When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Lehigh3]

Yes, I believe it waxed old and passed away shortly after Hebrews was written.

This article answered my questions on "the Law"
It is very informative. I'll post the link for the rest of it.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV) "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.​

What is Christ saying here? Look at it carefully. He said that he did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law. Some questions that we need to ask are, "What is the Law? What is destroy verses fulfill. What is heaven and earth? What does "pass away" mean? What is a jot and tittle?
Let's start by attempting to answer the question, "What does Jesus mean by 'the law'?" Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but fulfill" - The use of the terms "the law" and "the prophets" indicates that what the Lord is speaking of in these verses is the whole of the Old Testament. If you trace these terms through your Bible, you will find that wherever this expression is used it includes the entire Old Testament:

Matthew 7:12 (NKJV) "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.​

Matthew 11:13 (NKJV) "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.​

Matthew 22:40 (NKJV) "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."​

The "law" and "the prophets" speak of the entirety of the Old Testament.
One Commentator writes, "Exactly what did Christ here signify by 'the law'? We answer, unhesitatingly, The whole Jewish Law, which was threefold: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. The ceremonial described rules and ordinances to be observed in the worship of God; the judicial described ordinances for the government of the Jewish commonwealth, and the punishment of offenders: the former was for the Jews only; the latter primarily for them, yet concerned all people in all times so far as it tended to establish the moral Law. The moral Law is contained in the Ten Commandments."
He goes on to say, "The ceremonial law has not been destroyed by Christ, but the substance now fills the place of its shadows. Nor has the judicial law been destroyed: though it has been abrogated unto us so far as it was peculiar to the Jews, yet, as it agrees with the requirements of civic justice and mercy, and as it serves to establish the precepts of the moral law, it is perpetual--herein we may see the blasphemous impiety of the popes of Rome, who in the canons have dared to dispense with some of the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18. While the moral law remains for ever as a rule of obedience to every child of God, as we have shown so often in these pages."
Did you notice that he divided the law into three categories: moral, judicial (civil), and ceremonial. This started with Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) back in the 13th century, and most Christians seem to have adopted this division. The problem with this is that there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that the Law should be divided into three parts, such as the ceremonial Law, the civil Law and the moral Law. Most teach that God has done away with the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law but not with the moral aspect of the Law. Such a distinction is not drawn anywhere in the Scriptures. The Law is viewed as a unit or as a whole. James said that anyone who breaks one point of the Law, breaks the whole Law.

James 2:10 (NKJV) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.​

No distinction is made between different types of the Law. The Old Testament Jews who violated a ceremonial aspect of the Law were morally guilty of sin before God. Therefore, the moral and ceremonial aspects went together.
Even if this division was legitimate, it's not clear what "moral" means. Who determines what is moral and what is civil or ceremonial?
Alright, so when Jesus uses the term "law", he is most likely referring to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. What does Jesus say here about the Old Testament?

Matthew 5:18 (NKJV) "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.​

The NKJV "Assuredly, I say to you" is the updated rendering of the KJV, "Verily, I say unto you." This phrase carried great significance, since it prepared the listener that something of great importance was about to be communicated on the authority of the teacher.
What is a "jot or title"? The word "jot" in form was like an apostrophe, not even a letter, not much bigger than a dot. The "tittle" is the little projecting part at the foot of a letter, the little line at each side of the foot of , for example, the letter "t". The message is clear. Not even the smallest part of the law will be abolished until heaven and earth passes away.
The phrase "till heaven and earth pass away" refers to the duration of the whole Old Testament's authority. So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away. Is that what Jesus said? Please notice that the word "till" occurs twice. And it is the first "till" that most people ignore.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary on The Sermon On The Mount, writes, "The first proposition is that God's law is absolute; it can never be changed, not even modified to the slightest extent. It is absolute and eternal. Its demands are permanent, and can never be abrogated or reduced 'till heaven and earth pass'. That last expression means the end of the age." He also says, "What is meant by 'the law' and 'the prophets'? The answer is, the whole of the Old Testament."

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/matthew/law_fulfill.htm

 

[Mitspa]

i very well could be speaking above your understanding? but it does not change the truth of Pauls point. Nor the point that I made.

You've tried to dodge my question, "Will you send?" And the implicit question, "By what authority?"

I will remind you that it was your speculation that I am in reference to: "Do some of you need the "spirit of bondage again to fear" to obey God? and it was your allegation given in contrast that [you] do not, [need this]. I had just quoted reba, another Moderator here. Your reply included both my quote and reba's observation.

So again, will you send this spirit or no?

It sounds as if you are making your position as moderator the issue? I was speaking of a clear biblical term, and making a clear point on doctrine. Now if my point goes against your doctrine? do you now use your position as a mod, to enforce your doctrines? "The spirit of bondage again to fear" is a well know and understood biblical term that describes the contrast between the letter and the Spirit.

 

[Sparkey]

And again you choose not to answer. Your dodge and silence speaks well enough to me. Thank you. And you are right to consider my position as a Moderator when I choose to address what may be seen (by me) as a comment made to another Moderator. To me? It's not a big deal. I've seen my hands do worse than you may or may not accuse me of (speaking beyond my understanding but not beyond my authority) and my mind and ability to grasp at the ideas you mention has not always been sharp. It's okay by me for you to point this out.

It's also okay by me to see you take a moment in your responses here and consider possible consequence. I trust that you will apply such moderation to all Members who enjoy their conversations here as well as they to you.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Mitspa]

And again you choose not to answer. Your dodge and silence speaks well enough to me. Thank you. And you are right to consider my position as a Moderator when I choose to address what may be seen (by me) as a comment made to another Moderator. To me? It's not a big deal. I've seen my hands do worse than you may or may not accuse me of (speaking beyond my understanding but not beyond my authority) and my mind and ability to grasp at the ideas you mention has not always been sharp. It's okay by me for you to point this out.

It's also okay by me to see you take a moment in your responses here and consider possible consequence. I trust that you will apply such moderation to all Members who enjoy their conversations here as well as they to you.

Cordially,
Sparrow

Well as I have said, I am speaking on doctrine. If the term "the spirit of bondage again to fear" seems as some strange term? I suggest those who would comment on doctrine, do so knowing common biblical terms and their meaning.

And not accuse those who know and understand these terms of speaking above their head.

 

[Deborah13]

never mind. I couldn't get it to delete the message? sorry

 

[JLB]

I don't think you'll get much of an argument out of Ryan concerning Rabbinical nonsense. Certainly you won't from me. And it's hardly an excuse for saying the Law of Moses is utterly done away with.

I would like to hear from Ryan on my comment I stated that says -

My point is Judaism is a perversion of the Law of Moses.

I wonder if he feels them same as you do.

And it's hardly an excuse for saying the Law of Moses is utterly done away with.

I never said The Law of Moses was done away with based on this.

I will point this thread to what Paul said about the Law of Moses coming to an end, which what I have said from the beginning.

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Hebrews 10:8-11

Key phrase - He takes away the first that He may establish the second.



13 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


Key phrase - is ready to vanish away.


And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.


Key Phrase - till the Seed should come



For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. Hebrews 7:12-14


Key Phrase - of necessity there is also a change of the law.



There are many many more, but these are the main one I quoted to validate my position that the Law of Moses was temporary and was replaced by the new covenant, with a new priesthood and new law.

I do not believe The Church replaced Israel.

For me personally I believe the Church began with Abraham, and that Gentiles were grafted in by faith in Christ and what He did for us on the cross.

I believe we are to walk with God and obey His Laws and Commands, of which He desired from the beginning.


I believe God's foundational Law that all the others are built on is the first Law given to mankind in the garden -

Paraphrase - Don't learn good from evil apart from Me for I Am the source of Eternal Life, and I alone Am good.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 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

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3


JLB

 

[Mitspa]

You mean God is the source of goodness and man is not?
This is awful! You mean their is none righteous, no not one?

I bet God would have to give some sort of very strict and unbending standard to make man see this? Rom 3:19-23

 

[Ryan]

I would like to return to Ephesians 2, and its clear statement about some "law" being abolished:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision†by the so-called “Circumcision,†which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [i]excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [o]by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household,

How is this law not the Law of Moses given context? That context is crystal clear: the effect of the abolition of this unnamed law is that Jew and Gentile are united. It is also an undeniable Biblical fact (I can provide the texts if necessary) that God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews to, yes, set them apart from other nations.

So how does someone deny that the law here is the Law of Moses, given the obvious fact that abolition of the Law of Moses would "tear down a barrier" dividing Jew from Gentile, just as stated?

They have to claim that this "law" is some set of man-made traditions, since their position cannot survive any other reading. Well, if you do not go beyond a 10 second reflection, that might seem plausible; clearly the Jews have indeed added man-made traditions to the Law of Moses - perhaps these have somehow functioned as a barrier.

Well here is the problem with this: Even if such man-made traditions were indeed abolished, the Law of Moses would remain as just as much, if not more, of a barrier! The person who denies that the "law" being abolished here is not the Law of Moses needs to sweep that problem under the rug.

No competent writer familiar with Jewish culture would write the bit from Ephesians 2 that I have quoted and intend "law" to denote simply man-made tradtions. Why not? Because, as stated, that writer would surely know that, for about 2000 years (?), the Jews saw, yes, the Law of Moses, as functioning to set them apart from Gentiles.

Where did they get this idea? Did they make it up? Certainly not! In many places, God Himself tells the people that this is at least part of the reason for giving the Law of Moses.

So no clear-thinking writer would try to make any case that the Jew and Gentile are now members of one unified family without having to deal with the obvious fact that the Law of Moses functioned, as per God's own declaration, to separate these two groups.

What options are available to bring these two groups together? They are:

1. Extend the scope of application of the Law of Moses to include Gentiles;
2. Abolish the law.

So what does the writer actually say? That the law has been abolished.

Any argument that the "law" being abolished is not the Law of Moses has to quietly (and conveniently) ignore the fact that if the Law of Moses remains, a huge barrier between Jew and Gentile still remains, even if some man-made ltraditions also served to separate Jew from Gentile.

Look at the beginning of the verse and the writer is making a clear distinction between the customized and the uncustomized group. The Jew and Gentile. Pentecost and Peter's vision is so prevalent here, and both speak to the thought of the day. Judaism was teaching, and of which Peter was guilty of at one point, Gentiles were unclean and had to convert to being a Jew to merit salvation. That is the very fabric and substance of many of the Epistles and the issues being addressed for each region.

By the Holy Spirit: “for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father†(v. 18). Paul teaches the unity of those within the body of Messiah.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The unifying factor is the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was the out- pouring of the Spirit upon the house of Cornelius, along with the vision that Peter had previously which convinced him, and the rest that God had united the believing Gentiles together with the Jewish believers. For Peter and the Apostles, if God sent His Spirit to dwell within Gentile believers, it was impossible to call them unclean.

The middle wall of division could absolutely not mean any barrier God had made to gain entrance into his kingdom. The Law of Moses was not a division as verses testify believers were "zealous for the law." Any barrier was always man made. And in the day, would be rabbinic rules as God plainly states he wishes no one to perish (2 Peter 3:9).

So, the middle wall of division was broken down by the death of Messiah because it was by His death that the promise of the Spirit was made sure (John16:7-11; Acts 2:33-36). The Spirit was poured out upon the Gentiles was a direct result of Jesus's sacrifice.

John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.â€

To say God gave Moses a list of instructions hindering foreigners entrance into the kingdom of heaven is not in God's loving character. God's law was absolutely given to separate them from other nations and people. The law is based on love, mercy, compassion and justice. It was given to be a testimony and a light to others provoking them to jealousy in accepting Israel's God as their Saviour. It was to keep them completely separate of others due to neighbouring nations rampant idolatry worship. So yes, absolutely was it to keep them separate. But in a way that didnt allow them to be corrupted. A little leaven absolutely ruined the whole bunch. But the leaven was never, ever God's laws.

 

[Ryan]

You have answered with a question again

Ok, for a third time I ask you.

Does the Law of Moses make provision to murder Christ Jesus and His followers?


Please, if you know the answer, then answer with a yes or a no.


JLB

Ryan and I both answered it.

How is it that the mistakes of the Jews, and their misuse and misunderstanding of the law, prove what you claim about the law of Moses? It's unreasonable, irrational theology.

I want him to answer for himself. A simple yes or no.

Then I will answer the question.

Let's you and I re focus on our conversion.

I just finished some "pulled pork" tacos. Sorry for the delay.


JLB

My answer is no. So please twist my words as you please. Ready? Set? Go!

 

[Ryan]

That's all? I don't think you'll get much of an argument out of Ryan concerning Rabbinical nonsense. Certainly you won't from me. And it's hardly an excuse for saying the Law of Moses is utterly done away with.

Would you ask him if he thinks Judaism is a perversion of the Law.

I was having a conversation with him that was brought to a head by him saying "Messianic Judaism" is the center of what Jesus taught"

Then the conversation took a turn towards the "religion of Judaism", in which he wouldn't answer my question with a direct yes or no about the Law of Moses making provision for murdering Christ and His followers.

Thats when you "answered" for him.

By the time the Seed had come, the Law of Moses was a mixture of man made traditions and writings from various "Lawyers" together with the Book of the Law of Moses, which became known as Judaism. Which is why the High Priest and leadership of Israel murdered the Son of God, because Judaism is an antichrist religion.

That is the point I was am making and am making and will continue to make.

As I said before, so I will say it again - JUDAISM IS AN ANTICHRIST RELIGION!!!!

Murdering Christ is antichrist.

The law of Moses that God gave him made no provision for murdering an innocent man.

Why would anyone, such as yourself Jethro, validate someone who "thinks" Messianic Judaism or any other form of Judaism is any different.

Thats the point!

The Messianic movement has at its foundation Messianic Judaism. It promotes another Jesus and another Gospel, one that mixes Judaism with the Gospel.

Let me show you from the scriptures what Messianic Judaism looks like -

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."


Please tell me Jethro, what parts of the Law of Moses do you believe that gentiles should keep.

Please list them for me so I will know.

And this means what, now, in regard to the law passing, or not passing away?

This conversation is about Judaism, and it relationship to the Law of Moses.

There are parts of Judaism that are labeled under the Law of Moses falsely, and I am trying to separate it from the Law so that we are speaking about the same thing.


JLB

Here are some instances of Jesus "practicing Judaism." Remember, some of these "traditions" is no different then celebrating Christmas or Easter. Based on biblical events or ideas, but never commanded. And yes, this guy celebrates Christmas and Easter. Any extra day to come together and honor the King, is AY OK in my books.

Matt. 9:14, 15
The argument of Yeshua, in which He defends the manner in which His disciples fast, is based upon a recognized halakah that it is improper to fast in the presence of a bridegroom. This is not found in the written Torah. Cp. b. Sukka 25b; t. Ber. 2.10.

Matt. 15:36
There is nothing in the written Torah about giving thanks before eating. Saying the berakah before eating is part of the oral Torah.

Matthew 23:23
The matter of tithing very small amounts of produce from volunteer seedlings is not taken up in the written Torah, but is part of the oral Torah, cp. m. Maasarot 1.1; b. Yoma 83b; b.Nidah 5a; b. Rosh HaShanah 12a; b.Shabbat 68a.

Matthew 26:20
Reclining is the position of eating at the Pesach meal, but is not prescribed in the written Torah. Cf. m. Pesachim 10:1. Reclining is an halakic requirement before one can eat the Passover.

Matthew 22:40
Yeshua quotes the Shema and Lev. 19:18, stating that upon these two precepts hang (krevmatai, krematai)55 the Law and
Prophets. The terminology of the Law and Prophets hanging from something is derived from oral Torah, cp. m. Hagiga 1.8; b. Ber. 63a.

Acts 23:23
What law was violated when Paul was struck? The idea that a person was innocent until proven guilty is a function of oral Torah, not written Torah.

Jesus testified against any man made, rabbinic laws contravening his own laws, or in opposition to. On the flip side, and these are just a few examples, Jesus also observed many of the customs of the day. This included the Hannukah, which is not a biblical feast, but based on Jewish history (John 10:22). That is what a good chunk of the Gopels is bout. Jesus correcting faulty interpretations of the Torah, but never replacing it. And yes from the above examples, Jesus would have practiced Judaism because he was a Jew you know.

 

[About the Son of God]

But we still have to deal with the Ephesians 2 text! And what does it say? It says that the uniting of Jew and Gentile is effected, yes, through the abolition of a law. You really need to address the details of my argument. No competent writer would expect either Jew or Gentile to believe that these two groups have been united unless either:

1. The scope of application of the Law of Moses is extended to include Gentiles;
2. The law is abolished.

Not really; Although, please remember -- I'm not an advocate of doing the law of Moses. I'm just studying all the apologetics carefully -- and yours are interesting...

There is option 3) A new covenant was offered to both Greeks and Gentiles; which lysed (cut) part of the Mosaic law, and left the rest optionally intact for the Jews able to obey it.

This is the position that Ryan, essentially, has been attempting to defend; He appears to want to say the Aaronite priesthood laws have been replaced (abrogated) by Jesus -- but the rest of the law may be obeyed (and failure no longer results in a curse.).


If I look at Ephesians 2, as you suggested to Ryan, here is what I see:

Ephesans 2:8-9, Paul re-iterates that no one earns salvation;
( a mandatory point, Ryan doesn't contradict me here. )
eg: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49081&p=790348&viewfull=1#post790348
also: Philippians 2:12-13 (Fear=awe).

And then I want you to note that when Paul uses the word "in", he means communion/covenant, (eg: for I am in them, and they in me.)

Then notice in Ephesians 2:15 -- we have the same covenant/oath issue, for Paul doesn't just say "abolished", he says:

... abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law ... for to make in himself of two in one flesh.

And clearly, Paul is here speaking about the flesh of Jesus, eg: as it relates to a covenant making.

Therefore: Back up a verse... to get the full Eph2 context of this "flesh" and "abolish":

In Ephesians 2:14 -- "broken down the middle wall of partition"
http://www.biblos.com/ephesians/2-14.htm

If you look at the biblos Greek -- note carefully the word "broken" is a misnomer; it's actually the word "lyse" as in cut or tear or rip (and perhaps... unbind...).

It's not as strong a word as to destroy or demolish, which is to "tear down" Gk: Kata-luO -- kata means "under" or "against" or "measured against". So, literally "Tearing down" means to loose everything until it falls "under". (Kata-strophe Catastrophe -- means to turn upside down.... as a comparison)

But: To merely cut, doesn't undo everything; just a section in the "middle".



Earlier you were mentioning the "Heaven and Earth" being possibly the temple?? Well, consider...

The reference Paul is making is to the ripping of the temple veil: Matthew 27:51-52 which had the effect of opening even graves;

HOWEVER: John does not record the temple curtain, but the equivalent in Jesus: the side of Jesus the Christ being opened:
John 19:34.
So does Paul:
Hebrews 10:19-20

But consider, carefully: Jesus was not entirely dismembered by this until his limbs fell apart to the ground; Rather he was merely "cut" and not a bone of his was broken.

Even when prophecying -- Jesus made the distinction about what was to happen: John 2:19, http://www.biblos.com/john/2-19.htm

Jesus said, you are to "cut" this temple, not totally dismember it;
And his enemies, couldn't make the charge stick unless they exaggerated what he said -- Mark 14:57-58; Where they misquote Jesus, and use the stronger word "KATA-lyse" tear-DOWN.




Now, a little thought...
The law of Moses required the curtain to be made in order to hide the holy of holies from people's sight, or worse, entry. (naos in Greek) lest they die. This was a provision that the people of Israel first insisted on when Moses came down with his face shining with a mere reflection of God's glory; He had to wear a veil to hide that from the fearing Israelites. It wasn't Moses' desire to add the veil -- it was a concession.

The text in Ephesians 2, then, is not about abrogating the entire Law of Moses; it is referring to the rending of the temple veil which ultimately came from the self imposed law of the Israelites; eg: some statutes prevented man from entering that part of the temple on account of *their* sin -- and note veils are dual purposed: eg: harlotry -- vs. modesty. Genesis 38:15

It's hard to imagine that Paul indicates by this anything more than the sacrificial potions of the law of Moses (Yom kippur, etc.) are abolished by what he says in Ephesians 2.

---------------------- New subject

And I just realized that the word you have been seeking; "epoch" or "age" is in that passage; and I think I know why you might think eternal and "age" are the same word; I don't know why it didn't occur to me before -- but good thing you made me study....

Look here:
Ephesians 2:7 αιωσιν ( it means epoch, or "age" )
http://www.biblos.com/ephesians/2-7.htm
Generally "age" is spelled: αιων-α, αιων-ι, αιων-ων, αιων-ος, αιων-ας and I think that's pretty much all you will find in the new testament.

The word for eternal is similarly spelled, but has an extra iota (smallest Greek letter. ;) ) is tacked on BEFORE an additional ending:
αιωνι-ον, αιωνι-αν, αιωνι-ου

So, to tell the difference in Greek just look for nu + iota + more letters... If you see that pattern its: eternal/perpetual , otherwise it's an "age".

----------------- Final comment

I don't understand your question. I believe that the basic New Testament argument is that all people - Jew or Gentile - are considered to be candidate members of the "true Israel" category associated with the New Covenant.

I don't understand his question either.... I got lost.
:dunno

 

[About the Son of God]

No Drew what I am saying is this ..,. Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Am I the only person on the whole internet who see some of these posts like this or is some one not making the clear point they believe they are making....

:D
No, not the only one.... -- I *sure* do; every 5th post or so....

I worry a bit about younger impressionable kids....
I think making qualifying statements periodically is important. :gah

God bless everyone, anyway, and lead them to outdo each other in love.
Romans 12:10

 

[Mitspa]

Yes, I believe it waxed old and passed away shortly after Hebrews was written.

This article answered my questions on "the Law"
It is very informative. I'll post the link for the rest of it.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV) "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.​

What is Christ saying here? Look at it carefully. He said that he did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law. Some questions that we need to ask are, "What is the Law? What is destroy verses fulfill. What is heaven and earth? What does "pass away" mean? What is a jot and tittle?
Let's start by attempting to answer the question, "What does Jesus mean by 'the law'?" Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but fulfill" - The use of the terms "the law" and "the prophets" indicates that what the Lord is speaking of in these verses is the whole of the Old Testament. If you trace these terms through your Bible, you will find that wherever this expression is used it includes the entire Old Testament:

Matthew 7:12 (NKJV) "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.​

Matthew 11:13 (NKJV) "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.​

Matthew 22:40 (NKJV) "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."​

The "law" and "the prophets" speak of the entirety of the Old Testament.
One Commentator writes, "Exactly what did Christ here signify by 'the law'? We answer, unhesitatingly, The whole Jewish Law, which was threefold: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. The ceremonial described rules and ordinances to be observed in the worship of God; the judicial described ordinances for the government of the Jewish commonwealth, and the punishment of offenders: the former was for the Jews only; the latter primarily for them, yet concerned all people in all times so far as it tended to establish the moral Law. The moral Law is contained in the Ten Commandments."
He goes on to say, "The ceremonial law has not been destroyed by Christ, but the substance now fills the place of its shadows. Nor has the judicial law been destroyed: though it has been abrogated unto us so far as it was peculiar to the Jews, yet, as it agrees with the requirements of civic justice and mercy, and as it serves to establish the precepts of the moral law, it is perpetual--herein we may see the blasphemous impiety of the popes of Rome, who in the canons have dared to dispense with some of the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18. While the moral law remains for ever as a rule of obedience to every child of God, as we have shown so often in these pages."
Did you notice that he divided the law into three categories: moral, judicial (civil), and ceremonial. This started with Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) back in the 13th century, and most Christians seem to have adopted this division. The problem with this is that there is nothing in Scripture to support the idea that the Law should be divided into three parts, such as the ceremonial Law, the civil Law and the moral Law. Most teach that God has done away with the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law but not with the moral aspect of the Law. Such a distinction is not drawn anywhere in the Scriptures. The Law is viewed as a unit or as a whole. James said that anyone who breaks one point of the Law, breaks the whole Law.

James 2:10 (NKJV) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.​

No distinction is made between different types of the Law. The Old Testament Jews who violated a ceremonial aspect of the Law were morally guilty of sin before God. Therefore, the moral and ceremonial aspects went together.
Even if this division was legitimate, it's not clear what "moral" means. Who determines what is moral and what is civil or ceremonial?
Alright, so when Jesus uses the term "law", he is most likely referring to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures. What does Jesus say here about the Old Testament?

Matthew 5:18 (NKJV) "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.​

The NKJV "Assuredly, I say to you" is the updated rendering of the KJV, "Verily, I say unto you." This phrase carried great significance, since it prepared the listener that something of great importance was about to be communicated on the authority of the teacher.
What is a "jot or title"? The word "jot" in form was like an apostrophe, not even a letter, not much bigger than a dot. The "tittle" is the little projecting part at the foot of a letter, the little line at each side of the foot of , for example, the letter "t". The message is clear. Not even the smallest part of the law will be abolished until heaven and earth passes away.
The phrase "till heaven and earth pass away" refers to the duration of the whole Old Testament's authority. So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away. Is that what Jesus said? Please notice that the word "till" occurs twice. And it is the first "till" that most people ignore.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in his commentary on The Sermon On The Mount, writes, "The first proposition is that God's law is absolute; it can never be changed, not even modified to the slightest extent. It is absolute and eternal. Its demands are permanent, and can never be abrogated or reduced 'till heaven and earth pass'. That last expression means the end of the age." He also says, "What is meant by 'the law' and 'the prophets'? The answer is, the whole of the Old Testament."

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/matthew/law_fulfill.htm

Yes the truth is not far from anyone who is willing to be honest enough to understand that when The Lord uses the the term "every jot and tittle" He means what He says and says what He means. As it is written, CURSED ARE THOSE WHO CONTINUE NOT IN ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO DO THEM.

 

[Mitspa]

No Drew what I am saying is this ..,. Reading some of these posts I get the idea that some how this list of 'things' is ok

Am I the only person on the whole internet who see some of these posts like this or is some one not making the clear point they believe they are making....

:D
No, not the only one.... -- I *sure* do; every 5th post or so....

I worry a bit about younger impressionable kids....
I think making qualifying statements periodically is important. :gah

God bless everyone, anyway, and lead them to outdo each other in love.
Romans 12:10

yes he who loves another has fulfilled the law. It would be great to teach the young people how to walk as Jesus walked and not as the pharisee.
FOR THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

By the time the Seed had come, the Law of Moses was a mixture of man made traditions and writings from various "Lawyers" together with the Book of the Law of Moses, which became known as Judaism. Which is why the High Priest and leadership of Israel murdered the Son of God, because Judaism is an antichrist religion.

That is the point I was am making and am making and will continue to make.

As I said before, so I will say it again - JUDAISM IS AN ANTICHRIST RELIGION!!!!

People make this same kind of argument about Christianity. They refuse to be called Christians because many have misrepresented it, for example, even murdering others in the name of Christianity.

It's very narrow logic.

Murdering Christ is antichrist.

The law of Moses that God gave him made no provision for murdering an innocent man.

Why would anyone, such as yourself Jethro, validate someone who "thinks" Messianic Judaism or any other form of Judaism is any different.

Thats the point!

Sounds just like the 'I'm not a Christian' argument made by some believers. It's ridiculous.

The Messianic movement has at its foundation Messianic Judaism. It promotes another Jesus and another Gospel, one that mixes Judaism with the Gospel.

Let me show you from the scriptures what Messianic Judaism looks like -

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

I can tell you with all certainty you will be hard pressed to find a Messianic believer who says this. Are you opened minded enough to acknowledge that?

The biggest mistake you and so many others are making, because of the indoctrination saddled on the church today, is that any and all mention of the law automatically means 'trying to be justified by the law'. Even when you explain to them that it is not hands go up firmly clasped on the ears, "yes it is!"

Incredibly frustrating. But I understand it. I was the victim of that narrow, dogmatic indoctrination, too, once.

Please tell me Jethro, what parts of the Law of Moses do you believe that gentiles should keep.

Please list them for me so I will know.

Should keep? The moral parts of the Law of Moses.

Can keep? Any of them...as long as it's not for the purpose of trying to be justified by those laws.

This really is very, very simple, but the church, in it's attempt to suppress everything 'law' has made it so difficult.

See you at lunch....

 

[francisdesales]

There is option 3) A new covenant was offered to both Greeks and Gentiles; which lysed (cut) part of the Mosaic law, and left the rest optionally intact for the Jews able to obey it.

This is the position that Ryan, essentially, has been attempting to defend; He appears to want to say the Aaronite priesthood laws have been replaced (abrogated) by Jesus -- but the rest of the law may be obeyed (and failure no longer results in a curse.).

I agree - Paul is arguing against the legal binding or juridicial aspect of the Mosaic Law upon anyone. No longer are Jews bound to follow the Mosaic Law to attain righteousness. I believe that is what Messianic Jews teach, that they keep the Mosaic Law as a cultural marker, rather than as a means to obtaining righteousness. I do not believe that Messianic Jews expect or require Gentile Christians to become Jews or continue the practices that Moses gave them.

A person can follow the Mosaic law for the sake of piety, but the operative means of attaining righteousness is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Regards

 

[Ryan]

I don't understand your question. I believe that the basic New Testament argument is that all people - Jew or Gentile - are considered to be candidate members of the "true Israel" category associated with the New Covenant.

Sorry, my question was actually in a form of a statement that I didn't present well. Drew your argument was centered on God's laws being the division between Jew and Gentile in pre-Christ days. You argued that God himself made a barrier between the Jews and the nations with he law of Moses. The Torah was given so Israel would be distinct amongst the nations, but in a manner glorifying God and driving the nations to worship the God of Israel. I showed you numerous passages where foreigners were welcomed into the commonwealth of Israel. Nineveh is another example of revival and repentance of a foreign nation. However, you argued it was God's laws that were the middle wall of division because they were given to Israel. So using that logic and point of view then...

Did God create another wall of division with the New Covenant as it is solely made with Israel? Are we excluded because Gentiles are not specifically included? I hoped you answered no to both.

 

[Ryan]

There is option 3) A new covenant was offered to both Greeks and Gentiles; which lysed (cut) part of the Mosaic law, and left the rest optionally intact for the Jews able to obey it.

This is the position that Ryan, essentially, has been attempting to defend; He appears to want to say the Aaronite priesthood laws have been replaced (abrogated) by Jesus -- but the rest of the law may be obeyed (and failure no longer results in a curse.).

I agree - Paul is arguing against the legal binding or juridicial aspect of the Mosaic Law upon anyone. No longer are Jews bound to follow the Mosaic Law to attain righteousness. I believe that is what Messianic Jews teach, that they keep the Mosaic Law as a cultural marker, rather than as a means to obtaining righteousness. I do not believe that Messianic Jews expect or require Gentile Christians to become Jews or continue the practices that Moses gave them.

A person can follow the Mosaic law for the sake of piety, but the operative means of attaining righteousness is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Regards

We do not believe one has to convert to being a Jew. Jew and Gentile one in Messiah, one in the Olive Tree. We do believe God in his infinite wisdom and love, gave us the Torah as the path to walk AFTER receiving salvation. So this includes the commandments that can be observed today. A cultural marker you said, just adds a wall of division that these are solely for the Jews. These are God's commandments, not the Jews. It's the path God called us out from our own spiritual Egypt to walk in. That in a nutshell is what we believe.

 

[Drew]

Well, if you are not doing what I am saying, please point me to any post that suggests that these things are OK. I do not recall seeing any.

 

[Drew]

Look at the beginning of the verse and the writer is making a clear distinction between the customized and the uncustomized group. The Jew and Gentile. Pentecost and Peter's vision is so prevalent here, and both speak to the thought of the day. Judaism was teaching, and of which Peter was guilty of at one point, Gentiles were unclean and had to convert to being a Jew to merit salvation. That is the very fabric and substance of many of the Epistles and the issues being addressed for each region.

This may be so, but it does not address my argument. Unless you are saying - and no person familiar with the Old Testament should say this - that the Law of Moses as specified by God did not split humanity into two groups. It certainly did! And its not a man-made distinction, its a God-decreed distinction:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [o]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything [p]that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine

I suspect, repeat suspect, that you are trying to argue that the "genuine" Law of Moses did not function to split humanity into two groups. I am quite confident that position simply cannot work. From the rest of your post, it does appear that this is what you are trying to say. I am confident there are many texts that show that this simply cannot work - God clearly intends the Law of Moses to, among other things perhaps, distinguish the Jew from the Gentile. And this is precisely why the abolition of the Law of Moses is precisely what would unite Jew and Gentile.

Yes, it might seem to us that God should never set aside the Jew from the Gentile and give a special law and special promises. But what seems "right" to us is not the prime consideration - the prime consideration is what the Bible says.