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]

Specifically, I have problems with the way many Christians interpret the word 'fulfill' to mean complete, rather than to mean follow. It looks like you meant to be ambiguous on this point. Can you rephrase that in your own words? Do you disagree with the words I have used to describe how I understand this?

I can not say that I am a christian. To many of their ways do not follow what is in the bible, but are given in interpretation of the scripture.

I believe that Jesus did both. That he fulfilled(completed) the law and he followed the law.

He completed in this way: The Almighty said to the children of israel:

Lev 11:45
45For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Moses said to Israel at Deut 26:16-19,

16This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

17Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:

18And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments;

19And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken.

Jesus followed the law until his death. He was testified that he followed them by the works he did(i.e raising the dead, healing the sick and casting out devils)

His resurrection was a testimony that He had completed the laws as God required Him to do.

So I believe Jesus did fulfill and complete.

As to that last question I won't answer it in this post but will send another because we both know how I can rattle. So I don't want to cause misunderstandings by writting about two subjects at once.

[unprofitable servant]

Quote:
The first scriptures show the law that the Pharisees corrupted to their benefit concerning murder, which Jesus said Thou shalt not kill, but whosoever shal kill shall be in danger of the judgment
I was attempting to show by the exact scripture what the corruption was and how it was different from the original law.

I believe you are saying that you are supporting my characterization of the Pharisees as those who were not following God's laws correctly, right? (Thanks.)

In this post we came to an agreement about the scribes and pharisees corrupting the law

Quote:

Does the reason and spirit behind the words make the words mean something different?

When you posed this to the group I was shown my unprofitableness as a servant of Christ.

Instead of building on what we had agreed about the scribes and Pharisees I began leaning upon my on understanding and my own knowledge to hammer at the other things you had said.

Does the reason and spirit behind the words make the words mean something different?

The first part of the question "Does the reason and spirit behind the words make the words mean something different? the words something different" is yes. This is established in what we agreed about the scribes and Pharisees. Using Numbers 35:16-34 and comparing it to what Jesus said at Matt 5:21

Jesus said 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill' gives those who are following him a preview of what the 'scribes and Pharisees' will teach about his testimony later.

"Does the reason..... behind the words make the words mean something different?" If we take the reason behind these words as a warning then Mat 24:4,5 would go with the words "think not" Jesus said: 'Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many'

The 'scribes and Pharisees' made people think that they were doing the will of God, when in truth they were changing and corrupting the laws for their own reward and glory. Not Gods.

Jesus knew that that generation would pass and other generations would come having their own 'scribes and Pharisees'
These are the scribes and pharisees of today. They 'come in my name saying, I am Christ'

Jesus said "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat' Matt 23:2 Who sit in Moses' seat today? And just like in the days before and after Christ, these are still corrupting the law, but know they corrupt 'the spirit of the law that is in Christ'

These are they who accomplish Matt 5:20 "But whosoever shall break one of the least of these commandments and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

They have broken 'the least of these commandments'. The 'least of these' being 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets'

I'll stop here to get your feedback. But I hope i haven't been 'jumping around' and have been a little more focused.

Unfortunately when I read what I write it makes sense but.......You know the rest

This is not a complete answer I seek to find a common ground and to build on that. O.K.

[ipu]

Jesus followed the law until his death. He was testified that he followed them by the works he did(i.e raising the dead, healing the sick and casting out devils)

His resurrection was a testimony that He had completed the laws as God required Him to do.

A very strange definition of testimony! Following the law has nothing to do with performing miracles. Not a single law requires anyone to do such works. Neither is resurrection a testimony of completing the OT laws. Perhaps you are confusing prophesy with law?

Does the reason and spirit behind the words make the words mean something different?

The first part of the question "Does the reason and spirit behind the
words make the words mean something different? the words something
different" is yes.
...
Jesus knew that that generation would pass and other generations would
come having their own 'scribes and Pharisees'
These are the scribes and pharisees of today. They 'come in my name
saying, I am Christ'

Jesus said "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat' Matt 23:2 Who
sit in Moses' seat today? And just like in the days before and after
Christ, these are still corrupting the law, but know they corrupt 'the
spirit of the law that is in Christ'

These are they who accomplish Matt 5:20 "But whosoever shall break one
of the least of these commandments and teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven"

They have broken 'the least of these commandments'. The 'least of
these' being 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets'

I think what you are saying is that the spirit of the law refines and enhances the letter of the law. It makes the meaning more complete. If this is correct, then I agree.

Where I am still unclear is whether the spirit of the law can ever alter the letter of the law to such a degree that the letter of the law is nearly opposite in meaning of the spirit of the law.

Earlier I gave a crude example of the law of proceeding through a stop sign. Let me elaborate on it. The law says the wheels of the vehicle must stop turning completely for at least a brief period before proceeding past a stop sign. The spirit is to ensure adequate time is taken by the driver to ensure the intersection is clear, and if not, to have adequate time to ensure who has the right-of-way is understood by all at the intersection. The letter of the law is an easily measured threshold by which there can be no debate over where the spirit was met or violated. However, the higher spirit of the law is to ensure safety for those using the intersection. If a driver needs to run a stop sign to avoid quickly approaching danger from the rear (as in the case of the flood water example I made up earlier), then the driver's safety may require that the rule for a complete stop be violated in order to achieve the higher purpose of safety. I use this example to show how the spirit of the law can require that the letter of the law be violated in an acceptable way. That is, a judge would be expected to throw out any ticket for stop sign violation in the case where following the law would have risked the safety of the driver. (We would hope a policeman would not even issue such a ticket!)

That is, I can understand how the spirit of the law can violate the letter of the law without contradiction. I will accept that MAT 5 addresses specifically the letter of the law, and that other NT verses may "contradict" the letter of the law with exceptions necessary to meet the higher spirit of the law. I think some in this thread feel I cannot handle such an analysis because of my rigidness in describing what MAT 5 is saying. However, what I am really trying to do is make sure we are all clear on exactly what MAT 5 is saying before we consider what other chapters have to say about either the letter or spirit of the law.

I don't think MAT 5 has much spirit involved, just as the stop sign law is in strict letter-of-the-law terms (the vehicle wheels must cease all rotation and the driver must meet all other right-of-way requirements for proceeding through a stop sign, etc.). Other laws justify such rigid laws with higher spirit (safety of all drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and property are the paramount concern is the primary traffic law, but that is not even mentioned in the specific rules for proceeding through a stop sign).

I do not understand why we are having so much difficulty moving past this point which I think is simple and clear: MAT 5 requires everybody to strictly obey the entirety of the law exactly as it is commanded by God in the OT. Can we all agree to this and move on with this debate?

-- Alan

[unprofitable servant]

I do not understand why we are having so much difficulty moving past this point which I think is simple and clear: MAT 5 requires everybody to strictly obey the entirety of the law exactly as it is commanded by God in the OT. Can we all agree to this and move on with this debate?

Here is where we keep getting stuck. Mat 5 is not indicating that we should keep the entire law. You are still thinking that when Jesus said this in verse 19
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least 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.

that it means to keep the old covenant law. But as indicated in the previous post Jesus is talking about the words that He is speaking in the gospels.

Exactly as we agreed that Jesus did not destroy the law. We need to come to the agreement that Jesus is not talking about doing the old covenant.

If Jesus is telling us to do the old covenant then He could not have been doing His Fathers' will.

This is what JEHOVAH said in Jeremiah 31:31-33

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So God Himself is indicating that there will be a new covenant made with the house of Israel and Judah. This is the covenant that my Master came and died for.
Matt26:27,28
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and in luke 22:19,20
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

The gospels are the new testament. The laws haven't been destroyed but to do the laws as you are indicating[pardon me I should say" the way I think you are indicating] is to do the letter exactly as it is written.

If that is what you are saying then you have broken many of the laws already today.

In the law a menstrous woman would have to be seperated and everything she touched would be unclean. This means today if you have been near a menstrous woman(even without knowing) you are unclean.

Been to any funerals, came across any dead animals you are unclean.

Do you have the ashes of a red helfer mixed in water so that you can purify yourself on the third and seventh day.

Can you do thes things without a priest of the sons of Aaron? No

I can't agree to doing the law that way because it is not for Gentiles. You would have to sacrifice a lamb or goat or bullock but you can't because in the law God told Israel not to offer to Him any of the herds of the heathens around them(looking for this scripture)

These are the things you must do. Are you saying that you are doing these laws?

This is why it is so difficult to agree to what you are saying especially knowing that you are taking the first line of Matt 5:19 and saying that it is about the O.T laws.

Also you are not under the Abrahamic covenant. You are not of the seed of Abraham and they are who those laws pertain to. So until you understand these things it will be impossible to go forward Jffre'

[ipu]

Mat 5 is not indicating that we should keep the entire law. You are still thinking that when Jesus said this in verse 19
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least 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.

that it means to keep the old covenant law. But as indicated in the previous post Jesus is talking about the words that He is speaking in the gospels.

Exactly as we agreed that Jesus did not destroy the law. We need to come to the agreement that Jesus is not talking about doing the old covenant.

MAT 5 says "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." Do you believe that the "one jot or one tittle" is not in reference to the preceding "the law, or the prophets," but is instead referring to something he says elsewhere in the gospels? That makes no sense at all. The jot or tittle is clear reference to the law mentioned in the prior sentence just as the "least commandments" is referring to EXACTLY the same law. Then the following verses in MAT 5 goes on to list examples of these same commandments (tempering the letter of those laws with the higher spirit). To think that the law in verse 17 and the jots and titles in verse 18 is a different set of laws, and jots and titles from the commandments in verse 19, or different from the examples given in verse 21 (one of the Ten Commandments!), or verse 27 (another of the TC), or verse 31 (OT divorce law), etc., is absurd.

If Jesus is telling us to do the old covenant then He could not have been doing His Fathers' will.

That is a rationalization of the worst kind! Because you know MAT 5 cannot mean what it says without contradiction to "His Fathers' will," you proclaim it means something that it clearly does not say. Your argument is not logically sound. You cannot disprove a contradiction by using the contradiction to redefine what something means. That MAT 5 is in contradiction with "His Fathers' will" cannot prove that MAT 5 says something different from what it does say! Perhaps MAT 5 is just wrong, or perhaps you misunderstand "His Fathers' will," but there is a contradiction, and not words that say one thing and mean something very much different.

These are the things you must do. Are you saying that you are doing these laws?

Of course not! I am an atheist, and do not believe these are the words of God, but of man. I am trying to understand how those who claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God can make such a claim. I have no problem with anyone having a devout belief in God (I cannot prove God does not exist!), or that the Bible is inspired by God, 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 are not of the seed of Abraham and they are who those laws pertain to. So until you understand these things it will be impossible to go forward Jffre'

I do not understand your last word, but I think you have to first understand what the words of MAT 5 really say and mean before we can go forward. You seem to want to go forward first in order to support a very irrational explanation for how the words of MAT 5 say something very much different from how they are written.

-- Alan

[unprofitable servant]

MAT 5 says "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." Do you believe that the "one jot or one tittle" is not in reference to the preceding "the law, or the prophets," but is instead referring to something he says elsewhere in the gospels? That makes no sense at all. The jot or tittle is clear reference to the law mentioned in the prior sentence just as the "least commandments" is referring to EXACTLY the same law.

I have said that I believe the scripture as it is written. Again I do not believe that Jesus destroyed any part of the law. Yet the reference to the "least of these commandments" is a lead in to the rest of the chapter. After saying "whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so........" then we have Jesus refering to the scribes and Pharisees and how we should do different than them "For I say unto you, That except YOUR righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees....."
He then says "Ye have heard that it was said by by them of old time

He then begans to instruct us in what ways they have corrupted.
So I was not going 'elsewhere in the gospels' because you said you did not agree with that method.

Yet you say

To think that the law in verse 17 and the jots and titles in verse 18 is a different set of laws, and jots and titles from the commandments in verse 19, or different from the examples given in verse 21 (one of the Ten Commandments!), or verse 27 (another of the TC), or verse 31 (OT divorce law), etc., is absurd

Leading into a need to go to other scripture in the gospels to explain.

And yes they are. vs 17,18 are about the law. But again 21,27,31 are showing the corruptions.

Since you opened the door verse 31) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a writing of divorcement" then Matt 19:3-8

3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

But you do not want this.

In college english a writer is taught how to develop a paper or thesis.
The methods of development are:
description,narration, example, process comparison and contrast, classification and division, cause and effect, definition, argumentation.

[unprofitable servant]

It is written in the book of Job 5:13
13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

Jesus says 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You have proven the above scriptures to be truth.

Of course not! I am an atheist, and do not believe these are the words of God, but of man.

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.

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 done

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.

God said in the prophet Isaiah 28:9-11
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

But you say

I am an atheist, and do not believe these are the words of God, but of man.

Yet I believe that learning is just as it is quoted in verse 10 of the above scripture.

Quote:
If Jesus is telling us to do the old covenant then He could not have been doing His Fathers' will.

That is a rationalization of the worst kind!

If you read the scripture as one seeking truth instead of looking for error then you would see that I am only following scripture as Jesus has taught me to do.

I asked you to read the law in connection with the gospels so that you could see how Jesus was directing the listeners, but because 'you think it is the word of men' you will not.

Scripture was given(to repeat from another post) to show just one corruption that was done with the law with Matt 5:21 and Numbers 35. But this is dismissed

I think what you are saying is that the spirit of the law refines and enhances the letter of the law. It makes the meaning more complete. If this is correct, then I agree.

Where I am still unclear is whether the spirit of the law can ever alter the letter of the law to such a degree that the letter of the law is nearly opposite in meaning of the spirit of the law.

"

I think what you are saying is that the spirit of the law refines and enhances the letter of the law. It makes the meaning more complete. If this is correct, then I agree.

If you agree then why

Where I am still unclear is whether the spirit of the law can ever alter the letter of the law to such a degree that the letter of the law is nearly opposite in meaning of the spirit of the law.

The letter has not changed. This is exactly why Jesus said "Think not"

In your earlier post you spoke of Matt 5:19,27,31(that was the draft that went through I wanted to refine it but couldn't retrieve it. IGNORE THE LAST PART. Musings)

To be clear on how these began as commandments and what Jesus was saying in the repeating of them, look again in the law(if you have a strongs concordance you can find them faster)and then at what transpired with King David and Bathsheba.

I am not rationalizing anything but follow each thing back to those who were first given the covenant and laws to see what the whole scripture is saying.

I research scripture. I do not rely on men. Again it is written in Job 5:27

27Lo this, we have searched it, so it is; hear it, and know thou it for thy good.

[ipu]

It is written in the book of Job 5:13
13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

Jesus says 20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You have proven the above scriptures to be truth.

I have proven no such thing! Please do not equate my failure to be more righteous than the Pharisees to be proof of MAT 5:20! I may satisfy the condition, but that is not proof of the consequent! Nor does my belief that there is no heaven prove that I cannot go there!

Please do not take this as being disrespectful, I do not mean it to be, as I am only asking that you follow the rules of this forum, specifically rule 5: "Support your arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic."

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.

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?

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'

You left out the very next verse where Jesus does say "Do the law", 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..." How can you interpret this as saying anything contrary to Jesus saying to follow all of the law, and not even break the least important law? Perhaps the consequence of breaking the law is not so terrible (how terrible is being the least in the kingdom of Heaven?), but Jesus does in fact say "Do the law" in this part of MAT 5.

This is how error came into scripture.

It appears the error is yours! Or, do you claim that MAT 5:19 does not have Jesus telling you to follow all of the law? Even 5:18 that you quote says the same, that nothing in the law changes at all from the way God gave it originally. God gave the law as COMMANDMENTS, requiring you to follow them, and Jesus is in complete agreement with those commandments, according to MAT 5:17-19.

God said in the prophet Isaiah 28:9-11
9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
...
I believe that learning is just as it is quoted in verse 10 of the above scripture.

That is fine. Unless you are also claiming that this is the only possible means of learning anything, then you are just changing the subject. Please let us not diverge once again from the issue of what MAT 5 says!

If you read the scripture as one seeking truth instead of looking for error then you would see that I am only following scripture as Jesus has taught me to do.

I asked you to read the law in connection with the gospels so that you could see how Jesus was directing the listeners, but because 'you think it is the word of men' you will not.

Scripture was given(to repeat from another post) to show just one corruption that was done with the law with Matt 5:21 and Numbers 35. But this is dismissed

MAT 5 is part of scripture. It is the part that is the topic of this thread. Somehow you fail to see how the truth of this topic may in fact be clear demonstration of an error in scripture. If you demand that no such thing is possible, then we have no chance of reasonably debating exactly that.

You make a claim of corruption being demonstrated in MAT 5:21, but what is says is:

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."

This appears to me to say a couple of interesting things: 1) that while breaking the commandment not to kill jeopardizes any chance to get to heaven according to the letter of the law, the spirit of the law goes even further and says that even anger (that which leads one to kill) is the spirit of the law, and you must not break even the spirit of the law. 2) Jesus recognizes that the law commands blood sacrifices (gifts before the altar), which clarifies further the extent of what Jesus means by "the law".

I do not understand why you reference Numbers 35. Nor do I know what you think I have dismissed. I think it is clear you have dismissed a straight forward reading of what MAT 5 is saying, and instead choose to make it mean something that it does not say.

I think what you are saying is that the spirit of the law refines and enhances the letter of the law. It makes the meaning more complete. If this is correct, then I agree.

If you agree then why

Where I am still unclear is whether the spirit of the law can ever alter the letter of the law to such a degree that the letter of the law is nearly opposite in meaning of the spirit of the law.

The letter has not changed. This is exactly why Jesus said "Think not"

What has changed, with respect to the law? Please be specific.

I do not know how to answer your comment suggesting that the spirit "refines and enhances... makes the meaning more complete" is somehow contradicted by the spirit cannot totally change the meaning of the letter. That is, the spirit can bring clarity to understanding the letter, but the spirit cannot change the meaning of the letter to something completely opposite.

Do you think the spirit of the law makes the letter of the law mean something different than what the letter of the law says?

-- Alan

[unprofitable servant]

You left out the very next verse where Jesus does say "Do the law", 5:19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..." How can you interpret this as saying anything contrary to Jesus saying to follow all of the law, and not even break the least important law? Perhaps the consequence of breaking the law is not so terrible (how terrible is being the least in the kingdom of Heaven?), but Jesus does in fact say "Do the law" in this part of MAT 5.
Quote:
This is how error came into scripture.

It appears the error is yours! Or, do you claim that MAT 5:19 does not have Jesus telling you to follow all of the law?

Yes that is exactly the claim I am making. I do so based on the word that God spoke to the prophet Jeremiah: 31:31-33
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

3And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

This being the covenant that He made with them in the wilderness Exodus 20-23.

After this Moses concluded the covenant Exodus 24:4-8
4And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
6And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

This is what is spoken by God at Jeremiah 31:32

God gave the law as COMMANDMENTS, requiring you to follow them, and Jesus is in complete agreement with those commandments, according to MAT 5:17-19.

lev 26:3
3If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;

Deuteronomy 4:1-9, 12-14,40
1Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.
2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
3Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.
4But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.
5Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
9Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
14And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

40Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Is this the evidence you needed to understand why I say that Jesus did not say do the law?

There are commandments and statutes and judgements.

[ipu]

... do you claim that MAT 5:19 does not have Jesus telling you to follow all of the law?

Yes that is exactly the claim I am making. I do so based on the word that God spoke to the prophet Jeremiah: 31:31-33 ...

After this Moses concluded the covenant Exodus 24:4-8
4And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.
6And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

This is what is spoken by God at Jeremiah 31:32

I am having a problem with "Moses concluded the covenant [in] Exodus 24:4-8" as I see no indication of any conclusion in EX 24:4-8.

It now appears that you are claiming Jesus brought the new covenant that Jeremiah 31 professes, and that Moses provided for the conclusion of the original covenant. Where I have problems connecting the dots are: 1) while Jeremiah claims a new covenant is coming, and is different from the old, it does not indicate the covenant will be brought by anyone other than himself, much less by the messiah; 2) nor does it make any claims that the new covenant will replace the old covenant, just be different (could be added to the old, for example); 3) Moses does not seem to provide the conclusion you suggest; and 4) Jesus says in MAT 5 that the old covenant is in full force forever. Issues 1-3 can be consistent with 4 as I stated them (it does not matter if the new covenant was brought by Jesus if the new covenant adds to and not replaces the old, and Moses did not end the old, are all consistent with MAT 5 claims that the old covenant is still valid).

lev 26:3If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Deuteronomy 4:1-9, 12-14,40...

Is this the evidence you needed to understand why I say that Jesus did not say do the law?

There are commandments and statutes and judgements.

I am sorry, but I have no idea why you posted LEV 26, nor do I see DEU 4 saying anything that suggests my reading of MAT 5 is in error. It is quite obvious that when you and I read the Bible, we get different messages from it. If you want me to understand how you see the message, you need to provide commentary in your own words using contemporary English. You have presented interesting "evidence" but I do not see how it supports your denial of my claims about MAT 5. Nor do I understand the significance of your point that commandments, statutes and judgments are different things and that somehow those differences are significant to this discussion. Please be more explicit.


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

-- Alan