Jesus did not do away with the law in Mat 5:17

[Soyeong]

Paul:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Well?

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, so please make the case that "having died to that which we were held captive" refers to the law that Paul delighted in obeying rather than the law that held him captive.

I would like to revisit this matter of Jesus and the law. I maintain that those who believe that the law remains in force systematically come up with contrived explanations for episodes when Jesus certainly appears to be breaking the law.

Let's start with the food episode in Mark 7 and its parallels. In that engagement, Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". That seems pretty clear - a piece of shellfish or a bit of pork certainly is a thing that can go in to you. So how do the Law supporters explain this? They most frequently appeal to the fact that the conversation with the Pharisees begins with a dispute over hand washing. They seem to think that no matter what Jesus goes on to say, the focus must, by some strange principle of necessity, remain solely on handwashing. But this is manifestly absurd - certainly, Jesus can take a discussion of handwashing and then bend the conversation to a more general discussion of what actually defiles a man. It must be acknowledged, although it will not be, that this is a very natural transition to make. But, of course, the Law supporters cannot allow for this possibility. Yes, I know the confrontation ends with a return to the subject of handwashing. But this does not support the idea that, in the preceding discussion, Jesus could not have spoken more generally about what defiles, and then used the general principle he has elaborated - namely that nothing that goes in to you will defile you - to answer the specific question about handwashing.

The Greek Septuagint very consistently uses a Greek word "akathartos" to refer to eating unclean animals and never uses the Greek word "koinos" to refer to that and Acts 10:14 also contrasts the words, so you making the unjustified assumption that "koinos" being translated as "defiled" means the same thing as "akathartos" in order to force the issue when in reality Jesus was speaking about a completely different topic. In Matthew 15:20, the fact Jesus ended the conversation by saying that we are not made "koinos" by eating with unwashed hands also strongly supports that Jesus never jumped topics to teaching rebellion against the Father. This is not to say that Jesus could not have started a conversation discussing one topic and progressed to discussing a different topic, but that there is nothing that indicates that he did that, but rather the text indicates that he stayed on the same topic. You should not take a conversation about one topic and insert a completely different topic that had nothing to do with what they talking about, especially if the topic you are inserting would mean that Jesus was a sinner and a false prophet who was teaching us to rebel against the Father. In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus was making a very stark contrast between the commands of God and the traditions of men, so there is no support that Jesus proceeded to muddle the two. He had been criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so it would have been very unnatural for Jesus to have transitioned from speaking against the traditions of men to setting aside the commands of God.

To show how manifestly silly the handwashing argument is, consider this scenario which is structurally analogous to the Mark 7 encounter over food. Suppose I go to my doctor and ask him or her about the efficacy of homeopathic ("natural medicine") drugs for my cold. And let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the case that there are no kinds of treatment whatsoever to shorten a cold (whether this is true or not is obviously beside the point). My doctor, knowing full well at nothing I can take will cure my cold will tell me "there is nothing you can take into your body that will cure your cold. Therefore, homeopathic treatments will not cure your cold"

Nobody who knows the first thing about how English sentences work would walk out of the doctor's office believing that the doctor has not ruled out all drugs, including the natural ones.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe about the Mark 7 encounter. The two scenarios are structurally equivalent in the important respects. In both cases:

1. The conversations begin with a question about a particular thing going into you (food eaten with unwashed hands vs natural medecines)
2. In both conversations, the authority figure make a general statement - "nothing that goes in you........"
3. Both conversations end with a statement about the particular thing that was the issue at first.

Yet, we know that the logic of the doctor scenario requires us to believe that the doctor believes that truly nothing that you can take into your body will cure your cold. So, how does this same logic not apply in the Mark scenario?

What kind of person would say "nothing that goes into can defile you" and mean "nothing except for A, B, and C"?

Context has a role, but it cannot miraculously make the word "nothing" mean "a whole bunch of things".

This does not use the same logic because you are unjustifiably treating two distinct Greek words with non-interchangeable meanings as though they both mean the same thing. It is not parallel because while denying that there are any drugs that will curse your cold is inclusive of denying that natural drugs will cure your cold, denying that there is anything that we can eat that will make us "koinos" is not inclusive of denying that anything that we can eat will make us"akathartos". In other words, natural drugs are a smaller category part of the broader category of all drugs, but "akathartos" is not a smaller category that is part of the broader category of "koinos".

 

[Chaleb]

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, so please make the case that "having died to that which we were held captive" refers to the law that Paul delighted in obeying rather than the law that held him captive.

If you have a bible, you need to read Philippians 3.
In this chapter Paul says that law and trying to keep it, and worrying about it, as regarding Righteousness"... is "DUNG".

 

[Soyeong]

If you have a bible, you need to read Philippians 3.
In this chapter Paul says that law and trying to keep it, and worrying about it, as regarding Righteousness"... is "DUNG".

How do you reconcile thinking that Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God with thinking that he considered it to be dung? Furthermore, it is expresses an extremely negative view of God for you to think that what He instructs is dung.

 

[Chaleb]

How do you reconcile thinking that Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God with thinking that he considered it to be dung?

Paul wrote this about the law.


"The power of SIN, is THE LAW". "The law is the power of sin"

The born again "are not under the LAW, but under GRACE"

"Christ came to redeem the born again from the CURSE of the LAW"

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW for Righteousness" if you are born again.


Listen.

Here is what Paul teaches happens to a believer, when they try to go back to lawkeeping after they are born again.

"that which i would do, i can't do, and that which i hate, i do". "so i find a LAW".

See that Law?
That is the dominion of the Law that is "the power of Sin" that creates an inner war against the Grace of God so that "you can't do what you would".

How does that happen?
It happens when a believer tries to live a Christian Life, in a carnal mind.

So, to get out of that situation, that keeps you sinning and confessing, Paul told you that you have to "renew your mind".

What is that?
Its to understand that you are not under the Law, and you are made righteous, always, by the Blood Atonement.

The key is..
You have to be "born again".... so if you are water baptized thinking you are born again.... taught that, then you have a big problem.

 

[Lost Witness]

This is a stumbling block.

May The LORD Bless You and Keep You


Shalom Aleichem

 

[Chaleb]

This is a stumbling block.

May The LORD Bless You and Keep You


Shalom Aleichem

Shalom,Shalom -


The Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone....and ""that Rock is Christ."""

The Jews and ALL the religious lost gentiles, try to establish their own righteousness that is of the Law..... which is SELF Righteousness.

This....

New International Version
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

New Living Translation

For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the LAW.

English Standard Version
For, being IGNORANT of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

Berean Standard Bible
Because they were IGNORANT of God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

Berean Literal Bible
For being IGNORANT of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish the own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.

King James Bible
For they being IGNORANT of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 

[Soyeong]

I had asked you why Peter's Acts 2:38, isn't the same as What Paul teaches as "my Gospel".
You've not answered that in about 8 posts, and using lots of verses., so, that's fine.

I don't see a post by you anywhere in this thread asking about Acts 2:38. In Roman 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel involved bringing Gentile to obedience in word and in deed, so what Peter taught in Acts 2:38 was in accordance with the Gospel that Paul taught.

Now, let me post this, as its important for you to know it. as this will help you understand my question.

-
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I agree with those verses. In Romans 3:31, Paul wanting to make sure that we did not misunderstand what he said in the previous verses by saying that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet your faith does not uphold it. You do not have faith in God to guide you in how to rightly live through His law.

 

[Chaleb]

I don't see a post by you anywhere in this thread asking about Acts 2:38.

Let me try the question again for you.

Peter in Act 2:38 is not giving the same message that Paul was Taught Personally by Jesus as "The Gospel of the Grace of God".

So, why is that?

 

[Chaleb]

I our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet your faith does not uphold it.

You are teaching Law Law Law Law and more Law.

yet "Christ came to redeem us from the CURSE of THE LAW".

The "born again are not under the Law, but under GRACE"

"The Law is the Power of sin, and the power of Sin is the Law".

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW....for righteousness, for everyone who is born again..(Believes).

 

[Soyeong]

You are teaching Law Law Law Law and more Law.

yet "Christ came to redeem us from the CURSE of THE LAW".

The "born again are not under the Law, but under GRACE"

"The Law is the Power of sin, and the power of Sin is the Law".

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW....for righteousness, for everyone who is born again..(Believes).

Why do you keep repeating those while ignoring what I've said I've said about them?

Let me try the question again for you.

Peter in Act 2:38 is not giving the same message that Paul was Taught Personally by Jesus as "The Gospel of the Grace of God".

So, why is that?

The Gospel that Peter taught in Acts 2:38 was on the same page as the Gospel that Paul taught in Romans 15:18-19 and the Gospel that Jesus taught in Matthew 4:15-23, so I do not agree with the basis of your question.

Shalom,Shalom -


The Jews stumbled at the stumbling stone....and ""that Rock is Christ."""

The Jews and ALL the religious lost gentiles, try to establish their own righteousness that is of the Law..... which is SELF Righteousness.

This....

New International Version
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

New Living Translation

For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the LAW.

English Standard Version
For, being IGNORANT of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

Berean Standard Bible
Because they were IGNORANT of God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

Berean Literal Bible
For being IGNORANT of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish the own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.

King James Bible
For they being IGNORANT of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they misunderstood the goal of the law by pursuing it as through righteousness was the result of their obedience rather than by pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim in saying that God's law is not too difficult to obey, that obedience brings life, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. So nothing in this passage has anything to do with Jesus ending God's law, but just the opposite, though it wouldn't surprise me if you were to continue to ignore what I say and just repost that Christ is the end of the law.

Listen.

Here is what Paul teaches happens to a believer, when they try to go back to lawkeeping after they are born again.

"that which i would do, i can't do, and that which i hate, i do". "so i find a LAW".

See that Law?
That is the dominion of the Law that is "the power of Sin" that creates an inner war against the Grace of God so that "you can't do what you would".

How does that happen?
It happens when a believer tries to live a Christian Life, in a carnal mind.

So, to get out of that situation, that keeps you sinning and confessing, Paul told you that you have to "renew your mind".

What is that?
Its to understand that you are not under the Law, and you are made righteous, always, by the Blood Atonement.

The key is..
You have to be "born again".... so if you are water baptized thinking you are born again.... taught that, then you have a big problem.

In Romans 7, Paul said that he delighted in the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, yet you take what he said against the law of sin and apply it as through he were speaking about the Law of God as if he were an enemy of God rather than a servant of God. We are under the Law of God and not under the law of sin, not the other way around. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have carnal minds who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Law of God are not born again, so it is contradictory for those who are born again to speak against obeying it.

 

[Soyeong]

You are misreading the context of Scriptures. The example we are supposed to follow in 1 Pt 2:21-22 is suffering for others without retaliation.

And you are mistaken similarly in the rest of your post, but it would be too long to explain it all.

1 Peter 2:21-22 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

Yes, these verses his example of suffering, but they also speak about his example of committing no sin. This is confirmed in other verses like 1 John 2:6, where those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and 1 Corinthians 11:1, where we are to be imitators of Paul as he is an imitator of Christ. So no, I did not misread 1 Peter 2:21-22 and I am not mistaken about the rest of that post. Handwaving is not an argument.

 

[trophy33]

1 Peter 2:21-22 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

Yes, these verses his example of suffering, but they also speak about his example of committing no sin. This is confirmed in other verses like 1 John 2:6, where those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and 1 Corinthians 11:1, where we are to be imitators of Paul as he is an imitator of Christ. So no, I did not misread 1 Peter 2:21-22 and I am not mistaken about the rest of that post. Handwaving is not an argument.

To prove that Christians are told to keep the Mosaic Law, you simply created a chain of "Jesus was sinless, we are supposed to walk as he walked, he was born under the Mosaic Law --> conclusion: we must keep the Mosaic Law".

But this logic is not found in Scriptures, its just your own creation. Its also illogical, because if you believe that you must walk as He walked in this technical sense, then you must also move to Israel, be circumcised, visit the temple, teach in synagogues, have 12 disciples etc. Its absurd, of course. To walk as he walked means something different.

Putting verses together from their contexts like a misfitting puzzle is not a sound doctrine.

 

[Lulav]

You are teaching Law Law Law Law and more Law.

yet "Christ came to redeem us from the CURSE of THE LAW".

Did you read what you wrote?

Messiah did not come to redeem us from his Father's law, but the Curse part.

You are throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water.

 

[Lulav]

To prove that Christians are told to keep the Mosaic Law, you simply created a chain of "Jesus was sinless, we are supposed to walk as he walked, he was born under the Mosaic Law --> conclusion: we must keep the Mosaic Law".

1 John 2:6​

​

The one who says he resides in God ought himself to walk just as Jesus walked.​

And just how did Jesus walk?

But this logic is not found in Scriptures, its just your own creation. Its also illogical, because if you believe that you must walk as He walked in this technical sense, then you must also move to Israel, be circumcised, visit the temple, teach in synagogues, have 12 disciples etc. Its absurd, of course. To walk as he walked means something different.

Your logic there is illogical.

"then you must also move to Israel" ---- not possible because that would not make you born there as he was - strike one

"be circumcised" - --impossible as he was circumcised on the 8th day - Strike two

"visit the temple, teach in synagogues, have 12 disciples etc." - Temple not there, you're not qualified and having disciples would also mean you are a teacher or Rabbi, again, not qualified - STRIKE Three.

" Its absurd, of course." -- You got that part right.


"To walk as he walked means something different."
It means walking in his Fathers ways, and he did that which is why he said he was the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE and no one can go to the Father except through him and him being 'The WAY'.

Putting verses together from their contexts like a misfitting puzzle is not a sound doctrine.

Exactly why you shouldn't do it.

EFC

 

[expos4ever]

Did you read what you wrote?

Messiah did not come to redeem us from his Father's law, but the Curse part.

You are throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water.

I see no Biblical basis for even drawing such a distinction. Quite the contrary, Paul sees the curse as inextricably bound up with the Law:

Galatians 3:10: For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse

2 Corinthians 3: who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came [a]with glory....

1 Corinthians 15: Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;

 

[Soyeong]

To prove that Christians are told to keep the Mosaic Law, you simply created a chain of "Jesus was sinless, we are supposed to walk as he walked, he was born under the Mosaic Law --> conclusion: we must keep the Mosaic Law".

But this logic is not found in Scriptures, its just your own creation. Its also illogical, because if you believe that you must walk as He walked in this technical sense, then you must also move to Israel, be circumcised, visit the temple, teach in synagogues, have 12 disciples etc. Its absurd, of course. To walk as he walked means something different.

Putting verses together from their contexts like a misfitting puzzle is not a sound doctrine.

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of Paul as he is an imitator of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1), so Christianity is about following what Christ taught by word and by example. Our sanctification is is about being made to be more like Christ in expressing aspects of his nature like love, holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, and faithfulness in accordance with his example of obedience to the Mosaic Law.

 

[trophy33]

1 John 2:6​

​

The one who says he resides in God ought himself to walk just as Jesus walked.​

And just how did Jesus walk?

Your logic there is illogical.

"then you must also move to Israel" ---- not possible because that would not make you born there as he was - strike one

"be circumcised" - --impossible as he was circumcised on the 8th day - Strike two

"visit the temple, teach in synagogues, have 12 disciples etc." - Temple not there, you're not qualified and having disciples would also mean you are a teacher or Rabbi, again, not qualified - STRIKE Three.

" Its absurd, of course." -- You got that part right.


"To walk as he walked means something different."
It means walking in his Fathers ways, and he did that which is why he said he was the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE and no one can go to the Father except through him and him being 'The WAY'.

Exactly why you shouldn't do it.

So you put to large font and bold "walk just as Jesus walked" and the rest of your post is that it does not apply to be under the Mosaic Law, because we were not born under it. Thanks, I agree.

 

[LW97Nils]

I am not aware of anyone who claims it was done away. The law is our schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24), but it certainly is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). Christ kept the entirity of the law, he never broke it. The laws exist, but have a deeper and spiritual meaning. "Swine" no longer refers to unclean meats, but wicked "believers". See 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

 

[expos4ever]

You are teaching Law Law Law Law and more Law.

yet "Christ came to redeem us from the CURSE of THE LAW".

The "born again are not under the Law, but under GRACE"

"The Law is the Power of sin, and the power of Sin is the Law".

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW....for righteousness, for everyone who is born again..(Believes).

I want to address Soyeong's claim about Romans 3:31. I am on the same side of this issue as you are and I want to expose you to an argument about Romans 3:31 for your consideration. Here is the argument:

Setting Romans 3:31 aside for just a second, I believe the weight of scriptural evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that the Law is now retired. In that context, then, the question is not so much "in total isolation of all other considerations, which of the 2 competing positions does Romans 3:31 support best?" but rather "given the overwhelming evidence that the Law is retired from the rest of Paul, and from Scripture more generally, is there a plausible case to be made that Romans 3:31 is consistent with the view that the Law has been retired?"

And I believe the answer is "yes".

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law

What would need to be the case in order for us to plausibly read this text as not asserting that the Law, including the 10, is still in force?

Answer: the key issues are (1) what it means to "establish" the law; and (2) is there a broader context that allows us to interpret "establish" as not requiring us to believe the law (including the 10) is still in force.

About the meaning of "establish": I believe that one legitimate interpretation of the greek word "histanomen" is "to uphold".

About the broader context: A compelling case can be made that Paul believes that the Law, including the 10, was put in place by God to achieve a particular "tactical" objective in God's broader redemptive plan. If so, once that goal is achieved, the law is no longer needed. But, and this is the clincher, in this scenario Paul can "uphold" the law in the sense of endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan.

And this can be done without requiring us to believe the law is still in force.

 

[Lulav]

I see no Biblical basis for even drawing such a distinction. Quite the contrary, Paul sees the curse as inextricably bound up with the Law:

Galatians 3:10: For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse

2 Corinthians 3: who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones, came [a]with glory....

1 Corinthians 15: Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;

And do you have two witnesses to that?