Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[atpollard]

James says you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12

James did not say commandment (as in 10) … it says Law (as in the 613 mitzvah of the Law of Moses).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

James did not say commandment (as in 10) … it says Law (as in the 613 mitzvah of the Law of Moses).

James quotes directly from the Ten.

James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

These commandments can be found in the Ten Commandments that God personally wrote with His own finger. Exodus 20 and came in a unit of Ten. Exodus 34:28

 

[Clare73]

I have already explained this: you have to explain why it is specifically the ceremonial law that is abolished because of its "dividing" function when all the law was given to Jews only. You need to actually make a case - the 10 commandments were only given the Jews so they are just as much a dividing line as the ceremonial law was. So why are they not abolished as well?

But you have bigger problems - you are forced to say that even though Paul in Romans 7 says we no longer serve according to the Law (and here in Romans 7 we know he is talking about "moral" law since he cites "thou shalt not steal" as a example of the law we no longer serve), he really means we are no longer condemned by it.
No person who knows what words mean would do that - say we no longer serve according to a law when they really mean we are no longer subject to the law's condemnation.

The person who knows Paul's teaching on the law, salvation, justification, righteousness, faith, works and sanctification would say exactly that, with which it appears you are also not familiar.

We no longer serve under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10), we died to the law, to its power to condemn (Romans 7:4), we serve in the new way, under the Spirit, where the requirements of the law are met in us, not by us (Romans 8:4) as promised in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), as we keep in step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25).

This is precisely what it means.

I'm thinking we may not be able to have this discussion in light of an apparent unfamiliarity with its Scriptural bases.

If you are going to redefine words in this manner, you can make scripture say almost anything.

In the context of Paul's teaching, nothing is being redefined.

I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Delete.

 

[expos4ever]

In the context of Paul's teaching, nothing is being redefined.

Do you believe that Paul is such a careless writer that he would write that we no longer serve according to the letter when he, in fact, means something entirely different - that we are no longer under condemnation from the law?

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 28:20 makes no mention of the Law of Moses. As for Matt 5:19, I have addressed this in some detail in post 320 in the other thread about this here: It's Sad That So Many Christians Consider Themselves "New Testament" Christians

When Jesus said everything in Matthew 28:20, if you are any of the 11 who is hearing him, would you think everything means EVERYTHING or something?

 

[Clare73]

Do you believe that Paul is such a careless writer that he would write that we no longer serve according to the letter when he, in fact, means something entirely different - that we are no longer under condemnation from the law?

I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.

See post #172.

 

[expos4ever]

When Jesus said everything in Matthew 28:20, if you are any of the 11 who is hearing him, would you think everything means EVERYTHING or something?

I think Jesus means exactly what He says. Just like I believe Paul means exactly what he says. So, for example, when Paul says we no longer serve (greek word means "obey" or "be subject to") the written Law, I believe he means what he says. I am not willing to redefine the word "serve" so that it means "be subject to the condemnation of".

So what does Jesus actually say in Matt 28:20?

teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Did Jesus command people to obey the Law of Moses? I believe the answer is "no" - at many points, Jesus actually undermines the Law of Moses, not least the kosher food laws. Or when He violated the law to stone an adulterous woman.

What about Matt 5:18-19, ye may ask? Well, I have presented my argument in detail - please feel free to critique it.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.

See post #172.

Where in post 172 do you present an actual substantive defence for your claim that what is abolished is the ceremonial component of the Law of Moses.

These are the facts:

- Paul never specifies that it is specifically the ceremonial component that is abolished.

- The entire Law of Moses - not simply the "ceremonial" elements was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. So, arguably, no one "part" of the Law is any more of a "divider" than any other part.

So what is your actual case - why, exactly, should we believe that it is the ceremonial law, to the exclusion of other parts, that is abolished per Ephesians 2:15?

 

[Guojing]

I think Jesus means exactly what He says. Just like I believe Paul means exactly what he says. So, for example, when Paul says we no longer serve (greek word means "obey" or "be subject to") the written Law, I believe he means what he says. I am not willing to redefine the word "serve" so that it means "be subject to the condemnation of".

So what does Jesus actually say in Matt 28:20?

teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Did Jesus command people to obey the Law of Moses? I believe the answer is "no" - at many points, Jesus actually undermines the Law of Moses, not least the kosher food laws. Or when He violated the law to stone an adulterous woman.

What about Matt 5:18-19, ye may ask? Well, I have presented my argument in detail - please feel free to critique it.

You don't understand my point?

If Jesus throughout the Book of Matthew continue to emphasize the Law of Moses, in places like Matthew 5:17-19, and Matthew 23:2-3, and at the final verse of Matthew 28:20, told the 11 to teach others to obey EVERYTHING he commanded them, there is no need to put the Law of Moses in Matthew 28:20 at all.

Of course, if you choose to ignore that, I am fine. That instruction was not even meant for us gentiles =).

 

[expos4ever]

You seem Biblically unfamiliar with the Levitical laws in relation to the moral laws.

Well, then, perhaps you can educate me. For starters, please show me where scripture ever breaks the Law of Moses into a "Levitical" part and a "moral" part?

 

[Clare73]

Where in post 172 do you present an actual substantive defence for your claim that what is abolished is the ceremonial component of the Law of Moses.

These are the facts:

- Paul never specifies that it is specifically the ceremonial component that is abolished.

- The entire Law of Moses - not simply the "ceremonial" elements was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. So, arguably, no one "part" of the Law is any more of a "divider" than any other part.

So what is your actual case - why, exactly, should we believe that it is the ceremonial law, to the exclusion of other parts, that is abolished per Ephesians 2:15?

Well, then, perhaps you can educate me. For starters, please show me where scripture ever breaks the Law of Moses into a "Levitical" part and a "moral" part?

I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

If Jesus throughout the Book of Matthew continue to emphasize the Law of Moses, in places like Matthew 5:17-19,

I have made a detailed argument about Matt 5:17-19. If we are to have a proper discussion about this, you need to actually engage that argument. Obviously, you are free to find weaknesses in the argument and shoot it down, but you should actually engage it in its details.

 

[Guojing]

I have made a detailed argument about Matt 5:17-19. If we are to have a proper discussion about this, you need to actually engage that argument. Obviously, you are free to find weaknesses in the argument and shoot it down, but you should actually engage it in its details.

You need to make a detailed argument because you are not willing to accept what Jesus is literally saying there.

Once you accept that Jesus is not such a bad speaker that he needs any of us to explain what he REALLY meant, you will just take his literal words and accept what they meant

 

[expos4ever]

You seem Biblically unfamiliar with the ceremonial laws as types, patterns, shadows of the things that were to come in Christ, which then were fulfilled in Christ, and are now set aside, inoperative, as Jesus said they would be when they were accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18.

Since you are so knowledgeable about such matters, please explain why all the Law was not fulfilled per Matthew 5:17-18.

 

[Clare73]

Since you are so knowledgeable about such matters, please explain why all the Law was not fulfilled per Matthew 5:17-18.

I don't think the necessary Scriptural bases are in place for us to have this discussion.

 

[expos4ever]

You need to make a detailed argument because you are not willing to accept what Jesus is literally saying there.

Do you really want to go there - to assert that Jesus never used metaphor? I think that is a road you do not wish to go down. It is a road which takes you to a place where you have Jesus teaching us about matters of agriculture in the parable of the sower - which is what you have to buy into if you argue Jesus always speaks literally.

Please actually address the argument I made.

 

[Guojing]

Do you really want to go there - to assert that Jesus never used metaphor? I think that is a road you do not wish to go down. It is a road which takes you to a place where you have Jesus teaching us about matters of agriculture in the parable of the sower - which is what you have to buy into if you argue Jesus always speaks literally.

Please actually address the argument I made.

No, I am saying, if the literal meaning of the words make sense, seek no other interpretation.

I have provided other references in Matthew where Jesus instructed them to obey the Law of Moses, such as Matthew 23:2-3.

Instead of trying so hard to explain away what Jesus really meant, why not just take his literal instructions there?

 

[expos4ever]

No, I am saying, if the literal meaning of the words make sense, seek no other interpretation.

That is, of course, a clear principle to apply. But how do you know if it is the correct principle? What do you mean by "makes sense"? That seems somewhat fuzzy.

Here is what I think makes sense. In Matt 5:17-19, Jesus says the Law will not pass away until all is accomplished.

What are Jesus' final words on the Cross?

 

[expos4ever]

I have provided other references in Matthew where Jesus instructed them to obey the Law of Moses, such as Matthew 23:2-3.

I believe that scripture is an evolving narrative and that the Law came to an end at the cross. When Jesus spoke these words in Matthew 23:2-3, the cross still lay before Him

Instead of trying so hard to explain away what Jesus really meant, why not just take his literal instructions there?

Jewish writers often used metaphor - I believe this is well established by historians.