Matthew 5:17-18 "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" Does Fulfill mean "to end" or "to accomplish, complete"?

[JesusFollowerForever]

You've conflated the term "end" with "destroy" which is not the intended meaning by those who use it and is also a strawman. You've also failed to identify the similarities of outcome for "end" and "fulfill" or that they can be used to describe the same process. If a prophecy has been completed then is it not also ended? So your language is confusing.

what I see is that you've dichotomized law with fulfilled law that has led to its ending (we are no longer bound by it) and fulfilled law that still continues (the moral aspects). Then you've used this moral label to prop up certain laws. This is again a strawman.

The bible does not use these labels but in practice you're using them to show what we are bound by and what we are not bound by, effectively adding a non-biblical clause to Christ's words trying to expand and say what he really meant, vs what he actually said. I'm sure you'll justify it using various rhetoric but nothing that can confirm supposed unwritten declarion of what I imagine amounts to the 10 commandments. Somehow crossing out what Christ said and changing it to say the 10 commandments.

So who has given you these definitions? if you say we are not bound by ceremonial and sacrificial laws then who told you which laws are ceremonial and which are sacrificial that we are no longer under them? How do you define what is of moral laws and what is not of moral laws. labels aside, If we are to critically look at laws, then laws like the 10 commandments do not all best fit a moral framework.

laws regarding behaviour to each other can be called natural/univerally moral, essentially commandments 6-10. these laws we don't have to be told in order to understand them and they apply to all universally but generally they are pillars of morally and only address outward action not inward. Laws regarding our commitment to servitude fits a honor framework of law that can be called moral as well. commandments like the 1-3 fit this but also the 5th. the 5th is generally looked at as moral in regards to an outlook of "love your neighbour" but it in fact it is honor driven that cannot be universally applied.

In the ancient near east honor driven morality was often the highest order of morality, where in the modern west we look to fact driven morality as the highest; both can be called truth. It is of no surprise the 5th identifies a unique honor driven code outside of God. We are too not lie, steal, murder, etc... from our parents too but that is far more universally applied, yet for our parents they deserve a special sort of honor that can be contrasted by the honor given universally to others. what if by recounting the facts you dishonor your parents? What are you to do, lie or dishonor your parents? In the west we see facts synomous with truth and the highest form of morality so we don't lie (or say that's the best path) but in the ancient world honor was the highest so in that case they would do what they can to honor their parents, even if it meant exaggerating accounts. But honor is also morally driven so commandments 1-3 and commandments 5 are honor driven over a more universal morality of treating each other with civility: both are morally rooted.

This leaves the 4th commandment. the action of the 4th is to cease work to remember that God ceased work on the 7th day. This is not honor driven (although everything was honor driven then), nor is it a of civility towards others. The action of "ceasing" is declared as holy but more abstractly because the same action on another day would be considered lazy and injust. So it is not directly clear where it fits, the morally part of it can include simple obedience which is the same for the entire torah, we don't have to understand the commandments to keep them and the obedience part can still be a moral contribution and yes broadly honor driven then. But obedience is also applied to ceremonial and sacrificial laws as well (and every single law found in torah) so it's not a uniqueness that can help us identify it's moral components since all inherit the obedience factor. By instruction what is happening is a ritual practice that is repeated every sabbath and this makes it ceremonial by definition not moral in the sense of honor driven or in the sense of how we treat each other.

I suspect however you will protest calling the 4th ceremonial and again layer on the rhetoric but still without any biblical cause to separate laws like these or no biblical cause to call the 4th not ceremonial. just things like "finger of God" or "commandments of God" "Law of God" etc... but what you're really trying to say is the only laws God values is the 10, nothing else matters. I'm sure you'll reject this as well but in practice is this not what you're saying? What gives you the authority to say one part of the law is less important than another part of the law? I instead choose to accept Christ words, who tells us a heuristic approach to keeping law using the 2 greatest commandments (both of which are found outside of the 10) he then says all of the law and prophets hang upon these two. What he does not say is it sums up the 10 (which is a common knee jerk reaction) NT authors says it fulfills all of the law as well (not just the 10 but "all")

I see you've quoted from Galations despite pervious voiced issues you've had with Pauline theology. Since you've open the door to Pauline theology in Galations here is another passage in Galation Gal 5:14 "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So which "fulfilled" does this occupy? It's not end, because the passage is not about "ending" but it is about completing just though the action of this one commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

No need to cut up law and give it post-biblical labels, no need to call some laws universally moral when clearly they are still limited since they are broad moral pillars of physical action but do not address the heart. No need to call law ended, or destroyed, not kept or broken, or whatever other words you want to throw in here. I see only keeping law with lawful practice and it is "fulfilled". The law is complete through this one commandment and this is consistent with what Jesus says. So why desect law with a bias scalpel? No need to do anything to law, let's just call it torah and look at how Christ's tell's us to complete it.

thank you for your comments, I have edited the O.P. It was too long and repetitive and somewhat confusing I admit,

Blessings.

 

[Bob S]

If one was keeping the very first commandment, to have no other gods before Me, no one would be breaking anything you listed.

Is that really your point? Why then did God go on and list nine other commands to the Israelites?

Most are under the Ten like Jesus related divorce to adultery, slander, perjury is under lying , drug abuse, pornography, envy under covetness. There is not anything we can do that is not under one of the umbrella of the Ten Commandments the way Jesus told us how to keep them Mat 5:19-30 why it's God's perfect law converting the soul Psa 19:7

Your related words are only your opinion and a poor one at that. Certainly, the Laws God gave to Israel were perfect. God does not do anything halfway. That does not mean that new covenant Christians are required to observe all of the Laws God gave only to one nation, Israel.

 

[Leaf473]

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

Yes, keep the moral aspects of the Sabbath, not the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects

Blessings

You too!

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Yes, keep the moral aspects of the Sabbath, not the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects


You too!

Hi Leaf, could you clarify for me what the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects would be?

Blessings

 

[Leaf473]

Hi Leaf, could you clarify for me what the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects would be?

Blessings

I think a ritualistic aspect of the Sabbath would be that it starts at sunset on a particular day

Moral laws apply everywhere on Earth 24 hours a day

Blessings to you, too

 

[DamianWarS]

I think a ritualistic aspect of the Sabbath would be that it starts at sunset on a particular day

Moral laws apply everywhere on Earth 24 hours a day

Blessings to you, too

What then is the moral aspect? (asking for a friend)

 

[Leaf473]

What then is the moral aspect? (asking for a friend)

I think the moral aspect of a Sabbath would be to rest

When we work 7 days a week, we are saying that we don't think God will provide for us in the end

Along with that, the commandment says to work six days a week

So it's not that things magically appear, it's that God has set up a system

Matthew 6 talks about this See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them

Deuteronomy 28 It shall happen, if you shall listen diligently to the Lord your God’s voice, to observe to do all his commandments which I command you today, that he will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
All these blessings will come upon you, and overtake you, if you listen to his voice
You shall be blessed in the fruit of your body, the fruit of your ground, the fruit of your animals, the increase of your livestock, and the young of your flock

Did I answer your friend's question?

 

[timothyu]

I think the moral aspect of a Sabbath would be to rest

Is not the day about Him? His day of rest that we are to respect and not make a bunch of noise and stuff. I'll bet even wars stopped for a day. We are to remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy... meaning about Him, not us. Respect for our Creator.

 

[Leaf473]

Is not the day about Him? His day of rest that we are to respect and not make a bunch of noise and stuff. I'll bet even wars stopped for a day. We are to remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy... meaning about Him, not us. Respect for our Creator.

That's fine if a person wants to take that approach To me, it looks like doing something different beginning at sunset on a certain day is a ritual. If a person wants to honor God in a ritual, that's fine

This is the day the Lord has made
We will rejoice and be glad in it Psalm 118

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

I think a ritualistic aspect of the Sabbath would be that it starts at sunset on a particular day

Moral laws apply everywhere on Earth 24 hours a day

Blessings to you, too

Dear leaf, IT is not only a question of morality but obedience for this commandment. the only one that comes with a blessing, it starts with ''remember'' see exodus 16 where GOD tested the israelites to see if they would obey, not blind obedience for sake of the letter of the law but because we love god with all our might and trust in him.

Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments!"

BLessings.

 

[timothyu]

That's fine if a person wants to take that approach

And therein lies the problem that started in the Garden when mankind put their will ahead of the Will of God, the original sin, and took it upon themselves what to do for themselves. You go rest God, but we've got other things we want to do.

 

[Leaf473]

Dear leaf, IT is not only a question of morality but obedience for this commandment.

Dear JesusFollower, in the OP, you wrote

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

You also asked me to clarify

...could you clarify for me what the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects would be?

Now at this point, it looks to me like you're talking about a more general idea of obedience to Commandments

Jesus said "if you love me keep my commandments!"

Do you want to move our discussion away from morality, rituals, and ceremonies? Do you want to focus on obedience to Commandments instead?

Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
sweet to the soul, and health to the bones Proverbs 16

 

[Leaf473]

And therein lies the problem that started in the Garden when mankind put their will ahead of the Will of God, the original sin, and took it upon themselves what to do for themselves. You go rest God, but we've got other things we want to do.

The op says this

While the ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Law were fulfilled in Christ, the moral aspects of the Law, which reflect God’s nature, continue to be important for Christians today.

I use the fairly literal public domain world English Bible. The word ritualistic doesn't occur.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Ritualistic

www.biblegateway.com

Do you get similar results from a translation that you like?

If so, does separating ritualistic aspects of the law from moral aspects go along with "took it upon themselves what to do for themselves"?

 

[Bob S]

In Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (NKJV)​

Jesus made it very clear: He did not come to cancel or end the Law. Instead, He came to fulfill or accomplish it, to live it out perfectly, to reveal its true meaning, and to bring it to its intended purpose. He also warned that nothing from the Law would pass away until heaven and earth are gone and everything is fulfilled. This shows that the Law still stands, especially the moral commandments of God, such as the Ten Commandments.

By suggesting, "nothing from the Law would pass away until heaven and earth are gone and everything is fulfilled", you have just shot yourself in the foot. You have tried to modify that statement with the word "especially" and all can see that your statement is in error. In your previous posts you have indeed explained that parts of the Law have ended. You cannot have it both ways JFF. Either the whole law has ended or the obligation to observe all of it is still required. Jesus modified His statement about the Earth passing away with the words "UNTIL all is fulfilled".

You argue that the Law ended with Jesus’ death, and use writings from Paul to support this idea, quoting verses such as 2 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Galatians 3. However, these must be read carefully and must never be used to cancel or contradict what Jesus clearly said.

In other words, your belief that Matt 5 is not telling us that the Law has ended means that Paul was one big liar and yet you take the liberty to quote him when it fits your needs.

In 2 Corinthians 3:6–11, Paul writes:

​

“[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (NKJV) ​

Paul here compares the old covenant, written on stone, with the new covenant written by the Spirit. He calls the old system a “ministry of death” and “condemnation” because it revealed sin and brought guilt without giving power to overcome it. But he still calls it glorious.

For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (NKJV)
He still calls it glorious???? I guess you missed the word was which makes your thought void.

The new covenant brings life and righteousness through the Holy Spirit, not by replacing the law, but by writing it on the heart. This agrees with the promises of God in the Old Testament, such as:​

“I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.” (Ezekiel 36:27, NKJV)​

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.” (Jeremiah 31:33, NKJV)​

Yes, the Law of Love.

In Ephesians 2:14–15, Paul writes:

“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” (NKJV)​

This teaching from Paul, is explaining that Jesus removed the separation between Jews and Gentiles by removing certain laws—called “commandments contained in ordinances.” These refer to ceremonial and ritual laws, like circumcision and purity rules, which had separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Jesus Himself never spoke of these things as being abolished; this is Paul’s way of interpreting what Jesus did through His death.

Matt 5 states that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law. Ordinances were part of the Law. Actually, the main thing that separated Jews from Gentiles was the Sabbath, feast Sabbaths and new moon celebrations and circumcision. Circumsision was a law and had nothing to do with any ordinance.

Jesus never said He came to end ordinances or rituals to unite the nations. Instead, He taught that He was sent to gather the lost sheep of Israel and also spoke of other sheep (Gentiles) who would hear His voice and become one flock under one Shepherd:

What He did to unite Jews and Gentiles was to remove the barrier. The law was that barrier. Jesus brought the Law to and end at Calvary where He ratified the new covenant with His own blood. The new covenant is not the old one warmed over like some try to make us believe.

“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16, NKJV)​

In Colossians 2:14–17, Paul writes:

“…having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (NKJV)​

Again, this is Paul’s voice, not Jesus’. Paul is speaking about the record of our sins and the ceremonial laws that pointed forward to Christ. These included yearly feasts, food offerings, and special sabbath days connected to the festivals—not the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments.

Paul didn't stutter. Col2: 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. He named the things that the false teachers were trying to judge Gentiles for not observing Sabbath feasts, new moon celebrations and the weekly Sabbath.

Special Sabbaths connected to the festivals??? You have to be kidding. Where on Earth did you come up with that one?

Paul says these were shadows—symbols that were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus, however, never said the Sabbath was a shadow.

Wrong, Col2:16 So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days (holy days were called Sabbaths) or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. Please name some of the Sabbaths connected to feast Sabbaths.

In fact, He said:

​

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27–28, NKJV)​

Jesus taught that the Sabbath was made as a gift for all people, not just for the Jews, and that He Himself is Lord of it—not to destroy it, but to show how it should truly be kept.

If the Sabbath was made for ALL mankind I wonder why many nations still have no idea of the old covenant Sabbath that was given to only one nation?

In Galatians 3:19, Paul writes:

“What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.” (NKJV)​

Paul is explaining that the law was added later because of sin—until Christ, the Seed, would come. He is referring again to the ceremonial laws given after the promise to Abraham. These were temporary and pointed toward the coming Messiah. But Paul’s meaning can be misunderstood if someone thinks he is saying all of God’s law ended. That would directly contradict Jesus’ words.

Actually, the mistake is your interpretation of the word Law. There is absolutely no indication that the Law in Gal3:19 only meant ceremonial. That is concocted and denies Jesus words that told the Jews that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law until ALL is fulfilled. All of the law or nothing. You can't have it both ways.

To be clear: Jesus never taught that the law would end when He died. He said the opposite—that until heaven and earth pass away, nothing from the Law would disappear.

.....until all is fulfilled. What did Jesus come t do. He came to FULFIL the Law and the prophets. He ended the prophecies about His coming and likewise He ended the old covenant and its Law.

Paul’s writings must therefore be understood in light of Jesus’ teachings, not the other way around. Even Peter warned us about this:

Jesus came to the Jews under the old covenant Laws. The new covenant was yet to be ratified by Jesus own blood at Calvary. He couldn't teach something that was not yet ratified

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15, NKJV)​

And that is the final authority!

Funny He didn't say keep the ten commandments. Jesus command for all mankind is to Love others as e loves us.


...

 

[timothyu]

Jesus command for all mankind is to Love others as e loves us.

More importantly the first commandment, to put God's will ahead of our own, especially in daily life

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

By suggesting, "nothing from the Law would pass away until heaven and earth are gone and everything is fulfilled", you have just shot yourself in the foot. You have tried to modify that statement with the word "especially" and all can see that your statement is in error. In your previous posts you have indeed explained that parts of the Law have ended. You cannot have it both ways JFF. Either the whole law has ended or the obligation to observe all of it is still required. Jesus modified His statement about the Earth passing away with the words "UNTIL all is fulfilled".

In other words, your belief that Matt 5 is not telling us that the Law has ended means that Paul was one big liar and yet you take the liberty to quote him when it fits your needs.

For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (NKJV)
He still calls it glorious???? I guess you missed the word was which makes your thought void.


Yes, the Law of Love.

Matt 5 states that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law. Ordinances were part of the Law. Actually, the main thing that separated Jews from Gentiles was the Sabbath, feast Sabbaths and new moon celebrations and circumcision. Circumsision was a law and had nothing to do with any ordinance.

What He did to unite Jews and Gentiles was to remove the barrier. The law was that barrier. Jesus brought the Law to and end at Calvary where He ratified the new covenant with His own blood. The new covenant is not the old one warmed over like some try to make us believe.

Paul didn't stutter. Col2: 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. He named the things that the false teachers were trying to judge Gentiles for not observing Sabbath feasts, new moon celebrations and the weekly Sabbath.

Special Sabbaths connected to the festivals??? You have to be kidding. Where on Earth did you come up with that one?

Wrong, Col2:16 So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days (holy days were called Sabbaths) or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. Please name some of the Sabbaths connected to feast Sabbaths.

If the Sabbath was made for ALL mankind I wonder why many nations still have no idea of the old covenant Sabbath that was given to only one nation?

Actually, the mistake is your interpretation of the word Law. There is absolutely no indication that the Law in Gal3:19 only meant ceremonial. That is concocted and denies Jesus words that told the Jews that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law until ALL is fulfilled. All of the law or nothing. You can't have it both ways.

.....until all is fulfilled. What did Jesus come t do. He came to FULFIL the Law and the prophets. He ended the prophecies about His coming and likewise He ended the old covenant and its Law.

Jesus came to the Jews under the old covenant Laws. The new covenant was yet to be ratified by Jesus own blood at Calvary. He couldn't teach something that was not yet ratified


Funny He didn't say keep the ten commandments. Jesus command for all mankind is to Love others as e loves us.


...

No way to talk to you, so lets leave it as it is.
Blessings Bob.

 

[timothyu]

The Law is simply following the Will of God rather than the will of man. That certainly won't pass away. As a matter of fact it is the will of man that will pass away, and apparently they don't like the idea.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

The Law is simply following the Will of God rather than the will of man. That certainly won't pass away. As a matter of fact it is the will of man that will pass away, and apparently they don't like the idea.

@Bob S
The Apostle Paul’s writing style is known for being theologically rich and often quite complex. He writes with deep passion, frequently using rhetorical questions, contrasts, and dense arguments to make his points. His letters are rooted in the historical and religious context of first-century Judaism and the Greco-Roman world, which can make them difficult for modern readers to fully grasp without background knowledge. One of the areas where this complexity often leads to misinterpretation is Paul’s discussion of the Law, particularly the Law of Moses, and the commandments.

Paul often contrasts the Law with faith, grace, or life in the Spirit. These contrasts are sometimes mistaken as outright rejections of the Law itself. However, Paul’s issue is not with the Law as God’s righteous standard, but with the misuse of the Law as a means of earning justification or righteousness. In his writings, the word "Law" (from the Greek nomos) can carry multiple meanings. It may refer specifically to the Mosaic Law, to legalistic interpretations and applications of it, to a general principle of order, or even to Roman law. Without understanding which meaning is intended, readers can easily misread Paul as abolishing the Law altogether.

Paul’s tone can also be forceful, especially in letters like Galatians, where he addresses the dangers of legalism. His passionate defense of salvation by grace through faith can make it seem as if he is denouncing the Law completely, when in fact he is opposing its use as a path to salvation, not denying its value in guiding righteous living under the new covenant.

One example of a verse that can seem to suggest the death or obsolescence of the Law is Romans 7:6 in the New King James Version: “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” On the surface, this sounds as if the Law is no longer relevant. However, Paul is actually saying that believers have been set free from the Law as a system of condemnation and obligation. Instead of trying to earn righteousness through the Law, Christians are now called to live by the Spirit, who enables them to fulfill the righteousness that the Law pointed to.

As Peter wrote, Paul is indeed difficult to understand and it is why I almost never quote Him for matters of the law. I hope some will understand one day. If only they could read Paul keeping in mind that what Jesus said is true and final, they would understand that the Commandments still stand today and forever.

Blessings

 

[timothyu]

If only they could read Paul keeping in mind that what Jesus said is true and final, they would understand that the Commandments still stand today and forever.

Exactly. Paul was supposed to be speaking for Jesus and not himself. The later Gentile church on the other hand, had its own ideas about that when building the church in their image. Unlike Jesus, a total deviation from Abrahamic faith

 

[Bob S]

@Bob S
The Apostle Paul’s writing style is known for being theologically rich and often quite complex. He writes with deep passion, frequently using rhetorical questions, contrasts, and dense arguments to make his points. His letters are rooted in the historical and religious context of first-century Judaism and the Greco-Roman world, which can make them difficult for modern readers to fully grasp without background knowledge. One of the areas where this complexity often leads to misinterpretation is Paul’s discussion of the Law, particularly the Law of Moses, and the commandments.

Paul often contrasts the Law with faith, grace, or life in the Spirit. These contrasts are sometimes mistaken as outright rejections of the Law itself. However, Paul’s issue is not with the Law as God’s righteous standard, but with the misuse of the Law as a means of earning justification or righteousness. In his writings, the word "Law" (from the Greek nomos) can carry multiple meanings. It may refer specifically to the Mosaic Law, to legalistic interpretations and applications of it, to a general principle of order, or even to Roman law. Without understanding which meaning is intended, readers can easily misread Paul as abolishing the Law altogether.

Paul’s tone can also be forceful, especially in letters like Galatians, where he addresses the dangers of legalism. His passionate defense of salvation by grace through faith can make it seem as if he is denouncing the Law completely, when in fact he is opposing its use as a path to salvation, not denying its value in guiding righteous living under the new covenant.

One example of a verse that can seem to suggest the death or obsolescence of the Law is Romans 7:6 in the New King James Version: “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” On the surface, this sounds as if the Law is no longer relevant. However, Paul is actually saying that believers have been set free from the Law as a system of condemnation and obligation. Instead of trying to earn righteousness through the Law, Christians are now called to live by the Spirit, who enables them to fulfill the righteousness that the Law pointed to.

As Peter wrote, Paul is indeed difficult to understand and it is why I almost never quote Him for matters of the law. I hope some will understand one day. If only they could read Paul keeping in mind that what Jesus said is true and final, they would understand that the Commandments still stand today and forever.

Blessings

Hi JFF, one thing I would like to know, is your post your own words or are they copy and paste?

Whoever wrote the post has not taken into consideration that Jesus came to fulfil the Law. The Law He had to have meant it was the ten commandments and all of the other laws He lived by.` Matt5: 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear,( a metaphor) not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Until every part of the Law is accomplished.

I cannot find any of the Bible scholars that have written revisions to the Bible that have isolated out the meaning of Law. No one has taken Rom7 verse 6 and tried to make it say something diametrically opposed to what all the versions telling us. Wouldn't you think some revisionist would see the same as the meaning you wrote?

All of the Law was part of the covenant God made with Israel. That covenant ended because Israel violated it over and over. Jesus efore the foundation of he Earth had a plan to save mankind, so the covenant made with Israel was only temporary just as Paul wrote in 2Cor 3 about the 10 commandments written on stone.. The KJV tells us they were done away. Do you think those words were theologically rich and often quite complex?