Hi Austin

Thank you for your comment at Provoketive Magazine (http://provoketive.com). We’re creating a space of rich conversation about life, faith, justice and culture without judgment. Our desire is to provoke the reader’s imagination through conversation and open up spaces of dialogue, learning, and hope.  We want to invite you to come back soon and continue to participate in the conversation. 

Thank you,
Jonathan Brink
Provoketive Magazine

You posted the following comment:
---------------------------------
Your hermeneutic seems to be driven by your theology. You are assuming the New Covenant replaces the previous covenants, but looking at the OT, each covenant builds upon the previous covenant. We don't have to worry about God destroying the Earth with a flood anymore, and we have the proof in the rainbow.

If instead, the New Covenant builds upon the previous covenant, then the law reveals our sinfulness, and the new covenant allows a path for redemption from that sinful nature. If Jesus' followeres did not refer to the scripture as the word of God, that doesn't necessarily mean anything... it's an argument from silence. They may have been trying to distinguish the climactic revelation of Jesus, they may just have used other words (the law and the prophets, the torah, the law of moses, the writings, the scripture, etc) which were equally important and useful for description. 

The idea of the OT covenants and the New Covenant existing side-by-side until the destruction of the temple is interesting and attractive, but to imply that replacement theology allows for the removal of the law itself (or the condemnation from disobedience) contradicts many passages of scripture (including Hebrews).

I agree that we tend to idolize the Bible over God, and we should seek to correct that as the Bible is the guidebook to salvation, not the means of salvation. We can also talk about replacement theology, but that's peripheral to the discussion of Gay/Equal marriage.