Remember ye the Law of Moses

Dkh587 said:

He said that he didn’t come to abolish it. You make him out to be a liar if you think he said he didn’t come to abolish it, and then turns around and abolished it.

Click to expand...

That is quite simple. Jesus didn't have to abolish the laws of the old covenant. The Israelites did an excellent job of doing that. Remember when God called Moses before proclaiming the issuing of the covenant there in Ex 19 verses 5 and 6 5 Now IF you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.’

The covenant was an "IF" covenant. Jesus came to end that covenant with its 613 laws and to grant us a new and better covenant for all mankind not just Israel and Judah.

Actuality you are the one that makes Jesus out as a liar when you try to tell us He didn't fulfill all He came to do. He brought the prophecies about His coming to an end and likewise the laws of the old covenant.

Cribstyl said:

That question suggest that we're making that claim. Here's what the scriptures say is abolished.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
This is you'll probably argue to no end that law of commandments in ordinances is not the ten commandments.

Click to expand...

This text from Ephesians is, of course, a slam dunk - the Law of Moses is indeed set aside.

Dkh587 said:

He said that he didn’t come to abolish it. You make him out to be a liar if you think he said he didn’t come to abolish it, and then turns around and abolished it.

Click to expand...

Please - enough with the pontification about those who do not share your views making Jesus out to be a liar. This statement from Jesus:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill

....can be very legitimately interpreted as "I did not come to tell you that the Law of Moses is a bad thing and therefore needs to be abolished. I came to complete, that is to fulfill, the objective of the Law of Moses. And when I have completed the Law's objective, the Law can be retired with honour."

expos4ever said:

Please - enough with the pontification about those who do not share your views making Jesus out to be a liar. This statement from Jesus:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill

....can be very legitimately interpreted as "I did not come to tell you that the Law of Moses is a bad thing and therefore needs to be abolished. I came to complete, that is to fulfill, the objective of the Law of Moses. And when I have completed the Law's objective, the Law can be retired with honour."

Click to expand...

Very nice way to put it. Jesus did what the Israelites failed to do, He actually kept the law of Moses. He fulfilled every requirement of the law. Israel broke every aspect of the law. They broke the covenant thus abolishing the agreement they had with God at the foot of Mt Sinai. Our benevolent God worked with them until Jesus came and actually severed the old covenant by replacing it with the new and better covenant. Why do some people want to put us under a covenant that millions of people failed to keep, one that could only bring death? 2Cor3:7-11

expos4ever said:

Please - enough with the pontification about those who do not share your views making Jesus out to be a liar. This statement from Jesus:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill

....can be very legitimately interpreted as "I did not come to tell you that the Law of Moses is a bad thing and therefore needs to be abolished. I came to complete, that is to fulfill, the objective of the Law of Moses. And when I have completed the Law's objective, the Law can be retired with honour."

Click to expand...

Of course Paul is not talking about the law of God - did you forget that the Messiah told him to not think that he came to abolish/destroy it?

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy

Paul must fit the Messiah’s words, not the other way around. We read Paul through Messiah’s teachings. We don’t read Messiah’s teachings through Paul’s letter. That would be poor scholarship.

So, since your argument of what Paul is saying is destroyed(Matthew 5:17), now you need to figure out what law Paul taught was abolished.

expos4ever said:

Please - enough with the pontification about those who do not share your views making Jesus out to be a liar. This statement from Jesus:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill

....can be very legitimately interpreted as "I did not come to tell you that the Law of Moses is a bad thing and therefore needs to be abolished. I came to complete, that is to fulfill, the objective of the Law of Moses. And when I have completed the Law's objective, the Law can be retired with honour."

Click to expand...

This is a good example of eisegesis. Good attempt at explaining it, but it doesn’t work, because you’re trying to fit what you say into the text, rather than allow the text to speak for itself.

Dkh587 said:

Of course Paul is not talking about the law of God - did you forget that the Messiah told him to not think that he came to abolish/destroy it?

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy

Paul must fit the Messiah’s words, not the other way around. We read Paul through Messiah’s teachings. We don’t read Messiah’s teachings through Paul’s letter. That would be poor scholarship.

So, since your argument of what Paul is saying is destroyed(Matthew 5:17), now you need to figure out what law Paul taught was abolished.

Click to expand...

Christ words properly understood is; I have not come to destroy by changing even a comma from The Old Testament (Law and the Prophets)
You don't want to face the fact that change was prophesied.
It's written in the Law and the Prophets (OT) that righteousness would be without the law. We don't need to figure out anything. The prophecy in Jer 31 is clear that the New Covenant would not be like the one given to Moses. How can you erase that Paul reinforce the truth.
Rom 3:21¶But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Dkh587 said:

So, since your argument of what Paul is saying is destroyed(Matthew 5:17), now you need to figure out what law Paul taught was abolished.

Click to expand...

I never said that Paul said the Law was abolished in Matthew 5:17 - Jesus is speaking in Matthew 5.

In any event, I think the overall New Testament is clear:

1. In Matt 5:17, I believe Jesus is saying "I have come to complete, that is to fulfill, the role God gave to the Law of Moses in the Father's grand plan of redemption. And once my work is completed on the cross, the Law can be retired. What I, Jesus, am not saying is that I have come to strike down ("abolish") the law of Moses as if it were a bad thing - no, it is a good thing that has now accomplished its goal."

2. Paul clearly declares the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end here in Romans 7: ....and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Please explain to us how you reconcile the Romans 7 text with your position that we still should be following the Law of Moses?

Dkh587 said:

This is a good example of eisegesis. Good attempt at explaining it, but it doesn’t work, because you’re trying to fit what you say into the text, rather than allow the text to speak for itself.

Click to expand...

You have not actually addressed my argument - you simply declare it to be eisegesis.

Back to "abolish" vs "fulfill". Is it conceivable that Jesus came to complete the work of the Law of Moses and, having completed that work, declare it has come to an end? Of course this is conceivable. And is it also not conceivable that Jesus wants to make it clear to His listeners that this does not mean that He has come to declare that the Law of Moses is a bad thing that needs to be struck down? This, too, is eminently plausible. If, as I contend, Jesus thinks the Law of Moses is to be retired, He needs to carefully explain that this is because it has completed its task, not because it is a bad thing, or that God has changed His mind about it.

An entirely reasonable way to sum up this position is to say this:

Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill.

This is from the NASB, considered to be a very accurate translation (though perhaps a little less readable). I think the phrase "throw down" is instructive - it implies that whatever is "thrown down" is a bad thing, or something that needs to replaced. Jesus, I suggest, wants to say that, yes, the time of application of the Law of Moses has been come to an end - its goal is about to be fulfilled; but He equally wants his listeners to understand that He is not "throwing it down" as though it was a bad things, or that it had failed.

I suspect that many of those who are claiming that the Law of Moses is still in force are concerned about issues of morality - that the Law (especially the 10 commandments) provides us with the moral compass we need. While this view appears understandable on a first glance, there are a number of problems with it:

1. We are clearly told by Paul that the Spirit replaces the Law in terms of guiding us.

2. Most elements of the Law of Moses have very little connection to what we could call a moral code anyway - Sabbath, festivals, purification rites, food laws, etc. What the Law really did, then, was mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. Now if you read Paul carefully, it is beyond debate that he stresses that Jew and Gentile have been brought together into one family. Now, you do not need to be Albert Einstein to know that these two groups cannot be one family if one of the two groups, the Jews, adhere to the Law of Moses and the Gentiles don't. I can imagine my opponents saying "Aha! Got you! As I have been arguing all along, Gentiles, too, need to follow the Law - that way they are all a single family obeying a common Law." Well, that could have been a solution. But there is, of course, another possibility - do away with the Law of Moses (retire it). And we know which of these two possibilities Paul believes:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

I challenge anyone to name one scholar - a real scholar - who denies that this "Law of commandments contained in ordnances" is the Law of Moses.

Another line of reasoning: Much of the Law of Moses dealt with activity at the Temple. As I have pointed out, Jesus forgave sinners even though the Law required this be done at the Temple. To me, this is a clear message from Jesus: I am the new Temple. Now if the Temple is replaced, and since so much of the Law is based on the Temple, this is powerful evidence that the Law is on the way out.

Furthermore, the Scriptures teach that the Temple was where God's presence is to be found. I defy anyone to argue that Paul does not teach us that the new home of God is in our own selves, in the form of the indwelling Spirit. Things are changing - to claim the Law is still in force is to miss the obvious narrative flow we see in the Bible.

Bob S said:

That is quite simple. Jesus didn't have to abolish the laws of the old covenant. The Israelites did an excellent job of doing that. Remember when God called Moses before proclaiming the issuing of the covenant there in Ex 19 verses 5 and 6 5 Now IF you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.’

Click to expand...

The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, or on what the Israelites do, 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 if any someone is under. 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 Mosaic Covenant was made or that ceased to be righteous or sinful when it became obsolete, but rather the Mosaic Law revealed what has always been and while always be the way to do that.

For example, it was sinful to commit adultery before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), during it, and it remains sinful after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing that the Israelites could have done to abolish the command against adultery or any of God's other eternal laws, just as there is nothing that they could do to abolish God's eternal righteousness. They were given the task of being a light to the the world through putting God on display and teaching us about who He is, which they did accomplished both by obeying the Mosaic Law and being an example of what we should do or by disobeying the Mosaic Law and being an example of what we shouldn't do (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

The covenant was an "IF" covenant. Jesus came to end that covenant with its 613 laws and to grant us a new and better covenant for all mankind not just Israel and Judah.

Actuality you are the one that makes Jesus out as a liar when you try to tell us He didn't fulfill all He came to do. He brought the prophecies about His coming to an end and likewise the laws of the old covenant.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). Jesus 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 establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, so that straightforwardly is not something that he came to do. When you interpret fulfilling the law as saying that Jesus came to abolish the law, you are interpreting Jesus as contradicting himself and you have given no justification for why we should reject all of the reasons for how fulfilling the law should be understood in favor of interpreting Jesus as contradicting himself.

expos4ever said:

I suspect that many of those who are claiming that the Law of Moses is still in force are concerned about issues of morality - that the Law (especially the 10 commandments) provides us with the moral compass we need. While this view appears understandable on a first glance, there are a number of problems with it:

1. We are clearly told by Paul that the Spirit replaces the Law in terms of guiding us.

Click to expand...

In Romans 8:4-7, Paul clearly contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh, who are enemies of God, and who refuse to submit to God's law. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of lead us to obey God's law, so the Spirit does not replace it and does not lead us to rebel against what the Father has commanded.

2. Most elements of the Law of Moses have very little connection to what we could call a moral code anyway - Sabbath, festivals, purification rites, food laws, etc. What the Law really did, then, was mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. Now if you read Paul carefully, it is beyond debate that he stresses that Jew and Gentile have been brought together into one family. Now, you do not need to be Albert Einstein to know that these two groups cannot be one family if one of the two groups, the Jews, adhere to the Law of Moses and the Gentiles don't. I can imagine my opponents saying "Aha! Got you! As I have been arguing all along, Gentiles, too, need to follow the Law - that way they are all a single family obeying a common Law." Well, that could have been a solution. But there is, of course, another possibility - do away with the Law of Moses (retire it). And we know which of these two possibilities Paul believes:

Click to expand...

What standard do you use to determine which laws are moral and which are not? Is there is a single example where disobedience to any of God's laws was consider to be moral? Is there a single example where the Bible states that certain laws are moral while others are not? Why would you ever consider disobedience to God to be moral? Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of His laws are inherently moral laws.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that came up out of Egypt, so there were Gentiles are the foot of Sinai. In Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so there have always been righteous Gentiles who sought to become followers of the God of Israel, to repent from their sins, and to learn how to walk in His ways. So the God's laws were not intended to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, but between Israel and the other nations. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included among God's chosen people, a holy nation, and royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, so Gentiles are also called to be distinct and get to follow the instructions that God gave for how to live as part of a holy nation. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which straightforwardly includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). For Gentiles, it is about seeing the light of what God is doing through Israel and wanting to become part of that. There is no sense in a Gentile wanting to become a follower of the God of Israel while wanting nothing to do with learning how to walk in His ways.

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ,

Click to expand...

excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
I challenge anyone to name one scholar - a real scholar - who denies that this "Law of commandments contained in ordnances" is the Law of Moses.

Click to expand...

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and Ephesians 2:12-15 is speaking about a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not speaking about any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the Mosaic Law, so He had no need to abolish His own eternal laws. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God. Furthermore, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructions us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so I don't see any justification for interpreting this passage as referring to the Mosaic Law.

Soyeong said:

The way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, or on what the Israelites do, 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 if any someone is under.

Click to expand...

Wow! you have to be kidding. Ever find any mildew in your home? God said to tear it down. Do your men not shave their sideburns as required by God? If they do it would be an outright sin according to you. You have told us the reason you do not have to sacrifice animals is because Jesus is the final sacrifice. Now you are telling us: "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 if any someone is under." Why would I ever listen to anything you write. That doesn't make any sense. You tell me I double talk about Jesus bringing to an end the Law. You have to believe He didn't because it would destroy your belief system. You tell us the ten commandments are eternal and couldn't end. there were nine commands pointing out sin. Nine commands do not make a spot as to how we can harm our fellow man. Have you ever really taken a thought as to how many ways we can sin? Listen to what Paul wrote in Gal 5 and see if this supports what you write in your posts.
Gal 5: 18 if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. After reading the above are we to live by the Law or by the Spirit. To live by the Spirit means to allow the Holy Spirit be our guide into all righteousness not old covenant law.

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 Mosaic Covenant was made or that ceased to be righteous or sinful when it became obsolete, but rather the Mosaic Law revealed what has always been and while always be the way to do that.

Click to expand...

Not really Soyeong. Did Adam, Noah and Abraham have the command concerning Passover or any of the required special days. You know they didn't. The weekly Sabbath requirement was given because Israel was to remember their flight out of Egypt and creation. Abraham didn't have an inkling of an idea that the children of Israel would be slaves in Egypt for four hundred years. Your paragraph doesn't make sense because we have the Bible too to know what is the real truth.

For example, it was sinful to commit adultery before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), during it, and it remains sinful after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing that the Israelites could have done to abolish the command against adultery or any of God's other eternal laws, just as there is nothing that they could do to abolish God's eternal righteousness. They were given the task of being a light to the the world through putting God on display and teaching us about who He is, which they did accomplished both by obeying the Mosaic Law and being an example of what we should do or by disobeying the Mosaic Law and being an example of what we shouldn't do (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

Click to expand...

God instilled in all of us right from wrong. By the way you refer to adultery. Lets take Abraham for an example. Did God tell Abraham it was wrong to keep concubines? Wouldn't having intimate relationships with a bunch of women today be considered forication and keep us from eternal life? Wouldn't the women back then be a bunch of fornicators? Did God just "wink" and allow His eternal law to be tread under foot by Abraham. Maybe there wasn't such a law or Abraham being a Godly man would not have ever done such a thing. Maybe it was right to do what Abe did. It would seem like God changed His mind when He wrote on those Stones. Maybe you should do some research before you write what you do.
Gen 39:9
8 But he refused. ‘With me in charge,’ he told her, ‘my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. 9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?’ 10 And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even to be with her. Well now that seems to be a conundrum doesn't it? Abraham's affairs were not with married women now were they?

The New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31).

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus must have had a new revelation because He told the disciples to go into all the World and spread the Good News. Jesus made the covenant for all mankind. And if perhaps I am wrong about that, gentiles are covered by the Noahide and Abrahamic covenants which are still enforce and are covenants of Grace not of the laws of the Mosaic covenant.

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

Click to expand...

That was not a strange thing for Jesus to have done. After all the new covenant was yet to be ratified. All the Jews that Jesus preached to were still under the law as was Jesus Himself. If one is under the law as were the Jews then they were to be obedient to those laws. They were not to cut their sideburns.

he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and he did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33).

Click to expand...

Only people that believe like you could come to that conclusion.. If we are to live like the Jews did under the old covenant why even bother to give us the Holy Spirit and the new way of not being under the Law? Why give us the new way of Grace? Why give us the new way of loving others as Jesus loves us. Why put our faith in Jesus? Then there are all of the other nations that God didn't give the Law. Are all of them lost because they didn't have to observe all of the laws of the Mosaic covenant? Why not then and why now? Your belief system does not make any sense to me.

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, so that straightforwardly is not something that he came to do.

Click to expand...

He didn't have to abolish the Law. The Jews didn't abide by the covenant and the covenant was severed. Do you understand covenants? Two parties have to agree to do all the covenant requires or it fails to be a covenant. The covenant no longer exists. The laws of Moses no longer exists. The laws of the new covenant supersedes the laws of the old covenant. All your "keeping" is for naught and all your trying to persuade us to believe what you write is teaching falsehood according to scripture.

When you interpret fulfilling the law as saying that Jesus came to abolish the law, you are interpreting Jesus as contradicting himself and you have given no justification for why we should reject all of the reasons for how fulfilling the law should be understood in favor of interpreting Jesus as contradicting himself.

Click to expand...

When you understand the real truth you will know that I am not contradicting Jesus. If you are correct then what Paul wrote about being under the law is a contradiction. Do you believe the writings of Paul? Was Paul pseudo ambassador of Jesus when he wrote:

Romans 2:12
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Romans 3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 6:15
[ Slaves to righteousness ] What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

Acts 13:39
Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.


Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’

Galatians 3:23
[ Children of God ] Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

Galatians 4:4
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

Galatians 4:21
[ Hagar and Sarah ] Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

Galatians 5:18
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Bob S said:

That is quite simple. Jesus didn't have to abolish the laws of the old covenant. The Israelites did an excellent job of doing that. Remember when God called Moses before proclaiming the issuing of the covenant there in Ex 19 verses 5 and 6 5 Now IF you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.’

The covenant was an "IF" covenant. Jesus came to end that covenant with its 613 laws and to grant us a new and better covenant for all mankind not just Israel and Judah.

Actuality you are the one that makes Jesus out as a liar when you try to tell us He didn't fulfill all He came to do. He brought the prophecies about His coming to an end and likewise the laws of the old covenant.

Click to expand...

Everything is not fulfilled.. unless you want to argue that the Messiah has returned to rule on the earth?

still peddling that non-existent new covenant made between God and mankind, I see.

Cribstyl said:

Christ words properly understood is; I have not come to destroy by changing even a comma from The Old Testament (Law and the Prophets)
You don't want to face the fact that change was prophesied.
It's written in the Law and the Prophets (OT) that righteousness would be without the law. We don't need to figure out anything. The prophecy in Jer 31 is clear that the New Covenant would not be like the one given to Moses. How can you erase that Paul reinforce the truth.
Rom 3:21¶But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Click to expand...

Where did the Prophets teach Israel that righteousness would be without the law?

the new covenant is not like the original because it’s the same laws are written on the heart instead of stone. It’s quite simple.

expos4ever said:

I never said that Paul said the Law was abolished in Matthew 5:17 - Jesus is speaking in Matthew 5.

In any event, I think the overall New Testament is clear:

1. In Matt 5:17, I believe Jesus is saying "I have come to complete, that is to fulfill, the role God gave to the Law of Moses in the Father's grand plan of redemption. And once my work is completed on the cross, the Law can be retired. What I, Jesus, am not saying is that I have come to strike down ("abolish") the law of Moses as if it were a bad thing - no, it is a good thing that has now accomplished its goal."

2. Paul clearly declares the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end here in Romans 7: ....and now we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Please explain to us how you reconcile the Romans 7 text with your position that we still should be following the Law of Moses?

Click to expand...

It is obvious that the way Messiah uses “fulfill” is in a way of preaching the Law of God/Moses fully.

Did you notice that he teaches a proper, full & balanced understanding of the Law & Prophets following his statement that he came to fulfill the law?

Paul uses the same phrase, “pleroo”, in Romans 15:19, and says he “fully preached” the gospel, aka he fulfilled it. Is the gospel done? No. He fully preached it, just like the Messiah fully preached the Law & Prophets.

Contextually, “fulfill” has to be the opposite of abolish/destroy. Thanks to the ever so handy Thesaurus, here are antonyms to destroy/abolish:

Establish
Institute
Confirm
Enact
Promote
Support
Uphold

expos4ever said:

Back to "abolish" vs "fulfill". Is it conceivable that Jesus came to complete the work of the Law of Moses and, having completed that work, declare it has come to an end? Of course this is conceivable. And is it also not conceivable that Jesus wants to make it clear to His listeners that this does not mean that He has come to declare that the Law of Moses is a bad thing that needs to be struck down? This, too, is eminently plausible. If, as I contend, Jesus thinks the Law of Moses is to be retired, He needs to carefully explain that this is because it has completed its task, not because it is a bad thing, or that God has changed His mind about it.

An entirely reasonable way to sum up this position is to say this:

Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill.

This is from the NASB, considered to be a very accurate translation (though perhaps a little less readable). I think the phrase "throw down" is instructive - it implies that whatever is "thrown down" is a bad thing, or something that needs to replaced. Jesus, I suggest, wants to say that, yes, the time of application of the Law of Moses has been come to an end - its goal is about to be fulfilled; but He equally wants his listeners to understand that He is not "throwing it down" as though it was a bad things, or that it had failed.

Click to expand...

More eisegesis.

how about looking at what he actually did in Matthew 5:17 after he said he came to fulfill the Law & Prophets? He taught them! Matthew 5 is full of expounded teachings of the Law & Prophets.

Dkh587 said:

It is obvious that the way Messiah uses “fulfill” is in a way of preaching the Law of God/Moses fully.

Did you notice that he teaches a proper, full & balanced understanding of the Law & Prophets following his statement that he came to fulfill the law?

Paul uses the same phrase, “pleroo”, in Romans 15:19, and says he “fully preached” the gospel, aka he fulfilled it. Is the gospel done? No. He fully preached it, just like the Messiah fully preached the Law & Prophets.

Click to expand...

To fulfill prescriptive law - like the 65 MPH speed limit does not "delete it" as we seem to agree.