"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.(Mat 5:17)

I often heard people speak of the "Old" and "New" covenants, and often they signify the difference by Jesus' apparent sacrifice. The phrase "Jesus fulfilled the Law", generally followed by something like, "so we aren't bound by it" is often used to describe how and why we "live under grace".

My question is this: What in your opinion, does "fulfilling the Law" mean? What exactly do you feel Jesus did to "fulfill the Law"? And maybe, if you feel up to it, how does this work into the idea of the "New Covenant", and the liberties given therein?

I already have my own irrevocable belief. I'm merely interested to see how the opinions of others in Christendom fan out, and how/if they contrast, in what ways, and why.

Well, I believe that Jesus Christ fulfilled the role previously taken by animal sacrifice. Since He was the perfect Sacrifice, His death was only needed once for all mankind. Notice that this also abolished the ceremonial and holiness codes found in the OT (evidenced by the fact that they are not mentioned as binding in the NT). Jesus' sacrifice, however, did not negate the Moral Law (evidenced because it's various components ARE in the NT, and Christians are commanded to follow them. To do otherwise constitutes sin, and a loss of salvation until repentance).

The "New Covenant" is mostly the above, I believe. Where certain actions are not explicitly covered in the Moral law, we should consider whether they enhance our relationship with God or not. If such questionable actions do not enhance our relationship, then they should not be taken. Additionally, while we have may possess certain liberties in Christ, in order to maintain our relationship with God at the highest level possible, we should not necessarily take advantage of such freedoms.

----

Incidentally, having a deeply held belief is desirable, but not holding one so tightly that no reasonable evidence can convince you otherwise. There is a difference between being convinced and being dogmatic. Whatever your beliefs are, I encourage you to submit them to the evidence, objectively, and see if they truly do hold up. If they are scriptural, then they will.

In the Old Testament, in order to atone for sin there had to be a sacrifice. The Law of then included blood sacrifices, and was very specific on what must be done to an animal. In the New Testament, Jesus came and ended this. He made the ultimate sacrifice, again in a very specific way, fulfilling the law regarding that.

As for the Ten Commandments...this law was given to Moses by God to show his people how sinful they really are. If you ever feel really prideful, just read Leviticus and see all the things that you've done wrong. It is impossible for man to live without sin on this earth. Jesus offered the ministry of reconciliation (see 2 Corinthians 5) in order to bring the sinful people back to him.

He did not abolish the law. He summed them up into two key points: love God, and love others. If you love God, you won't make an idol or curse his name. If you love people, you won't slander them or do them wrong. He did away with the rituals of the Old Testament, but the Law remains the same. We, living in the age of grace, are not required to make sacrifices or purify ourselves from being unclean -- Jesus did that for us.

Our response is to worship him. Serve him. Glorify him. In John 6, the crowds ask Jesus how they can please God. Jesus replies, stating that we must believe in him. Later on in the gospels, it is shown that it's not just enough to believe, but also to do something with that belief.

@ Steph

I'm sorry for the interruption, I wanted to correct a small thing in your letter, you said: "It is impossible for man to live without sin on this earth.". It's very small, but would you mind stating: It is impossible for man to "be without" without sin on this earth.? Because if the other is true, then we're all running a race with no finish line. Now Idk about you but, that's a race I would rather stay on the sidelines with. My point is this: you Can go a week without sinning, you CAn go a month without sinning, and you CAN even go a year without sinning. Therefore, you can 'live' without sin on this earth. However you cannot 'be' without sin on this earth. (I don't think you'll find any support for the other, in the new, and possibly even in the old testament)


I Hope that didn't cause too much of a hold up, I just thought it should be said. as for the MAIN topic, I'm interested, as Matthew is, on seeing the responses. I hope you don't mind I want to see some of the other responses before I post my opinion. and I want to see your opinion on it later Matthew?
"Good topic btw." err.. excuse me, pretty good topic.

I have wondered about this to. Does that mean a Christian should keep the Mosaic law? I really am not to sure.

Insofar as the Mosaic Law is repeated as authoritative in the NT for Christians, yes. Otherwise, no.

We should still be following the law except for what Jesus fulfilled. But because we can not follow the law, it is absolutely impossible, we needed a messiah to save us from our iniquities.

We still are obligated to follow the moral law, however. Such as, no murdering, no stealing, etc.

Still seeking more thought-filled responses. A lot seem to side-step the question, or answer something else entirely. Please keep the discourse to a minimum and focus on only responding to the prompt.

I'm sorry. I do not believe that, so I will not state that. If I could go a week without sinning, then I don't need God. If I can go a week, then I can go a year, or several years. I don't even see how you could suppose that.



I thought I answered pretty specifically...what more are you looking for?

Yours was fine. It's only that out of like 7 posts, only two offered anything substantial- yours being one of them.