Jesus did not do away with the law in Mat 5:17

[Teofrastus]

Jesus fulfills the law so that we don't have to worry about it. This explains Matthew 5:17–18 NIV. Had not the law been eternal, and if it needn't be fulfilled, then Christ could not have accomplished our salvation. It is written in black and white that Jesus came to fulfill the law. So, why do some people still think that they have to fulfill the law themselves? They must finally get into their head that their righteousness is external. Since we cannot achieve our own salvation, we participate in the righteousness of Christ.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

There is a point often missed when it comes to O.T. LAW

Jesus advised us that WHO is moved to resist The Word, where it is sown? It's shown in one of the most important parables ever spoken by our Lord

IF you forgot, the answer is Satan.

Yes, Satan is "moved into action" via THE LAW, the WORD of God.

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

To break that down to its essence, where the Word is sown, Satan comes immediately in "OUR" hearts, to sin via stealing it.

So then we might actually ask the same question about the laws that Paul did in 1 Tim 1:9

Who is the LAW for? And he tells us, plainly, that it is for lawless sinners.

Now, the caveat, the coup de grace: Is SATAN a lawless sinner?

Everyone should be raising their hand on that one. IF the law then is "against" lawless sinners and Satan and his messengers are assuredly lawless sinners, I'd venture few think of this particular fact. That the law is always permanently against THEM. There is no possible way for THEM to "be legal" or "obedient." They can only resist the LAWS.

Now the tricky part: Since we all have sin, Romans 3:9, and sin is in fact "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15, what did Jesus show us on every page of the N.T. Gospels, the LOCATION of devils?

If you say in man, you hit the jackpot

If you say that the tempter tempts and sins in YOU via evil thoughts, you have been gifted from above with HONESTY, and you have gained a heavenly reward of not being a lying hypocrite

On the other hand, if you feel an impelling burning inside to resist this disclosure, personally applied, your internal challenge has been adequately LIT UP

I absolutely LOVE the LAW and believe it stands, every jot and tittle. Love it love it love it

Why? Because it is firmly against our ENEMIES, the devil and his messengers

 

[Teofrastus]

... it is for lawless sinners.

Luke 18:9-14 NIV

 

[Teofrastus]

... I absolutely LOVE the LAW and believe it stands, every jot and tittle. Love it love it love it

Why? Because it is firmly against our ENEMIES, the devil and his messengers

Yes, but what is the law? Gustaf Aulén (The drama and the symbols, 1970), citing Paul, says that it "is clear that 'the law' is not regarded here as definite, set commands and instructions, but instead as an active power, a divine dunamis (p. 79). Further, he explains that faulty theological thinking presents God as "a niggardly god, asserting his rights, a moralist. This is expressed particularly in the law of God being regarded moralistically, almost as a catalogue of what is forbidden or permitted. The result is a wrong image of the law which is always and everywhere described as a law of love" (p. 124).

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Further, he explains that faulty theological thinking presents God as "a niggardly god, asserting his rights, a moralist. This is expressed particularly in the law of God being regarded moralistically, almost as a catalogue of what is forbidden or permitted. The result is a wrong image of the law which is always and everywhere described as a law of love"

I think we can be quite assured that God and His Laws are quite solidly against evil

The law is for or more accurately against lawless sinners, as previously noted. 1 Tim 1:9

 

[Teofrastus]

I think we can be quite assured that God and His Laws are quite solidly against evil

The law is for or more accurately against lawless sinners, as previously noted. 1 Tim 1:9

Luther thinks deeper. He says that "if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death" (Commentary on Galatians (abridged), verse 17, p. 39). Through the operation of the law, God saves the sinner by becoming to him a devil, magnifying his anxiety and guilt. The law is indeed good; but just because it is Good, it animates good as well as evil. Evil is parasitic on good. This view occurs also among Catholic theologians.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Luther thinks deeper. He says that "if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death" (Commentary on Galatians (abridged), verse 17, p. 39). Through the operation of the law, God saves the sinner by becoming to him a devil, magnifying his anxiety and guilt. The law is indeed good; but just because it is Good, it animates good as well as evil. Evil is parasitic on good. This view occurs also among Catholic theologians.

Let's cut to the chase and say that evil is of the devil, the wicked one, who happens to act up in everyone

All have sin, Romans 3:9
Sin is "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15

It is quite pointless to leave the devil out of any of these equations

And since counting sins against people is off the table, 2 Cor 5:19, who does that leave us with?

 

[Teofrastus]

Let's cut to the chase and say that evil is of the devil, the wicked one, who happens to act up in everyone

All have sin, Romans 3:9
Sin is "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15

It is quite pointless to leave the devil out of any of these equations

And since counting sins against people is off the table, 2 Cor 5:19, who does that leave us with?

Yes, but Christianity is not a dualistic religion. According to Luther ("Lectures on Hebrews"), while the devil strives against God's work, he is, by his own actions, only working against himself and advancing God's work. Through marvelous wisdom, God compels the devil to transform death into nothing other than life itself. It seems that the devil symbolizes a dark power that God takes into his service and compels to serve His purposes.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Yes, but Christianity is not a dualistic religion.

Who said anything about dualism? I'm presuming you mean by that that people can be either one or the other, saved or a devil? So you might clarify

As to the parties involved, I'd hope it's safe to say that people are assuredly not devils

But like Peter, when Satan spoke through his own lips, there is that fact and many other such acts shown "in people" throughout the scriptures, in accordance with Mark 4:15's disclosure

Short version is that scriptures see people and the tempter (or his own) in the same pair of shoes, which makes this conversation problematic if we're not honest about the fact for ourselves

Just to clear the air, or muddy the subject, I'm a perpetual sinner, never sinless, and my sin is in fact of the devil, my adversary who does operate between my own 2 ears in the forms of evil thoughts, against the law, Mark 7:21-23

The fact that I'm aware of it does equip me to wrestle

 

[Teofrastus]

Who said anything about dualism? I'm presuming you mean by that that people can be either one or the other, saved or a devil? So you might clarify

As to the parties involved, I'd hope it's safe to say that people are assuredly not devils

But like Peter, when Satan spoke through his own lips, there is that fact and many other such acts shown "in people" throughout the scriptures, in accordance with Mark 4:15's disclosure

Short version is that scriptures see people and the tempter (or his own) in the same pair of shoes, which makes this conversation problematic if we're not honest about the fact for ourselves

Just to clear the air, or muddy the subject, I'm a perpetual sinner, never sinless, and my sin is in fact of the devil, my adversary who does operate between my own 2 ears in the forms of evil thoughts, against the law, Mark 7:21-23

The fact that I'm aware of it does equip me to wrestle

You ask: "...since counting sins against people is off the table, 2 Cor 5:19, who does that leave us with?" What Paul is saying is that Christ has bought us free from the curse of the law. Comparatively, a pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. It's a good analogy. We are sinners, impaired by original sin. Of course, one could argue that the devil is the agency behind the Fall. But, as Luther implies, he really operates on the command of the Lord Almighty.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Of course, one could argue that the devil is the agency behind the Fall. But, as Luther implies, he really operates on the command of the Lord Almighty.

IF the above wasn't the case what we are left with is a Divine Sovereign that isn't so much that at all

It's the classic argument of commission/omission. Either case means implication or involvement

Decisions not to do anything is involvement

 

[BNR32FAN]

Mat 5:17 is the most quoted verse to "prove" that Jesus did away with the law and that believers today are not under the Mosaic moral law in the Old Testament. People today love to proclaim that believers are not under any rules because of God's "grace" and love. Yes, a free pass to sin and ask God for forgiveness and with a snap of God's finger, all is forgiven. Some even claim that believers need not ask forgiveness for any sin because Jesus's death on the cross covered all of our sins, past, present and future.

One again, these false teachings come from the traditions of men and are not found in Scripture.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

As I have stated countless times, any time you read anything in the New Testament, you have to discover the Jewish meaning of what has been written down in our English translations. Scripture wasn't written in English nor did Jesus speak English. Who was Jesus speaking to? Not us who speak English today. He spoke Hebrew/Aramaic to Jewish people. He spoke to other Jews within a Jewish cultural context. Culture always determines the meaning of the words used. The two main concepts used in determining what things meant in ancient culture are studying the history and culture of the people, in that time era.

Just as the terms "bind" and "loose" were used in conjunction with the interpretation of Scripture, "destroy the Law and the prophets" and "fulfill" were also terms used when determining what Scripture taught. In the 1st century, if one rabbi thought that another rabbi was misinterpreting Scripture, he would tell the other rabbi, "You are destroying the law and the prophets." If a rabbi was believed to interpret Scripture correctly, he was said to be "fulfilling Scripture."

So, Jesus had communicated to the Jewish listeners: "Do not think I came to misinterpret Scripture. I came not to put forth false teaching but to teach the correct meaning of Scripture."

That is what the Jewish people understood Jesus to have said. If you get away from the false teaching practice of only reading certain verses and no further, Mat 5:18 clearly shows that heaven and earth will pass away until all things are accomplished. Guess what? "All things" won't be accomplished until Jesus returns, Mat 26:64, and separates the sheep from the goats, with the sheep being given eternal life and the goats being punished, Mat 25:31-46.

If you want to run to Rom 10:4, you need to know that instead of the verse reading that Jesus is the end of the law, the verse, properly translated will read, "For Christ is the GOAL/PURPOSE of the Law."

Do "thou shalt not murder, steal, commit adultery or bear false witness," still apply to believers today? Those are part of the Old Testament Law. Did Jesus do away with those commandments? The Mosaic Law instructed for God's people to be kind to strangers, to show mercy, to help out the poor and needy and honor thy father and mother. Are those a part of a believer's life today or did Jesus do away with them?
The Law needs to be looked at as instructions for the Jews then and believers today rather than a strict set of rules.

When Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, Mat 4:4, are believers today supposed to live that way? That instruction comes from Deut 8:3. Or how about, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," Mat 4:7? Does that apply today? It comes straight from Deut 6:16. What about "Thou shall worship the Lord thy God and him only, Mat 4:10? Jesus was quoting Deut 6:13. What about Mat 19:19, "Honour your father and mother, Ex 20:12 and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, Lev 19:18? What about what Paul wrote in Rom 12:19? He took this from Deut 32:35. Most of you know that Deuteronomy means a "re-telling or a re-giving" of the Law. The book of Deuteronomy is quoted over 60 times in the New Testament. The book of Romans has 30 direct quotes or references from the Old Testament. There are direct quotes, paraphrases or references to/from the Old Testament in every New Testament book!

If Jesus was going to do away with the law, why did he say;

Lk 11:28 Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.

John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me...

John 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words...

John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

The huge majority of instructions in the New Testament come straight from the Old Testament. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate parts of Scripture; they are intertwined. The New is just a continuation of the story.

I know many people say that the law was done away with but not very many who say that the moral law was done away with. Usually it’s in reference to things like the sabbath, dietary laws, ordinances, and things of that nature.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

I know many people say that the law was done away with but not very many who say that the moral law was done away with. Usually it’s in reference to things like the sabbath, dietary laws, ordinances, and things of that nature.

There is a natural or fleshly aspect of the law and there is spiritual aspects to that same law. It's kind of unique in this way.

Paul gave us a couple of interesting sights on these matters of law, in Galatians 4:21-24 where he terms Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, Ishmael and "the LAW" as allegory.

If that large of a chunk of O.T. history is allegory, then I'd suggest the balance is as well. Even while it can and does still maintain the natural fact that they were real people and real events.

Paul does a similar exercise in 1 Cor 9:9-10 where he takes an obscure law of the O.T. and turns its meaning completely on it's head with other angles altogether that don't have anything to do with the natural/physical command. Apply to other natural laws thusly. Not an easy gig.

For the record I believe every Word of God still stands. Just not in the way it's commonly promoted

 

[Teofrastus]

IF the above wasn't the case what we are left with is a Divine Sovereign that isn't so much that at all

It's the classic argument of commission/omission. Either case means implication or involvement

Decisions not to do anything is involvement

According to Luther, it is because of the fallenness of the world that God must come forth out of His opposite. Heaven comes out of hell and righteousness out of sin. Although God effectuates an increase in both good and evil, both outcomes serve the purpose of salvation. It is called "the theology of the cross", not very popular today.

What I worry about in Reformation theology is its pronounced causalism. If I'm correct, it is not the question of participation but of direct causality. But this is a materialistic concept. Such a materialistic view of divine intervention has pantheistic overtones.

 

[Studyman]

I know many people say that the law was done away with but not very many who say that the moral law was done away with. Usually it’s in reference to things like the sabbath, dietary laws, ordinances, and things of that nature.

Are these "many", who profess that they know God, judging some of God's Laws and instruction in righteousness as "Moral" and others as immoral or not moral?

And who is man, to make such a judgment about God and His instruction? What hubris and self-exaltation to convince oneself that he is holy enough to judge some of God's instructions as worthy of their honor and respect, and other judgments of God as beneath them and unworthy of their respect.

The Jesus "of the Bible" never exalted Himself above His Father in this manner. If His Spirit remains in a man, how would it be possible for this man to make such judgments?

 

[Studyman]

We are sinners, impaired by original sin. Of course, one could argue that the devil is the agency behind the Fall. But, as Luther implies, he really operates on the command of the Lord Almighty.

What if Eve would have yielded herself a servant to obey God, as Paul teaches? Would she not then also be "operating on the command of the Lord Almighty?" So then, the devil, following God's instruction, tempted Eve according to Luther. And these Scriptures were written for our admonition,
"for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

Wouldn't this then be a lesson for us, to "operate on the command of the Lord Almighty", and not the "Other voices" in the garden who "profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate"? This would then be us "striving against sin" (Heb. 12:4)

Isn't that what repentant sinners do?

I have long heard to philosophy that the Eve story is to show that no one can obey God. But the Scriptures do not support this popular religious philosophy. It seems the story of Adam and Eve was written, as Paul teaches, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

According to Luther, it is because of the fallenness of the world that God must come forth out of His opposite. Heaven comes out of hell and righteousness out of sin. Although God effectuates an increase in both good and evil, both outcomes serve the purpose of salvation. It is called "the theology of the cross", not very popular today.

What I worry about in Reformation theology is its pronounced causalism. If I'm correct, it is not the question of participation but of direct causality. But this is a materialistic concept. Such a materialistic view of divine intervention has pantheistic overtones.

Well, if you've been around long enough, and I suspect you have, you know these can be complex and tricky subjects to figure out. There's a diversity of views. Countless really.

I am definitely in the causalism camp, but not in the classic or reformation sense

I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world, who saves all people at their ending (the captives)

and

Simultaneously condemns Satan and devils (the captors)

The tricky part is to understand that both parties walk in the same pair of shoes

Calvin got total depravity right but he forgot to factor Satan into the picture for everyone, ala Mark 4:15, Romans 3:9, 1 John 3:8 etc etc, and instead lays it on people, which I can't see being the case.

The even more interesting observation is that most forms of determinism aren't much difference in their end game than freewillism. Both positions only deliver reasonable assurance if you Persevere to the end, or do the sect requirements, whatever the cases may be.

In other words none of the participants can really say for sure if they are saved or not, which I find quite funny for some odd reason, coming from people with supposed faith. Obviously an iffy situation

 

[Studyman]

Well, if you've been around long enough, and I suspect you have, you know these can be complex and tricky subjects to figure out. There's a diversity of views. Countless really.

I am definitely in the causalism camp, but not in the classic or reformation sense

I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world, who saves all people at their ending (the captives)

and

Simultaneously condemns Satan and devils (the captors)

The tricky part is to understand that both parties walk in the same pair of shoes

Calvin got total depravity right but he forgot to factor Satan into the picture for everyone, ala Mark 4:15, Romans 3:9, 1 John 3:8 etc etc, and instead lays it on people, which I can't see being the case.

The even more interesting observation is that most forms of determinism aren't much difference in their end game than freewillism. Both positions only deliver reasonable assurance if you Persevere to the end, or do the sect requirements, whatever the cases may be.

In other words none of the participants can really say for sure if they are saved or not, which I find quite funny for some odd reason, coming from people with supposed faith. Obviously an iffy situation

Interesting. If I "know" something, how can I hope for it? How is believing in something I can't see, like Salvation, "Knowing I am saved"? Isn't Faith; "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

"In other words none of the participants can really say for sure if they are saved or not". Isn't this by design to keep us on our toes?

2 Pet. 3: 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, (We have not yet received, although we Hope for it) look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14 Wherefore, beloved, (Because of this) seeing that "ye look for such things", be diligent "that ye may be found of him" in peace, without spot, and blameless.

I agree there is a diversity of views, like the "other voices" in the Garden with Eve. But there is only ONE God. Shouldn't men "Yield themselves" servants to obey Him?

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

I agree there is a diversity of views, like the "other voices" in the Garden with Eve. But there is only ONE God. Shouldn't men "Yield themselves" servants to obey Him?

I really don't believe any sinner can call themselves obedient and be honest at the same time.

So, is dishonesty a legitimate avenue of approach to God in Christ? I don't think so.

I'd rather be like the publican in Luke 18, "God be merciful to me, a sinner."

I'm good with that. No sense kidding myself and I ain't fooling God, that's for sure.

You do understand that evil thoughts defile all of us, I presume? Mark 7:21-23 is legit

AND, I'll add that I'm definitely OK with God's Laws, all of them, being against my own evil conscience and evil thoughts. To me that is a foregone conclusion. It also brings a healthy dose of Divine fear to my table, knowing that God can whack me anytime He elects to do so, AND HE HAS just to drive home the lesson. So I really can't help but to believe the way I do

 

[Teofrastus]

Well, if you've been around long enough, and I suspect you have, you know these can be complex and tricky subjects to figure out. There's a diversity of views. Countless really.

I am definitely in the causalism camp, but not in the classic or reformation sense

I believe Jesus is the Savior of the world, who saves all people at their ending (the captives)

and

Simultaneously condemns Satan and devils (the captors)

The tricky part is to understand that both parties walk in the same pair of shoes

Calvin got total depravity right but he forgot to factor Satan into the picture for everyone, ala Mark 4:15, Romans 3:9, 1 John 3:8 etc etc, and instead lays it on people, which I can't see being the case.

The even more interesting observation is that most forms of determinism aren't much difference in their end game than freewillism. Both positions only deliver reasonable assurance if you Persevere to the end, or do the sect requirements, whatever the cases may be.

In other words none of the participants can really say for sure if they are saved or not, which I find quite funny for some odd reason, coming from people with supposed faith. Obviously an iffy situation

Indeed, early Church Fathers, such as Tatian and Theophilus, do not lay the whole blame for evil on mankind. Human evil is connected with demon possession. Satan and his demons are working behind the scenes, trying to convince humanity to serve them instead of God and his angels.

But in the beginning of the 20th century, the devil was formally "abolished". People had lost their consciousness of mythic reality. But Gustaf Aulén ("The drama and the symbols", 1970) says that "symbol language is the mother tongue of faith".

I belong to the participation camp, which implies that earthly things and events "imitate" the divine to the best of their ability. Divine power is indirect, and "divine omnipotence" is better understood as a symbol, not as "All-causality".