I'm tired of the "abolished" argument...

DamianWarS said:

Jesus uses the word kataluó not katargeo. kataluó means to destroy, katargeo is softer and means more to render inoperative.

Click to expand...

Compare:

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify [katargeo] the Law through faith? May it neverbe! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Eph 2:15 by abolishing [katargeo] in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Clare73 said:

So if I understand you correctly,

1) You are setting the word of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) against themselves, choosing Matthew over Ephesians because it better suits your sentiments. . .and this to you is good exegesis?

2) Agreed, the word kataluo used in Ephesians 2:15 is "softer" and means more "to render inoperative" which, nevertheless, does not alter the effects of the cross on the law; i.e., to render it inoperative--a distinction without a difference.

3) An ordinance fulfilled is an ordinance rendered inoperative.
The OT ordinances of sacrifice were fulfilled in Jesus and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT ordinances of the feasts are fulfilled in the NT and are, therefore, inoperative.
The OT cleansings from ceremonial defilements (sin) are fulfilled in Christ and are, therefore, inoperative.
The Law is fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:18) and is, therefore, inoperative (Ephesians 2:15).

Keeping in mind that the Decalogue and Levitical laws were the condition of the Mosaic Covenant, which had been temporarily added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6, Genesis 15:18).
Those laws were given for the purpose of revealing sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and of leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24), they were not given to make righteous, because from the beginning with Abraham, righteousness had always been by faith (Genesis 5:6; Romans 4:3), never by law-keeping, for "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Now that faith in Christ has come (the Mosaic law fulfilling its purpose and now being fulfilled in the NT law of Christ, Matthew 22:37-40), we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) nor under the supervision of the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:25).

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

It is for freedom (from the yoke of slavery to the law, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1b) that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1a) and taken us back to a covenant of grace alone.

Likewise keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), and which now fulfills that temporary Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10).

Click to expand...

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

The law hasn"t been finished with yet or done away with or nailed to the cross as so many state, this is also stated in Scripture, "18 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."

The law has only been finished for those in Christ regarding salvation, it is of use still for showing people their sinful ways and bringing them to Christ.

Once the law was for condemnation for those who were under it. Now the law is made honourable as scripture tells us and used against sinners to open their conscience about their sin which in turn, can then lead them to Christ.

The law can also be used to help Christians remember why they needed Christ in the beginning.

Peace be to all those in the Body of Christ.

DamianWarS said:

Christ said he came to fulfill the law not abolish. So let's clear the air

1. Christ came to fulfill the law
2. Christ did not come to abolish the law

now that we got that out of the way can we stop using the word abolished? Christ said he came to fulfill so let's shift the language so we are talking about what Christ said he actually came to do not what he said he wasn't going to do.

let's all agree the law is NOT abolished. Now let's start the conversation on what it means for Christ to fulfill the law (and please, please, please stop using the word abolished because no one is saying that)

Click to expand...

"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 proceeded 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 that should interpreted in the same way as fulfilling the Law of Moses. The Mosaic Covenant is often described as being a marriage between God and Israel, such as with God describing himself as her husband (Jeremiah 31:33), and when someone is fulfilling their marriage vows, they are correctly acting in accordance with what they have vowed to do, which has nothing to do with bring their marriage to an end. Furthermore, there is much discussion in other Jewish writings about how people are to fulfill the law in regard to correctly doing what it instructs and we do not need to take their rulings as being authoritative in order to use them to provide context for how Christ's audience in Matthew 5:17-19 would have understood what Jesus meant when he said that he came to fulfill the law.

DamianWarS said:

A study of Paul's use of katargeo as it pertains to law may be warranted however it doesn't change that in Mat 5:17 Jesus still doesn't use that word. I am surprised that most of these replies are still fixated on the abolish side when the OP explicitly says not to and even jumping to Paul's words when the OP is regarding Christ's words. Can we table this abolish obsession for the moment and focus on the fulfilled side. If you're so passionate about abolish it may be better to open you're own thread regarding the topic.

Click to expand...

I think my previous message was relevant to the OP but I didn't state how it is relevant. I think the Lord fulfilled the ceremonial law with its symbolic sacrifices that became obsolete and were nullified after His sacrifice. They were not simply abolished as by a decree but were completed, taken to their ultimate meaningful purpose.

As far as the moral law is concerned, @Soyeong explained that. And this is how Paul, talking about different aspects of the Torah, could say that the Lord nullified and did not nullify the law at the same time.

Is this view along the same lines as your thoughts?

BobRyan said:

Depends. Let's take an example --

"Do not taken God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

Do you claim it is "fulfilled" but not deleted? not abolished?



Paul says our faith does not "abolish" God's Law - so he is actually the one pointing that out in Rom 3:31.

In fact Paul says our faith "establishes the Law" Rom 3:31

So in Rom 3:31 God's Law is "established" not "abolished" by our faith. If we can start using "established" instead of "abolished" I think that is the right direction.

We see that spelled out for us in Romans 8 where we find "the requirement of the Law is FULFILLED in us who WALK NOT after the flesh but rather according to the Spirit"

I think we can all agree that Jesus fully complied with God's Law but did not delete/abolish it. That's how it works with prescriptive imperatives such as "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 and "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. So having one person comply with it does not delete/remove/abolish set-it-aside. This is true in general in the case of that unit of TEN having "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

On the other hand predictive laws regarding animal sacrifices do get taken away once the event they are predicting is fulfilled.

Click to expand...

If there is no law then there is no sin (transgression of law) ..... and certainly we all know sin abounds on planet earth. So how people can claim there is not law is beyond me.

If there is no law then how can Jesus judge rightly?

The laws and ordinances associated with the earthly sanctuary system were the laws nailed to the cross ... not the 10 commandments. Jesus was the final sacrifice for all and became our high priest and there is no longer a need for a earthly sacrificial system.

Hebrew 10:16

Berean Study Bible
“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.”

The law is alive and well and AMEN ;o)

ChristServant said:

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

The law hasn"t been finished with yet or done away with or nailed to the cross as so many state, this is also stated in Scripture, "18 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."

Click to expand...

Precisely. . .and all is fulfilled in Christ.

All the sacrifices, cleansings, feasts, etc. have been fulfilled in Christ, while the Decalogue "and any other commandment there may be" are fulfilled (Romans 13:8-10) in Christ's NT commands of Matthew 22:37-40.

The law has only been finished for those in Christ regarding salvation,
it is of use still for showing people their sinful ways and bringing them to Christ.

Click to expand...

The law wasn't given to the world, it was given only to the Jews.
Who outside Judaism observes the law for the sake of righteousness, and will be led to Christ by it?

The gospel, not the law, was given for bringing those outside Judaism to Christ.

Once the law was for condemnation for those who were under it.

Click to expand...

It was not for condemnation, rather condemnation was the consequnces of disobedience.
It was for revealing sin (Romans 3:20, 7:7) and for leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24) in the ceremonial laws.

Now the law is made honourable as scripture tells us and used against sinners to open their conscience about their sin which in turn, can then lead them to Christ.

Click to expand...

The law has been made "honorable" by placing it on its right basis; i.e., not for righteousness of justification, which is by faith only (Romans 4:5),
but for righteousness of sanctification by obedience in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19)
for those who have already been saved/justified by faith.

It is not used to open the conscience of sinners. Only the Holy Spirit does that.

guevaraj said:

Brother, happy Sabbath! Jesus came to "fulfill" the Sabbath by rescuing His "rest" from the Sabbath tradition of Judaism since Joshua when Jesus calls us to enter His true Sabbath "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4.

Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. (Hebrews 4:8 NLT)​

This changes the Sabbath from the human tradition of a weekday since Joshua to the original teaching that we all enter together when God "rested" on the week of creation.

For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. (Hebrews 4:10 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Click to expand...

Ezekiel 20:13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes but rejected my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned.

In Hebrews 3-4, they did not enter God's rest because of their disobedience and Ezekiel 20:13 specifically mentions that they profaned God's Sabbaths, so Hebrews 3-4 should not be used to justify profaning God's Sabbaths. In Hebrews 4:9, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one many fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so using entering into God's rest to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

Soyeong said:

Ezekiel 20:13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes but rejected my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned. In Hebrews 3-4, they did not enter God's rest because of their disobedience and Ezekiel 20:13 specifically mentions that they profaned God's Sabbaths, so Hebrews 3-4 should not be used to justify profaning God's Sabbaths. In Hebrews 4:9, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one many fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so using entering into God's rest to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

Click to expand...

Brother, how did God prevent them from entering His "rest" by "oath" if they were keeping the correct Sabbath near the Promised Land with Manna for 40 years? My only complaint with this translation is Hebrews 3:9 because God was angry with them before the forty years and not after as this translation of verse 9 makes it sound. His work for 40 years as a result of them testing Him was the Manna.


United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

eleos1954 said:

If there is no law then there is no sin (transgression of law) ..... and certainly we all know sin abounds on planet earth. So how people can claim there is not law is beyond me.

If there is no law then how can Jesus judge rightly?

The laws and ordinances associated with the earthly sanctuary system were the laws nailed to the cross ... not the 10 commandments. Jesus was the final sacrifice for all and became our high priest and there is no longer a need for a earthly sacrificial system.

Hebrew 10:16

Berean Study Bible
“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.”

The law is alive and well and AMEN ;o)

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

So if I understand you correctly,

Click to expand...

The Greek word "dogma" is used 5 times in the NT, and every time that is is used outside of Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15, it refers to man-made rulings of Caesar's decrees (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:1) or the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4), so justification needs to be given for why we should interpret Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 as referring to commands of God. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves following the Torah, which includes laws of God that you just finished saying that were nailed to the cross.

1) You are setting the word of the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16) against themselves, choosing Matthew over Ephesians because it better suits your sentiments. . .and this to you is good exegesis?

Click to expand...

By assuming that Ephesians 2:15 is referring to the law of God instead of commands of men, you are pitting against what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 as if Paul were calling Jesus a liar.

Keeping in mind that the Decalogue and Levitical laws were the condition of the Mosaic Covenant, which had been temporarily added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6, Genesis 15:18).
Those laws were given for the purpose of revealing sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and of leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24), they were not given to make righteous, because from the beginning with Abraham, righteousness had always been by faith (Genesis 5:6; Romans 4:3), never by law-keeping, for "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and reveal aspects of God's eternal nature, which are not temporary or conditional on the Mosaic Covenant. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so the Mosaic Covenant is also a covenant of grace. Abraham was taught how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law through faith (Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5) and so was Moses (Exodus 33:13). If you agree that God's laws reveal what sin is and that we should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey them. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so God's law leads us to Christ because experientially know him in the goal of the law, or in other words for how to have a relationship with him, but does not lead us to Christ, so that we can reject him and go back to living in what God has revealed to be sin. We do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law because that was never the goal of the law. God is trustworthy, so His law therefore also is trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so to rely and God's law is to rely on God while you speaking against relying in God's law is speaking relying on God. Rather, relying on God's law brings life and a blessing while refusing to rely on it is what brings death and a cruse (Deuteronomy 30:15-20).

Now

Click to expand...

that faith in Christ has come (the Mosaic law fulfilling its purpose and now being fulfilled in the NT law of Christ, Matthew 22:37-40), we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) nor under the supervision of the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:25).

Click to expand...

In Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus was asked which commandment out of the Mosaic Law was the greatest, so Jesus answering that question with two commandments that are part of the Mosaic Law should not be understood as being something greater or other than the Mosaic Law. If we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, idolatry, murder, rape, incest, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for everything else commanded in the Mosaic Law, which is why Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on the greatest two, so being under the greatest two commandments is the same as being under the Mosaic Law. The moment you try to pick up just the greatest two commandments, all of the other commandments come with because they are all attached.

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and

Click to expand...

we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

Click to expand...

In Ephesians 2:10, we have been made new Creations in Christ to do good works, so while we do not earn our salvation by obeying the Mosaic Law lest anyone should boast, doing good works in obedience to it is nevertheless an integral part of our salvation. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and the Mosaic Law is how the Israelites knew what sin is (Romans 3:20, 1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to the Mosaic Law is inherently part of the concept of Jesus saving us from living in transgression of the Mosaic Law.

It is for freedom (from the yoke of slavery to the law, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1b) that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1a) and taken us back to a covenant of grace alone.

Click to expand...

God did not save the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them under slavery to His law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and the Mosaic Law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45). In Psalms 119:45, the Mosaic Law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free.

Likewise keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), and which now fulfills that temporary Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10).

Click to expand...

Loving your neighbor as yourself is found in Leviticus 19:18, which is part of the Mosaic Law.

guevaraj said:

Brother, how did God prevent them from entering His "rest" by "oath" if they were keeping the correct Sabbath near the Promised Land with Manna for 40 years? My only complaint with this translation is Hebrews 3:9 because God was angry with them before the forty years and not after as this translation of verse 9 makes it sound. His work for 40 years as a result of them testing Him was the Manna.

That is why the Holy Spirit says, “Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts as Israel did when they rebelled, when they tested me in the wilderness. There your ancestors tested and tried my patience, even though they saw my miracles for forty years. So I was angry with them, and I said, ‘Their hearts always turn away from me. They refuse to do what I tell them.’ So in my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest.’” (Hebrews 3:7-11 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Click to expand...

Ezekiel 20:13 is saying that the profaned God's Sabbaths, not that they correctly kept them and Hebrews 3:8 says not to harden our hearts as they did in the rebellion, which again is not suggesting that they were correctly keeping God's Sabbaths.

ChristServant said:

The law has done what it was intended to do. . .the old covenant is now obsolete. . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

The law hasn"t been finished with yet or done away with or nailed to the cross as so many state, this is also stated in Scripture, "18 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."

The law has only been finished for those in Christ regarding salvation, it is of use still for showing people their sinful ways and bringing them to Christ.

Once the law was for condemnation for those who were under it. Now the law is made honourable as scripture tells us and used against sinners to open their conscience about their sin which in turn, can then lead them to Christ.

The law can also be used to help Christians remember why they needed Christ in the beginning.

Peace be to all those in the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

In Ephesians 2:10, we have been made new creations in Christ to do good works, so while we do not earn our salvation by our works, doing good works in obedience to God's law is nevertheless a part of the covenant of grace. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and in Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by making known to him His ways that He might know Him, and Israel too. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to God's law, so it is by no means finished for those who are in Christ. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law brings us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, or in other words, how grow in a relationship with him.

eleos1954 said:

If there is no law then there is no sin (transgression of law)

Click to expand...

agreed.

eleos1954 said:

..... and certainly we all know sin abounds on planet earth. So how people can claim there is not law is beyond me.

If there is no law then how can Jesus judge rightly?

The laws and ordinances associated with the earthly sanctuary system were the laws nailed to the cross ... not the 10 commandments. Jesus was the final sacrifice for all and became our high priest and there is no longer a need for a earthly sacrificial system.

Hebrew 10:16

Berean Study Bible
“This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.”

The law is alive and well and AMEN ;o)

Click to expand...

Amen!!

Soyeong said:

Ezekiel 20:13 is saying that the profaned God's Sabbaths, not that they correctly kept them and Hebrews 3:8 says not to harden our hearts as they did in the rebellion, which again is not suggesting that they were correctly keeping God's Sabbaths.

Click to expand...

Brother, as a result of testing God in the desert, God did something! What did God do? God gave them Manna with a Sabbath from morning to morning near the Promised Land that He tells us did not enter His "rest" for 40 years. As in Eden, the Manna Sabbath was the seventh day of the week and He taught Joshua to enter His "rest" at a different time in the Promised Land, from evening to evening which is 10 hours before the local seventh day of the week in the Promised Land as set forth in Genesis from morning to morning.


What Joshua heard with the Manna story written for us that didn't do Joshua any good is that you don't enter the Sabbath by keeping the seventh day of the week near the Promised Land. The understanding of Hebrews 3 and 4 begins in Genesis. An "evening" can only occur after the light. Before the light there was "darkness" and not an "evening", those are different words that are not interchangeable. The "evening" of the first day occurred after first light and falls in the middle of the first day. The first day in Genesis below is from morning to morning, in the special case of the first day from first light to light again in the morning.


United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

DamianWarS said:

Let me repeat because it seems you didn't pick it up in the op. please stop using "abolish" in your arguments.

Click to expand...

Paul uses the term katargeō -- abolish(3x) in NKJV/KJV: "nullify" NASB and "make void" NKJV KJV , "make of none effect" ASV, in Rom 3:31... should we banish that text?


Strong's G2673 in the following manner: destroy (5x), do away (3x), abolish (3x), cumber (1x), loose (1x), cease (1x), fall (1x), deliver (1x), miscellaneous (11x).

You have free will of course and can banish whatever you wish in your own study - but how do you propose imposing your wish on others?

Andrewn said:

I think my previous message was relevant to the OP but I didn't state how it is relevant. I think the Lord fulfilled the ceremonial law with its symbolic sacrifices that became obsolete and were nullified after His sacrifice. They were not simply abolished as by a decree but were completed, taken to their ultimate meaningful purpose.

As far as the moral law is concerned, @Soyeong explained that. And this is how Paul, talking about different aspects of the Torah, could say that the Lord nullified and did not nullify the law at the same time.

Is this view along the same lines as your thoughts?

Click to expand...

We are free to categorize God's laws however we want, but if we interpret the Bible as referring to a category of law that we have created without establishing that any of the authors of the Bible categories God's laws in the same manner, then we would be inserting our category into the Bible rather than deriving our interpretation from the Bible. For example, if I were to categorize God's laws based upon which part of the body was most commonly used to obey/disobey it, such as the law against theft being a hand law, then the fact that I can do that would not establish that any of the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner, so if I were to interpret the Bible as saying that Jesus fulfilled the hand laws, then I would run into the same error that people are making when they say that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws because the Bible never lists which laws are ceremonial and never even refers to that as being a category of law.

Likewise, the Bible never lists or refers to the category of moral law and the existence of such a category would imply that the laws that aren't part of that category are moral to disobey, however, there is not a single example in the Bible of it being considered to be moral to disobey any of God's laws, and I do not see any justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever be nullified. The laws that God has chosen to give teach us about His eternal nature, such as if God had commanded His people to commit adultery, then that would reveal something different about His nature than commanding against committing adultery. So the only way that an eternal law can be nullified is if what it teaches us about God's eternal nature is no longer true. 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 are commonly consider by some to be ceremonial laws, so by following these laws we are experiencing, expressing, and testifying about God's holiness, but by someone saying that these laws have been nullified, they are falsely testifying that holiness is no longer true of who God is. 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, but rather by fulfilling the law we are correctly doing what it instructs.

guevaraj said:

Brother, happy Sabbath! The scholarly paper by Amanda McGuire in 2008 is wrong in its conclusion: both true together was never considered! Her paper is online

Click to expand...

opinion noted.

From your link " Other scholars have been unwilling to take a firm stand because
the biblical data is quite mixed. Victor P. Hamilton notes that “‘Day and
night’ is much more frequent than ‘night and day.’ Thus it seems likely
that this refrain in Genesis refers not to the computation of a day but
rather the ‘vacant time till the morning.’”10 Kenneth A. Matthews feels
that the biblical text as a whole is unclear about when the day begins
and, therefore, the evening-morning pattern may be a rhetorical device
to frame the six days of creation.11 Still others, such as E. A. Speiser,
Gordon J. Wenham, and H. R. Stroes, maintain the traditional position,
though not without reservations on the parts of the latter two.12 Stroes
states that “Considering Genesis i 5 in itself, it is justified, in my opinion,
to conclude that the morning theory is the most obvious thing here, but
that the evening theory is certainly not completely out of the question."

The point remains

BobRyan said:

opinion noted.

From your link " Other scholars have been unwilling to take a firm stand because
the biblical data is quite mixed. Victor P. Hamilton notes that “‘Day and
night’ is much more frequent than ‘night and day.’ Thus it seems likely
that this refrain in Genesis refers not to the computation of a day but
rather the ‘vacant time till the morning.’”10 Kenneth A. Matthews feels
that the biblical text as a whole is unclear about when the day begins
and, therefore, the evening-morning pattern may be a rhetorical device
to frame the six days of creation.11 Still others, such as E. A. Speiser,
Gordon J. Wenham, and H. R. Stroes, maintain the traditional position,
though not without reservations on the parts of the latter two.12 Stroes
states that “Considering Genesis i 5 in itself, it is justified, in my opinion,
to conclude that the morning theory is the most obvious thing here, but
that the evening theory is certainly not completely out of the question."

The point remains

Click to expand...

Brother, they are comparing the day of the week with the Sabbath in the Promised Land as if they are talking about the same thing, not realizing that they are comparing apples and oranges, they are not the same. The understanding of Hebrews 3 and 4 begins in Genesis. An "evening" can only occur after the light. Before the light there was "darkness" and not an "evening", those are different words that are not interchangeable. The "evening" of the first day occurred after first light and falls in the middle of the first day. The first day in Genesis below is from morning to morning, in the special case of the first day from first light to light again in the morning.


United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge