I would prefer to start with something simpler, such as: “Why did Jesus say John the Baptist was the Elijah when John himself said he wasn’t?” or “Was it a false prophecy when Jesus said he’d come back while his generation was still alive in Luke 21?” However, I had been talking with Iron Foust on ICQ and mentioned that the problem I present to you here was something I had studied off and on for a year and a half and was never able to come to a satisfactory conclusion that was compatible with modern Christianity.

I’ll forewarn you: this is long and involved. Anyone without a elementary understanding of the Bible and Christian doctorine will have a bit of trouble with this. Of this I apologize, but didn’t see any way around it. Also, all my references are RSV unless otherwise noted. (It’s the most modern one in my online bible software.)

Matthew 5:17-20

17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

How comforting: Jesus fulfilled the law for us! After all, the traditional telling of this verse says that all is accomplished when Jesus was on the cross, right? However, there’s a nasty little phrase that creeped in there somehow: “till heaven and earth pass away.” Now, I look around, and I see that I’m presently on Earth. I look above, and I see this sky type thing with a bright yellow star in the middle. Looks like the heavens and earth are still here. So, we know that the law still exists.

Or does it? Hebrews 8:8-13:

8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord.

10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, does an eternal law pass away? Not only does Matt 5 say othewise, but so does the Old Testament:

Numbers 18:19 All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the LORD I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you." (One slightly out-of-order note: this verse is peticularally troubling because this says that Levites are given the sacrifices forever. However, Hebrews is all about how the law has been invalidated, and that no more priests, levites, or sacrifices are needed. – I’d never noticed this before, by the way.)

There are others, but I think one is enough to show that God didn’t intend to cut the deal short. So is Jeremiah 31:31-34 a contradiction? Not only that, but it neglects to mention that the Gentiles are rudely excluded.. If you notice in verse 31, “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” this new covenant that is prophesied about is talking about the house of Israel! Now, Hebrews is talking to the Israelites, but where does that leave the gentiles that Christ supposedly saved? Out in the cold, that’s where! Or, would someone like to argue that there are two separate covenants in the new testament? If so, why didn’t Paul mention it?

So now, we’re in question if the law is applicable for today. We seem to have three different viewpoints: Yes, it’s eternal, as Jesus and numbers says; no, it’s dead, as the author of Hebrews seems to believe; and Jeremiah, which just says that someday a new covanent would be issued for the Israelites exclusively. Now, it does say in Romans 11 that the Gentiles were grafted into the “vine”, but Jeremiah 31:31 says, “"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…” He specifically says that this is being extended to the houses of Israel and Jacob, making it clear that this is specifically talking about the tribes, or descendants of the two “houses.” Romans 11 makes it clear that the Gentiles are grafted in as separate branches. (Also note the small difference between Jeremiah and Hebrews, by the way. For an infallible work, this is pretty sloppy!)

Now, let’s look at verse 19: “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Now, as we’ve already shown how the author of Hebrews is arguing for the disintegration of these commandments, let’s look to our friend Paul. On the subject of circumcision, which was a pretty major deal and by no means the least of the commandments, he says in Galatians 5:2-3: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

Now, not only is Paul commanding others not to follow one command, he’s teaching full disregard! Now, will Paul be considered least in the kingdom of Heaven? Also, why would Christ profit you nothing if Christ was the one saying to keep the law?

I find it amazing that noone from the apostles bothered to mention to Paul that he was a heretic. After all, Paul was yelling about all those nasty circumcision sects that only seem to be following the words of Jesus here. Furthermore, they even reject these sects in favor of paul in Acts 15:

10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Now, it’s indisputable that the law is pretty hard to keep, but again, Jesus says nothing about abolishing the law. Peter has taken it upon his own authority to override Jesus.

Now, I shouldmention that 14-18 seem to disprove my argument above, so let’s look at them. (James is speaking here):

14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,

16 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,

17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,

18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'

This quote comes from Amos 9. For the full context, it will be necessary to read Amos 8 and 9. From this, it is evident that the prophecy says that “the dwelling of David, which is fallen” refers not to a spiritual fall but to a literal halocaust ordained by God. Verse 8:

8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground; except that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob," says the LORD.

ON THAT DAY, the day that he kills most everyone, then the Gentiles will be included. However, nowhere around that time can all Jewish sinners be seen to have been killed. One could argue that this refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, but two problems come with this. First, the gentiles are supposedly grafted before this time. (Remember, this council meeting is going on in Jerusalem.) Second, even after this destruction, the Talmuds were written which condemned Jesus in them. No, any Christian would have still considered these people sinners.

Then, in a final arrogance, James says this:

21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."

So, according to James, Moses has had enough time, and the Jews were never sufficiently changed. Could it be argued that 2000 years have passed, and the Christians are in the same rut? Jesus’s words must have been as valuable as Moses’s. Or, perhaps it was that Jesus didn’t fulfill that part of prophecy. However, since we already know he must be the Messiah, that couldn’t possibly be true.

Surely, I haven’t said all that could be said on this topic. However, this should be evidence that the New Testament authors were all too willing to disregard Jesus’s own words (unless Matthew lied and Jesus never said anything of the sort) and the old testament in their defense of Jesus and this grace. For anyone looking to base their eternal salvation upon this, it’s a rather shaky ground rather than the rock they suppose it to be.

--The Curiousity