Yeah, this is the closest idea to the theology I was taught, I think. The book of Hebrews really focuses on this idea. This is where the terms New and Old Testament come from β referring to the Old Covenant (Moses) and the New Covenant (Jesus Christ). Hebrews and the letters of Paul are the main source of Christian supersessionist theology.
Disclaimer, I'm just explaining what I was taught β a type of conservative Evangelical theology, though there are large theological variations even within that subsection of Christianity. Not trying to persuade anyone to believe or disbelieve anything and I myself don't hold these beliefs anymore. My only purpose is informational in response to @starlight-shadowbanned 's question. I also realise a lot of this could cause offense and/or be triggering and I'll try and tag appropriately so people can filter it out. Please lmk if there's something I should add! And sorry I know I spent so long working on this people have got there before me with some of these doctrines lol π
*Baymax voice* I am not fast.
So there's a concept I was taught called "progressive revelation". This covers other things as well, but here the basic idea is that a large part of the law given to Moses in the Torah was only intended to be time-limited. It was only valid until Jesus came, and was only intended for the ancient Israelites to follow. (Not *all* the law though β I'll explain.)
A lot of people often ask "why do anti-LGBTQ Christians think being gay is a sin, and not eating shellfish? Since they're both in Leviticus, and that doesn't count anymore bc Jesus." I realise this is antisemitic because it implies that the Torah is obsolete, but it also annoys the evangelical Christians I was brought up with, because it's a misunderstanding of their theology.
They divide the laws in the Torah into three categories.
Moral Law (things that are considered an objective moral standard for all peoples for all time, such as the Ten Commandments and prohibitions against murder, rape, and [according to many] sex between two men, etc)
Ceremonial Law (religious rites like animal sacrifices, theJewish holidays established in the Torah, ritual washing, etc)
Civil Law (laws, for example, like the one commanding guardrails to be built on rooftops. While they think that had a good purpose and the principle behind it still applies, they believe that specific law was part of Ancient Israel's civil code and doesn't necessarily have to be followed by everyone everywhere. Also, any specific punishment prescribed for breaking any law, in any category, is believed to be part of the civil code and only applicable to that specific society and time period.)
An obvious question this raises is: how do they know for sure what fits into which category, since this distinction is not made in the Torah itself? Answer is basically, you don't always π Mainly, you go by what stuff is also forbidden or commanded in the New Testament. For example, the NT says murder is wrong loads of times, so that one is "moral law" and therefore timeless. What's usually more complicated is to make a distinction between "ceremonial" and "civil" β but this isn't really necessary anyway for Evangelical purposes. All you have to know is what's the "moral law", because that's the only one that everyone still has to follow.
Two things off the top of my head that are controversial in evangelical circles:
Does Sunday replace Saturday as a day of rest? I.e. should Christians not work on a Sunday? Most believe no β Shabbat is part of the ceremonial or civil law, and the Christian Sunday is not a direct replacement. But I was brought up believing that since the Fourth Commandment is part of the moral law, this means that Christians should rest and not work at all on Sunday. This is considered quite old-fashioned even in my conservative Evangelical circles β similar to how Christians a century ago believed it was "wordly" to play cards or go to the cinema, but this has mainly fallen out of fashion. (This whole Sunday controversy was a part of what started me deconstructing but that's a tangent)
Is the prohibition against two men sleeping together part of the moral law, or ceremonial/civil and therefore specific to the culture of the time? Conservative Evangelicals generally believe that, since there are similar prohibitions in the NT, this is part of the moral law and therefore still valid. (That said, as mentioned before, they generally do not believe the death penalty is moral but civil, so it's considered only applicable to Ancient Israel)
The purpose of the Law (civil, ceremonial, and moral), according to this framework, is to convict people of sin and show them their need of a saviour (Jesus). The animal sacrifices prescribed in the Torah are supposed to directly foreshadow Jesus "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1.29). Because of original sin, humans are inherently incapable of obeying God's law, and need to be "born again". Someone mentioned in the comments that Evangelicals believe the Law is meant to be impossible, which is what I was taught also. Basically, the Moral Law is supposed to be followed and still should be now (because it's timeless) but we can't do it without Jesus' help because we're sinners. If we believe in him, he not only forgives our past sin, but gradually make us more like him and therefore we're more able to obey God. Whereas, the Ceremonial and Civil were supposed to be mainly ritual and symbolic (according to this theology). They foreshadow Jesus's sacrifice for sins on the cross, and they also symbolise how God's standards are so pure and high that no one can meet them β again, in order to convict people of sin [Christian jargon for making people realise they're sinners, in the "original sin" sense]. Jesus is the only human being who ever lived to have been perfect and therefore capable of fulfilling the Law (moral, civil and ceremonial) perfectly.
There's a doctrine called "imputed righteousness" which means that not only does Jesus take the punishment for sin (and Christians don't have to) but he also lived a perfectly righteous life, keeping all the law, and this righteousness is "imputed" (credited) to Christians as if it were them who had perfectly kept the law. So basically, he gets our sins, and we get his perfect life. 2 Corinthians 5.21 is often cited in this context because it sums up the concept neatly β but it's mainly the book of Romans that really goes deep into this theology of redemption.
So Jesus is believed to have not only followed the moral law perfectly (not doing anything that God actually considers "objectively wrong for all time) but he is believed to have perfectly followed the ceremonial and civil law in the Torah β observing all the holidays, Shabbat, being circumcised, etc. Since Jesus has come, and been sacrificed "once for all", there is no longer seen to be any need for animal sacrifices, or anything else considered "ceremonial" from the Torah, because those were only symbols pointing the way to him and his death on the Cross. The book of Hebrews is basically all about this.
"Fulfilling the law," then, means that Jesus fully and perfectly observed it, and that he himself literally "is" the fulfilment of the law, since the law was in itself a kind of prophecy, foreshadowing him and his death providing an atonement for sin and the way to heaven. The moral law is still in effect, but Christians are forgiven for not perfectly following it, thanks to their belief in Jesus' atoning sacrifice. The ceremonial and civil law are seen as good (sincr they were instituted by God) but no longer needing to be observed, since they have served their purpose. It's an interpretation of what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17 where he says βDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
This is all Protestant Evangelical stuff, so it wouldn't apply to many Christians, but I think there's a good chance it does to the people @starlight-shadowbanned mentioned. I can't really speak to theology outside that niche, except broadly, but there's like a 95% chance they were evangelicals so they probably believe some variant of this. However, if they couldn't explain this to you there's a good chance they didn't actually understand the specific theology themselves, and were just sort of repeating jargon. Or maybe they did understand it, but were so unable to see any other perspective that they didn't realise the terms they were using are super niche and jargony, lol.
And as to what happened to people before Jesus came, if he is necessary for salvation β there are different beliefs, but I think the most widespread among Evangelicals is that Jesus's sacrifice was retroactively applied to anyone who believed in the God of Abraham and the promise of a Messiah (though they did not know at the time who that Messiah would be), and those people went to heaven. The retroactive aspect β people being saved 1000s of years before Jesus came β isn't really considered an issue since God is outside of time, and knows everything that will ever happen. And, since he is in control of everything, the future may as well have already happened, it's so certain. (This veers on predestination, which is another controversial topic but I've said too much already! π
)
Happy to try to answer any questions about this! Sorry it's kind of a lot, but I feel like just that one phrase "fulfilled the Law" has sooooo sooo much theology behind it
blakekathryn
janainaart
origamiaround
stormborns
turnnoffyourmind
titsay
izzy806
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
