One thought on “Jesus contradicts Paul on the Jewish Law

  1. mr.heathcliff

    qb, very interesting points:

    How is a commandment placed into which category? To be blunt it seems to boil down into which laws the person is in favor of, and which they are not – “Oh, of course the commandment against homosexuality is a moral law so it still counts, but the commandment against sitting in the same chair after a menstruating woman is a ceremonial law so it doesn’t.”

    Jesus’s words directly contradict your categorization – “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments” suggests that the category of law is irrelevant.

    You state that Jesus “fulfilled” categories of the law without addressing OP’s objection to it, namely how does one negate a law by “fulfilling” it? I might “fulfill” the speed limit by staying under 55mph on Tuesday, does that mean I am allowed to do 90mph down the freeway on Wednesday

    Again, I don’t see any Biblical support for those categorizations, just your statements that this is the way it is. On top of that the two verses you quoted would suggest that NO commandment given in the OT is applicable to Christians. Isn’t it OK for a Christian to have sex with his sister due to the “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances”? If not then why is it OK for a Christian to refuse to have sex with his dead brother’s widow? Why is one type of sexual immorality not OK, but another type is?

    You seem to be making a distinction between “commandments” and “laws”. So when a prophet says “God says you shall not wear mixed fiber clothing” and another prophet says “God says you shall not kill”, what makes one a “commandment” and another merely a “law”?

    And yet again, you seem to be using buzzwords over logic. I ask again, how does one “fulfill” the commandment “you shall rest on the Sabbath”? And why can I not kill, since the commandments have been “fulfilled/completed/made new”?

    Wait, so you believe a man who does not impregnate his dead brother’s widow is sexually immoral and a sinner before God? Wow, good on you for your consistency, but I gotta say you’re not going to find many Christians who agree with you.

    Also since we’re on the subject of sexuality, the prohibition against homosexuality was a cultural law set down only for the Israelites and thus Christians do not have to follow it, so why are you including it on the list?

    And again to follow the sexual aspect, I ask – since the restriction against sex with your sister was fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, why do you say that Christians should not do so?

    I note you are skipping past my reference to Deuteronomy 25:5. So I’ll ask again and expand upon it. Do you believe it is immoral for a man to NOT impregnate his dead brother’s widow as the Lord commanded? It is a commandment related to sexuality, therefor it is in the “moral” category, which you have decided still counts. And what about the Lord’s commandment to not sit in the same seat as a menstruating woman as per Leviticus 15:19-30? A woman’s menstruation is intimately tied to her sexuality, so as a “moral” commandment shouldn’t it still be in effect?

    And this all goes back to my earlier point which is the same as the OPs, that Christians pick and choose what commandments are still in force and which commandments were “fulfilled” and don’t count any more. The fact that you’re adding in the extra step of inventing arbitrary categories then arbitrarily throwing commandments into those categories doesn’t change that fact.

    And thus I have declared homosexuality to be in the “cultural” category and not mattering any more because I have homosexual friends and don’t want them to be tortured for all eternity. Just like you have declared the prohibition against mixed fiber clothing to be in the “cultural” category because you don’t want yourself to be tortured for all eternity because you like your cotton/poly blends

    so how do we tell the difference? what is the methodology that determines “don’t eat shellfish” is a part of the old covenant and no longer applies but “don’t lie with a man” has to remain?

    because a cynical person would look at that example (which may not actually apply to your beliefs, it’s just something I was raised to believe) and go “you just got rid of the rule telling you not to do something that you like to do and kept the rule that applies to others”.

    “Various notes in the NT about how ‘it’s not what you eat that condemns you’ are allegories to mean ‘Christians can eat pork’.”

    That is like a parent telling a child not to eat the cake in the kitchen and then at a later date saying that the cake is not poisonous to your body. That does nothing to lift the restriction on eating cake it simply tells you that cake in and of itself is not harmful.

    “Moral law is moral do’s and don’ts”

    Well, all the laws are do’s and don’ts, in a sense. Here’s an example of a law that modern Christians don’t follow: People (maybe just men) who have gay sex should be stoned to death. Why shouldn’t modern Christians follow this law?

    The Bible seems to make it clear in both the old and new testament that gay sex is a general moral wrong. This law isn’t a law concerning ceremonies or sacrifices. It seems like a very general sort of law – gay sex is deeply morally wrong, and the just punishment is death. Why shouldn’t modern Christians follow this?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s