Law and Grace: A Dichotomy?

[Thorin]

So many of Christendom have misused and abused Paul's writings on the law and its function. Many do not understand the context (both cultural and theological) that Paul talked about the law. Unfortunately, due to this, we have misunderstanding, misinformation and plain out contradictions permeating throughout Christianity which many take without truly questioning it.

What is the relationship between law and grace? The Old Covenant and New Covenant? Is there a difference in the types laws and their function that Paul speaks about? What laws did Christ abolish at the cross? Were the 10 commandments done away with?

These are some questions that I would like to answer and discuss. Before I get into the biblical truth on this matter, I would like some opinion. I understand that this thread is mostly for Christian and Jewish believers. Please don't come in and say, "I don't believe in Christian or Jewish laws" and then have an opinion on laws in general. I would like to keep this in context. However, your outside views and questions on the whole matter on Christian and Jewish law from looking in from the outside is appreciated (i.e., any hypocrisy you see in the whole matter, etc)

What I would like to see is bibilical texts and proof as to what people believe on the law and their reasoning.

[Celebthôl]

I have a question as an outside looker iner. . . if its okay.

If Jesus did "do away" with the 10 commandments, wouldn't he have made it obviously clear and not scetchy (sp) so you have to discsuss etc the whole thing?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
I have a question as an outside looker iner. . . if its okay.

If Jesus did "do away" with the 10 commandments, wouldn't he have made it obviously clear and not scetchy (sp) so you have to discsuss etc the whole thing?
Thanks for your input Celebthol. You would think that it would have been laid out better, wouldn't it? The main argument people have to do away with the 10 commandments is that they are part of the Old Covenant. When Jesus came, he established a New Covenant and the old covenant passed away. Therefore, the 10 commandments are done away and Christ established the law of love and grace.

Now, I don't know about you, but I can't fathom how commands to not steal, murder, cheat, worship false gods and spreading lies can be so bad they needed to be replaced. Here is what Jesus says: "A new commandment I give you. Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and prophets hang on these two commandments". Why? Because the first 4 have to do with our love for God, the last six, our love for mankind. There is nothing different about the 'law of love' that was not embodied in the 10 commandments to begin with. Jesus wasn't saying anything new as far as content. It was 'a new commandment' because of the grace that Christ was offering based on better promises and not on the efforts of man. The perception was new, not the contents.

In Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 Jesus goes into specific detail regarding the 10 commandments. Strange if they were to be replaced. As a matter of fact, Jesus not only reiterates the commandments in Matthew 5 but takes them to even a more extreme measure! Killing a man is no longer just breaking the murder commandment. Even hating your brother violates the commandment. Not only physical adultery, but emotional adultery is a violation of a commandment. Strange teachings for someone who would be doing away with them after His resurrection.

But I get ahead of myself....We must establish what the Covenants are but I would like more feedback first before I go on a one man explanation forum.

:D

[Thorin]

Hmm....Apparently I'm the only one interested in my own topic, so I guess I'll post more. :D Maybe it will stir up some dialogue.

THE NEW COVENANT: WHAT IS IT AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

So many Christians today are saying that the law (10 commandments) was done away with when the Old Covenant (OC) was done away with. The New Covenant (NC) is based on love. Let's look at the passages of Hebrews 8 to get a better idea of what we're talking about here:But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises - vs 6So if the OC was the 10 commandments, then what we are saying is that there are better promises than what is contained in the Decalogue. So commands against stealing, murder, adultery, disrespect and idol worship are inferior promises? First of all, the law and commandments are not promises, but guidelines. Second, were they actually promises, they wouldn't be any different than love (which would be considered the 'better promises' spoken of here), because 'love thy God' and 'love thy neighbor' are all contained in the 10 commandments. The covenant was established on better promises, not better guidelines or rules. So what were these promises? For if the first convenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second, for finding fault with themhe saith 'Behold, the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - vs 7,8What was this covenant? That the people of Israel would follow God's commands, notice the agreement here and the promise: And all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do.' Exodus 19:8aA covenant is nothing more than an agreement. The terms of the covenant were that the people promised to follow God's commands. They failed. Because of this, a new covenant was needed based on better promises. God said,'I will write my law on their hearts' and the grace of Christ frees us from condemnation. The Spirit promised to us by Christ gives us the power to overcome sin in our life with Christ as a mediator, not a priest sacrificing a lamb. To say that God's holy law needed to be replaced makes God to be a giver of faulty information and poor leadership to His people. He has serious flaws to give a faulty law to begin with. The agreement was faulty, not the contents of that agreement.

Here is an example.

You and I agree to a transaction. I am going to renovate your house. We whip up an agreement and I give it to you. Unfortunately, the house is not in the shape that we agreed upon and what was laid out in our contract. Our contract was faulty, not because of the house, but because of my dishonesty. The contract is void, the house still stands.

The OC was not the law, it was the agreement made between God and His people that they didn't live up to. Anyone who tries to wipe the 10 commandments clean by instituting the NC doesn't understand what God was trying to accomplish. "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, I have not come to destroy but to fulfill". And fulfill He did. Now with the grace and forgiveness of Christ, His mediatorship and the shedding of his blood, there is "no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit' - Romans 8:1. It is not us trying to obey God through our own efforts, it is Christ through us, through the power of the Holy Spirit. These are the better promises.

[Mrs. Maggott]

One cannot look upon Mosaic Law and the Old Testament as one looks upon the New Covenant. Of course, the Ten Commandmants have never been displaced. What was replaced in the New Covenant were many of the various dietary and other rituals and "laws" that governed daily Jewish life. There are many quotes in both the Gospels and Acts that indicate that such "laws" were no longer necessary once The Church had been established (Mary and Martha and Peter seeing all the animals, clean and unclean, which Christ then commands him to eat etc.).

However, the biggest difference between the two situations is that the Old Covenant was "exclusive" - it was limited to the Hebrews who were then admonished not to "interbreed" or mingle with Gentiles. The New Covenant, on the other hand, was "inclusive" - it swept away the distinction between Jew and Gentile. As St. Paul says, there is no more Greek or Jew, male or female. Why did this happen? Simple. Abraham and his descendents were chosen to provide a family line for the eventual Incarnation of God. Of course, you cannot have a Child without a mother; and that mother must have a mother and father; and that mother and father must each have mothers and fathers - and so on. Therefore, the Jews had to be kept pure against the time that God Himself would become Incarnate (take on flesh) and enter into history. However, once that Event had occurred, there was no more need for an "exclusion" of the Gentiles from God's Plan of Salvation. Hence, the ritual laws which insured a separation of the Hebrews from their Gentile neighbors were not only unnecessary, but in fact were considered a hinderance to the "Christianization" of the world.

The Ten Commandments, on the other hand, are quite a different matter and refer to the way all men should live their lives in order not only to be pleasing to God but to avoid destruction. Just as an aside, it was one man "coveting" another's wife - and the "fall out" of that - which led to the contretemps between the Irish and the English!

In the belief of Christians, the "New Covenant" did not "displace" so much as it "fulfilled" the "Old". Interestingly enough, it was not too many generations after Christ that Jewish temple ritual replaced animal sacrifice with rituals very much like those that are still performed today in that Faith.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
There are many quotes in both the Gospels and Acts that indicate that such "laws" were no longer necessary once The Church had been established (Mary and Martha and Peter seeing all the animals, clean and unclean, which Christ then commands him to eat etc.).Though I disagree with this statement, you brought out some good points I never thought of before concerning the inclusive/exclusive idea. Good point, Maggot!
Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
In the belief of Christians, the "New Covenant" did not "displace" so much as it "fulfilled" the "Old"And yet, you'd be surprised how many Protestants DO hold the view that all the law (including the 10 commandments) has been done away with. Paul, unfortunately, is very ambiguous concerning the law, but when we study carefully, we see the real issues he was dealing with and which laws Paul was talking about, Most people really take his sayings out of context.

[Mrs. Maggott]

One of - if not THE - strongest indication of the "end" of the Jewish religious laws as they would apply to newly baptized Gentiles entering the Church was the big contretemps between Sts. Peter and Paul regarding the need to circumcize all males entering the Church. St. Peter, as a good Jew, believed that this mandatory requirement of the Old Covenant should be carried over into the New. St. Paul argued to the contrary, saying that "if I build up what I have torn down, I make myself a sinner". In the end, St. Paul won. None of the Old Covenant Jewish laws became incumbent upon the Church save those that Christ Himself declared to be needful: prayer (including and especially communal prayer/worship) and fasting.

However, the Ten Commandmants were not part of Mosaic Ritual Law. They are the moral underpinnings of God's interaction with Man, first with the Jews and then carried on into the establishment of The Church; they are supposed to be the blueprint for human society. St. Paul speaks of Gentiles who "have the Law written in their heart" and are therefore as pleasing to God as any Jew. The "Law" to which he refers is the Ten Commandmants, not some dietary or other ritual restriction. Any group that calls itself "Christian" and has abandoned the Ten Commandmants had better think again because those within it have been badly advised!