Is The Law of God Still in Force Today ?/Matthew 5:17,18

[Jethro Bodine]

This is how I understand you.....
You keep in insisting that Jesus destroyed the Law of Moses, the old covenant. I don't believe He did that.

Jesus fulfilling, not abolishing, the law is hardly destroying it. Surely you have me confused with someone else who is arguing for the destruction of the law. JLB perhaps?

I believe that Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses--the Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, the Passover, etc. He did not abolish those. He is the fulfillment of those laws, not the abolishing of those laws. In fact, he fulfilled them so perfectly that no further action on our part is required in regard to those. I know this is hard for the church to grasp because of centuries of bad teaching, so I try to be as patient with everyone who can't see this truth. Hebrews is not an easy read.

Please hear James.
Jas 2:10 for whoever the whole law shall keep, and shall stumble in one point , he hath become guilty of all;

Yes, if you sin you can not call yourself a law keeper. To be considered a braggadocios law keeper you have to keep all of it. So what's your point in regard to this discussion? Forgiven Christians don't keep all of the law. They have their transgressions against the law forgiven.

Jesus did not destroy the old covanant (the Law of Moses). He didn't do it violence. He didn't tear it apart.
When you say that He made part of it obsolete imo, you do it violence. You tear it apart and decide for yourself what parts are obsolete and which ones are not.

The problem is you attach an improper connotation to the word 'obsolete'. Obsolete doesn't mean it's bad. It simply means it's no longer needed. What the old covenant worship laws sought to do (bring us close to God) has been done in the much better and effective way of Christ and faith in him. That makes the old way no longer needed, so it got set aside. Not abolished, for Jesus himself is the fulfillment of those laws.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

'do not murder' was already established as a law of God before the old covenant (Law of Moses) was in effect. Cain/Abel

So that makes 'do not murder' in the law of Moses a different law of 'do not murder'? How does that work?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's be honest, if we are to discover the truth of this subject.

Let's not make up things that are not scriptural.

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete...

Which covenant do you say is the "first covenant"?


The "first" covenant was made obsolete.


Not part of this first covenant, but the covenant was made obsolete.

So you don't try an insinuate that the "Church" or "the Protestant's", OR "Grace Preachers" have somehow how made this first covenant obsolete, let's be honest.

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete...


Let's really and truly ask, Who is this verse saying, teaching, making plain and clear for all to see, made the first covenant O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E!

If we are honest and truly desire the truth we can say without any reservation, God Himself is the One who has made this first covenant OBSOLETE.



JLB

Am I arguing that the first covenant was not made obsolete?

What I'm saying is the law is not abolished (Jesus said he did not come to do that).

If you or anybody else can't discern the difference between 'being made obsolete', and 'abolished' then you will never understand the law and the first covenant. Something being made obsolete is not something being abolished (as we understand abolished).

Jesus plainly said he did NOT come to abolish the law. But he did allude to the fact that it could be set aside (not abolished) on the condition of fulfillment. A law that is forever and perfectly fulfilled, not abolished, is a law that you no longer have to keep. It was kept for you. The law of sacrifice for sin is the perfect example. Jesus did not abolish it. He fulfilled it. So perfectly, in fact, that you and I no longer have to keep those laws of sacrifice. He fulfilled them, NOT ABOLISHED THEM. You can see how this hardly applies to 'do not steal', or 'do not murder'. He did not fulfill those for you, nor did he abolish them.

 

[JLB]

Am I arguing that the first covenant was not made obsolete?

What I'm saying is the law is not abolished (Jesus said he did not come to do that).

If you or anybody else can't discern the difference between 'being made obsolete', and 'abolished' then you will never understand the law and the first covenant. Something being made obsolete is not something being abolished (as we understand abolished).

Jesus plainly said he did NOT come to abolish the law. But he did allude to the fact that it could be set aside (not abolished) on the condition of fulfillment. A law that is forever and perfectly fulfilled, not abolished, is a law that you no longer have to keep. It was kept for you. The law of sacrifice for sin is the perfect example. Jesus did not abolish it. He fulfilled it. So perfectly, in fact, that you and I no longer have to keep those laws of sacrifice. He fulfilled them, NOT ABOLISHED THEM. You can see how this hardly applies to 'do not steal', or 'do not murder'. He did not fulfill those for you, nor did he abolish them.

Great! As long as you agree that the law of Moses was made obsolete by God Himself, then there is room for discussion.

Otherwise it will be another circular, pointless debate.

As I have said many times, I agree with you on most points about this subject.


The law was added until... Galatians 3:19

In that He said a New Covenant, He has made the "first" covenant obsolete. Hebrews 8:13


All further discussion should be made from the foundation of understanding that He made the law of Moses Obsolete.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law of Moses as a literal covenant was made obsolete by Jesus' work on the cross. That is what 'went away'--the covenant of law. Jesus did not come to abolish the principles of law in the law of Moses. They remain and are upheld by faith in Christ, not abolished by faith in Christ as so many insist. To say that Jesus abolished the law is to directly contradict what he said--that he came not to destroy it, but to fulfill it.

Fulfillment is how Christ can say he did not come to destroy and abolish the law, but how he also allows a legitimate 'disappearing' of jots and tittles of the law.

 

[Deborah13]

Jesus fulfilling, not abolishing, the law is hardly destroying it. Surely you have me confused with someone else who is arguing for the destruction of the law. JLB perhaps?

I did not say that Jesus abolished the Law, imo that is what you do, not Jesus.

I believe that Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses--the Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, the Passover, etc. He did not abolish those. He is the fulfillment of those laws, not the abolishing of those laws. In fact, he fulfilled them so perfectly that no further action on our part is required in regard to those. I know this is hard for the church to grasp because of centuries of bad teaching, so I try to be as patient with everyone who can't see this truth. Hebrews is not an easy read.

What part of the Law of Moses (old covenant) did Jesus not fulfill? What do you mean by "He did not abolish those." what are those? If there are those than there are others?

Yes, if you sin you can not call yourself a law keeper. To be considered a braggadocios law keeper you have to keep all of it. So what's your point in regard to this discussion? Forgiven Christians don't keep all of the law. They have their transgressions against the law forgiven.

The point is that you cannot tear the Law of Moses (old covenant) apart. All of the laws are one unit, one covenant. One cannot say we are obligated to do these but not those.

The problem is you attach an improper connotation to the word 'obsolete'. Obsolete doesn't mean it's bad. It simply means it's no longer needed. What the old covenant worship laws sought to do (bring us close to God) has been done in the much better and effective way of Christ and faith in him. That makes the old way no longer needed, so it got set aside. Not abolished, for Jesus himself is the fulfillment of those laws.

The Law of Moses, was always and still is today holy, righteous, just, and good.
Maybe I misunderstand you by the words that are slipped in here and there but it sounds like you are saying that only parts of the old covenant (Law of Moses) were made obsolete. If so you are saying that Jesus only fulfilled some of that covenant.
If He did not fulfill all of that covenant then there is sin that is not covered by His blood. And the curse of the law was not hung on the cross but is still ours to bear.

I believe I have heard you say that we are obligated to do or not do certain things. By the very definition of the word 'obligation' there is a debt that must be paid. We can not pay any debt owed to God, the payment will always be lacking leaving us still in debt.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I did not say that Jesus abolished the Law, imo that is what you do, not Jesus.

I did not say you personally abolish the law. I was answering your suggestion that I was the one doing that.

What part of the Law of Moses (old covenant) did Jesus not fulfill?

Jesus did not, for example, fulfill the law of 'do not steal' for you. YOU do that. What he did fulfill, for example, was the covenant requirement for Sabbath rest, or sacrifice for sin. Since he fulfilled those to God's complete and total satisfaction there is no remaining need for you to do that.

What do you mean by "He did not abolish those." what are those? If there are those than there are others?

He did not abolish, for example, Sabbath rest. He is our Sabbath Rest, thus fulfilling, not abolishing the law of Sabbath rest. And because he fulfills it so perfectly and forever through our faith in him there is no reason for us to literally do that anymore. It's impossible to apply this same understanding to a law like 'do not steal'. Thus the division of law that you insist can not be made.

The point is that you cannot tear the Law of Moses (old covenant) apart. All of the laws are one unit, one covenant. One cannot say we are obligated to do these but not those.

If you want to maintain it as a covenant between man and God then, yes, you are absolutely correct. But that is the very thing that has 'passed away'--the law of Moses as a literal covenant between man and God. That hardly means the laws themselves have all passed away. That would be the abolishing that Jesus plainly said he did NOT come to do.

What you don't understand is that faith in Christ does satisfy ALL the law of Moses. But if you can only understand the satisfying of the law of Moses in it's literal, to the letter way then you won't be able to see how faith in Christ does in fact uphold and satisfy ALL of the law of Moses, effectively destroying any argument that somehow my argument tears the law of Moses apart as you mean that.

The Law of Moses, was always and still is today holy, righteous, just, and good.
Maybe I misunderstand you by the words that are slipped in here and there but it sounds like you are saying that only parts of the old covenant (Law of Moses) were made obsolete. If so you are saying that Jesus only fulfilled some of that covenant.

ALL the laws of Moses are upheld, not abolished by faith in this New Covenant. What is different now is that some laws get upheld, not abolished, in a not so literal way now, while others continue to be just as literally fulfilled now as they did then. But NONE of them amounts to a covenant of law between man and God.

If He did not fulfill all of that covenant then there is sin that is not covered by His blood. And the curse of the law was not hung on the cross but is still ours to bear.

How did Christ fulfill 'do not murder' for you so that you no longer have to literally do that? Compare that to how I'm sure you know that Christ fulfilled 'keep the Day of Atonement' such that no believer has to do that literally anymore.

I believe I have heard you say that we are obligated to do or not do certain things. By the very definition of the word 'obligation' there is a debt that must be paid. We can not pay any debt owed to God, the payment will always be lacking leaving us still in debt.

Faith has an obligation to manifest itself in particular ways:

"12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh"" (Romans 8:12 NIV)

You're letting the word 'obligation' scare you as if my use of the word is somehow connected to the obligation of payment that works of the law demand that Paul talks about. Faith--by virtue of what faith is--has an expected obligation called 'obedience' that comes with it. But that hardly means the expected and obligatory obedience of faith is somehow equivalent to trying to obligate God to justify us by that obedience.

 

[Deborah13]

So that makes 'do not murder' in the law of Moses a different law of 'do not murder'? How does that work?

It means that the Law of Moses (old covenant) can be made obsolete in it's entirety and the original law against murder is still there from before.
ie.
I make a rule for my small child that they will put their shoes where someone will not stumble over them.
When they are older I add to that rule and now they will also put their shoes in their closet.
When they are grown and no longer have a closet in my home. The rule that was added about the closet is made obsolete but the first rule is still intact.

 

[Malachi]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them (Matt, 5:17 ESV) One of those isn't right.

Here's another reason why it pays to stick to the KJV. In the KJV that word is "destroy", not "abolish". The Greek word correctly translated as "destroy" is Strong's 2647 -- kataluo (kat-al-oo-o) which means to loosen down, to distintegrate, to demolish, destroy (utterly), dissolve, overthrow (completely). "Demolish" is not "abolish" so the ESV is deliberately misleading its readers.

When Christ said what He said in Mt 5:17,18, it meant that He had not come to loosen down or overthrow the Law (the whole Old Testament). He had come to "fulfil" it, and when something is "fulfilled" then that is the end of the matter.

Were the Levitial priesthood, the Levites, the Temple sacrifices, the feasts, the offerings, the veil in the Temple, indeed the Temple itself, ABOLISHED? Absolutely. That happened both in 32 AD as well as in 70 AD.They do not exist today!

Why were they abolished? Because the Lamb of God "fulfilled" everything pertaining to the Tabernacle and the Temple on earth and then said "IT IS FINISHED". Everything pertaining to the earthly Temple was "shadows". The reality is the Sanctuary in Heaven and the Lamb of God seated at the right hand of the Father. Read the epistle to the Hebrews. "In that He saith a New Covenant, He hath made the first old. NOW THAT WHICH DECAYETH AND WAXETH OLD IS READY TO VANISH AWAY" (Heb 8:13). This was written by Paul around 64 AD. The temple "vanished away" in 70 AD, with all the priests, Levites, and sacrifices.

At the same time the Ten Commandments (also called the Law) have now become the Law of Christ written on regenerated hearts (Rom 13:8-10 where "Love is the FULFILLING of the Law" ). At the same time, we have the Old Testament preserved for us in Hebrew as well as all other languages. At the same time we have the New Covenant (the New Testament). At the same time, we have all the unfulfilled prophecies in Scripture waiting to be fulfilled and written down for us. Those jots and tittles are still there.

Thus we can see that that which was temporary in the Torah was fulfilled in Christ. And that which is yet to be fulfilled is preserved in Scripture. So the Law (the OT) has not been destroyed. But the New Covenant has introduced infinitely superior things to the Old Covenant.

​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It means that the Law of Moses (old covenant) can be made obsolete in it's entirety and the original law against murder is still there from before.
ie.
I make a rule for my small child that they will put their shoes where someone will not stumble over them.
When they are older I add to that rule and now they will also put their shoes in their closet.
When they are grown and no longer have a closet in my home. The rule that was added about the closet is made obsolete but the first rule is still intact.

You have not explained how 'do not murder' in the law of Moses is somehow a different and distinct law of 'do not murder'. What you did explain was how a law can be kept in a different way, but still kept nonetheless. And that is exactly the argument I'm making.

How the law of Moses is fulfilled is what went away, not the requirement of the law itself. In the case of things like 'keep Sabbath' they are kept in the new way of Christ as our Sabbath Rest. In the case of things like 'do not steal' we keep them in the new way of the power of faith and the Spirit of God. The law did not get abolished concerning those things. How they get upheld and fulfilled is what changed. The old covenant way of law is what is now obsolete.

"we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV)

 

[Deborah13]

I did not say you personally abolish the law. I was answering your suggestion that I was the one doing that.

lol, that one sure got twisted up. I didn't think that you were saying I personally abolish the law. I said that I thought you were personally abolishing the law, not Jesus.

Jesus did not, for example, fulfill the law of 'do not steal' for you. YOU do that. What he did fulfill, for example, was the covenant requirement for Sabbath rest, or sacrifice for sin. Since he fulfilled those to God's complete and total satisfaction there is no remaining need for you to do that.

If Jesus did not fufill the law and pay the debt for 'do not steal' then His blood does not cover 'do not steal'. 'Do not steal' would be an unforgivable sin.

He did not abolish, for example, Sabbath rest. He is our Sabbath Rest, thus fulfilling, not abolishing the law of Sabbath rest. And because he fulfills it so perfectly and forever through our faith in him there is no reason for us to literally do that anymore. It's impossible to apply this same understanding to a law like 'do not steal'. Thus the division of law that you insist can not be made.

I don't insist but James and others do.

If you want to maintain it as a covenant between man and God then, yes, you are absolutely correct. But that is the very thing that has 'passed away'--the law of Moses as a literal covenant between man and God. That hardly means the laws themselves have all passed away. That would be the abolishing that Jesus plainly said he did NOT come to do.

So you are saying that the covenant that God made with the people at Mt Sinai which was the 10 and later the specifics which are the 603 as to how the 10 must be performed is still in effect as laws but not as a covenant? Oh no, just some of the laws, correct?

What you don't understand is that faith in Christ does satisfy ALL the law of Moses.

What I understand is the Jesus satisfied ALL the law of Moses and that because He did that my faith in Him by the covenant of Abraham, I can be declared a child of God.

But if you can only understand the satisfying of the law of Moses in it's literal, to the letter way then you won't be able to see how faith in Christ does in fact uphold and satisfy ALL of the law of Moses, effectively destroying any argument that somehow my argument tears the law of Moses apart as you mean that.

This is the law, commandments I understand that I need to literally do by the Holy Spirit working in me.
Mat 22:37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding--
Mat 22:38 this is a first and great command;
Mat 22:39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;
Mat 22:40 on these--the two commands--all the law and the prophets do hang.'

These two commands are the beginning and the ending of all law.

Rom 13:8 To no one owe anything, except to love one another; for he who is loving the other--law he hath fulfilled,
Rom 13:9 for, `Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false testimony, Thou shalt not covet;' and if there is any other command, in this word it is summed up, in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;'
Rom 13:10 the love to the neighbour doth work no ill; the love, therefore, is the fulness of law.

ALL the laws of Moses are upheld, not abolished by faith in this New Covenant. What is different now is that some laws get upheld, not abolished, in a not so literal way now, while others continue to be just as literally fulfilled now as they did then. But NONE of them amounts to a covenant of law between man and God.
How did Christ fulfill 'do not murder' for you so that you no longer have to literally do that? Compare that to how I'm sure you know that Christ fulfilled 'keep the Day of Atonement' such that no believer has to do that literally anymore.
Faith has an obligation to manifest itself in particular ways:

"12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh"" (Romans 8:12 NIV)

You're letting the word 'obligation' scare you as if my use of the word is somehow connected to the obligation of payment that works of the law demand that Paul talks about. Faith--by virtue of what faith is--has an expected obligation called 'obedience' that comes with it. But that hardly means the expected and obligatory obedience of faith is somehow equivalent to trying to obligate God to justify us by that obedience.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If Jesus did not fufill the law and pay the debt for 'do not steal' then His blood does not cover 'do not steal'. 'Do not steal' would be an unforgivable sin.

Jesus fulfilling the law of 'do not steal' so that you don't have to 'do not steal' anymore, and Jesus fulfilling the lawful penalty for stealing are two very different things. The first one is not even a fulfilling of the law. You are confusing the two.

I don't insist but James and others do.

Only if you want to
A) be considered a law keeper (like a Pharisee wants to), or
B) you want to be justified by the law.

What you're not getting is faith in Christ DOES uphold all the law of Moses. Just not in the way you think it must, or else it's not an upholding of the law of Moses.

So you are saying that the covenant that God made with the people at Mt Sinai which was the 10 and later the specifics which are the 603 as to how the 10 must be performed is still in effect as laws but not as a covenant? Oh no, just some of the laws, correct?

I'm saying they have not been abolished. Jesus plainly said he did not come to destroy the law as to abolish it and wipe it off the books. Faith in Christ upholds ALL the law of Moses, just not in the way that you think that the law of Moses has to be kept/fulfilled or else it's not keeping the law. What has changed is HOW the law is upheld. It is no longer upheld in terms of it's literal covenant requirements for temple, priesthood, and sacrifice.

What I understand is the Jesus satisfied ALL the law of Moses and that because He did that my faith in Him by the covenant of Abraham, I can be declared a child of God.

You're talking about the righteousness of Christ being given to you. What we're talking about is whether or not the law of Moses is abolished or not. Just because you have the righteousness of Christ doesn't mean you no longer have an obligation to uphold the law of Moses by faith. Faith in Christ does not abolish the law, it upholds it. But many people can't comprehend that because they can only think of keeping the law of Moses in terms of keeping it to the letter in the literal first covenant way.

This is the law, commandments I understand that I need to literally do by the Holy Spirit working in me.
Mat 22:37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding--
Mat 22:38 this is a first and great command;
Mat 22:39 and the second is like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;
Mat 22:40 on these--the two commands--all the law and the prophets do hang.'

These two commands are the beginning and the ending of all law.

Rom 13:8 To no one owe anything, except to love one another; for he who is loving the other--law he hath fulfilled,
Rom 13:9 for, `Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false testimony, Thou shalt not covet;' and if there is any other command, in this word it is summed up, in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;'
Rom 13:10 the love to the neighbour doth work no ill; the love, therefore, is the fulness of law.

Okay, good.
Now, based on the passage you just quoted in Romans, when you have faith in Christ and it expresses itself in love towards others, have you abolished the law of Moses, or upheld it? Does faith in Christ expressed in love for others fulfill the law, or destroy it?

 

[TOG]

Here's another reason why it pays to stick to the KJV. In the KJV that word is "destroy", not "abolish". The Greek word correctly translated as "destroy" is Strong's 2647 -- kataluo (kat-al-oo-o) which means to loosen down, to distintegrate, to demolish, destroy (utterly), dissolve, overthrow (completely). "Demolish" is not "abolish" so the ESV is deliberately misleading its readers.

So, a concordance that is based on the KJV says that the word translated as "destroy" in the KJV means "destroy", as the KJV says. Therefor the KJV is the only correct version. Can't argue with that kind of "logic".

The TOG​

 

[Malachi]

So, a concordance that is based on the KJV says that the word translated as "destroy" in the KJV means "destroy", as the KJV says. Therefor the KJV is the only correct version. Can't argue with that kind of "logic".

The meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words are not dependent on the KJV, but on the original language. And Strong's has become a standard reference concordance because of its intrinsic quality, which again is not dependent on the KJV. For those who are not Hebrew or Greek scholars it is completely reliable.
Even Thayer's Greek Lexicon is tied into Strong's.

 

[Deborah13]

You have not explained how 'do not murder' in the law of Moses is somehow a different and distinct law of 'do not murder'. What you did explain was how a law can be kept in a different way, but still kept nonetheless. And that is exactly the argument I'm making.

How the law of Moses is fulfilled is what went away, not the requirement of the law itself. In the case of things like 'keep Sabbath' they are kept in the new way of Christ as our Sabbath Rest. In the case of things like 'do not steal' we keep them in the new way of the power of faith and the Spirit of God. The law did not get abolished concerning those things. How they get upheld and fulfilled is what changed. The old covenant way of law is what is now obsolete.

"we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV)

You quote scripture where Paul is explaining to the Jews...
Rom 7:3 so, then, the husband being alive, an adulteress she shall be called if she may become another man's; and if the husband may die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, having become another man's.
Rom 7:4 So that, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of the Christ, for your becoming another's, who out of the dead was raised up, that we might bear fruit to God;
Rom 7:6 and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Paul is telling them that the law is dead and therefore we are also dead to the law.
"now we have ceased from the law, we may serve in the spirit"
If the law was still in effect we would have to do it, literally because that is what the law demands. If you don't do it you will be cursed. That is Paul's problem with the Galatians. After giving them the Gospel and them doing so well, the Judaizers are convincing them that they need to do the things of the Law of Moses. Paul wondered if his work had been in vain and their belief had been in vain.
Just how does one eat and wear kosher by the spirit? In my heart Lord, I am doing kosher and in my heart I am caring for the poor? I don't think so. I think I am literally suppose to obey God and love my neighbor.
If one is under the law, kosher is not a choice. But if one is under grace kosher is a choice. They are in opposition to each other. One cannot put new wine in an old wine skin. The old wine skin will break and both will be lost. Therefore, the old wine skin must be set aside, the only thing it is good for is old wine.

 

[reba]

Worth the repeat...

If one is under the law, kosher is not a choice. But if one is under grace kosher is a choice. They are in opposition to each other. One cannot put new wine in an old wine skin. The old wine skin will break and both will be lost. Therefore, the old wine skin must be set aside, the only thing it is good for is old wine.

 

[Deborah13]

Here's another reason why it pays to stick to the KJV. In the KJV that word is "destroy", not "abolish". The Greek word correctly translated as "destroy" is Strong's 2647 -- kataluo (kat-al-oo-o) which means to loosen down, to distintegrate, to demolish, destroy (utterly), dissolve, overthrow (completely). "Demolish" is not "abolish" so the ESV is deliberately misleading its readers.

You should probably consider what the word abolish means in English.
synonyms:put an end to, get rid of, scrap, end, stop, terminate, ax, eradicate, eliminate, exterminate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, obliterate, wipe out, extinguish, quash, expunge, extirpate
https://www.google.com/search?q=abolish&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[JLB]

The law of Moses as a literal covenant was made obsolete by Jesus' work on the cross. That is what 'went away'--the covenant of law. Jesus did not come to abolish the principles of law in the law of Moses. They remain and are upheld by faith in Christ, not abolished by faith in Christ as so many insist. To say that Jesus abolished the law is to directly contradict what he said--that he came not to destroy it, but to fulfill it.

Fulfillment is how Christ can say he did not come to destroy and abolish the law, but how he also allows a legitimate 'disappearing' of jots and tittles of the law.

The law of Moses, as you have just stated, was made obsolete by God Himself.

but how he also allows a legitimate 'disappearing' of jots and tittles of the law

Please share with us the scripture that states "Christ allows the disappearing of jots and tittles of the law".


The Levitical Priesthood is no longer.

The Temple and animal sacrifices are no longer.

Sabbaths and new moons observance are not required.

Food laws are not required.

and on and on and on....


These are much more than "jots or tittles", for he has made the law of Moses obsolete.


JLB

 

[TOG]

The meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words are not dependent on the KJV, but on the original language.

They most certainly are dependent on the version used. For example, the word translated as "destroy" or "abolish" in English is translated as "aufzulösen" in the Luther Bible from 1545, as "aboli" in the Haitian Creole version and "afnema" in the Icelandic version. How a word is rendered depends no less on the language you are translating into than on the meaning in the original language. the KJV is not the same language as the ESV, and therefore it is translated differently. People only think that the KJV and the ESV are the same language, but they aren't. One is modern English and one is archeic English. They are related, but there is enough of a difference that people tody have a hard time understanding the KJV. Even many of those who use it every day and think they understand it really don't. Strong's concordance is based on old English. If it were based on modern English, it would most likely use the word "abolish".

And Strong's has become a standard reference concordance because of its intrinsic quality,

No, it became a standard because the KJV, on which Strong's is based, is the most widely used version.

The TOG​

 

[Deborah13]

I think the biggest reason the new covenant is a better covenant than the old is because men could break the old one but men can't break the new one. We're in Christ but He is in the new covenant with His Father. Neither one of them are going to break it.