Matthew 5:17-18 "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" Does Fulfill mean "to end" or "to accomplish, complete"?

[BobRyan]

So, Jesus didn't end the Law. Why then, if you believe that He didn't, are you not keeping all of the 613 laws

because we take the time to read Heb 10:4-8 where we are told that the animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross.

So then , obviously, like most Christians today we do not offer animal sacrifices but we DO submit to God's command "do not take God's name in vain" no matter that it is not quoted verbatim in the NT.

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

Paul wrote
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD"
John wrote:
1 John 5:3-4 "THIS IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
John also wrote
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Paul reminds us that "Honor your father and mother - is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2-3

I wonder just how you ar able to use those verses to rectify not keeping the 613 laws

1. I read Heb 10:4-11 where we are told that all animal sacrifices and offerings at the cross.
2. I read Heb 7 where we are told the the Earthly priesthood ended with Christ's resurrection.
3. I agree with almost all Christian groups on the planet that the ceremonial laws ended at the cross.

Hopefully this helps with that wonder.

, given by God, that pertained to the individual Israelite?

Mark 2:27 Sabbath was made for mankind " -- not just "one individual Israelite"

I do too because not taking God's name in vain is part of loving Him.

so is keeping His commandment
John 14:15 "IF you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments"
Ex 20:6 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments"
1 John 5:3-4 "This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"

Where the first commandment with a promise is "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-3

14 You are my friends if you do what I command. Jn15

Agreed.

Go and do likewise.

No where in all of the New Testament does it tell us God's commands for us are the ten commandments. Eph 6 certainly is a reference to one of the ten

True it also references the entire unit when it says "is the first commandment with a promise" -- first of what? First of an entire list of commandments and in scripture they are repeatedly called "The TEN Commandments" where in Deut 5 we find that He "spoke the Ten words and added no more" to be spoken directly by God to the people.

The Unit of TEN is admitted to by almost all Christian denominations.

The new covenant nowhere indicates that the ritual command to observe a day is part of Jesus' new covenant.

The New Covenant Jer 31:31-34 "I will write my LAW on their heart" - and nowhere says that the TEN that He Spoke - are downsized by the New Covenant rather than affirmed by it.

The point remains.

Just as the feast sabbaths and new moon celebrations are not part of any obligation to observe.

FOR all eternity AFTER the cross in the New Earth "from one New Moon to another AND FROM one Sabbath to Another - shall all mankind come before Me to bow down" - Is 66:23

ARe you looking for texts to toss out?

The old covenant was nailed to the Cross

No text says that - in fact all who are lost today are lost under the Gen 2 Old Covenant of "obey and live". It was not deleted.

. 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

true - Heaven and Earth are still here and so also is Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" right out of the Law of Moses.

See where I underlined? Every law of the old covenant of the old covenant is still in binding if Jesus failed to fulfill, bring them to an end, them at Calvery.

As long as you keep avoiding Heb 10 you could suppose such a thing.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The word "fulfill" in Matthew, particularly in the context of the New Testament, generally means to accomplish or to complete rather than to end something. It's often used in relation to prophecies or promises, indicating that what was predicted or spoken has come to pass in its entirety. Let's go through some of the key occurrences in the Gospel of Matthew and see how "fulfill" is used, based on the context and the translations. all verses below are from KJV.

Matthew 1:22–23 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
This refers to the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth of the Messiah. Here, "fulfilled" means that the prophecy has been accomplished—the prophecy is being realized in the birth of Jesus. It doesn’t imply that something has ended, but rather that what was promised has now been completed in the present moment.

Matthew 13:35 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."
Jesus is referring to the uses of parables. The phrase "might be fulfilled" means that the words of the prophet are now being realized or accomplished. It's a completion of a divine plan, not an end to something. The secret truths of the kingdom of God are now being revealed in Jesus' teachings.

Matthew 26:54 (Fulfillment of Scripture)
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
Here, Jesus is speaking about His impending arrest and the unfolding of events that must happen according to the Scriptures. "Fulfilled" refers to God’s plan being carried out as prophesied, accomplishing the divine will. Again, this is not an end, but a necessary step in God's purpose.

Matthew 27:9 (Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;"
This refers to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, a fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy. The use of "fulfilled" here indicates that the prophecy was realized—it has reached its final stage or completion, rather than indicating that something has ceased.

Matthew 5:17 (Jesus Fulfilling the Law)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
In this verse, Jesus is speaking about His relationship to the Law of Moses and the prophets. "Fulfill" here means to complete or accomplish the law’s purpose. It's not about ending the law, but about bringing it to its intended completion and perfection. Jesus is not abolishing the law but rather fulfilling or fulfilling its deeper purpose and pointing to its ultimate meaning.

The nuances of "fulfill" on other Translations:
To examine the nuances of "fulfill", lI have looked at a few major translations:

King James Version (KJV): Often uses "fulfilled" in the sense of accomplishing or realizing something that was previously foretold.​

New International Version (NIV): "to fulfill" often appears with a similar sense of completion of prophecy or God's purpose.​

English Standard Version (ESV): The ESV translates "fulfill" in a way that indicates bringing to completion or realizing the prophecy—it maintains the idea of a process coming to fruition.​

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): Similar to the NIV and ESV, it translates "fulfill" as realizing a promise or prophecy. It emphasizes completion of what was foretold rather than termination.​

New Living Translation (NLT): This translation often uses the phrase "this was to fulfill," indicating that something is coming to pass as predicted, which aligns with the idea of accomplishing rather than ending.​

Summary of the Word "Fulfill" in Matthew:
In all instances, "fulfill" in Matthew conveys the idea of accomplishing, completing, or realizing something that was previously promised or prophesied. "Fulfill" is rarely (if ever) used to indicate the idea of ending something. Instead, it signals the culmination of a process or the completion of a divine plan. Whether in the fulfillment of prophecy or the purpose of Jesus’ mission, it always involves the idea of bringing something to its intended goal or purpose.

If we go deeper into Matthew 5:17–18, especially the interpretation that some claim Jesus "ended the law." These verses are critical for understanding Jesus' relationship to the Law of Moses and the broader purpose of the Old Testament.

Matthew 5:17–18 (KJV):
17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
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."

Context of Matthew 5:17–18:
This passage is part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus teaches His disciples about the nature of the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ statement in these verses is significant because:
The context of the "law" and "prophets": The “law” (Greek nomos) refers to the Torah—the first five books of the Old Testament, which contain the commandments God gave to Israel. The "prophets" refer to the prophetic writings that also point forward to God's future actions and promises. In Jewish thought, both the Law and the Prophets were seen as foundational and authoritative.
"Not to destroy, but to fulfill": The phrase “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” is key. It’s a direct response to any potential misunderstanding of His mission. Some people may have expected Jesus to abolish or radically alter the Mosaic Law, but Jesus clarifies that He’s not here to “destroy” or abolish the Law. Instead, He has come to fulfill it.

What Does "Fulfill" Mean in This Context?
As we saw earlier in other parts of Matthew, "fulfill" often means to bring to completion or to accomplish something. Jesus is saying that He completes or perfects the Law. It’s not about doing away with the Old Testament but bringing it to its intended culmination. In other words, Jesus embodies the ultimate purpose of the Law.

Here’s why this is so important:
The Law pointed to Christ: The Law itself was never meant to be an end in itself. It was a shadow of what was to come (Hebrews 10:1). The Law pointed forward to Jesus, who would fulfill its deepest meaning. For example, the sacrificial system in the Law pointed to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
Perfect obedience: Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law in a way that humanity could never do, thus fulfilling its righteous requirements. His life and obedience were the perfect expression of God’s will, something the Law pointed to but couldn’t achieve in itself.
Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment: Jesus is the goal or telos of the Law (Romans 10:4). He embodies the true spirit of the Law, fulfilling its demands perfectly and revealing its deeper meaning. When He says He has come to fulfill it, He means that He is bringing it to its full expression.

Verse 18: "Till heaven and earth pass"
This verse deepens the meaning of Jesus' statement:
"Till heaven and earth pass": This is a way of saying that the Law is permanent and enduring until the very end of time. This emphasizes the eternal nature of God's word. The Law will not be abolished or lost, but fulfilled completely.
"One jot or one tittle": The "jot" (Greek iota) is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the "tittle" is a small mark that distinguishes one letter from another (like the dot on the letter "i" in English). Jesus is stressing that every detail of the Law matters. The Law is not something to be dismissed or ignored, but to be fully respected and brought to completion. Jesus’ coming does not annul or diminish the Law but ensures it reaches its intended purpose.

Does This Mean Jesus Ended the Law?
No, Jesus did not end the Law, but He fulfilled it in the fullest sense. The misconception that Jesus “ended” the Law might stem from a misunderstanding of the word "fulfill" or from a focus on the New Covenant that Jesus initiated. While Jesus did bring in a New Covenant (as described in the Gospels and the letters of Paul), He did so through fulfilling the Old Covenant’s requirements, not by abolishing them.

Here’s why:
The Law is fulfilled in Jesus' life: He perfectly obeyed the Law and revealed its deeper meaning. The Law was a preparatory step leading to Jesus (Galatians 3:24). Jesus did not destroy the Law but gave it its full and intended meaning.
The Law’s role changes with the New Covenant: With the establishment of the New Covenant (through Jesus’ death and resurrection), believers are no longer bound to the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the Law. However, the moral teachings of the Law, which reflect God’s character, remain important. The ethical principles (such as love of God and love of neighbor, in essence, the Ten Commandments) continue to hold relevance in the New Covenant.
Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy: When Jesus says He came to "fulfill" the Law, He is also referring to the prophecies within the Law and the Prophets that pointed to His coming. The entire Old Testament pointed to Christ, and now that He has arrived, the prophecies are fulfilled. This doesn’t eliminate the Old Testament but completes it.

Common Misunderstandings of Matthew 5:17–18:
Some interpretations suggest that Jesus came to end or replace the Old Testament Law, but this is not what these verses are saying. Here’s a breakdown of some possible misunderstandings:
Jesus did not abolish the Law: Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, nor did He say that the Old Testament was no longer relevant. He came to bring out its full meaning and to fulfill it.
Jesus did not create a Law-less gospel: The New Covenant in Christ doesn’t mean there are no moral obligations or commands for Christians. Instead, it means that Christ’s work and His teachings bring the Law’s demands to fulfillment in a way that no one else could.
The Law’s ceremonial aspects: Jesus did fulfill the ceremonial laws, especially through His sacrificial death, which rendered the need for animal sacrifices obsolete. But the moral law (e.g., the Ten Commandments) remains relevant in guiding Christian living.

In Conclusion:

• Jesus did not end the Law, but He came to fulfill it. This fulfillment involves:
• Completing the Law’s purpose.
• Perfectly obeying the Law.
• Revealing the deeper spiritual truths embedded in the Law.
• Instituting a New Covenant, where His work on the cross makes believers right with God, rather than their ability to keep the Law.

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

Blessings

" Fulfill" actually means both, accomplish and end. Jesus Christ of Nazareth accomplished the last sacrifice which put an end to the daily sacrifice needed for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 10:10: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This verse emphasizes the singular and permanent nature of Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

" Fulfill" actually means both, accomplish and end. Jesus Christ of Nazareth accomplished the last sacrifice which put an end to the daily sacrifice needed for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 10:10: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." This verse emphasizes the singular and permanent nature of Jesus' sacrifice.

Agreed, but He did not put an end to Sabbath keeping as seen by the apostles keeping every Sabbath Acts 18:4 Acts 15:21 nor did He put an end to only worshipping God, or stealing or committing murder etc. Hence Mat 5:19

 

[BobRyan]

" Fulfill" actually means both, accomplish and end.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses command "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
He fulfilled the Law of Moses command "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

But that does not mean "end" or "Abolish" or "delete" or "downsize" -- moral law is complied with - when fulfilled - not deleted.

The Ten Commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8.

Jesus Christ of Nazareth accomplished the last sacrifice which put an end to the daily sacrifice needed for the forgiveness of sins.

True. Heb 10:4-11 all animal sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross.

And in Gen 2:1-3 when God made the Sabbath - no animal sacrifices as part of it.

 

[timothyu]

How can anyone try to teach that those ten commands cover all the wrongs man can do to their fellow man and God.

Because they simply tell us to not put our will ahead of the Will of God. Same thing Jesus taught and of course lived by.

 

[timothyu]

greed, but He did not put an end to Sabbath keeping as seen by the apostles keeping every Sabbath Acts 18:4 Acts 15:21 nor did He put an end to only worshipping God, or stealing or committing murder etc. Hence Mat 5:19

Gentiles forget that the original Christians were Jewish only, and kept both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, side by each. Sunday was still a work day. Just like US'ers like to take the u out of English words to save time I guess, the gentiles combined the two in their version of Christianity, most likely to distance themselves from the Jews in the same way they eliminated other connections, until they totally controlled the narrative making Christianity over in their own image. Of course this was a win for the Adversary also as it eliminated respect for God and His rest also.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Gentiles forget that the original Christians were Jewish only, and kept both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, side by each.

Are you referring to the Gentiles in Scripture or what happened after? There is no Lords Day that is day one in Scripture, nor did the Gentiles or Jews keep every day 1 in Scripture, like they did with Sabbath-keeping Acts 14:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 18:4

 

[Bob S]

Because they simply tell us to not put our will ahead of the Will of God. Same thing Jesus taught and of course lived by.

Some sins not associated with the old covenant 10 commandments​

• Envy
• Gluttony
• Greed
• Sloth
• Wrath
• Pride
• Slander
• Omission
• Blasphemy
• Perjury
• Abortion
• Euphemism
• Suicide
• Drug Abuse
• Alcohol Abuse
• Terrorism
• Extreme Anger
• Revenge
• Divorce
• Extortion
• Pornography
• Homosexual Acts
• Incest
• Not loving our fellow man
• Hate

Those are a few that the 10 Commandments didn’t address. The great command to love our neighbors and our Creator are not in the Ten. It is no wonder Paul wrote that the Ten were transitory. Loving our fellow man like Jesus loves us covers anything we can and do to mankind.

 

[timothyu]

Those are a few that the 10 Commandments didn’t address.

Doesn't matter what sins people come up with . They are all the result of focusing on self-interest, our will ahead of the will of God. This is why God said to put His will ahead of our own, thus loving all as self.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Some sins not associated with the old covenant 10 commandments​

• Envy
• Gluttony
• Greed
• Sloth
• Wrath
• Pride
• Slander
• Omission
• Blasphemy
• Perjury
• Abortion
• Euphemism
• Suicide
• Drug Abuse
• Alcohol Abuse
• Terrorism
• Extreme Anger
• Revenge
• Divorce
• Extortion
• Pornography
• Homosexual Acts
• Incest
• Not loving our fellow man
• Hate

Those are a few that the 10 Commandments didn’t address. The great command to love our neighbors and our Creator are not in the Ten. It is no wonder Paul wrote that the Ten were transitory. Loving our fellow man like Jesus loves us covers anything we can and do to mankind.

If one was keeping the very first commandment, to have no other gods before Me, no one would be breaking anything you listed. Most are under the Ten like Jesus related divorce to adultery, slander, perjury is under lying , drug abuse, pornography, envy under covetness. There is not anything we can do that is not under one of the umbrella of the Ten Commandments the way Jesus told us how to keep them Mat 5:19-30 why it's God's perfect law converting the soul Psa 19:7

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Agreed, but He did not put an end to Sabbath keeping as seen by the apostles keeping every Sabbath Acts 18:4 Acts 15:21 nor did He put an end to only worshipping God, or stealing or committing murder etc. Hence Mat 5:19

Sure! No problem keeping Saturday Sabbath after all, it was created for us to rest.
Blessings

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Sure! No problem keeping Saturday Sabbath after all, it was created for us to rest.
Blessings

Yes, to rest and keep holy Exo 20:6, laying aside all of our secular activities so we can focus on God Isa 58:13

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes, to rest and keep holy Exo 20:6, laying aside all of our secular activities so we can focus on God Isa 58:13

Humm..cooking is secular?

 

[timothyu]

Humm..cooking is secular?

Meals were prepared a day ahead

 

[timothyu]

Sure! No problem keeping Saturday Sabbath after all, it was created for us to rest.

Was that the original intention or was it out of respect for God's day of rest. As extensions of God we must do likewise.as a matter of respect

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Humm..cooking is secular?

That’s why Jesus made the Preparation Day, to prepare for the Sabbath. All heavy cooking should be done the day before, but definitely not a sin to eat on the Sabbath

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Gentiles forget that the original Christians were Jewish only, and kept both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, side by each. Sunday was still a work day. Just like US'ers like to take the u out of English words to save time I guess, the gentiles combined the two in their version of Christianity, most likely to distance themselves from the Jews in the same way they eliminated other connections, until they totally controlled the narrative making Christianity over in their own image. Of course this was a win for the Adversary also as it eliminated respect for God and His rest also.

I dont think so, the gentiles were from all over, see acts... it was not only converted Jews, also at some point the original 12 did go to different places in the land of the gentiles to preach the Gospel that Jesus asked them to preach to all the world. what you say keeping both id also from acts but the trus lord's day Is what God said it is, the 7th day.

 

[timothyu]

it was not only converted Jews

They converted to nothing. They originally were it. They existed first unless by Christian you are only referring to followers of Paul rather than Jesus.

also at some point the original 12 did go to different places in the land of the gentiles to preach the Gospel that Jesus asked them to preach to all the world.

You do realize He was talking about the other nations of the Hebrew people. Anyone not of the tribe of Judah was called a gentile by them. Jesus was originally about the Hebrew people but more importantly He wished to restore the pre-Hebrew Abrahamic faith.

 

[DamianWarS]

Here’s why:
The Law is fulfilled in Jesus' life: He perfectly obeyed the Law and revealed its deeper meaning. The Law was a preparatory step leading to Jesus (Galatians 3:24). Jesus did not destroy the Law but gave it its full and intended meaning.
The Law’s role changes with the New Covenant: With the establishment of the New Covenant (through Jesus’ death and resurrection), believers are no longer bound to the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the Law. However, the moral teachings of the Law, which reflect God’s character, remain important. The ethical principles (such as love of God and love of neighbor, in essence, the Ten Commandments) continue to hold relevance in the New Covenant.
Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy: When Jesus says He came to "fulfill" the Law, He is also referring to the prophecies within the Law and the Prophets that pointed to His coming. The entire Old Testament pointed to Christ, and now that He has arrived, the prophecies are fulfilled. This doesn’t eliminate the Old Testament but completes it.

Common Misunderstandings of Matthew 5:17–18:
Some interpretations suggest that Jesus came to end or replace the Old Testament Law, but this is not what these verses are saying. Here’s a breakdown of some possible misunderstandings:
Jesus did not abolish the Law: Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, nor did He say that the Old Testament was no longer relevant. He came to bring out its full meaning and to fulfill it.
Jesus did not create a Law-less gospel: The New Covenant in Christ doesn’t mean there are no moral obligations or commands for Christians. Instead, it means that Christ’s work and His teachings bring the Law’s demands to fulfillment in a way that no one else could.
The Law’s ceremonial aspects: Jesus did fulfill the ceremonial laws, especially through His sacrificial death, which rendered the need for animal sacrifices obsolete. But the moral law (e.g., the Ten Commandments) remains relevant in guiding Christian living.

You've conflated the term "end" with "destroy" which is not the intended meaning by those who use it and is also a strawman. You've also failed to identify the similarities of outcome for "end" and "fulfill" or that they can be used to describe the same process. If a prophecy has been completed then is it not also ended? So your language is confusing.

what I see is that you've dichotomized law with fulfilled law that has led to its ending (we are no longer bound by it) and fulfilled law that still continues (the moral aspects). Then you've used this moral label to prop up certain laws. This is again a strawman.

The bible does not use these labels but in practice you're using them to show what we are bound by and what we are not bound by, effectively adding a non-biblical clause to Christ's words trying to expand and say what he really meant, vs what he actually said. I'm sure you'll justify it using various rhetoric but nothing that can confirm supposed unwritten declarion of what I imagine amounts to the 10 commandments. Somehow crossing out what Christ said and changing it to say the 10 commandments.

So who has given you these definitions? if you say we are not bound by ceremonial and sacrificial laws then who told you which laws are ceremonial and which are sacrificial that we are no longer under them? How do you define what is of moral laws and what is not of moral laws. labels aside, If we are to critically look at laws, then laws like the 10 commandments do not all best fit a moral framework.

laws regarding behaviour to each other can be called natural/univerally moral, essentially commandments 6-10. these laws we don't have to be told in order to understand them and they apply to all universally but generally they are pillars of morally and only address outward action not inward. Laws regarding our commitment to servitude fits a honor framework of law that can be called moral as well. commandments like the 1-3 fit this but also the 5th. the 5th is generally looked at as moral in regards to an outlook of "love your neighbour" but it in fact it is honor driven that cannot be universally applied.

In the ancient near east honor driven morality was often the highest order of morality, where in the modern west we look to fact driven morality as the highest; both can be called truth. It is of no surprise the 5th identifies a unique honor driven code outside of God. We are too not lie, steal, murder, etc... from our parents too but that is far more universally applied, yet for our parents they deserve a special sort of honor that can be contrasted by the honor given universally to others. what if by recounting the facts you dishonor your parents? What are you to do, lie or dishonor your parents? In the west we see facts synomous with truth and the highest form of morality so we don't lie (or say that's the best path) but in the ancient world honor was the highest so in that case they would do what they can to honor their parents, even if it meant exaggerating accounts. But honor is also morally driven so commandments 1-3 and commandments 5 are honor driven over a more universal morality of treating each other with civility: both are morally rooted.

This leaves the 4th commandment. the action of the 4th is to cease work to remember that God ceased work on the 7th day. This is not honor driven (although everything was honor driven then), nor is it a of civility towards others. The action of "ceasing" is declared as holy but more abstractly because the same action on another day would be considered lazy and injust. So it is not directly clear where it fits, the morally part of it can include simple obedience which is the same for the entire torah, we don't have to understand the commandments to keep them and the obedience part can still be a moral contribution and yes broadly honor driven then. But obedience is also applied to ceremonial and sacrificial laws as well (and every single law found in torah) so it's not a uniqueness that can help us identify it's moral components since all inherit the obedience factor. By instruction what is happening is a ritual practice that is repeated every sabbath and this makes it ceremonial by definition not moral in the sense of honor driven or in the sense of how we treat each other.

I suspect however you will protest calling the 4th ceremonial and again layer on the rhetoric but still without any biblical cause to separate laws like these or no biblical cause to call the 4th not ceremonial. just things like "finger of God" or "commandments of God" "Law of God" etc... but what you're really trying to say is the only laws God values is the 10, nothing else matters. I'm sure you'll reject this as well but in practice is this not what you're saying? What gives you the authority to say one part of the law is less important than another part of the law? I instead choose to accept Christ words, who tells us a heuristic approach to keeping law using the 2 greatest commandments (both of which are found outside of the 10) he then says all of the law and prophets hang upon these two. What he does not say is it sums up the 10 (which is a common knee jerk reaction) NT authors says it fulfills all of the law as well (not just the 10 but "all")

I see you've quoted from Galations despite pervious voiced issues you've had with Pauline theology. Since you've open the door to Pauline theology in Galations here is another passage in Galation Gal 5:14 "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So which "fulfilled" does this occupy? It's not end, because the passage is not about "ending" but it is about completing just though the action of this one commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

No need to cut up law and give it post-biblical labels, no need to call some laws universally moral when clearly they are still limited since they are broad moral pillars of physical action but do not address the heart. No need to call law ended, or destroyed, not kept or broken, or whatever other words you want to throw in here. I see only keeping law with lawful practice and it is "fulfilled". The law is complete through this one commandment and this is consistent with what Jesus says. So why desect law with a bias scalpel? No need to do anything to law, let's just call it torah and look at how Christ's tell's us to complete it.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Once again, why did Paul write 2Cor3:6-11, Eph2:15, Col2 and Gal3:19? You cannot have it both ways my friends.

In Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (NKJV)​

Jesus made it very clear: He did not come to cancel or end the Law. Instead, He came to fulfill or accomplish it, to live it out perfectly, to reveal its true meaning, and to bring it to its intended purpose. He also warned that nothing from the Law would pass away until heaven and earth are gone and everything is fulfilled. This shows that the Law still stands, especially the moral commandments of God, such as the Ten Commandments.

You argue that the Law ended with Jesus’ death, and use writings from Paul to support this idea, quoting verses such as 2 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Galatians 3. However, these must be read carefully and must never be used to cancel or contradict what Jesus clearly said.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6–11, Paul writes:

​

“[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (NKJV)​

Paul here compares the old covenant, written on stone, with the new covenant written by the Spirit. He calls the old system a “ministry of death” and “condemnation” because it revealed sin and brought guilt without giving power to overcome it. But he still calls it glorious. The new covenant brings life and righteousness through the Holy Spirit, not by replacing the law, but by writing it on the heart. This agrees with the promises of God in the Old Testament, such as:

​

“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezekiel 36:27, NKJV)​

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.” (Jeremiah 31:33, NKJV)​

In Ephesians 2:14–15, Paul writes:

“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” (NKJV)​

This teaching from Paul, is explaining that Jesus removed the separation between Jews and Gentiles by removing certain laws—called “commandments contained in ordinances.” These refer to ceremonial and ritual laws, like circumcision and purity rules, which had separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Jesus Himself never spoke of these things as being abolished; this is Paul’s way of interpreting what Jesus did through His death.

Jesus never said He came to end ordinances or rituals to unite the nations. Instead, He taught that He was sent to gather the lost sheep of Israel and also spoke of other sheep (Gentiles) who would hear His voice and become one flock under one Shepherd:

“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16, NKJV)​

In Colossians 2:14–17, Paul writes:

“…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (NKJV)​

Again, this is Paul’s voice, not Jesus’. Paul is speaking about the record of our sins and the ceremonial laws that pointed forward to Christ. These included yearly feasts, food offerings, and special sabbath days connected to the festivals—not the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments. Paul says these were shadows—symbols that were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus, however, never said the Sabbath was a shadow. In fact, He said:

​

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27–28, NKJV)​

Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made as a gift for all people, not just for the Jews, and that He Himself is Lord of it—not to destroy it, but to show how it should truly be kept.

In Galatians 3:19, Paul writes:

“What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” (NKJV)​

Paul is explaining that the law was added later because of sin—until Christ, the Seed, would come. He is referring again to the ceremonial laws given after the promise to Abraham. These were temporary and pointed toward the coming Messiah. But Paul’s meaning can be misunderstood if someone thinks he is saying all of God’s law ended. That would directly contradict Jesus’ words.

To be clear: Jesus never taught that the law would end when He died. He said the opposite—that until heaven and earth pass away, nothing from the Law would disappear.
Paul’s writings must therefore be understood in light of Jesus’ teachings, not the other way around. Even Peter warned us about this:

​

“…as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15–16, NKJV)​

While Paul gave many explanations about the purpose of the law, the unity of Jews and Gentiles, and the meaning of Christ’s death, none of his writings cancel or replace what Jesus directly taught. The commandments of God still stand. The ceremonial shadows found their meaning in Christ, but the holy life that the law teaches remains the standard for all who follow Jesus as he said;

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15, NKJV)​

And that is the final authority!