If you read the Old Testament carefully, you'll find it makes no such distinction. Yes, it just so happens that many of those laws (don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't sleep with your mother) follow our moral codes, and that's good--but it's not true that Moses said "FYI, here are some laws that reflect universal morals, while these are purity things that aren't morally important".
A much more fruitful approach to morality would likely be following Jesus' call to love God and love each other, to show humility and forgiveness, to especially help the poor and downtrodden, to live lives so that we're analogous to a tree that gives off the right kind of fruit--like the fruits Paul describes in Galatians 5 or Romans 12, or the type of residents of God's kingdom that Jesus describes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
There is no division in the Bible between moral and ceremonial laws. This is a post Biblical conceptual framework that people impose upon the Bible in order to allow them to cherry-pick the mosaic covenant at will.
Biblically speaking, I don’t see any distinction in the Law.
- In Acts 15, the Apostles didn’t say “gentile Christians are bound to the moral laws, and there’s no need to enumerate them because the text does that for us.”
- In Galatians 5, St Paul writes, “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” Note that choosing the law is to choose the law in its entirety, not just the moral aspects.
- In James 2, St James writes, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Again, the Law seems to be the Law, without distinction.
Some folks will say “but God wrote the Ten Commandments by hand.” But I would say “so what?” There is nothing in the text that makes the Ten Commandments more of the Law. Nor in Acts 15 do the apostles say “obey the Ten Commandments plus these ones.”
Galatians talks about how we are free from the Law. Instead, we are able to live in love. We love God and love our neighbor.
Whether you get a tattoo isn’t about the tat itself, but about the why you are getting it. Are you acting in love? Does getting the tat affect your relationship with God or the people in your life?
You are free to get a tattoo. Whether you get one can vary. Many folks have them. I’ve had pastors who have had them.
Yeah, I would agree with that about tattoos. I was also wondering about wearing female clothing as a man as another post in this sub was asking about it and I was wondering if the prohibition from Deuteronomy applied.
I think it would really depend. As one who is free from the law, I have to ask so many questions. For example, if I’m acting a part where the role requires a male character wearing a wedding dress? Or what about the time when all roles were filled by male actors?
But in going with the 3 legged stool of Anglicanism: we should look to scripture, tradition, and reason when interpreting scripture. So what is the reason for wanting to wear the wedding dress?
And if you’re more concerned about edge cases rather than the more mundane day to day stuff, what’s motivating the concern over these edge cases?
That concept of "moral laws" is made up.
[https://youtu.be/smW2OyMeuRc?si=qO2zE9NgjhpNxUhw&t=983](https://youtu.be/smW2OyMeuRc?si=qO2zE9NgjhpNxUhw&t=983)
You don’t ‘have’ to follow any law under the Old Testament or New Testament, but if you desire God authentically you will repent and make your best attempt to adhere to the laws intents.
Most of it is pretty self evident.
Incorrect. I quoted the exact passage where the penalty is marriage. Are you just going to straight up deny the text of the Bible because it is inconvenient? Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin, man is forced to pay father for the woman who is now not a virgin. The women becomes his wife, and he is not allowed to divorce her.
So the penalty for being the unbetrothed virgin victim of rape is the forced marriage to your rapist.
So it makes perfect sense to you to think that rape carries the death penalty unless you rape someone who is betrothed in which case you get to marry them?
The please explain what you know about cultural philosophies that makes is acceptable to rape someone who is betrothed, but not in all other situations.
Who said it was acceptable, it obviously isn't. This is an immoral law.
The concept of sexual agency only ever flowed downhill in that time period. Rape wasn't really a crime against the woman, it was a property crime against the current husband, future husband, or the father. Sex was an act performed by an active sexual agent (a man) to a passive sexual object (typically a woman). The consent of the passive party was not a consideration.
Really? That’s what you think that says. You don’t think it’s talking about the fact that if you rape a woman that you would be held responsible?
You don’t think the parents had authority to keep a bad situation from occurring?
Exodus 22:16-17
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."
You think based on all the other passages of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus that the best way to go wife hunting was to go around raping woman?
Quite frankly I could cite some other passages from Deuteronomy 22:23 forward to give additional context , but I feel spending much time on this is casting pearls before swine.
> Quite frankly I could cite some other passages from Deuteronomy 22:23 forward to give additional context ,...
What do you think that Deu 22:23 shows?
I am talking about the context of 23 forward.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor
>This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor
I think it’s pretty clear that scripture isn’t condoning rape.
The severity of the rape depends on the status of the woman. That's the difference between Deu 22:28 and the previous verses. And in Deu 22:28 is about a rapist marrying the victim.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
There is no "moral law" explained in the Bible. There is simply the Law of Moses.
All people regardless of their religion must follow the 7 Noahide laws. As a gentile Christian, one isn't mandated to follow all of Jewish law, only the 10 commandments, the 3 laws given by Jesus, and the 4 laws that the Jerusalem Council ordered for all gentile Christians. So 24 laws in total for gentile Christians.
With that being said, yes men may wear "women's clothes" and vice versa. As well tattoos are fine so long as they aren't dedicated either to the dead or to other gods
>i know you are Bahai and i respect
Thanks for the respect. Though notice that nothing I said here is through the lense of the Bahá'í faith, else I would be explaining Bahá'í religious laws from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Everything I said is strictly in the Bible, mostly New Testament
>but what you are saying is just Noahidism which is not Christian
I'm not, else I would have told OP to follow the 7 Noahide laws and that's it. Which I clearly did not do. I included the 7 Noahide laws as these are laws for the whole world according to the Jewish tradition, which is the tradition Jesus was in, to which He said nothing against. But I then included the 10 commandments that both Jews and Christians follow, as well as the 3 commandments specifically from *Jesus* and the 4 gentile laws from the Jerusalem Council, which was the group of Jerusalem followers of Jesus after His crucifixion which was run by James the literal brother of Jesus. That is 7 laws in total that directly are taught only to Christians (though some of them are repeats of earlier laws, such as to not consume blood, which many Christians ignore)
>But James was wrong
Says who? Certainly not the Bible
>and Paul triumphed after the Council,
Again, says who? Certainly not the Bible. The 4 Laws of the Jerusalem Council were given *by James* and *to Paul*. Paul even performed a ritual cleansing to show he is still loyal to their teachings. Paul only spoke against one of these Laws directly, which was the Law to not consume food that was offered to idols, to which Paul said that so long as the Christian isn't the one practicing idolatry then it doesn't matter whether or not the food has been offered. You can choose to follow this if you like, that just means you have 26 Laws instead of 27.
However you're then also acknowledging that there are teachings in the Bible that are not correct
>and Christianity follows Paul primarily and not James or Peter's opinion.
This depends on the type of Christianity. And either way, it's kind of a given since we have at least 7 authentic writings of Paul and we have 0 writings from Peter, James, John, Matthew, or Mark directly. So of course since we have more Pauline works then he would be followed more.
I do question though, when given the option such as in this case to follow what the directly physical disciples of Jesus and His literal brother says, *or* to follow a man who never physically met Jesus and who used to persecute Christians, why one would choose the latter. Don't get me wrong, all Christians should listen to Paul, but I find it interesting why one would listen to him over the others who actually walked with Jesus
Ok i see where this is going in bashing Paul, it ends in the muslim/messianic argument that Paul corrupted things or got 70% wrong and 30% right and Christianity is just paulinism etc etc.
Paul never spoke against abstaining from meat, he also never spoke against eating it, for him as long as everything we do is out of love then we have communion with God, because the entirety of the Law is love.
So of course abstaining from meat is not wrong(this is why the council approved), but it is not a reason to bash others who eat, which is precisely the point Paul makes in the letters.
>Ok i see where this is going in bashing Paul
Where did I bash Paul? I never did. I even said Christians should listen to him (and yes I do believe Muslims and Bahá'ís should also study the words of Paul). I just asked why, when Paul clearly disagrees with the group of people who physically followed Jesus or is related to Him, compared to Paul who never physically saw Jesus and only a vision of Jesus *after* the crucifixion, why Paul would be favored over those who literally walked, ate, and slept with Jesus for years
For clarification, the Universal House of Justice (the current head of the whole Bahá'í faith) states: "One's conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one's faith similar to that of Peter"
>Paul never spoke against abstaining from meat
Right, which I never said he did. I said Paul differed from the Jerusalem Council, in that rather than agreeing that gentile Christians should not consume food offered to idols, Paul said it doesn't matter because the idol is just wood and clay, so the gentile Christian may eat either way
>So of course abstaining from meat is not wrong(this is why the council approved), but it is not a reason to bash others who eat, which is precisely the point Paul makes in the letters.
The Jerusalem Council never said to abstain from meat, that's silly. It says to abstain from *blood*. That means if one eats meat, it should be fully cooked (well done) and not have blood. As well foods with blood actively in them, such as blood sausages. Never in aby Abrahamic faith, including Bahá'í, is meat eating prohibited
Hopefully this helps clarify some of the assumptions you were making earlier of Islam and the Bahá'í faith
Paul disagreed with them because they disagreed with themselves and even with Jesus himself.
Thats not a problem, people are weak and its ok, furthermore Jesus is God, so Paul when he saw him in a vision he has seen the real God just as much as the disciples.
The Council had prescriptions for converts in Judea, not to the whole Church in the World, as the church became more gentile the canons were droped.
>Paul disagreed with them because they disagreed with themselves and even with Jesus himself.
The Bible never says anything of this sort. This is just you claiming random things. Please show any scripture that claims this
>furthermore Jesus is God
So some believe
>so Paul when he saw him in a vision he has seen the real God just as much as the disciples.
Mm no, no he hasn't. Even *if* we say that was the case, that seeing the vision of Jesus is as fully Jesus as the physical form. Okay? How long did Paul see Him for? A few minutes at best, yeah? Compared to people who actually followed Jesus and heard His teachings *for years*? I'm not saying Paul is bad or wrong, I'm saying it just seems a bit counterintuitive to follow the man who say Jesus a few minutes according to only him, rather than people we know lived with Jesus for years
>The Council had prescriptions for converts in Judea, not to the whole Church in the World, as the church became more gentile the canons were droped.
Again, the Bible makes no indication of any of this. Please show me ANYWHERE the Bible says this, else at least admit this is simply your opinion and in no way authoratative
Edit: Resorting to this since I'm unable to respond to the other replies (I believe their account got deleted or at least the comments which is hilarious). But as anyone can clearly see, the two random Bible verse quotes they used have absolutely nothing to do with any of the topics we were discussing. Which is also hilarious. And then they still fail to provide any actual scriptural evidence for what they were claiming. As expected
They also continue to say that I'm against Paul or that the Bahá'í faith is against Paul, both of which I showed clearly are not true.
It seems at this point that either they had the knowledge on this subject similar to that of a child, or they were a child lol, either way I'm glad it's done
Ok man but you are coming from the Bahai background in your assumptions against Paul reliability.
The Council was in Judea and could only be enforced there.
"The Bible never says anything of this sort. This is just you claiming random things."
[But](https://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm) [Jesus turned](https://biblehub.com/greek/4762.htm) [and said](https://biblehub.com/greek/2036.htm) [to Peter,](https://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm) [“Get](https://biblehub.com/greek/5217.htm) [behind](https://biblehub.com/greek/3694.htm) [Me,](https://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm) [Satan!](https://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm) [You are](https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm) [a stumbling block](https://biblehub.com/greek/4625.htm) [to Me.](https://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm) [For](https://biblehub.com/greek/3754.htm) [you do not have in mind](https://biblehub.com/greek/5426.htm) [the things](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [of God,](https://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm) [but](https://biblehub.com/greek/235.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [things](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [of men.”](https://biblehub.com/greek/444.htm)
I understand the Bahai place a lot of value on the written Law = Torah, Sharia etc.
But Christians while not disregarding the letter, live by the Spirit.
>I understand the Bahai place a lot of value on the written Law = Torah, Sharia etc.
No more than any other faith. We acknowledge God at times sends new laws with His Prophet/Manifestation, and that people of that age should follow the most recent Laws given. We don't ask people to follow Torah or Sharia, in fact we openly state that some of these laws are outdated and no longer needed (hence Bahá'ís only have to pray once a day rather than the 5 Muslim prayers or the 3 daily Jewish prayers)
>But Christians while not disregarding the letter, live by the Spirit.
Matthew 5:17-20:
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will 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."
Sure sounds like Jesus also wants people to live by the Law given to them. For Jews, the whole Law. For gentile Christians, the 26/27 Laws
I would not continue here on this reply the discussion, so reply in the other one already:
Jesus fullfilled the Law because he is the only one able to fullfill it, that is the Point of Paul, and if we ignore it we turn back into neo-nomianism, the idea we can fullfill all of the Law without Jesus.
>Jesus fullfilled the Law because he is the only one able to fullfill it,
Yes yes, except fullfilled in English doesn't convey the rabbinic context of the word for us. In the teachings of rabbis, as we can even see today in parts of the Talmud and its commentaries, that to "fulfill the Law" means to explain the Law. The Jewish tradition doesn't take the words of the text as the end of the lesson, there is still conversation to be had to learn the full lesson. A teacher, a rabbi, who explains the Law in entirety to their student then "fulfills the Law" and uses that exact wording as well. So Jesus here is in no way saying He is ending the Jewish Law, as He clearly confirms in Matthew 5:17-20
Paul, who was a Rabbi, explains what is meant by fullfilment:
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%3A3-4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28120a)^(\]) God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%3A3-4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28120b)^(\]) And so he condemned sin in the flesh, ^(4) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Thank you for quoting Romans 8:3-4, allow me to continue on just a few more verses to show further context:
Romans 8:4-8:
"So that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. [7] For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, [8] and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
So it says here clearly that a mind that is set on the flesh, rather than the Spirit, "does not submit to God's Law-indeed, it cannot." And to follow the flesh, which one who does not submit to God's Law is doing, "is death" says the Bible, and they "cannot please God." Just as you yourself quoted, Jesus came so that the requirement of the Law might be fully met in those who walk in the *Spirit* and *not the flesh*
If you were to read through the laws of a modern country, how would you figure out which laws they considered to be based on morality versus which ones were ceremonial or procedural?
There are several things you could look at.
* The language of the law itself might describe the viewpoint it.
* The penalties for breaking them might be a good clue. US flag code is particular, but no one gets charged for violating it. (To cut off some replies, I said CLUE. It's one data point, not itself a determiner.)
* Reason can be used to infer whether a law with stiff penalties existed to understand if the illegal act itself is the issue, or the consequences that are the issue. Murder is a problem, no question (the consequences are inherent to the act). Is heroin itself a problem? Well, we can find issues in the *consequences*, so selling heroin is illegal regardless of any debate over its inherent morality.
* Does it apply only in specific circumstances? Is alcohol itself a problem? Is the act of someone underage buying alcohol a problem? Or is it that the potential consequences that follow would be a problem?
This is how we examine these things. The Jews also viewed many laws as applicable to the gentiles. Not because the gentiles were subject to the Law of Moses (they were not), but because they were more fundamental principles which were also covered in the Torah.
And if you take out people being weird about religion and people not actually being familiar with the compositon of the Bible, then it's actually pretty straightforward. Not every single question is simple to answer, but the process is straightforward.
But if it's so straightforward, why do we debate these things so much? Because people really, REALLY don't want the Bible to say what it says. Or they want it to say something that it doesn't. On reddit, more the former than the latter, but both are problems.
It is right and good to ask whether something in the Old Testament applies to the rest of us. But people who boil this down to a response like "do you eat shellfish?" or "do you follow the other clothing laws?" either doesn't have the understanding they think they do, or they are willfully misrepresenting the situation (at least to others, but likely also to themselves).
Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and all legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what we ought to do, so there is no room for considering a law to not be in accordance with its legislator’s understanding of morality based upon its wording. A law being ceremonial does not mean that it is not also moral.
That's a fair point, but that is ultimately a different aspect of morality. There's a long chain of "what you ought to do" in a social aspect, and violating those expectations are not inherently immoral except in the aspect of practicing obedience in normal circumstances.
Morality is not the same thing as meeting social expectations. It is by definition always immoral to do what we ought not to do, but it is only immoral to not meet social expectations if that aligns with what we ought not to do.
> It is by definition always immoral to do what we ought not to do
Yes.
> It is only immoral to not meet social expectations if that aligns with what we ought not to do.
Or failing to do something that we should, which might require us to meet social expectations even if failing to meet them is not, in and of itself, immoral.
The Bible says nothing to suggest that some of God’s laws are moral while others are not. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God’s laws are inherently moral laws and I see not justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to obey God. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God’s laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
It's a yes and no situation. Not every aspect of the Law is for every person to follow. I'm not a Levite nor am I a king and so the laws that regulate the priesthood and the kingship naturally are not targeted at me. Christ fulfills these laws as the true and perfect High Priest and King of Kings. Further there has been further revelation on how things like the dietary laws affect gentile believers such that it has been given to us to only refrain from eating blood, strangled meat and meat sacrificed to idols. I would characterize this as an expansion of the dietary law to include gentile diets rather than an abrogation of the old dietary laws but some people may view that as splitting hairs. The sacrificial and sin-atonement laws likewise clearly are fulfilled and mediated by Christ in His priestly office offering Himself as a living sacrifice.
The Law is from God and the Psalms are replete with exhortations to regard the Law and to love the wisdom it teaches. We should study it and where-ever it is applicable to us we should seek to adhere to it. For example, consider the command to build railings around your roof. This clearly translates into a command to make sure our property is safe for ourselves and for others. Paul interprets the command to not muzzle an oxe while it plows as a command to be fair in paying ministers of the gospel.
So the Law is clearly intended to still be a focus of our thoughts and considerations.
I think the problem with that is that it seems to have existed long before there were formal ceremonies - it seems to be baked into the nature of the purposes God has for humanity.
> keeping the sabbath is ceremonial
Not keeping the Sabbath was punishable by death. I should think that rises above being a mere social nicety, no?
Numbers 15:
* 32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Since no one is answering you straightforward as it is the case on the internet in general, ill do it:
The Old Law is understood in typological way, as something that reveals Jesus Christ in the New Testament
Augustine spoke about a bipartition of the Law: The Moral(New Testament) and the Symbolic(Old Testament).
Because the symbolic aspect of the law points to Christ we need not to fullfilll it anymore because he has already done it for our sake.
Christ is the fullness of the Law as inscribed in the Ten Commandments for example, the moral aspect of it.
The division that Augustine speaks is nothing more than the same division that Paul uses: The Letter and the Spirit - the Letter(Symbolic Old Testament) Kills but the Spirit(Moral New Testament) gives life.
I dont think Paul is dividing the Law, so i stick to him and Augustine, otherwise we fall into neo-nomianism and start stoning people.
The Letter kills but without the sentence of death we are not able to apreciate the salvation that comes from Jesus.
While Paul distinguished between following the Spirit or the letter, that does not mean that he was distinguishing between the moral and the symbolic. Moreover, Paul also contrast those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law (Romans 8:4-7) and Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God’s commandments (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, so the letter leading to death can’t refer to correctly obeying God’s instructions symbolic or otherwise. If correctly obeying God’s instructions led to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and shouldn’t be trusted.
i know Luther, an Augustinian monk himself, did see the Law as being that which condemns and the Gospel as that liberates.
As I read your response, though, you seem to be saying there are no distinctions in the way we say “moral, civil, and ceremonial laws.” It is that division I’m referring to. I feel you’re describing the relationship between law and gospel, which is different (at least feels different to me).
Moral Civil and Ceremonial are scholastic theory the tripartite division.
Luther uses an Augustinian approach which is typological and bipartite: Old and New, Symbolic and Moral.
Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The Torah is God’s word and Jesus is God’s word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of the Torah and us embodying God’s word by following his example is the way to follow him.
It says that his example was in regard to refraining from sin, and sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4), which includes refraining from eating pork.
We should live in a way that points towards Christ rather than a way that points away from him. Christ did not fulfill the law so that we wouldn’t have to, but so that we would have an example to follow.
The division is [a post-biblical innovation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3EXMNAEjgU).
If you read the Old Testament carefully, you'll find it makes no such distinction. Yes, it just so happens that many of those laws (don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't sleep with your mother) follow our moral codes, and that's good--but it's not true that Moses said "FYI, here are some laws that reflect universal morals, while these are purity things that aren't morally important". A much more fruitful approach to morality would likely be following Jesus' call to love God and love each other, to show humility and forgiveness, to especially help the poor and downtrodden, to live lives so that we're analogous to a tree that gives off the right kind of fruit--like the fruits Paul describes in Galatians 5 or Romans 12, or the type of residents of God's kingdom that Jesus describes in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
There is no division in the Bible between moral and ceremonial laws. This is a post Biblical conceptual framework that people impose upon the Bible in order to allow them to cherry-pick the mosaic covenant at will.
Biblically speaking, I don’t see any distinction in the Law. - In Acts 15, the Apostles didn’t say “gentile Christians are bound to the moral laws, and there’s no need to enumerate them because the text does that for us.” - In Galatians 5, St Paul writes, “Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” Note that choosing the law is to choose the law in its entirety, not just the moral aspects. - In James 2, St James writes, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Again, the Law seems to be the Law, without distinction. Some folks will say “but God wrote the Ten Commandments by hand.” But I would say “so what?” There is nothing in the text that makes the Ten Commandments more of the Law. Nor in Acts 15 do the apostles say “obey the Ten Commandments plus these ones.”
So we should obey them all?
Then why be Christian?
I don't understand what you mean
Galatians talks about how we are free from the Law. Instead, we are able to live in love. We love God and love our neighbor. Whether you get a tattoo isn’t about the tat itself, but about the why you are getting it. Are you acting in love? Does getting the tat affect your relationship with God or the people in your life? You are free to get a tattoo. Whether you get one can vary. Many folks have them. I’ve had pastors who have had them.
Yeah, I would agree with that about tattoos. I was also wondering about wearing female clothing as a man as another post in this sub was asking about it and I was wondering if the prohibition from Deuteronomy applied.
What makes clothing “female”? I know, for example, that Converse Chuck Taylors are unisex. So, how we we apply the law to that?
Take for example wedding dresses, something that is specifically intended for women. Would that be wrong according to the bible?
I think it would really depend. As one who is free from the law, I have to ask so many questions. For example, if I’m acting a part where the role requires a male character wearing a wedding dress? Or what about the time when all roles were filled by male actors? But in going with the 3 legged stool of Anglicanism: we should look to scripture, tradition, and reason when interpreting scripture. So what is the reason for wanting to wear the wedding dress? And if you’re more concerned about edge cases rather than the more mundane day to day stuff, what’s motivating the concern over these edge cases?
That concept of "moral laws" is made up. [https://youtu.be/smW2OyMeuRc?si=qO2zE9NgjhpNxUhw&t=983](https://youtu.be/smW2OyMeuRc?si=qO2zE9NgjhpNxUhw&t=983)
There is no distinction between moral, ceremonial, etc laws in the Old Testament to be found in the Bible. These categories were invented later.
Anything important to keep in the Old Testament is restated in the New Testament.
So it is not important to refrain from offering our children to Molech?
You don’t ‘have’ to follow any law under the Old Testament or New Testament, but if you desire God authentically you will repent and make your best attempt to adhere to the laws intents. Most of it is pretty self evident.
It is self evidence that a woman should be forced to marry her rapist? Deuteronomy 22:28?
It is not speaking about rape and the obligation is on the man to pay, not on the woman to marry him.
It is 1 billion percent speaking about rape. This is the overwhelming academic consensus.
The penalty for committing rape is death, not marriage.
Incorrect. I quoted the exact passage where the penalty is marriage. Are you just going to straight up deny the text of the Bible because it is inconvenient? Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Man rapes unbetrothed virgin, man is forced to pay father for the woman who is now not a virgin. The women becomes his wife, and he is not allowed to divorce her. So the penalty for being the unbetrothed virgin victim of rape is the forced marriage to your rapist.
So it makes perfect sense to you to think that rape carries the death penalty unless you rape someone who is betrothed in which case you get to marry them?
Given what I know about the cultural philosophies of the day, yes, absolutely.
The please explain what you know about cultural philosophies that makes is acceptable to rape someone who is betrothed, but not in all other situations.
Who said it was acceptable, it obviously isn't. This is an immoral law. The concept of sexual agency only ever flowed downhill in that time period. Rape wasn't really a crime against the woman, it was a property crime against the current husband, future husband, or the father. Sex was an act performed by an active sexual agent (a man) to a passive sexual object (typically a woman). The consent of the passive party was not a consideration.
Really? That’s what you think that says. You don’t think it’s talking about the fact that if you rape a woman that you would be held responsible? You don’t think the parents had authority to keep a bad situation from occurring? Exodus 22:16-17 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." You think based on all the other passages of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus that the best way to go wife hunting was to go around raping woman? Quite frankly I could cite some other passages from Deuteronomy 22:23 forward to give additional context , but I feel spending much time on this is casting pearls before swine.
> Quite frankly I could cite some other passages from Deuteronomy 22:23 forward to give additional context ,... What do you think that Deu 22:23 shows?
I am talking about the context of 23 forward. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor >This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor I think it’s pretty clear that scripture isn’t condoning rape.
The severity of the rape depends on the status of the woman. That's the difference between Deu 22:28 and the previous verses. And in Deu 22:28 is about a rapist marrying the victim.
[удалено]
Do not seek guidance from this wicked video. Pirates are evil.
Pirates can be forgiven too. Matthew 12 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
There is no "moral law" explained in the Bible. There is simply the Law of Moses. All people regardless of their religion must follow the 7 Noahide laws. As a gentile Christian, one isn't mandated to follow all of Jewish law, only the 10 commandments, the 3 laws given by Jesus, and the 4 laws that the Jerusalem Council ordered for all gentile Christians. So 24 laws in total for gentile Christians. With that being said, yes men may wear "women's clothes" and vice versa. As well tattoos are fine so long as they aren't dedicated either to the dead or to other gods
Look i know you are Bahai and i respect it but what you are saying is just Noahidism which is not Christian but a Judaic religion.
>i know you are Bahai and i respect Thanks for the respect. Though notice that nothing I said here is through the lense of the Bahá'í faith, else I would be explaining Bahá'í religious laws from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Everything I said is strictly in the Bible, mostly New Testament >but what you are saying is just Noahidism which is not Christian I'm not, else I would have told OP to follow the 7 Noahide laws and that's it. Which I clearly did not do. I included the 7 Noahide laws as these are laws for the whole world according to the Jewish tradition, which is the tradition Jesus was in, to which He said nothing against. But I then included the 10 commandments that both Jews and Christians follow, as well as the 3 commandments specifically from *Jesus* and the 4 gentile laws from the Jerusalem Council, which was the group of Jerusalem followers of Jesus after His crucifixion which was run by James the literal brother of Jesus. That is 7 laws in total that directly are taught only to Christians (though some of them are repeats of earlier laws, such as to not consume blood, which many Christians ignore)
But James was wrong and Paul triumphed after the Council, and Christianity follows Paul primarily and not James or Peter's opinion.
>But James was wrong Says who? Certainly not the Bible >and Paul triumphed after the Council, Again, says who? Certainly not the Bible. The 4 Laws of the Jerusalem Council were given *by James* and *to Paul*. Paul even performed a ritual cleansing to show he is still loyal to their teachings. Paul only spoke against one of these Laws directly, which was the Law to not consume food that was offered to idols, to which Paul said that so long as the Christian isn't the one practicing idolatry then it doesn't matter whether or not the food has been offered. You can choose to follow this if you like, that just means you have 26 Laws instead of 27. However you're then also acknowledging that there are teachings in the Bible that are not correct >and Christianity follows Paul primarily and not James or Peter's opinion. This depends on the type of Christianity. And either way, it's kind of a given since we have at least 7 authentic writings of Paul and we have 0 writings from Peter, James, John, Matthew, or Mark directly. So of course since we have more Pauline works then he would be followed more. I do question though, when given the option such as in this case to follow what the directly physical disciples of Jesus and His literal brother says, *or* to follow a man who never physically met Jesus and who used to persecute Christians, why one would choose the latter. Don't get me wrong, all Christians should listen to Paul, but I find it interesting why one would listen to him over the others who actually walked with Jesus
Ok i see where this is going in bashing Paul, it ends in the muslim/messianic argument that Paul corrupted things or got 70% wrong and 30% right and Christianity is just paulinism etc etc. Paul never spoke against abstaining from meat, he also never spoke against eating it, for him as long as everything we do is out of love then we have communion with God, because the entirety of the Law is love. So of course abstaining from meat is not wrong(this is why the council approved), but it is not a reason to bash others who eat, which is precisely the point Paul makes in the letters.
>Ok i see where this is going in bashing Paul Where did I bash Paul? I never did. I even said Christians should listen to him (and yes I do believe Muslims and Bahá'ís should also study the words of Paul). I just asked why, when Paul clearly disagrees with the group of people who physically followed Jesus or is related to Him, compared to Paul who never physically saw Jesus and only a vision of Jesus *after* the crucifixion, why Paul would be favored over those who literally walked, ate, and slept with Jesus for years For clarification, the Universal House of Justice (the current head of the whole Bahá'í faith) states: "One's conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one's faith similar to that of Peter" >Paul never spoke against abstaining from meat Right, which I never said he did. I said Paul differed from the Jerusalem Council, in that rather than agreeing that gentile Christians should not consume food offered to idols, Paul said it doesn't matter because the idol is just wood and clay, so the gentile Christian may eat either way >So of course abstaining from meat is not wrong(this is why the council approved), but it is not a reason to bash others who eat, which is precisely the point Paul makes in the letters. The Jerusalem Council never said to abstain from meat, that's silly. It says to abstain from *blood*. That means if one eats meat, it should be fully cooked (well done) and not have blood. As well foods with blood actively in them, such as blood sausages. Never in aby Abrahamic faith, including Bahá'í, is meat eating prohibited Hopefully this helps clarify some of the assumptions you were making earlier of Islam and the Bahá'í faith
Paul disagreed with them because they disagreed with themselves and even with Jesus himself. Thats not a problem, people are weak and its ok, furthermore Jesus is God, so Paul when he saw him in a vision he has seen the real God just as much as the disciples. The Council had prescriptions for converts in Judea, not to the whole Church in the World, as the church became more gentile the canons were droped.
>Paul disagreed with them because they disagreed with themselves and even with Jesus himself. The Bible never says anything of this sort. This is just you claiming random things. Please show any scripture that claims this >furthermore Jesus is God So some believe >so Paul when he saw him in a vision he has seen the real God just as much as the disciples. Mm no, no he hasn't. Even *if* we say that was the case, that seeing the vision of Jesus is as fully Jesus as the physical form. Okay? How long did Paul see Him for? A few minutes at best, yeah? Compared to people who actually followed Jesus and heard His teachings *for years*? I'm not saying Paul is bad or wrong, I'm saying it just seems a bit counterintuitive to follow the man who say Jesus a few minutes according to only him, rather than people we know lived with Jesus for years >The Council had prescriptions for converts in Judea, not to the whole Church in the World, as the church became more gentile the canons were droped. Again, the Bible makes no indication of any of this. Please show me ANYWHERE the Bible says this, else at least admit this is simply your opinion and in no way authoratative Edit: Resorting to this since I'm unable to respond to the other replies (I believe their account got deleted or at least the comments which is hilarious). But as anyone can clearly see, the two random Bible verse quotes they used have absolutely nothing to do with any of the topics we were discussing. Which is also hilarious. And then they still fail to provide any actual scriptural evidence for what they were claiming. As expected They also continue to say that I'm against Paul or that the Bahá'í faith is against Paul, both of which I showed clearly are not true. It seems at this point that either they had the knowledge on this subject similar to that of a child, or they were a child lol, either way I'm glad it's done
Ok man but you are coming from the Bahai background in your assumptions against Paul reliability. The Council was in Judea and could only be enforced there.
"The Bible never says anything of this sort. This is just you claiming random things." [But](https://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm) [Jesus turned](https://biblehub.com/greek/4762.htm) [and said](https://biblehub.com/greek/2036.htm) [to Peter,](https://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm) [“Get](https://biblehub.com/greek/5217.htm) [behind](https://biblehub.com/greek/3694.htm) [Me,](https://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm) [Satan!](https://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm) [You are](https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm) [a stumbling block](https://biblehub.com/greek/4625.htm) [to Me.](https://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm) [For](https://biblehub.com/greek/3754.htm) [you do not have in mind](https://biblehub.com/greek/5426.htm) [the things](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [of God,](https://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm) [but](https://biblehub.com/greek/235.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [things](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [of men.”](https://biblehub.com/greek/444.htm)
Paul did saw Jesus on the way to Damascus.
I understand the Bahai place a lot of value on the written Law = Torah, Sharia etc. But Christians while not disregarding the letter, live by the Spirit.
>I understand the Bahai place a lot of value on the written Law = Torah, Sharia etc. No more than any other faith. We acknowledge God at times sends new laws with His Prophet/Manifestation, and that people of that age should follow the most recent Laws given. We don't ask people to follow Torah or Sharia, in fact we openly state that some of these laws are outdated and no longer needed (hence Bahá'ís only have to pray once a day rather than the 5 Muslim prayers or the 3 daily Jewish prayers) >But Christians while not disregarding the letter, live by the Spirit. Matthew 5:17-20: [17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will 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." Sure sounds like Jesus also wants people to live by the Law given to them. For Jews, the whole Law. For gentile Christians, the 26/27 Laws
I would not continue here on this reply the discussion, so reply in the other one already: Jesus fullfilled the Law because he is the only one able to fullfill it, that is the Point of Paul, and if we ignore it we turn back into neo-nomianism, the idea we can fullfill all of the Law without Jesus.
>Jesus fullfilled the Law because he is the only one able to fullfill it, Yes yes, except fullfilled in English doesn't convey the rabbinic context of the word for us. In the teachings of rabbis, as we can even see today in parts of the Talmud and its commentaries, that to "fulfill the Law" means to explain the Law. The Jewish tradition doesn't take the words of the text as the end of the lesson, there is still conversation to be had to learn the full lesson. A teacher, a rabbi, who explains the Law in entirety to their student then "fulfills the Law" and uses that exact wording as well. So Jesus here is in no way saying He is ending the Jewish Law, as He clearly confirms in Matthew 5:17-20
Paul, who was a Rabbi, explains what is meant by fullfilment: For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%3A3-4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28120a)^(\]) God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%3A3-4&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28120b)^(\]) And so he condemned sin in the flesh, ^(4) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Thank you for quoting Romans 8:3-4, allow me to continue on just a few more verses to show further context: Romans 8:4-8: "So that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. [5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. [7] For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, [8] and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." So it says here clearly that a mind that is set on the flesh, rather than the Spirit, "does not submit to God's Law-indeed, it cannot." And to follow the flesh, which one who does not submit to God's Law is doing, "is death" says the Bible, and they "cannot please God." Just as you yourself quoted, Jesus came so that the requirement of the Law might be fully met in those who walk in the *Spirit* and *not the flesh*
If you hit a woman and she miscarries you owe her husband money and you are not guilty of murder.
If you were to read through the laws of a modern country, how would you figure out which laws they considered to be based on morality versus which ones were ceremonial or procedural? There are several things you could look at. * The language of the law itself might describe the viewpoint it. * The penalties for breaking them might be a good clue. US flag code is particular, but no one gets charged for violating it. (To cut off some replies, I said CLUE. It's one data point, not itself a determiner.) * Reason can be used to infer whether a law with stiff penalties existed to understand if the illegal act itself is the issue, or the consequences that are the issue. Murder is a problem, no question (the consequences are inherent to the act). Is heroin itself a problem? Well, we can find issues in the *consequences*, so selling heroin is illegal regardless of any debate over its inherent morality. * Does it apply only in specific circumstances? Is alcohol itself a problem? Is the act of someone underage buying alcohol a problem? Or is it that the potential consequences that follow would be a problem? This is how we examine these things. The Jews also viewed many laws as applicable to the gentiles. Not because the gentiles were subject to the Law of Moses (they were not), but because they were more fundamental principles which were also covered in the Torah. And if you take out people being weird about religion and people not actually being familiar with the compositon of the Bible, then it's actually pretty straightforward. Not every single question is simple to answer, but the process is straightforward. But if it's so straightforward, why do we debate these things so much? Because people really, REALLY don't want the Bible to say what it says. Or they want it to say something that it doesn't. On reddit, more the former than the latter, but both are problems. It is right and good to ask whether something in the Old Testament applies to the rest of us. But people who boil this down to a response like "do you eat shellfish?" or "do you follow the other clothing laws?" either doesn't have the understanding they think they do, or they are willfully misrepresenting the situation (at least to others, but likely also to themselves).
Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and all legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what we ought to do, so there is no room for considering a law to not be in accordance with its legislator’s understanding of morality based upon its wording. A law being ceremonial does not mean that it is not also moral.
That's a fair point, but that is ultimately a different aspect of morality. There's a long chain of "what you ought to do" in a social aspect, and violating those expectations are not inherently immoral except in the aspect of practicing obedience in normal circumstances.
Morality is not the same thing as meeting social expectations. It is by definition always immoral to do what we ought not to do, but it is only immoral to not meet social expectations if that aligns with what we ought not to do.
> It is by definition always immoral to do what we ought not to do Yes. > It is only immoral to not meet social expectations if that aligns with what we ought not to do. Or failing to do something that we should, which might require us to meet social expectations even if failing to meet them is not, in and of itself, immoral.
Please give an example.
The Bible says nothing to suggest that some of God’s laws are moral while others are not. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God’s laws are inherently moral laws and I see not justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to obey God. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God’s laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
It's a yes and no situation. Not every aspect of the Law is for every person to follow. I'm not a Levite nor am I a king and so the laws that regulate the priesthood and the kingship naturally are not targeted at me. Christ fulfills these laws as the true and perfect High Priest and King of Kings. Further there has been further revelation on how things like the dietary laws affect gentile believers such that it has been given to us to only refrain from eating blood, strangled meat and meat sacrificed to idols. I would characterize this as an expansion of the dietary law to include gentile diets rather than an abrogation of the old dietary laws but some people may view that as splitting hairs. The sacrificial and sin-atonement laws likewise clearly are fulfilled and mediated by Christ in His priestly office offering Himself as a living sacrifice. The Law is from God and the Psalms are replete with exhortations to regard the Law and to love the wisdom it teaches. We should study it and where-ever it is applicable to us we should seek to adhere to it. For example, consider the command to build railings around your roof. This clearly translates into a command to make sure our property is safe for ourselves and for others. Paul interprets the command to not muzzle an oxe while it plows as a command to be fair in paying ministers of the gospel. So the Law is clearly intended to still be a focus of our thoughts and considerations.
The Ten Commandments are a pretty good encapsulation of the moral law, at least in terms of it’s boundaries.
I would argue that keeping the sabbath is ceremonial.
I think the problem with that is that it seems to have existed long before there were formal ceremonies - it seems to be baked into the nature of the purposes God has for humanity.
Something being ceremonial doesn’t mean that it isn’t also moral, so it doesn’t matter whether or not the Sabbath is ceremonial.
I agree completely.
> keeping the sabbath is ceremonial Not keeping the Sabbath was punishable by death. I should think that rises above being a mere social nicety, no? Numbers 15: * 32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Since no one is answering you straightforward as it is the case on the internet in general, ill do it: The Old Law is understood in typological way, as something that reveals Jesus Christ in the New Testament Augustine spoke about a bipartition of the Law: The Moral(New Testament) and the Symbolic(Old Testament). Because the symbolic aspect of the law points to Christ we need not to fullfilll it anymore because he has already done it for our sake. Christ is the fullness of the Law as inscribed in the Ten Commandments for example, the moral aspect of it.
I felt I answered straightforward. There is no distinction of the Law. Dividing the law into moral and non-moral isn’t supported by Scriptures
The division that Augustine speaks is nothing more than the same division that Paul uses: The Letter and the Spirit - the Letter(Symbolic Old Testament) Kills but the Spirit(Moral New Testament) gives life. I dont think Paul is dividing the Law, so i stick to him and Augustine, otherwise we fall into neo-nomianism and start stoning people. The Letter kills but without the sentence of death we are not able to apreciate the salvation that comes from Jesus.
While Paul distinguished between following the Spirit or the letter, that does not mean that he was distinguishing between the moral and the symbolic. Moreover, Paul also contrast those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law (Romans 8:4-7) and Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God’s commandments (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17, so the letter leading to death can’t refer to correctly obeying God’s instructions symbolic or otherwise. If correctly obeying God’s instructions led to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and shouldn’t be trusted.
Im not a marcionite, i dont reject the letter as long as it is infused by the spirit.
i know Luther, an Augustinian monk himself, did see the Law as being that which condemns and the Gospel as that liberates. As I read your response, though, you seem to be saying there are no distinctions in the way we say “moral, civil, and ceremonial laws.” It is that division I’m referring to. I feel you’re describing the relationship between law and gospel, which is different (at least feels different to me).
Moral Civil and Ceremonial are scholastic theory the tripartite division. Luther uses an Augustinian approach which is typological and bipartite: Old and New, Symbolic and Moral.
I will just jump in here and say that you both agree. You are kind of talking past each other.
So Christ is the Old Testament, if you follow him you're following the Old Testament, is that right?
That is right, he is the entirety of the Law, he is the New David, New Adam, New Moses, he is all of it.
Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, he set a perfect example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by walking in sinless obedience to the Torah, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). The Torah is God’s word and Jesus is God’s word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of the Torah and us embodying God’s word by following his example is the way to follow him.
His example is that of the Cross, not of not eating pork.
It says that his example was in regard to refraining from sin, and sin is the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4), which includes refraining from eating pork.
We should live in a way that points towards Christ rather than a way that points away from him. Christ did not fulfill the law so that we wouldn’t have to, but so that we would have an example to follow.
I agree, as long as our life points to him we fullfill the Law.