James and justification, showing righteousness

[GDL]

Some on this forum are denying that He accomplished that task and that we are still under the dictates of Torah. If you are correct and Jesus didn't do all He came to do then you are disobeying the statement in verse 18 which states not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law. Lots of ritual commands to consider my friends.

Actually, all has not been fulfilled or we wouldn't still be here going what we're going through. Not all of Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled. Some of it certainly has been fulfilled - Thank the Christ!

With that said, I say just the opposite - we are not "under law" just as Paul clearly states. But that phrase has specific meaning, and the Law still has lawful use - therefore it still exists - which Paul also clearly states and is why he used it after the Ascension. And one of those uses is to provide the underlying details of what the 2 Greatest Commandments summarize in the word, Love.

 

[Bob S]

Actually, all has not been fulfilled or we wouldn't still be here going what we're going through. Not all of Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled. Some of it certainly has been fulfilled - Thank the Christ!

So, if I am reading you correctly you believe Jesus failed to do all He came to do. Certainly, law has a useful place in society and in the church, but not Torah. Jews have been freed from Torah. Gentiles never were subject to Torah. All mankind is now under the Royal Law of Love.

With that said, I say just the opposite - we are not "under law" just as Paul clearly states. But that phrase has specific meaning, and the Law still has lawful use - therefore it still exists - which Paul also clearly states and is why he used it after the Ascension. And one of those uses is to provide the underlying details of what the 2 Greatest Commandments summarize in the word, Love.

I suggest you read Gal 3 O foolish Galatians....
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

[GDL]

So, if I am reading you correctly you believe Jesus failed to do all He came to do. Certainly, law has a useful place in society and in the church, but not Torah. Jews have been freed from Torah. Gentiles never were subject to Torah. All mankind is now under the Royal Law of Love.

You're reading me incorrectly. Jesus accomplished all He came to do. After His Ascension, a few decades later, He accomplished in Jerusalem what He said He would do. He's now accomplishing what He's supposed to be accomplishing - see 1Cor15 for example. He will accomplish all He is to accomplish - consider the study of Eschatology & consider all of the Torah and Prophets. Some use terminology such as 'already, not yet' to describe this NC era as it currently exists.

Torah was given to Israel but read Deut4 and see how Torah properly lived was to be a draw to the nations. Israel had provision for proselytes. Also, how does God judge the nations if they are not in the jurisdiction of God's Law, whatever that looks like?

Interesting thought that all mankind is now under NC Law. Can you show this Scripturally? When Paul speaks in Galatians about the desire of some to be under law and trying to be perfected under law, did he say they couldn't be because Law had ended? When Paul speaks in Rom10:4 of the telos of the Law, does he say it's for everybody, or for those who believe? Please provide Scripture.

I suggest you read Gal 3 O foolish Galatians....
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Thanks for your suggestion. The technical terminology "under law" was dealt with extensively in another thread within the past few weeks. I agree we are not "under law" but "under grace" and that the schoolmaster/guardian era of law ended. Christ is my Lord and under grace sin has no lordship over me.

Law was changed (Heb7), so Law still exists. Law is still used to detail what is sin (Gal5), which is lawlessness and unrighteousness (1John). Christians are to be slaves of righteousness (Gal6) which is the opposite of unrighteousness and lawlessness and sin (1John). Law provides the details of love (Rom13) which is keeping God's commandments (1John 2 & 5), which is righteousness and lawfulness.

If we don't hate or murder, then we're loving as commanded. If we don't look with lust and don't commit adultery, then we're loving as commanded. We can go down through the lists and know what love looks like. We can also reverse the order; if we're loving then we are or we're not... Love God and keep His Commandments are parallel statements, as I and others have shown from both NC Writings and Torah.

Antinomians have no Biblical detailed definition for Love.

 

[Bob S]

Hi GDL,First of all I am enjoying the debate. I would enjoy it more if I didn't have to go back and explain what I have written. for instance, I wrote that Jesus came and did all He came to do as per Matt5:16-17. He fulfilled the Law. Your answer to that was: Actually, all has not been fulfilled or we wouldn't still be here going what we're going through. Not all of Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled. Some of it certainly has been fulfilled - Thank the Christ! Then in your next response you wrote You're reading me incorrectly. Jesus accomplished all He came to do. So, in that response you agree with me. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and prophets. Then He used some hyperbole before stating that nothing could be removed from the law until He did all the fulfilling. Okay, now the Jews could remove the OC law because Jesus gave them a new covenant at Calvary and ratified it with His own blood. This covenant has new law. All the ritual commands given only to Israel were stripped from the old covenant laws so that Gentiles and Jews can live together as one in Christ Eph2:15.

Torah was given to Israel but read Deut4 and see how Torah properly lived was to be a draw to the nations. Israel had provision for proselytes. Also, how does God judge the nations if they are not in the jurisdiction of God's Law, whatever that looks like?

All other nations were under the laws given to Noah and called the Noahide laws. Why would Gentiles be judged by the Sabbath law that was given only to Israel to remind them of their exodus out of Egypt? The same would appl to all the other ritual laws that controlled the Israelites.

Interesting thought that all mankind is now under NC Law. Can you show this Scripturally?

Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

When Paul speaks in Galatians about the desire of some to be under law and trying to be perfected under law, did he say they couldn't be because Law had ended?

Did you overlook verse 19 of Gal3? Have you not read Eph 2:15?

When Paul speaks in Rom10:4 of the telos of the Law, does he say it's for everybody, or for those who believe? Please provide Scripture.

That is scripture. Those who do not believe think they are free to do whatever they choose. Only civil law keeps them inline.

Thanks for your suggestion. The technical terminology "under law" was dealt with extensively in another thread within the past few weeks. I agree we are not "under law" but "under grace" and that the schoolmaster/guardian era of law ended. Christ is my Lord and under grace sin has no lordship over me.

Your welome. I suggest that we are under law. Gentiles were never under Mosaic Law, but were under Noahide law. Now all are under the Royal Law of Love.

Law was changed (Heb7), so Law still exists.

I believe that. Laws dealing with morality never change and are with us until eternity.

Law is still used to detail what is sin (Gal5), which is lawlessness and unrighteousness (1John). Christians are to be slaves of righteousness (Gal6) which is the opposite of unrighteousness and lawlessness and sin (1John). Law provides the details of love (Rom13) which is keeping God's commandments (1John 2 & 5), which is righteousness and lawfulness.

Law does reveal sin, but be careful which laws determine sin. For Jews under the old covenant laws, it was a sin to cut the sideburns, it was a sin not to observe the Sabbath, festivals and new moon celebrations.

If we don't hate or murder, then we're loving as commanded. If we don't look with lust and don't commit adultery, then we're loving as commanded. We can go down through the lists and know what love looks like. We can also reverse the order; if we're loving then we are or we're not... Love God and keep His Commandments are parallel statements, as I and others have shown from both NC Writings and Torah.

By keeping His commandments are you telling me that we have to observe Torah?

Antinomians have no Biblical detailed definition for Love.

I believe everyone has the knowledge of love, some deny it.

 

[GDL]

I wrote that Jesus came and did all He came to do as per Matt5:16-17. He fulfilled the Law. Your answer to that was: Actually, all has not been fulfilled or we wouldn't still be here going what we're going through. Not all of Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled. Some of it certainly has been fulfilled - Thank the Christ! Then in your next response you wrote You're reading me incorrectly. Jesus accomplished all He came to do. So, in that response you agree with me.

When you don't include all of what I said, you see agreement. When you consider all that I said, you should see disagreement.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and prophets.

He came to fulfill what He was sent to fulfill. Refer to what you left out above.

Then He used some hyperbole before stating that nothing could be removed from the law until He did all the fulfilling.

"Hyperbole" is eisegesis, but I can see why you insert it.

Okay, now the Jews could remove the OC law because Jesus gave them a new covenant at Calvary and ratified it with His own blood. This covenant has new law. All the ritual commands given only to Israel were stripped from the old covenant laws so that Gentiles and Jews can live together as one in Christ Eph2:15.

The Jews didn't remove anything. In fact, Jesus had to destroy their Temple and many of them and some other things due to their unbelief.

The "new law" includes much of the old law that details sin. The law was changed, not destroyed, just like Hebrews says and Jesus said. This seems pretty simple since few if any say the 2 Greatest Commandments of the OC Law are not still applicable.

Even if we agree to your view of what Eph2:15 means, and not all agree with you, then such ordinances could fit within the category of the changes that were made to Law. That word "ordinances" is a study on its own and is not used extensively in the Text and when it is used, it applies mostly, if not all the time, to manmade ordinances, as I recall.

All other nations were under the laws given to Noah and called the Noahide laws. Why would Gentiles be judged by the Sabbath law that was given only to Israel to remind them of their exodus out of Egypt? The same would appl to all the other ritual laws that controlled the Israelites.

That's one theory (Noahide).
Some maintain aggressively that Sabbath was first identified by God at creation, not in Moses. It's not currently in my debate agenda.
Your last assumption does not need to be true. Sabbath is part of the 10C, not the ritual laws for Temple, sacrifices, etc. When you throw out the 10C and other so-called moral laws, then of course Sabbath goes also. But some don't throw out such laws. It seems by your next statement that you don't either:

I believe that. Laws dealing with morality never change and are with us until eternity.

Me too. But as I understand you, all we have to do is love now, which you leave undefined, so it can be whatever you want that you think you hear from the Spirit. But this is repetitive discussion going nowhere.

Your welome. I suggest that we are under law. Gentiles were never under Mosaic Law, but were under Noahide law. Now all are under the Royal Law of Love.

Paul says more than once that we are not under law. I trust Paul.

Israel's witness to the nations I've already provided Scripture for. That outreach was based upon its Law and Wisdom from its Great God. I've not said the nations were under it. I'm not satisfied that the Noahide Laws, which as I recall were Rabbinic thinking, are all that the nations were/are under. I still have some thoughts regarding what Rom3 is talking about in regard to the nations and the jurisdiction of God's Law.

You did not provide Scripture to substantiate your view that all are now under the Royal Law of Love. I'd ask you to provide even one Scripture that says we are "under" any Law. Correctly translated, in my view, we are not even "under" the Law of Christ, but we in Christ are lawful to Him and to God when walking in Spirit doing all He commands us to do, which includes being slaves of righteousness, which is detailed in Law and underlies the Commands to Love God and Neighbor. I know of nothing that says the nations are under the Royal Law of Love, but I'm open to your providing Scripture to substantiate your suggestions and opinions.

The Gospel calls people to Faith in Christ, then provides what's necessary to raise Christians to maturity and shows them what their future holds. You'll have to provide more than a verse and an unexplained assumption that it says all are under the Royal Law of Love.

Did you overlook verse 19 of Gal3? Have you not read Eph 2:15?

No. Yes.

That is scripture. Those who do not believe think they are free to do whatever they choose. Only civil law keeps them inline.

Not an answer to my question. Not everybody according to Paul in Rom2. Same answer.

Your welome. I suggest that we are under law. Gentiles were never under Mosaic Law, but were under Noahide law. Now all are under the Royal Law of Love.

Again, your suggestions are not Scripture. The rest has been answered above.

Law does reveal sin, but be careful which laws determine sin. For Jews under the old covenant laws, it was a sin to cut the sideburns, it was a sin not to observe the Sabbath, festivals and new moon celebrations.

True. And Law also says what is sin. I'm careful, thanks and have taken good note of Scripture that says Law was changed. The way I read Scripture, since the Mosaic Law is said to be a unit and had a curse for violating it and was a guardian and was being used by sin to bring death and was changed to facilitate Christ's Priesthood and since Christ fulfilled the animal sacrifices and since there is no more Temple in Jerusalem and since the 10C's and "any other Commandment" detail what Love is and since Paul uses Mosaic Law to identify sins and to instruct us to provide for our leadership and teachers in churches, etc......, then there certainly is a discussion to be had regarding what Laws and Commandments were not changed and are "until eternity" the morality as you've acknowledged you believe.

By keeping His commandments are you telling me that we have to observe Torah?

At this point I hope it's clear what I'm telling you. Parts of Torah are still in effect (Love God, Love Neighbor and all the Commandments that detail what Love is and conversely what is sin or if you're more comfortable with this, what immorality is). Torah as a unit I see as ended per my above run-on reasons and more.

I believe everyone has the knowledge of love, some deny it.

This belief is a problem. And I note that you do not answer me when I ask you questions about this or explain why I see this as a problem.

How about a question: Do you believe that it is Biblical Love to support all the gender issues so prevalent today and expanding, including gender related marital issues. Yes or no and why?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I find it more and more odd how others, now including you, only want to quote Romans 13:8 or Romans 13:10 and leave out Romans 13:9, that provides the detail of Love. I also find it very odd how anyone can think a summary statement stands on its own apart from all the details it summarizes.

Such a good point. To replace the definition of what God deems as love to Him Exodus 20:6 1 John 5:2-3 with man's version, reminds me of this 2 Timothy 3:5

 

[Bob S]

Love​

The Greek word agape is often translated “love” in the New Testament. How is “agape love” different from other types of love? The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love. Unlike our English word love, agape is not used in the New Testament to refer to romantic or sexual love. Nor does it refer to close friendship or brotherly love, for which the Greek word philia is used. Agape love involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature and strong character. Agape love is beautifully described in 1 Corinthians 13. What is agape love? | GotQuestions.org

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[GDL]

Same agape in 1 John5:3 "this is the agape of God, that we keep His commandments..." Same agape in verb form in 1 John 5:2 we know we agapao God's children when we agapao God / keep His commandments. Same agape in Rom13:9 in verb form - agapao neighbor as yourself is a summary statement of the details it summarizes = at minimum the commandments in the Ten Commandments that apply to our relationship with other people. And on and on it goes. And tied to this is 1 Cor 13:5 agape does not think/reason evil, 1 Cor 13:6 agape does not rejoice on the basis of unrighteousness, agape rejoices together with the truth. How can agape side with evil and unrighteousness when it is doing the Commandments of our God who is agape (1 John 4:8)?

 

[Bob S]

He came to fulfill what He was sent to fulfill. Refer to what you left out above.

He came to fulfill Torah. It is apparent that is not what you believe. If I am correct then Jews are required to continue to do everything required in Torah as per Matt 5:16-17. Gentiles were never under Torah, so what Jesus came to do doesn't actually concern us.

"Hyperbole" is eisegesis, but I can see why you insert it.

Good

The Jews didn't remove anything. In fact, Jesus had to destroy their Temple and many of them and some other things due to their unbelief.

This is true, but it was not because Jesus didn't make the way available. Eph 2:15

The "new law" includes much of the old law that details sin. The law was changed, not destroyed, just like Hebrews says and Jesus said. This seems pretty simple since few if any say the 2 Greatest Commandments of the OC Law are not still applicable.

Your theory only causes confusion which Jesus knew would happen. Some say cutting sideburns is no longer a requirement. Some say feast days are no longer a requirement. Some say the weekly Sabbath is still a requirement. Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the laws of the old covenant. Jesus started all over with a new and better covenant. Jesus gave us a new commandment concerning agape love. We are to love others as He loves us. There is no greater love than to give our lives for others. Jn15:10-14

Even if we agree to your view of what Eph2:15 means, and not all agree with you,

Take that up with Paul. I believe He was inspired to write what we see in the Holy Writ. You should agree, it is in line with Matt5:16-17, 2Cor3:6-11 and Gal3:19

then such ordinances could fit within the category of the changes that were made to Law. That word "ordinances" is a study on its own and is not used extensively in the Text and when it is used, it applies mostly, if not all the time, to manmade ordinances, as I recall.

So, are using ordinance to deny 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

That's one theory (Noahide).

Do you deny it?

Some maintain aggressively that Sabbath was first identified by God at creation, not in Moses. It's not currently in my debate agenda.

Some maintain a lot of things to bolster their preconceived beliefs.

Your last assumption does not need to be true. Sabbath is part of the 10C, not the ritual laws for Temple, sacrifices, etc. When you throw out the 10C and other so-called moral laws, then of course Sabbath goes also. But some don't throw out such laws. It seems by your next statement that you don't either:

Are you unwilling to tell us if you are part of "some"? The 10 have nine commands dealing with morality and one dealing with ritual law.

Me too. But as I understand you, all we have to do is love now, which you leave undefined, so it can be whatever you want that you think you hear from the Spirit. But this is repetitive discussion going nowhere.

My last post makes it clear what definition I am referring to about love. Jesus defines the Love we all should abide by in Jn15:10-14

Bob wrote:

Paul says more than once that we are not under law. I trust Paul.

GDL overlooked the point.

Israel's witness to the nations I've already provided Scripture for. That outreach was based upon its Law and Wisdom from its Great God. I've not said the nations were under it. I'm not satisfied that the Noahide Laws, which as I recall were Rabbinic thinking, are all that the nations were/are under. I still have some thoughts regarding what Rom3 is talking about in regard to the nations and the jurisdiction of God's Law.
Yes, I believe it is Rabbinic belief. Like the Abrahamic covenant the Noahade covenant was not an "if" covenant. The Mosaic covenant was n "if' covenant. See Ex19:56

You did not provide Scripture to substantiate your view that all are now under the Royal Law of Love. I'd ask you to provide even one Scripture that says we are "under" any Law.

Does the word "under" bother you? Or are you just trying to throw the debate off course? Is under a bad word? Are you not subject to any command because it would indicate you would be under the requirement?
Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

Correctly translated, in my view, we are not even "under" the Law of Christ, but we in Christ are lawful to Him and to God when walking in Spirit doing all He commands us to do, which includes being slaves of righteousness, which is detailed in Law and underlies the Commands to Love God and Neighbor. I know of nothing that says the nations are under the Royal Law of Love, but I'm open to your providing Scripture to substantiate your suggestions and opinions.

Do we all have to abide by your semantics? Does your view make my statement false?

The Gospel calls people to Faith in Christ, then provides what's necessary to raise Christians to maturity and shows them what their future holds. You'll have to provide more than a verse and an unexplained assumption that it says all are under the Royal Law of Love.

How about elaborating? Is not the Royal law of Love part of the new covenant mankind is under?

No. Yes.

Since you didn't overlook verse 19 why is it you argue that we are under "some" of the laws of the old covenant? Gentiles were never under Torah. If we are now under "some'' of Torah when did that happen?

Not an answer to my question. Not everybody according to Paul in Rom2. Same answer.

Rom 10:14 That is scripture. Those who do not believe think they are free to do whatever they choose. Only civil law keeps them inline.

Again, your suggestions are not Scripture. The rest has been answered above.

Answered or your thoughts?

True. And Law also says what is sin. I'm careful, thanks and have taken good note of Scripture that says Law was changed. The way I read Scripture, since the Mosaic Law is said to be a unit and had a curse for violating it and was a guardian and was being used by sin to bring death and was changed to facilitate Christ's Priesthood and since Christ fulfilled the animal sacrifices and since there is no more Temple in Jerusalem and since the 10C's and "any other Commandment" detail what Love is and since Paul uses Mosaic Law to identify sins and to instruct us to provide for our leadership and teachers in churches, etc......, then there certainly is a discussion to be had regarding what Laws and Commandments were not changed and are "until eternity" the morality as you've acknowledged you believe.

I refute your statement that the 10 detail what Love is. At this point, if you are willing to answer, are you a Sabbath observer? Do you go beyond Sabbath observance and observe the feast days? Your answer will help me to know where you are deriving scripture and opinions.

I was a Sabbath observer for nearly forty years. It was not until I started studying the old and new covenants that I changed my opinion on Sabbath observance, tithing and what I can eat.

At this point I hope it's clear what I'm telling you. Parts of Torah are still in effect (Love God, Love Neighbor and all the Commandments that detail what Love is and conversely what is sin or if you're more comfortable with this, what immorality is). Torah as a unit I see as ended per my above run-on reasons and more.

That statement mostly answers my above question. What authority do you use to determine what parts of Torah are still in effect for the Jews. Gentiles were never under the dictates of Torah

How about a question: Do you believe that it is Biblical Love to support all the gender issues so prevalent today and expanding, including gender related marital issues. Yes or no and why?

Yes, it is Biblical to love all people. I thank Jesus that people have been there when I needed them most. I count that as true love. The church should be a hospital for sick souls whatever that sickness is, gender issues included. I have, in my family, two homosexuals. should I hate them? They are welcome in my home because I love them. They have a problem and so do I and so does everyone.

Question for you.
How would you treat them?

 

[GDL]

He came to fulfill Torah. It is apparent that is not what you believe. If I am correct then Jews are required to continue to do everything required in Torah as per Matt 5:16-17. Gentiles were never under Torah, so what Jesus came to do doesn't actually concern us.

Do you see Jesus using the word "all" when He speaks of fulfilling the Law or the Prophets? Add verse 18 and you'll find part of the answer you're missing. Then add what follows and ask yourself why Jesus adds v.19 if the He was making the Law of no effect.

Since you're a proponent of the Noahide Laws view, which it looks like we're going to have to address more than once as we proceed with this post, look at the first one (you'll find different views of what the laws are, so look at a few versions) that forbids idolatry (one view) or put another way per another view, Do not profane G-d's Oneness in any way. Let alone wondering what laws Abraham kept (Gen26:5) might this not lead human reasoning into the Love for God mandates of Moses that are still applicable today?

I'll answer for you: No, will say the antinomian.

This is true, but it was not because Jesus didn't make the way available. Eph 2:15

You only think you know what Eph2:15 means. There is much disagreement as to what it means.

Your theory only causes confusion which Jesus knew would happen. Some say cutting sideburns is no longer a requirement. Some say feast days are no longer a requirement. Some say the weekly Sabbath is still a requirement. Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the laws of the old covenant. Jesus started all over with a new and better covenant. Jesus gave us a new commandment concerning agape love. We are to love others as He loves us. There is no greater love than to give our lives for others. Jn15:10-14

Confusion for those who don't share the view, but not for those who do share it. Please explain at minimum Matt5:17-19 and include why you are intermixing verses 17-18.

Once again, you quote a Commandment to Love, and leave Love undefined and open to whatever you say it is. I prefer to allow Scripture to define Love for me. Once someone does this, they'll find there is no way to discuss Love apart from discussing God's Commandments and God's correlated instruction about sin. I showed you some more counsel from Scripture about agape in hopes you could broaden your scope.

Take that up with Paul. I believe He was inspired to write what we see in the Holy Writ. You should agree, it is in line with Matt5:16-17, 2Cor3:6-11 and Gal3:19

I do my best to exegete Paul in Christ in Spirit, as do others who are still working, some at very high levels of scholarship, to do the same. I'm glad to hear you believe in inspiration of Scripture. I do as well. Sorry, I'm not going to try to discern how you're misusing more Scripture. I've already seen enough in just these few answers to you. If you'd like to present Scriptures as proof for one of your statements, please explain the Scripture you're proofing and the one you think is proof.

So, are using ordinance to deny 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

Showing that the Greek word (dogma) being translated as "ordinances" is only used a few times in the Bible and never for the ordinances of God's Law, is me raising something pertinent to the Text for you to consider. I'll also tell you it is used by Paul in Col2:14 and that many view Colossians as a companion letter to Ephesians and that we can find answers to Paul's meanings by cross-referencing the 2 documents.

It would be helpful if you would identify the English translation you are pasting from, especially when you're quoting from one that is adding words and interpretations as this one does.

Do you deny it?

I don't accept the theory that the concept of Noahide Law is the only code God has for all of mankind. If I did accept it, then I'd ask people like yourself to explain the first theoretical Law and how far-reaching it is. If the Noahide Law says there is one God who all mankind is responsible to, then all mankind has more of a responsibility to God than the few Noahide Laws. This is reflected in Ps14:1-3; Ps53:1-3; Rom3:9-12.

Some maintain a lot of things to bolster their preconceived beliefs.

They sure do. Probably more than "some."

Are you unwilling to tell us if you are part of "some"? The 10 have nine commands dealing with morality and one dealing with ritual law.

Can you provide a verse that says Sabbath is a ritual law? If it is ritual, why did God put it into the 10? Might God want all mankind to do something good for themselves that observe and reflect Him as our Creator and Creator and sustainer of the Universe? As I've seen from more than one poster on this thread, why do you think a day of rest is observed by virtually all of Christianity? With that said, is there any one of the 10C that Christians do not think they are to comply with?

My last post makes it clear what definition I am referring to about love. Jesus defines the Love we all should abide by in Jn15:10-14

Jesus explaining that we are to lay down our life for our friends is hardly a comprehensive definition of Love, but it certainly is the epitome of Love as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us. Beyond that, it would be helpful for you to explain both His and our Father's commandments as Jesus speaks of in verse 10. While you're explaining, please explain how one fulfills Christ's Law (Gal6:1-2) apart from knowing God's Law that states what sin is.

GDL overlooked the point.

Israel's witness to the nations I've already provided Scripture for. That outreach was based upon its Law and Wisdom from its Great God. I've not said the nations were under it. I'm not satisfied that the Noahide Laws, which as I recall were Rabbinic thinking, are all that the nations were/are under. I still have some thoughts regarding what Rom3 is talking about in regard to the nations and the jurisdiction of God's Law.
Yes, I believe it is Rabbinic belief. Like the Abrahamic covenant the Noahade covenant was not an "if" covenant. The Mosaic covenant was n "if' covenant. See Ex19:56

Sorry, I don't understand your point. It's blurred by the way you intermix our statements.

Does the word "under" bother you? Or are you just trying to throw the debate off course? Is under a bad word? Are you not subject to any command because it would indicate you would be under the requirement?
Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

The phrase "under Law" is used by Paul to say we are not under law but under grace as you've noted in a paraphrased translation I would not use. I see nowhere in the [Greek] Text that says we are "under" any Law now, not even the Law of Christ. So, back to the inspiration of Scripture mentioned above, I think the inspired Text speaks as it does about "under" for a reason. So, it does bother me when we use the word differently than God does.

Do we all have to abide by your semantics? Does your view make my statement false?

Unnecessary false argumentation. If your statement disagrees with God's statements, then it is false. The same goes for any of our statements (Rom3:4). Read my above answer again.

How about elaborating? Is not the Royal law of Love part of the new covenant mankind is under?

Read the NC Writings in context. They explain the new birth, the growth to maturity, the judgment, and the future departure into eternity.

Your last question here has been asked and answered at least a few times. Do you mean the Royal Law of Love Neighbor (which is what James refers to)? Are you now suggesting mankind is under Mosaic Law that came into and now is part of Messianic Law. How about Christians of who it's said are not "under" Law? How do you think this all works, you who have accused me of adding confusion?

Since you didn't overlook verse 19 why is it you argue that we are under "some" of the laws of the old covenant? Gentiles were never under Torah. If we are now under "some'' of Torah when did that happen?

Again, asked and answered. I, along with Paul at minimum, don't think we are "under" Law. I like how Paul actually speaks using the Greek Text of 1Cor9:19-21 where he in effect says he's free to become as a Jew to gain Jews; he's free to be as those under law to gain those under law; he's free to be as the lawless to gain the lawless - not [free to be] as a lawless man to God, but as a lawful man to Christ.

So, what does it mean to not be a lawless man to God, but to be a lawful man to Christ? I hope your answer specifically addresses the terminology "lawless" and "lawful" in relation to the core word of both words = "law".

Rom 10:14 That is scripture. Those who do not believe think they are free to do whatever they choose. Only civil law keeps them inline.

Still not an answer and you're hard-pressed to prove that all unbelievers think they are free to do whatever they choose as if they don't have a conscience. That's absurdity and far from understanding how God has influenced His creation.

Answered or your thoughts?

Answered from my thoughts that I think conform to Scripture and at times with Scripture you ignore.

I refute your statement that the 10 detail what Love is. At this point, if you are willing to answer, are you a Sabbath observer? Do you go beyond Sabbath observance and observe the feast days? Your answer will help me to know where you are deriving scripture and opinions.

I was a Sabbath observer for nearly forty years. It was not until I started studying the old and new covenants that I changed my opinion on Sabbath observance, tithing and what I can eat.

Fine, but you are not Scripture, and you aren't making your case with Scripture. Again, your refutation is not meaningful when it attempts to say a summary statement does not include the truth of the details it summarizes. It's like saying 10 exists apart from 1-9.

It also makes sense now what is going on with you. You have in reaction swung the pendulum from Under Law to Anti-Law. The truth is more in the center of the swing. It amazes me how Sabbath is such an issue and brings out such angst. Do you now observe Sunday? Were you SDA for 40 years before being set free to self-define Love? How about no Sabbath as you sit in church on Sunday and ignore where the concept comes from?

Question for you.
How would you treat them?

Rewording a question is beyond not answering the question. Note the difference between my "support" of specifically identified issues vs. your "treat" the ambiguous "them"? Treat the issues or treat the people? Why not discuss "support" of the stated issues? You're misdirecting and avoiding discussion about points of Law and God's Creation. Do you find this diversion natural, or do you have to work at it? I expected nothing else from one who throws out Law and maintains some concept of undefined morality of love until eternity.

So, again, I didn't expect you to answer. To discuss the issues specifically, one would have to get into the details of both Torah and NC teachings about God's Commandments that are readily examined and discerned and obviously still in effect. Do you also compare these substantial issues to sideburns in attempt to maintain self-definition of Biblical Love?


If you care to proceed, let's please narrow down to a point or 2 at a time and I would suggest dealing with specific Scripture exegetically in context. I'd ask you to identify any English translation you choose to use. I'll be answering you at any given point from a few Greek manuscripts as I may deem necessary to realize the most literal view.

 

[Bob S]

He came to fulfill what He was sent to fulfill. Refer to what you left out above.

He came to fulfill Torah. It is apparent that is not what you believe. If I am correct then Jews are required to continue to do everything required in Torah as per Matt 5:16-17. Gentiles were never under Torah, so what Jesus came to do doesn't actually concern us.

"Hyperbole" is eisegesis, but I can see why you insert it.

Good

The Jews didn't remove anything. In fact, Jesus had to destroy their Temple and many of them and some other things due to their unbelief.

This is true, but it was not because Jesus didn't make the way available. Eph 2:15

The "new law" includes much of the old law that details sin. The law was changed, not destroyed, just like Hebrews says and Jesus said. This seems pretty simple since few if any say the 2 Greatest Commandments of the OC Law are not still applicable.

Your theory only causes confusion which Jesus knew would happen. Some say cutting sideburns is no longer a requirement. Some say feast days are no longer a requirement. Some say the weekly Sabbath is still a requirement. Jesus fulfilled every jot and tittle of the laws of the old covenant. Jesus started all over with a new and better covenant. Jesus gave us a new commandment concerning agape love. We are to love others as He loves us. There is no greater love than to give our lives for others. Jn15:10-14

Even if we agree to your view of what Eph2:15 means, and not all agree with you,

Take that up with Paul. I believe He was inspired to write what we see in the Holy Writ. You should agree, it is in line with Matt5:16-17, 2Cor3:6-11 and Gal3:19

then such ordinances could fit within the category of the changes that were made to Law. That word "ordinances" is a study on its own and is not used extensively in the Text and when it is used, it applies mostly, if not all the time, to manmade ordinances, as I recall.

So, are using ordinance to deny 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

That's one theory (Noahide).

Do you deny it?

Some maintain aggressively that Sabbath was first identified by God at creation, not in Moses. It's not currently in my debate agenda.

Some maintain a lot of things to bolster their preconceived beliefs.

Your last assumption does not need to be true. Sabbath is part of the 10C, not the ritual laws for Temple, sacrifices, etc. When you throw out the 10C and other so-called moral laws, then of course Sabbath goes also. But some don't throw out such laws. It seems by your next statement that you don't either:

Are you unwilling to tell us if you are part of "some"? The 10 have nine commands dealing with morality and one dealing with ritual law.

Me too. But as I understand you, all we have to do is love now, which you leave undefined, so it can be whatever you want that you think you hear from the Spirit. But this is repetitive discussion going nowhere.

My last post makes it clear what definition I am referring to about love. Jesus defines the Love we all should abide by in Jn15:10-14

Bob wrote:

Paul says more than once that we are not under law. I trust Paul.

GDL overlooked the point.

Israel's witness to the nations I've already provided Scripture for. That outreach was based upon its Law and Wisdom from its Great God. I've not said the nations were under it. I'm not satisfied that the Noahide Laws, which as I recall were Rabbinic thinking, are all that the nations were/are under. I still have some thoughts regarding what Rom3 is talking about in regard to the nations and the jurisdiction of God's Law.
Yes, I believe it is Rabbinic belief. Like the Abrahamic covenant the Noahade covenant was not an "if" covenant. The Mosaic covenant was n "if' covenant. See Ex19:56

You did not provide Scripture to substantiate your view that all are now under the Royal Law of Love. I'd ask you to provide even one Scripture that says we are "under" any Law.

Does the word "under" bother you? Or are you just trying to throw the debate off course? Is under a bad word? Are you not subject to any command because it would indicate you would be under the requirement?
Romans 6:14 Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

Correctly translated, in my view, we are not even "under" the Law of Christ, but we in Christ are lawful to Him and to God when walking in Spirit doing all He commands us to do, which includes being slaves of righteousness, which is detailed in Law and underlies the Commands to Love God and Neighbor. I know of nothing that says the nations are under the Royal Law of Love, but I'm open to your providing Scripture to substantiate your suggestions and opinions.

Do we all have to abide by your semantics? Does your view make my statement false?

The Gospel calls people to Faith in Christ, then provides what's necessary to raise Christians to maturity and shows them what their future holds. You'll have to provide more than a verse and an unexplained assumption that it says all are under the Royal Law of Love.

How about elaborating? Is not the Royal law of Love part of the new covenant mankind is under?

No. Yes.

Since you didn't overlook verse 19 why is it you argue that we are under "some" of the laws of the old covenant? Gentiles were never under Torah. If we are now under "some'' of Torah when did that happen?

Not an answer to my question. Not everybody according to Paul in Rom2. Same answer.

Rom 10:14 That is scripture. Those who do not believe think they are free to do whatever they choose. Only civil law keeps them inline.

Again, your suggestions are not Scripture. The rest has been answered above.

Answered or your thoughts?

True. And Law also says what is sin. I'm careful, thanks and have taken good note of Scripture that says Law was changed. The way I read Scripture, since the Mosaic Law is said to be a unit and had a curse for violating it and was a guardian and was being used by sin to bring death and was changed to facilitate Christ's Priesthood and since Christ fulfilled the animal sacrifices and since there is no more Temple in Jerusalem and since the 10C's and "any other Commandment" detail what Love is and since Paul uses Mosaic Law to identify sins and to instruct us to provide for our leadership and teachers in churches, etc......, then there certainly is a discussion to be had regarding what Laws and Commandments were not changed and are "until eternity" the morality as you've acknowledged you believe.

I refute your statement that the 10 detail what Love is. At this point, if you are willing to answer, are you a Sabbath observer? Do you go beyond Sabbath observance and observe the feast days? Your answer will help me to know where you are deriving scripture and opinions.

I was a Sabbath observer for nearly forty years. It was not until I started studying the old and new covenants that I changed my opinion on Sabbath observance, tithing and what I can eat.

At this point I hope it's clear what I'm telling you. Parts of Torah are still in effect (Love God, Love Neighbor and all the Commandments that detail what Love is and conversely what is sin or if you're more comfortable with this, what immorality is). Torah as a unit I see as ended per my above run-on reasons and more.

That statement mostly answers my above question. What authority do you use to determine what parts of Torah are still in effect for the Jews. Gentiles were never under the dictates of Torah
This belief is a problem. And I note that you do not answer me when I ask you questions about this or explain why I see this as a problem.

How about a question: Do you believe that it is Biblical Love to support all the gender issues so prevalent today and expanding, including gender related marital issues. Yes or no and why?

 

[Bob S]

Same agape in 1 John5:3 "this is the agape of God, that we keep His commandments..."

IN 1Jn3:19-24 john tells us we belong to the truth........21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Your interpretation of what God's commandments are and what the Holy Writ proclaims seems to collide. I will go with John.

Same agape in verb form in 1 John 5:2 we know we agapao God's children when we agapao God / keep His commandments. Same agape in Rom13:9 in verb form - agapao neighbor as yourself is a summary statement of the details it summarizes = at minimum the commandments in the Ten Commandments that apply to our relationship with other people. And on and on it goes. And tied to this is 1 Cor 13:5 agape does not think/reason evil, 1 Cor 13:6 agape does not rejoice on the basis of unrighteousness, agape rejoices together with the truth. How can agape side with evil and unrighteousness when it is doing the Commandments of our God who is agape (1 John 4:8)?

Jn15:9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.

Jesus, under the Mosaic law, kept Torah just as all the Jews were commanded to do. Jesus, in those verses was telling us that if we keep His command to love others as He loves us, we will be His friend and our joy will be complete. I want to be His friend and have complete joy. I wish that for all my friends. I will continue to allow the Holy Spirit guide me to those I can help find Jesus joy.

 

[GDL]

Your interpretation of what God's commandments are and what the Holy Writ proclaims seems to collide. I will go with John

When an eisegete uses Scripture, anything can seem to collide. I'd prefer reading you'll go with the accurate counsel of the entire Word of God.

Jesus, under the Mosaic law, kept Torah just as all the Jews were commanded to do. Jesus, in those verses was telling us that if we keep His command to love others as He loves us, we will be His friend and our joy will be complete. I want to be His friend and have complete joy. I wish that for all my friends. I will continue to allow the Holy Spirit guide me to those I can help find Jesus joy.

Once more, you leave out contextual Scripture that provides important information. How about this one more verse:

NKJ John 15:15 "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.

You see, Bob S., it takes knowledge of all Jesus taught them in order to be His friends. You delete knowledge and use parts of Scripture to remain in delusion that you know what Love is. It's not surprising that you won't answer pointed questions that test your understanding of Biblical Love. Once we delete the underlying details, the summary can be whatever we want it to be, and we can choose to think anything we want to think and say the Holy Spirit told us it's correct. In the end it's likely just antinomianism and thus it is not Love.

NKJ Prov1:20-23 Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares. 21 She cries out in the chief concourses, At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words: 22 "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge. 23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

That last clause is Hebrew parallelism. If you have His Spirit, then you know His words. Deleting His words is not what His friends do. But claim what you wish.

 

[GDL]

Yes, it is Biblical to love all people.

Firstly, I assume you reposted your entire earlier post for some reason before you changed one last statement at the end of it. I won't ask you to explain.

I agree with your first statement, but I doubt we agree in entirety re: what Love means. It's rather that we in essence speak different languages because we don't share the same definitions of words.

I thank Jesus that people have been there when I needed them most. I count that as true love.

I understand the sentiment and have no doubt you are greatly impacted by sentiment based upon our earlier discussions about love and emotion which you did not respond to after I gave you some Scripture references.

The church should be a hospital for sick souls whatever that sickness is, gender issues included.

One of the church's greatest medicines is Truth to deal with the sickness of sin. When you delete parts of truth that define Love, you're not being curative.

I have, in my family, two homosexuals. should I hate them?

This question is rhetorical, so I'll let you think what you want to think.

They are welcome in my home because I love them.

The way you've communicated so far, your love could simply and easily be emotion and compassion, but maybe not Love. It's just as easy to delete a few phrases out of the description of Love regarding righteousness and truth in 1Cor13 as it is to delete verses from John15 as you did above in order to maintain a selective opinion of what you want things to be.

They have a problem and so do I and so does everyone.

They have sin, not just problems. Love speaks Truth to sin in order to truly attempt to help resolve it (John8:31-36 note the context of sin). Truth can be handled with wisdom and compassion, but it is not to be set aside as if it is not a vital part of Biblical Love. The Truth is Jesus Christ and the fact that He does not and will not accept lawlessness/sin/unrighteousness (Heb1:9; Matt7:23). He died to get us out of sin. He's helping all of His to overcome sin - to defeat it experientially. In the name of love and compassion, much of the church is antinomian and is accommodating sin, which assists in its spread. This is not Love, so ultimately, it's not Christian.

 

[Bob S]

HDL, 4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 1Cor13. Love does not "assume" or second guess. Love should not "doubt" the thoughts of others without truthful proof.

The following, like much of your posts, is acerbic. "One of the church's greatest medicines is Truth to deal with the sickness of sin. When you delete parts of truth that define Love, you're not being curative."

Questions; do you include ALL parts of truth when you define something??? Are you as critical with your own statements as you are with others??? Why is it that you feel you have to correct the statements of others??? Would it be to show superiority??? Why is it you are not able to accept a statement like "They have a problem and so do I and so does everyone." without adding a whole paragraph of correction and speculation as in; "much of the church is antinomian and is accommodating sin, which assists in its spread." If you are going to make statements like that, it would be nice to include some reference unless you are able to prove somehow you are the final authority?

I know my posts are not perfect and I welcome them being critiqued, but your critical review could use a lot of compassion.

Lord help us all to be compassionate in all we say, write and do.

 

[GDL]

HDL, 4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 1Cor13. Love does not "assume" or second guess. Love should not "doubt" the thoughts of others without truthful proof.

The following, like much of your posts, is acerbic. "One of the church's greatest medicines is Truth to deal with the sickness of sin. When you delete parts of truth that define Love, you're not being curative."

It's tragic how you consistently delete Scripture you apparently don't like. That's what is truly acerbic.

NKJ 1 Cor13:4-8 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails.

Questions; do you include ALL parts of truth when you define something???

Ask me again after you stop deleting Scriptures from context.

Are you as critical with your own statements as you are with others???

As best I know, and to critique, I try to use Scripture in context without strategic deletions.

Why is it that you feel you have to correct the statements of others??? Would it be to show superiority???

You're misrepresenting Scripture on a forum in a General Theology section dealing in part with Law and your posting is antinomian, and deleting virtually every connection between Love and Law you post. You should realize you're bound to receive correction.

Why is it you are not able to accept a statement like "They have a problem and so do I and so does everyone." without adding a whole paragraph of correction and speculation as in; "much of the church is antinomian and is accommodating sin, which assists in its spread." If you are going to make statements like that, it would be nice to include some reference unless you are able to prove somehow you are the final authority?

It's simple and I was very clear. The problem you refer to is sin.

And what kind of reference would you accept, when you don't accept Scripture and you delete Scripture at will in an attempt to make Love into your version of love. Is this not the epitome of rejection of authority and of autonomy?

I'll accept your critique and withdraw the first part of my unreferenced statement about "much of the church." Not because I and pastors & theologians I hear and read do not think it's true, and not because there are not repeated threads in forums where professing Christians argue for an antinomian view of Scripture, and not because my experience among professing Christians has evidenced extensive antinomianism and sin, and not because there are not frequent articles about this or that church falling through support and acceptance of sin, etc., but because I'm not going to do the research to put references together for you. Critique accepted. Thank you.

As for accommodating sin, which assists in its spread, try 1Cor5:6.

I know my posts are not perfect and I welcome them being critiqued, but your critical review could use a lot of compassion.

Lord help us all to be compassionate in all we say, write and do.

One key to humility is acceptance of God's Word in Christ in Spirit. We all need it. Why do you not include references to such things as righteousness and truth and God's Commandments when it comes to Biblical Love?

So, I see you say you welcome your posts being critiqued, but I don't recall you receiving any critique - only arguing for your point of view. I'm doing the same. Where's your compassion towards me in your argument and rhetoric?

I accept your prayer. Thank you.

Lord, please help us all to understand and accept all of your Word, to not put our thoughts into your Word, but to only receive your thoughts from your Word. Please teach us to Love in Truth as you do, to accept that your Word explains your Love in part in reference to your Law and Commandments, your Righteousness, your Truth...

 

[expos4ever]

Actually, all has not been fulfilled or we wouldn't still be here going what we're going through.

I believe you have to then believe that the fact that Jesus' last words were "It is finished" is not intended to evoke this from Matt 5:

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

I am not saying that the connection of the "it is finished" utterance (on the cross) to the "until all is accomplished" statement from Matt 5 is a slam-dunk; however, I suggest the notion of such a connection is compelling.

 

[GDL]

I believe you have to then believe that the fact that Jesus' last words were "It is finished" is not intended to evoke this from Matt 5:

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

I am not saying that the connection of the "it is finished" utterance (on the cross) to the "until all is accomplished" statement from Matt 5 is a slam-dunk; however, I suggest the notion of such a connection is compelling.

John19:30 uses the word teleo (long o) - what Jesus came to do on the cross, He did.
Matt5:18 uses the word ginomai, which most literally means "becomes" - so accomplished in the sense of an end is not its basic sense. Matt5:17 uses the word pleroo (next to last o pronounced as English short a - last o is long) - which can have similar meaning to teleo, but also can have the sense of things like: to make full; to complete a period of time; to bring to completion (not an end but to make it complete); to provide fully; to proclaim completely; to give true meaning to, etc. (using BDAG & Luow-Nida Lexicons)

I see your point, but I'd be comparing the words in Matt5:17-18 to themselves first: Jesus didn't come to kataluo (long o) demolish/destroy/put an end to/invalidate (BDAG) - Jesus came to pleroo (definitions above that IMO need to contrast kataluo) - not the smallest part of a letter of the Law will come to an end/disappear/pass away (BDAG) until all becomes.

There is yet much to be done, so it's still being done, and Law still exists until all becomes (what it's supposed to be???). My take anyway.

 

[HIM]

John19:30 uses the word teleo (long o) - what Jesus came to do on the cross, He did.
Matt5:18 uses the word ginomai, which most literally means "becomes" - so accomplished in the sense of an end is not its basic sense. Matt5:17 uses the word pleroo (next to last o pronounced as English short a - last o is long) - which can have similar meaning to teleo, but also can have the sense of things like: to make full; to complete a period of time; to bring to completion (not an end but to make it complete); to provide fully; to proclaim completely; to give true meaning to, etc. (using BDAG & Luow-Nida Lexicons)

I see your point, but I'd be comparing the words in Matt5:17-18 to themselves first: Jesus didn't come to kataluo (long o) demolish/destroy/put an end to/invalidate (BDAG) - Jesus came to pleroo (definitions above that IMO need to contrast kataluo) - not the smallest part of a letter of the Law will come to an end/disappear/pass away (BDAG) until all becomes.

There is yet much to be done, so it's still being done, and Law still exists until all becomes (what it's supposed to be???). My take anyway.

Good post.
Verse 18 "until all becomes". The "all" is us in respect to us being the light unto the world, the salt that has not lost it's savor (Vs. 13-16) through Christ that God be glorified.

 

[Bob S]

John19:30 uses the word teleo (long o) - what Jesus came to do on the cross, He did.
Matt5:18 uses the word ginomai, which most literally means "becomes" - so accomplished in the sense of an end is not its basic sense. Matt5:17 uses the word pleroo (next to last o pronounced as English short a - last o is long) - which can have similar meaning to teleo, but also can have the sense of things like: to make full; to complete a period of time; to bring to completion (not an end but to make it complete); to provide fully; to proclaim completely; to give true meaning to, etc. (using BDAG & Luow-Nida Lexicons)

Jesus was the end of the Torah. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, Eph2

I see your point, but I'd be comparing the words in Matt5:17-18 to themselves first: Jesus didn't come to kataluo (long o) demolish/destroy/put an end to/invalidate (BDAG) - Jesus came to pleroo (definitions above that IMO need to contrast kataluo) - not the smallest part of a letter of the Law will come to an end/disappear/pass away (BDAG) until all becomes.

Until all He came to do was fulfilled. Why did Jeremiah prophesy a new covenant would be coming if Jews are still under the old one? Jesus came and ended all the old covenant, not just part of it. He didn't tell the Jews that He came to fulfill part of Torah. He ended the whole system. Why reinvent a system that was so broken that Paul had to write it became the ministry of death?

Jesus at Calvary ended all of the old covenant and gave all mankind the beautiful new covenant and ratified it with His own blood.

There is yet much to be done, so it's still being done, and Law still exists until all becomes (what it's supposed to be???). My take anyway.

Your take and what scripture teach are two different things. All will be accomplished under the new and better covenant. Our job is to teach the world the Royal Law of Love not a bunch of rituals that have no meaning to anyone except to Jews that have not accepted Jesus as their Savior.

We have to remember Jesus was speaking to Jews not Gentiles who were never under the dictates of Torah and still aren't. How some Gentiles can rationalize they are under Torah is a mystery to me. It certainly is not scriptural. Eph 2 is so plain and yet some are masters at trying to persuade others it does not mean what it says.