This important question gets to the heart of the relationship between law and covenant. Many Christians dislike (what they consider to be) the "harshness" and detailed nature of YHWH's judicial law revealed to Moses. These Christians adopt a theological position which essentially conflates the concepts of law and covenant. They will assert either:

1. that the concepts "law" and "covenant" are identical, or
2. that they are ontologically inseparable

By adopting this conceptual conflation, these Christians believe they have an argument that denies the binding nature of YHWH's judicial laws in the New Covenant. They reason: if all of these laws were covenantally-bound, then -- unless the laws/penalties were explicitly restated in the New Covenant -- they have been abolished along with the defunct Sinai Covenant.

However, this argument based upon conflation fails, because it leads to a contradiction with Jesus' own words. Here's why.

Quick answer: Jesus, by the word "fulfill," meant that he would confirm and complete the prophetic and typological parts of the Law and Prophets. Therefore, (as most Christians will admit) some jots and tittles of the law have passed away -- but by no means all of the law. Jesus came neither to abolish the law, nor to preserve every jot of it unchanged until the end of time.

Most Christians are familiar with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. But they often do not realize the importance of Jesus' introductory words:

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven..." (Matt. 5:17-19)

Recently, I heard a Christian friend say (something like): "People were allowed to avenge the deaths of their relatives under Biblical law." Is this statement true, or is it an example of Christian ignorance of Biblical law?

A related statement that I have often heard Christians make is something like the following:

Here is a list of questions which I recommend you print out and ask the leadership of any church with which you come into contact. Each of these questions will help you understand the worldview of that church. Any church which refuses to answer any of these questions should be considered a poor ambassador for Christ.

• Do you excommunicate in accordance with Matt.18 and 1 Cor. 6? If so, when was the last time you did so, and for what reason?
• What is your definition of Christian marriage? Where do you get this from scripture?
• Do you believe that civil government should license marriage (i.e. require permission from the civil government before establishing a legal marriage)? If so, can you justify this from scripture? If so, who licensed the marriage of Joseph and Mary?
• When a husband and wife disagree on a decision, where neither course of action is a sin, who has the final authority in deciding what the family will do? The husband, the wife, or neither one? Can you justify your answer from scripture?
• What are the legitimate reasons for divorce, according to scripture?
• What does the scripture say is the just penalty for murder, if it is proven in court by at least two witnesses?
• What does the scripture say is the just penalty for adultery, if it is proven in court by at least two witnesses?
• When is the last time your church taught about just civil government penalties? Can I find a link to that sermon on your website?
• What do you think Jesus meant by Matt.5:17-19?
• Do you believe that a church choosing to go into debt sets a good example for the people who attend that church? Is your church in debt?

Cain and Abel (Vergara)

Almost every culture believes that murder is wrong. But modern civil governments have different laws specifying what to do when an act of murder is proven. How do these compare with Biblical law?

I'll start with a definition:

Murder is "the intentional, unlawful killing of an innocent human being."

Notice that this definition of murder uses the word "unlawful". This means that there are "lawful" types of intentional killing. Biblical law allows, for example, killing in self-defense and defense of others (Exod.22:2, Num. 35:11, Neh. 4:13-14). It also allows for killing in war (Deut. 23:9), which is (ethically) the same as self-defense/defense of others (as long as the war in question is actually a defensive war -- many wars are not). According to Biblical law, these types of intentional killing are not "unlawful," therefore they cannot be labeled "murder," and they cannot be punished (justly) by civil government.

I once heard a sermon in which the speaker made the statement:

"The Ten Commandments are irrelevant."

How did he come to this conclusion?

He was preaching from 2 Cor. 3, the chapter where Paul talks about how the New Covenant has a "greater glory" than the Mosaic Covenant (2 Cor. 3:10). Paul also says that the Mosaic Covenant is "being abolished" (Greek: καταργούμενον, 2 Cor. 3:11). Unfortunately, the sermon speaker had read Paul's words from verse 7 -- where he talks about "the ministration of death engraved on stones" -- and made the following "logical" connection:

1. The "ministration of death engraved on stones" is the Ten Commandments. (A = B)

2. The "ministration of death engraved on stones" is the Mosaic Covenant. (A = C)

3. The Mosaic covenant was "being abolished" in Paul's time (presumably because Paul was writing prior to the destruction of the Second temple in A.D. 70), and it is now gone. (C is now abolished)

4. Therefore, the Ten Commandments are irrelevant. (B is now abolished and irrelevant)