The Way, The Truth, and The Life

[Soyeong]

I have been trying to do that ever since I became a poster on this forum. The above explanation should start to make a difference in what you believe, but since I was once a Sabbath observer, I realize it takes much more that another person trying to convince another person. It takes the Holy Spirit which we possess to bring change. I see things so plainly now that once were just a blurr. It is wonderful how each scriptural thought supports every other thought. I don't have to block out some scripture thoughts because I think it negates another part of scripture.

You prefer to argue for the truth of mutually exclusive position rather than interact with what I said to explain why you think that I have misunderstood the verses that I use to support my position and I'm trying to get you to do the latter. For example, if you cite Ephesians 2:15 to say that all of God's laws have ended and I cite Psalms 119:160 to say that all of God's righteous laws are eternal, then we are both failing to persuade the other because we are both using the Bible to support our position. So either those two verses contradict each other, which is not a position that either of us holds, or one or both of us have misunderstood the verse that we cited, so in order to be persuasive, I need to interact with Ephesians 2:15 to explain why I think that you have misunderstood that verse, which I have done multiple times, such as by pointing out that the Greek word "dogma" does not refer to the Law of God. However, instead of interacting with what I've said about Ephesians 2:15 to explain why you disagree with what said, you just cite that verse again, plus you do not interact with Psalms 119:160 to explain how I have misunderstood it, so you are blocking it out as well as the first five books of the Bible because you think that Ephesians 2:15 negates them.




This is what I want you to give:

"1.) Justification within the surrounding context of Matthew 5 for why it wouldn't make sense to interpret Jesus fulfilling the law as being in accordance with the three definitions above."

However, you responded to this by speaking about your understanding of what Paul wrote when what Paul wrote is not within the surrounding context of Matthew 5. Rather, I'm wanting you to interact with what I said here to explain why my reasoning is wrong:

"1.) The definition in the NAS Greek Lexicon for specifically in regard to fulfilling the law. It makes sense because it fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next by teaching how to correctly obey the law."

So within only the context of Matthew 5, why do you think that it is incorrect reasoning to use the only definition in the NAS Greek Lexicon that is specifically in regard to what it means to fulfill the law and other definitions along the same lines and that the definition you are using should be preferred, especially when the definition fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next and your definition is contrary to what he proceeded to do next?

"2.) It also makes sense in the boarder context because Jesus set a sinless example of how to correctly walk in obedience to the Law of God and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done by correctly doing what the law instructs. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel by causing the Gentile to come to correct obedience to it in word and in deed. It fits with how to NT continues to call for us to repent from sin, which is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4). In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, the Law of God is still considered to be profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, training in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped to do every good work. It also fits with how other Jewish writings such as the Talmud speak about fulfilling the law in regard to how to correctly obey it."

So give justification from the broader context for why my definition wouldn't make sense in light of the fact that Jesus spent his ministry teaching how to obey God's law by word and by example. Likewise, please interact with Galatian 5:14, Romans 15:18-9, with how the NT calls for us to repent from sin, with Jeremiah 31:33, with 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and with how my definition fits with how the phrase is used in the Talmud.

"3.) Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he did not come to abolish it and he warned those who would relax the least part of it teach others to do the same, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret "fulfill the law" as meaning "ending the law" because that would mean essentially the same thing as "abolishing the law", so by doing that you are essentially calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning."

Please give justification from the context of Matthew 5 for why it makes sense to use your definition when Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying he came not to abolish it and warned against relaxing the least part of the law or teaching others to do the same.

"4.) It wouldn't make sense in the broader context because in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish it rather than uphold it. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, yet you do not consistently interpret that as ending the Law of Christ. In Romans 15:18-19, you do not consistently interpret fulfilling the Gospel as ending the Gospel. It wouldn't make sense to think that Jesus went to the cross for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any of God's laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), while your definitions undermines both what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal. Laws for how to act in accordance with God's eternal nature can't be ended without first ending God and Jesus, who is the exact expression of God's nature."

Please explain why you think that I have used incorrect reasoning in the above paragraph.

The three definitions you believe represent what Jesus did does not coincide with everything Paul wrote about the destiny of the Law. Actually, we don't have to look beyond Matt 5 to understand that Jesus did fulfil the Law because if not, not one jot or one tittle could be removed from the Law and Israel would still be required to observe even the smallest letter. Yes, Jesus did bring the Law to an end just as the scripture indicates. Paul would not have any authority to tell the Galatians that they were foolish for believing they had to keep the Law. He would not have been able to write Eph 2:10 and on. John would not have been able to write in 1Jn3:19-24 that we are of the truth if we believe in the one God sent and keep His commandment to love. He would have had to write keep Torah.

In Romans 3:31, Paul specifically said that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to do the opposite, so it is your definition that does not coincide with everything that Paul wrote about God's law. Indeed, it is the case that not the smallest part has been removed from the law, so saying that would be the case does not support your definition. Paul was not an enemy of the Father, so he did not call anyone foolish for believing that they had to obey what the Father has commanded in accordance with what the Son spent his ministry teaching, nor did he have the authority to speak against following the Father and the Son, nor should he be followed instead of the Father and the Son even if he had tried to say that.

In 1 John 3:1-10 it speaks strongly in favor of continuing to practice righteousness in obedience to God's law and against continuing to practice sin in transgression of it, so is not clear to me why you think 1 John 3:19-24 is contrary to it. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Torah as being about how to love God and how to love our neighbor, so the command to love is inclusive of everything in it, not contrary to anything in it.

And just why not. Jesus gave us a brand new covenant that is better than the old one. It has better promises and a law that every human being should be able to keep. We have the Holy Spirit, a gift from Jesus to all mankind. This wonderful gift is, if we allow it to work in us, more glorious than anything guiding us in righteousness. This gift is far more glorious than the gift of ten commands. Those commands became the ministry of death to Israel. Not my words, Paul wrote it and I believe it.

In Hebrews 8:6-10, it says that the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based on better promises, but it does not say that it is made with a superior God with superior laws, rather, it still involves following the Torah, so Jesus did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining everything that he spent his ministry teaching and everything that he went to the cross the accomplish. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah, which inherently can't be more glorious than obeying the Torah. The fact that the Torah is a ministry of death for those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason for you to refuse to submit to it rather than choosing life. When God has commanded something and you think that Paul spoke against obeying God, then you have a choice to make about who has the greater authority and which one you should follow.

 

[DamianWarS]

"to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands."
"to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.):a book that fulfills a long-felt need."

Yes, these two definitions of "fulfill" that you quoted are what I am speaking about, which are in accordance with the definition in the NAS Greek Lexicon for "pleroo":

have you considered Jesus did both.

 

[Soyeong]

have you considered Jesus did both.

I gave a number of reasons from the surrounding and boarder context that would support my definition of "pleroo" and a number of reasons from the surrounding and broader context why his definition wouldn't make sense, so in order to show that both definitions are correct, he would need show that the reasons that I gave for why his definition wouldn't make sense are incorrect. For example, he needs to reconcile his definition with the fact that Psalms 119:160 says that all of God's righteous laws are eternal and that instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can't be abolished without first abolishing God's eternal righteousness. Furthermore, Jesus fulfilling the law by abolishing it is mutually exclusive with him fulfilling the law by spending his ministry teaching his followers how to correctly obey it by word and by example, so he did not do both.