I think that’s what appears to be the “new law” (John 13:34), although it is represented in the first covenant by love of God and love of neighbour.
I’ve heard that 1st-century interpretation of Law (the big “theological battles”) could be introduced by the question of the “greatest commandment.” Of course, there were always two, because the first was always the sh’ma, the love and devotion to God. The second was the lens of interpretation for the rest of the law, whether it was sacrifice, purity, obedience, zeal, or, as in Jesus’ interpretation, love.
Part of the issue is what is meant by “abolish” and “fulfill” (not sure if this was said in this conversation).
To “abolish” the law is to “render it invalid through misinterpretation.” Everybody “believed in” or “agreed with” the law. The question was, how? That’s where interpretation came in. To interpret it incorrectly was to “abolish it.” To interpret it correctly was to “fulfill it” (as in, uphold it). That was rabbinic terminology.
Jesus “fulfills the law” by interpreting it correctly (through the overarching lens of love). But he also “fulfills the law” because he is the “end of the law” (not so much the terminator of the law, but the telos or goal of the law). The law points to Jesus and he is its fulfillment.
Then there is “first covenant” and “second covenant.” The “first covenant” (not really the first, but the Mosaic covenant; there were earlier covenants with Noah, Abraham, etc.) is the “law,” in which the law lays out the terms of the agreement, specifically with ethnic Israel. Because ethnic Israel is under this agreement (the temporary one that points to Jesus), the terms of that agreement define things like dress, diet, etc. When Israel breaks that covenant, God himself is faithful to it, because the exile itself is expressed and defined within the terms of that covenant.
But those “laws” (the terms of that covenant, the first one) are done away with in Jesus.
Do we have to “keep the law”? Well, no, because keeping the law does not accomplish what it points to. But “second covenant living,” that is, Spirit-led life (as defined in Romans and Galatians) does accomplish what the law points to. Thus, the Spirit-led life is manifested by spiritual fruit, and “against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:23).
You can’t make the spiritual fruit happen with laws/rules or efforts to keep laws/rules. You can’t, for example, become more loving, joyful, or peaceful by “trying hard to do so.” What you can do is abide in Christ, live Spirit-led, and then fruit…“happens.”
We disagree, and I think Jesus, John and Paul disagree with you, too – there is a distinction to be made between moral law, ‘the laws of love’, and the rest of Mosaic law:
Well, yeah, we have to obey Christ–that’s submission to the Spirit. It’s not like “there’s no call for obedience.” But following a person, or rather, a Person, is very different from following a list of rules.
“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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is not a simple matter of picking a favorite verse. It’s complicated. I have always agreed that we don’t have to follow the whole Law of Moses (sacrifices, etc.) but we do need to observe some of its teaching (e.g. we should welcome the stranger, avold incest and bestiality). In the Talmud every verse of the Law was subject to scrutiny and gone over in great detail.
The early Church was often inspired by the Old Testament in choosing a course of action. After Judas died, the Apostles decided to replace him. Peter quoted from the Book of Psalms:
May his days be few, May another take his place of leadership
We may be telling ourselves we are following Jesus, but are we? How do we know? Because our hearts are deceitful, we need objective standards to test ourselves against. Paul and James, at least, tell us to do exactly that.
Acts 3:22 is very interesting, because Peter is quoting Deuteronomy.
.For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’
I don’t know if anyone made this point, if so no doubt better, but I don’t have time to read all the posts.
In my opinion:
The OT is absolutely vital in understanding the NT, and vice versa.
I do believe this happened, logically simultaneously:
a) The entire Mosaic law was nullified, including the decalogue
b) Jesus became the new law giver, primarily via the Sermon on the Mount, the “you have heard it said” statements, and the two great commandments
c) The decalogue (with the possible exception of the Sabbath), though no longer the official criminal code, is derivable from the two great commandments
d) So we are, in effect, still bound by the decalogue, but they are corollaries of Jesus’ law rather than axioms in their own right, and the argument about whether or not the 10 commandments are void is somewhat a technical argument about whether they are primary or contingent law. In either case, we are still commanded to obey them.
I still have no answer from Stanley’s supporters about which 10 commandments we can violate. If it is only the Sabbath, then this is much ado about (almost) nothing. Christians have, for the most part, agreed to disagree about the Sabbath for most of Christian history.
As somebody who, I guess, qualifies as a ‘Stanley supporter’ here, allow me to attempt some answer.
Actually, if you’re going to put it that way (which ones of these can we ignore now?), I’ll respond back that if anyone is even asking that question in earnest, they show that they missed Jesus’ entire point!
Consider this (not entirely fictitious) analogous situation. An employer develops a specific list of rules for the employees of a business. They included:
Do not take cash that isn’t yours out of the register.
Do not help yourself to any store inventory or equipment without authorization.
Do not take care of personal business on store time that you can do instead on break or lunch times.
This employer later tells all the employees: you know what? Instead of all those detailed rules, I’m going to just give you this one imperative: Don’t steal.
So what you would you then think, David, of the employee that then begins asking … “okay - so which of those initial rules am I permitted to start ignoring now?”
Such an employee is showing that they just aren’t understanding the later general imperative which covers all the first three and more. The fact that they wish to pursue the question at all shows that they aren’t ready to keep any of them (old or new).
Now - it isn’t a perfect parallel. You have in part answered your own question I think, with the question of the sabbath. There are details that have changed. But what hasn’t changed is the spirit behind it all (both old and new). “On these two commands (loving God and neighbor) hangs all of the law.” In other words, the old commandments were some of the specific ways people were expected to love God and neighbor in their context. Our context may be a little different (for sabbath, for example), but not very different. In any case, (and much more importantly!) we still have exactly the same spirit behind it all: we are charged to love. In seeking obedience to that charge we do well to neither ignore the ten commandments as given then, nor to consider them any sort of final word that is sufficient to our task of love either. In most cases, it would appear that our context demands we not only obey the commandments, but go considerably beyond them. In short, I think Stanley is right that the O.T. is not our final authority for rules/laws today. But to the extent that Stanley insists that the same is entirely useless towards the project of the mature Christian studying and understanding the new covenant and its roots, I would then part company with Stanley on that point. [While a few isolated quotes from detractors can make it sound like Stanley goes there, I’m not convinced that’s where he’s actually at.]
Wait, what? Not eating escargot was part of the law! So he says you can’t keep just part of the law and you’re saying that he is just referring to part of the law when he says “the whole law”?
Are you really saying that?
“I’m not under law” does not mean I don’t have to obey the laws of the land. Although when it comes to God’s requirements (remember: we obey him, not rules), we might be required to disobey the laws of the land.
)