Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect today???

[lou11]

If not, then what law was Christ referring to in Matthew 5?

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If yes, then what is our responsibility as Christians?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Lou,

To answer this question, one must realize what the purpose of the law was.

Read Deut 28-30 and then answer these questions.
Ask yourself what the Law was supposed to bring.
Ask yourself how the law was to be interpreted.
Ask yourself where the Law was given to Moses. What was going on with Israel.


What Jesus is saying is a loaded statement when you factor in the culture. Remember, Jesus was considered a Rabi and as such, the Rabi's held to many traditions.

Take for example where Jesus says that he did not come to 'destroy', or also put, 'abolish' the law but instead he came to fulfill the law. Jesus is saying many things here withing Jewish culture.

The intent of Torah (The first 5 books of the bible aka "The Law") was to put flesh around the words of the law. It wasn't enough to know the law, one had to live out the law. In other words, what did that particular law look like when it was being acted upon. You see, it was a Rabi's role to interpret the law as close to God's intent as possible.

But you see, Torah was never meant to be interpreted alone, that's whey the Jews met and discussed Torah within a community, and when a Rabi was known to go off in left field and completely miss the mark with his interpretation, he was said to have 'abolished', or 'destroyed' the Torah.

Thus, when Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, what he is saying is that he is showing the correct intent of the Law.

As far as fulfilling the law, you will find in Deut 28-30 that the Law, if followed was to bring life and if not followed, would bring death. This truth should echo within the Christian faith.

Also, if we look at the letter of the law, we see that Moses was given the Law at Mt. Sinai. Again, the Law was to bring life, but if you recall the ancient story, Aaron had built a golden calf and the Israelites were worshiping the golden calf. Thus, what was to bring life when introduced, actually brought condemnation. (Romans 5, Romans 7)

If you look at the Jewish story of exodus, promised land, exile, promised land and exile, you see that it is conditional based on the blessings and curses outlined in Deut 28-30. What the Pharasis of Jesus day were trying to do, was to keep the Law to a complete T and even more thinking that if they could keep the Law perfectly, they would be blessed. After all, it was Israel's failure to keep the Law that brought about exile, or in the case of within Jesus' time, the oppression that came through Rome.

Hope this gives you something to nibble on

 

[mutzrein]

As gentile I am not subject to the law of Moses.

So what is our responsibility as Christians? As I said in another thread;

Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

 

[follower of Christ]

If not, then what law was Christ referring to in Matthew 5?

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

If yes, then what is our responsibility as Christians?

Firstly understand that Jesus was a Jew born under law. The law would be in effect until His death ratified His new testament and made the old 'obsolete' (not destroyed, simply unneeded, made void).
While Christ yet lived the law was to be kept because it had not yet be set aside.

For this is the covenant which I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind, and I shall inscribe them upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And by no means will they teach each one his fellow citizen, and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I shall by no means remember anymore."
By the saying "new ," He has made the first obsolete. And the one becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish.
(Heb 8:10-13 EMTV)


obsolete
G3822
ÀαλαιÃ΃
palaioÃ…Â
pal-ah-yo'-o
From G3820; to make (passively become) worn out, or declare obsolete: - decay, make (wax) old.


G3822
ÀαλαιÃ΃
palaioÃ…Â
Thayer Definition:
1) to make ancient or old
1a) to become old, to be worn out
1b) of things worn out by time and use
2) to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated

In order for this to happen, however, Jesus had to die. His 'testament', sort of like a Last Will and Testament, could not go into effect until His death.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
(Heb 9:15-18 KJV)

So His testament begins at His death, which effectively 'nullified' the old testament, for all intents and purposes.
But again, while He lived the law was still intact and to be obeyed and followed.

The law had a purpose. That purpose was fulfilled in Christ...

Why then the law?
It was added on account of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom it had been promised; and it was commanded through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now the mediator is not for one person, but God is one.
Therefore, is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
But the Scripture has confined all under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, having been hemmed in for the faith which was to be revealed.
Therefore the law has become our custodian, leading us to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith.
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian.
(Gal 3:19-25 EMTV)

Its not that Christ destroyed the law, He simply was the fulfillment of the purpose of the law.

Hebrews says this;

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
(Heb 7:12 KJV)

So we assume that something about the passage you presented simply isnt being understood as it was meant by Christ.

one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
.

Based on the whole NT, my view is that Jesus is saying that until its purpose was fufilled, the law was to remain intact and be followed.
The evidence shows that its purpose was fulfilled at the cross with the ratification of His new covenant.

Not sure if this answers your questions entirely.

 

[Lee100]

Jesus did not come to do away with the law, He came to become the Law for us. Jesus is the Law in the sense that He took the place of a bull or goat and became sin for us who knew no sin. He is the perfect sacrificial Lamb.

 

[lou11]

As gentile I am not subject to the law of Moses.

Where do you get this? Possibly from some books on theology but not from Scripture. When Christ said that those that obey will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was he speaking of Jews only? Isn't the kingdom of heaven only for born-again Christians?

 

[lou11]

Based on the whole NT, my view is that Jesus is saying that until its purpose was fufilled, the law was to remain intact and be followed.
The evidence shows that its purpose was fulfilled at the cross with the ratification of His new covenant.

Not sure if this answers your questions entirely.

It doesn't explain what Christ meant when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." In what sense has heaven and earth passed away already?

 

[follower of Christ]

REPOSTED with additions...

Based on the whole NT, my view is that Jesus is saying that until its purpose was fufilled, the law was to remain intact and be followed.
The evidence shows that its purpose was fulfilled at the cross with the ratification of His new covenant.

Not sure if this answers your questions entirely.

It doesn't explain what Christ meant when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." In what sense has heaven and earth passed away already?

That was my point.
Its not that heaven and earth have passed away, its that your understanding of what Jesus MEANT when He said that the law would not pass away that seems to not be lining up with the whole of scripture.

Ask yourself if you believe the New Testament writers lied or were misled when they wrote the passages I cited earlier.
If they were accurate in their statements in my post then we ARENT under the law whose purpose was fulfilled in Christ.
How can we be under law and NOT under law at the same time ? We cant.

Based on what MANY other NT passages say about the law, we must conclude that Jesus didnt mean what we may THINK He meant when He said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law. Otherwise *IF* He meant that we were to keep the Mosaic Law, then New Testament writings such as that in Acts 15, are in direct defiance of Jesus and thus we cannot trust our bibles to begin with....

In Acts 15 we see very clearly that the Gentiles were not to be bothered with following the law of Moses...
Notice who it is that is insisting that the gentiles are to keep the law of Moses...the pharisees who seemingly got just about everything wrong.
Also notice that instead of immediately agreeing with them that there is a dispute by the apostles and it is decided that only four things are necessary from the law. Two of those things predate the law (blood and therefore things strangled) and one is defined by the law (sexual immorality which is 'fornication')

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:1-20 KJV)

*IF* the gentiles WERE supposed to obey the Mosaic law...if NOTHING changed....then we have a terrible contradiction here.
And again, I just gave you very clear evidence that when the priesthood changed (Levitical ---> Jesus Christ) that there was, by necessity a change OF THE LAW.

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
(Heb 7:12 KJV)

That one Hebrews passage by itself alone shows conclusively that we must not be understanding Jesus' word about the law not passing incorrectly for it shows us that when the priesthood changed the LAW changed. Which you seem to believe Jesus said wouldnt happen, correct ?

What Jesus meant EXACTLY in your passage is debated by many. Some say one thing, some say another.
But we do know that we are no longer under law nor can we be justified by law. And we also know that it was clearly argued that we do not have to FOLLOW the Law of Moses in Acts.
So while we debate about the precise intent of your passage, we have a preponderance of evidence that shows us that it CANNOT mean that we are still to follow the Mosaic law....otherwise passages such as Acts 15 are false and untrustworthy and thus our bibles as a whole cannot be trusted.

When we study the bible we have to take ALL of the data together to see the whole picture. One confused verse cannot be used to define the whole. The whole must define the one.

 

[follower of Christ]

Im going to add the rest of the Acts 15 passage because it goes on well past where I cut off.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
(Act 15:1-20 KJV)

Heres what I left off;

For Moses from ages past has those in every city proclaiming him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; Judas, whose last name was Barsabas; and Silas, chief men among the brothers. And they wrote these things by their hand: The apostles and elders and brothers send greeting to the brothers, from the nations in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

Because we have heard that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to whom we gave no such command); it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who will also announce to you the same things by word.
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you
abstain from meats offered to idols,
and from blood,
and from things strangled,
and from fornication;
from which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Be prospered.
(Act 15:21-29 MKJV)

There is nothing later in the New Testament that Ive seen that, contrary to the views of a few members on this forum, shows that this was only a temporary thing. If anything we see that it is only confirmed more and more, such as with the passages I quoted in a previous post, and in letters like Galatians, that we are no longer obligated TO the law to follow the dead letter of it law.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

Another interesting detail in Acts 21 is this...
Firstly notice that the same thought is repeated about the gentiles (the nations)...that they observe nothing but what is given, as is shown in Acts 15.

And on the next day Paul went with us to James. And all the elders were present. And having greeted them, he related one by one what things God had done among the nations by his ministry. And hearing, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. And they are informed concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? At all events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do this, what we say to you: We have four men who have a vow on themselves; taking them, be purified with them, and be at expense for them, so that they may shave their heads. And all may know that what they have been told about you is nothing, but you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law.
And as to the nations who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such things, except only that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a thing strangled, and from fornication.
(Act 21:18-25 MKJV)

The other more subtle point is something that tells a quite a bit about Paul.
Notice the statement above;

"And all may know that what they have been told about you is nothing, but you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law.

What caught my eye when I first read this is that this means that Paul was being accused of not keeping the law. Why else would whomever 'they' is have been told that about it otherwise ?

These who are speaking clearly agree that the nations/gentiles arent to follow the law, but apparently in order to placate the Jews who rejected Christ and still trying to live under an obsolete covenant, they wanted Paul to play the game in order to have an audience with them.

We then notice that the accusations are repeated;

Now when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, were stirring up all the crowd and put their hands on him, crying out, "Men, Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching all people everywhere against the people and the Law and this place; and furthermore he has brought Greeks into the temple and has made common this holy place."
(Act 21:27-28 EMTV)

So very apparently Paul WAS teaching in a manner that was showing that the law was not still to be followed...which seems to have been ticking the Jews off something fierce.

Why would Paul teach inaccurately in this area ?
*IF* he were following the law of Moses, then why was he accused of NOT doing so ?

My conclusions are that Paul wasnt, nor did he have to, and we dont need to either because we are no longer under law.
(this is not to deny that the moral parts of the law arent still moral. We still know that things like incest are sinful even if we arent under law).

 

[lou11]

follower of Christ,

I'm sorry to repeat myself but you haven't answered my question. In what sense has heaven and earth passed away already? Until then, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Christ spoke these words and he never lies. There must then be a sense in which they are true. We cannot pit Scripture against Scripture but must find the explanation that does justice to all of the relevant passages, even when it requires us to go back and dismiss some of our favorite interpretations.

Regarding the statements from Acts 15, Paul's burden was that the Gentiles should not need to be circumcised before they could become Christians. The Apostles at Jerusalem agreed with him but certainly did not do away with the entire law. They required that the Gentiles "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Where did these rules come from, other than the law of Moses?

The law Paul referred to most often was the ceremonial law which we know was done away with in Christ. This aspect of Moses law is no longer in force. This is the sense in which we must take the Hebrews statement of a "change in the law" which related to the requirements for the office of the High Priest. It also explains the "MANY other NT passages" that you referred to earlier.

I commend you for your diligence in seeking out the truth but must differ with you at this point.

 

[Drew]

It doesn't explain what Christ meant when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." In what sense has heaven and earth passed away already?

Some very good answers in this thread. I certainly think that it is clear that the Law of Moses - the 613
"rules and practices" has been abolished in the fulfillment sense - the Law of Moses had a goal which, at the cross, was achieved.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€Â.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

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 say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[follower of Christ]

follower of Christ,

I'm sorry to repeat myself but you haven't answered my question. In what sense has heaven and earth passed away already?

Im afraid that your issue is beyond my ability to remedy
You seem to be bent on making ONE verse define ALL the REST and that isnt a very good way to study, especially when that ONE verse and its exact intent, again, is debated by the best of biblical scholars.

Until then, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." Christ spoke these words and he never lies.

So I can assume that you believe Paul WOULD lie then ?
Because Ive shown conclusively that Paul and the NT writings show that we are no longer under the law.
The ONLY possible conclusion is that your understanding about what Christs intent was is inaccurate.
Other than saying that to you I really dont see any resolution to our little dilemma, do you ?

There must then be a sense in which they are true.

Which, given the overwhelming evidence about our NOT being under law, nor needing to follow the letter of the law as the OT Jew was required to, we assume that what Jesus said IS true, but we simply are confused about the exact intent.
Otherwise Paul and other NT writers who didnt follow the law must be assumed to be liars or severely misled.

We cannot pit Scripture against Scripture but must find the explanation that does justice to all of the relevant passages, even when it requires us to go back and dismiss some of our favorite interpretations.

I think I just said this
YOU are the one who is running with ONE verse,friend, not me
If either of us is seemingly trying to push a pet agenda here it certainly isnt me...Ive shown a preponderance of evidence for our NOT needing to follow the law of Moses....and all the while you simply keep repeating that the law would not pass....which in no way contradicts what Paul says.

Regarding the statements from Acts 15, Paul's burden was that the Gentiles should not need to be circumcised before they could become Christians.

I think you need to read it again
It VERY clearly speak about not having to follow the law of Moses and VERY clearly tells what the gentiles ARE to follow

The Apostles at Jerusalem agreed with him but certainly did not do away with the entire law. They required that the Gentiles "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Where did these rules come from, other than the law of Moses?

And that is part of the point. These FOUR things from the law and those that precede the law (blood and thus things stangled) are to be adhered to....the REST of the Mosaic Code very clearly is not to be a burden on the gentile nations...
And again, NT fornication is defined BY the law.

The law Paul referred to most often was the ceremonial law which we know was done away with in Christ.

Now wait a moment.
What are you arguing here ?
You seem to have been pushing that we ought to obey the WHOLE law before, which is what *I* have been showing that we are not to do.
The moral part of the law is just that ....moral...we ALWAYS must follow the law of morality.
But the ceremonial law we no longer need to worry about.

This aspect of Moses law is no longer in force. This is the sense in which we must take the Hebrews statement of a "change in the law" which related to the requirements for the office of the High Priest. It also explains the "MANY other NT passages" that you referred to earlier.

What it means is that the passages that show that we are no longer under the law are true.

I commend you for your diligence in seeking out the truth but must differ with you at this point.

Actually I think you didnt make yourself clear from the start and I assumed that you were one who, like another member here, who pushes that we must follow the WHOLE law of Moses.
You should have clarified your intent, friend.
Had you said from the start what you just did Id not have had much to even say here

 

[follower of Christ]

On another point about 'pitting' scripture against scripture, Id like to toss in this link;

http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/ ... f=19&t=150

What we have in this particular case is when a person takes ONE verse to an extreme instead of harmonizing them....or simply admitting that possibly we dont fully understand the intent which is the case in a number of New and Old testament passages....there ARE actually cases where two verses seem to directly conflict *IF* they are taken as absolute and as written.

If I say in one breath "NO ONE CAN GO"
Then in the next breath "NO ONE CAN GO EXCEPT ____"

Those two statements 'as written' are contradictory because in the first it is stated in no uncertain terms that no one can go, while in the second we see an exception that offers some condition whereby someone CAN actually go.

In the linked article above we see exactly this sort of case. When we take each statement as absolute, ignoring context, ignoring harmony in the text and in the overall picture, then taking these two statements in that article we can come to a point where they seem to conflict in a very direct and very serious manner.

*IF* BOTH of those are meant 'as is' and if we assume that Jesus isnt lying, then one of those statements is false.
Either there will be NO SIGN given....or there will be No sign EXCEPT the sign of Jonah.
By themselves they would leave a reader without enough data to make a call either way.
But thanks to our having a LOT more data we can see very clearly that Marks statement is lacking some detail, and this isnt the only time Mark fails to give an exception to a statement that Matthew does record, as pointed out in that article.

We dont 'pit' one scripture against another.
We simply ADMIT that many times ONE scripture or ONE verse does not contain enough data to get the whole story across.
Its not MY cited verses against YOURs.
Its that we understand that its very unlikely that we will get the BIG picture from a verse, or a chapter or even an entire letter/book in many cases.

Not to mention that there are, irregardless of the views of some, a few passages in the bible that no one has been able to nail down for certain as to their exact intent. There are some Hebrew phrases that have no perfect English counterpart so even the translators had a rough time translating them into english.
We have to look at the evidence as a complete WHOLE in order to understand the broader picture...and where one verse seems to conflict with 20 that agree with each other, it is a certainty that the scripture is quite accurate in what it says, but WE may not be understanding exactly what it IS saying.

 

[lou11]

Follower of Christ,

You are correct. I did not make myself clear at the beginning. I should have stated that the ceremonial law is no longer in force, that Christ's sacrifice fulfilled that aspect of the law in full. But this is the only sense in which the law has been changed.

Your overwhelming evidence for the annulling of the law breaks down when one considers that all the passages you cited can be understood as references to the sacrificial law.

You say that the law no longer applies to us today and then say that the moral aspects of the law are still valid. But clearly the whole law is moral code. It spells out detailed moral requirements and punishments for disobedience.

We need to remember that it is the God that changes not that gave his law to ancient Israel. His judgments are complete and perfect in every respect and we are today just as much in need of his law as were the Israelites of that day.

It is the lack of a law that has taken the impetus out of Christianity and relegated it to a back seat in the world scene. Christ commanded us in the Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations, to teach them to obey him in all things, in effect, to Christianize the world. That cannot be done without a law!

 

[Drew]

You say that the law no longer applies to us today and then say that the moral aspects of the law are still valid. But clearly the whole law is moral code. It spells out detailed moral requirements and punishments for disobedience.

I think I agree with the "spirit" of this post. I do not think you can really drive a wedge between "moral" and ceremonial elements of the law. We have to deal with what I think are clear assertions by Paul that the "written code" has been abolished. He does not qualify any further. So to say part A has been abolished while part B has not is to add to what Paul says. Granted, there is a common sense appeal to saying the moral stuff stays and the ceremonial stuff goes. But I do not believe that such a claim is made anywhere in the New Testament.

We need to remember that it is the God that changes not that gave his law to ancient Israel.

I do not agree with your reasoning here. The changelessness of God does not mean that He cannot be active in the world, implementing a sweeping plan of redemption in which the Torah is a temporary measure, intended to achieve some specific goal in the overall plan.

It is the lack of a law that has taken the impetus out of Christianity and relegated it to a back seat in the world scene.

There is no lack of a "law" in Christianity - what there is a lack of the Torah, the Law of Moses. In fact, Paul at several places asserts that there is indeed a "law" that the Christian is to follow:

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law

No time to explain, but when Paul refers upholding the “lawâ€Â, he is not referring to the written code of Torah, but to something else. And then there is this:

For the law of the Spirit of life in (E)Christ Jesus (F)has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Paul’s view of the law is complex, but I think this much is clear - he believes the written code of the Torah has been abolished. Another “Torah†has taken its place. Perhaps more about that later.

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower of Christ,

You are correct. I did not make myself clear at the beginning. I should have stated that the ceremonial law is no longer in force, that Christ's sacrifice fulfilled that aspect of the law in full. But this is the only sense in which the law has been changed.

Friend, I dont know what part of all the scriptures I posted you seem to be ignoring but we ARENT under the law any longer.
The law was a SCHOOLMASTER to bring us TO Christ....to FAITH. NOW that faith has come we are NO LONGER UNDER that schoolmaster

Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
(Gal 3:19-25 KJV)

Im sorry if you reject that fact, but fact it remains.

Your overwhelming evidence for the annulling of the law breaks down when one considers that all the passages you cited can be understood as references to the sacrificial law.

No, your misunderstanding of ONE verse is all that breaks down in the face of the overwhelming evidence against this preposterous view that we are STILL under law...ie apparently scripture lies when it shows that the OLD was made obsolete with the ratification of the new.

You say that the law no longer applies to us today and then say that the moral aspects of the law are still valid.

What *I* said was that we are no longer UNDER law but that the law itself defines 'morality' for us.
Not certain what was so complicated about that point.
I dont have to be UNDER law in order to know that having sex with animals DISPLEASES God so I dont do it.
Is that clear enough ?

But clearly the whole law is moral code.
It spells out detailed moral requirements and punishments for disobedience.

So this was merely a semantics game. Ill keep a better eye on you next time ;)

We need to remember that it is the God that changes not that gave his law to ancient Israel.

So what ?
My boss doesnt have to change personally to change the office rules for his employees.
Your point is fairly pointless, Im afraid.
God Himself didnt need to change in order for scripture to be fulfilled about the OLD covenant passing away, the law being changed, and the new being ratified.

All that Ive seen of your posts is your trying to ignore/dismiss a preponderance of evidence that very CLEARLY shows that the OLD has passed with the coming of the new....that the law DID change with the change of the priesthood....that we are no longer under the schoolmaster whos purpose was to bring us to Christ and now that faith has come we are no longer UNDER that schoolmaster.

Frankly I believe that you had no intention of actually listening to anyones evidence here and this particular topic isnt worth two weeks bickering with you about it since its clear you have made up your mind even with so much scripture that rips your views to shreds.

With that Ill bid ya fare well and let ya argue your case with everyone else.

for you READERS please see my previous posts to see the CLEAR evidence that we are no longer under the law.....
Here are the links...
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465282
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465409
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465411
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465416
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465458


.

 

[JoJo]

Didn't Jesus declare all foods "clean" in Mark 7:18-19? If so, this would seem like a jot or a tittle...unless the Law (capital L) Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:18 is the "old covenant."

 

[Sparkey]

Didn't Jesus declare all foods "clean" in Mark 7:18-19? If so, this would seem like a jot or a tittle...unless the Law (capital L) Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:18 is the "old covenant."

Hi, Jo-Jo!

I looked and found this (and I thought I'd made a good case for you)
Mark 7:18-20 (New International Version)

18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean' ?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'

But then I looked again - in KJV
<not that I think it's better - but just checking>
Mark 7:18-20 (King James Version)

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
And He said, That which comes out of the man is what defiles the man.

So I wanted to resolve the question by looking at the Greek New Testament:

• Mar 7:19
  οÄι οÃ…κ ειÃÀοÃÂεÃ…εÄαι αÅÄοÃ… ει Äην καÃÂδιαν αλλ ει Äην κοιλιαν και ει Äον αÆεδÃÂÉνα εκÀοÃÂεÃ…εÄαι καθαÃÂιζÉν ÀανÄαG Äα βÃÂÉμαÄα

But that was Greek to me :toofunny (sorry, I just couldn't help it)

Transliterated <Westcott & Hort>:
---> because not 'it-is-going-its-way-in' 'of-him' into the heart, but into the cavity and into the sewer 'is-going-its-way-out' cleansing all to the edibles <---

The word "edibles" is βÃÂῶμα / (GK)brÃ…Âma

Mar 7:19

• (LITV) This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the foods.
  (MKJV) because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purifying all food?

So, what are the foods or "edibles", the βÃÂῶμα -or- (GK)brÃ…Âma that Jesus was talking about?
_______________________
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines the word this way:
G1033
βÃÂῶμα
brÃ…Âma
bro'-mah
From the base of G977; food (literally or figuratively)
especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbiden by the Jewish law:
- meat, victuals.
_______________________
Per John Gill's Exposition of the Bibl the foods or "edibles", the (GK)brÃ…Âma, that Jesus was talking about go into "the private house", as the Jews call it, without going into the heart at all:

Again per John Gill: "purging all meats";
that which it leaves behind [and doesn't go into the sewer] is pure and nourishing; and whatever is gross and impure, is carried with it into the draught, so that nothing remains in the man that is defiling.

 

[mutzrein]

As gentile I am not subject to the law of Moses.

Where do you get this? Possibly from some books on theology but not from Scripture. When Christ said that those that obey will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was he speaking of Jews only? Isn't the kingdom of heaven only for born-again Christians?

I don't read books on theology lou but I'm happy to listen to what scripture says.

Would you mind pointing me to the scripture you are referring to - 'when Christ said that those that obey will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven'.

Blessings