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

[Bob S]

Hi Clare, I know it must be frustrating debating those that believe we cannot be forgiven and grace extended. It is because we are denying one of God's laws. The contention is if we know about the law of the Sabbath and do not attempt to keep it we are in contempt. No amount of asking forgiveness can be granted because we fail to obey one of the ten commandments. O course this premise is incorrect and we see through it. Where there is no law there cannot possibly be any sin.

Some contend that musical instruments in the church is a sin and the churches that disobey that rule are teaching falsehood. They are so adamant that they refuse to fellowship with other churches. We understand that their rule is not Biblical, but it is so ingrained in them that most likely no one can convince them otherwise. Likewise those who contend the Sabbath, given only to the nation of Israel, are so adamant that we too must observe it most likely will not be convinced otherwise.

I thank Jesus for His gift of the Holy Spirit guiding me. What man contends I take with a grain of salt.

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare, I know it must be frustrating debating those that believe we cannot be forgiven and grace extended. It is because we are denying one of God's laws. The contention is if we know about the law of the Sabbath and do not attempt to keep it we are in contempt. No amount of asking forgiveness can be granted because we fail to obey one of the ten commandments. O course this premise is incorrect and we see through it. Where there is no law there cannot possibly be any sin.

Some contend that musical instruments in the church is a sin and the churches that disobey that rule are teaching falsehood. They are so adamant that they refuse to fellowship with other churches. We understand that their rule is not Biblical, but it is so ingrained in them that most likely no one can convince them otherwise. Likewise those who contend the Sabbath, given only to the nation of Israel, are so adamant that we too must observe it most likely will not be convinced otherwise.

I thank Jesus for His gift of the Holy Spirit guiding me. What man contends I take with a grain of salt.

. . .

 

[fixn_junk]

What if instead of "fulfill the law" the text actually says and means "fill up the law"? Most who like to argue that word which you wish not to be used also use that word too, "fulfill", for they often say that he fulfilled the law so that he could then ******* it.

Look up G4137 (pleroo) in a lexicon: it does have that meaning, that is, to cram, to stuff to the full, to fill up completely, etc.

There is no room for interpretation. Jesus made the statement himself that he came to fulfill the law not abolish. He was the fulfillment of the law because He was the the son of God. He walked the earth as a man without sin and was the spotless lamb slain for the sin of man. He fulfilled the law because no other could and without that fulfillment of the law all men would be condemned to hell. We can see clearly that the law was not abolished in Paul's writings. He says the law is for the lawless, or unsaved. He says we, believers, are no longer under the law because of the fulfillment by Christ. Paul spends a lot of time on the law in Romans.

 

[daq]

There is no room for interpretation. Jesus made the statement himself that he came to fulfill the law not abolish. He was the fulfillment of the law because He was the the son of God. He walked the earth as a man without sin and was the spotless lamb slain for the sin of man. He fulfilled the law because no other could and without that fulfillment of the law all men would be condemned to hell. We can see clearly that the law was not abolished in Paul's writings. He says the law is for the lawless, or unsaved. He says we, believers, are no longer under the law because of the fulfillment by Christ. Paul spends a lot of time on the law in Romans.

Thanks for your interpretations.

 

[Bob S]

Thanks for your interpretations.

I do not believe it is an "interpretation". I believe there is so much evidence especially in the writings of Paul to be able for us to suggest that the meaning of fulfill means "bring to an end". First of all Gentiles were never given the Law, so we can count them out of the equation. We know that Israelites didn't keep the laws of the covenant and we know the covenant would be an everlasting covenant only IF the Israelites obeyed it. Israel actually abolished the covenant because of unbelief. God, in His mercy, has given the family of Israel another chance along with the remainder of us.

 

[Clare73]

I do not believe it is an "interpretation". I believe there is so much evidence especially in the writings of Paul to be able for us to suggest that the meaning of fulfill means "bring to an end". First of all Gentiles were never given the Law, so we can count them out of the equation. We know that Israelites didn't keep the laws of the covenant and we know the covenant would be an everlasting covenant only IF the Israelites obeyed it. Israel actually abolished the covenant because of unbelief. God, in His mercy, has given the family of Israel another chance along with the remainder of us.

Not all of Israel, only a remnant of Israel is not hardened by God himself (Romans 11:25).

 

[Bob S]

Not all of Israel, only a remnant of Israel is not hardened by God himself (Romans 11:25).

Very good Clare. I certainly do not understand the threshold God used to determine the timing of the coming of the Savior. The fact is though God planned it, did it and changed the World. Praise the Lord.

 

[daq]

I do not believe it is an "interpretation". I believe there is so much evidence especially in the writings of Paul to be able for us to suggest that the meaning of fulfill means "bring to an end". First of all Gentiles were never given the Law, so we can count them out of the equation. We know that Israelites didn't keep the laws of the covenant and we know the covenant would be an everlasting covenant only IF the Israelites obeyed it. Israel actually abolished the covenant because of unbelief. God, in His mercy, has given the family of Israel another chance along with the remainder of us.

Thanks you also for your interpretations.

 

[Clare73]

Very good Clare. I certainly do not understand the threshold God used to determine the timing of the coming of the Savior. The fact is though God planned it, did it and changed the World. Praise the Lord.

I'm not understanding how your "understand the threshold God used to determine the timing of the coming of the Savior" relates to God's hardening the majority of Israel for rejecting him, leaving only a remnant to believe.

Can you explain, please.

 

[Bob S]

Thanks you also for your interpretations.

It is a fact my friend. The law could not save Israel and it was not given to them as a means of salvation. It was given to them as the way they were to live in the land of Caanan. They refused the eternal covenant of grace God gave Abraham and to live the way God intended and He has in His abounding grace given them another chance to live not in just the land of Caanan but in the Earth made new. It took a new and final covenant for this to happen. It was Jesus who ended the Sinai covenant that became a curse to the chosen people of God.

 

[Bob S]

I'm not understanding how your "understand the threshold God used to determine the timing of the coming of the Savior" relates to God's hardening the majority of Israel for rejecting him, leaving only a remnant to believe.

Can you explain, please.

I can try Clare, I am just a layman using the Word and depending on the Holy Spirit for understanding. What was the threshold, the amount of wrong doing Israel did before Jesus came with the new way?

I do not believe God hardened their hearts. 25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; That verse certainly does not tell us that God hardened their hearts. If you stub your toe do you blame the pain on God? Israel brought their grief on themselves. Why is it we become so quick to lay the blame on our Creator?

I do not understand why Israel had to fall away before gentiles were able to accept the life giving nourishment of the tree. Some things are a mystery and we have to accept it by faith.

 

[Clare73]

I can try Clare, I am just a layman using the Word and depending on the Holy Spirit for understanding. What was the threshold, the amount of wrong doing Israel did before Jesus came with the new way?

I do not believe God hardened their hearts. 25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; That verse certainly does not tell us that God hardened their hearts. If you stub your toe do you blame the pain on God? Israel brought their grief on themselves. Why is it we become so quick to lay the blame on our Creator?

I do not understand why Israel had to fall away before gentiles were able to accept the life giving nourishment of the tree. Some things are a mystery and we have to accept it by faith.

Thanks. . .

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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)

The King James Bible gives a more accurate rendering on Matthew 5:17.

Matthew 5:17 KJV
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

For abolish and destroy can sometimes have two different meanings.

Anyways, when Christ says I am not come to destroy the law” I believe He is referring to how the law will not forever be destroyed in all aspects so that it will no longer recognizable. Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that he is not without law but he is under the law of Christ.

 

[Bob S]

The King James Bible gives a more accurate rendering on Matthew 5.17.

Matthew 5:17 KJV
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

For abolish and destroy can sometimes have two different meanings.

Anyways, when Christ says I am not come to destroy the law” I believe He is referring to how the law will not forever be destroyed in all aspects so that it will no longer recognizable. Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that he is not without law but he is under the law of Christ.

Jesus fulfilled the Law by doing what it demanded. He said not even a dot could be ignored from that law until He accomplished that. That He did as He hung on the cruel Cross. His blood ratified the new and better covenant. Love is the main rheme of the new covenant.
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom3:18:
Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The King James Bible gives a more accurate rendering on Matthew 5.17.

Matthew 5:17 KJV
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

For abolish and destroy can sometimes have two different meanings.

Anyways, when Christ says I am not come to destroy the law” I believe He is referring to how the law will not forever be destroyed in all aspects so that it will no longer recognizable. Hebrews 7:12 says the law has changed. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that he is not without law but he is under the law of Christ.

What changed was the Levitical priesthood, Jesus is now our High Priest in the new covenant and the law changed of the sacrificial system of food and animal offerings Hebrews 10, Col 2:14-16 with Jesus being our sacrifice. What did not change is God's eternal Ten commandments.

Paul is not advocating that we are no longer required to keep God's commandments as he plainly tells us what matters and that IS keeping the commandments of God. 1 Cor 7:19. God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds in the new covenant, it is still a sin to break the commandments of God in the New Covenant 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, Romans 3:20 and you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12. God wrote a covenant of Ten with His own finger, not nine Exodus 34:28 and Jesus tells us we should break the least of these commandments and should not teach others to break Matthew 5:19. God bless

 

[Bob S]

What changed was the Levitical priesthood, Jesus is now our High Priest in the new covenant and the law changed of the sacrificial system of food and animal offerings Hebrews 10, Col 2:14-16 with Jesus being our sacrifice. What did not change is God's eternal Ten commandments.

Well now eternal creates a conundrum with what Paul wrote about the ten commandments now doesn't it. Paul wrote that the ten were the ministry of death☠. Thank the Lord he went on to explain that the ten were only temporary. The KJV version goes a little deeper and tell us they are now done away. For some reason I would have to agree with Paul. After all Jesus said He came to fulfil the law. Paul just verified that He did what He came to do.

Paul is not advocating that we are no longer required to keep God's commandments as he plainly tells us what matters and that IS keeping the commandments of God. 1 Cor 7:19. God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds in the new covenant, it is still a sin to break the commandments of God in the New Covenant 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, Romans 3:20 and you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12.

All the commands are summed up in love ❤. John even wrote in 1Jn3:19-24 that we are of the TRUTH if we believe in Him AND love others as he gave command. Sorry SB there is nothing about keeping the ritual commands of the covenant given only to one nation, Israel. John kinda takes the wind out of your sails now doesn't he.

God wrote a covenant of Ten with His own finger, not nine Exodus 34:28 and Jesus tells us we should break the least of these commandments and should not teach others to break Matthew 5:19. God bless

And God spoke the other 603 with His Mouth. What makes His finger anymore sacred than His mouth SB?

 

[daq]

It was the skin of Mosheh's face that shone: the flesh of his face. And it is the physical understanding according to the eyes and mind of the flesh and natural minded man which is to be done away, just as the skin or flesh of the face of Mosheh was to be done away. The Pauline passage in question does not teach that the Torah is done away with: it is rather yet another juxtapositioning of the flesh -vs- the Spirit, which is so prevalent in the most excellent and spiritually wise writings of apostle Paul.

This is why he says that the veil over the heart, mind, and eyes, when reading the covenant, is only done away "in Christ" or "in Messiah", for the doron-offering of his grace-filled Testimony freely offered up for us in the Gospel accounts expounds for us everything we need so as to know how to understand the spiritual precepts, concepts, teachings, and instructions of the spiritual Torah of Elohim. The passage quite clearly puts forth the idea that the goal is to truly understand the Torah, according to the Testimony of the Messiah, not do away with it.

 

[sparow]

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)

Jesus did not come to fulfill the Law; He said He came to fulfill the Law AND the Prophets, and even then He meant the prophesies contained the Law and the Prophets, see Lk 24:44. In doing this He in part confirmed the covenant; the covenant will be fully confirmed when He returns to complete the job; until then the covenant was only a conditional promise.