Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[Leaf473]

I have never said we only have to obey the Ten Commandments, but I have said its a good place to start.

I don't think it does any good to start with a group of laws if the idea is to focus on one group and worry about the rest later. If a person stumbles on one point of the law, they are guilty of breaking the whole law.

Like, I don't think it would matter if you avoided stealing if you were engaged in ongoing adultery.

 

[Leaf473]

It's the same as Colossians 2:14, a decree, doctrine.

NT apostolic teaching authorizes which are ordinances.

Hebrews reveals that administering the Mosaic laws was given to the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood in the order of Aaron, so that when the priesthood was changed to the order of Melchizedek, there must necessarily be a change of the law (Hebrews 7:12), that the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless--it made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18) and a better hope (new covenant) is introduced by which we draw near to God (Hebrews 7:19)

It would be those in Leviticus 1-8, 11-17, 21-25.

Are those chapters from Leviticus an exhaustive list of where the ordinances are found?

 

[Clare73]

It's the same as Colossians 2:14, a decree, doctrine.

NT apostolic teaching authorizes which are ordinances.

Hebrews reveals that administering the Mosaic laws was given to the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood in the order of Aaron, so that when the priesthood was changed to the order of Melchizedek, there must necessarily be a change of the law which the new priesthood administered (Hebrews 7:12), that the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless--it made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:18) and a better hope (new covenant) is introduced by which we draw near to God (Hebrews 7:19).

In the new covenant, we "draw near to God" in salvation and justification (imputed righteousness) through faith, apart from faith's necessary works of the Decalogue.
In the new covenant, the Decalogue is part of sanctification leading to holiness through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), not a part of salvation and justification.
The weak and useless ordinances (Hebrews 7:18) would be those of Leviticus 1-8, 11-17, 21-25.

Are those chapters from Leviticus an exhaustive list of where the ordinances are found?

I can't say at this point that there would not be a Mosaic law somewhere else.

But it matters not, for in the new covenant salvation and justification are not by the works of faith,
but apart from the works of faith.
And in the new covenant, the law is the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which fulfills the Decalogue "and whatever other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10)

So in the new covenant, all the OT laws are fulfilled in the law of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

This does not make your case precisely because neither Matthew 5:18 nor John 19:30 pick out the "ceremonial" laws to the exclusion of other categories of law. Why should not conclude the whole Law is retired, which is what I believe to be the case?

It is retired in the sense that all law is fulfilled in the law of Christ (Romans 9:10).
It is not "retired" in the sense of its purpose in sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

In fact, you appear to be making the same argument I made. While in Matt 5:18, Jesus might appear to be saying the whole law (He never specifies the ceremonial Law) will last to the end of time, He is, in fact, using apocalyptic metaphor and intends us to understand that the Law will end on the Cross when He declares "It is finished" as in John 19:30.
You appear to simply assume that it is only the ceremonial elements of the Law that are "finished" at the cross.

It's not about the cross, it's about all law being fulfilled in our practice of Christ's law of love.
His work of the law was finished on the cross, whereby our obedience to his new covenant law
now fulfills all the law (Romans 13:10).

How do you justify this restrictive interpretation?

See the nature of the obedience to sanctification leading to holiness in Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 3:31 does not teach that "some" of the Law is upheld,
it teaches that all of it is. Perhaps other texts support your thesis that only
"part" of the Law of Moses ended, but Romans 3:31 certainly does not make that case.

It makes that case in the NT context of Ephesians 2:15.

 

[Clare73]

What do you think Paul means by "and whatever other commandment there may be."?

He means that all of the law is (counted as) fulfilled in the practice of love.

In any event, you still need to directly address what Jesus says in Matthew 22. He says that the whole Law, yes the whole Law, is effectively a manifestarion of these two commandments:
‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The logic is inescapable.

Actually, that is not the necessary conclusion of logic, nor the necessary conclusion of what he says.
He is saying that the practice of love (is counted as) the fulfillment of them all. (Romans 13:8-10). That's not the same thing.

If, repeat if, you are going to defend the retention of what you call the "moral" elements of the law on the basis that they are grounded in love, you are obliged to retain the whole shebang, including the ceremonial stuff.

Not in the context of NT apostolic teaching in Ephesians 2:15.

Again, Jesus connects the whole law to loving God and neighbour. How, then, can one part be retained and another part set aside by appeal to the principle of love?

"Connects" is not the same thing as "equates."

 

[expos4ever]

It is retired in the sense that all law is fulfilled in the law of Christ (Romans 9:10).
It is not "retired" in the sense of its purpose in sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Again, how is this an argument that we are to stop the ceremonial component, yet keeping following what you call the "moral" prescriptions of the Law? It seems (from the rest of your post) that you assume that some parts of the Law - the so-called moral parts - remain in force since they connect to the "law of love".

There are 2 major problems with this:

1. In Matthew 22:37 and following Jesus very clearly says the whole Law hangs on the commandments to love.

2. It is not at all clear what the boundary is between what you the "ceremonial" part and what you call the "moral" part.

 

[expos4ever]

It makes that case in the NT context of Ephesians 2:15.

Again, Eph 2:15 does not say that only ceremonial part was abolished - this is an inference of yours. No doubt, you consider that inference to be justified but the fact remains: all of the Law, not just the ceremonial part, was a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile.

As far as matter of practise are concerned, I think we agree. I do think it matters "theologically", however that we acknowledge that all the Law of Moses has been retired and been "supplanted" by the teaching of Jesus. And that teaching, in many cases, duplicates the "moral" component of the Law of Moses. But I think it is important to draw this distinction.

 

[Clare73]

Again, Eph 2:15 does not say that only ceremonial part was abolished - this
is an inference of yours. No doubt, you consider that inference to be justified but the fact remains: all of the Law, not just the ceremonial part, was a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile.

And that is an inference of yours, for only the ceremonial law required their separation,
the Decalogue did not.

As far as matter of practise are concerned, I think we agree. I do think it matters "theologically", however that we acknowledge that all the Law of Moses has been retired

NT apostolic teaching does not present the Decalogue as being "retired," but as being
(counted as) fulfilled in the practicing of the new covenant law of love (Romans 13:8-10).

and been "supplanted" by the teaching of Jesus. And that teaching, in many cases, duplicates the "moral" component of the Law of Moses. But I think it is important to draw this distinction.

Again, how is this an argument that we are to stop the ceremonial component,
yet keeping following what you call the "moral" prescriptions of the Law?

Because NT apostolic teaching presents them as applicable in the process of sanctification leading to holiness in obedience (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

It seems (from the rest of your post) that you assume that some parts of the Law - the so-called moral parts - remain in force since they connect to the "law of love".

It's not about the "law of love." It's about what is abolished being specifically described as being the source of the hostility between the Gentiles and the Jews (Ephesians 2:15).
That was the ceremonial law only.

There are 2 major problems with this:
1. In Matthew 22:37 and following Jesus very clearly says the whole Law hangs on the commandments to love.
2. It is not at all clear what the boundary is between what you the "ceremonial" part and what you call the "moral" part.

We've covered this.

You are setting Scripture against itself in Matthew 22:37 and Ephesians 2:15, rather than
reconciling it to itself.

Ephesians 2:15 is very clear, in identifying what is abolished: "the commandments and regulations" which required the separation of the Jews from the unclean Gentiles, creating a barrier and hostility between them.
And those laws were the ceremonial laws of Leviticus only.

The Decalogue did not require separation of Jews from Gentiles, and is not what is being referred to in Ephesians 2:15.

NT apostolic teaching is that only part of the law was abolished on the cross; i.e., the ceremonial laws.

 

[Leaf473]

I can't say at this point that there would not be a Mosaic law somewhere else.

But it matters not, for in the new covenant salvation and justification are not by the works of faith,
but apart from the works of faith.
And in the new covenant, the law is the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), which fulfills the Decalogue "and whatever other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10)

So in the new covenant, all the OT laws are fulfilled in the law of Christ.

Are you are saying that when we love God and each other
(to use the abbreviated versions of those commandments)
we thereby fulfill the entire law regardless of what other physical actions we take or don't take? If so, then I agree.

It matches up with Galatians 5
For the entire law is fulfilled in one word: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
__________________
I want to take a moment to answer some objections commonly seen on these threads:

1) But it's the ten commandments that teach us how to love.

True! But it's also true that the entire law gives us wisdom and insight into how to love God and each other. It does not follow that we are then under the entire law.

2) Does this mean that we are free to murder and abuse God's name?

Are those things you want to do? Is the only thing holding you back the ten commandments? If so, then I believe you haven't yet received a new heart which is part of the new birth. But I don't think anyone here actually wants to do those things.

A second answer to that objection is Sure, as long as you can figure out a way to do those things while still loving God and each other. Which is virtually impossible to do.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Here is a thought.

When reading anything from the New testament, first ask,
"Who was the intended audience? Jewish Christian or gentile Christian?"

The audience in the Gospels and most epistles was a Jewish audience.

I think maybe only Galatians, Corinthians and Romans were intended for Gentile audience.

Why? Because the instructions given to Jewish Christians and gentile Christians would need to accommodate different issues relating to Torah.

Look at Galatians 5:13-26 says about The Law.

So instead of digging heels, in take a fresh look.

 

[Clare73]

Are you are saying that when we love God and each other
(to use the abbreviated versions of those commandments)
we thereby fulfill the entire law regardless of what other physical actions we take or don't take? If so, then I agree.

It matches up with Galatians 5
For the entire law is fulfilled in one word: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Yes, and no.

The "no" first. Love is not just an idle emotion, it involves action/practice/behavior regarding the loved one, it involves being pleasing to them.

And "yes." I am saying the practicing of a Biblical loving of God and of neighbor is counted as perfectly fulfilling the entire law, which we ourselves cannot do perfectly.

And I am also saying that necessary loving of God which is counted as fulfilling all the law also means the obedience of sanctification, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, and no.

The "no" first. Love is not just an idle emotion, it involves action/practice/behavior regarding the loved one, it involves being pleasing to them.

And "yes." I am saying the practicing of a Biblical loving of God and of neighbor is counted as perfectly fulfilling the entire law, which we ourselves cannot do perfectly.

And I am saying that necessary loving of God which is counted as fulfilling all the law means the obedience of sanctification which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

The thrust of what you're saying sounds good. So you and I actually do agree

 

[Clare73]

The thrust of what you're saying sounds good. So you and I actually do agree

I knew it!

 

[Guojing]

Here is a thought.

When reading anything from the New testament, first ask,
"Who was the intended audience? Jewish Christian or gentile Christian?"

The audience in the Gospels and most epistles was a Jewish audience.

I think maybe only Galatians, Corinthians and Romans were intended for Gentile audience.

Why? Because the instructions given to Jewish Christians and gentile Christians would need to accommodate different issues relating to Torah.

Look at Galatians 5:13-26 says about The Law.

So instead of digging heels, in take a fresh look.

Nice, you are impressing me more and more with your understanding of Paul's advice in 2 Timothy 2:15.

But one thing, Jewish Christian is an oxymoronic term, when you read scripture. Think of Israel and the Body of Christ.

Israel: Those of the little flock that was led by Peter, James and John, they follow the gospel of the circumcision

Body of Christ: The rest of us who follow the gospel of the uncircumcision (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Nice, you are impressing me more and more with your understanding of Paul's advice in 2 Timothy 2:15.

But one thing, Jewish Christian is an oxymoronic term, when you read scripture. Think of Israel and the Body of Christ.

Israel: Those of the little flock that was led by Peter, James and John, they follow the gospel of the circumcision

Body of Christ: The rest of us who follow the gospel of the uncircumcision (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Why would "Israel" be a better term for the Jews who believed in Christ? Especially if they retained other Jewish customs?

 

[Guojing]

Why would "Israel" be a better term for the Jews who believed in Christ? Especially if they retained other Jewish customs?

Those who believed that Christ is the promised messiah and Son of God, it means they believe in Christ according to prophecy, which is the gospel of the kingdom.

Under that gospel, they still must remain zealous for the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20), they have basically become part of the nation of Israel.

Those who believed that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their justification, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), are baptized into the Body of Christ.

They believe in Christ according to the mystery.

For these, which can include Jews and gentiles, they are free from the Law of Moses (Romans 4:5, Acts 21:25)

That is why you need to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I see. Thanks.

 

[Guojing]

You posted this:

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

...but here is the whole context:

14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”

Peter is mistaken! The voice tells him that the food laws are now over with. Which is precisely what would be the case if, as I am saying, Jesus is speaking metaphorically in Matthew 5:17-19! If He were speaking literally, the food laws would still be in place.

You also posted Acts 10:28:

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The unbolded text shows, again, that the Law of Moses, which essentially taught the Jew that the Gentile was unclean, is now abolished.

I have no idea how you think these texts support your believe that Matt 5:17-19 should be taken literally - they show the opposite, in fact.

My simple point is that, at the book of Acts, no Jews from the nation of Israel would have thought that any of the Law of Moses was abolished.

But if you don't agree, I am fine, let's move on from this.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Just a few comments. . .

Love is fulfilled by our obedience to God's law, which I think is made clear by the words of Jesus Himself and God.

Exodus 20:6 - Right in the Ten Commandments- showing mercy to thousands who love Me and keep My commandments Exodus 20:6
Jesus repeated verbatim If you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15
John repeated the same For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments 1 John 5:3
I don't see any way around separating that love is defined by our obedience to God's commandments written in our hearts and minds in the New Covenant. Hebrews 8:10

Which reconciles with God's last day saints (saved)

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Why would the devil care if God's saints keep the commandments of God if they all ended at the cross? For every Truth, there is the devil's counterfeit, so who really wants us to trample on God's law? Delete a commandments or two. Certainly not the Creator of all things who wrote it!

Revelation 14 is calling us back to worship the Creator- traditions have replaced the commandments of God, but we are to worship God in both Truth and Spirit. John 4:23-24 Jesus warns us of this very thing. Matthew 15:3-9

Revelation 14:7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Reference to Creation Genesis 2:1-3

God saints keep the commandments of God and faith in Jesus Revelation 14:12. I do not believe God's saints are only Jews but those who are in Christ. Galatians 3:28-29

The commandments will be kept by some right until the Second Coming of Jesus.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

What a wonderful promise. The commandments of God are not meant to be burdensome 1 John 5:3 but they are meant to be kept through love, which is what walking in the Spirit is all about.

God bless