Did Jesus destroy the Law?

[ipu]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

1) This says Jesus came to fulfil the OT law in its entirety.

2) Christians claim this means Jesus came to complete the law and replace it with a new convenent so that we are no longer bound by that OT covenent. If we are not still under the Old Testament law, then why did Jesus say we still are. Why did he demand quite emphatically that all people, for as long as the earth continues to exists, must fulfil every commandment in the Old Testament in every detail, EXACTLY as they are written?

The word fulfill is often interpreted as meaning to complete the law, but to complete the law such that it does not need to be followed any more (as in, that covenent is no longer binding) just does not make sense here. Mat 5:18 are not the words of someone intending to put an end to the necessity of following God's laws when, or soon after, they were spoken, since in that case "till Heaven and earth pass" would make no sense.

I suggest that fulfill meaning to follow, as in fulfilling the terms of a contract, is the unmistakable meaning Jesus is using. He reinforces that meaning by demonstrating in his own life that the entirety of the law can be followed. He not only is claimed to have led a perfect life (including following all of the OT covenent of the Jews, which includes himself), but seems to be extending that covenent here, not replacing it. In following verses, Jesus talks about people's behavior in the future and tell them that not fulfilling even the least important of the laws of the Torah would cause one to be ranked lowest in the kingdom of heaven. It would make no sense for Jesus to complete the law such that it was not necessary for anyone from then on to follow the law, and then for Jesus to go on and say every bit of the law must be followed by all, lest they be low on the totem pole in heaven.

Therefore, I propose that Mat 5:17-18 demonstrates a fundamental contradiction in modern Christian theology.

-- Alan

[RevJP]

I'm not sure I am understanding what you are asserting completely, but it seems to me that your basic premise of what 'modern Christian theology' believes in connection with OT law, is faulty.

Christianity does not suggest the completion of the law in Christ, in fact the idea of the 'law' being completed makes little sense.

You are correct in your assertions that Christ fulfilled the law, that 'as in fulfilling the terms of a contract', is exactly what has happened in Christ and is exactly what modern Christian theology upholds.

The old covenant (old contract) has had its terms fulfilled by Christ, and now He has presented us with a new covenant. Whereas the old covenant required complete (and unattainable) adherence to the laws of Moses, the new covenant requires a believe in Christ and His life, death, and resurrection. It is a covenant of grace through faith and not of works. This new covenant comes with two commands: Love your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself - those two commands encompass the entirety of the old covenant laws, and in adherence to the new, we adhere to the old.

[ipu]

You are correct in your assertions that Christ fulfilled the law, that 'as in fulfilling the terms of a contract', is exactly what has happened in Christ and is exactly what modern Christian theology upholds.

The old covenant (old contract) has had its terms fulfilled by Christ, and now He has presented us with a new covenant.

I agree that Mat 5 says the old covenant was fulfilled, but it also says that it is an eternal contract that must be fulfilled by all for all times, and that is my point.

Whereas the old covenant required complete (and unattainable) adherence to the laws of Moses, the new covenant requires a believe in Christ and His life, death, and resurrection.

I am not arguing that there is not a new covenant, but I am arguing that the new covenant does not replace the old per Mat 5. You may think that it is not possible to follow the old, but Jesus followed it (I think as an example that it could be followed, but that is a separate discussion), and here in Mat 5 he makes it clear that not even the most minor details of the law are in error or should change in any way.

Nor am I arguing that other verses do not claim that the old law is replaced by the new covenant; they do, and that is the crux of my claimed fundamental contradiction in the NT.

This new covenant comes with two commands: Love your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself - those two commands encompass the entirety of the old covenant laws, and in adherence to the new, we adhere to the old.

You refer to what Jesus said were the two most important laws as though he said they are the only two laws, which is unsupportable in scripture as far as I know. I think you just threw out the Ten Commandments! At least the honor your mother and father part does not seem derivable from loving God or neighbor.

-- Alan

[RevJP]

Let me ask you this:

Are you leaning towards the idea of adherence to the law for salvation?

[ipu]

Are you leaning towards the idea of adherence to the law for salvation?

[I answered this yesterday, and saw my reply posted, but now it is gone! Sorry if I am screwing up, but I don't know what happened.]

No, not the point at all. The only relevance I see to salvation is that if you do make it there, but did not follow the OT law in its entirety, then you will be low on the totem-pole in heaven.

What I am leaning to is quite simple. The NT claims in various places that the new covenant replaces the old covenant at the same time the NT claims the OT covenant is still in full force (MAT 5).

I also believe that the NT theologians have weaseled their way around this obvious contradiction by attempting to redefine the meaning of the word fulfil in the context it is used. I have tried to demonstrate how the redefinition which is commonly accepted by believers is nonsense in the context of the whole chapter of MAT 5.

I will be happy to go over any details of my argument that are not clear.

-- Alan

[RevJP]

Please do cover the details, particularly the places where you say "The NT claims in various places that the new covenant replaces the old covenant ".

I am also interested in how the theologians have redefined the meaning of the word fulfil in the context it is used. I, for one, would assert that Christ saying He had come to fulfill the law is defined and accepted by theologians as exactly that, a fulfillment of a contractual obligation. Which is what you had posted earlier I believe.

I do not see a redefinition by anyone, but if in fact there are places in the NT which claim replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant in relation to salvation, then we may have a contradiction - I do not see that however.

[Arch]

"for verily I say onto you not one jot or title will by any means pass from the law until all be fullfilled. Any man there fore that keeps the law and teaches men to do also will be called the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and any man who does not teach the law and teaches men to do also will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

I personally don't think this means that those who don't keep the law and teach men to do also will be in heaven, I just think it says that what they will be called that by the people in heaven.

For example I might say that IN MY HOUSE people who don't work or go to school are called bums. That doesn't mean that there is someone in my house that doesn't work or goto school, just that that is what people like that are called IN MY HOUSE.

In some peoples houses black people are called the N word that doesn't mean that there are black people leaving in that house.

To me and in accordance with bible info the LEAST will be in hell and called that by the members of heaven. I don't think that if there was a heaven it would have a cast system everyone would have to be equal.

They would not be given salvation I will use other verses to back this.

MATH 7:21-23 Jesus states

And in that day they will come to me saying lord lord, have we not prophesized in thy NAME...haven't we dont great works in thy name

And in that day I will say to them depart from me, I know you not yea who practice LAWLESSNESS.

side bar--who prays in Jesus' Name who says they do works in his name and at the same time say they dont have to follow the LAW OF GOD.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Math 13:41

And the Son on man will send angels to gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and those who practice LAWLESSNESS.

Math 24:12
And because LAWLESSNESS will increase the hearts of many will grow cold.

Romans 6:19
Just as you were slaves to impurity and LAWLESSNESStht lead to more lawlessness, now be yea slaves to righteousness leading to santification.

2Corinth 6:14
For what partner does righteousness have withLAWLESSNESS.

1 John 3:4

Everyone who sins breaks the law in fact sin is LAWLESSNESS.
sorry for any and I am sure minor infliction against the actual quotes

As you can see in the quotes above, lawlessness or the absence of law or not keeping the law is the opposite of righteousness according the Jesus, Paul and John.

SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW
In laymen's terms sin is breaking the law

If you no longer have a LAW then tell me HOW do you SIN???? Since you christians all say people sin everyday, what sins are they committing if there is no law. I am sure that most can keep the measly ten commandments, and many just from their good nature alone keep the two golden rule commandments.

There are millions of Christians in America alone, and billions accross the world since they all believe in Jesus and there is no law to follow because he fulfilled it for them. All of them should go to heaven, Yet the bible and revelations states that the majority of the world will go to hell.

Jesus goes as far as to say that the road to salvation is narrow and FEW WILL EVEN FIND IT... FEW!!!!!! Christians are in the billions across the world.

Whereas the old covenant required complete (and unattainable) adherence to the laws of Moses, the new covenant requires a believe in Christ and His life, death, and resurrection.

Now this is where Christians in my opinion mess up there entire doctrine. They say the law was unattainable and couldn't be keep but for GOD himself who came as a man and kept the law.

But GOD gave this Law. He created a law totalling in 613 commandments and bound a nation of people to it in Deuteronomy and made them live and DIE by that law, but HE KNEW they couldn't keep it when he gave it to them.

So women and men were stoned, seperated, dishonored, displaced torchured and put into captivity for some 3000 years for disobeying a law HE KNEW they couldn't keep in the first place when he gave it to him.

Does this sound merciful, or good or right? NO it sound sadistic and this is the description of the GOD Christians give through their arguements and then say they want everyone to follow and worship this GOD.

On top of that they say Jesus is the SAME GOD who gave thes LAW and had people punished by those laws for some 3000 years then decided one day Hey let me change this, I am tired of the whole eye for an eye thing its not working it wasn't right, I just go down and die for everyone sins then they dont have to keep those laws.

Also breaking the law that says every man must die for his own sins. Which he also wrote guess he changed his mind again.

ITS A RIDICULOUS STORY.....

All this is on the backdrop of A GOD who says many times in the OT he does not change nor change his mind.

And though they are many and some of them somewhat ridiculous Please IF any CHRISTIAN would post for me the LAWS of the OT THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP

And while you are at it, Please tell me why these laws along with many others are still kept, or are supposed to be adhered to when the law is no longer valid

1. Tithing
2. Law against homosexuals
3. Incest

None of them are in the ten commandments and they aren't against government laws either as long as both parties are legal adults.

HOW DO YOU DECIDED WHICH LAWS ARE STILL TO BE KEPT??????

There are three direct question at the end of this post. If you are going to respond to this post Please answer those questions along with addressing other things said.

[ipu]

Arch did a great job covering most of this for me. Thanks, Arch!

Please do cover the details, particularly the places where you say "The NT claims in various places that the new covenant replaces the old covenant ".

Hate to answer a direct question with a question, but I think it is best here, as I do not want to play devil's advocate with myself. Let's assume that there is no place in the NT claiming that the new covenant is to replace the old. That means that the OT law is still in full force. Do you (any believer will do here!) try to follow all of the OT law as MAT 5 requires? Do you agree that Jesus commands that every aspect of the OT law must be fully followed exactly as commanded by God in the OT? If not, why not?

I am also interested in how the theologians have redefined the meaning of the word fulfil in the context it is used. I, for one, would assert that Christ saying He had come to fulfill the law is defined and accepted by theologians as exactly that, a fulfillment of a contractual obligation. Which is what you had posted earlier I believe.

Yes, there was a fulfillment, but not a termination. Jesus claims to have followed the law (fulfilling its contractual terms) AND also claims that we all need to continue to fulfill the obligation which is unchanged and will remain unchanged forever.

The redefinition I speak of is the addition of the concept of termination of the contract which was added to the words, but which is clearly out of context with those same words of MAT 5. Fulfill in context of MAT 5 can only mean "to follow" and not mean "to complete" as it is assumed by most theologians that I have read.

From another perspective, there is no termination condition of the law in the OT. It's like the speed limit on the highway, say 70 MPH. You fulfill the law by driving at or less than 70 MPH. Now that you have done that, you do not have the right to now go 80 MPH because you already fulfilled the law! If the law said that the speed limit is 70 MPH until you are 21, or that the law is 70 MPH until the messiah comes and releases you from further compliance... However, there is no termination clause in any of the OT law, and Jesus did not add one with the new covenant, and MAT 5 makes it perfectly clear that there will never be such a termination.

I do not see a redefinition by anyone, but if in fact there are places in the NT which claim replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant in relation to salvation, then we may have a contradiction - I do not see that however.

Since you are challenging the termination of the old covenant, I will be happy to stipulate that there is no replacement as I claimed earlier. That means that all people for all time are strictly bound to every detail of the old covenant. That makes MAT 5 not be contradicted, but now you have to explain why you wear cotton-polyester shirts, eat bacon, touch women who are having menses (or allow yourself to be so touched, whichever is applicable), give blood sacrifices at the alter, verify that bed sheets of your newlywed neighbor is hung on their front door and is bloody to prove the bride was a virgin on their wedding night, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, since these are all part of the OT covenant.

Why did Christians stop following most of the OT laws if that covenant was not replaced or terminated?

-- Alan

[samuelbb7]

Romans 3;31 Do we then make void the law through faith? GOD forbid : yea, we establish the law.

The Ten Commandments are to be kept as they were written. In Romans 6 & 8 we are told to not live in sin but by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT to live in obedience to GOD.

Now many of the 613 regulations were to apply to the theological government and since we do not live in that govenrment they do not apply to us. Others were health regulations such as do not eat pork it is bad for you and wash your hands before you eat. Some of which we keep and others which should be kept. Then there were ceremonial laws that had to do with temple worship and ritual purifications. We now have JESUS as our High Priest and our temple is not on earth. See the book of Hebrews.

But those with a moral content should definitely be kept. One is even mentioned in the New Testament not to sleep with a wife of your father.

Now a person who is spiritual does right not to be saved but because they are saved. JESUS came to save people from sin not to live in sin.

[Arch]

Romans 3;31 Do we then make void the law through faith? GOD forbid : yea, we establish the law.

The Ten Commandments are to be kept as they were written. In Romans 6 & 8 we are told to not live in sin but by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT to live in obedience to GOD.

Now many of the 613 regulations were to apply to the theological government and since we do not live in that govenrment they do not apply to us. Others were health regulations such as do not eat pork it is bad for you and wash your hands before you eat. Some of which we keep and others which should be kept. Then there were ceremonial laws that had to do with temple worship and ritual purifications. We now have JESUS as our High Priest and our temple is not on earth. See the book of Hebrews.

But those with a moral content should definitely be kept. One is even mentioned in the New Testament not to sleep with a wife of your father.

Now a person who is spiritual does right not to be saved but because they are saved. JESUS came to save people from sin not to live in sin.

So you are saying all the Laws not concerning governments and rituals should be keep and if not kept is considered SINNING?