As an aside, there are some (and I want to stress that I am DEFINITELY not one of them) who teach that the SotM was Jesus expounding the rules for living, if the Jewish nation had accepted Him as Messiah without His having to go to the cross. That didn’t happen, so (according to them), so the SotM was superseded by Paul’s teaching in his epistles.Perhaps go back and read the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the Gospel of Matthew (5:1-7:29), particularly Matthew 5:17-20.
Saint Paul observed.I don’t have that passage in front of me right now, but I do know from decades of immersion in the New Testament that nine of the ten commandments are explicitly confirmed, in multiple passage. The only one that is not is sabbath-keeping.
D
7 Who being brought, the Jews stood about him, who were come down from Jerusalem, objecting many and grievous causes, which they could not prove;
8 Paul making answer for himself: Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I offended in any thing.
Cool. Good to hear. Had a long day at work today, tired. I’ll post my “formal” reply tomorrow when I’m fresh. Hope others will weigh in with helpful comments. Until then…Not a troll…debating a Protestant.
Looking for specific commentary that explains this passage and either how it doesn’t pertain to the Decalogue, or how it’s misreading the context of the passage, etc.
The “ministry of death” has nothing to do with the Decalogue having been carved in stone-that fact is incidental-“ministry of death” simply means that the law brought death, not life; only the Spirit, only God, can impart life and He doesn’t impart it without imparting righteousness-and so the Spirit fulfills the law in us via the justice, primarily love, which He pours into our hearts as we remain in and cooperate with Him. So the law is not abolished (Matt 5), nor is it bad-Paul praises its goodness in Rom 7 and elsewhere-but it simply can only serve to teach us that we’re sinners, it cannot do anything about that sin on its own, it cannot justify us IOW.On page 1199-1200 of “Systematic Theology” Geisler quotes 2 Cor 3:7-14 as directly implying that the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christians (“letters on stone”). His other objections I think are relatively weak, but I haven’t been able to find much good commentary on this particular verse.
Does anyone have a good response to this objection?
This is good, and Catholicism would insist that “the righteousness that comes by Christ” is that love, which fulfills the law, by its nature (Rom 13:10). Man is still obligated to obedience, to be righteous, under the New Covenant. But the new way, the right way, has now arrived on the scene. Faith justifies us by establishing communion with He who, alone, can make man just. That very faith-born communion is the basis and essence of man’s justice or righteousness in fact.I think he makes a major category error in his interpretation of that verse. If you read Paul’s epistles, you will find that he frequently quotes directly from the Pentateuch when talking about sin. Paul obviously does not think that the Decalogue is no longer relevant. Rather, Paul is saying that our justification does not come from obedience to the decalogue, but through the righteousness that comes by Christ. In other words, the Law condemns you because you are a sinner, but you are justified by faith in Christ and have received the Holy Spirit that we might be conformed to the likeness of Christ. The Decalogue continues to guide us in this by communicating to us what it means to love God and love one’s neighbor in practice.
Yes, which include the ten commandments.When Jesus fulfilled the Law, He fulfilled the whole thing. So we keep the commandments of Christ now instead of the Law of Moses.
To add to your point, its also a little weird for a Trinitarian to argue that the law given to Moses by God is different than the law proclaimed by Christ, who is of the same Godhead who gave the law to Moses.Yes, which include the ten commandments.
Jesus gives the same reason as Moses for divorce in Matthew 5:32. Status quo.Moses allowed divorce. Jesus does not.
The Pharisees were allowing for people to falsely swear by appealing to different authorities and allowing someone who broke their word off the hook. Jesus opposition to the practice is that by swearing an oath, no matter what, that person is swearing that the God who judges all people will judge them. The issue Christ has is that the person is breaking their word, which are both violations of the 2nd and 8th Commandments as well as Leviticus 19:12. Already prohibited. Status quo.Swearing is prohibited under the new covenant.
Both murder (Exodus 20) and anger against one’s brother (Leviticus 19:17-18) are prohibited by the law. Again, already prohibited, status quo.Anger is akin to murder.
Nope.Jesus gives the same reason as Moses for divorce in Matthew 5:32.
Any proof for that?The Pharisees were allowing for people to falsely swear by appealing to different authorities and allowing someone who broke their word off the hook. Jesus opposition to the practice is that by swearing an oath, no matter what, that person is swearing that the God who judges all people will judge them.
Both are not equivalent under the Law.Both murder (Exodus 20) and anger against one’s brother (Leviticus 19:17-18) are prohibited by the law.
Check the Hebrew for what that implies. They are equivalent.There’s a difference between “some indency” and “unless the marriage is unlawful.”
Yeah, in the text.Any proof for that?