This has probably been discussed ad nauseum, but I think it's always worth restating, since there are always new visitors to these forums. This is from another forum on the subject: Are the 10 Commandments still binding? My answer: It depends on how you look at it. Read on, if you're interested....
The Law was a temporary agreement, to hold Israel in good relations with God until Christ could come and ratify the final agreement. The Law was like a Purchasing Agreement on a house, and the New Testament is the closing documents. One was temporary and designed to lead to the latter.
In the example of a home purchase you will recognize that the Purchasing Agreement includes a lot of relevant data that will remain good in the closing agreement. The price, the time of sale, the means of sale--all of that will prepare and be part of the closing documents.
It is the same with the Law. The moral requirements will remain true in the New Covenant. But there is no doubt that there must be a separation between the Purchasing Agreement and the Closing documents. One has conditions, and the other is final.
Same with the Law. The Law was tentative and had conditions. If Israel failed to keep their part of the agreement under the Law, that agreement would fail. Still, it could lead to the final agreement, even if it came to apply only to the faithful parties, and not to those who had been unfaithful.
The reason for these distinctions is to keep the agreements separate--one is tentative and conditional, and the other is final and unconditional. The New Covenant requires something that can never be undone--a person chooses Christ as their Way, Truth, and Life. The old, independent life is abandoned, even if it doesn't result in perfection. It obtains Eternal Life.
The Law did no such thing. Israel was to abandon their own selfishness for following their one God alone. But under that agreement all Israel were included, and many would not succeed. Not only so, but the agreement was based on elements that were never meant to be part of the final agreement. Animal sacrifices, the priesthood, and temple worship were never intended to be part of the final agreement, but only preparatory leading to a better model of temple, priest, and sacrifice through Christ.
So the temporary laws had to go out with the preparatory plan. The animal sacrifices, the temple worship, and the priesthood had to change, along with many laws that no longer pertain to morality and spirituality that are elements eternal in our relationship with God.
So yes, morality remains a constant, since God created Man *in His image.* That doesn't change. And much of the 10 Commandments does not change, although Sabbath Law is part of the old agreement. So we can learn from the Law, but we are absolutely *not under that agreement!* That is the main point.
I have to respond to this pretty regularly because it is so easy to mis-state or to misunderstand. We are not under the Law period--not even the 10 Commandments part of the Law. It is all a contract, complete with all sections or subsections. The 10 Commandments aree but a subset of the entire Law, and *all* of it has been set aside and abandoned.
The Law was a temporary agreement, to hold Israel in good relations with God until Christ could come and ratify the final agreement. The Law was like a Purchasing Agreement on a house, and the New Testament is the closing documents. One was temporary and designed to lead to the latter.
In the example of a home purchase you will recognize that the Purchasing Agreement includes a lot of relevant data that will remain good in the closing agreement. The price, the time of sale, the means of sale--all of that will prepare and be part of the closing documents.
It is the same with the Law. The moral requirements will remain true in the New Covenant. But there is no doubt that there must be a separation between the Purchasing Agreement and the Closing documents. One has conditions, and the other is final.
Same with the Law. The Law was tentative and had conditions. If Israel failed to keep their part of the agreement under the Law, that agreement would fail. Still, it could lead to the final agreement, even if it came to apply only to the faithful parties, and not to those who had been unfaithful.
The reason for these distinctions is to keep the agreements separate--one is tentative and conditional, and the other is final and unconditional. The New Covenant requires something that can never be undone--a person chooses Christ as their Way, Truth, and Life. The old, independent life is abandoned, even if it doesn't result in perfection. It obtains Eternal Life.
The Law did no such thing. Israel was to abandon their own selfishness for following their one God alone. But under that agreement all Israel were included, and many would not succeed. Not only so, but the agreement was based on elements that were never meant to be part of the final agreement. Animal sacrifices, the priesthood, and temple worship were never intended to be part of the final agreement, but only preparatory leading to a better model of temple, priest, and sacrifice through Christ.
So the temporary laws had to go out with the preparatory plan. The animal sacrifices, the temple worship, and the priesthood had to change, along with many laws that no longer pertain to morality and spirituality that are elements eternal in our relationship with God.
So yes, morality remains a constant, since God created Man *in His image.* That doesn't change. And much of the 10 Commandments does not change, although Sabbath Law is part of the old agreement. So we can learn from the Law, but we are absolutely *not under that agreement!* That is the main point.
