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

[unprofitable servant]

Also, could you please answer my previous question; do you believe the Bible is inerrant? That it is the perfect word of God?

This was my answer

Just as the scribes and Pharisees and the theologians and christian leaders of today do, so do you do. Because what is written to them does not go along with their belief or thoughts they read into scripture what they need to make others believe.

Quote:
but I do have a great deal of difficulty understanding how one can go farther and claim the Bible is inerrant, when stark contradictions such as MAT 5 exist.

You reason with me as if I had said the bible is without error. Yet I am discussing with you why, how and what I have been taught by Jesus Christ what were the things made errant by both the leaders of yesterday and today.

How do I say you do as they have doneQuote:
I do assert that MAT 5 dictates complete obedience to the law.


But the scripture reads only this:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For 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.

There is no word spoken by Jesus where He says "Do the law" but in your zeal to debate the 'inerrancy and errancy' of the scripture you have added to it your interpretation and said 'Jesus said'

This is how error came into scripture.

And it is still my answer.

I can except that there are errors in the bible, but I believe that those who seek the truth will be able to identify those errors and move on.

I searched through translations just as you have said you have done and in many of them words have been changed to fit the translators way of thinking.

The word of God is perfect. But 'Seek and ye shall find' is a good piece of advice to follow.

Know I must say you keep saying Jesus said and I cannot agree with you. When you say Jesus said use only the exact words written. If you do not use the words written I see and hear interpretation. This again
is what the religious leaders and theologians and Christians do that I can not agree with. They say Jesus said this or that and change wordings and teach people falsely.

For my part I have tried to correct things that you find 'absurd' and offend your sensibilities, so I ask the same.

Unless it is quoted in the scripture as being the words that Jesus spoke saying "Jesus said" will only lead to more useless debating that is not useful.

[ipu]

Also, could you please answer my previous question...

This was my answer
...
And it is still my answer.

Sorry, I did not realize that was the answer, and I thought that was in conflict with something you said previously, but now I cannot find it. Sorry.

I can except that there are errors in the bible, but I believe that those who seek the truth will be able to identify those errors and move on.

I searched through translations just as you have said you have done and in many of them words have been changed to fit the translators way of thinking.

The word of God is perfect. But 'Seek and ye shall find' is a good piece of advice to follow.

You say the word is perfect, and yet you must admit we do not have a copy of the exact word since the original has been corrupted. Where does one seek to find an answer for what are errors? If you say the Spirit, there are at least two problems: first different believers get different messages from supposedly the same inerrant Spirit. Second, such claims are indistinguishable from imagination, and therefore not very useful in a rational debate.

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written, as they claim Jesus requires complete adherence to the OT law, but you claim the real Bible does not say that. Is that fair?

Know I must say you keep saying Jesus said and I cannot agree with you. When you say Jesus said use only the exact words written. If you do not use the words written I see and hear interpretation. This again
is what the religious leaders and theologians and Christians do that I can not agree with. They say Jesus said this or that and change wordings and teach people falsely.

For my part I have tried to correct things that you find 'absurd' and offend your sensibilities, so I ask the same.

Unless it is quoted in the scripture as being the words that Jesus spoke saying "Jesus said" will only lead to more useless debating that is not useful.

But this seems to be the heart of the problem. We can both see what the translators said, but we do not agree on what the words mean. My paraphrasing is done to make clear my understanding of the meaning of the words. Repeating the words exactly only hides the fact that you and I do not get the same understanding of what they mean. That is why I have asked you to tell me the understanding you have from the words you quote. I have tried to both quote the scripture and also paraphrase it to make clear my understanding of what it means. Are you asking me to just throw scripture at you and assume you will see what I mean? I think that would be must unuseful!

-- Alan

[youngborean]

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written, as they claim Jesus requires complete adherence to the OT law, but you claim the real Bible does not say that.

So you have been going over this point again and again. Yet you still don't have a explanation of what "fufilling" the law means. What did Jesus fufill in your eyes? What does that mean. So if Jesus came to fufill as he says. Then assuming he did not erase but fufill, then the law would not now be erased but fufilled. So what does that mean? Two things; first, that he is considered the Greatest in the Knigdom of heaven, and the rest are in between. And Second that the covenant of law is complete. So its principles are good, but it is complete through Jesus's coming. It's not a contradiction and not difficult to understand. Now if you think that Jesus didn't fufill the law, then that's a different story.

[unprofitable servant]

Okay here's how I understand Matt 5:17-19.

I will use your example of the stop sign with the scripture,

The commandment: Stop

The commandment: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill.

The statute/law: Tire must come to a complete rotational stop for a brief period of time

The statute/law: 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.

The judgement: Ticket appear in court, fines, points on license

The judgement: Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments , and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Also when you stated being given a chance or the case being dismissed because of a catastrophic/life threatening event. If the event happens continously so that no vehicle can safely obey the commandment to stop and the law to come to that brief period of rotational stillness, wouldn't those who made the law then look at ways to make that intersection safer?
I mean wouldn't they study the situation and determine that no one can safely obey the law at that intersection and then make changes? Yet when they make the changes to that particular intersection, does it change the commandment to stop or the law that tires must come to a complete rotational stop for a brief period?

This is how I understand Matt 5 and the chapters after. The seed of Abraham were unable to keep the commandments and statutes and judgements. God being the giver of said commandments and statutes and judgements looked at the subjects as they tried to keep within those bounds and could not, so He has given us(meaning not of the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob) a means of doing the same by faith instead of how the study group had to do. Yet those commandments and statutes and judements have not been tossed out.

[ipu]

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written, as they claim Jesus requires complete adherence to the OT law, but you claim the real Bible does not say that.

So you have been going over this point again and again. Yet you still don't have a explanation of what "fufilling" the law means. What did Jesus fufill in your eyes? What does that mean. So if Jesus came to fufill as he says. Then assuming he did not erase but fufill, then the law would not now be erased but fufilled. So what does that mean?

Please read the first post in this thread. I tried to make it very clear exactly what I think it means, and why. Let me know if this does not answer your question.

Two things; first, that he is considered the Greatest in the Knigdom of heaven, and the rest are in between. And Second that the covenant of law is complete.

You say this immediately following, "So what does that mean?" I can see no connection from anything you said prior to this in that paragraph with any suggestion that Jesus is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. This is a total non-sequitur. Perhaps you thought you said something about the latter verses regarding being least in heaven, but this still does not follow. Let me be clear: when Jesus says he came to fulfil the law, he is not saying, as you claim, "first, that he is considered the Greatest in the Knigdom of heaven." Even later when Jesus says (paraphrasing!) one doing something would make one the least in heaven, he does not mean by that that he is the greatest in heaven. Similarly, there is nothing in MAT 5 that says "the covenant of law is complete."

I don't mean to be rude, but you ask a question that I have already answered in the first post of this thread and elaborated on many times since, and then you make claims that have no logical basis at all. Your concluding claims about principles, Jesus' coming, non-contradictions, are all completely unsupported, and my belief in whether Jesus did or did not fulfill the law is not relevant to this discussion (I don't, but that is not a factor in my argument).

-- Alan

[ipu]

Okay here's how I understand Matt 5:17-19.
...
The commandment: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill.

I don't see this as a commandment, but just a statement of fact. He is not telling anyone what to do, just what he has done or will do.

The statute/law: 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.

Not law exactly as much as it is statement of fact. He is saying the previous law delivered by Moses and the prophets is still the law and will continue to be the law until the end of time, and has not and will not be changed as the law in any way at all. If this is a law, or statute, or commandment, it is the commandment to continue to follow the OT law. My interpretation of the last part, "till all be fulfilled" ties in with "Till heaven and earth pass" in that the law must be followed until the end of time, and then the law may be changed!

The judgement: Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments , and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps "judgment" is fair, but I think it is more of a prediction or claim of what the judgment will be. In that sense, it is part of the commandment (or law or statute). Using my analogy, "stop at a stop sign or be fined $50," the $50 fine is a judgment when issued, but it is part of the statute that prescribes what the judgment will be.

Also when you stated being given a chance or the case being dismissed because of a catastrophic/life threatening event. If the event happens continously so that no vehicle can safely obey the commandment to stop and the law to come to that brief period of rotational stillness, wouldn't those who made the law then look at ways to make that intersection safer?
I mean wouldn't they study the situation and determine that no one can safely obey the law at that intersection and then make changes? Yet when they make the changes to that particular intersection, does it change the commandment to stop or the law that tires must come to a complete rotational stop for a brief period?

This seems to be in contradiction with the spirit of MAT 5. MAT 5 does not say nobody can follow the OT law and therefore the law must be changed. It says almost the opposite. It says that Jesus came to follow the law (setting an example that it CAN be followed) and furthermore that the law does not need to be changed (or will be changed) in any way whatsoever!

This is how I understand Matt 5 and the chapters after. The seed of Abraham were unable to keep the commandments and statutes and judgements. God being the giver of said commandments and statutes and judgements looked at the subjects as they tried to keep within those bounds and could not, so He has given us(meaning not of the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob) a means of doing the same by faith instead of how the study group had to do. Yet those commandments and statutes and judements have not been tossed out.

I understand what you say, but disagree. What you say is combining what MAT 5 says with other chapters that contradict MAT 5. Nothing in MAT 5 offers "a means of doing the same by faith" (that comes from elsewhere in scripture). While you claim the OT law ("commandments and statutes and judgments") has not been tossed out, you conclude that they have been replaced by faith (that, too, is from another chapter). If you do not have to follow the law, but can use faith in Jesus as an acceptable alternative to following the law, then you have replaced/changed the law. You are confusing what it takes to get forgiveness for sin as discussed elsewhere as a justification for NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW, with the clear admonition of MAT 5 where Jesus says YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL OF THE LAW. That is a contradiction. If, on the other hand, you are saying you must follow all of the law, but will be forgiven if you don't, then I could agree. However, the be forgiven part is not part of MAT 5.

-- Alan

[unprofitable servant]

You say the word is perfect, and yet you must admit we do not have a copy of the exact word since the original has been corrupted. Where does one seek to find an answer for what are errors? If you say the Spirit, there are at least two problems: first different believers get different messages from supposedly the same inerrant Spirit. Second, such claims are indistinguishable from imagination, and therefore not very useful in a rational debate.

Where does one seek to find an answer for what are errors?

I search the Strong's Hebrew and Greek Concordance. I'm still trying to get my hands on the Hebrew and Greek lexicons. If you read something and find that what you have read in one revision is different than another and this difference changes the meaning of the scripture or verse then you have an error somewhere.

For example,Matt 6:1-3 there are some bibles that say "Do not do your righteousness before men" and others say 'Do not do your good before men'. The KJV says 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men'

Righteousness means good and good means good and alms is giving. But in Matt 5 Jesus says: Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven" Obviously this scripture is in error because it contradicts what Jesus says in Matt 5

If you say the Spirit,

No I wouldn't say the spirit will do this or that because Jesus said "Follow Me" I take people who use this term as the high priest that said to the blind man that Jesus healed, they said 'You wast altogether born in sins and dost thou teach us?'

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written, as they claim Jesus requires complete adherence to the OT law, but you claim the real Bible does not say that. Is that fair?

For instance the Worldwide English has Matt 5:19
19So anyone who does not obey one of the smallest laws, and teaches other people not to obey it, will have the smallest part in the kingdom of heaven. But any one who obeys and teaches the law, will have a big part in the kingdom of heaven.

but you claim the real Bible does not say that. Is that fair?


To tell you the truth I don't know of any 'real bible'. I only know we have what we have and are muddling through the best we can.

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written

I don't really know how to answer this. It seems to broad a question.

Are you asking me to just throw scripture at you and assume you will see what I mean?

I am only asking that instead of saying "Jesus said" when you are paraphrasing to say that it is what you believe he is saying. I've heard too much of men saying what Jesus or God said and it is not found in scripture. That's all. Thank u

[youngborean]

I am sorry for not reviewing your posts more carefully. Let's continue you logic then. So if you believe that the fufillment of the law was in his life and not in his death? So what was the purpose of his death? Why did Jesus fortell his death in Matt 16:21 as divine purpose?

Matt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Similarly, there is nothing in MAT 5 that says "the covenant of law is complete."

What do you suppose fulfill means then? I fulfilled the law, now you can fulfill it too?

and my belief in whether Jesus did or did not fulfill the law is not relevant to this discussion

That simply isn't logical. Since you don't believe that Jesus's death is relavant for attonement, it is very difficult for you to understand this verse. I believe your vision of a contradiction is in your exegesis. You think that the fufillment is from his life. That is only partly true. The real fufillment I believe he is talking about is in his death and resurrection. It no longer is an issue of christians living like someone else. They must first die like Jesus, and be born again. In their faith they, like Jesus, live in perfect accordance to the law.

[RevJP]

I was reading through this thread again and a thought occurred to me: Didn't Christ demonstrate to us that the Law, the letter of the Law, is merely the surface of the truth of the Law? Is there not more to the spirit of the law than there is to the letter?

He tells us that a man who lusts after another woman commits adultery in his heart. He tells us that a man who hates his brother is a murderer. Isn't He really telling us that the letter of the law is merely a shadow of what the law really is, and that the law is really a spiritual thing, not just a list of things to do or not do. It also begins me thinking about man being able to uphold the law, scripture says all men have sinned and fall short of His glory, yet ipu says we are capable of completely obeying the law - wouldn't complete obedience equal sinlessness?

[Lotan]

Didn't Christ demonstrate to us that the Law, the letter of the Law, is merely the surface of the truth of the Law?

Hi Rev
It's called "building a fence" around the torah; if you don't lust in your heart, then you're less likely to commit adultery, if you turn the other cheek, you're less likely to commit murder, etc. Jesus not only supported the law but he took it to it's logical extreme.