|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2026 1:46 pm
Good afternoon! ^_^
This thread is a fulfillment of my promise to discuss why I follow Jesus over the Old Testament Law, as discussed in the Maundy Thursday Thread. Since I was discussing it originally with Gabriel, and he has previously mentioned in another thread as being a little overwhelmed by large amounts of text and bulky arguments, I'm going to try to keep everything condensed and super straightforward. heart
There are two parts to this argument. This afternoon, I want to focus on Jesus. Jesus is central to everything about my theology, my philosophy, my understanding of the world, and my life. Jesus is the first part of my argument. The second part of my argument will focus on Christians - that is to say, the Jerusalem Council, the place of Gentile Christians in the Church (of which I am one), Paul, and the other New Testament writers (especially Hebrews).
Let's start with a quote from Jesus (Matthew 5:17-19, NASB).Jesus of Nazareth Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and Earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
And then, in Luke 16:16-17, Jesus said (NASB):Jesus of Nazareth The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John came; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
Now, let's talk about what Jesus means by this.
Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. And He did. In my understanding, this means: 1) He obeyed them perfectly, and 2) He fulfilled them perfectly. In that understanding (this is important), ever since Jesus' death and resurrection the Law is no longer operating in the way that it once did. The Prophets have been fulfilled in basically every way (except for the final resurrection, glorification, and restoration).
This is why the New Covenant language Jesus uses at the Last Supper is significant. Remember when God made a covenant with Abraham and sealed it with death and blood in Genesis 15 (on His side, by the way, not Abraham's)? This is why Jesus describes His New Covenant being made with His blood at the Last Supper.
The Last Supper is in all four Gospel accounts. It is also referenced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Here's what Jesus said in two different accounts (Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29, both NASB):Jesus of Nazareth [Of the bread He said, after blessing it] Take it; this is my body. [And of the wine He said, after giving thanks] This is my blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again, until that day when I drink it, new, in the kingdom of God. [Of the bread He said, after blessing it] Take, eat; this is my body. [And of the wine, after giving thanks, He said] Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it with you, new, in my Father's kingdom.
Jesus is talking about a new covenant sealed in blood, His blood, poured out for our sins (thank you Jesus - I love you). The Law does not have the same application or weight in this new covenant. That doesn't mean it is useless or worthless.
It means it is reframed. And Jesus is the model for that reframing. After all, He reframes the Law for us during His ministry in multiple places.
First, He says multiple times on the Sermon on the Mount, "You have heard it said...but I say..."
A perfect example is the divorce law found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which talks about a man marrying a woman and that if "she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her" he can give her a certificate of divorce: "he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house..."
But what does Jesus say? In Matthew 5:31-32 (NASB) He says:Jesus of Nazareth Now it was said 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY IS TO GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE,' but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And He said this again later (Matthew 19:1-12). He teaches this in Mark 10:1-12 as well. Those are pretty dense, so I won't quote Him here. Instead, I will summarize what He said. He says that the certificate of divorce was put into place because of the hardness of heart of the Israelites. To me, this also suggests that other parts of the Law may have also been part of an accommodation for ancient Israelites at the time, such as slavery laws, for example. At the very least, it demonstrates that the Law can be, and is, reframed by Jesus. The disciples are super resistant to His teaching, and His response is (NASB):Jesus of Nazareth Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
So, there's that.
And then there's how Jesus treats the Sabbath. Consider Matthew 12 or Luke 6, when the disciples pick grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees pointed out that they were doing something unlawful on the Sabbath.
Exodus 31:15 reads (NASB), "...whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."
Any work. Even gathering wood, as seen in Numbers 15:32-36.
The Pharisees aren't trying to be legalistic. They're trying to be faithful to their understanding of the Law. But Jesus reframes it when He says (Mark 2:27, NASB):Jesus of Nazareth The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.
And then, of course, there's the woman caught in adultery. There is debate about that passage, since it is not in the earliest manuscripts. But a question regarding stoning for adultery does arise from it.
So, Jesus reframes The Law repeatedly (I'm not being exhaustive here, that would take much longer), and He centers Himself as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, as the Lord of the Sabbath, and as the one who has the power to forgive sins. He demonstrates His authority and power to do this reframing not only with His teaching but with His miracles, as He does, for example, in Mark 2 with the paralyzed man or in John 5 (again, with a lame man and ALSO on a Sabbath day).
These are just some examples, as I've said.
Finally, Jesus sums up all the Law and the Prophets with the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:34-40, distilling them into two primary laws: 1) love God and 2) love others. And yes, Jesus wants us to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44).
It's not about the Letter of the Law, but about the Spirit of the Law, and it is found in these two commandments.
Okay, so, this is a lot just for Jesus. I feel like there might be more I wanted to say, but I've spent quite a bit of time on this now and I don't want it to get too dense. I'll work on the next part tomorrow or the next day. But we're at a good starting point now.
The next part will focus on the early Christians, including the Jerusalem Council, Gentile Christians and their place in the Church, Paul, and other New Testament writers. Unless I remember or think of more Jesus stuff to write about. Then obviously I'll mention that.
God bless you. In Jesus' name - love you! heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2026 8:23 am
Welcome to Part Two. ^_^
So, I’m saving Paul for Part Three, because there’s a lot to unpack for early Christians in Part Two. Let’s begin! heart
There were many different Jewish groups during first-century Second Temple Judaism. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (including communities like Qumran), and Zealots were some of these groups. These groups all had varying understandings of the Law and the Prophets, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
The prevailing understanding of the Messiah was that of a political conqueror who would free the people of Israel and establish a sovereign nation. This Messiah would come from the line of David. The resurrection would come at the end, and it would be a mass resurrection. The idea of a suffering Messiah who would die for sins and come back from the dead came after Jesus because of Jesus.
So, Jesus reframed the Law, established a New Covenant, and then completely overturned Messianic expectations with His death and resurrection. Is it any wonder, then, that this carried massive ramifications for how things continued with early Christians? They began to reframe their understanding of the Law and Prophets according to what Jesus had taught them and what He had done on the cross and through His resurrection.
Jesus did it first, of course. He reminded them explicitly after His resurrection, for example, in Luke 24:44-49 (NASB):Jesus of Nazareth These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. So it is written, that the [Messiah] would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.
And there are many other places that Jesus did this, too. Before and after His death and resurrection. Understanding of the Law and Prophets, and how to follow them, was already changed at a fundamental level. And it was because of Jesus.
From Him, it continued with His followers. Look at the writer of the Gospel of Matthew (quite possibly the apostle). He writes repeatedly of fulfillment of prophecy, such as in Matthew 1:18-25, Matthew 8:14-17, and Matthew 21:1-5, as a few examples.
And then, of course, gospel writers also added faithful commentary to help explain Jesus’ words, as is seen, for example, with Mark 7:19, “Thereby He declared all foods clean.”
The Greek is debated here, and it’s possible that Jesus Himself actually declared that the digestive system purifies all foods, but because there is ambiguity and it may have been the Gospel writer making a commentary on Jesus’ teaching here, I chose to take the safer route. Namely, that the Gospel writer is adding a clarifying note about what Jesus is teaching about the Law and its application to the dietary laws.
Now we shift to the place of the Gentiles and the Jerusalem Council.
Acts 15 describes a heated argument between Paul and Barnabas and some Jewish Christians who were insisting that circumcision was required for salvation of the Gentiles. So, they went to the church in Jerusalem, essentially the headquarters of the Church at the time. Now, Peter had already received a vision in Acts 10 pressing him about bringing the Gentiles into the fold. Before then, the text seems to suggest that Christians had basically only been Jews. But after that time, things were different.
Now, there was a lot of debate about this. After all, circumcision was a long-held sign of the covenant, starting in Genesis 17 between God and Abraham. The text describes that “there had been much debate” (Acts 15:7), and then Peter said (Acts 15:7-11, NASB),Simon Peter Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
And then James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and also the brother of Jesus, said (Acts 15:13-21, NASB),James the Just Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has described how God first concerned Himself about taking a people for His name from among the Gentiles. The words of the Prophets agree with this, just as it is written: ‘After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago. Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has those who preach him in every city, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
Thanks, brothers.
So, James the Just, a deeply Jewish leader, leader of the Church in Jerusalem, widely respected among early Christians, and the brother of Jesus, not only quoted one of the prophets (Amos 9:11-12, probably from the Septuagint) to agree with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the fold of God, but also said not to cause trouble for the Gentiles and gave a short list of things for the Gentiles to abide by. They are, to repeat: 1) don’t eat foods contaminated by idols; 2) abstain from acts of sexual immorality; 3) don’t eat meat from animals that have been strangled; 4) don’t consume blood.
This is the decision handed down from the Jerusalem church, a decision made by the leading of “the Holy Spirit” to give “no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29, NASB)
I won’t elaborate more. Let’s shift to Hebrews. I should note that I will be covering the Pauline literary corpus in Part Three. So, if you think Hebrews was written by Paul – I don’t. The author of Hebrews is unknown and has been since the time of the early Church. That might be a fun topic for another thread. wink
Since this post is already dense, I will not quote several huge blocks of text of Hebrews. It is one of my favorite early Christian writings. It is beautiful, theologically rich, and heavily Christocentric. First of all, the writer of Hebrews said that a change in the priesthood means a change in the Law. It reads in Hebrews 7:12 (NASB), “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”
And there has been a change of priesthood. Jesus is now a priest. A high priest. A perfect one, and an eternal one. The writer Hebrews talked about this at length, but I will just quote one passage for now because it’s beautiful. Hebrews 7:23-25 (NASB) reads, “The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing; Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is also able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.”
And - remember when I talked about Jesus creating a new covenant? Well, the writer of Hebrews remembered when Jesus created that new covenant, too, and said that when Jesus made a new covenant, He “made the first one obsolete” and “whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13, NASB)
Then we move to Hebrews 10. I just want to quote some key verses here. But, honestly, the writer of Hebrews makes my point very well for me. Hebrews 10:1 (NASB) reads, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect.” And 10:4, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Instead, Jesus sanctifies us with His sacrifice (thank you Jesus!), as it says in 10:14, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
Now, of course, later in the passage, the writer of Hebrews goes on to talk about ignoring the Law of Moses, but this must be interpreted in light of everything else that has already been established with the rest of this epistle. And it has been established repeatedly that the Law of Moses no longer functions the same way. Before we get to Paul, we have now seen the following:
1) Jesus reframed the Law repeatedly (despite direct writings and attempts by the religious leaders to faithfully follow those writings); 2) Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets perfectly, and said He had come to do exactly that; 3) early Jewish Christians had to completely reframe the Law and Prophets in light of Jesus because of Jesus; 4) early Jewish Christians welcomed Gentiles and gave them an explicit list of fundamental rules to follow, not burdening them with the Jewish Law; 5) early Christian writers wrote their reframing of the Law and Prophets in the Gospels and their epistles and included commentaries about Jesus’ teachings
The texts are repeatedly explicit about the Law no longer carrying the same weight, no longer having the same meaning, having been fulfilled, and no longer applicable the same way.
Paul is next in part three. He’s going to require a lot of condensing and distilling, and I frame him through the lens of Jesus, not the other way around.
God bless you. In the name of Jesus – love ya lots! heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
|
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2026 8:47 am
So, even though I tried to condense stuff, this is still a dense theological topic. Because of this, I'm just going to put my foot on the brake when it comes to Paul, for now, and park it. I'd love to talk about what I've posted thus far and just have a nice conversation. heart
Take your time and read, think, and process. And when you're ready, Gabriel, talk to me.
And if anyone else wants to engage, please feel free to do so! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2026 4:43 am
If I were you I would only quote kjv because it's the most English accurate bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
|
Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2026 5:18 am
Warrior Of El If I were you I would only quote kjv because it's the most English accurate bible.
Thanks for the advice! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2026 11:03 am
Warrior Of El If I were you I would only quote kjv because it's the most English accurate bible. That's really interesting! I usually use NASB 1995 because from what I understand it's the closest word-for-word translation other than using the interlinear. I would love to hear more about your perspective on what makes KJV the most accurate if you'd like to make another thread for it! 3nodding Here's a picture of a scale that shows closest word-for-word to paraphrase translations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2026 10:32 pm
Elora Lore Warrior Of El If I were you I would only quote kjv because it's the most English accurate bible. That's really interesting! I usually use NASB 1995 because from what I understand it's the closest word-for-word translation other than using the interlinear. I would love to hear more about your perspective on what makes KJV the most accurate if you'd like to make another thread for it! 3nodding Here's a picture of a scale that shows closest word-for-word to paraphrase translations. For the most part its literary accuracy, the KJV New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek text that aligns with the majority of existing manuscripts. The KJV uses formal equivalence, aiming for a literal, word-for-word translation rather than a thought-for-thought paraphrase. This approach attempts to maintain the original word order and structure as closely as possible. The Early Modern English of the KJV preserves the distinction between singular and plural pronouns such as 'thee/thou' for singular, 'you/ye' for plural. This allows for a more precise understanding of who is being addressed compared to modern, more generic English. The KJV remains faithful to the traditional text without the influence of modern gender-inclusive language or theological shifts found in newer translations. The KJV has been widely used and maintained since 1611, with updates primarily fixing printing errors rather than changing the text, leading to a stable and consistent resource for study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
