Objection from Matthew 5

Russ brought up in the comments Matthew 5:17-19. He makes a great point from this passage. Jesus says in verse 18

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Now the problem that is being held against my position is that the Law as written Numbers 18 would have the Christian Church tithing to the Levitical Priesthood. However Russ says that Christ has fulfilled the Law. Therefore we may look to these passages for principles, but not as law.

The objection I raised earlier is basically the same here. How does this differ in substance to my own position? I certainly do not tithe to a Levitical Priesthood. So am I being inconsistent?

If we deal with the text, the verse says that the Law will not pass away till the end of the age. Therefore, we are both wrong. However we are only both wrong because of an assumption made by Russ. He has equated Law with Covenant. By doing so, he has made the application of the Law as summed up in the Decalogue and the ceremonial aspects of the Law under the Old Covenant to be equal to Covenant. In other words, he equates Law with Covenant. This has been demonstrated to not be the case.

There are many laws under the Old Covenant Economy that are simply portions of the Ten Commandments applied in a ceremonial way. For example, we see this in many of the Sabbath laws. These laws were to separate the Israelites from the other Nations. Russ rightly observes as I also argued (but he seemed to miss my point, probably due to my poor ability to explain it) from Ephesians 2 that Christ abolished the law that separated the Israelites from the other nations. In other words, how the law was applied under the Old Covenant was specifically meant to divide while the Gospel brings together.

The Law (not to be confused with how it was applied under the Old Covenant) is now being applied under the New Covenant. Therefore, when the Christian reads the Scriptures including the Old Testament, he does so believing that all of it is authoritative, but the Old Testament laws are applied according to how the New Testament dictates.

Here is many will object. Before you do, remember the Apostles themselves cite from the Ten Commandments and many other laws from the Old Testament. Paul in 1 Cor 6:19 makes reference to Leviticus as well as 1 Cor 9:9 makes reference to Deuteronomy 25 and applies it to the church. I realize this raises many other questions, and this is just a Blog. The New Testament is not going to the Old and saying, “Let’s look at the major principles.” The New Testament reminds us that there is still a Law and Christ has written this Law upon the hearts of believers that all may know Him from the least to the greatest.

I will finish this post by citing from Richard Barcellos’ book, In Defense of the Decalogue.

"It is very clear from this passage and other explicit statements of the New Testament that the Old Covenant and its law, as Old Covenant Law, has been annulled by Christ's death. Though the law of the Old Covenant still exists and is called law [a point he defends by demonstrating the NT still does this] it no longer functions as the Law of the Old Covenant, because the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant."

He also says:

"What Jesus is saying is that the Old Testament is still binding upon His people, but not in the same way it used to be. The Old Testament is still authoritative as far as our sanctification goes, but the coming and death of Christ and the inauguration of the New Covenant now condition its application."

I realize [Owen] Russ and many of you probably have [Owen]much more to object, but that is the nature of this kind of discussion [Owen]. There are far greater minds [Owen] than my own that have debated this subject. It might be wise to go read them. [Owen]

Sorry about the subliminal thing. :-)