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, He came to establish it and demonstrate how it pointed to Him and how He would live it perfectly. Colossians 2:14 This metaphor depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men but Mosaic ordinances being nailed to the cross by God. Ordinances relate to sanctuary services of the old Covenant and were nailed to the cross along with other Jewish practices of circumcision and laws about food. Paul is speaking about the Old Testament principles and authority of rule and revelation, not dogma such as the 10 Commandments, etc.
Here is my response.
First of all, I want to thank you for reading the article. I do not agree with your assessment of what I wrote, but I appreciate you taking the time to read and write a response of disagreement. Second, please do not refer to me as Reverend. Psalm 111.9 is the only time the word "reverend" can be found in the King James Bible and it is used to describe God. Most other translations use the word "awesome" instead of reverend. However, the use of religious titles is condemned in Matthew 23.10, "But you, do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren." The clergy/laity system is wrong. Now to your response itself. You claim that I am guilty of picking and choosing scriptures to prove my point. Let us take the context of Colossians 2.14 and see if I am guilty of misusing the passage. In Colossians 2.8 we are warned of the philosophies and traditions of men. In verses 9 and 10 we are told that we as Christians are complete in Christ. It is in Christ we receive the circumcision made without hands in verse 11, speaking of our sins being removed. It is in Christ we were baptized and raised from the dead, in verse 12. He has made us alive and forgiven us of all trespasses, verse 13. Now in verse 14 we are told that the handwriting of requirements was taken out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. The question is, what is the handwriting of requirements? What was taken out of the way by the death of Jesus on the cross? Verses 16 and 17 speaks of those things contained in the Law of Moses. The dietary laws, the Sabbaths, the festivals, The Law of Moses were a shadow of the Law to come; that is the Law of Christ, the New Covenant. Surely you realize the Old Testament itself speaks of a New Covenant being established with the houses of Israel and Judah. "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord." Jeremiah 31.31-32. Notice this is used in Hebrews 8.9ff. The Hebrew writer ends by stating that the use of the words "a new covenant" necessarily implies the vanishing of the old covenant. I would include (Hebrews 8 verses 9 and 13) as many readers won’t know what ff. means. The question must be asked, when was the "old covenant" removed or fulfilled? Colossians 2.14 says it was when Jesus died on the cross for our sins. You quoted Matthew 5.17 which is a good passage of scripture and one that I want to use. Jesus said He came to "fulfill" the Law and the Prophets. What were the Law and the Prophets pointing toward? What did He mean by fulfill? It means to complete, does it not? Let us let Jesus explain what He meant. After His death on the cross, resurrection, and before His ascension into heaven, Jesus said the following: "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24.44-47). The Law and the Prophets pointed to the coming, sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins, His resurrection, and even the establishment of the new covenant. As Paul said, the old law served as a tutor to bring us to Christ, Galatians 3.24. You said that Jesus came to "establish it." Did Jesus come to establish the Law of Moses? The Law of Moses was ratified on Mount Sinai in Exodus 24.5-8 as Moses read the Law to the children of Israel and then offered a sacrifice before the Lord, then took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people. The Law of Moses was in effect 1500 years before the coming of Christ. Jesus did not die on the cross to establish the Law of Moses but His Law, the Law of liberty. Here are some things you need to consider in your study of the Bible on this subject. First, we cannot be under the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time. There were some in the first century wanting to go by both laws. Romans 7.1-4 shows that such is spiritual adultery. The inspired writer uses the marriage between a man and a woman to illustrate this point. A woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive. If she goes out and marries another man, she is an adulteress. However, if her husband dies, she is free from the law and can be married to another man. The point being, that those Paul is writing to had obeyed the Gospel of Christ. They had been baptized into Christ, Romans 6.4. The only way that would be possible is if the old law had passed away. Then and only then could they obey the Law of Christ, otherwise they would be guilty of spiritual adultery. Second, if one wants to obey the Law of Moses they must keep all of the Law. Galatians 5.3, "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." One cannot pick and choose which parts of the Law of Moses they want to keep and which parts to ignore. You said, "Ordinances relate to sanctuary services of the old Covenant and were nailed to the cross along with other Jewish practices of circumcision and laws about food." If one part of the law is done away with, then the whole vanishes. The Law of Moses contained the ceremonial laws, circumcision, Sabbath day observance, civil laws, priesthood, 10 commandments, temple worship, etc. You are making a distinction where there is none. They were all a part of the same law. The 10 commandments are not binding today because they were a part of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses came from God, serves as a tutor to bring us to Christ, and teaches us of God's righteousness, love, and punishment.
Finally, those trying to take part of the Law of Moses, i.e. circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath day observance, were in danger of being lost. "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Galatians 5.4). You use parentheses in only one other place in the article. Just makes it cleaner to be consistent, unless you have a reason. I stand by my article. I realize my response has been somewhat long, but please take the time to read the passages cited. Dennis Tucker
|