A lot of people seem to think that when Christ came to earth, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was in full force in Roman Palestine.
So naturally Jesus said exactly what He meant. So when someone asked Him if He meant to replace the Law and Prophets, He said, “No.” Jesus said He was there to FULFILL the Law and the Prophets. When He reduced the ten commandments to two, he said that his two commandments were what the Law and Prophets were about.
And when one of His disciples said Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus did not say he was wrong. He told him not to mention that to anybody else.
No, I’m afraid the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech was not in force in Roman Palestine.
So two thousand years of preachers have made their livings on the Old Testament, quoting Jesus as saying he would not change “a jot or tittle” of it.
The Magi didn’t know anything about the Old Testament and they were saved, but the High Priest, who knew every word of the Old Testament and genuinely lived up to it, was specifically damned by Christ.
I don’t know much theology, but I do know all about the code language you have to use in a society which does not have free speech. What Jesus said is as clear as a bell to me.
#1 by Peter on 06/01/2005 - 5:44 pm
I like Luther’s word for “fulfilled:” vollENDet.
#2 by Richard L. Hardison on 06/02/2005 - 10:01 pm
Christ’s condemnation of the Scribes, Saducees and Pharisees was because they did not live up to scripture. Indeed, they placed their traditions on a higher plane than scripture. The reason they hated Christ is because he showed them just how poor they were spiritually.
The Gospels don’t tell us the Magi were saved.
The first amendment isn’t in force in the country that has it in their constitution. How on God’s green earth could we realistically expect it to be in force in 1st century Roman Judea?
#3 by Bob on 06/03/2005 - 12:21 pm
Richard says,
“The Gospels don’t tell us the Magi were saved.”
Are we talking about the same Christ who, dying on the Cross, said, “Father
forgive them for they know not what they do.”
So when the Magi face Christ on Judgement Day, he will say, “Go to Hell, you
don’t know the Old Testament. By the way, thanks for the presents.”
I am sure John Calvin found that in Christ’s nature, but I am astonished you
could.
#4 by Bob on 06/03/2005 - 12:25 pm
Richard,
The first amendment isn’t in force in the country that has it in their
constitution. How on God’s green earth could we realistically expect it
to be in force in 1st century Roman Judea?
True, but every Old Testament worshipper assumes could have said that He came
to REPLACE the Law and Prophets.
The Old Testament was a search for the truth. Jesus brought it whole.
#5 by Peter on 06/03/2005 - 2:15 pm
I think it’s amazing that the Magi traveled all the way from the Persian Empire to meet Christ in person and bring him birthday presents with grave spiritual significance, including ointment for the Anointed One. Doesn’t that suggest these ancient Persian priest-kings were the ones who anointed Him?
It is amazing that the Magi knew exactly who Christ is and worshipped Him. Knowing exactly who He was, they worshipped Him. What better way to show one has accepted the living Christ as his personal Lord and Savior?
This is so much different than murdering Him and wishing punishment for the crime upon one’s heirs.
#6 by Peter on 06/03/2005 - 2:20 pm
It is amazing that the lost Avestan tradition, not the Old Testament, taught the Magi to worship Christ, and they were the first of creation so to do.
#7 by Bob on 06/03/2005 - 3:39 pm
Peter, what you stated is clearly what the Book of Matthew says.
But I do not know of a single person who claims to accept the Bible as literal truth who would accept that.
#8 by Peter on 06/03/2005 - 4:27 pm
I think that the crux of the problem is the Judaizers, who infected Christ’s church with its first heresy.
This is what Paul attacks in the entire book of Galatians, but modernist Christians are so determined to ignore holy scripture, that they even mutilate their male young through circumcision in direct violation of Galatians five. Paul describes the purpose of the OT law as a “tutor” for those who are spiritually children, and explicitly states in Galatians three that those who do not advance from that law to Christ are under a curse. Paul is clearly spelling out the meaning of Matthew 5:17 for us.
Why gentile Christians would follow the Judaizers’ heresy and activate the Jewish law on themselves is beyond me. Christ fulfilled the Jewish law; moreover, Jewish law never applied to us gentiles in the first place.
I find it odd that so many of those who pretend to accept the Bible as literal truth accept genocide on undeserving innocent women, children, and animals of the OT, but reject everything in the Gospels and and Epistles which explicitly attack the Judaization of Christianity. Are these people literalists? Maybe, but they are by no means literalist Christians.
#9 by Peter on 06/03/2005 - 5:06 pm
“I am come not to break up but to fill up.”
Mh nomishte (5661) oti hlqon (5627) katalusai (5658) ton nomon h touv profhtav; ouk hlqon (5627) katalusai (5658) alla plhrwsai. (5658)
When Christ spoke, He phrased Himself so as to address different members of His audience. He caste His words in LEVELS.
This discussion on Matthew is interesting, for it gives us several levels for Matthew 5:17:
(1) Christ carried out the law and the prophets;
(2) The OT law has been brought to its full conclusion, it is over;
(3) Christ did not come to replace earthly law with another;
(4) We need to become more spiritual beings.
#10 by Peter on 06/03/2005 - 5:07 pm
The foregoing should be “fill up,” not “full up.” Can you fix it, please? Thanks!
#11 by Bob on 06/03/2005 - 5:30 pm
Peter, you said,
The foregoing should be “fill up,” not “full up.” Can you fix it, please? Thanks!
Done.
#12 by Bob on 06/04/2005 - 10:33 am
Peter says,
“Mh nomishte (5661) oti hlqon (5627) katalusai (5658) ton nomon h touv profhtav; ouk hlqon (5627) katalusai (5658) alla plhrwsai. (5658)”
That’s probably French. All these smart people try to confuse me with French.
#13 by Richard L. Hardison on 06/05/2005 - 9:54 pm
Bob, the proper response is “that’s Greek to me!” That is actually Koine transliterated for the latin alphabet. i would tell you it was German, but you know I was lying to you, being fluent and all.
Your statement, “Are we talking about the same Christ who, dying on the Cross, said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
So when the Magi face Christ on Judgement Day, he will say, “Go to Hell, you don’t know the Old Testament. By the way, thanks for the presents.”
I am sure John Calvin found that in Christ’s nature, but I am astonished you could.”
is called “going beyond the data.” Bad thing is that it isn’t even an extrapolation from the data, but a jump to a conclusion.
All I’m saying is the New Testament is silent on the spiritual state of the Magi. The Magi were astrologers, practitioners of a form of divination condemned by God in both Old and New Testaments. Beyond them coming to bring gifts and to worship him and to return home a different way than they came, we know nothing. You are making an asumption about the Magi, I haven’t. I don’t condemn them one way or the other. All I have to say is “I don’t know.” I don’t know if Bobby Lee was actually a Christian, or just one culturally. I hope I will see him in God’s Kingdom, but I don’t know if I will. That’s all it boils down to Bob.
You and I disagree on the Old Testament. Most of it consists of messages to Israel through prophets the nation’s leadership did not want to hear. Many of those men were killed because of those messages. God reveals one side of his nature, His Holiness which informs His justice. Many times it was summary in nature and instantly applied. The New Testament shows the fulfillment of the old when Christ reveals God’s love and mercy – the way of escape from God’s justice. I have no trouble with the term “wordist” as I’ve met a few of them. The implication that the OT is of little to no worth because it says things you may not like to hear, or is misinterpreted, is just a bit on the silly side. Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Paul said that grace does not abolish the law, but establishes it. In fact, the act of giving the law was an act of God’s grace. Before you know where you fail, you have to be given a standard by which we can be measured. That is the function of the law.
Israel failed repeatedly to measure up, which is why I have trouble with the Hal Lindseys of the world who seem to think we should excuse all that Israel does because by so doing we bless Abraham, and will be blessed by God for doing so. That’s poppycock. Condoning sin is never blessed by God, and even after the church is removed Israel will have two thirds of its population killed because they simply cannot, even at this date, after the fulfillment of every prophecy about judgement of the nation that Moses gave them, accept God’s provision for them. While all sinners have a part in Christ’s death, it was the jewish leadership that cried for his unjust execution and said that his blood should be on their heads and that of their children.
Something you should recall, from Acts 17:10-11 “The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea. When they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Hardly something one would say if the OT were not scripture or not “religion” as the OT was all the scripture the church possessed at the time. The OT has its place.