Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
While that law was in effect, Jesus obeyed it perfectly and then created a new testament, or covenant as Paul explains in Hebrews.
The reason why Jesus created the New Covenant was not so that we could reject the law that he spent the sum of his ministry teaching by word and by example.
Now if you're going to hold to Deuteronomy, then you have to admit that when Jesus said, "I give you a new command," he was adding to the law and therefore breaking it. Of course that wasn't what he was doing, he was giving a command that was of the new covenant, not adding to the old, which he was forbidden to do by the law he said he came to keep and fulfill.
There was nothing brand new about the command to love our neighbor because it can be found in Leviticus 19:18, but what was new about Christ's command was the quality of the example by which we should love our neighbor, and indeed the Greek word used refers to newness with respect to quality rather than with respect to time:
3501 /néos ("new on the scene") suggests something "new in time" – in contrast to its near-synonym (2537 /kainós, "new in quality").
We should love ourselves as God loves us and that is how we should love our neighbor, so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the law, but rather he was fulfilling the law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it.
Saying that he didn't nail it to the cross is to call him a liar. He made a comparison there and said his purpose was to fulfill it. He didn't come to live in disobedience to the law but to keep it perfectly.
Jesus specifically said he came not to abolish the law in contrast with fulfilling, so you should not interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceed to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.
That was so a new law could be established. The new covenant would be of no worth if the person establishing it could not keep the old one.
There is nothing in the Bible that remotely suggests if someone keeps the law perfectly then they get to establish a new set of laws or that the New Covenant would be of no worth if the person establish it could not keep the Mosaic Covenant.
Collosians 2
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 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.
He "wiped out the handwriting of requirements," of the old law. So animal sacrifice for instance. Or do you not advocate slaughter lambs when we sin? Anyone claiming that animal sacrifice is not required under "the law" has removed something from the scripture as banned in Deuteronomy.
He didn't abolish just a part of it. He declared it finished and fulfilled.
Jesus warned those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, which is a warning you should take more seriously. Crosses were never used for the purpose of disposing of laws. Rather, the handwriting of ordinances that were against us are our violations of the law, not the laws themselves. They didn't have to legislate new laws to replace the old ones every time someone was crucified. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish our need to obey God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are acting like he said the opposite.
In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making sin offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was on his way to pay for and join the purification rites of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law. Furthermore, it says that Jesus would not be a priest if he were still on earth, and if the Law were no longer in effect, then it would have no power to do prevent that. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies of a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume, so those laws have not gone anywhere (Ezekiel 44-46).
Hebrews 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
If Jesus didn't make a new covenant, then Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit had to have been lying.
While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in the same ways and express the same character traits. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, though as part of the New Covenant those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal righteousness did not become obsolete along with it.
Upvote
0