When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[JLB]

"Sub-covenant?" Never heard that one before. What was to "change" is actually properly rendered as transposition, or a transfer of the priesthood. Check it up in the concordance G#3331, or "transferral to heaven"

And Paul is talking that previous covenants do not annul earlier ones if you would have gone further in GAlatians 3:17 "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."

Why in Galatians 3:21 "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law." would Paul then exclaim "may it never be!" Why didn't he just say, "Meh, don't matter anymore about the Law so don't worry about it. It's gone, annulled, vanished, etc?" Paul always upheld the Law as a means of how a believer was to conduct and live out their life in trusting faithfulness to Jesus.

Hebrews 8:13 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.
This verse comes at the conclusion of *two whole chapters* devoted to showing the superiority of Jesus's "Melchizedek' priesthood to that of our earthly Levitical priesthood. So what is 'ready to vanish' must be taken in the context of what has just been discussed! It is the earthly temple and the earthly priesthood ready to vanish, to be rendered inoperational (as did occur a few years later in 70 CE). What is about to vanish away here is NOT Torah; it can only mean the just-discussed the temple & associated priesthood. Why? "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17 Have heaven and earth ended? The law will not fail! The only thing about to vanish away here is the earthly temple and priesthood.

Now notice that the *need* for a priesthood doesn't change, merely the means of provision for the priesthood. Torah is upheld, the provision for the priesthood is upheld. But instead of earthly priests we will now have a perfect high priest instead. Likewise with sacrifices -- the *need* for a sacrifice doesn't fade away (if it did, Yeshua would have died in vain since the Torah covenant requiring sacrifice would be made void!) Torah remains valid, what changed was only the means of how the sacrifice was provided. Torah is upheld -- G-d makes provision for both a priest *and* a sacrifice even though the temple cult is about to disappear.

God's appointed times (like the Yom Kippur atonement mentioned here in Hebrews), God's convocations (from the Hebrew word "mikraw" - Strong's #4744) *means* rehearsal! These appointed times were literal earthly rites in and of themselves, but they were also shadows (rehearsals) of larger heavenly events to come! In other words, Torah itself (in its wording) was alluding to the fact that each festival of God had a bigger fulfillment coming. Jesus perfectly demonstrates this with His unique priesthood and Yom Kippur atonement. So what is 'about to vanish away' in Hebrew 8:13 is that the earthly rehearsal is becoming the heavenly event it originally foreshadowed. Torah itself is being brought to perfection/completeness with this changeover.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Yeshua the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. ​

Note the present tense -- He *is* the mediator of the new covenant. He has NOT established the new covenant yet -- but He is at the right hand of the Father, in the heavenly holy of holies, sprinkling His own blood, acting as our high priest and mediating between us and God. He will not return and establish this new covenant *until both parties (Israel & Judah)* are willing to enter into this covenant with Him. At the last Passover Seder, Jesus mentioned the cup of the covenant; yet He was clear to tie it's completion in with the messianic kingdom. He said "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Matthew 26:29 Jesus is currently mediating the New Covenant, but it isn't in effect until He returns, sets up His kingdom, and drinks that last seder cup!
​

"Sub-covenant?" Never heard that one before.

The Law was "added" to, without changing, the Abrahamic Covenant.

If the Law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant then it is a "part" of it.

If a "breath analyzer" is added to a 1967 Mustang by a Judge because the person who was operating the 1967 Mustang has multiple convictions for for DWI, the "breath analyzer" does not change the fact that the car is a 1967 Mustang.

The "breath analyzer" was added until the person had a nature that didn't want to drink and therefore would operate the car as intended, therefore making the "breath analyzer" obsolete. What is obsolete is removed because it is not needed anymore nor was it ever intended to be a permanent part of the 1967 Mustang.

The 1967 Mustang is operated as it was intended with all the applicable rules and laws.

Not the rules and the Laws of the "breath analyzer", but the rules and Laws of the place where the car is operated, which is called the Kingdom of God.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Most of your post is DEFINITELY brow beating; and perhaps I can help you determine exactly what that means -- and how to avoid me saying it in the future.

You have posted this specific scriptural QUOTATION in full, over and over and over -- to the point of practically spamming the thread. Everyone has seen the posts -- ad nausium. There is NO NEW INFORMATION in the scripture; there's really no new argument from post to post. I have asked you to show your point another way... but you don't address the other arguments, but repeat the one already made.

YOU say it yourself preferentially "I will only address your last point"

You made that argument before before before....

Well, I'll look at it from the human side of a debate, this time.

Why do you bold "your private interpretation." if you don't wish to sound like you are yelling at *ME* personally?
I don't see how that's self defense of your own private interpretation.

So, it's the very heart of an ad-hominem attack. You're saying I'm inferior to someone else and "voting".

Besides which, (your personal preferences of a virtual mob of 8, aside) I made my point using many of those 8 translations already. In English;
eg: sin was in the world until the law .... does not mean, sin stopped being in the world after the law.
(KJV) Romans 5:13

Do you not know what the expression "beating a dead horse" means? :D
I'm sorry I used it!

And whom wrote the KJV (how many scholars, name them)? And HOW much of it was re-translated in the NKJV? Do you know if they re-translated the passage in Galatians or not, and *WHY* ?

In your list, (for example) the KJV is a different translation than the NKJV; and (intentionally or not) that type of listing is an *artificial* magnification the number of translations.

I'm more than happy to discuss and have my translation brought into question, picked over thoroughly.
I'm fine if you don't agree to use it.

But: My argument doesn't depend on my Greek translation.... SO WHY DO YOU BRING IT UP? And what will you do except spam the scripture again, or will someone claim (THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT SPAM)!!?

Whose private interpretation is really being pushed on anyone here? How do you know? What is my "interpretation"?
I have simply said, "until" is NOT "proof" -- I did not say "Galatians must mean xxx."

Do you have argument to show what Galatians means, besides spamming?
I might even be convinced. I am in the research stage, not the decision stage.

Look up the word "apophatic" -- I'm not going to explain the Greek meaning, but it's definitely part of the problem we're having.

There doesn't need to be any "new" information. The information, which is scripture written at the hand of Paul, is just as meaningful today as it was when it was written.

Your "study" and conclusion to change the wording of the scripture is really not that "new" either.

Here is a new scripture with its use of the word until -

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

In order for you see the "change' that the word until institutes, I will ask you a question.

Did John the Baptist preach the "kingdom of God"?

Please answer with simple yes or no, not a 5 paragraph study of the "Greek".


JLB

 

[jasoncran]

the torah still teaches today. sheesh.

I will be doing a study on the visions of Ezekiel and the arc. its said that the arc is what is seen in both books of Ezekiel and revalation.

 

[About the Son of God]

There doesn't need to be any "new" information. The information, which is scripture written at the hand of Paul, is just as meaningful today as it was when it was written.

The SAME passage doesn't need to be re-posted to the same person 5 times, with no new information.

Here is a new scripture with its use of the word until -

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

The real emphasis, which you missed, is that "everyone" (not just the Jews) are pressing into it.

And it's a BEAUTIFUL example of my proof of the flaw in the word "until".
Sometimes "until" doesn't mean what people *assume* it does.

The prophets end with John by your statement, correct?

1Cori 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Cori 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Revelation 1:1
(RKV) This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, of things which must soon find their due accomplishment.
(KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;

Chapter 1. Footnotes on a potential sermon
-------------------------------------------------------------
- The mustang which came to pass -
-------------------------------------------------------------

I have yet to see any court of LAW ordered Breathalyzer put in a car removed on account of someone loosing the alcoholic nature. It's generally not done.

But even if the change in law were to happen -- there's no guarantee that the owner of the car will yank the blow sucks device. They might have to damage the car to get it out, depending on what idiot put it in the car. And, even if it's easy to remove -- It's still their option to decide when it is removed; And what if they find an advantage to a "new" breathalyzer surrogate, one which saves money -- a Progressive(tm) "snapshot" camera -- combined with their Guaranteed sober driving fantasy... could buy them out of prison.

Besides, they drive sober now anyway....

There are a "LOT" of obsolete radios found in old cars, that no one bothered to remove. There are a "LOT" of obsolete vinyl records that people keep just for the fun of having them. Ready to pass away, all these things are.... but, it's not yet the end of the world, they have plenty of time to decide when (and if) to trash these things.

-------------------------
YES - John PREACHED the coming of the KINGDOM! (But he didn't fully understand it)
--------------------------

Revel 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Consider: it takes two (2) to argue.
If an obsolete 1960-70's mustang could make it from earth to an arbitrary point between the earth and moon in 60 hours (without an optional car bomb installed); How quickly could a modern tomahawk cruise missile get there?
Do you want to keep the outdated Mustang for personal reasons, or should we shoot it and bury it?

 

[JLB]

-------------------------
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES (7x) -- John PREACHED the coming of the KINGDOM!
(but in less than 1 lines worth of text in my post

Now that we both agree that John preached the kingdom, I think it is obvious that the Law and Prophets were until John.

Then starting with John a change took place.

Out of the mouth of Jesus -

The law and the prophets were until John.

What was obsolete vanished away.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

There doesn't need to be any "new" information. The information, which is scripture written at the hand of Paul, is just as meaningful today as it was when it was written.

Your "study" and conclusion to change the wording of the scripture is really not that "new" either.

Here is a new scripture with its use of the word until -

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

In order for you see the "change' that the word until institutes, I will ask you a question.

Did John the Baptist preach the "kingdom of God"?

Please answer with simple yes or no, not a 5 paragraph study of the "Greek".


JLB

Very nice. Not quite though, I feel, of what the scriptures represent.

-------------------------------------------------------------
- The mustang which came to pass -
-------------------------------------------------------------

I have yet to see any LAW ordered install of a Breathalyzer in a car removed on account of someone "loosing the alcoholic nature". It's not done. But even if the law were to happen -- there's no guarantee that the owner of the car will do so. It's their option to decide when it is removed, even though it is "obsolete" or an older model of breathalyzer -- or whether the "new" way is to get a Progressive(tm) "snapshot" camera installed to reduce their debt on account of their new Guaranteed sober driving fantasy...

There are a "LOT" of obsolete radios found in old cars, that no one bothered to remove. There are a "LOT" of obsolete vinyl records that people keep just for the fun of having them. Ready to pass away, all these things are.... but, it's not yet the end of the world, they have plenty of time to decide when (and if) to trash these things.

I'm reminded of these passages when talking about the old days.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the Lord, “Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

Jeremiah 18:15 For My people have forgotten Me, They burn incense to worthless gods And they have stumbled from their ways, From the ancient paths, To walk in bypaths, Not on a highway,

Even in the Epistles, the call was still to walk in the ancient paths and ways.

1 John 2:7-8 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard. 8 On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.

 

[About the Son of God]

I have a little sister who has no breasts, what shall we do in the time of her betrothal?
I can not speak the holy word further without tears, yet I will... "Your breasts are like towers..."

Song of Solomon:

Songs 8:10 I am a wall and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favor.

Walls and tower, she makes her body an image of the City of Jerusalem, or any fortified city. To not have breasts, then, suggests it is indefensible -- but perhaps on account of being immature, and unbuilt.

8:8 -- The little sister is sexually immature, they look forward to the changes coming.
8:9 -- a proverb of how to approach faith, traditionally
8:10 -- reminding us that faithfulness deserves silver, crowned...
8:11 ff
It seems that the woman had a vineyard (which is a people) of her own; so it would have been hers before marriage. If she were not married (engaged?), then the garden and it's money are hers -- if she is married, then the conversation she has with Solomon is about him getting the profits from her vineyard, and the workers getting their share.

Her desire is not to "begrudge" him his profit -- but she does want him, himself, to be hers and patiently mentions the king forgetting to take walks, jouneys, from/in the garden like a deer. (a parallel to God in Eden.)

Compare: Matthew 21:34

In the song of Solomon, the woman from 1:4 is a black skinned Ethiopian; I don't see this woman replaced in the song, except by a reference to "sunam" -- which would be abishag the shunamite (1Kings 1:3), King david's virgin "nursemaid" whom was left in Solomon's hands. So in either event -- the song implies she's a foreigner; not an Israelite ( who don't tan darkly. )

Consider Isaiah 60:16 and know the purpose of the milk of the word.

Suck "suck the breast of Gentiles" fits in; although suck the breast of "Kings" is obscure.

I was speaking earlier of how the marriage covenant made two into one flesh;
Within the confines of the Genesis narrative, it is the flesh (not the bones) which establish marriage. On the other hand: It is the bones, which symbolize/have a special place in the resurrection; For the dry bones are What God raises up in Ezekiel's prophecy.

This is why the wicked are left for the dogs to eat; for they lick up the blood, and naturally destroy the bones.

Then there is Milk -- which is what bones are built from. Milk is the body of the mother; just as the man's "slime" of the earth in sexual intercourse is the flesh he gives his wife, (and she to him), so that they are "one" flesh. There is, then, more than one way to be united in body.

In this context, Paul's commentary on Vegetarians. vs. Meat eaters, dead animals vs. a husband, and most of all -- the Hebrew's comment -- become most curious:

Hebre 5:12

I am the little sister, the barren, the unfruitful that utterly depends... There is not one word that comes from my mouth that may benefit others, except it was first spoken by the Father of Jesus our King, delivered to him, spoken to us, uniting us even this day.

I think you are yet young -- when even Sarah had a child and there is one greater than Solomon.

Psalm 131:1 Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.
Psalm 131:2 Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.

 

[About the Son of God]

Now that we both agree that John preached the kingdom, I think it is obvious that the Law and Prophets were until John.

Then starting with John a change took place.

*sigh* Continually bicker, bicker, bicker....

Am I to understand you believe John's death started the new covenant ?!
Or: Do you mean Jeremiah whom you quote *vanished* when John died?
Or: Did Jeremiah live to the day John died and THEN he died?

A fact we DO have is that The Change had already taken place, when Jesus spoke with his disciples...

SO: What *were* before John, that no longer *exist* IMMEDIATELY after John?
How can it be demonstrated from scripture?

Scripture shows THE law had to exist when John was alive (John was older than Jesus).

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law,...

And we have proof many years after John the Baptist dies that the old covenant was still operating;

John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
John 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Following up: You also ignore that the most contentious statement in the thread also *CLARIFIES* the statement you are quoting.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Not to mention a theme which I am just beginning to study in earnest, myself.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Seriously:
A mere change is not what were disputing about with the use of the word "until"

example: Romans 5:13 Sin was in the world UNTIL the law :

That statement can mean a change in sin when the law came; It doesn't prove what kind, or even that sin changes -- BUT in this case, we know that law increases sin; "Knowledge implies guilt".

BUT!!!! We are not free to say "UNTIL" proves a *REVERSAL* automatically.
Sin was in the world until the law -- does not mean sin is "OUT of the world" after the law.

The word "until", itself, is not a proof;
Consider your example, you used a counter argument with me based on "since"
BRAVO! You're on the right track whether you convince me or not in the long run.

But (Caution): For as long as the argument rests on "UNTIL" alone, we aren't going anywhere.

 

[JLB]

*sigh* Continually bicker, bicker, bicker....

Am I to understand you believe John's death started the new covenant ?!
Or: Do you mean Jeremiah whom you quote *vanished* when John died?
Or: Did Jeremiah live to the day John died and THEN he died?

A fact we DO have is that The Change had already taken place, when Jesus spoke with his disciples...

SO: What *were* before John, that no longer *exist* IMMEDIATELY after John?
How can it be demonstrated from scripture?

Scripture shows THE law had to exist when John was alive (John was older than Jesus).

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law,...

And we have proof many years after John the Baptist dies that the old covenant was still operating;

John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
John 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

Following up: You also ignore that the most contentious statement in the thread also *CLARIFIES* the statement you are quoting.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Not to mention a theme which I am just beginning to study in earnest, myself.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Seriously:
A mere change is not what were disputing about with the use of the word "until"

example: Romans 5:13 Sin was in the world UNTIL the law :

That statement can mean a change in sin when the law came; It doesn't prove what kind, or even that sin changes -- BUT in this case, we know that law increases sin; "Knowledge implies guilt".

BUT!!!! We are not free to say "UNTIL" proves a *REVERSAL* automatically.
Sin was in the world until the law -- does not mean sin is "OUT of the world" after the law.

The word "until", itself, is not a proof;
Consider your example, you used a counter argument with me based on "since"
BRAVO! You're on the right track whether you convince me or not in the long run.

But (Caution): For as long as the argument rests on "UNTIL" alone, we aren't going anywhere.

Am I to understand you believe John's death started the new covenant ?!
Or: Do you mean Jeremiah whom you quote *vanished* when John died?
Or: Did Jeremiah live to the day John died and THEN he died?

We are discussing scripture. I am sorry you think that's bickering. I don't.

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

By your explanation of the word "until", John would have had to minister the Law and the Prophets.

By my explanation of the word "until", John would have preached the kingdom of God.

Because the Law and prophets were "until" John.

John paved the way for Jesus. Jesus preached the kingdom of God and fulfilled all the requirements of the Law and established the New Covenant with His blood.

So it is with Galatians, The law was added till the Seed should come...

When the Seed came the change took place.

That change was established by His blood.

The simple fact is, The law of Moses was never intended to be permanent, -

1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Hebrews 10:1-4


again -

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.



He takes away the first that He may establish the second.


He takes away the first ...


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where does the idea of limited time come from? Do you mean a specific "end" date?

No, not an end date. In the context of our discussion, 'limited' was referring to the sin that only remained forgiven (of the sin that could be forgiven under the old system) until you sinned again. Unlike in the New Covenant where all sin is forever forgiven in the one-time sacrifice of Jesus, thereby declaring the person who places their faith in the blood of that sacrifice officially and legally righteous and free of sin guilt.

Because this is true, there is no need for the old system that dealt with a cycle of sin that, in Christ, we no longer have. Thus the laying aside of the old as an obsolete and unneeded system, not an abolished system as we understand that term.

It seems to me, that the old covenant might possibly continue until the parousia, when the world -- rolled up like a garment -- is discarded. (A day is as a thousand years...vis... I am coming soon)

There's no reason to think the outer shell of worship could not have continued because the old temple system was not just for atonement of sin, but for the worship of God through fellowship, peace, and freewill offerings, too. But the old covenant insofar as the WAY for men to maintain a relationship with God, or die, is definitely over, finished. We do that now through the new and better way of faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, it would be a damnable offense to deny the atonement of Christ and seek to do that through the old way.

I'll pop in and out as I can.

 

[John 8:32]

The subject title says it all. I have had different answers to this question from people I know. What does this forum think?

When did the Law pass or is it still operating? And if it still is in effect, shouldn't we be obeying all the "jots and tittles" of it?

I don't think it is a simple question to answer...

It is not a simple question, it is very complex.

When did the Law pass or is it still operating?

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What has passed? According to Christ’s own words, nothing. Heaven and earth are still here, so not a jot or tittle has passed. Is all fulfilled? Has Christ returned?

Mar 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

The context here is the Great Tribulation and the return of Christ. He has not returned yet. There are many other things that have not been fulfilled yet, but only one is sufficient to negate ALL.

The law is really in two parts. I have posted this several times, so unless someone demands it, I will not go through and show the differences between the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses, but we know they are the Law in two parts.

Paul wrote things hard to be understood (2 Pet 3:15-16) and his writings about the Law are such. He establishes the Law (Rom 3:31) but goes to great lengths to show we are not saved by keeping the Law. That does not mean it is not necessary to keep it, but it does mean that perfect obedience does not earn Salvation. An example…

You are seated in a room and across the room from you is a table. On that table is a million bucks. Now if you will stand up, walk over to the table and pick up the money, you can have the $1,000,000.

Some questions, do you have to do anything to receive the million bucks? Yes, you have to stand up, walk over to the table and pick it up. Did you earn it? What productive work did you do to produce the $1,000,000? None!, it was a gift but you had to do something to receive the gift. The Law of God works the same way. Living 100 lifetimes of 100 years each does not earn salvation, but disregarding the Law and doing whatever you please can disqualify you from receiving eternal life…

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Doesn’t earn life, but you have the right to life if you keep the Commandments. Where have I heard that before?

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:

(Now right here, Christ shows that keeping the Commandments does not make you good, only God is good.)

but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

You don’t enter into life because keeping the Commandments made you good and you deserve it, it is a free gift. But God does not give that free gift to serial murderers, adulterers, liars etc. Why would He surround Himself, for all eternity, with children that behave as Satan does instead of children that behave as Christ?

Another point, God expects us to keep His Law, but we can’t keep it perfectly. God is full well aware of that, He looks at our heart…

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

John shows us that Commandment keeping is love…

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

And again, God knows our heart…

Psa 103:10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
Psa 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

Psa 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
Psa 130:4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

 

[JCitoL]

The subject title says it all. I have had different answers to this question from people I know. What does this forum think?

When did the Law pass or is it still operating? And if it still is in effect, shouldn't we be obeying all the "jots and tittles" of it?

I don't think it is a simple question to answer...

the principle of non-infliction of harm to another and of (show of) love towards the others will always be in effect to the end - without it we would ruin each other

Romans 7:6-7 "we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet(i.e. do not cause a harm to another by desire)."

Blessings

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What has passed? According to Christ’s own words, nothing. Heaven and earth are still here, so not a jot or tittle has passed. Is all fulfilled? Has Christ returned?

Here's the problem with this thinking.

We all know that some things in the law have indeed 'disappeared'. It's not even in debate among us Christians who believe in the atonement through Christ's blood. We all no it is no longer necessary to have sin guilt removed through the blood of an animal. The laws concerning the removal of sin guilt through animal sacrifice have 'disappeared' from the law. Not destroyed, just not needed anymore. Laid aside.

This being true, one of the two conditions Christ laid down before that could happen (that is, something disappear from the law) must have been met. It's only logical. We know the earth and the heavens are still here, so that leaves the condition of the fulfilling to have been met.

The laws of sacrifice for sin are not destroyed in Christ. He said he did not come to do that, but rather they are fulfilled in him. Christ's blood and body satisfies and fulfills God's requirements for blood sacrifice for sin, not destroy them. Christ's sacrifice is the fulfillment that allows the 'disappearing' of much, much more than just a jot or tittle of the law. It includes many laws regarding the sacrifice of animals for the removal of sin guilt, and the time table, and procedures, and place for doing that.

I honestly don't see how anyone could argue with this.

 

[John 8:32]

Here's the problem with this thinking.

We all know that some things in the law have indeed 'disappeared'. It's not even in debate among us Christians who believe in the atonement through Christ's blood. We all no it is no longer necessary to have sin guilt removed through the blood of an animal. The laws concerning the removal of sin guilt through animal sacrifice have 'disappeared' from the law. Not destroyed, just not needed anymore. Laid aside.

So, sin no longer requires blood? Then why did Christ die? He became the perfect sacrifice that replaces animal sacrifices. They were the schoolmaster that leads us to Christ...

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, (The law of sacrifices were a shadow of the coming of Christ, the schoolmaster that leads us to Christ) and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

They were a bloody reminder that...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

So you would lay aside the need for a Lamb to be sacrificed for sin? I need that Lamb because I am not perfect...

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This being true, one of the two conditions Christ laid down before that could happen (that is, something disappear from the law) must have been met. It's only logical. We know the earth and the heavens are still here, so that leaves the condition of the fulfilling to have been met.

So, ALL is fulfilled? Preterist huh? Also thanks for the interesting interpretation of boolean logic, and really means or.

The laws of sacrifice for sin are not destroyed in Christ. He said he did not come to do that, but rather they are fulfilled in him.

And you just finished telling me they were set aside, disappeared.

Christ's blood and body satisfies and fulfills God's requirements for blood sacrifice for sin, not destroy them.

Christ's sacrifice is the fulfillment that allows the 'disappearing' of much, much more than just a jot or tittle of the law.

If the law that sin requires blood has disappeared, then it no longer exists. If it no longer exists, you just said it had disappeared, why do I need the shed blood of Christ for a law that no longer exists?

It includes many laws regarding the sacrifice of animals for the removal of sin guilt, and the time table, and procedures, and place for doing that.

I honestly don't see how anyone could argue with this.

And you just finished telling me that these laws were fulfilled, yet they disappeared. Hmmm, "amoosin' but confoosin' " as Lil Abner used to say.

Nice argument but it hasn't convinced me that Christ did not mean what He said in Mat 5:17-18. Since He was the one who spoke on Mt. Sinai and He was the one who gave the Law to Moses, I suspect He knows a little more about it than you.

 

[Ryan]

Here is a good, short article I found explaining the sacrifices and their purpose. If nothing else, scroll down to the very bottom and read the afterthought.

http://www.rooted-in-torah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Animal-Sacrifice.pdf

 

[John 8:32]

Here is a good, short article I found explaining the sacrifices and their purpose. If nothing else, scroll down to the very bottom and read the afterthought.

http://www.rooted-in-torah.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Animal-Sacrifice.pdf

Very good article indeed. A casual reading of Ezek 40 -48 reveals that there will be animal sacrifices again in the Millenium. It is a horribly bloody personal reminder of the price of sin.

 

[About the Son of God]

Jethro,

Thank you. You've given me something to think about.
I look forward to sharing more thoughts with you -- in the future as you are able.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Very good article indeed. A casual reading of Ezek 40 -48 reveals that there will be animal sacrifices again in the Millenium. It is a horribly bloody personal reminder of the price of sin.

This is dispensationalism and comes from a faulty overly literal interpretation of Ezekiel and it's future fulfillment, we need to realize the kind of literature Ezekiel 40-48 is and then interpret the text in light of that. Your casual reading might not be an accurate reading because us westerners are not familiar with apocalyptic literature as the Jews were.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, sin no longer requires blood?

Sin no longer requires animal blood as commanded by the law.

Then why did Christ die? He became the perfect sacrifice that replaces animal sacrifices.

That's what I'm saying. The laws of animal sacrifice for sin have been laid aside. We don't need them anymore for atoning for sin. Like I said, Christians are essentially in complete agreement about this.

So you would lay aside the need for a Lamb to be sacrificed for sin?

A literal lamb, "yes." There's no need for it now that the Lamb of God has appeared and made the lawful requirement for a literal lamb obsolete and no longer needed.

So, ALL is fulfilled? Preterist huh?

What Jesus was talking about has been accomplished. How do we know? We all agree much more than just a jot or a tittle has 'disappeared' from the law (no longer needs to be kept). Simple logic tells us one of the two conditions Jesus gave that would allow the accomplishment he was speaking of to happen has happened.

Also thanks for the interesting interpretation of boolean logic, and really means or.

"...until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. " (Matthew 5: NASB)

See? Between the moment Jesus was speaking, and the passing of heaven and earth, nothing will pass from the law...until all is accomplished. We know the 'all is accomplished' has occurred. How? Because Jesus said nothing in this age would pass from the law until that happened. Well, something did pass from the law, so the 'all is accomplished' must have happened (simple reasoning). We don't even have to know exactly what 'all is accomplished' is referring to. We just know some things have passed from the law to allow that to happen. So we can say with confidence, 'all is accomplished'. Honestly, think it's impossible to argue the point.

 

[JLB]

Jethro Bodine

See? Between the moment Jesus was speaking, and the passing of heaven and earth, nothing will pass from the law...until all is accomplished. We know the 'all is accomplished' has occurred. How? Because Jesus said nothing in this age would pass from the law until that happened. Well, something did pass from the law, so the 'all is accomplished' must have happened (simple reasoning). We don't even have to know exactly what 'all is accomplished' is referring to. We just know some things have passed from the law to allow that to happen. So we can say with confidence, 'all is accomplished'. Honestly, think it's impossible to argue the point.

Kinda like saying -

If the road that brought me here is the same road that brought this quarter, then what good is the road.

Now call it, heads or tails. Its a fifty fifty chance.

Thats the best I can do for you.


JLB