Christ fulfills the Law...

[stan4257]

What an incredibly astute observation.

I must go back to square one and think all over again.

Thanks.

...and while you're thinking about it, consider this: once a covenant, a legal contract, is fulfilled, there is no remaining obligation on the part of any party.

That is a very good point, too, though at the moment the way I see it is that it is the law that has been fulfilled and the covenant with Israel that is still in operation, but I am quite open to correction from those who know far more about this than I do.

[Guest shiloh357]

What an incredibly astute observation.

I must go back to square one and think all over again.

Thanks.

...and while you're thinking about it, consider this: once a covenant, a legal contract, is fulfilled, there is no remaining obligation on the part of any party.

That is a very good point, too, though at the moment the way I see it is that it is the law that has been fulfilled and the covenant with Israel that is still in operation, but I am quite open to correction from those who know far more about this than I do.

To "fulfill" does not necessarily mean "to bring to termination." Take for example Jesus' words, I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." (Paraphrase). Jesus used the word fulfill as the opposite of "destroy" or "abolish." His purpose was not abolish, abrogate or bring the law to termination, but to "fulfill" it in the sense of bringing it to it fullest expression. His stated purpose, which comes across better in Hebrew, is to bring full understanding with respect to the law. Jesus NEVER said anything about doing away with the Law and he never criticized the law. Jesus was not anti-law. He simply stood in opposition to the hypocritical ways that the leaders in Jerusalem applied the law.

The covenant with Israel is an "eternal covenant" (Gen 17:7,8). It was not eternal up to a certain point. It is still in force today. God's covenant with Israel will not cease or be brought to termination. That, however is an altogether different issue than God's eternal covenant with Israel.

[Neopatriarch]

To "fulfill" does not necessarily mean "to bring to termination." Take for example Jesus' words, I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." (Paraphrase). Jesus used the word fulfill as the opposite of "destroy" or "abolish." His purpose was not abolish, abrogate or bring the law to termination, but to "fulfill" it in the sense of bringing it to it fullest expression.

Also, if 'fulfill' means 'to bring to termination', then Matthew 5:17 would be saying something like "Do not think that I have come to abolish (i.e. bring to termination) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to bring them to termination", which is contradictory.

Regarding the word 'fulfill' Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament says:

33.144 πληρόωf: to give the true or complete meaning to something

[jeffnevins]

What an incredibly astute observation.

I must go back to square one and think all over again.

Thanks.

...and while you're thinking about it, consider this: once a covenant, a legal contract, is fulfilled, there is no remaining obligation on the part of any party.

That is a very good point, too, though at the moment the way I see it is that it is the law that has been fulfilled and the covenant with Israel that is still in operation, but I am quite open to correction from those who know far more about this than I do.

To "fulfill" does not necessarily mean "to bring to termination." Take for example Jesus' words, I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." (Paraphrase). Jesus used the word fulfill as the opposite of "destroy" or "abolish." His purpose was not abolish, abrogate or bring the law to termination, but to "fulfill" it in the sense of bringing it to it fullest expression. His stated purpose, which comes across better in Hebrew, is to bring full understanding with respect to the law. Jesus NEVER said anything about doing away with the Law and he never criticized the law. Jesus was not anti-law. He simply stood in opposition to the hypocritical ways that the leaders in Jerusalem applied the law.

The covenant with Israel is an "eternal covenant" (Gen 17:7,8). It was not eternal up to a certain point. It is still in force today. God's covenant with Israel will not cease or be brought to termination. That, however is an altogether different issue than God's eternal covenant with Israel.

Thanks. That helps.

Watchmen really know their stuff.

[Vickilynn]

Also, if 'fulfill' means 'to bring to termination', then Matthew 5:17 would be saying something like "Do not think that I have come to abolish (i.e. bring to termination) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to bring them to termination", which is contradictory.

Regarding the word 'fulfill' Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament says:

33.144 πληρόωf: to give the true or complete meaning to something

[Vickilynn]

That can't be right. He specifically said "ordinances" as being against them. He did not say, "blotting out sin that was against us".

Colossians 2:14

English Standard Version (ESV)

14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Cross references:

1. Colossians 2:14 : Acts 3:19

2. Colossians 2:14 : Rom 7:4

King James Version (KJV)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and (B)He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Cross references:

1. Colossians 2:14 : Eph 2:15; Col 2:20

2. Colossians 2:14 : 1 Pet 2:24

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross.

Cross references:

1. Colossians 2:14 : Lk 9:23; 23:26;

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

14having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;

[Guest shiloh357]

--

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are NOT UNDER THE LAW, but under grace" (Romans 6:1-14).

God has made it very clear plainly showing why the Old was fulfilled by Jesus, the only one who could fullfill the Old, which when fulfilled had to be abolished so that the New can be ushered in.

Perhaps I'm not understanding, but this interpretation of Romans 6:14 seems to imply antinomianism. And what do you do with Romans 3:31:

"31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

-Neopatriarch

Romans 6:14 has nothing to do with keeping the law or antinomianism.

If you follow the line of thought from Romans 5 through Romans 6, what you find is that Paul is talking about our standing before God. Being "unsaved" and "under the law" are two ways of saying the same thing. The Bible also refers to this as being "in Adam." All sinners are "in Adam" and "under the law."

Being under the law, in Romans 6 is equated by Paul with being "a servant of sin." It is a positional statement. Being under grace is equated with being saved.

Unfortunately Roamns 6:14 is often read this way: "For sin shall have dominion over you for you are no longer living within the framework of the law but in the framework of grace."

That is not what Paul had in view. Sin only has dominion over those who don't know Christ.

So, in short, if you don't know Christ, and you die without Him, you will stand before God under the law. But, if you are saved and know Christ, you will stand before God under grace.

[HAZARD]

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

This is not talking about the Old or New Laws. It is referring to the law in our members as Paul was talking about -

Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Chapters 6&7 are talking about the law in our members that serve sin and that now, since we are Christians, we have been delivered from that law of sin we are servants of God -

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

You have to read all of chapters 6 & 7 to get the whole meaning of what Paul was talking about.

As free moral agents we can believe and do what we like. If one wants to keep the Old testament Mosaic Law, then by all means go ahead. Just remember to keep all of it and its rituals and ceremonies, which includes daily blood sacrifices, as a sin offering to cover sin. That means sacrificing bulloks, sheep or any other animal as commanded in the Old Law! Or we can accept the New Testament, in which Jesus sacrifice, given once and for all, covers sin.

What ever rows your boat is ok by me!

Haz.

[Neopatriarch]

We are to obey all of God's law,some of the ''law'' the Jews lived by were the Jewish civil laws, which we need not be concerned about.

Why not the civil laws?

-Neopatriarch

[Guest shiloh357]

We are to obey all of God's law,some of the ''law'' the Jews lived by were the Jewish civil laws, which we need not be concerned about.

Why not the civil laws?

-Neopatriarch

I have hunch that they meant, "ceremonial laws."