Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Gal 3:17-25 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
|
Now that makes Azure's point much better I think...
Tell me if I'm getting this right... The passage clearly indcates that the 'law' was created because of transgressions by people (presumably Israelites/ Moses' people??), and formed a promise to the Messiah, presumably Jesus. As it was a promise to Jesus, the appearance of Jesus satisfied the purpose of that law and it really should be Jesus' teachings that should be followed rather the old law that was just a placeholder until his appearance.
If that is a direct passage from the Bible, then it would stand to make the interpretation of Matthew as Azure has said it should be. I still don't believe
in any of it and question why Matthew wouldn't have been clearer and requied Paul's epistle to make it clear, but I will acknowledge that that passage from Galatians isn't one that I heve seen before (or not in a really long time) and does bear on the argument.
Obviously others who may have more familiarity with scripture may be able to raise other problems, but I will concede that, in my mind, that passage frm Galatians clearly states what the status of the Old Testament law is in Christian terms. I think it makes it harder to justify the attitudes Christian churches have towards homosexuality but that is perhaps a debate for another day.
I do still wonder about Matthew 5:18. It really does seem inconsistant with the Galatians passage. The explanation given in Azure's ealier link is wholly unsatisfying since it seems to amount to, 'that's too hard so Jesus must not have meant that.'