Howdy Crow,
Originally posted by crowMAW
I guess I'm not aware of Bible passages that negate those laws. In fact it seems that Jesus rebukes those who fail to be consistant. If the New Testament is all that needs to be read, why bother tacking the Old Testiment to the front of the Bible? It seems inconsistant to do so.
There isn't much that needs to be added to what Simaril wrote, so let me just make two points.
The Bible is the product of progressive revelation, in other words the book did not drop out of the sky in its completed form at the beginning. Rather the story unfolds throughout history with God gradually revealing more and more about his plan of Redemption to his people, book building upon book. Moderns tend to be a little on the chronologically arrogant side, so we assume that the bible was written only for us in our current time, forgetting that God has been revealing His will to his people since the creation, so that for instance, to adopt a reading of Revelation that would have made it utterly unintelligible to the churches in the time it was first given (about 90AD) would be wrong, but to only say it was for those first century churches is equally wrong, there is a message there for the church in every age. The same is true of the books of the Law, they were not only written for the people of God at the time of Moses, they are intended for God's people in every time. The bible has a "plot" running throughout the books with the overarching theme being Fall/Redemption/Restoration. The plot builds and climaxes at the birth/death/and resurrection of the long promised redeemer, and yet that climax as important as it is, is not the end of the story, we are living in what the Bible calls "the last days" which began at the resurrection of Jesus. The bible also promises that those days will come to a close with His return.
So all that to say, the New Testament isn't all that needs to be read by any stretch of the imagination, that would be like simply choosing to read the last three chapters of a detective novel. You'll probably get the main drift and find out the most important facts (who done it and why) but you'll miss a lot of the main themes in the plot and a lot of it simply isn't going to make sense. Unfortunately, a lack of familiarity with and understanding of the Old Testament is often the greatest stumbling block to Christians in understanding the New. I myself am often astounded to be reading a passage in the Old Testament and suddenly recognize a theme or a verse or an event that Paul or one of the other apostles uses or builds on.
So don't think in terms of negation, think in terms of progression and fulfillment. As far as the Ceremonial Law in the OT is concerned, the apostles are constantly endeavoring to point out that these things were signs or types designed not to be complete in themselves but to point to the Redeemer. They are the types, he is the Archetype. You see this in statements like:
"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." (Hebrews 10:1)
Can you indulge me more? It would seem then, by what I have seen of your interpretations, that Jesus does not condone killing...is that correct? If not have you direct me to where He indicates that it is OK.
Yes, you are correct, Jesus does not condone Murder, in fact as Simaril pointed out he makes clear what should have been realized all along, that the prohibition on murder is also a prohibition on murderous thoughts. When one realizes that, and then logically concludes, "Well then, I'm a murderer too", the next obvious question is
"Who then can be saved?" Which was part of the purpose of the law, to drive us to the Redeemer who alone could atone for the sins of men.
You'll notice I said "murder" above, from the Hebrew "Ratsach" and the Greek "Phoneuo" (A verb meaning literally "to commit murder" as in Matt. 5:21). The bible forbids murder, not all killing. In fact the following kinds of killing are permitted:
1) The killing of animals for food or as sacrifices under the OT ceremonial law.
2) Capital Punishment (see Gen. 9 and Romans 13)
3) Killing in a just war or individual acts of true self-defense against evildoers
The above do not include, revenge, vigilante justice, and the like. Also, the sword is given into the hand of the magistrate, not the individual.
I remember discussing these issues in previous posts to the BB, but like Simaril I can't remember exactly where. I do know that I have 3 sermon texts expositing the 6th commandment on-line at:
Pt.1 - What it Doesn't Mean - S E A G
N
