Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[SabbathBlessings]

This has been addressed before. The concept of "fulfillment" can entail something coming to an end.

If I go Harvard and get a degree, my purposes have been fulfilled once I get that degree. Do I keep going to Harvard for the rest of my life? Of course not.

If I meet the woman who "fulfills" my dreams of an ideal partner, do I go on seeking a wife? Of course not.

I believe Jesus is saying something like this: I have come to fulfill the Law in the sense of completing its mission; in contrast, I have not come to abolish it before its mission is complete.

Again, remember what Jesus says right afterwards:

Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

Jesus clearly allows for the possibility that the Law will indeed end when "all is accomplished".

What are Jesus's final words on the Cross?

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. John 19:30

How does this make sense- Jesus saying I did not come to destroy the law but to end the law? And then goes on to tell us we should keep the least of the commandments, from the law He just told us that ended and then goes on to quote directly from the Ten as they should be kept, but minutes before He said they ended. Matthew 5:17-30 We do not serve a God of confusion.

Fulfill means to Fill Full. For example when I keep my marriage covenant that means I am fulfilling my vows, not breaking them and committing adultery.

 

[Leaf473]

By the time AD 70 arrived, I think almost all of them, except for perhaps John, has already been martyred.

As far as Acts 21:18-25 goes, they continue to be zealous for the Law all the way till their death, you can check out the historical story of James the Just.

Okay... let me see if I understand what you're saying.

For the body of Christ, all laws ended at the cross.

For the true Israel, all laws ended either at their death or at the destruction of the Temple.

Did I get that right?

 

[expos4ever]

How does this make sense- Jesus saying I did not come to destroy the law but to end the law?

It makes perfect sense. If, repeat if, the Law was given by God in order to achieve something, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to say he has come to fulfill the Law in the sense of completing the Law's mission and therefore bringing it to an end. In a setting where the Law was given to achieve a particular purpose, to "abolish" or "destroy" the Law would be to set it aside before it had done its job. And Jesus does not abolish it in this sense.

Further, there is substantial scriptural evidence for this notion that the Law was given for a specific reason within an evolving redemption narrative.

 

[expos4ever]

And then goes on to tell us we should keep the least of the commandments, from the law He just told us that ended....

Strawman, although I may be partly responsible. Yes, Jesus instructs Jews to keep the Law because, it ends at the cross, not before. I never intended to suggest that Jesus ends the Law before the Cross.

 

[expos4ever]

Fulfill means to Fill Full. For example when I keep my marriage covenant that means I am fulfilling my vows, not breaking them and committing adultery.

You are not respecting the semantic range (scope of possible meanings) of the verb "fulfill". It is beyond dispute that to "fulfill" a thing X can, repeat can, entail bringing X to a close. If I buy a sports car, I can say I 'fulfilled' the dream of owning such a car.

Do I continue to dream about getting a sports car? Of course not.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It makes perfect sense. If, repeat if, the Law was given by God in order to achieve something, it makes perfect sense for Jesus to say he has come to fulfill the Law in the sense of completing the Law's mission and therefore bringing it to an end. In a setting where the Law was given to achieve a particular purpose, to "abolish" or "destroy" the Law would be to set it aside before it had done its job. And Jesus does not abolish it in this sense.

Further, there is substantial scriptural evidence for this notion that the Law was given for a specific reason within an evolving redemption narrative.

Again, I prefer the scriptures the way you pick out scriptures you pretty much have everyone contradicting everyone. It's not how I read scripture so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[expos4ever]

1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Where is the specific reference to the Law of Moses here (which includes the 10)? Not in my Bible, not in yours.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Strawman, although I may be partly responsible. Yes, Jesus instructs Jews to keep the Law because, it ends at the cross, not before. I never intended to suggest that Jesus ends the Law before the Cross.

I think this is your favorite term out of context.

With this thinking and teaching I think there will be a lot of people who will be saying Lord Lord Matthew 7:21-23

Sure sounds to me that God's saints will be keeping the commandments of God until Jesus comes back

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith 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.

 

[expos4ever]

Anyone teaching Gods' law is abolished is teaching lawlessness (without law) which is not biblical.

No. To say that we need not heed any "law" from God would be lawlessness. But the text "sin is lawlessness" is not specific to the Law of Moses.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Where is the specific reference to the Law of Moses here (which includes the 10)? Not in my Bible, not in yours.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” Direct reference to the Ten
Commandment found in Exodus 20

Sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4

You break one commandment you break them all and how we will be judged quoting directly from the Ten

James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

Your argument appears to be with the text.

 

[expos4ever]

I think this is your favorite term out of context.

Please where the error in my argument is. Where have I ever claimed that the Law of Moses ends before the cross? And if I did say (or imply) this, such was certainly not my intent.

 

[expos4ever]

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” Direct reference to the Ten
Commandment found in Exodus 20

Strawman.

I never stated, suggested, or remotely implied that Romans 7:7 was not referring to the Law of Moses - it obviously is referring to the Law of Moses.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

My clear claim was that the "sin = lawlessness" text, not Romans 7:7, was not specific to the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4

No!

The text does not refer to the Law of Moses (and by implication the 10). Here it is (NASB):

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

One can practice lawlessness without violating the Law of Moses. You are taking the general claim that sin is violation of some law and insisting that the "some" law must be the Law of Moses.

That is simply not correct logic.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Strawman.

I never stated, suggested, or remotely implied that Romans 7:7 was not referring to the Law of Moses - it obviously is referring to the Law of Moses.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

My clear claim was that the "sin = lawlessness" text, not Romans 7:7, was not specific to the Law of Moses.

You really like using that term out of context.

When the Word of God defines something, it doesn't change the next time you see it in scripture which is why I think many have a hard time understanding God's Word. Sin is breaking the law 1 John 3:4 the law points out sin and Paul quotes directly from the Ten Commandments Romans 7:7 so your opinion is not supported by the scriptures. We will be judged by the Ten Commandments James 2:10-12 breaking these commandments are sin. I honestly think those who do not understand the Ten Commandments, the law God personally wrote with His own finger, kept in the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy of God's Temple where Jesus dwells and is revealed in Heaven Revelation 11:19 the scriptures will be difficult to understand because God's commandments are weaved all throughout scripture as the morally standard of right and wrong doing.

 

[expos4ever]

Again, I prefer the scriptures

Ad hominem

the way you pick out scriptures you pretty much have everyone contradicting everyone.

Example?

 

[Christopher0121]

I am quite sure the 10 Commandments are part of the Law of Moses.

Again, Paul never mentions any "categories" within the Law.

I apologize for not responding sooner, I've been away from the forum during the holiday. I pray your Easter holiday was enjoyable.

The 10 Commandments were given by YHVH on Mt. Sinai and were carved into stone tablets by the Lord God Himself. Hence why they are referred to by theologians as the "Law of God". These stone tablets were placed INSIDE the ark of the covenant. These were lost along with the ark after the Babylonians sacked the temple.

The "Law of Moses" (Torah) contains a written description of these tablets (in Exodus) along with the 303 additional Laws God gave Israel. But remember, the "Law of Moses" was written on a series of scrolls and wasn't completed until roughly 39 years later before the Israelites entered Canaan. These scrolls were placed in the SIDE of the ark not INSIDE the ark. Take note, the "Law of God" and the "Law of Moses" were finished at different times and even stored differently within the ark. And while NT writers do not categorize these two bodies of Law they clearly draw distinctions between them. For example, the Law of Moses is largely ordinances involving Israel that was nailed to the cross. But the Law of God still stands to condemn sinners. Believers are set free from the condemnation of the Law of God through Christ and the "Law of Christ", which teaches us to fulfill the Law of God through love (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14).

Remember, the NT writers lived during this overlapping change of covenants and didn't set a framework didactically. However, our theologians have had nearly 20 centuries to study these writings and their theological implications. The confusion comes from Christians who read about the Law not passing away only to turn and read about how the law's ordinances were nailed to the cross. The end result is total confusion without theologically drawing the distinctions made by theologians and councils down through the millennia.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul quotes directly from the Ten Commandments Romans 7:7 so your opinion is not supported by the scriptures.

False - you suppress context to support your position. Readers will know this. Yes, if you look at Romans 7:7 in isolation, it declares that the Law gives knowledge of sin. But, and this is what you have to hide in order to defend your position, Paul has already declared - in the preceding verse mind you - that we no longer serve the law.

You almost always cite Romans 7:7 and remain tight-lipped about verse 6.

When pressed, you take verse 6 and rewrite it to say we are no longer judged by the Law. With that strategy of redefining basic concepts, the sky is the limit - you can prove anything.

By contrast, my take on things respects everything Paul writes without having to mangle the meaning of words:

1. I take Paul at his word when he says that we no longer serve the law; you, on the other hand, take it upon yourself to rewrite verse 6.

2. I interpret Paul's statement as saying what it says - that the law gave, repeat gave (past tense) knowledge of sin: I would not have come to know (***past tense) sin except through the Law. The key point is this: it is entirely coherent for Paul to believe that, in the past, when the law was in force, the Law gave him knowledge of sin. You take all these verses (including the one in Romans 3) about the law giving knowledge of sin and strip them of context. And strip them you must as, in each case, a contextual analysis shows that Paul is talking about the past.

 

[Christopher0121]

I believe the Biblical case is clear – the Law of Moses has been retired (including the 10) In this post, I intend to identify the elements of the argument for the retirement of the Law of Moses. Let me be clear: I am not, in the present post, going to substantially defend the assertions I make; This post is simply a statement of my position.

Elements of the Case for the Retirement of the Law of Moses:

1. Paul clearly declares its abolition in Ephesians 2

2. Paul clearly declares its abolition in Galatians 3. In this chapter, Paul declares the law to be a “paidagogos”, a kind of male babysitter whose task comes to an end when supervised child reaches adulthood

3. In Colossians, Paul refers to the law as nailed to the cross

4. In Romans 10, Paul refers to Jesus as the “end of the law”

5. In Romans 7, Paul refers to how we no longer serve “in the manner of the written code”

6. The Law of Moses was only ever given to Jews, and a central Pauline theme is that God wants to make it clear that membership in the “true covenant” family is open to all. So, as per Ephesians 2, he argues that the Law has to be done away with precisely it functioned to set the Jew apart from the Gentile. Paul’s theology does not allow for this – there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile, so there can be no more Law of Moses which was for Jews only

7. Paul believes that God gave the Law of Moses for a specific reason: It caused “sin” to be concentrated and built up in the nation of Israel. Why would God do this? So that this sin could then be passed on to Israel’s representative – Jesus – and dealt with on the cross. Once that goal is achieved, there is no more need for the Law – it has fulfilled its “dark” purpose of making Israel the “place” where the sin of the world get concentrated.

8. To extract the essence of the previous two points: The Law of Moses was given by God for a very specific goal (see point 7). Once that goal has been achieved, the law has been fulfilled. So we can, of course, thinks of the law being “fulfilled” and also retired. This is a key concept. Consider chemotherapy: It has a goal – the curing of the patient. When that goal is achieved, do we keep giving chemotherapy to the patient for the rest of his life? Of course not! It begs the very question at issue to presume that the Law of Moses is a set of timeless truths that last forever. It is clear that Paul does not believe this.

If the Law of Moses and the 10 Commandments (which you do not draw distinction between) are retired... what body of law still stands to condemn sin and draw people to Christ by revealing their need of a Savior???

And if the 10 Commandments are a part of the retired Law of Moses... why is it imperative according to St. Paul that believers fulfill the Ten Commandments through love???

Romans 13:8-10
New Catholic Bible
8 Owe nothing to anyone except the debt of love you owe one another. The one who loves others has fulfilled the Law. 9 “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and every other commandment are all summed up in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love cannot result in any harm to the neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law.​

 

[Christopher0121]

Another example is what God says in Genesis 9:
“This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all generations:
I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be a sign of a covenant between me and the earth."

That Covenant, which I believe is still in effect today, is between God and all humans, possibly all animals.

But that Covenant is neither the Old Covenant nor the New Covenant.

There technically isn't an "Old Covenant". There is an Old Testament, a testimony regarding the covenants of God between various parties.

The Covenants of the Old Testament are:

Adamic
Edenic
Noahic
Abrahamic
Mosaic
Davidic
(Some include a Palestinian)

 

[Christopher0121]

If more Christians followed the not only the Scriptures, but the Fathers, the Councils, and the Magisterium we'd have far less confusion with every Christian making it up for themselves as they go while trying to convince everyone around them that their personal interpretation is correct. lol