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

[trophy33]

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.

This is your story you have created from verses taken out of 4 different books. The Bible does not say that.

 

[Soyeong]

This is your story you have created from verses taken out of 4 different books. The Bible does not say that.

Everything that the Bible teach is true and all of the verses that speak about a topic are in accordance with each other, so it is good to correctly interpret a verse in light of other verses that speak about the same topic, and being able to show that multiple books consistently support what I am saying is something that strengths what I am saying rather than basing what I am saying on a single verse.

"Christian" means "Christ follower", so if someone is not interest in following Christ or in being made to be more like him, then why would they consider themselves to be a Christian?

 

[Chaleb]

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

Im going to take you out of denominationalism for a moment, and into christian mystic, as you have to see it from Paul's POV vs, how denominations teach Paul's doctrine.

1.) We know that we can't please God by works, law, or commandment keeping. So, all of that is not discipleship.

Paul said. "as many as be PERFECT",.. "the fullness of the Stature of Christ".
See that? That is referring to "the mind of Christ", and "walking in the Spirit". IN other words, that is SPIRITUAL.
That is where real faith and real discipleship exists.

2.) "Spiritual" is not self effort of any kind. So, "keeping" stuff, like law and commandments is not Spiritual, its self effort.
Self effort is not discipleship, ... as this is that "present your body a living sacrifice""" stuff.... and that is not Faith, that is Works.

Notice this now....

"Without Faith, its impossible to please God".

And what is that FAITH ?

That is SPIRITUAL understanding that = is to "come to the knowledge of the Truth" and go right on into revelation knowledge.

"They eyes of your understanding" being OPENED = Enlightened", is to have received LIGHT.

Brother, the scriptures are not given to read, they are given to STUDY...= "study to show yourself approved to God".
Why?
Because when you study, you meditate on the word and then God gives you revelation., = that is "discerning the word" Spiritually.
The eyes of your understanding being OPENED.
See that?
That is not reading the scriptures like they are a DICTIONARY and that was J Calvin's issue.


3.) Now, let me show you why law and commandment keeping obsession is not God's Salvation understood correctly.

Its very simple.

IN Heaven, there is no Law, no Moses Law, no commandment keeping, and no self effort to be good.

Why? Because Heaven is a Spiritual Kingdom, first, and a Literal kingdom , 2nd.

Christ said that the KOG, is "within you"..... not outside somewhere... but "IN YOU">. Luke 17:21
And why does He say that? Its because Christ and GOD are the Kingdom.....ITs a Spiritual Kingdom of LIGHT.
The born again are the "temple of the Holy Spirit". = The KOG is in them.
"Christ in YOU">.. = The KOG in you. and being "in Christ" is the Born again, in the KOG.

1.) God exists IN LIGHT
2.) Jesus is the LIGHT of the World
3.) The Born again are CHILDREN OF THE LIGHT.
4.) The born again, exist "under Grace"......not under the law.
Why?
Because GRACE is the Law of the KOG, and the born again are "translated from DARKNESS .....TO LIGHT....into this GRACE.

The born again, exit THERE, and there is no Law there.... = "not under the law but under GRACE"
There is no Moses Law or 10 Commandments or any of this, in Heaven.
ZERO.
There is no NEED for them.
See, the law is for the unlawful, and commandments are for instruction, and none of this is needed in Heaven.
Does God and Christ need to be told about the Law and Commandments?
Not quite.

See, the law and commandments are not faith based, and Christianity is only faith based.
The Walk of Faith is not the walk of law and commandment keeping, as that is SELF EFFORT, ... its works, and works are not spiritual.
Whereas CHRISTianity , is ONLY Spiritual.

"""God is A Spirit"".
Being In CHRIST, seated in heavenly places is : SPIRITUAL Birth proven.

So, when a believer is trying to see the spiritual and be spiritual THROUGH Law and Commandments, then their understanding of the KOG, of CHRISTianity, and regarding born again, is not correct as they are trying to SEE IT through the Carnal mind.

 

[trophy33]

Everything that the Bible teach is true and all of the verses that speak about a topic are in accordance with each other, so it is good to correctly interpret a verse in light of other verses that speak about the same topic, and being able to show that multiple books consistently support what I am saying is something that strengths what I am saying rather than basing what I am saying on a single verse.

"Christian" means "Christ follower", so if someone is not interest in following Christ or in being made to be more like him, then why would they consider themselves to be a Christian?

When you take a verse from its context and put it next to a verse from a different context, you create meanings that are not biblical and confuse you. The more verses from more contexts you put together into your text, the more errors you will make in understanding them.

Following Christ does not mean following the Mosaic Law. The purpose of the Law is explained in Galatians 3:15-24.

 

[fhansen]

The huge majority of instructions in the New Testament come straight from the Old Testament. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate parts of Scripture; they are intertwined. The New is just a continuation of the story.

Yes, and so the old covenant wasn't revoked; it was simply made obsolete by a new and better covenant that could actually accomplish in us what the old could not: fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4).

 

[Lulav]

The eyes of your understanding being OPENED.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong I am sorry, but you simply do not understand the verses from the Bible you use in your posts. You want them to mean something they do not mean in their actual context.

If I've cited a verse that in context means something other than what I used it to support, then by all means make the case that I've done that, but there is point in you accusing me of doing with without making the case that I've done that.

When you take a verse from its context and put it next to a verse from a different context, you create meanings that are not biblical and confuse you. The more verses from more contexts you put together into your text, the more errors you will make in understanding them.

If someone were to just state their position without citing any verses to support it, then they might just be making thing up that might or might not be in accordance with what the Bible teaches, but if someone were able to thoroughly support their position with verses from the Bible, then we can see that they have derived it from what the Bible teaches and they would have a much more solid foundation for their position. It is completely absurd for you to act like someone having more support from the Bible makes their position weaker.

It is to taking a verse out of context for someone use it to support to support their position, but rather it is only out of context if it means something different in context than how they used it. For example, in Psalms 14:1, it states "there is no God", but someone who used that verse to support that we should deny the existence of God would be taking it out of context because in context it states "A fool says in his heart that there is no God". However, citing multiple verses that are on the topic that we should follow Christ's example is not taking them out of context.

Following Christ does not mean following the Mosaic Law. The purpose of the Law is explained in Galatians 3:15-24.

Christ taught his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and following Christ means to follow what he taught by word and by example, so it does mean following the Mosaic Law. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin.

It not taking a verse out of context in order to use it to support what I am saying

 

[pasifika]

Mat 5:17 is the most quoted verse to "prove" that Jesus did away with the law and that believers today are not under the Mosaic moral law in the Old Testament. People today love to proclaim that believers are not under any rules because of God's "grace" and love. Yes, a free pass to sin and ask God for forgiveness and with a snap of God's finger, all is forgiven. Some even claim that believers need not ask forgiveness for any sin because Jesus's death on the cross covered all of our sins, past, present and future.

One again, these false teachings come from the traditions of men and are not found in Scripture.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

As I have stated countless times, any time you read anything in the New Testament, you have to discover the Jewish meaning of what has been written down in our English translations. Scripture wasn't written in English nor did Jesus speak English. Who was Jesus speaking to? Not us who speak English today. He spoke Hebrew/Aramaic to Jewish people. He spoke to other Jews within a Jewish cultural context. Culture always determines the meaning of the words used. The two main concepts used in determining what things meant in ancient culture are studying the history and culture of the people, in that time era.

Just as the terms "bind" and "loose" were used in conjunction with the interpretation of Scripture, "destroy the Law and the prophets" and "fulfill" were also terms used when determining what Scripture taught. In the 1st century, if one rabbi thought that another rabbi was misinterpreting Scripture, he would tell the other rabbi, "You are destroying the law and the prophets." If a rabbi was believed to interpret Scripture correctly, he was said to be "fulfilling Scripture."

So, Jesus had communicated to the Jewish listeners: "Do not think I came to misinterpret Scripture. I came not to put forth false teaching but to teach the correct meaning of Scripture."

That is what the Jewish people understood Jesus to have said. If you get away from the false teaching practice of only reading certain verses and no further, Mat 5:18 clearly shows that heaven and earth will pass away until all things are accomplished. Guess what? "All things" won't be accomplished until Jesus returns, Mat 26:64, and separates the sheep from the goats, with the sheep being given eternal life and the goats being punished, Mat 25:31-46.

If you want to run to Rom 10:4, you need to know that instead of the verse reading that Jesus is the end of the law, the verse, properly translated will read, "For Christ is the GOAL/PURPOSE of the Law."

Do "thou shalt not murder, steal, commit adultery or bear false witness," still apply to believers today? Those are part of the Old Testament Law. Did Jesus do away with those commandments? The Mosaic Law instructed for God's people to be kind to strangers, to show mercy, to help out the poor and needy and honor thy father and mother. Are those a part of a believer's life today or did Jesus do away with them?
The Law needs to be looked at as instructions for the Jews then and believers today rather than a strict set of rules.

When Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, Mat 4:4, are believers today supposed to live that way? That instruction comes from Deut 8:3. Or how about, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," Mat 4:7? Does that apply today? It comes straight from Deut 6:16. What about "Thou shall worship the Lord thy God and him only, Mat 4:10? Jesus was quoting Deut 6:13. What about Mat 19:19, "Honour your father and mother, Ex 20:12 and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, Lev 19:18? What about what Paul wrote in Rom 12:19? He took this from Deut 32:35. Most of you know that Deuteronomy means a "re-telling or a re-giving" of the Law. The book of Deuteronomy is quoted over 60 times in the New Testament. The book of Romans has 30 direct quotes or references from the Old Testament. There are direct quotes, paraphrases or references to/from the Old Testament in every New Testament book!

If Jesus was going to do away with the law, why did he say;

Lk 11:28 Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.

John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me...

John 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words...

John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

The huge majority of instructions in the New Testament come straight from the Old Testament. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate parts of Scripture; they are intertwined. The New is just a continuation of the story.

Law is fulfilled Not by following the written code (Old covenant ) but by New way of the Spirit (New covenant ) through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to return to the whole "nothing that goes into a man will defile him" teaching from Jesus from Mark 7. To me, this clearly overthrows the food laws from the Law of Moses. Pork, for example, is a thing that could go into your mouth, so how is Jesus not overturning the food laws?

One extremely creative response is to argue that Jesus's listeners would not even consider that pork, for example, could even be conceived of food and is therefore entire out of the picture in the Mark 7 encounter. Well, that objection is undercut by the Old Testament teaching that, at some point in history, all living things were indeed understood to be food. So certainly, Jews would understand that pork is a food, albeit a forbidden food them under the law of Moses. In any event, this objection is not the subject of the present post.

Here is the objection I want to talk about: The Greek Septuagint very consistently uses a Greek word "akatharton" to refer to eating unclean animals and never uses the Greek word "koinos" to refer to the eating of such animals. In case you did not know, "koinos" is the word rendered as "defile" in Mark 7:15:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

You can probably see where this is going. The objector will say that if Jesus really were overturning the food laws, he would have used the word "akatharton" in Mark 7:15 since this, so the argument goes, is the word Jews used to referred to unclean animals. Furthermore, the objection is raised that in Acts 10:14:

But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy ("koinos") and unclean ("akatharton").

..... Jesus is contrasting these two words, further solidifying the argument that if, in Mark 7:15, He uses the word "koinos" he cannot possibly be referring to things that are "unclean" in the "akatharton" sense.

This actually sound reasonable at first glance, but let's dig into this a bit more.

Here is something from Romans 14 where the word "koinos" was used:

I know and am convinced [j]in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinos) in itself; but to the one who thinks something is [l]unclean, to that person it is [m]unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died

And there we have it - a text where context requires us to understand "koinos" as a reference to, yes, food. So, when, in Mark 7:15, Jesus refers to the fact that nothing that goes into a person's mouth does not "koinos" him, he certainly can, repeat can, be referring to food.

Now, if it were the case that "akatharton" was exclusively used in relation to a unclean food, the objection to my position that Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15 would perhaps have some strength: the objector could concede (and how could they not concede it?) that "koinois" can refer to food and still ask why would Jesus not, in Mark 7:15, use the word "akatharton", a word that was exclusively used to refer to the state of food? But, if you investigate, you will see Akatharton is frequently used to characterize things that are not food as unclean.

Now there is one more way to try to evade the common sense interpretation that Jesus is overturning the food laws in Mark 7:15. An objector could appeal to the distinction between "koinos" and "akatharton" - and I of course would not deny these are two different words - and assert that Jesus, in Mark, is talking about "defilement" in a sense that has nothing to do with the consumption of the unclean animals. For example they could argue that Jesus is repudiating the claim that the way the food is prepared is at issue here, not the actual food. Fine, so far so good.

However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

The problem should be clear - if Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by law, he certainly has given us the wrong explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

In conclusion, I see no purchase for any of these objections - Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15.

 

[Lulav]

I want to return to the whole "nothing that goes into a man will defile him" teaching from Jesus from Mark 7. To me, this clearly overthrows the food laws from the Law of Moses. Pork, for example, is a thing that could go into your mouth, so how is Jesus not overturning the food laws?

First think about his audience. He was eating with Pharisees along with his disciples. If he were indeed talking about them eating unclean animals there would have been an uproar from both sides.

Remember there are many places in the gospels that tell of the Pharisees looking for a way to accuse him of breaking the commandments because He was gaining more power than they.

Gasoline is a thing that could go into the mouth along with other noxious stuff, but he is speaking of the dirt here.
Dirt makes you unclean so the Pharisees taught, but Jesus said that the dirt didn't make you unclean. No one there was talking about the food and if they were talking about food it would not be pork because to a Jew pork was not a food.

One extremely creative response is to argue that Jesus's listeners would not even consider that pork, for example, could even be conceived of food and is therefore entire out of the picture in the Mark 7 encounter.

And that would be correct.

Well, that objection is undercut by the Old Testament teaching that, at some point in history, all living things were indeed understood to be food. So certainly, Jews would understand that pork is a food, albeit a forbidden food them under the law of Moses. In any event, this objection is not the subject of the present post.

The Torah had been in existence for over 1,000 years at that time. Despite being in the Diaspora and living among heathens they knew what was acceptable for God's chosen people to consider as food.

Here is the objection I want to talk about: The Greek Septuagint very consistently uses a Greek word "akatharton" to refer to eating unclean animals and never uses the Greek word "koinos" to refer to the eating of such animals. In case you did not know, "koinos" is the word rendered as "defile" in Mark 7:15:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

You can probably see where this is going. The objector will say that if Jesus really were overturning the food laws, he would have used the word "akatharton" in Mark 7:15 since this, so the argument goes, is the word Jews used to referred to unclean animals. Furthermore, the objection is raised that in Acts 10:14:

But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy ("koinos") and unclean ("akatharton").

..... Jesus is contrasting these two words, further solidifying the argument that if, in Mark 7:15, He uses the word "koinos" he cannot possibly be referring to things that are "unclean" in the "akatharton" sense.

This actually sound reasonable at first glance, but let's dig into this a bit more.

Here is something from Romans 14 where the word "koinos" was used:

I know and am convinced [j]in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinos) in itself; but to the one who thinks something is [l]unclean, to that person it is [m]unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died

And there we have it - a text where context requires us to understand "koinos" as a reference to, yes, food. So, when, in Mark 7:15, Jesus refers to the fact that nothing that goes into a person's mouth does not "koinos" him, he certainly can, repeat can, be referring to food.

Now, if it were the case that "akatharton" was exclusively used in relation to a unclean food, the objection to my position that Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15 would perhaps have some strength: the objector could concede (and how could they not concede it?) that "koinois" can refer to food and still ask why would Jesus not, in Mark 7:15, use the word "akatharton", a word that was exclusively used to refer to the state of food? But, if you investigate, you will see Akatharton is frequently used to characterize things that are not food as unclean.

Now there is one more way to try to evade the common sense interpretation that Jesus is overturning the food laws in Mark 7:15. An objector could appeal to the distinction between "koinos" and "akatharton" - and I of course would not deny these are two different words - and assert that Jesus, in Mark, is talking about "defilement" in a sense that has nothing to do with the consumption of the unclean animals. For example they could argue that Jesus is repudiating the claim that the way the food is prepared is at issue here, not the actual food. Fine, so far so good.

However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

The problem should be clear - if Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by law, he certainly has given us the wrong explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

In conclusion, I see no purchase for any of these objections - Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15.

Then your Jesus cannot be the awaited Messiah and you are still dead in your sins.

1 Peter 1​

but [you were actually purchased] with precious blood, like that of a [sacrificial] lamb unblemished and spotless, the priceless blood of Christ.​

And it kinda makes no sense that he would teach that going by what he said here:

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

Ask yourself, would he be least in His own Kingdom?

It is interesting that those participating in these threads have different objections and interpretations to make their gastronomic choices be pleasing to God.

Some believe these things changed:

During the Gospels times - thus before the Cross - taught by Jesus
After the Cross and resurrection
Quite some time after this, years even, they were 'progressive'


I've seen no one explain how the biological makeup of an unclean animal became 'clean' and the abomination no longer was one.

 

[expos4ever]

First think about his audience. He was eating with Pharisees along with his disciples. If he were indeed talking about them eating unclean animals there would have been an uproar from both sides.

Actually this line of reasoning is correct but it actually supports my view rather than challenging it. Note what the text says:

Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowd, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the parable he had just used

As you say, there would have been an uproar - this is why Jesus goes into the house to get away from a mob that would no doubt be enraged as you suggest if He were to overthrow the food laws. Once safely inside the house, Jesus makes the actual argument that clinches the case that He is overturning the food laws.

Gasoline is a thing that could go into the mouth along with other noxious stuff, but he is speaking of the dirt here.

Obvious begging the question - you cannot simply assume He is talking about dirt here.

Dirt makes you unclean so the Pharisees taught, but Jesus said that the dirt didn't make you unclean. No one there was talking about the food and if they were talking about food it would not be pork because to a Jew pork was not a food.

Again begging the question exactly as above. As for the argument that Jews would not consider pork to be food, this is an argument that falls to piece on analysis.

You are making the untenable move of trying to claim that the things prohibited by the kosher laws were not even considered to fall under the concept of "food" - a wildly implausible claim if ever there was one. I, as a vegan, consider meat to be "unclean" from a health perspective. Does this mean I do not consider it to be food? Of course not.

In any event, we know from Genesis that there was indeed a time when God gave pigs, etc. as, yes, food:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things

So even though the Law of Moses later restricted what you could eat, the concept of such things as food would certainly be there! If on Monday I am told I can eat hamburgers, they will be considered to be food by me. If on Tuesday, I am told that hamburgers defile me, they certainly do not cease from being food, they become a prohibited food.

Or look at this way. All the peoples around them ate pork. So the Jews would certainly have understood that pork was "food". Imagine how silly it would be for me, again as a vegan, to suggest the steaks are not food because I, in particular do not eat them. The fact that others eat them moves them into the category of food.

Finally, if they did not consider them to be food, why would God need to prohibit them in first place? Surely God did not need to tell the people "thou shalt not consume rocks" for the obvious reason that no sane person would consider rocks to be food. But God did need to tell them not to eat pork precisely because they considered pork to be a thing that could be eaten. That is, food.

 

[expos4ever]

The Torah had been in existence for over 1,000 years at that time. Despite being in the Diaspora and living among heathens they knew what was acceptable for God's chosen people to consider as food.

Are you suggesting that even though the Jews were steeped in the Old Testament scriptures, they had somehow "forgotten" that, a certain point in their past, God had declared all foods to Ok?

Again, you are forced into the very challenging position of having to say that Jews did not recognize that pork, for example, was considered to be "food" even though, for example, all their neighbours considered it to be food and it had indeed been food for them in the past. And you have to explain why God even needed to tell them not to eat in the first place (i.e., when the Law was given). If it wasn't considered to be food, it would never occur to them to eat it anyway.

Besides doesn't your very own argument eat its own tail? If pork was not considered to be food, why stop there? Why not say that allowed foods prepared the wrong way does not count as food either. Then you cannot make any sense whatsoever of what Jesus is saying in Mark 7.

 

[Dan Perez]

Mat 5:17 is the most quoted verse to "prove" that Jesus did away with the law and that believers today are not under the Mosaic moral law in the Old Testament. People today love to proclaim that believers are not under any rules because of God's "grace" and love. Yes, a free pass to sin and ask God for forgiveness and with a snap of God's finger, all is forgiven. Some even claim that believers need not ask forgiveness for any sin because Jesus's death on the cross covered all of our sins, past, present and future.

One again, these false teachings come from the traditions of men and are not found in Scripture.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.

As I have stated countless times, any time you read anything in the New Testament, you have to discover the Jewish meaning of what has been written down in our English translations. Scripture wasn't written in English nor did Jesus speak English. Who was Jesus speaking to? Not us who speak English today. He spoke Hebrew/Aramaic to Jewish people. He spoke to other Jews within a Jewish cultural context. Culture always determines the meaning of the words used. The two main concepts used in determining what things meant in ancient culture are studying the history and culture of the people, in that time era.

Just as the terms "bind" and "loose" were used in conjunction with the interpretation of Scripture, "destroy the Law and the prophets" and "fulfill" were also terms used when determining what Scripture taught. In the 1st century, if one rabbi thought that another rabbi was misinterpreting Scripture, he would tell the other rabbi, "You are destroying the law and the prophets." If a rabbi was believed to interpret Scripture correctly, he was said to be "fulfilling Scripture."

So, Jesus had communicated to the Jewish listeners: "Do not think I came to misinterpret Scripture. I came not to put forth false teaching but to teach the correct meaning of Scripture."

That is what the Jewish people understood Jesus to have said. If you get away from the false teaching practice of only reading certain verses and no further, Mat 5:18 clearly shows that heaven and earth will pass away until all things are accomplished. Guess what? "All things" won't be accomplished until Jesus returns, Mat 26:64, and separates the sheep from the goats, with the sheep being given eternal life and the goats being punished, Mat 25:31-46.

If you want to run to Rom 10:4, you need to know that instead of the verse reading that Jesus is the end of the law, the verse, properly translated will read, "For Christ is the GOAL/PURPOSE of the Law."

Do "thou shalt not murder, steal, commit adultery or bear false witness," still apply to believers today? Those are part of the Old Testament Law. Did Jesus do away with those commandments? The Mosaic Law instructed for God's people to be kind to strangers, to show mercy, to help out the poor and needy and honor thy father and mother. Are those a part of a believer's life today or did Jesus do away with them?
The Law needs to be looked at as instructions for the Jews then and believers today rather than a strict set of rules.

When Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, Mat 4:4, are believers today supposed to live that way? That instruction comes from Deut 8:3. Or how about, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," Mat 4:7? Does that apply today? It comes straight from Deut 6:16. What about "Thou shall worship the Lord thy God and him only, Mat 4:10? Jesus was quoting Deut 6:13. What about Mat 19:19, "Honour your father and mother, Ex 20:12 and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, Lev 19:18? What about what Paul wrote in Rom 12:19? He took this from Deut 32:35. Most of you know that Deuteronomy means a "re-telling or a re-giving" of the Law. The book of Deuteronomy is quoted over 60 times in the New Testament. The book of Romans has 30 direct quotes or references from the Old Testament. There are direct quotes, paraphrases or references to/from the Old Testament in every New Testament book!

If Jesus was going to do away with the law, why did he say;

Lk 11:28 Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.

John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me...

John 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words...

John 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love.

The huge majority of instructions in the New Testament come straight from the Old Testament. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate parts of Scripture; they are intertwined. The New is just a continuation of the story.

The best verse that really says the Israel and the Law of Moses were set aside are in Isa 6:1-18 , 2 Cor 13-15 and Acts 28:25-29 is DEFINITE proof that the OLD COVENANT has been set aside !!

dan p

 

[Clare73]

The best verse that really says the Israel and the Law of Moses were set aside are in Isa 6:1-18 , 2 Cor 13-15 and Acts 28:25-29 is DEFINITE proof that the OLD COVENANT has been set aside !!

It has been put away, and a new way, apart from law keeping, has been made to enter the Holy of Holies; i.e., by the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:19).

 

[LW97Nils]

Besides doesn't your very own argument eat its own tail? If pork was not considered to be food, why stop there? Why not say that allowed foods prepared the wrong way does not count as food either. Then you cannot make any sense whatsoever of what Jesus is saying in Mark 7.

We are not under the Levtiical food restrictions. Therefore, I agree.

 

[LW97Nils]

I've seen no one explain how the biological makeup of an unclean animal became 'clean' and the abomination no longer was one.

So your Bible is missing Genesis 9:3?

 

[Dan Perez]

It has been put away, and a new way, apart from law keeping, has been made to enter the Holy of Holies; i.e., by the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:19).

And you said that there a NEW WAY ? Be glad to see that verse , PLEASE ??

dan p

 

[Clare73]

And you said that there a NEW WAY ? Be glad to see that verse , PLEASE ??

I gave the location of the verse in my post.

Heb 10:19-20 - "Since we have confidence to enter the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus by a new (fresh) and living way opened for us through the curtain (literally torn by God at his death, Lk 23:45).

 

[ARBITER01]

Jesus fulfilled the law (for us the Believers) by being born under the law and keeping it.
This is how He "fulfilled it", and then died so that this fulfillment is an integral part of Redemption that is : "the Gift of Salvation" and "The Gift of Righteousness".

Exactly.

He died on the cross as the covenant victim so His new covenant would now stand in place of the old.

 

[Dan Perez]

Law is fulfilled Not by following the written code (Old covenant ) but by New way of the Spirit (New covenant ) through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I gave the location of the verse in my post.

Heb 10:19-20 - "Since we have confidence to enter the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus by a new (fresh) and living way opened for us through the curtain (literally torn by God at his death, Lk 23:45).

I read Luke 23:45 that the VEIL was rent in the midst , and I believe it . then what happened ?

In 2 Cor 3:13--15 the Law of Moses was set aside .

Acts 28 ---28 show why Israel was set aside !!

dan p