-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When Jesus said he would fulfill the law, did he also change it?
- Thread starter Daniel David
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
Helen, Jesus isn't a liar. Do you honest think that that hasn't ever crossed our minds? Come on.
It is your interpretation of what he said that is off base.
I will respond tomorrow. I have work to do tonight. Hopefully someone else will chime in.
It is your interpretation of what he said that is off base.
I will respond tomorrow. I have work to do tonight. Hopefully someone else will chime in.
Caussie, I already mentioned that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the Law (even if one could morally) because of the event of history called the Sack of Jerusalem. A great deal of the Law has to to with the Temple and the levitical priesthood.
Biblical Judaism has ceased to exist at least since 70AD and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) can no longer be kept in the manner prescribed by Moses. Israel is defiled with no Red Heifer for cleansing.
If one is to keep the Law one must do it perfectly at the expense of a curse. Since the events of history (or the intervention of God if you will) makes it absolutely impossible to kept the 613 elements of the law. While Jesus admonishes his discipes to keep even the "least" of these 613 how can we since some of them have been made impossible (there is no temple, therefore how can we pay the temple tax of Exodus 30 [for instance]?)
But if there are those who are intent on keeping the Law, go right ahead with all that is in you to do them. But when you fail, where shall you go to flee the wrath to come upon you?
Deuteronomy 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
The Law stands as both a testimonial and a legacy of our sinful, depraved state before our Holy God. The Spirit of God uses the Law of God to bring the sinner into the light of conviction, the revelation of sin.
Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
Jesus having fulfilled the Law He is now The Light of the World. The law having condemned us we flee to Him from the wrath of God.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Moses ...Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.
Jesus Christ...him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
HankD
Russ,
I could give you a hearty "amen" on your comments above, except for the last line.
That the OT Law has been superceded is not a distinctly dispensational view. You know I am one of the farthest people from dispenational on BB, yet I hold to New Covenant theology--which is what DD is espousing.
Actually dispensationalism makes an uncertain sound in regard to the OT Law, because many dispies allow it to return in a future dispensation, complete with Temple, sacrifices, etc.
In Christ,
Tim
If the city court house burnt down, and the city could no longer collect taxes from you, would that mean that all the other city laws were abolished too? Do you think they would have to pass a new law to get taxes going again after they rebuild the court house?
I know the temple has been destroyed, therefore we can not pay the tax. After it is rebuilt though, God doesn't have to pass a new law to reinstate the tax, because the law was not abolished just because the temple was destroyed.
I know the temple has been destroyed, therefore we can not pay the tax. After it is rebuilt though, God doesn't have to pass a new law to reinstate the tax, because the law was not abolished just because the temple was destroyed.
Russ Kelly
New Member
Tim
Thanks for the reply. Yikes, I may not be a 100% blue-blood dispensationalist after all. I am not convinced that the Law will return per se. The sacrificial aspects of Ezekiel's Temple are puzzling unless they are only as a memorial. I will not speculate any further.
My hermeneutic says that everything in the Law has been set aside unless specifically repeated in the New Covenant under the terme of grace. It ls like old English Law having no effect on the new colony after 1776 unless it was reincorporated into the new Constitution.
The problem with this thread is that everybody defines "Law" differently and nothing is accomplished without an agreement on the use of terms.
Thanks for the reply. Yikes, I may not be a 100% blue-blood dispensationalist after all. I am not convinced that the Law will return per se. The sacrificial aspects of Ezekiel's Temple are puzzling unless they are only as a memorial. I will not speculate any further.
My hermeneutic says that everything in the Law has been set aside unless specifically repeated in the New Covenant under the terme of grace. It ls like old English Law having no effect on the new colony after 1776 unless it was reincorporated into the new Constitution.
The problem with this thread is that everybody defines "Law" differently and nothing is accomplished without an agreement on the use of terms.
If you are addressing me Caussie, I didn't say the Law was abolished, just the opposite. Biblical judaism was abolished because it can't be practiced according to the Torah and those who try are cursed if they fail in even one point.
You CANNOT get around the following:
Deuteronomy 28:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Galatians 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Galatians 5
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh...
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
HankD
Daniel David
New Member
Russ, as much as Tim and I agree on New Covenant theology, don't let his antidispensationalism get to you.
The law returns in NO way when Christ returns.
The law returns in NO way when Christ returns.
Daniel David
New Member
It was added that sin might increase. At least that is what Paul said.
Christ came and established a new law.
Hebrews says that the law was incomplete and NEEDED another that would be permanent.
Helen, the weight of the entire N.T. is against you on this.
Christ came and established a new law.
Hebrews says that the law was incomplete and NEEDED another that would be permanent.
Helen, the weight of the entire N.T. is against you on this.
Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
What do you think it is meant here by "uncleanness" Wouldn't we use the Bible's definition for that word? If not, why not?
The Jews do believe that the Law justifies and saves them. You can use the above 2 verses (or at least Deut 28:26) to show a Jew that they will not make it. I never said we are justified or saved by the law. We are only jusified and saved by Christ. But does that mean the law is abolished?
Luke 17:
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
I agree that doing the commandments will not "get us anywhere" or make one more righteous than another, but does that mean we do not do them?
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
What do you think it is meant here by "uncleanness" Wouldn't we use the Bible's definition for that word? If not, why not?
The Jews do believe that the Law justifies and saves them. You can use the above 2 verses (or at least Deut 28:26) to show a Jew that they will not make it. I never said we are justified or saved by the law. We are only jusified and saved by Christ. But does that mean the law is abolished?
Luke 17:
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
I agree that doing the commandments will not "get us anywhere" or make one more righteous than another, but does that mean we do not do them?
Daniel David
New Member
Caissie, we won't be following it because it was a Mosaic law. We will follow it because it is part of Christ's kingdom. Similarity doesn't demand that they are identical. That is where Helen is so confused.
Perhaps it would be good to mention that the reference to the Law in the Bible generally refers to the written Law -- that which was given through Moses.
If God's commands are considered law, however, then the law did indeed exist from the beginning, in verbal form. He commanded Adam not to eat of that one tree. Cain and Abel knew about sacrifice, and the Lord talked to Cain about sin. In the chapter DD is referring to (Romans 5), we also read the following: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. BUT SIN IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.
Take a look at that closely. Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. And yet just before that, Paul writes before the law was given sin was in the world.
Adam could not have disobeyed had God not given him a law. But sin was in the world before that law was given. Where? How?
Satan. Sometime between the creation of Eden and God's direction to Adam, Satan rebelled. The first law was given to Adam.
And if sin is not taken into account without the law, then why Noah's Flood? Was God not taking all that sin into account?
The written law was given to Moses. But the law of God was known to man orally, at least, before that time, as evidenced by Paul himself in the very chapter DD is referring to when he mentions that 'the law was added so that the trespass might increase.' The word Paul uses there, translated 'law', is 'nomos.' It means law, principle, regulation...it is from the root 'nemo', which means 'to parcel out' as in food for animals.
There is no indication in the word Paul chose to use that he was referring to the written law, or the law as given through Moses in particular. The word indicates that he was talking about any of the rules and regulations set down by God. And these started in Eden, with the proscription regarding the fruit of one particular tree.
If God's commands are considered law, however, then the law did indeed exist from the beginning, in verbal form. He commanded Adam not to eat of that one tree. Cain and Abel knew about sacrifice, and the Lord talked to Cain about sin. In the chapter DD is referring to (Romans 5), we also read the following: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. BUT SIN IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.
Take a look at that closely. Sin is not taken into account when there is no law. And yet just before that, Paul writes before the law was given sin was in the world.
Adam could not have disobeyed had God not given him a law. But sin was in the world before that law was given. Where? How?
Satan. Sometime between the creation of Eden and God's direction to Adam, Satan rebelled. The first law was given to Adam.
And if sin is not taken into account without the law, then why Noah's Flood? Was God not taking all that sin into account?
The written law was given to Moses. But the law of God was known to man orally, at least, before that time, as evidenced by Paul himself in the very chapter DD is referring to when he mentions that 'the law was added so that the trespass might increase.' The word Paul uses there, translated 'law', is 'nomos.' It means law, principle, regulation...it is from the root 'nemo', which means 'to parcel out' as in food for animals.
There is no indication in the word Paul chose to use that he was referring to the written law, or the law as given through Moses in particular. The word indicates that he was talking about any of the rules and regulations set down by God. And these started in Eden, with the proscription regarding the fruit of one particular tree.
Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
What did God mean here when he said, "ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever"?
Is "for ever" up yet? Did God really not mean what He said, or did he not know that Christ was going to change the law?
What did God mean here when he said, "ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever"?
Is "for ever" up yet? Did God really not mean what He said, or did he not know that Christ was going to change the law?
Of course He meant what He said, but in the course of the events of history (amongst other factors, such as are you a Jew living in the Land of promise? If you are a male are you circumcised?) God Himself ordered history so (one more time) that there are a large number of the 613 elements of the Law that are impossible to keep being no temple, priesthood, red heifer, etc...
Even if there were only one element you could not do, you are under a curse if you attempt to keep the law and miss ONE point.
But, if you want to keep the law then go ahead, but do it PERFECTLY, every jot and tittle to the very least of the commandments.
Then when you fail...
Matthew 11
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Hebrews 4:9-11
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
HankD
So, If your master said:
"Go feed my chickens, plow my field, milk my cow, and prepare supper for me." If you found out that the plow was broken, or maybe it started raining, and you couldn't keep all of what your master said, because you couldn't plow the field. You would conclude that you shouldn't feed the chickens, milk the cow or prepare supper? I think that if you had a good understanding master, he would not be upset with you as long as you did what you could. Only a bad master would punish you. Again, The Jews do believe that the Law justifies and saves them. You can use Deut 28:26 to show a Jew that they will not make it. I never said we are justified or saved by the law. We are only jusified and saved by Christ.
Still, no one has answered:
1. what does "uncleanness" mean in Gal 5:19 and wouldn't we use the Bible's definition for that word? If not, why not?
2. Why did the apostles keep the sabbath and keep making sacrifices to God many years after Jesus was dead, buried, and risen? Did they not know that they no longer had to do this?
3. Why did Jesus say "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:" if he was referring to something that is still in the future? Do we (as Christians) have to pray that our flight be not on the sabbath day?
4. Each law in the Old Testament had a penalty for breaking it. Will the Christian now be able to break that law without suffering the penalty? (Can a Christian keep farming the same plot a land with out giving it rest and still have good crops year after year?) I think a Christian would be a fool not to keep this one. (He will have bad crops and soon, no crops.)
There are many other points that I gave and are left unanswered, but let us just start with these.
"Go feed my chickens, plow my field, milk my cow, and prepare supper for me." If you found out that the plow was broken, or maybe it started raining, and you couldn't keep all of what your master said, because you couldn't plow the field. You would conclude that you shouldn't feed the chickens, milk the cow or prepare supper? I think that if you had a good understanding master, he would not be upset with you as long as you did what you could. Only a bad master would punish you. Again, The Jews do believe that the Law justifies and saves them. You can use Deut 28:26 to show a Jew that they will not make it. I never said we are justified or saved by the law. We are only jusified and saved by Christ.
Still, no one has answered:
1. what does "uncleanness" mean in Gal 5:19 and wouldn't we use the Bible's definition for that word? If not, why not?
2. Why did the apostles keep the sabbath and keep making sacrifices to God many years after Jesus was dead, buried, and risen? Did they not know that they no longer had to do this?
3. Why did Jesus say "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:" if he was referring to something that is still in the future? Do we (as Christians) have to pray that our flight be not on the sabbath day?
4. Each law in the Old Testament had a penalty for breaking it. Will the Christian now be able to break that law without suffering the penalty? (Can a Christian keep farming the same plot a land with out giving it rest and still have good crops year after year?) I think a Christian would be a fool not to keep this one. (He will have bad crops and soon, no crops.)
There are many other points that I gave and are left unanswered, but let us just start with these.