"The Law is for the Jews."

[HARK!]

I don't read Hebrew nor do I translate it. What is a conundrum is that every translation below says new. Surely one of the would catch the falsehood of the rest and agree with you and Strongs. I surely do believe it is a new covenant because the Sinai covenant according to Heb 8 is obsolete. I care less where it is written, the fact is we are not under it. All Strong's this and that doesn't give you the tools to win the debate.
KJ21
“Behold, the days come,” saith the Lord, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
ASV
Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
AMP
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and with the house of Judah (the Southern Kingdom),
AMPC
Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
BRG
¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
CSB
“Look, the days are coming”—this is the Lord’s declaration—“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
CEB
The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
CJB
It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, violated my covenant, even though I, for my part, was a husband to them,” says Adonai.
CEV
The Lord said: The time will surely come when I will make a new agreement with the people of Israel and Judah.
DARBY
Behold, days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
DRA
Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
ERV
This is what the Lord said, “The time is coming when I will make a new agreement with the family of Israel and with the family of Judah.
EHV
Yes, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
ESV
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
ESVUK
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
EXB
“Look, the ·time is [L days are] coming,” says the Lord, “when I will ·make [L cut] a new ·agreement [covenant; treaty] with the ·people [L house] of Israel and the ·people [L house] of Judah.
GNV
¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
GW
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new promise  to Israel and Judah.
GNT
The Lord says, “The time is coming when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
HCSB
“Look, the days are coming”—this is the Lord’s declaration—“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
ICB
“Look, the time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new agreement. It will be with the people of Israel and the people of Judah.
ISV
“Look, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I’ll make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
JUB
Behold, the days come, said the LORD, in which I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob and with the house of Judah:
KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
AKJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
LEB
Look, the days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
TLB
The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new contract with the people of Israel and Judah.
MSG
“That’s right. The time is coming when I will make a brand-new covenant with Israel and Judah. It won’t be a repeat of the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant even though I did my part as their Master.” God’s Decree.
MEV
Surely, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
NOG
“The days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will make a new promise to Israel and Judah.
NABRE
See, days are coming—oracle of the Lord—when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
NASB
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
NASB1995
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
NCB
The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
NCV
“Look, the time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new agreement with the people of Israel and the people of Judah.
NET
“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
NIRV
“The days are coming,” announces the Lord. “I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel. I will also make it with the people of Judah.
NIV
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
NIVUK
‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
NKJV
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
NLV
The days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a New Way of Worship for the Jews and those of the family group of Judah.
NLT
“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
NRSV
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
NRSVA
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
NRSVACE
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
NRSVCE
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
OJB
Hinei, the days come, saith Hashem, that I will cut a Brit Chadasha with Bais Yisroel, and with Bais Yehudah;
RSV
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
RSVCE
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
TLV
not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they broke My covenant, though I was a husband to them.” it is a declaration of Adonai.
VOICE
Look, the days are coming when I will bring about a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
WEB
“Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
WYC
Lo! days come, saith the Lord, and I shall smite a new bond of peace to the house of Israel, and to the house of Judah; (Lo! days shall come, saith the Lord, and I shall strike a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah
YLT
Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant,

What is so beautiful about the new covenant is that through Jesus all can benefit from it.

 

[Bob S]

Does complete mean abolish, or complete? Let's ask Yeshua:

"You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete."

Heaven and earth are still here...

And be careful with that metaphor stuff. If you sprinkle too much of it on the Bible you get theistic preterist evolutionary all-saved episcocatholicoxyanity, a.k.a, worldly Christianity.

Romans 3:31

Interesting how we can look at the same verse and come to an entirely different conclusion. Your last sentence seems to be a chastisement of me and millions like me who have come to the same opinion.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Yes, Heaven and Earth are still here. Not even one dot can be removed from the Law. Does that mean Israel and converts are still under the Levitical priesthood? There has to be place for God to dwell and the fires for animal sacrifices kept burning. Tithes of grain, produce and animals have to fill the storehouse. Every law, every dot, given to Israel must be kept by the Israelites just as they were given by God and written in the book of the Law at Sinai. Unless we are Jewish we would not be subject to all of those requirements, that is unless one becomes a convert.

Is that what Jesus really meant for Jews in Matt5:17-18? Well, if He did then all the Jews and converts are still failing and might I add miserably.

Of course, Gentiles are and always have been free from the Laws given only to Israel. The fact is Jesus came to this Earth to save all mankind. While here He did give mankind a new commandment that Israel didn't have.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." JN13:34

That command is for all mankind and I challenge it to anyone that tells me I am lawless. No one is lawless if they believe in Jesus and love others as He commanded. You claim to be Torah keeper and I claim to be Jesus keeper. Good luck on abiding by all of the over 600 laws that pertain to those under Torah law. Maybe you should take another look at what Matt5:16-17 are telling us. Maybe Jesus did use the phrase "until Heaven and Earth disappear" as a metaphor. Just maybe Jesus did fulfil the Law, bringing it to an end, like He said He came to do. Maybe no one is under those 600 laws. Maybe Love is the universal law for all to obey. Maybe the Israelites and converts can let the fires die out. Seems like they already have.

 

[expos4ever]

Does complete mean abolish, or complete? Let's ask Yeshua:

"You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete."

Heaven and earth are still here...

Do you have a response to my argument set forth in post 77? There I make a substantive argument for a metaphorical interpretation.

About this whole "fulfill" vs "abolish" thing. It is quite clear that there are indeed some settings where "fulfilment" or "completion" of a thing X entails X coming to an end. If I "complete" or "fulfill" the requirements for a Bachelor's degree, do I continue to go to college? No, my college days are over.

So it should be clear that it is at least plausible that talk of fulfilling or completing the Law could entail bringing its time of application to an end.

Those who argue that the Law persists press strongly on Jesus' statement that He did not come to abolish the Law. These people argue that if you do not abolish it, the Law must still be in force.

I suggest these people are not respecting the nuances of language. If I get on plane in New York and fly to Paris, my trip ends when I have completed it (or fulfilled it - like the college degree example).

Yet no reasonable person would say the trip has been "abolished". In other words, the concept of "abolition" appears to exclude situations where the thing putatively "abolished" has in fact been "fulfilled" or "completed" in sense conveyed by my examples. So it is entirely plausible that the Law has been "fulfilled" and come to an end, without being "abolished".

As other posters have pointed, there are many other reasons to believe the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end.

 

[expos4ever]

This is not very convincing. You are expecting us to believe your view on how a word should be translated over the view of a broad range of experts. And the implication of this video is that all these experts are deliberately mistranslating specifically because they know the mistranslation will be more palatable.

This seems exceedingly far-fetched - you could use such an argument to challenge any finding arrived at by experts that lines up with what people "want". We all want to believe that we can lessen our risk of heart disease by lifestyle changes. When the experts tells that, yes, we can reduce our risk do we discount their view as inaccurate simply because we want it to be true?

 

[daq]

How can one read this text and think that the Law of Moses has been set aside, given that heaven and earth are still here?

There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Do you have a response to my argument set forth in post 77? There I make a substantive argument for a metaphorical interpretation.

About this whole "fulfill" vs "abolish" thing. It is quite clear that there are indeed some settings where "fulfilment" or "completion" of a thing X entails X coming to an end. If I "complete" or "fulfill" the requirements for a Bachelor's degree, do I continue to go to college? No, my college days are over.

So it should be clear that it is at least plausible that talk of fulfilling or completing the Law could entail bringing its time of application to an end.

Those who argue that the Law persists press strongly on Jesus' statement that He did not come to abolish the Law. These people argue that if you do not abolish it, the Law must still be in force.

I suggest these people are not respecting the nuances of language. If I get on plane in New York and fly to Paris, my trip ends when I have completed it (or fulfilled it - like the college degree example).

Yet no reasonable person would say the trip has been "abolished". In other words, the concept of "abolition" appears to exclude situations where the thing putatively "abolished" has in fact been "fulfilled" or "completed" in sense conveyed by my examples. So it is entirely plausible that the Law has been "fulfilled" and come to an end, without being "abolished".

As other posters have pointed, there are many other reasons to believe the time of the Law of Moses has come to an end.

Okay, since it has already been established from the scripture in this thread that both the Gospel and the promise are to each in his or her own appointed times, I ask, when was it that your heavens and earth passed away?

And if your heavens and earth have not passed away then you know what that means according to even a metaphorical understanding of the statements in Matthew 5:17-18. Therefore you are under a schoolmaster, tutors, and stewards: Torah, Prophets, and Writings, until your heavens and earth pass away.

Hasten the day!

 

[expos4ever]

Okay, since it has already been established from the scripture in this thread that both the Gospel and the promise are to each in his or her own appointed times, I ask, when was it that your heavens and earth passed away?

I proposed an answer in my first post - at the cross.

And if your heavens and earth have not passed away then you know what that means according to even a metaphorical understanding of the statements in Matthew 5:17-18. Therefore you are under a schoolmaster, tutors, and stewards: Torah, Prophets, and Writings, until your heavens and earth pass away.

Why? I do not follow your reasoning.

Hasten the day! [/QUOTE]

 

[daq]

I proposed an answer in my first post - at the cross.


Why? I do not follow your reasoning.

So you do not believe what is written concerning these very same things in 2 Peter 3? I hinted at it when I said hasten the day.

2 Peter 3:5-16 KJV
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Even Paul preaches the same according to the context above: you therefore do not even understand the writings of Paul, which is why you would omit this passage in your metaphoric interpretation of the Matthew statement. You are using unfair balances and scales in a special pleading argument so as to have your own interpretation be true in a single passage of scripture while ignoring the same context, teachings, and scripture reasoning in other passages of scripture.

Either make the tree good, or make it evil: lukewarm is unacceptable to the Master, (as he states to the assembly of Laodicea in the Apocalypse). The passage above herein refutes your belief regarding the Matthew statement unless you see it also as applying to each in his or her own appointed times: that's the only way it works, unless you simply claim like most others that it just hasn't happened yet, and therefore, according to the Matthew statement the Torah and Prophets have not passed away because the heavens and the earth have not passed away.

The 2 Peter passage above prevents you from rightfully saying what you say because it is abundantly clear that the audience and reader are being exhorted to prepare and be prepared and even hasten exactly what you say the Messiah has already done for you.

 

[Bob S]

I propose from reading the Old Testament that since Israelites and I will add converts kept breaking the Sinai covenant and the bases of the covenant was conditional, conditional based on whether the chosen followed all the laws of the covenant. Of course they didn't so they themselves abolished the covenant. To avoid the death sentence that was reality for breaking the Laws of the covenant (see 2Cor3:7) a new and better covenant with better laws and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gave Israelites a second chance. Also, it is apparent that Israel didn't claim the promise given to Abraham.
Gal3:8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

 

[HARK!]

This is not very convincing. You are expecting us to believe your view on how a word should be translated over the view of a broad range of experts. And the implication of this video is that all these experts are deliberately mistranslating specifically because they know the mistranslation will be more palatable.

This seems exceedingly far-fetched - you could use such an argument to challenge any finding arrived at by experts that lines up with what people "want". We all want to believe that we can lessen our risk of heart disease by lifestyle changes. When the experts tells that, yes, we can reduce our risk do we discount their view as inaccurate simply because we want it to be true?

(CLV) Ezk 11:19
Then I will give them another heart, And a new (חדשה) spirit (Ruach) shall I bestow within them; I will take away the heart of stone from their flesh, And I will give them a heart of flesh,

So according to the doctrine of your "experts;" do you believe that there is more than one Ruach HaKodesh; and that there was one created, that was not in the beginning (like YHWH's word, his Torah)?



(CLV) Eph 4:4
one body and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling;

Which one?

The mental acrobatics that the anomians will perform to justify their doctrine, boggles my mind.

 

[Acts29]

Hi Acts29, I would like to know, after reading the Old Testament, how one could believe Israel has never broken the covenant?

Hi. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you here.
To answer your question, all the scriptures about Israel's breaking of the covenant are within prophecies that have not yet come to pass. Therefore, the covenant remains until then.

I would also like to know why Jesus came to this Earth, fulfilled the laws of the covenant He lived under and ratified the everlasting covenant for ALL mankind if the ones He came to save are still under the curse of the old covenant? Paul wrote to the mixed believers in Galatia calling them foolish for allowing Jews who didn't accept Jesus's new covenant to convert them back under the Law.
3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Jesus redeemed us from what? Paul was a Jew, "us" were/are Jews. It couldn't have been gentiles because they were never given the Law.

I believe the confusion lies in the different uses of the term "law" in the NT. There are three different uses with different meanings.
First, and most often understood, is the meaning you are employing in the Galatians passage above, the "works of the law." This "law" is about the rules and ordinances Moses gave, as I think you understand it. That is the law Christ redeemed His people from. The unbelievers of Israel were not redeemed from the law, obviously. Therefore, the law remains for them.

Second, the term "law" and "scripture" are the same and interchanged. For example, Jesus quotes from Psalms calling it the law:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?

Again, Jesus refers to the law simply as scripture:
Matthew 5:18 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.
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

Heaven and earth will not pass away until all scripture is fulfilled! That includes Ezekiel 40-48 and countless other promises made to Israel, not the church. When Jesus said He came to fulfill the "law," He was simply saying He came to fulfill scripture, which He did. He is also coming again to fulfill more of it until every single jot or tittle is fulfilled.

Third, the use of the term "law" in the NT also at times refers to God's moral law that has applied to all people from the beginning of creation. This is the righteousness of the law that Paul was talking about.

In conclusion, one cannot apply the wrong application of the term "law" in the wrong place. Otherwise, we end up with unhelpful contradictions and 2000 years of church infighting. Jesus came to fulfill scripture and will come again to fulfill more scripture. Jesus redeemed believers from the ordinances of Moses with a new blood covenant. The unbelievers of Israel are still under the curse of the law of bondage because they did not believe. Nothing Jesus said or did put an end to the bondage of the unbeliever in Israel. It is impossible for the word of God to fail, including these:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever

Paul also wrote in 2Cor 3 the following:
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (My study Bible says: "In this fascinating letter to a multiethnic church.... So, "us" would include Jews and gentiles as ministers of the new covenant.)
In the verses below Paul writes that the Jews are no longer under the ten commandments as being the guide, gentiles never were under the covenant, and the words of that covenant which were the ten, commandments. We all have received the gift Jesus left with us before He ascended into Heaven, the Holy Spirit. The verses also tell us that those ten commandments were transitory. Transitory means temporary. Temporary certainly is not everlasting now is it?
The Greater Glory of the New Covenant
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

This is a glimpse of my understanding, I welcome your response.

I somewhat covered the answer to this above. Only the ordinances of Moses were transitory, not the entirety of scripture. Being washed in the blood of Jesus in the better covenant is certainly preferred. However, that does not delete the covenant made with unbelieving Israel. Consider the following passage:

Matthew 19:28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life
Luke 22:28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

In the regeneration when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, those who followed Jesus will sit at His table in His kingdom judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This can only apply to those who followed Jesus, and one cannot follow Him without first believing in Him. Therefore, the twelve tribes of Israel must be unbelievers. Think about that. If only those who follow Jesus are saved, there is no one left to rule and reign over in the kingdom.

 

[Bob S]

Hi. Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you here.
To answer your question, all the scriptures about Israel's breaking of the covenant are within prophecies that have not yet come to pass. Therefore, the covenant remains until then.



I believe the confusion lies in the different uses of the term "law" in the NT. There are three different uses with different meanings.
First, and most often understood, is the meaning you are employing in the Galatians passage above, the "works of the law." This "law" is about the rules and ordinances Moses gave, as I think you understand it. That is the law Christ redeemed His people from. The unbelievers of Israel were not redeemed from the law, obviously. Therefore, the law remains for them.

Second, the term "law" and "scripture" are the same and interchanged. For example, Jesus quotes from Psalms calling it the law:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’?

Again, Jesus refers to the law simply as scripture:
Matthew 5:18 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.
Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

Heaven and earth will not pass away until all scripture is fulfilled! That includes Ezekiel 40-48 and countless other promises made to Israel, not the church. When Jesus said He came to fulfill the "law," He was simply saying He came to fulfill scripture, which He did. He is also coming again to fulfill more of it until every single jot or tittle is fulfilled.

Sorry friend, I believe you are misguided. No place does it indicate Jesus came to fulfill, the broad term, scripture. He came to fulfill the law. He didn't indicate part of it. How do you account for His saying not one jot or one tittle can be removed from the law? Would not that mean 613 commands if your argument is that Jesus didn't fulfil the law He said He came to do? Where do we find the scripture telling us which ones of the 613 that He did fulfill? Do you realize the ten commandments were also written in the book of the law? Please explain how you came to the conclusion you did. To me it is confusion.

Third, the use of the term "law" in the NT also at times refers to God's moral law that has applied to all people from the beginning of creation. This is the righteousness of the law that Paul was talking about.

Moral law??? Where is that term used in scripture? Are not all of the laws God gave to Israel moral verses being immoral? Some of His laws to Israel were ceremonial such as the feast Sabbaths, new moon Sabbaths and their weekly Sabbaths.

I somewhat covered the answer to this above. Only the ordinances of Moses were transitory, not the entirety of scripture. Being washed in the blood of Jesus in the better covenant is certainly preferred. However, that does not delete the covenant made with unbelieving Israel. Consider the following passage:

I don't believe anyone has ever indicated "the entirety of scripture" was transitory. Where did that come from, your imagination?

Lets start with the easiest. You stated 'Only the ordinances of Moses were transitory, not the entirety of scripture." Have you not read 2Cor3: ( some versions use the term transitory. I used the KJV which says done away. Either way the ten are no longer our guide, that is unless you don't believe Jesus who instructed Paul in what he wrote.)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

The subject was what was written on stones that was glorious, the ten commandments Moses carried off the mountain. They were so glorious that they even made Moses' countenance glorious, but then it is written that the glory was to be done away. Now you may look at that and say it was Moses' countenance that was done away. That is what some SDAs try to indicate. Read on and Paul clears that up. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? The ministry of the Spirit be more glorious than Moses' face or more glorious than the ten commandments? I chose the ten. That makes the Ministry of death (ten commandments) verses the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, Is there anything greater than God? But wait, there is more. Verse nine clears up any confusion as which to chose. 'For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. And further For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

I don't know about you, but what I take away from those verses is that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is what is guiding us today, not the ministry of death, the ten commandments.

Why did Paul call the ten commandments the ministry of death? I submit to you the reason is all ten of them had no power to save, all they could do is condemn.

 

[Acts29]

Sorry friend, I believe you are misguided.

You will find out later this fall that I am not at all misguided.

No place does it indicate Jesus came to fulfill, the broad term, scripture. He came to fulfill the law. He didn't indicate part of it.

The law is scripture, as per the statements of Jesus I gave you. The failure to understand the different uses of the term law is the origin of replacement theology. A scripture can be fulfilled, but how can a law be fulfilled? For example, "thou shall not steal." How did Jesus "fulfill" this? That doesn't even make sense. He came to fulfill scripture. I'm sure Jesus did not steal anything, keeping that law. Since Jesus did not steal, does that eliminate us from that commandment? Is it ok for the church to steal now because Jesus fulfilled this law? Of course not.

How do you account for His saying not one jot or one tittle can be removed from the law?

Exactly my point. If you say Jesus fulfilled the law, that would eliminate a whole bunch of the law. The exact opposite of Jesus actually said. Heaven and earth will not pass away until all the law/scripture is fulfilled. Yet, heaven and earth remain to this day. Thus, the law isn't entirely fulfilled.

Further, "fulfilled" does not mean "done away with" as most of the church assumes.

Would not that mean 613 commands if your argument is that Jesus didn't fulfil the law He said He came to do? Where do we find the scripture telling us which ones of the 613 that He did fulfill?

In the scripture there are laws that God gave, and there are laws that Moses gave. The ones God gave are permanent. The ones Moses gave can be changed or done away with.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

The Pharisees sat in Moses' seat of authority. Jesus told them to obey even when their rulings were not righteous. Moses allowing divorce was not a commandment from God, but from Moses himself. Trying to make all scripture equal to God's own commandments is folly. The 613 commands are mostly from men, not God. If all scripture is equal, have you ever greeted Rufus?

Romans 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Do you realize the ten commandments were also written in the book of the law? Please explain how you came to the conclusion you did. To me it is confusion.

The ten commandments is the covenant with Israel made by God Himself. That is why they are written in stone and placed in the Ark of the Covenant. In the time of the end, Israel will go after the gods of the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Thus, the everlasting covenant will be broken as per the many prophecies yet unfulfilled.

Moral law??? Where is that term used in scripture? Are not all of the laws God gave to Israel moral verses being immoral? Some of His laws to Israel were ceremonial such as the feast Sabbaths, new moon Sabbaths and their weekly Sabbaths.

God's moral law has been in place from the beginning of creation. God's law did not begin with Israel. In the garden, Adam sinned. Thus, God's law was not kept. Likewise, all those who drown in the days of Noah were judged wicked by God's standard that the people had to be aware of. Where there is no law, there is no sin. Where there is no sin, there is no judgement.

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

You stated 'Only the ordinances of Moses were transitory, not the entirety of scripture." Have you not read 2Cor3: ( some versions use the term transitory. I used the KJV which says done away. Either way the ten are no longer our guide, that is unless you don't believe Jesus who instructed Paul in what he wrote.)
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

The subject was what was written on stones that was glorious, the ten commandments Moses carried off the mountain. They were so glorious that they even made Moses' countenance glorious, but then it is written that the glory was to be done away. Now you may look at that and say it was Moses' countenance that was done away. That is what some SDAs try to indicate. Read on and Paul clears that up. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? The ministry of the Spirit be more glorious than Moses' face or more glorious than the ten commandments? I chose the ten. That makes the Ministry of death (ten commandments) verses the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, Is there anything greater than God? But wait, there is more. Verse nine clears up any confusion as which to chose. 'For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. And further For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

I don't know about you, but what I take away from those verses is that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is what is guiding us today, not the ministry of death, the ten commandments.

Why did Paul call the ten commandments the ministry of death? I submit to you the reason is all ten of them had no power to save, all they could do is condemn.

You recognize that Paul said the ministry of the ten commandments of death was glorious. And, the ministry of the Spirit more glorious. Both have glory, though the latter is greater in glory. You also recognize Paul is speaking to the church, not Israel. To those in the church who have received the greater glory, the former glory was done away with. This does not apply to Israel who remains in the former glory to this day.

For 2000 years most of the church has presumed themselves to be the alpha and omega of God's kingdom, preaching salvation or hellfire. "It's all about me." Israel, by in large, has done the same thing for 3500 years, teaching righteousness of the law and the wickedness of all Gentiles. Both are blind to the kingdom God is actually building because of pride and selfishness.

 

[Bob S]

You will find out later this fall that I am not at all misguided.

Okay, I presume you have some inside information?

The law is scripture, as per the statements of Jesus I gave you. The failure to understand the different uses of the term law is the origin of replacement theology.

I will have to take your word for that, T have not the slightest idea what replacement theology entails. All I know is that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and God doesn't do less than what He plans. Jesus being born a Jew lived under the Law and I am sure He realized what commands He had to fulfill to complete the task.

A scripture can be fulfilled, but how can a law be fulfilled?

By ending it.

For example, "thou shall not steal." How did Jesus "fulfill" this? That doesn't even make sense. He came to fulfill scripture. I'm sure Jesus did not steal anything, keeping that law. Since Jesus did not steal, does that eliminate us from that commandment? Is it ok for the church to steal now because Jesus fulfilled this law? Of course not.

Ever hear of the Royal Law of Love? If I love my neighbor will I steal from him? Laws dealing with morality are forever. The ten commandments were not even the tip of the ice berg of all the ways we can harm our fellow man. And, it had the ritual Sabbath command which God never required any other nation or people to abide by.

Exactly my point. If you say Jesus fulfilled the law, that would eliminate a whole bunch of the law.

What do you mean by a whole bunch? He said He came to fulfill the Law not part of it.

The exact opposite of Jesus actually said. Heaven and earth will not pass away until all the law/scripture is fulfilled. Yet, heaven and earth remain to this day. Thus, the law isn't entirely fulfilled.

You sure butchered up His statement. "Till all is accomplished" changes what you wrote. He came to fulfill the Law and there is no reason not to believe Him. The Jews were to keep the Law until it was fulfilled. There was a new covenant on the horizon, but it didn't start until Jesus ratified it with His own blood.

Further, "fulfilled" does not mean "done away with" as most of the church assumes

.
My dictionary gives the following meanings of the word:
to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time:He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten.
to develop the full potential of (usually used reflexively):She realized that she could never fulfill herself in such work.

The one I underlined is the best example according to Paul. Gal 3:19

In the scripture there are laws that God gave, and there are laws that Moses gave. The ones God gave are permanent. The ones Moses gave can be changed or done away with.

That simply is not true. I don't know where you might have gleaned that, but you got some very false information. God spoke the laws to Moses and he entered them into the book of the Law that was place in the side of the Ark, all 613 of them.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Are those verses supposed to back up your claim that the remainder of Torah was Moses doing?

The Pharisees sat in Moses' seat of authority. Jesus told them to obey even when their rulings were not righteous. Moses allowing divorce was not a commandment from God, but from Moses himself.

Again, more untruth.

Trying to make all scripture equal to God's own commandments is folly. The 613 commands are mostly from men, not God. If all scripture is equal, have you ever greeted Rufus?

Romans 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

If he wrote that he was really a goofus, but no I have never greeted him.

The ten commandments is the covenant with Israel made by God Himself. That is why they are written in stone and placed in the Ark of the Covenant.

I have to keep moping up you false statements. The ten were the words of the covenant and along with the ten were the other 603, All words of the covenant. The covenant was God's gift, Canaan. If Israel had kept the words of the covenant the land would have been theirs forever.

God's moral law has been in place from the beginning of creation.

I am unaware where you found that in scripture. Please provide some evidence.

God's law did not begin with Israel.

Read Deut 5: 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

You recognize that Paul said the ministry of the ten commandments of death was glorious. And, the ministry of the Spirit more glorious. Both have glory, though the latter is greater in glory. You also recognize Paul is speaking to the church, not Israel. To those in the church who have received the greater glory, the former glory was done away with. This does not apply to Israel who remains in the former glory to this day.

Sorry friend, it was written to the Jews. The Jews are not under the ten, no one is under the ten. Gentiles never were under the ten. Read your Bible No, study your Bible!

 

[DamianWarS]

"The Law is for the Jews." What a ridiculous assertion. First of all what is a Jew? The letter J didn't even exist until recent history.

Is it a Judaean? If so would this include non believers who reside in Judea? That doesn't work.

Is it someone of the tribe of Judah? What if he doesn't believe? That doesn't work either.

Is it the Yahudim (Yah's people)? Well this I would have to agree with; but that's not the implication that is being presented by people who make this assertion. Are not Christians Yah's people? I propose that the Law is for those who are spiritual. The Law is spiritual.

For those who would insist that adherence to the law as being a matter of physical genealogy; the Law was given to more than the tribe of Judah. It was given to all 12 tribes. The Northern Tribes were carried off, scattered throughout the world, and assimilated into the Gentiles.

By this definition, are you a Jew?

Here is the first test: Account for every paternal ancestor back to the time of Jacob.

Can you do that?

Excellent!

You move on to the second round!

There were more than the descendants of Jacob who entered covenant in Egypt and/or at Sinai.

Many descendants of Jacob remained in Egypt; but many of the nations followed the El of Israel, entered covenant, and became fellow citizens of Israel. The law is for all of their generations too, as YHWH commanded.

Here is the second test: Account for every person, who is not of Jacob, who entered covenant at Egypt/Sinai, and all of their progeny.

Can you do that?

Congratulations!

Please share this information with the lost sheep; so that they don't remain lost until Messiah finds them.

You move onto the bonus round!

Now prove through all of your ancestry that you are in no way a descendant of anyone who entered covenant along with Moses.



Shabbat shalom!

"Jews" would technically be a misnomer like tin foil is a misnomer (it's made out of aluminum, not tin) but that doesn't mean the term can't effectively communicate its intended meaning. There's a history behind the name that I encourage you to research but I think it would be more fruitful to move past the semantics and look at what the term is trying to communicate in context, I mean this in biblical context as well as the context that it's used in CF.

I would suggest the term is more synonymous with the pre-new covenant nation of Israel under the Sinai covenant. To be honest I doubt there is much left of the lineage of the ancient bloodline and modern Jews are probably as gentile as you me (assuming you don't identify as an ethnic Jew yourself). Jews have been victim to a number of diasporas from ancient times to modern which probably has left them a bit of a mixed breed in terms of bloodline and quite scattered. I actually believe there are no more natural branches and we are all grafted in regardless of the bloodline you claim. But if there is confusion with the term asking for clarification would help your understanding so you know at least you can address the same thing using common terms which is the foundation of communication.

I don't think we need to prove any bloodlines here and it is enough to know that the old covenant was the articulated formal method of salvation before Christ regardless of who you were or what bloodline you claimed. Christ is quoted saying that no one can come to the Father except through him and in practice, this is the role of the old covenant before Christ that no one could come to God except through the old covenant and the Jewish people. How God reached others outside of this reach is something God would have judged for himself, it's his rules so he allowed making the exceptions.

 

[daq]

"Jews" would technically be a misnomer like tin foil is a misnomer (it's made out of aluminum, not tin) but that doesn't mean the term can't effectively communicate its intended meaning. There's a history behind the name that I encourage you to research but I think it would be more fruitful to move past the semantics and look at what the term is trying to communicate in context, I mean this in biblical context as well as the context that it's used in CF.

I would suggest the term is more synonymous with the pre-new covenant nation of Israel under the Sinai covenant. To be honest I doubt there is much left of the lineage of the ancient bloodline and modern Jews are probably as gentile as you mean (assuming you don't identify as an ethnic Jew yourself). Jews have been victim to a number of diasporas from ancient times to modern which probably has left them a bit of a mixed breed in terms of bloodline and quite scattered. I actually believe there are no more natural branches and we are all grafted in regardless of the bloodline you claim. But if there is confusion with the term asking for clarification would help your understanding so you know at least you can address the same thing using common terms which is the foundation of communication.

I don't think we need to prove any bloodlines here and it is enough to know that the old covenant was the articulated formal method of salvation before Christ regardless of who you were or what bloodline you claimed. Christ is quoted saying that no one can come to the Father except through him and in practice, this is the role of the old covenant before Christ that no one could come to God except through the old covenant and the Jewish people. How God reached others outside of this reach is something God would have judged for himself, it's his rules so he allowed making the exceptions.

As for myself I use three different terms and they mean three different things: Yhudi or Yhudim, (plural), Yhodi or Yhodim, (plural), and Jew or Jews.

Paul was not of the tribe of Yhudah but of the tribe of Benyamin, (Romans 11:1), and yet, he calls himself a Yhudi, (Acts 21:39), which means he speaks of that in the sense of his belief system and practices, not his tribe. I therefore have no doubt that he means the same in Romans 2:28-29.