The things that make me laugh, weep, and live.
Destroying vs. Fullfilling
Published on April 21, 2004 By Shulamite In Religion
Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. But how can that be, you ask. Good question.

Obviously, Christians don't obey all of Levitical law. See my response to a question on my last blog if you'd like more info. Why don't we? You see, Peter had a vision from God explaining that all things God made are now clean. God placed a great white sheet down on the ground for peter with lots of unclean foods on it. He told Peter, "Take and eat." Peter said, "but Lord, I can't. I've kept the law since birth." God said, "What I have cleaned do not call unclean." He did this three times (Peter's number for understanding something was three, it seems) and Peter understood what Paul was saying about Gentiles. Gentiles, commonly regarded as unclean, are clean if they're cleaned by God. (Clean: faith in Christ as Messiah = forgiveness.) Paul said don't do anything that is lawful if it causes someone else to stumble. That was the only law he said mattered. In other words, if something you do causes someone else to committ sin, even if there's nothing wrong with what you did, it was the wrong thing to do. You are your brother's keeper.

My brother argued the following point with a friend who observes the Jewish diet but is a Christian: The vision was about gentiles not about food. Therefore we are still under the law. Not so, said my brother. God never uses an analogy that isn't true to reveal a truth about something that is true. See what I mean? I'm not going to say, "Nato is like a family. They aren't related." I'm not going to say something about the family that isn't true to prove something about Nato. It's just preposterous. Therefore, because God is very logical indeed, all foods are now clean. We no longer have to live under the law. Paul and Peter even argued about it. You can't make Gentiles keep a law that even Jews couldn't keep. It's too hard. Why would God give people such hard rules? Primarily for their own protection. (see previously mentioned blog's responses: "Crusading Christians.") But why would he then say he didn't destroy it but he fulfilled it?

You see, the law is like a mirror. It show us we're dirty. Without laws against adultery, lying, stealing, coveting, dishonoring, and so forth, we never would know what displeases God and we'd not know we're dirty. The law is that mirror that we look into and go, "Geez, I'm a mess. Look at me!" God had a system that worked a little like hand sanitizer. Good for a jam, but you'd better just try not to get dirty. Jesus, the Messiah, came as the sink that works with the mirror. He allows us to get clean. I mean really clean. We can wash off all that dirt we see staring right back at us. And once we do, we're clean indeed.

That's what He meant by fulfilling the law and not destroying it. He made it complete. Not only do we know we're dirty, we can get clean too. And Paul says whatever causes someone else to do something wrong is wrong. Jesus said we could rest all commandments on these two: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." This is why Christians no longer observe Levitical law.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 21, 2004
Nice!  Now i dont feel bad about coveting the guy next-door's wife.
on Apr 21, 2004
I understand what you are saying and infact agree with most of it. However, there are still very vocal christians that like to invoke certain sections of Leviticus.

I believe that is what a lot of people have trouble with. If you choose to take one law from Lev. you would have to take all the laws.

just a thought.


IG
on Apr 21, 2004
Jeremy, I think you're just being mean. I don't think you missed the part about doing something that causes someone else to sin. And I don't think I need to explain how coveting another's property/relationship could cause someone else to sin.

IG -- I understand what you're saying. But why do you insist on the premise "all or nothing?" I was going by what Jesus said of the Law and how it could be hung on those two commandments. I think since He is the "Author and Finisher of our Faith" He knows a little something about it.
on Apr 21, 2004
BTW -- Jeremy I appreciate good natured sarcasm, but usually only from people I know well and people who I'm assured love me. I bet you're the same way too. Your posts frequently make me feel as though you despise Christians and anything they have to say. Why are you so negative? Are you really hateful? I don't want to beleive this; I'd rather explain it by something else. I've noticed you're not often constructive unless the person shares your viewpoint. How do you feel about this?
on Apr 21, 2004

It wasnt my intent to be mean.   But I cant quite understand how a desire in your head can cause someone else to sin.

The fact is that the commandments (as arbitrary as I think they are) is a good guide for morality.   However to put "Love The Lord", and "Love Thy Neighbor" as the only 2 important ones....well it's just silly.   Those two imply all of the others.   The point is laying them all out to begin with was to give a clue to those who need a clue.

The purpose of religion is not to discover a truth.....but to guide (control) the populace.   Relgion consists of rules and ritual.   If you remove selected parts of that, you've weakened the purpose.   If you think you understand passed all of that, perhaps you should not consider yourself christian, as you don't need the rules and ritual.

on Apr 21, 2004
But why do you insist on the premise "all or nothing?"


Is it necessary to obey all 10 of the commandments? Or are some ok to ignore?
on Apr 21, 2004
What I mean is that if you have a book in the bible that lists laws and behaviors, and you look at it and only obey those that you like or that fall in line with your thinking and you speak with some authority to others telling them that "this is the word of God", you cannot then eliminate the other laws.

If one is questionable, all should atleast be investigated. Not just taken as pre-gospel.

IG
on Apr 22, 2004
"I believe that is what a lot of people have trouble with. If you choose to take one law from Lev. you would have to take all the laws."

Exactly where I have a problem....if you go back to Leviticus and choose one rule there, or a few that sound good to you, then how can you justify not living by ALL of them? I have never understood that viewpoint at all....it seems like what I call 'cafeteria Christianity'--picking and choosing what you like, and leaving the rest.

on Apr 22, 2004
it seems like what I call 'cafeteria Christianity'--picking and choosing what you like, and leaving the rest.


That's good...very good.

I'm in agreement.

Anyone ever heard of the 'lukewarm Christian'? Wouldn't you say that picking and choosing which parts of the bible you want to believe in qualifies you as one of those?
on Apr 22, 2004
"Those two imply all of the others. The point is laying them all out to begin with was to give a clue to those who need a clue."Jeremy -- I agree. The first sentence is my point and the second is Jesus'. The first two imply all the others so you can hang the other commandments on them. Laying them all out gave a clue to the clueless and gave specificity to those who need it. However, Jesus was combatting those who were religious but not spiritual. He was saying you can completely obey the first two and be spiritual without being "religious" but to work and strive to keep the others quickly turns into religion without the grace spirituality brings.

"The purpose of religion is not to discover a truth.....but to guide (control) the populace. Relgion consists of rules and ritual. If you remove selected parts of that, you've weakened the purpose."

Again, I agree. Religion means ritual. You can "religiously" brush your teeth everyday, agreed? And a dentist will instruct you in the proper way. And removing steps weakens the purpose. Agreed. But think about this: what if Christianity isn't primarily about religion? You conjecture that I should not call myself a Christian. A Christian is one who follows and mimics Christ by definition. He was against those who instilled religion as a control without spirituality. He was against false prophets and liars. He did, however, advocate following your government -- something the powerful religious leaders could not tolerate. Do you see how I can call myself nothing less than a Christian by understanding the crucial differences in religion and spirituality and faith? He completed that which was not complete.

Do you see Christianity as moot without rules and rituals? I disagree as a knowledgeable, fervent follower. I may write more on this later.
on Apr 22, 2004
Forgive the posts, but you'd miss it if I wrote this in the previous one.

Dharma: you asked, "Is it necessary to obey all 10 of the commandments? Or are some ok to ignore?"

I think you might have missed the point. Jesus was saying all the commandments can me summarized in the first two. If I love my Lord my God with all my heart, strenght, soul, and mind I'm not going to need to be disciplined in my faithfulness. It will just come as natural as any action does when you act on behalf of something you love. Hmmm... to go shopping or to do the dishes... geez. That's a toughy. See? If you love one thing, it's not difficult to choose it over something else. That makes the rest of the ten easy to follow.

The second commandment ensures we don't forget our neighbor -- who Jesus says is everyone. We cannot forget to be kind and loving and empathetic toward them. We must show them love. We must forgive them. Always. He compares it first to how we view ourselves and later to how He has treated us. He has forgiven us and we must do the same.

Now if we do both of these things, there is no way we will do the rest of the things prohibited in the ten commandments; there's no room to go against God's word. I'm not selecting only do not covet and do not steal and then allowing fornication and idolotry. See how your analogy wasn't hitting the mark? I'm not in any way ignoring the rest.

The same goes for Jesus and Leviticus (or the Law). When we follow his teachings of salvation through faith not works, of faith manifesting itself through works and fruit, of love and forgiveness, and a true relationship with God that was impossible before His sacrifice, we are able to live the spirit-led life of the believer that isn't regulated by trivialities and religious ritualization of daily life. We don't need that for a guide. The Holy Spirit, the Real, True presence of God, may now inhabit the body of the believer and "teach us all things." The Holy Spirit never leads outside of the Word of God. The Holy Spirit came after Jesus' sacrifice only to believers where He was welcomed because God never forces Himself on people; they always have to freely choose while they live. Do you see the completion now? It's not in dependence on religion; it's in dependence on the Living God.
on Apr 22, 2004
Mr. Geek --

You said, "What I mean is that if you have a book in the bible that lists laws and behaviors, and you look at it and only obey those that you like or that fall in line with your thinking and you speak with some authority to others telling them that "this is the word of God", you cannot then eliminate the other laws."

Let's analyze. Motivation for choosing sections: those we like? I don't think that's the case. What is the standard then? No criteria that seems to be standard throughout this "choosing." And I'm not sure "who" it is that did the choosing if you're not referring to Jesus. Some Christians may invoke Leviticus. I think to invoke it just to say you can't have a tattoo but the rest is moot is silly too. But the Ten Commandments (incedentally in Exodus) is specifically handled by Jesus. He explained the fulfillment of the law rather than the destruction of it. Do you remember his words? "It is finished!" He finished the law. It's complete with His death -- a sacrifice has to be made with blood because blood is life and the only acceptable substitute for sin.

Motivation: fall in line with my thinking? I don't know about this either. I'm not sure which part of leviticus I actually do this with. I'm not seeing this as a valid standard either. I've never heard a sermon regarding Leviticus entreating Christians to keep the law. Any part of it! It's bondage and similates the bondage we're under as slaves to our sin. There's no way we can fix it ourselves or perfect it. NO way. God says, "exactly." We have to realize this. We're free from bondage -- Jesus' yoke, by contrast is light and His burden is easy because our relationship is built on love. Does that make more sense?
on Apr 22, 2004
Jeremy: ACK! Sorry I forgot this question:

But I cant quite understand how a desire in your head can cause someone else to sin.
Wow, we need some philosophy coaching here.

Okay, all sin begins in thought. It has to. You never do anything before you think of it. Sin always hurts someone. If you hurt yourself you're hurting someone else because "no man is an island." If anything, you're wasting your potential and others suffer because you didn't do what you were created to do in life. Even if you're that rare hermit living in the most obscure parts of the Andes mountains.

And if it just stays a desire? Does anything ever just stay a desire? Do you act on it? If you desired your friend's wife, you'd inevitably mess up and flirt with her. However she takes it, you're chancing your relationship with your friend and their family. There's hurt my friend. Hurt leads to all sorts of sin. People can do crazy things when their jealous. She may even take the bait.

Jeremy, you're a smart guy. What girl wouldn't secretly enjoy being flirted with by you! I mean come on... women are flattered and enjoy the attention. It's hard to rationally think through the emotion and react responsibly unless there's a stronger comittment to do so.
on Apr 22, 2004
Finally, Dharma -- I hope these separate postings are better received than a long response.

"Anyone ever heard of the 'lukewarm Christian'? Wouldn't you say that picking and choosing which parts of the bible you want to believe in qualifies you as one of those?"

The lukewarm Christian is one who doesn't care. Apathetic. They don't really consciously choose anything. If they do, it's because someone pushed them to. The above is like this situation: a text without a context is a pretext. So by taking one part of the Bible, even if its a large CHUNK and not viewing it in the light of the entire work, you're taking it out of context and are doing so because of a pretext. I've explained that Jesus fulfilled Law and freed us from a burden to give us a new burden. In acts, the apostles argue "how can we expect gentiles to carry out Jewish law when we can't even carry it out." That's one point. The other is that God specifically revealed we are cleansed by His grace uniquely made possible through the blood of Jesus; the only sacrifice that will ever do. Now, take Leviticus and look at it in the context of the rest of the Bible. It has been fulfilled. the law is also by nature prophetic. It predicts Christ. It points to our need to be cleansed. It introduces the idea, the hope of a Cleanser.

In saying "we don't do Leviticus" what I'm actually saying is that we don't do Leviticus because Christ did it for us. See the subtitle: Destroying verses Fulfilling? The point of the article is that I'm not advocating the destroying of Leviticus. I'm grateful it was fulfilled.
on Apr 22, 2004
I guess my main point is that there are some christian leaders who look at Leviticus and other books of the Bible and use it to injure other people. They basically pick the rules to follow without looking at historical context.

One quick thing. You spoke about thought and sin. What if the thought is not a desire but just a thought. Without the desire there can be no harm to the other person, especially if the thinker is not in a position to act on the desire.

You also said "If anything, you're wasting your potential and others suffer because you didn't do what you were created to do in life."
Are you refering to the theory of predestination?

IG

2 Pages1 2