But you are not answering my question. Why does the fact He was born under it means He has to obey it? Remember, this is what you wrote:
In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the law, so he was obligated to obey it,
To be under a law is to be under its jurisdiction. There would be no sense in saying that someone is under a law that they have no obligation to obey.
Why? Why does it mean this? You are, I believe, forgetting that He was not a normal Jew, He was God in the flesh. You have yet to give a plausible account of how, as someone with authority over the Law, He is not free to rescind the Law.
All those who are part of a covenant are obligated to act in accordance with the terms of that covenant, so when God entered into a Covenant with Israel at Sinai, both were obligating themselves to the terms of the covenant and God keeps the promises that He makes. Likewise, Jesus being God in the flesh does not change that entering into the Mosaic Covenant through circumcision means that he obligated to obey its terms and there would be no sense in saying that he was part of the Mosaic Covenant if he had the freedom to not act in accordance with it. You are forgetting that you have not cited a verse that states that Jesus had the authority to rescind the Mosaic Law.
Jesus declares all authority, not some authority, but all authority, has been given to Him. You are reigning in that authority, effectively declaring that only some authority has been given to Jesus.
That was in context of commissioning his disciples to spread the Gospel to all nations, which called for the nations to obey the Mosaic Law, not Jesus declaring that he had the authority to rescind it, to make square circles, to be one with the Father while disagreeing with what He has commanded, or to cause himself to cease to exist.
Yes, the Law gave the Jew knowledge of sin. And, yes, Jesus was without sin. But, like others have done, you insist that statements about us - that the Law gives us knowledge of sin - apply to Jesus as God. Or to make it even more clear: Jesus most certainly does not need the Law to tell Him what sin is! He is the author of the Law! If I write a textbook expressing the rules of quantum mechanics, do I need to consult my own textbook to figure out the rules? Of course not.
If the Mosaic Law is how Jews know what sin is, then communicating to a Jew that Jesus was sinless is communicating that he lived in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law. However, Romans 3:20 says that by the Mosaic Law is the knowledge of sin, not that it is only how Jews know what sin is. Sin is contrary to God's nature, so sin is specific to who God is, not to who the Jews are. For example, God is righteous, so doing what is unrighteous is sin regardless of wether someone is a Jew or a Gentile. Sin was in the world long before there were any Jews because people acted contrary to God's eternal nature. Whether or not Jesus needed to the Mosaic Law in order to have knowledge of sin is irrelevant because the Mosaic Law is how we can understand what is being communicated by saying that Jesus was without sin. If Jesus had the freedom to do everything that God revealed to be sin through the Mosaic Law without sinning, then there would be no meaning in saying that he was without sin.
There is nothing that states that Jesus had a motive to end the Mosaic Law, and you have given no motive for why he would want to end Gospel and what he accomplished through the cross by abolishing God's perfect, holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to love Him and our neighbor.
How do you know this? I have shown - and no one has offered a counterargument - that His statement in Matt 5:17-18 about the law not passing away till the end of the world comes need not be taken literally. And I made an actual case, drawing on Old Testament precedent.
Regardless of whether it is being figurative or literal, it is referring to end times or is a way of saying that it is never going to happen.
Ah, but you are hiding important information. Here is what Jesus actually said:
I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil
The "but to fulfil" clause gives us a very plausible basis for proposing that Jesus is saying this:
"I have not come to abolish the law in the sense of putting it to an end before it has been fulfilled, but rather to achieve a fulfillment of the Law that results in it not being needed anymore"
Let us be clear about something: sometimes, repeat sometimes fulffilment entails ending. For example, when I fulfil the requirements for my bachelor's degree, my time at university comes to an end.
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so you should not interpret that as meaning the same thing as abolishing it. If Jesus came to achieve a fulfillment of the Law that results in it not being needed anymore, then he abolished it, which is what he said he did not come to do. Furthermore, it would make sense for him to be speaking about causing the law to not be needed while was warning against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to relax it.
NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo
"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment"
Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law by spend his ministry teaching his followers how to correctly obey it by word and by example. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the enter law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, loving our neighbor fulfills the Law of Christ, yet you to do not consistently interpret that as ending it, but rather that is the way to correctly obey it. Likewise, in Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel by brining Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so it refers to him fully preaching the Gospel, not to him ending it. When a husband fulfills his wedding vows, he is correctly doing what he vowed to do, not ending his marriage. The Mosaic Covenant is described in terms of a marriage between God and Israel, not in terms of getting a degree. Furthermore, other Jewish writings discuss how to fulfill the law in regard to how to correctly obey it.
Again, you conveniently leave out context. As I believe I have shown - again no one has rebutted my argument - that when Jesus says the law will end when "heaven and earth pass away", He may be drawing on a well-established Jewish tradition of using "end-of-the-world" language to refer to significant changes in the here and now. You guys remain suspiciously silent on this and for good reason: it is a rock solid argument that you cannot refute. And you also have to say that when Jesus says the Law will end "when all is accomplished", that it is a mere coincidencethat Jesus's final words were "It is finished".
It is in this context that Jesus rebukes those who would teach people to not obey the Law - a context which strongly suggests that Jesus believes the Law will end as He hangs on the cross.
I don't see how you can twist saying that not the least part will disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished into saying that it is going to end right here and here and now. Furthermore, if he as speaking about ending it, it would make sense for him to then proceed to teach how to correctly obey it, and it wouldn't make sense to think that he would go to the cross to undermine what he spent his ministry teaching. In Titus 2:14, it describes what Jesus accomplished on the cross by saying that 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 the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20), while the way to reject what he accomplished is by returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. Nothing that Jesus said in Matthew 5 had anything to do with his death. Furthermore, while Jesus certainly accomplished much through the cross, there is still the 2nd coming and everything that Revelation says comes with it that is left to accomplish.
-----
Please answer this question:
Is it really in accordance with your understanding of
Deuteronomy 13:1-11 that someone can lead God's people astray, encourage rebellion against Him, draw people away from Him, and teach against serving Him, fearing Him, obeying His commands, listening to His voice, and clinging to Him, and it is still possible that they can still be a true prophet of God that His people should follow just as long as they don't teach to serve other gods? Or do you agree that someone who does those things is a false prophet that His people should not follow regardless of whether or not they also teach to serve other gods?
