Large parts of the evangelical churches consider God’s laws to be obsolete. These were abolished by Jesus Christ and the acceptance of His love is now enough. The Roman Catholic Church sees this in a similar way, but adds its claim to the priesthood here.
Inhalt / Content
The law “may” no longer apply
The law of God seems to be a real problem. Not in the wording, but certainly in the understanding of its validity or invalidity. Probably the largest part of the evangelical world is of the opinion that the 10 commandments of God are no longer valid because they belonged to the “Old Covenant” and this was replaced by Jesus Christ on the basis of the “New Covenant”. Jesus Christ thus “automatically” replaced the 10 Commandments. In addition, Jesus Christ also “explicitly” fulfilled the commandments according to Matthew 5:17:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
This verse is interpreted to mean that although Jesus Christ does not want to abolish or abolish the commandments, he does bring them to a conclusion by fulfilling them. “Completed, case closed”. This verse 17 is regularly quoted and just as regularly the immediately next verse is no longer quoted, i.e. Matthew 5:18:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Do heaven and earth still exist? Yes! Has everything already happened? No! This throws the regularly incorrect interpretation of “commandments that have been fulfilled and therefore obsolete” overboard. Verse 18 clearly states that the commandments will remain valid as long as this world (heaven and earth) still exists. There’s nothing to shake it up.
Laws still apply!
The Bible points out in many places that the laws in the New Testament are not only valid, but were also emphasized as such.
Some examples of God’s laws that are still valid – here
Bible verses about valid laws of God – here
The “Love Commandment” of Jesus Christ does not abolish the 10 Commandments – here
The reason why the laws are still in effect is logical – here
The “Legalism”
There are only very few religious groups that have recognized the absolute validity of God’s laws even today and officially teach this. This includes, for example, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But where the validity of God’s laws is proclaimed, the club is no longer far away. This is “legal,” according to a supposed manslaughter argument. This club is thrown around in a circle in a completely undifferentiated manner. Where reference is made to binding laws, it does not mean that one can achieve one’s own justice by abiding by the laws. Even if the laws are valid, people are still dependent on Jesus Christ’s grace “for better or for worse.”
A simple “earthly” example
An example: someone commits a theft. That’s against the law. Because without the law against theft, this crime would not be punishable at all. “for where no law is, there is no transgression”, said Paul in Romans 4:15. So some law says that stealing is forbidden and whoever does it must suffer the punishment provided for it. In this example, the perpetrator is also caught and brought to court. The judge says that a penalty of 10 daily rates of 30 euros each is actually due. But the judge shows mercy and releases the perpetrator. So the thief escaped his deserved punishment because of the judge’s mercy. Does this automatically mean that the thief now has a free hand and can steal whatever he wants in the future? No! The law still applies and the thief has been pardoned for his previous crime. This did not mean that the law was repealed, nor did the thief receive a free pass for future robberies without consequences. If he continues to steal, there will be consequences.
A sin can only be defined based on a law. All judgment will be given to Jesus Christ. He is therefore the judge. In contrast to an “earthly judge,” Jesus Christ earned the right to exercise mercy as a judge with His own blood and sacrifice. Even this could not be accomplished by an earthly judge, since he is neither the creator of the thief nor responsible for the wrongdoer. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is the creator of man and Jesus Christ, as the “responsible person for His creation,” took upon himself the punishment that would actually have been applied to the perpetrator (sinner). Just as the judge pardoned the thief and called on him to lead a more honest life in the future, Jesus Christ also called on the woman caught in adultery to do so, as in John 8:11:
“She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Sin is breaking the law – omission!
It is obvious. The laws of God are valid.
The narratives of “abolished laws” create a dangerous problem. People are mostly told correctly by the Protestant churches that God loves all of His creatures, but here salvation is already won if one simply accepts this love. Just baptize once and you’ll be accepted into the “Heaven’s Club”.
God essentially said, “I welcome all sinners, no matter who you are,” but nowhere did he say, “No matter, stay as you are.” Just as Jesus Christ said, “sin no more,” the judge said to the thief, “stop it.”.
Would anyone here think of accusing the earthly judge of “legalism”?
The Catholic view of the laws
The Roman Catholic Church also has “its view” of God’s commandments. Auxiliary Bishop Schwaderlapp gave a short explanation for this in the “Die Tagespost” magzine.
“Jesus did away with the law,” said the bishop. He didn’t want to change one iota, but at the same time he fulfilled the “laws in a unique way.”
According to Schwaderlapp, Jesus did not abolish the law given to Moses by God, but rather completed it. This sounds similar to the version in many areas of the evangelical churches. “He is the divine lawgiver who fully fulfills this law,” said the bishop. With his atoning death, the “faithful servant of God” offered the only sacrifice “that can redeem all the transgressions committed in the first covenant.”
At this point you have to put a “big question mark”. One can now speculate that the “first covenant” means the “old covenant with Moses”. The next unclear passage is the claim that only all are saved “in the first covenant.” Then what about the people in the “second or next covenant”?
The reason for this interpretation is actually clear. The Roman Catholic Church claims the priesthood actually held by Jesus Christ. Likewise, the Church of Rome claims to be able to forgive sins or leave them alone. God even has to submit to the decisions of the priests. In plain language: God is subject to the priests (blasphemy, more examples).
Jesus died only for “old covenant”
Furthermore, according to the bishop in the “Old Covenant,” the law was a “sign of wisdom.” Jesus also observed this law, but he was also “the fulfillment of many of the cultic commandments of Judaism at the time.” These laws only wanted to “remind you what it’s all about. Namely, opening your heart to the Lord.” But Jesus fulfilled all of these commandments, which were supposed to point to God, says Schwaderlapp.
It’s amazing how it is possible to pack so many distortions and false statements into so few sentences.
There was no “Judaism” in Moses’ time. It was about the people of Israel and only with the emergence of the land of Judah can one actually speak of “Judaism”. The ceremonial laws described by the bishop were certainly repealed by Jesus Christ. But the entire package of these ceremonies did not point to God (the Father), but rather to Jesus Christ and His sacrifice himself. Because Jesus Christ gave His blood and His life, the ceremonial laws became superfluous, since these were the redemptive work of Jesus described in advance.
Jesus Christ fulfilled this and therefore sacrifices were no longer necessary. Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not give His life for the people in the “old covenant”, but for all (!) people. But of course the Roman Catholic Church cannot accept this and it expresses this thousands of times every day through its “Holy Mass”. (more Info).
But as blatantly wrong as the Catholic view of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is, its obvious untruth is just as easy to refute,2. Corinthians 5:14-15:
For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Bible verses from King James Version
