WAS THE LAW FULFILLED OR ABOLISHED?

[JLB]

You stated that Jesus did not obey the Torah by giving examples.
Jesus is God.
God inspired the Torah.
Why would Jesus not obey the Torah?

Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and was not under the law of Moses, because He was not under the Levitical priesthood.


He was born under the law, but as a Man He was not under the law, but He walked according to the Spirit.


“The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16



JLB

 

[JLB]

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13

 

[JLB]

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
1 Timothy 1:9-10


Why would Jesus need the law of Moses?

He is sinless.




JLB

 

[Link1983]

Yes. Like others say and prove by the word.
The old testament is fulfilled by the new!
The law of love makes you not brake any of the ten commandments of the law!
Amen!
A person walking in love will not kill, will not steal and so on.
He doesn't want to!

 

[Link1983]

Simply said. It has been fulfilled!
Rom. 13:8-10
Needs no more discussion.. -love-
Your brother in Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

The innocent animals were given as a sacrifice for sin, to fulfill the law of sin and death.

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:12


The soul that sins (disobeys God) must die.

“Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
Ezekiel 18:4

The evidence of death is the blood.

The blood is the life of flesh.


Therefore the payment for sin is born by the innocent, through the shedding of blood and death.

This is the law of sin and death.

Whoever sins must die.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17


JLB

But what's the answer to my question?

It's an easy question that requires an easy answer.

WHY were animal sacrifice made in the O.T.?

Some on this thread believe they DID NOT forgive sin.

Did O.T. sacrifices forgive sin?

That's a yes or no reply.

 

[JLB]

But what's the answer to my question?

It's an easy question that requires an easy answer.

WHY were animal sacrifice made in the O.T.?

I plainly answered your question.

The innocent animals were sacrificed to pay the price for the sin of the people, foreshadowing the work of Christ on the cross.


The penalty, the price of disobedience for sin is death.


The innocent animals payed the price for the sin, until the Messiah should come.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Did O.T. sacrifices forgive sin?

That's a yes or no reply.

Yes.


The blood of the animals made atonement for the sin, which means it covered, appeased the legal requirement, as well as forgave.


Innocent paid the price for the guilty.


The blood of animals did not “take away” the sin however, it covered it, which is why the OT saints did not go directly to heaven, but were contained in the heart of the earth, which was paradise, being called Abraham’s Bosom.


Later when Christ paid the price for our sin, and descended down into the heart of the earth, He took the OT saints to heaven when He ascended, having taken away their sins.


Some will disagree with this.



JLB

 

[JLB]

The law of love makes you not brake any of the ten commandments of the law!

Very nice thought if only it were true.

Each of us must choose to obey His commandments, which shows we love Him.

The law of love doesn’t “make us” do anything.

The Spirit of grace empowers us to live our lives in dominion over sin, but we must choose to obey Him, as He leads us in the way of righteousness and life.


He who keeps instruction is in the way of life,
But he who refuses correction goes astray.
Proverbs 10:17



JLB

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Sacrifices did not take sin away.
Fine.
But no one has explained to me why sacrifices were even made then.
Neither you nor Ernest T. Bass ....

God commanded those sacrifices be made, therefore it would be sin, unrighteousness, rebellion against God in not offering those sacrifices.

Those sacrifices could only offer a temporary forgiveness of sins, there was a remembrance of their sins for those sacrifices could not take away sin completely, this is why those sacrifices had to be made over and over again.

It would not be until Christ came to earth and shed His blood whereby His blood flowed back to those faithful OT characters where it did take away all their sins providing a permanent solution to sin. Since Christ's blood can take away sin there is no need for Christ to be sacrificed over and over again on the cross.

 

[GodsGrace]

I plainly answered your question.

The innocent animals were sacrificed to pay the price for the sin of the people, foreshadowing the work of Christ on the cross.


The penalty, the price of disobedience for sin is death.


The innocent animals payed the price for the sin, until the Messiah should come.



JLB

No JLB.
You did NOT PLAINLY answer my question.
You skirt around it instead....
Simple answers are the best answers.

So you're saying that animals DID pay for sin.

So then sin WAS forgiven in the O.T.

Hebrews 10:4
4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

You and others on this thread have posted from the above scripture and stated that
the OLD COVENANT was not good because the blood of animals could not take away sin.

So are you changing your mind?
Were animal sacrifices made to take away sin....
You're answer is YES.

Which is the right answer.
Perhaps Hebrews is not understood properly.
Perhaps PAUL DIDN'T WRITE TI.

What heresy!

 

[GodsGrace]

God commanded those sacrifices be made, therefore it would be sin, unrighteousness, rebellion against God in not offering those sacrifices.

Those sacrifices could only offer a temporary forgiveness of sins, there was a remembrance of their sins for those sacrifices could not take away sin completely, this is why those sacrifices had to be made over and over again.

It would not be until Christ came to earth and shed His blood whereby His blood flowed back to those faithful OT characters where it did take away all their sins providing a permanent solution to sin. Since Christ's blood can take away sin there is no need for Christ to be sacrificed over and over again on the cross.

You mean to tell me that the SAME SINS had to be forgiven over and over again?

What do you suppose this means?

Romans 3:24-25
24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

You mean to tell me that the SAME SINS had to be forgiven over and over again?

Yes. Like a snowball rolling down a hill gets bigger and bigger all their sins were just rolled ahead year by year getting bigger and bigger 'sin ball'. It took the blood of Christ to take away ALL their sins. If the blood of animals could take away sin then there would be no need for Christ to shed His blood.

What do you suppose this means?

Romans 3:24-25
24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

The verse does not mean God overlooked sin, God's perfect holy just nature does not allow Him to overlook sin.

The OT was a much harder law to live under, Paul referred to it as a yoke of bondage. Again, they did not have the blood of Christ to take away their sins. Hence God was more longsuffering of sins committed under the OT law in view of the coming of Christ.


But it is not this way anymore since Christ came to earth " And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" Acts 17:30. God winked at the 'times' not at the ignorance itself. Ignorance is not an excuse for the Gentiles were without excuse (Romans 1:20) in their ignorance. God allowed the Gentiles to walk in their ignorance not bringing immediate judgment upon them when they sinned (Acts 14:16).

If God just overlooked sin there would be no need then for God to call all men to repentance. But again, God was longsuffering not bringing fast judgment their sins deserved, yet they are held accountable presently.

One commentator explains it this way " One object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that those sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather "passed over" or "overlooked." This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of his vengeance. Now the apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated." Ellicott. (my emp)

Again, God did not ignore their sins but just suspended judgement against their sins.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. Like a snowball rolling down a hill gets bigger and bigger all their sins were just rolled ahead year by year getting bigger and bigger 'sin ball'. It took the blood of Christ to take away ALL their sins. If the blood of animals could take away sin then there would be no need for Christ to shed His blood.



The verse does not mean God overlooked sin, God's perfect holy just nature does not allow Him to overlook sin.

The OT was a much harder law to live under, Paul referred to it as a yoke of bondage. Again, they did not have the blood of Christ to take away their sins. Hence God was more longsuffering of sins committed under the OT law in view of the coming of Christ.


But it is not this way anymore since Christ came to earth " And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" Acts 17:30. God winked at the 'times' not at the ignorance itself. Ignorance is not an excuse for the Gentiles were without excuse (Romans 1:20) in their ignorance. God allowed the Gentiles to walk in their ignorance not bringing immediate judgment upon them when they sinned (Acts 14:16).

If God just overlooked sin there would be no need then for God to call all men to repentance. But again, God was longsuffering not bringing fast judgment their sins deserved, yet they are held accountable presently.

One commentator explains it this way " One object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that those sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather "passed over" or "overlooked." This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of his vengeance. Now the apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated." Ellicott. (my emp)

Again, God did not ignore their sins but just suspended judgement against their sins.

I guess the Old Testament is pretty complicated then....
since God destroyed the earth because of evil men.

I guess He forgot to overlook the sins of those in the time of Noah.

 

[JLB]

Hebrews 10:4
4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

You and others on this thread have posted from the above scripture and stated that
the OLD COVENANT was not good because the blood of animals could not take away sin.

Please provide the post where I said “the law was not good”.

 

[Truthfrees]

See posts 130 and 275. In those posts, I explain why the "until heaven and earth pass away" language in Matthew 5 was not necessarily intended to be taken literally. So when Jesus warns against annuling the law in verse 19, He could certainly be saying that until the Law passes away - and per post 275 I argue this is at the cross - obviously people should obey the Law.

And I could equally apply 2 Peter 3:16 to you. You are effectively engaging in ad hominem.

i see what you are saying but i prefer the literal translation -

 

[JLB]

No JLB.
You did NOT PLAINLY answer my question.
You skirt around it instead....
Simple answers are the best answers.

Yes Wondering I answered your question with scripture.

No Wondering you are mistaken, I didn’t skirt your question.


Please refrain from this type of dialog.



JLB

 

[Randy]

But what's the answer to my question?

It's an easy question that requires an easy answer.

WHY were animal sacrifice made in the O.T.?

Some on this thread believe they DID NOT forgive sin.

Did O.T. sacrifices forgive sin?

That's a yes or no reply.

Hebrews 9 & 10 go into great detail to your questions.

In regard to OT sacrifices.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Jesus was required for the inward cleansing. In Jesus sins are eternally taken away. And sacrifices and offerings were/are no longer required.

God was not pleased with the OT sacrifices anyway though the law required them to be made.

 

[JLB]

i see what you are saying but i prefer the literal translation - until heaven and earth pass away not one tiniest point of the law will pass away

... until it’s fulfilled.

You left that part of the scripture out. Why?


You say you like the literal translation but left out the pertinent part of the verse. Why?


17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17-18

 

[Truthfrees]

No. The kosher food laws (part of the Law of Moses) declare a wide ranges of foods as unclean/defiling for the Jews. This is well known and we should not need to debate this particular point.

scripture please - what is commonly understood is not always accurate - God always speaks truth - man not so well