Remember ye the Law of Moses

expos4ever said:

All right, let's talk about this text. Although there are many texts, especially from Paul, that declare the end of the Law of Moses, this one, above, seems to suggest otherwise.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and we in the modern west have been careless in understanding the implications. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which declare the abolition of the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

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, so he would also challenge those who oppose Moses. In Romans 7:7, Paul delighted in obeying God's law. In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in 2 Timothy 3:8, those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth, being corrupted in mind and disqualified from the faith.

So how can one read the text from Matthew and think that the Law of Moses has been set aside, given that heaven and earth are still here?

There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Click to expand...

Titus 2:14 describes what Jesus accomplished on the cross not by saying that he ended any laws, but rather he gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so abolishing laws is the opposite of what he accomplished on the cross. Sin is the transgression of God's law and he gave himself to free us from sin so that we might be free to obey God's law and meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4).

Heaven and earth will not pass away until Revelation 21:1 and there are still the events of Revelation that are left to be accomplished, so neither condition has been met and will be met until end times. Both could also be metaphors for saying that it is never going to happen because eternal instructions for how to act in accordance with God's eternal righteousness can't be ended without first ending God's eternal righteousness.

"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.

expos4ever said:

We follow the teachings of Jesus and the promptings of the Spirit. Again:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code

When Jesus instructs us to follow His commandment - which He clearly does - you cannot simply assume He is referring to the Law of Moses; remember, Jesus gives us plenty of commandments.

Click to expand...

If you agree that Jesus walked in sinless to the Mosaic Law, then to suggest that Jesus taught was not the same as what he practiced is to suggest that he was hypocritically saying that we should do what he said and not what he did. Furthermore, any difference would mean that Jesus was in disagreement with the Father about how we should live, and I see no indication of disagreement, but rather in John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father. In 1 John 2:3-6, it associates the instruction to follow Christ's commands with the instruction that those who are in Christ ought to walk in the same way he walked. Everything that Jesus taught by word and by example was in accordance with the OT and he did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's eternal law (Jeremiah 31:33).

expos4ever said:

Here is how this text is translated in the NASB, a translation known for its accuracy:

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

See the difference? In this translation, the author merely declares that sin is lawlessness - a general term that need be connected to the Law of Moses in particular.

Click to expand...

The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin and that standard is God's law. Do you agree that the Israelites were given instructions in regard to what is and is not sin, and if so, then how else do you think that they were instructed if not through the Mosaic Law? In Mark 1:4, when John the Baptist called people to repent from their sins, how else do you think that the people knew what sin is? The same question for Acts 2:38? In Romans 3:20, the law was given to give us knowledge of what sin is.

expos4ever said:

There are very solid reasons for believing that, in this part of Romans 7, Paul is reflecting back on his life as a Jew under the Law of Moses. And that he is looking backwards to things that were, and that do not apply now, is clear from this (Romans 8:1):

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death

What is this law of sin and death that Paul has been freed from? It is nothing other than the Law of Moses that you claim is still in force:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Paul is arguing that the Law of Moses resulted in his death - it is the very same Law that Paul later declares (in Romans 8:1, above) himself to be set free from.

Click to expand...

In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted both God's law and the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death, so he equated the Mosaic Law with the Law of the Spirit. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so the fact that therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ does not remove our obligation to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, the reason why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ is because he gave himself to pay the penalty for our sin, which should make us want to go and sin no more by living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Mosaic Law is good and that what was good did not bring death to him, yet that is precisely what you are trying to use his works in 7:9-11 to blame, when it is actually the law of sin that caused sin to come alive.

expos4ever said:

No, Paul is arguing that the Law of Moses is a double-edged sword - that while he delights in it, he also sees that the Law itself stir up sinful desires in him:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [e]through the Law; for I would not have known about [f]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not [g]covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [h]coveting of every kind;

Paul indeed delights in the Law - it helped him identify sin. But it also empowers sinful desires.

Click to expand...

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

That verse directly contrasts God's law with the law of sin, so they are opposites. In Romans 7:7, it says that God's law is not sinful, but was given to reveal what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease. However, the law of sin stirs up sinful passion to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase, so again it is the opposite of God's law. Paul said that God's law is good and that he wanted to do good, but there was a law of sin that was working within him to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful or that causes sin to increase should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than to God's law, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 15:56, and Galatians 5:16-18.

Cribstyl said:

You're right Bob, God is a covenant God.
Within God's covenants, it is written what God requires of every generation.
Under the Adamic covenant God told Adam to be vegetarian.
Gen 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Under the Noahatic Covenant God added meat.
Gen 9:3“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Being a vegetarian does have it's benefits, but should I argue against eating meat?
My point is this, we're under the new covenant. Know your covenant.
We're considered righteous if we do what God requires of us.
Here what God established as righteousness under the Mosaic Covenant
Deu 6:24 And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day.
Deu 6:25‘ Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.’

Here what God establish as righteousness under the new covenant
Rom 3:21
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Click to expand...

In Romans 3:21-22, it doesn't say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through our obedience, but rather they testify that it comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the case. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God and was a righteous man, so he was trained by grace in how to do what is righteous and was righteous because he obeyed by faith. God had no need to provide an alternative an unattainable means of becoming righteous when a perfectly good means was already in place.

In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so obedience to God should always be considered to be acting in faith. For example, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that if we want to enter into eternal life, then obey the commandments, so unless faith is implied, then he was speaking about earning eternal life. Likewise, faith needs to be implied in Deuteronomy 6:20-25, where obedience to God's law is in regard to having faith in God to defeat Pharaoh, faith in God to bring them up out of the land of Egypt, faith in God to bring them to the land that He promised to their fathers, faith in God that His law is for our own good, and faith in God to preserve them. So the reason why we are to be careful to obey God's commandments is because we have faith in God to guide us in how we ought to live and we are declared righteous by that same faith. In Habakkuk 2:4, the righteous shall live by faith, which is not referring to some other manner of living that is not in obedience to God. So only those who have faith in Christ will obey God's law and will be justified by that same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but did not say that we earn our justification by obeying the law. What we believe is expressed through our actions, which is why James 2:17-18 says that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works, so obedience to God's law is what faith looks like.

Those who are under the law are in bondage to keep the law. They will often use scripture that don't apply to your covenant.
Pointing to scripture before Christ died on the cross can create false teachings.

Click to expand...

The opinion that we have of the law matches the opinion that we have of the Lawgiver for giving it. For example, God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13) and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so we can confidently put our faith in God to guide us in how we ought to live through His law. Likewise, a law that is holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). So if you have such a poor opinion of the law that you consider it to be bondage, then you must have an equally poor opinion of God for giving it. David said repeatedly throughout the Psalms that he loved God's law and delighted in obeying it, which certainly matched his opinion of the Lawgiver, so if we believe that the Psalms are Scripture and therefore express a correct view of God's law, then we will share his view, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), and will consider anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying God's law to be incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, which the NT authors did thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it, so they certainly considered the OT to still be authoritative if not more authoritative than their own writings, so you should have no problem with quoting OT Scripture. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and he did not go to the cross in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word and by example.

expos4ever said:

The fact that we are still commanded to do something that was in the Law of Moses does not mean the Law of Moses is still in force. This requires a careful explanation: suppose there were certain set of laws governing commerce in a particular state. And suppose those laws were defined as the "Smith-Johnson Commerce Regulations". It is entirely possible that, for whatever reason, the government could dispense with the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations" and enact a new set of laws that retains some of the elements of the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations".

Click to expand...

God's law was not arbitrarily given, but rather the Israelite needs to be taught about who God is, how to walk in His ways, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so it was given for those purposes (Isaiah 2:2-3). God's ways are His character traits and there are many other verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so God did not give the law in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but rather it was given to the Israelites in order to teach the nations about who God is.

So the only way that the New Covenant could have different set of laws would be if it were made with a different God with a different set of character traits. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is 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. As part of the New Covenant we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:4). If God were to make another covenant with a different set of instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness, such as with it now being righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. The only way that God's Law could cease to be in force would be if God's were to cease being eternally righteous.

BrotherD said: ↑
To do away with the law is to do away with sin:
1 John 3:4 KJV — Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Click to expand...

expos4ever said:

Here is how this text is translated in the NASB, a translation known for its accuracy:

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

See the difference? In this translation, the author merely declares that sin is lawlessness - a general term that need be connected to the Law of Moses in particular.

Click to expand...

Transgression of the Law -- is lawlessness.

Obedience to Law is not.

Eph 6:1-2 is "specifically" the Law of Moses
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, (Ex 20:12 ) for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother Ex 20:12 (which is the first commandment with a promise),

expos4ever said:

The fact that we are still commanded to do something that was in the Law of Moses does not mean the Law of Moses is still in force.

Click to expand...

Let's suppose as you say - that instead of the text we find in Eph 6 -- we find something-of-this-form "Children obey your parents for Christians should honor father and mother. You have this from me an inspired Apostle who also writes scripture"... (something of that sort). No appeal at all in it to Moses, or the order in which such a command is found in the Law of Moses' ten commandments, (as if its inclusion in the law of Moses had some sort of authority above Paul alone saying it).

Then of course we could follow your suggestion that maybe it is deleted but then returned in its same form -- based on Paul. (The logic in deleting it and yet turning around to bring it back exactly as it was would of course need to be defined - since that would still be missing).

expos4ever said:

This requires a careful explanation:

Click to expand...

Indeed. "and then some".

Paul not only uses the language of the Ten Commandments he goes out of his way to appeal to this commandment's unique feature IN the Ten Commandments as if inclusion in that specific code of law is adding authority/force.

"Which is the first commandment with a promise" is only true within that one unit "of ten".

IT is the very thing that your suggestion would least predict/allow

expos4ever said:

It is entirely possible that, for whatever reason, the government could dispense with the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations" and enact a new set of laws that retains some of the elements of the "Smith Johnson Commerce Regulations".

Click to expand...

If the whole purpose in repealing Smith-Johnson is that the law was not working then it is not "helpful" to repeat it again and say "for this IS IN the Smith-Johnson law".

And that is the problem with your suggestion.

BrotherD said: ↑
To do away with the law is to do away with sin:
1 John 3:4 KJV — Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Click to expand...

expos4ever said:

Here is how this text is translated in the NASB, a translation known for its accuracy:

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

See the difference? In this translation, the author merely declares that sin is lawlessness - a general term that need be connected to the Law of Moses in particular.

Click to expand...

Transgression of the Law -- is lawlessness.

Obedience to Law is not. Paul is not calling us to "ignore the 5th commandment" in Eph 6:2 - rather he appeals to obedience precisely because it is in the Ten Commandments and uniquely the "First commandment with a promise" a fact that is ONLY true within the context of "the TEN"

Eph 6:1-2 is "specifically" the Law of Moses
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, (Ex 20:12 ) for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother Ex 20:12 (which is the first commandment with a promise),

expos4ever said:

The problem with this reasoning is that while transgression of the Law is indeed lawlessness, it does not follow that all lawlessness is transgression of the Law.

Click to expand...

If your argument is that 1 John 3:4 not ONLY makes "transgression of the LAW" a sin but is ALSO makes many other acts a sin as well -- then you are in effect embracing the "transgression of the LAW" POV and then adding 'only more so' -- in effect.

expos4ever said:

Therefore, if we go with the NASB translation - sin is lawlessness - we are no way forced to conclude that the lawlessness the writer is talking about is transgression of the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - once you make the scope broader you are not excluding anything in the part that is within that broad definitions.

"Only rectangles are allowed in this diagram" most certainly does not exclude squares.
"Rectangles are what we want to see here" most certainly does not exclude squares.

You are infusing a "and by that I mean every rectangles except squares" meaning into it that is extreme eisegesis ,, what some folks call "bend and wrench" logical distortion.

"Sin is transgression of the law" would predict the Eph 6:1-2 appeal to the LAW as authority for an imperative given in the NT.

AND would predict this sort of "well then -- that is sin" reasoning in James 2


==============================
James 2
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (Lev 19:18) you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

The very thing that your preference does not embrace.

10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

The very thing that your preference does not embrace.

11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” (Ex 20)
also said, “Do not commit murder.” (Ex 20)

The very appeal to an OT historical fact - that your preference seeks to avoid.


Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

The very "transgression of the LAW" idea we see in 1 John 3:4

==========================================
Another great example of "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" teaching

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
... 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

LoveGodsWord said:

Wow someone is reading their bible. I would rate this but for some reason I am not able to rate anyones posts in this section.

God bless brother.

Click to expand...

ok - I have rated that post for you...

expos4ever said:

Paul indeed delights in the Law - it helped him identify sin. But it also empowers sinful desires.

Click to expand...

1. God's Word does not "give power to rebellion against God" -- rather it exposes it making it "more apparent" than would be clear without His Word exposing it.

God does not ordain, empower evil. He magnifies its evil and exposes it.

2. It identifies sin because "sin is" by definition "transgression of the LAW" it is rebellion against the WORD of God.

BobRyan said:

Jeremiah 31
“.....I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Click to expand...

The point here is that Jeremiah is saying there will come a time when the written code is no longer needed, that when that time comes, God's laws will be accessible directly from within! And that time has come - the Holy Spirit now guides, not the written law.

Soyeong said:

In 2 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which were all terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also get to obey the instructions that God gave for how to fulfill those roles.

Click to expand...

You are simply assuming that just because we Gentiles are now subsumed within Israel, that this new expanded Israel should continue to follow the Law of Moses - this is not proper deduction. Besides, we have power Biblical evidence that the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

Paul does not use the word "oldness" lightly here - he is clearly saying that the time for a written code has come to an end.

Again: The fact we are now part of Israel does not necessarily mean that the Law continues.

Soyeong said:

Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law,

Click to expand...

No he did not. He very intentionally challenged the Law of Moses on a number of occasions. One was when he prevented the lawfully mandated execution of the woman caught in adultery.

Soyeong said:

In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law.

Click to expand...

It is perhaps unfortunate that Paul's concept of "law" is complex and nuanced. I suggest that, in the big picture, Paul really does have two categories of "law" in mind as he writes. And, if we are not careful, we can easily get them confused:

1. The Law of Moses: this is the written code - the 613 ordnances from the Torah. Paul believes this law is no longer in force, as a number of texts clearly show (i.e. in Romans 7, he refers to not serving in the oldness of the written code).

2. The "law as written on the heart".

Let's be clear: Jeremiah writes of a future time when the "law" will be written on the heart. And a written code (i.e. the Law of Moses) is a code that is NOT written on the heart. So even the author of Deuteronomy envisages a distinction between the written code, and a new kind of "law" that be written on people's hearts in the future.

And Paul writes this:

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualization of the Law. One of these is the set of formal practices that mark Jew from Gentile (with particular emphasis on things like Sabbath and purity laws). The other is the "essence of Law of Moses" that even the Gentile can follow.

expos4ever said:

The point here is that Jeremiah is saying there will come a time when the written code is no longer needed, that when that time comes, God's laws will be accessible directly from within! And that time has come - the Holy Spirit now guides, not the written law.

Click to expand...

If you read into Jeremiah 31:31-34 words that are not there - words like "God's Law no longer needed" and read it as "there will come a time .. that is not yet.. but will come in the future" - you have a problem because in Heb 8:6-11 it is still that same way... not "already came" but "will come".

Soyeong said:

God's law was not arbitrarily given, but rather the Israelite needs to be taught about who God is, how to walk in His ways, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so it was given for those purposes (Isaiah 2:2-3). God's ways are His character traits and there are many other verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so God did not give the law in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but rather it was given to the Israelites in order to teach the nations about who God is.

So the only way that the New Covenant could have different set of laws would be if it were made with a different God with a different set of character traits

Click to expand...

.
Hi Soyeong, Why would Jesus tell us He came to fulfill the law if as you write it is the laws Christians are to follow? Before you stop reading please digest the following: My question is there in Matt 5: 17 did Jesus fulfill the prophecies concerning his coming as Messiah. Of course He did. Well, isn't the law in the same sentence. "Fulfill" means, in the case of the prophecies, according to the dictionary, Jesus brought them to an end. How could any thinking person believe that He didn't bring the law, in that same sentence, to an end. Well, we know that those who believe Jesus didn't bring the law to an end are proclaiming another gospel, one of faith with the works of the law.

Soyeong said:

In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it.

Click to expand...

Let's say I agree with you - that everything listed in Galatians 5:19-22 is also against the Mosaic Law. Even if that is true, this is not evidence that the Law of Moses is still in force. Reason: If God has given us the indwelling Spirit to replace the Law of Moses, all these things are still wrong.

We do not need the Law of Moses now - we have the indwelling Spirit. You are in the very awkward position of having to explain why you are essentially taking away the role of the Spirit by insisting we should look to the Mosaic Law, instead, for moral guidance.

BobRyan said:

If you read into Jeremiah 31:31-34 words that are not there - words like "God's Law no longer needed" and read it as "there will come a time ..

Click to expand...

Let Jeremiah speak:

Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord,...

I do not see how you can possibly read Jer 31:31-34 and not conclude that he is saying that a day will come when God writes his "law" on people's hearts.

The logic here is pretty simple:

1. As Jeremiah writes, the Law of Moses, a written code, is in effect (fact).
2. Jeremiah writes of a future time when the "law" will be written on the heart (fact).
3. Logical Conclusion: something related to matters of "law" is going to change; therefore, one cannot insist that once the Law of Moses has been instituted, its application endures forever, as a written code.

BobRyan said:

If you read into Jeremiah 31:31-34 words that are not there - words like "God's Law no longer needed" and read it as "there will come a time .. that is not yet.. but will come in the future" - you have a problem because in Heb 8:6-11 it is still that same way... not "already came" but "will come".

Click to expand...

You are misreading Heb 8:6-11. The author is not talking about something in the future for the author of Hebrews; he is reiterating the prophecy of Jeremiah, reminding us that from Jeremiah's perspective, the writing of "law" onto the heart lies in the future (that is, Jeremiah's future). And the writer of Hebrews is celebrating that this has come to pass.

Bob S said:

.
Hi Soyeong, Why would Jesus tell us He came to fulfill the law if as you write it is the laws Christians are to follow? Before you stop reading please digest the following: My question is there in Matt 5: 17 did Jesus fulfill the prophecies concerning his coming as Messiah. Of course He did. Well, isn't the law in the same sentence. "Fulfill" means, in the case of the prophecies, according to the dictionary, Jesus brought them to an end. How could any thinking person believe that He didn't bring the law, in that same sentence, to an end.

Click to expand...

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing, especially because he proceeded to warn those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same and encourage those who obey it and teach others to do the same. Thinking he was speaking about bringing them to an end would be kind of like being a restaurant and asking the waiter to fill your glass us to the brim, then asking them to take it away because you don't want it. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and God's eternal instructions for how to act in accordance with His eternal righteousness can't be ended without first ending His eternal righteousness. So any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His eternal righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, even for those who are in a covenant relationship with Him, such as when God judged the world with the Flood. For example, it was sinful to commit adultery before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), during it, and is still sinful after it has become obsolete, so God's covenants do not change which actions are righteous or sinful, but reveal what has always been and will always be the eternal way to do that.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment" (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 or filling up 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. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel of Christ, which referrers to fully preaching it rather than to bringing it to an end.

Well, we know that those who believe Jesus didn't bring the law to an end are proclaiming another gospel, one of faith with the works of the law.

Click to expand...

Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to the nations before the end (Matthew 24:12-14). The same goes for Acts 2:38 for how Peter’s audience knew what sin is when he told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture is written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

On this matter of what it means to "fulfill" the Law of Moses. One thing is certain: in english at least, "fulfillment" can indeed entail abolition.

If I get on a plane and fly to Paris; when I land, I have "fulfilled" the purpose of the trip. Do I keep flying? Of course not, flying comes to an end.

Soyeong said:

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing, especially because he proceeded to warn those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same and encourage those who obey it and teach others to do the same. Thinking he was speaking about bringing them to an end would be kind of like being a restaurant and asking the waiter to fill your glass us to the brim, then asking them to take it away because you don't want it. God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and God's eternal instructions for how to act in accordance with His eternal righteousness can't be ended without first ending His eternal righteousness. So any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His eternal righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, even for those who are in a covenant relationship with Him, such as when God judged the world with the Flood. For example, it was sinful to commit adultery before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), during it, and is still sinful after it has become obsolete, so God's covenants do not change which actions are righteous or sinful, but reveal what has always been and will always be the eternal way to do that.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment" (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 or filling up 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. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel of Christ, which referrers to fully preaching it rather than to bringing it to an end.



Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to the nations before the end (Matthew 24:12-14). The same goes for Acts 2:38 for how Peter’s audience knew what sin is when he told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture is written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

Click to expand...

Did Jesus fulfill the prophecies? Are the prophecies needed to be fulfilled again? You know the answer Soyeong. He brought those prophecies to an end just as He brought the law to an end. The law and the prophecies were finished at Jesus last breath. He is King eternal, Lord of Lords. He is our Rest. We rest in Jesus every day. The Israelites rested once a week, but never rested in their Savior. We can rest today when we turn to Him.

Gentiles were never under the laws you tell us we are under. What gives you the right to write on this forum that gentiles have somehow morphed into now having to keep the now defunct old covenant laws? It doesn't make any sense now does it?

The Israelites were to observe the Sabbath because of their release from bondage in Egypt. Deut 5. Gentile nations were not led out of bondage in Egypt. Why would God lay keeping a celebration on people who had nothing to celebrate over? ?Think about it.