Jesus abolished the entire Old Testament.

[listed]

Acts 3:
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
Since fulfill in Mat. 5: 17-18 is suppose to mean abolished then it must mean the same here.

If Jesus has fulfilled the law, the Psalms and the prophets, what is left for us to fulfill?

 

[Steve Petersen]

If Jesus has fulfilled the law, the Psalms and the prophets, what is left for us to fulfill?

Depends on what you mean by 'fulfill' doesn't it.

The word used in Matthew 5:20 is 'telos' in Greek.

The Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) uses 'telos' as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'malei.' 'Malei' has more the sense of 'establish, affirm or confirm.'

In rabbinic literature, 'abolish' and 'fulfill' commandments means 'not do' or 'do' the commandments, respectively.

 

[listed]

Depends on what you mean by 'fulfill' doesn't it.

The word used in Matthew 5:20 is 'telos' in Greek.

The Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) uses 'telos' as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'malei.' 'Malei' has more the sense of 'establish, affirm or confirm.'

In rabbinic literature, 'abolish' and 'fulfill' commandments means 'not do' or 'do' the commandments, respectively.

Unless you are trying to say we must also fulfill the law, I have no idea what you are talking about. Such does not line up with the NT revelation or teaching about salvation. We do not have to keep the law to be redeemed or retain that redemption. Otherwise salvation is not a gift of God and indeed we can save ourselves and do not need Jesus. To that I say baloney.

 

[VictorC]

One word: sarcasm.

Which is antithetical to discussion. Proverbs 26:18-19 addresses the flippant attitude you introduced with your OP:

Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Is the man who deceives his neighbor,
And says, “I was only joking!”​

There was content in my post you simply ignored.

Was it too hard to answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'?

You simply can't reconcile this myth with the Jewish believers having been delivered from the Mosaic covenant (Romans 7:6-7, Galatians 4:4-7) and the Gentile believers being instructed to cast off the Mosaic covenant (Galatians 4:21-30), or with Jesus taking away the Mosaic covenant to establish the new one (Hebrews 10:9).

 

[VictorC]

You know something, that is true. The law move from stone to flesh, removed.

It doesn't do you any good to repeat an unBiblical idea that was already addressed and refuted.

The passage also rejects your attempt to call the old covenant 'new' by shuffling the old covenant to another location. This wasn't lost on the inspired author of the epistle to the Hebrews in his conclusion regarding Jeremiah's prophecy.

Hebrews 8:13
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.​

That vanishing act was a fait accompli by the time this same author penned Hebrews 10:9: He takes away the first that He may establish the second. God didn't write the old covenant into your heart, but rather took it away. What Jeremiah knew was that God would write His 'My law' that isn't according to the former covenant into our being. Many of us take the view this refers to God's promise to write His Spirit into His redeemed purchased possession, supported by Ezekiel 36:26. The following verse keeps statutes and judgments externalized, showing that they aren't written into anyone.

 

[zelosravioli]

I like this thread but I didn't see a reference to the idea that by accepting Christ and repenting we die, something the Law demands of the sinner. Being dead you can do nothing anyways, not even do the law. So as the Law was death for the sinner, it was life for the righteous. Yet none were righteous, so all would die (an eternal death), and only those who trust in God's sacrifice (the only righteous one) will live. but now that we are alive again, we live with a new motive of thanks. And so we obey Gods Laws in principle, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit of the Law. Not out of fear, but in thanks:
'But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter' (Romans 7:6)
A lot of the NT appeals to the New Covenant, but Paul in Romans goes into the greatest detail on the revealed mystery of 'our' place in the covenant. So it makes no sense to assume the Law of Moses gives us anything but death, unless we have Christ. So a believer dies, and yet now we serve Christ. Jesus who is the Law, and who was the Law of Moses (the Word of God), and who now lives in us, He is now our Lord and master. Not in the letter of the Law but in The Spirit of the Law.
'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God' (Romans 7:25)
The Law I serve is Christ, and He was the Law of Moses, the Word of God. In Him I obey. In Him I keep the Sabbath, because He fulfilled it.

Don't you feel that you take your actions and choices before God, in the spirit, and let Him direct your path? That it is between you and God? Since now we have the Spirit of God and the mind of Christ, does not the Law seem pleasing and good, a pattern to live by? This is hard to explain, but it’s as if we are in Christ and we no longer act on our own. I honor my mother and father, I love my neighbor, but I shave my beard…

 

[VictorC]

If Jesus has fulfilled the law, the Psalms and the prophets, what is left for us to fulfill?

Elder111 hasn't responded to post #30 on this thread.

Of course not! That has been the idea promoted by who concluded that fulfill means abolished. If fulfill in Mat. 5 means abolished then so does Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.So Jesus abolished all the prophets said.

Truncating Matthew 5:17-18 into a meaningless sound-bite leaves you ignoring the fulfillment the Greek pleroo, indicating Jesus' intent to bring the Mosaic covenant to consummation in His expiatory sacrifice and atonement. Besides this, you're describing your own position, as you're now unable to reconcile your latest complaint with your opening statement:

I have just discovered that Jesus abolished the entire Old Testament, not just the law.

For you, Christ's fulfillment of the spring feasts culminating in bringing salvation to the Gentiles on Shavuot (Pentecost) never happened. For you, there isn't going to be a second advent, for Acts 1:11 derives God's promise to return from Zechariah 14:4. For you, the fulness of time has never and will never come, and as a Gentile you remain and will ever remain forever estranged from God:

Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.​

There is no such thing as "now" in a view that rejects Christ's propitiation.

Calvary didn't do anything within a view that dismisses Christ's promise to fulfill everything in the Law and the Prophets. Don't bother bringing up heaven and earth passing away, as that won't ever happen because nothing will be fulfilled. Yours is the most miserable view that comes from forcing your Adventist doctrine into Scripture.

The reason he won't respond to the point concerning the Law's fulfillment is up for speculation, which I did in my post. It hasn't been contested.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Unless you are trying to say we must also fulfill the law, I have no idea what you are talking about. Such does not line up with the NT revelation or teaching about salvation. We do not have to keep the law to be redeemed or retain that redemption. Otherwise salvation is not a gift of God and indeed we can save ourselves and do not need Jesus. To that I say baloney.

I was makining an oblique reference to the notion that when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it that most of the Christian world reads it as 'I did not come to abolish the Law but to end it.'

Makes no sense.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I was makining an oblique reference to the notion that when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it that most of the Christian world reads it as 'I did not come to abolish the Law but to end it.'

Makes no sense.

Actually, it makes sense.

 

[Sophrosyne]

My total contribution to personal salvation is consent to accept the redemption God offers through Jesus, His only begotten Son. God then changes my nature and will to not participate in sin especially as a lifestyle. There is no effort to comply with a list of rules I can not live by in the flesh or through its efforts. I have no desire to do wickedness. Yeah I can get riled and tempted on occasion. I do feebly tempted on occasion. It does not become sin until acted on.

I would disagree in the last sentence as the pro grace folks should believe that it is a sin to even think of hating someone or lusting or in other words thoughts can lead to sin without being acted upon. It is the pro Law camp that want us to accept an inferior set of standards that stop short of what Jesus said. They want us to believe we are sinless until we murder someone and by not murdering we are legally sinless and that those who reject the idea of "murder" as the standard and instead set up the standard of "hating" instead are sinful and lawless. "Act sin" is part of an inferior covenant vs "thought sin" which is the covenant we are partakers of .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Depends on what you mean by 'fulfill' doesn't it.

The word used in Matthew 5:20 is 'telos' in Greek.

The Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint) uses 'telos' as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew 'malei.' 'Malei' has more the sense of 'establish, affirm or confirm.'

In rabbinic literature, 'abolish' and 'fulfill' commandments means 'not do' or 'do' the commandments, respectively.

Where is that used in Matt 5:20?

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

legw gar umin oti ean mh perisseush h dikaiosunh umwn pleion twn grammatewn kai farisaiwn ou mh eiselqhte eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn

5:20
'For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.





.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Where is that used in Matt 5:20?

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

legw gar umin oti ean mh perisseush h dikaiosunh umwn pleion twn grammatewn kai farisaiwn ou mh eiselqhte eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn

5:20
'For I say to you, that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye may not enter to the reign of the heavens.





.

My bad: Matthew 5:17.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Actually, it makes sense.

Yet, in Luke 16:17 Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one tittle of the Law to lose authority.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yet, in Luke 16:17 Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one tittle of the Law to lose authority.

I'm sorry, He didn't say "lose authority"

Here's what He said:

Luke 16:17
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
NASU

We still have our bibles, don't we? The OT has not failed. It has been fulfilled.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'm sorry, He didn't say "lose authority"

Here's what He said:

Luke 16:17
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
NASU

We still have our bibles, don't we? The OT has not failed. It has been fulfilled.

Check out the Greek translated 'fail.'

http://biblehub.com/thayers/4098.htm

(R. V. fail); to lose authority, no longer have force, of sayings, precepts, etc., Luke 16:17

 

[Cribstyl]

I'm sorry, He didn't say "lose authority"

Here's what He said:

Luke 16:17
"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
NASU

We still have our bibles, don't we? The OT has not failed. It has been fulfilled.

Great, then righteousness without the law cant be edited out from the law and the prophets.
Rom 3:21
¶But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

 

[listed]

Yet, in Luke 16:17 Jesus said it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one tittle of the Law to lose authority.

Then the prophets are lying.

 

[listed]

Great, then righteousness without the law cant be edited out from the law and the prophets.
Rom 3:21
¶But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

They just can not plug the holes in their sinking ship. What in the world are they using for patch material?

 

[Elder 111]

If that is true then why is there a distinction of old and new if they are the same?

The new and old are not composed of the 10 C's only. The major change is the pointing forward to Christ in the sacrifices of animals and the real Sacrifice which is Christ.
Heb. 9:
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
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;
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.

 

[Elder 111]

You really do not know?

I see all!