Fulfilling the Law

[Hope]

Over recent weeks and months the idea that Jesus came to fulfill the law, rather than to abolish it (Matt 5:17) has been mentioned quite often.  Quite understandably, some here have asked what that phrase means.

We recently had a sermon on this very passage at church which can be listened to at http://www.tabspenarth.org.uk/series/the-beatitudes.  It is the 4th sermon down, July 5th.

However, I will try to precis it here, as well as adding a few thoughts that I've gleaned though some research I've been doing.

Firstly, we need to decide what 'the law' is.  In the context of the passage in Matthew, it is the Old Testament/Hebrew Law that was given to the people of Israel over a period of time starting with the 10 Commandments.  Notice at which point it was given - it wasn't at the point that they started out as a tribal group; it occurred at a point when they had begun to grumble about the hardships that they faced in the early days of their travels through the Wilderness of Shur (Exodus 15:22 onwards).  In other words, law is there to control human failings and failings of social cohesion.  In a perfect society, law would not be required.

The apparently vicious creed of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth is often quoted in this context, suggesting that it simply highlights the barbarity of those people who applied it.  I would ask, don't we, in 21st Century Britain seek to do the same thing - make the punishment fit the crime?  An eye for an eye, tooth for tooth was all about ensuring that retaliation/punishment is limited and proportionate. 

Is all law good law?  No.  History is peppered with unjust laws which oppressed and marginalised the poor and vulnerable, whilst improving the lot of the already-powerful.  Equally, history is peppered with laws which address(ed) social mores that were, in reality, totally unacceptable even at the time, but occurred because of tradition.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is talking about a very different level of living to that which existed then and still exists today; a level of living where we live rightly (righteously, in Bible- speak) not because we are compelled to do so by law but because we want to - thus dispensing with the need for law.

In other words, 'fullfilling the Law' doesn't involve making the law obsolete, but making it unnecessary.  'Obsolete' implies that it has been superseded by something of the same order, and Jesus taught that God simply isn't interested in ever-escalating levels of law.

The preacher referenced one of his favourite fictional characters towards the end of the sermon.  Jack Ryan, the main character in many of Tom Clancy's novels, has a saying - "If you have to write down your code of ethics, you've already lost".   

[floo]

In my opinion the gospel writers created their Jesus to fit in with the so called prophesies in the OT. I suspect the real Jesus was nothing like the NT versions!

[Leonard James]

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is talking about a very different level of living to that which existed then and still exists today; a level of living where we live rightly (righteously, in Bible- speak) not because we are compelled to do so by law but because we want to - thus dispensing with the need for law.

Unfortunately, Jesus (and everybody else) knew nothing about evolution and genetics. Had he done so he would have realised that it is impossible to get people to WANT to live righteously if they are genetically inclined to do otherwise. They must be OBLIGED to do it, and if they don't we have to control and punish them.

[Hope]

Floo, could it be that they recognised Jesus' actions and teahings in those prophecies and therefore decided that he was fullfilling them?

[Hope]

Unfortunately, Jesus (and everybody else) knew nothing about evolution and genetics. Had he done so he would have realised that it is impossible to get people to WANT to live righteously if they are genetically inclined to do otherwise. They must be OBLIGED to do it, and if they don't we have to control and punish them.

But I didn't think science (and hence evolution and genetics) had anything to do with morality or the concepts of right and wrong, Len?  So, many of your colleagues on this board seem to say.

If you are insistent that they do, can't evolution and genetics lead us to a point where we do want to live righteously, and could this actually be a return to an earlier way of behaving?  Do evolution and genetics necessarily have to be a linear progression: couldn't conditions result in earlier versions come back into play, as external conditions change, perhaps for the worse?

[Leonard James]

Unfortunately, Jesus (and everybody else) knew nothing about evolution and genetics. Had he done so he would have realised that it is impossible to get people to WANT to live righteously if they are genetically inclined to do otherwise. They must be OBLIGED to do it, and if they don't we have to control and punish them.

But I didn't think science (and hence evolution and genetics) had anything to do with morality or the concepts of right and wrong, Len?  So, many of your colleagues on this board seem to say.

If you are insistent that they do, can't evolution and genetics lead us to a point where we do want to live righteously, and could this actually be a return to an earlier way of behaving?  Do evolution and genetics necessarily have to be a linear progression: couldn't conditions result in earlier versions come back into play, as external conditions change, perhaps for the worse?

For me, Hope, morality is just a human concept sourced in our evolutionary history.

Being an optimist, I'm sure it will continue to improve, although we must not underestimate the power of the "haves".

[Hope]

For me, Hope, morality is just a human concept sourced in our evolutionary history.

Yes, I heard that before, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case?

[Leonard James]

For me, Hope, morality is just a human concept sourced in our evolutionary history.

Yes, I heard that before, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case?

I don't know, but it is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[Hope]

For me, Hope, morality is just a human concept sourced in our evolutionary history.

Yes, I heard that before, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case?

I don't know, but it is the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Whereas it doesn't make sense to me.

[Outrider]

Unfortunately, Jesus (and everybody else) knew nothing about evolution and genetics. Had he done so he would have realised that it is impossible to get people to WANT to live righteously if they are genetically inclined to do otherwise. They must be OBLIGED to do it, and if they don't we have to control and punish them.

But I didn't think science (and hence evolution and genetics) had anything to do with morality or the concepts of right and wrong, Len?  So, many of your colleagues on this board seem to say.

If you are insistent that they do, can't evolution and genetics lead us to a point where we do want to live righteously, and could this actually be a return to an earlier way of behaving?  Do evolution and genetics necessarily have to be a linear progression: couldn't conditions result in earlier versions come back into play, as external conditions change, perhaps for the worse?

Perhaps I might strike a middle ground, here: morality itself (as in particular moral tenets or requirements) is not a field of scientific enquiry, though the outcomes of them might be (does declaring gay marriage to be sinful and therefore prohibited improve or impair the overall quality of life of a populace).

The origins of morality might be - are we moral because we have inherited a developed trait towards a social conscience as it improves the survivability of a 'tribe'? That's a scientific question - I'm not sure it has an answer, as yet, but it's a scientific question.

O.

[Leonard James]

The origins of morality might be - are we moral because we have inherited a developed trait towards a social conscience as it improves the survivability of a 'tribe'? That's a scientific question - I'm not sure it has an answer, as yet, but it's a scientific question.

O.

That is what I have believed all along, and homosexuality would be detrimental in a tribe of limited numbers. But nowadays, with over-population, the opposite is the case, so there is no reason to maintain the prejudice against it.

[Outrider]

The origins of morality might be - are we moral because we have inherited a developed trait towards a social conscience as it improves the survivability of a 'tribe'? That's a scientific question - I'm not sure it has an answer, as yet, but it's a scientific question.

O.

That is what I have believed all along, and homosexuality would be detrimental in a tribe of limited numbers. But nowadays, with over-population, the opposite is the case, so there is no reason to maintain the prejudice against it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Homosexuality in a tribe would supply combat-capable males and surrogate-mother females to cover losses from disease, predation etc.

That sort of redundancy comes at a cost, but aids the tribe's survivability - you'd have to run simulations to see if the cost/benefit analysis breaks even.


O.

[floo]

The origins of morality might be - are we moral because we have inherited a developed trait towards a social conscience as it improves the survivability of a 'tribe'? That's a scientific question - I'm not sure it has an answer, as yet, but it's a scientific question.

O.

That is what I have believed all along, and homosexuality would be detrimental in a tribe of limited numbers. But nowadays, with over-population, the opposite is the case, so there is no reason to maintain the prejudice against it.

The world's population is growing out of proportion to the planet's ability to feed it adequately, therefore those who don't wish to procreate, whether they be gay or straight, should not be stigmatised! My youngest sister never wanted kids of her own, fortunately her husband was of the same mind. However, she got constant earache from my mother about starting a family, even though her other daughters had produced nine grandchildren between them.

[Hope]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Homosexuality in a tribe would supply combat-capable males and surrogate-mother females to cover losses from disease, predation etc.

Oddly enough, homosexuality didn't generally result in this kind of outcome; in many places polyandry occurred with a woman often marrying brothers and becoming the centre of the family.

[Hope]

The world's population is growing out of proportion to the planet's ability to feed it adequately, therefore those who don't wish to procreate, whether they be gay or straight, should not be stigmatised!

Floo, your initial prognosis is incorrect, thus invalidating your argument.  It isn't that the world's agricultural system can't produce enough to feed the world's populace; the problem is actually to do with the imbalance of demand.  We, in the West, 'require' a far greater proportion per head of the supply, only to waste huge amounts of what we 'require'.

[Shaker]

For me, Hope, morality is just a human concept sourced in our evolutionary history.

Yes, I heard that before, but is there actually any evidence that this is the case?

Yes.

[ekim]

The world's population is growing out of proportion to the planet's ability to feed it adequately, therefore those who don't wish to procreate, whether they be gay or straight, should not be stigmatised!

Floo, your initial prognosis is incorrect, thus invalidating your argument.  It isn't that the world's agricultural system can't produce enough to feed the world's populace; the problem is actually to do with the imbalance of demand.  We, in the West, 'require' a far greater proportion per head of the supply, only to waste huge amounts of what we 'require'.

You will have to add China, Japan, India, Viet Nam, Philippines, Pakistan from the East to the mix now.  I believe it has been estimated that we need the bio capacity of one and a half earths to cope with the current population.

[floo]

The world's population is growing out of proportion to the planet's ability to feed it adequately, therefore those who don't wish to procreate, whether they be gay or straight, should not be stigmatised!

Floo, your initial prognosis is incorrect, thus invalidating your argument.  It isn't that the world's agricultural system can't produce enough to feed the world's populace; the problem is actually to do with the imbalance of demand.  We, in the West, 'require' a far greater proportion per head of the supply, only to waste huge amounts of what we 'require'.

With global warming causing climate change less land will be available for food production so I have heard. Therefore it is sensible not to overpopulate the planet so starvation will be even more widespread.

Bringing a child into this world should be well thought out, and potential parents should think long and hard about it first.

[Hope]

With global warming causing climate change less land will be available for food production so I have heard. Therefore it is sensible not to overpopulate the planet so starvation will be even more widespread.

Bringing a child into this world should be well thought out, and potential parents should think long and hard about it first.

All these points are perfectly valid, but the UN and its various bodies that deal with these issues point out that the amount of food currently produced is perfectly adequate for the current global population.  It is the distribution of said food supply that is imbalanced.

http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/page/3562.aspx

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/16/world-food-day-10-myths-hunger