WAS THE LAW FULFILLED OR ABOLISHED?

[Ernest T. Bass]

Too much.
When I get back.

But you're confusing the Old Testament and New Testament with the different covenants.
And please show me where it states that sins were NOT taken away in the O.T. times...
Later.

Hebrews 10:4 " For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. "

Covenants God made with Adam, Noah, etc I am lumping under the OT, all of which were taken out of the way and replaced with Christ's NT, the second, covenant.

 

[Drew]

The above is true...but when dealing with the bible, it's good to use a bible dictionary and not an everyday dictionary.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says He came NOT to abolish, but to fulfill.
So, without even going any further, we can know He did NOT come to abolish the law.

Unfortunately, again, things are not that simple. First, we know Paul thinks that the law has been "abolished" - he says so quite clearly in Ephesians 2.

But, more importantly, I suggest that what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 could very legitimately be taken to mean this: I have not come to tell you the law will be abolished in the sense of being declared to be a bad thing and tossed aside; I have instead come to tell you that the Law is about to be fulfilled in the sense that its mission will have been accomplished. And so it can be retired with honour, not abolished in disgrace.

Look, I get it - to say that Jesus has not come to abolish the Law sounds very much like a statement that it will remain in effect. But, language is subtle and I suggest what I have written above does not abuse the meaning of the word "abolish".

Again, though, we need to look at the big picture. And Jesus clearly challenged the Law of Moses at many times, as I have detailed in earlier posts.

 

[Drew]

Then, beginning in Matthew 5:21, He goes on to tell us HOW to be righteous with God.
Do not hate
Do not murder
Be reconciled to a brother
Do not commit adultery
Do not divorce
Do not make false vows...
etc.

Obviously I agree. But equally obviously, this does not mean the 10 commandments, as documented in the Law of Moses remain in force. This is a technicality that either I have not been able to effectively communicate, or that you will not accept.

Again: If there is a law X that says "do not kill". And then someone declares that law has been set aside, but then re-affirms "do not kill", this does not mean that law X remains in force! It means that law X is still off the books, but that some of its dictates remain in effect, but subsumed under another "system of law or principles". I know this sounds like an irrelevant technicality. But, I think this distinction is important for other theological reasons.

 

[Drew]

He fulfilled the law by obeying it perfectly (for us) because we could not, thus fulfilling it.

I realize this belief is common, but I suggest it is mistaken. At many times, Jesus challenged the Law. One clear example was when he declared that no foods defile - a clear contradiction to the Law of Moses.

Yes, Scripture teaches that Jesus was "obedient". But, I suggest, he was not obedient to the Law - He was instead obedient in the sense that He took on, and then fulfilled, faithless Israel' covenantal obligations - He was obedient in this sense.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The Sabbath is not a requirement for us because it is not part of the Moral Law but is part of the Ceremonial Law and that has been abolished.

Not ALL in the O.T. is now not in effect.
As to Hebrews 10:9
What is the first?
and what is the second?

This is comparing the old system of sacrifices with the new system of sacrifices.
I'm not sure if you mean that the O.T. replaces the N.T.
This verse is speaking about a better sacrificial system.

The O.T. Law of God is still in effect.
Could you show me when is was abolished if Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come to ABOLISH but to FULFILL.

And then He went on to make the commandments even more difficult in the next verses.

--You continue to make distinctions between OT law between "moral" and "ceremonial" when the Bible does not. When Paul said he was dead to the law, he was dead to ALL of it not just part of it. Paul made no such distinctions.

--no verse say Christ took just part of the OT law away.

--Romans 7:1-5 Paul says it is sinful, a type of spiritual adultery to attempt to keep both Moses' OT law and Christ's NT law at the same time.

--Hebrews 10:9 the first is the OT law and the second is the NT law.

--Matthew 5:17 says Christ did away with the OT law. The question is HOW did He do away with the OT law?

Not by destroying/abolishing it for he loved it and kept it.

He did away with the OT law by fulfilling it.

Fulfill mean to cease, bring to an end. In an earlier example I gave, if you buy a vehicle and agree to make one payment a month for 60 months, then when you make that last payment you fulfilled that agreement and it ends, it ceases, it does not carry on perpetually, you do not continue to make payments perpetually. Likewise when Jesus fulfilled the OT law then it ended, it ceased.

 

[GodsGrace]

The problem in Galatia was some allowed false Judiazing teachers lead them away form the NT to keep the OT. Paul's point is the OT cannot justify for it requires strict, flawless law keeping to ALL its laws which no one can do (other than Christ).

Therefore the "not of works" refers to the work of flawless law keeping and does NOT refer to a faithful obedience the NT requires to be saved. When those Galatians left the NT Paul says of them " O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, ..." Galatians 3:1 and " Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" Galatians 5:7. A faithful obedience to the truth of the NT is required to be saved not the work of flawless, sinless perfection.

Kind of reminds us of Hebrews 6:4-6 doesn't it?

There are 2, OT and NT.
Hebrews 8:7 " For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. "
Hebrews 10:9 " Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. "

THe covenant Christ established was the NT which was the second.

I'll list for you some Covenants that come to mind...
You might want to study them.
Edenic
Adamic
Noahic
Abrahamic (more than one)
Sinai
Mosaic
Davidic
New


Knowing about the Covenants helps to understand ALL of the bible.

Hebrews 10:1 the OT law with its sacrifices could not make one perfect. If it could then there would be no need for those sacrifices to cease, no need for Christ to shed His blood.

Hebrews 10:4 " For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. " Those OT animal sacrifices could not take away sins leaving one totally justified before God.

Romans 4:3 Abraham believed God and it was reckoned, accounted, credited to him.

Abraham's righteousness/justification was reckoned, credited to him. Not until Christ died and His blood flowed back to wash away all the sins of those OT characters were they then fully justified.

Romans 4:6-8 explains how God can 'reckon' a man righteous even though that man did not keep the law perfectly. David obviously sinned, did not keep the OT law perfectly therefore how could he be 'reckoned' as righteous apart from works (apart from sinless, flawless law keeping)?

David, though not sinlessly perfect, had a faithful obedience therefore his iniquities were forgiven and sins were covered. God either reckoned sin or righteousness to a man and God dis not do this reckoning unconditionally or randomly. Those that obey God, which includes repenting of sins, are the ones GOd will not reckon sin to.

God forgave the obedient in view of the coming of Christ and shedding of His blood apart from flawless law keeping.


Hebrews 10:4 clearly says those OT sacrifices could not take away sin and there was a remembrance of their sins. That is why they continued to have to offer those sacrifices year by year.
It would take one sacrifice of the blood of Christ to fully wash away all sins and God remember those sins no more under the NT...total justification.

Whoever wrote Hebrews must be right.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hebrews 10:4 " For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. "

Covenants God made with Adam, Noah, etc I am lumping under the OT, all of which were taken out of the way and replaced with Christ's NT, the second, covenant.

Like I said,,,thank God for the book of Hebrews or we'd know nothing about the Covenants.
She said sarcastically.

As to lumping the Covenants...
we don't lump the covenants.
Each one is unique and needs to be understood....
OR we don't discuss them.

You could keep referring to the New Covenant as the 2nd....
It's your privilege.

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not sure what you are saying here.

What I'm saying is that when a person wants to learn biblical knowledge, they need a biblical dictionary...not a secular dictionary since words are used differently.

Unfortunately, again, things are not that simple. First, we know Paul thinks that the law has been "abolished" - he says so quite clearly in Ephesians 2.

Paul did not go to the cross.
Jesus did.
Paul and Jesus agree.....
so the misunderstanding is not between THEM.
But with some on this thread...
which should be closed down pretty soon in my opinion.

But, more importantly, I suggest that what Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 could very legitimately be taken to mean this: I have not come to tell you the law will be abolished in the sense of being declared to be a bad thing and tossed aside; I have instead come to tell you that the Law is about to be fulfilled in the sense that its mission will have been accomplished. And so it can be retired with honour, not abolished in disgrace.

You could try to put words into Jesus' mouth...
I'm not sure He's too happy with that.
He said what He meant
and meant what He said.
And it's all in black on white.

Look, I get it - to say that Jesus has not come to abolish the Law sounds very much like a statement that it will remain in effect. But, language is subtle and I suggest what I have written above does not abuse the meaning of the word "abolish".

Again, though, we need to look at the big picture. And Jesus clearly challenged the Law of Moses at many times, as I have detailed in earlier posts.

Jesus kept the law of Moses.
Abolish means abolish.
I'm not posting the meaning....if we want to, we could find out for ourselves what this means....
even Merriam might know.

 

[GodsGrace]

Obviously I agree. But equally obviously, this does not mean the 10 commandments, as documented in the Law of Moses remain in force. This is a technicality that either I have not been able to effectively communicate, or that you will not accept.

And an important technicality it is!
Which is why I DO NOT accept it.

Again: If there is a law X that says "do not kill". And then someone declares that law has been set aside, but then re-affirms "do not kill", this does not mean that law X remains in force! It means that law X is still off the books, but that some of its dictates remain in effect, but subsumed under another "system of law or principles". I know this sounds like an irrelevant technicality. But, I think this distinction is important for other theological reasons.

Which other theological reasons if we can't even, as a Christian people, agree as to whether or not the 10 commandments have been abolished.


Some seem to use YouTube to learn their theology.
How this works I do NOT understand....
BUT
I went to YouTube and wrote: are we required to obey the 10 commandments.
Interesting...every one I clicked on said:
NO
BUT YES

Except for John Piper, I don't know who any of these persons are but they all agree.

 

[GodsGrace]

I realize this belief is common, but I suggest it is mistaken. At many times, Jesus challenged the Law. One clear example was when he declared that no foods defile - a clear contradiction to the Law of Moses.

Yes, Scripture teaches that Jesus was "obedient". But, I suggest, he was not obedient to the Law - He was instead obedient in the sense that He took on, and then fulfilled, faithless Israel' covenantal obligations - He was obedient in this sense.

So are you saying the Torah is not the Word of God?

 

[GodsGrace]

--You continue to make distinctions between OT law between "moral" and "ceremonial" when the Bible does not. When Paul said he was dead to the law, he was dead to ALL of it not just part of it. Paul made no such distinctions.

--no verse say Christ took just part of the OT law away.

--Romans 7:1-5 Paul says it is sinful, a type of spiritual adultery to attempt to keep both Moses' OT law and Christ's NT law at the same time.

--Hebrews 10:9 the first is the OT law and the second is the NT law.

--Matthew 5:17 says Christ did away with the OT law. The question is HOW did He do away with the OT law?

Not by destroying/abolishing it for he loved it and kept it.

He did away with the OT law by fulfilling it.

Fulfill mean to cease, bring to an end. In an earlier example I gave, if you buy a vehicle and agree to make one payment a month for 60 months, then when you make that last payment you fulfilled that agreement and it ends, it ceases, it does not carry on perpetually, you do not continue to make payments perpetually. Likewise when Jesus fulfilled the OT law then it ended, it ceased.

It's not sinful if you believe the above.

I will no longer be replying to this ....
there is no point.

We agree that we need to obey God...
let's leave it at that.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Like I said,,,thank God for the book of Hebrews or we'd know nothing about the Covenants.
She said sarcastically.

As to lumping the Covenants...
we don't lump the covenants.
Each one is unique and needs to be understood....
OR we don't discuss them.

You could keep referring to the New Covenant as the 2nd....
It's your privilege.

Hebrews 10:9 mentions only two covenants referring to the OT and NT. It goes on to say Christ established the 'second'. Christ established the NT covenant which again is called the 'second' in this verse.

The BIble refers to the NT as the second covenant.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hebrews 10:9 mentions only two covenants referring to the OT and NT. It goes on to say Christ established the 'second'. Christ established the NT covenant which again is called the 'second' in this verse.

The BIble refers to the NT as the second covenant.

We can't keep talking about this endlessly.
I listed at least 8 covenants for you.
There are more.

You could find out about this...I don't expect you to trust me.

The OLD COVENANT refers to the Mosaic Covenant, not the O.T.
The NEW COVENANT refers to the New Covenant, not the N.T.

A Covenant is an agreement made between God and man.
A testament is something we get when a person dies.
Like when Jesus died and the New Covenant went into effect.

But you can believe what Hebrews says.
Even if it's wrong.
It's just a way of speaking:
THE OLD COVENANT
THE NEW COVENANT

This does NOT mean there are only two Covenants.

 

[Drew]

Paul did not go to the cross.
Jesus did.
Paul and Jesus agree.....
so the misunderstanding is not between THEM.
But with some on this thread...
which should be closed down pretty soon in my opinion.

What, precisely, is Paul referring to in the material in bold?

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,

 

[Drew]

You could try to put words into Jesus' mouth...
I'm not sure He's too happy with that.
He said what He meant
and meant what He said.
And it's all in black on white.

You accuse others of avoiding the plain meaning of the word "abolish". That argument can be turned around: When I fulfill my requirements to be granted a medical degree, do I show up at medical school the next day? Or is medical school over? A simple yes or no will suffice.

You are avoiding dealing with the case I have made. Jesus certainly could have been saying "I have not come to get rid of the law, to toss it aside, that is to "abolish" it, I have come to affirm that it is a good thing, but a thing whose purpose I will be fulfilling that come to an end". I will end this post by comparing two texts that strongly suggest the Law comes to an end at the Cross:

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

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Coincidence?

 

[Truthfrees]

I will end this post by comparing two texts that strongly suggest the Law comes to an end at the Cross:

"suggests" is not the same as clearly state - we do not live by "suggestions" but by every word that comes from the mouth of God

 

[JLB]

Too much.
When I get back.

But you're confusing the Old Testament and New Testament with the different covenants.
And please show me where it states that sins were NOT taken away in the O.T. times...
Later.

Under the law of Moses, sins were “atoned for” which means covered.


In the New Covenant our sins are removed, or “taken away


For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:4


He has posted this scripture several times.


JLB

 

[Drew]

Jesus kept the law of Moses.

Did Jesus not tell some fellow Jews that nothing that enters a man's mouth defiles him? The Law of Moses is clear: some things do indeed defile.

Did Jesus not declare that He has the power to forgive sin? The Law of Moses prescribes that the Temple is the place to go for forgiveness.

Did Jesus not have contact with lepers and others whom the Law declared to be unclean?

Did Jesus not prevent the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? The Law of Moses prescribed stoning.

Did Jesus not challenge the Sabbath law?

 

[Truthfrees]

Did Jesus not tell some fellow Jews that nothing that enters a man's mouth defiles him? The Law of Moses is clear: some things do indeed defile.

God's laws dictated to moses said to not eat carnivores or scavengers - amazing wisdom that goes beyond the knowledge men at that time had - still amazing wisdom today

Did Jesus not declare that He has the power to forgive sin? The Law of Moses prescribes that the Temple is the place to go for forgiveness.

the truth is God instructed yearly sin sacrifices to atone for the sin of the people of for an entire year

 

[Drew]

Which other theological reasons if we can't even, as a Christian people, agree as to whether or not the 10 commandments have been abolished.

You completely evaded my point, again.

Some seem to use YouTube to learn their theology.
How this works I do NOT understand....

Not me, none of my reasoning is inspired by youtube.

And the fact that you found others who may agree with you (on these youtubes) is the appeal to authority fallacy.