The Jewish Law and its relevancy

[teeboy]

I think we can both agree the the earth and sky have not disappeared yet, Jesus idicates that the Law given to them by God will stand till that happens. He did not come to abolish the Old Testament Law either. I mean he says it plainly that those who don’t teach the Law will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven. He says over and over that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom, and the Laws are from God.

I think you are taking “the earth and the sky” out of context. The earth is where Satan was thrown when he was thrown out of heaven by St. Michael. When the earth and sky disappear, is when the Kingdom is accomplished.

 

[teeboy]

I find this thread amusing.

I just finished filling out my tax form the other week. Amazingly enough, there were tons of human tax laws which didn’t apply to me. They were not abolished from the earth, and yet I did not break them by not following them. They just didn’t apply to me.

Jesus Christ did not abolish the Jewish Law of the Old Covenant. Not a jot nor a tittle will pass away until the end.

But most of the old Law doesn’t apply to those whom Jesus called into the New Covenant. We primarily have to worry about the new stuff, although some of the basic stuff still applies.

Now, if you want to voluntarily send the IRS every possible tax schedule and worksheet, all attached to your return, and if you want to try and get your bank to send you every possible 1099 form, even if they all read $0.00, that’s your business. But I don’t gotta, and I ain’t gonna.

But keep in mind that Jews don’t get into heaven.

 

[teeboy]

Deprofundis1, you said,
“The evidence points to keeping the Law, otherwise we are saying God doesn’t mean what he says. Jesus never instructs to stop all the Laws given by God, only that we should do them and not be hypocritical about them.”

The laws in the O.T. are twofold: the moral, and the other ceremonial and dietery ones.

O.T. moral laws are all found in the new testiment, that is the ten commandments, but they are not numbered and not in any paticular order. So these ethical laws are in both testiments. But the ceremonial and dietery ones are dropped in the N.T.

What you said above I would agree with if you meant by “all the laws” were all the moral laws.

Just a thought. What do you think?

Jesus abolished the dietary laws. That is in scripture. I believe the dietary laws to have been replaced by the Eucharist.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I just don’t know abotu that, because God’s righteousness does not change. If he gave out a law, he would not change his mind and make it unrighteous to follow. Those who follow the law will not be punished for it.

Observance of the law does not make one righteous anymore than observance of secular laws makes one a hero. Yours is a pharisaical view of the law.

While we don’t have the power to make ourselves righteous, because it ultimately comes from God, but we can work towards it in action, actions that God gave us in the law.

False concept. See above. Keeping the law is a minimum obligation imposed upon all. It does not itself make you a better person per se; again, keeping the precepts of secular law is obligatory in and of itself and not praiseworthy. It’s going above and beyond in the spirit of the law that makes on praiseworthy.

In Ezekiel 18:4-9, we see that God will save those that strive for righteousness. Later on in this chapter it becomes strickingly similar to Matthew 25:35-36, "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

These are selfless acts of charity and are an example of going above and beyond the law; however, it is the spirit God expects of all His people, especially in the New Covenant, because that very Spirit descends upon us and dwells within us; therefore, we have been given both the Spirit we need and promised also those graces we require to do those good works that Christ enjoins upon us - we need but have Faith and cooperate. In this way the New Covenant is superior to the Old Law that was but dead works. The Sacraments cause us to be alive in the spirit and to don the New Man and put off the Old Man such that we are enabled to do these things.

Jesus says if you do not do these things then you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So what has changed?

Those things prescribed in the Old Law that had to do with rituals are, again, dead works. Those things we are enjoined to do in the New are lively works.

Even with the death of Christ you must act to do the will of the Father in order to be justified.

Yes, this is why the Church teaches Christians to always have the intention in our prayers of “but not my will, Thy Will, be done.” That is to say, we may ask for whatever we need or is good but humbly reserve ourselves nonetheless to God’s Will, trusting in Him completely that He knows our needs and desires what is best for us.

So really, the “Old” Law still stands.

You haven’t demonstrated this at all:

Quad gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur

(What is gratuitously affirmed is gratuitously denied.)

It was only by the words outside the gospels that we see a want to break from them.

Neither proposition have you established; not your strange idea of “words outside the gospels” (what is that supposed to mean?) or “a want to break from them” (who wants to break from them?).

God does not change his mind in righteousness, what he says is true and eternal. He forgave sins in the past through penance of the people, which we are still instructed to do. So what has really changed?

In spiritual substance, nothing. It is the interior conversion of the heart that God desires. God still commends us to repentance of our sins. Look at the life of the Church - we just finished Lent, and all Christians are admonished to be penitent during this period and go to confession, if even we have only venial sins to confess. We still preach repentance of sins and baptism to the world.

 

[highrigger1]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:17-20[/BIBLEDRB]

Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways:

1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behooves us to fulfill all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin?
2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfill it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law.
3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality.

~St. Chrysostom. Hom. xvi.

Jesus clarified the Law and upgraded it.

Uzziah,

I dont think I can agree with you hardly at all.

Jesus fulfilled the Law by living it. The law is summed up he taught as “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

He did not fulfill it by prescribed rites. In fact he would often teach “You have heard it but I tell you…” He criticized the pharisees who trusted in those rites and ignored the important aspects of Gods Law.

He called us to fulfill it as He did but we do not. None of us. What He taught is that God loves us nevertheless and forgives us and we should live in that light.

He did not fulfill the law by changing it. He explained it as summed up in Gods love and our love for our neighbor.

So we trust in the promises of Jesus rather than our own ability to meet the Law.

Peace, JohnR

 

[1AugustSon7]

Jesus fulfilled the Law by living it. The law is summed up he taught as “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

The first commandment is to love God with the entirety of our being; the second “is like it,” which is to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. You cannot seperate the two and, if anything, the emphasis is on the first.

He did not fulfill it by prescribed rites.

He most certainly did. He embodied all of those rites perfectly. That is why it is said that all those rites pointed to and prefigured Him. Jesus is the Lamb of God. The liturgical context of Our Lord’s Passion (the Passover) is enormously significant for demonstrating that He did fulfil those rites in His very Person.

He called us to fulfill it as He did but we do not. None of us.

In one sense, only Our Lord could fulfill the whole Law, if in that we include also the rites, etc.; after all, they did prefigure Him. In another sense, however, all Christians are to keep His commandments (the Law) and we certainly are able to do so; otherwise, we make Christ into a tyrant Who commands the impossible. Even secular (common) law recognises that the law cannot enforce an impossibility.

What He taught is that God loves us nevertheless and forgives us and we should live in that light.

This would make His enjoining us to repentance pointless. Even after He accomplished the Sacrifice of the Cross, He still commanded His holy Apostles to go forth into the world preaching repentance of sins; however, if God had forgiven all men their sins ipso facto, as it were, then repentance of them would be mute and pointless.

He did not fulfill the law by changing it. He explained it as summed up in Gods love and our love for our neighbor.

Again, the commandment is for us to i) love Him and secondly ii) our neighbours as ourselves. Both of these are positive commandments. We are enjoined to actually and actively love God and also our neighbours. Neglect of this is to violate His holy commandments. This is part of the reason why Christians retained the Ten Commandments and enjoined them.

So we trust in the promises of Jesus rather than our own ability to meet the Law.

We are absolutely capable of keeping the law with God’s help. God would not enjoin what is impossible upon us. His promises assure us of His help. An act of Faith consists in trusting that God will not foresake us and that He will grant what we need to keep His Commandments; through His mercy, He has given us the Sacrament of Confession in case we fall (break the commandments); nonetheless, that is a proof of His mercifulness and not a license to break His commandments.

For example:
You may have a general inclination to forgive your children their faults or trespasses but you would become angry with them if they abused your love and mercy so as to grant themselves a license to break your commands, rules, precepts, etc. When you chastise your children generally you search them out for interior signs of sincere repentance or sorrow; and once detected, you then comfort and console them because you know such sorrow proves a change of heart; however, if you see them rolling their eyes or only producing words to distract you, then you know they haven’t learned their lesson, and may proceed to punish them (e.g. a grounding); whereas, had they fallen in tears begging your pardon, you may have been inclined to forgive them on the spot. Of course, you do not enjoin upon your children things impossible for them to actually keep: you know their capacities and limitations and you know what is easier or more difficult for them to keep. Because you are rational, you can judge prudently how much rigidity or laxity should be given in the maintence of your rule, as it were.

 

[meltzerboy]

My question is about the Jewish Law and its relevancy to everyone who believes in God. We see in the gospels that Jesus says the Laws of the Old Testament still stand, until the day when EVERYTHING is fulfilled, which hasn’t come to be. However, Paul and other early Christians seem to say that the Law does not apply anymore. Below I have posted several verses on the Law from the NT, I know they are long! How can we reconcile these? Jesus says the law stands, yet Paul says he is no longer under the law.

Mattew 23:1-3 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

1 Corinthians 9:20-21 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

Acts 24:14
“I (Paul) believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,”

Romans 4:14-15
For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Romans 5:20
The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

I think the key phrase in Matthew is Jesus’ saying “until everything is accomplished.” Since this may be interpreted in Christian theology as Jesus’ having accomplished everything by means of His own suffering, death, and resurrection, therefore the Torah Law, at least with respect to its ritual aspects, is no longer binding on Jews, since it was never binding on Gentiles to begin with. If, however, that phrase means until the end of days, it would contradict the Jewish teaching that the Law is never to be abolished, even in the Messianic Age.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think the key phrase in Matthew is Jesus’ saying “until everything is accomplished.” Since this may be interpreted in Christian theology as Jesus’ having accomplished everything by means of His own suffering, death, and resurrection, therefore the Torah Law, at least with respect to its ritual aspects, is no longer binding on Jews, since it was never binding on Gentiles to begin with. If, however, that phrase means until the end of days, it would contradict the Jewish teaching that the Law is never to be abolished, even in the Messianic Age.

In the consideration of all the Prophets, “everything” is quite a word! It would seem also to include the fulfillment of all prophecy in general. Further, we generally make a distinction about the Passion (suffering and death) of Jesus and His ressurection, which is a fulfillment of prophecy and also (of course) a miracle; but our Redemption was accomplished by His Sacrifice, which of course entailed keeping all the Commands and precepts of the Law: i.e., He was obedient even unto death, such as (in the new dispensation) the Martyrs all are, as they all refused (and do refuse) to break His commandments or to lose His love even if it costs them their lives; indeed, all Christians are enjoined to keep the Commandments even unto Martyrdom if necessary.

 

[adrift]

We still have the issue of the elect being gathered and the dead raising and the living to be caught up in the sky with them. That is not fulfilled.

Acts 3

but God has thus brought to fulfillment
what he had announced beforehand

Should this not be accomplished?
It will be accomplished but it is not part of what the Old
Testament was and which was what Jesus came to fulfill.

Also, he was fulfilling as in fulfilling the words of the prophets that he should die, not eradicate God’s Law, which he followed and instructed others to follow.

Your interpretation not what was said.

With the Law I am referring to the Tanakh Laws and the Noahide Laws, which cover moral laws, the laws on sin, redemption, salvation, worship of the one God, etc. All the laws that the Jews, Jesus himself, saw as relevant. Some of them overlap a few laws Christians follow, but not many.

Do you think all of them should still be followed?

In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus tells his disciples to teach all that he commanded, (which included the Torah Laws). Jesus was doing the will of the Father walking in the Law, should we not do the will of the Father and walk in the Law as well?

Really? Show me where he taught the Torah? Jesus taught the New Covenant which began when the Old was fulfilled. We should follow the new not the old. Do you still sacrifice animals?

“Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.”

I guess this eliminates the New Testement and everything that Jesus did.

The evidence points to keeping the Law, otherwise we are saying God doesn’t mean what he says. Jesus never instructs to stop all the Laws given by God, only that we should do them and not be hypocritical about them.

Jesus said that the old law would remain until He fulfilled the law which Jesus said He did.

After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst…When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished:

to reiterate
Acts 3

but God has thus brought to fulfillment
what he had announced beforehand

Jesus came to fulfill. Jesus did that He has nothing left to fulfill of the Old Testement.

 

[highrigger1]

=1AugustSon7;9212818]The first commandment is to love God with the entirety of our being; the second “is like it,” which is to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. You cannot seperate the two and, if anything, the emphasis is on the first.

August,

Jesus taught this and also taught they are the same.

=He most certainly did. He embodied all of those rites perfectly. That is why it is said that all those rites pointed to and prefigured Him. Jesus is the Lamb of God. The liturgical context of Our Lord’s Passion (the Passover) is enormously significant for demonstrating that He did fulfil those rites in His very Person…

Jesus and the pharisees argued about those rites a lot. They must have thought he did not obey them completely.

=In one sense, only Our Lord could fulfill the whole Law, if in that we include also the rites, etc.; after all, they did prefigure Him. In another sense, however, all Christians are to keep His commandments (the Law) and we certainly are able to do so; otherwise, we make Christ into a tyrant Who commands the impossible. Even secular (common) law recognises that the law cannot enforce an impossibility…

Of course it is not impossible. He is the example. But Gods Law is clear. Any honest person should admit they do not come close. The Young Rich Man (Matt 19:16) asserted
that he met it and it destroyed his capability of dealing with Jesus honestly and the meeting ended sadly.

=This would make His enjoining us to repentance pointless. Even after He accomplished the Sacrifice of the Cross, He still commanded His holy Apostles to go forth into the world preaching repentance of sins; however, if God had forgiven all men their sins ipso facto, as it were, then repentance of them would be mute and pointless…

Do not follow how repentance is pointless. We know we fail in Gods Law. We repent. God forgives because He loves us too much to let us go. That is the Gospel message.

=Again, the commandment is for us to i) love Him and secondly ii) our neighbours as ourselves. Both of these are positive commandments. We are enjoined to actually and actively love God and also our neighbours. Neglect of this is to violate His holy commandments. This is part of the reason why Christians retained the Ten Commandments and enjoined them…

Yes that is the substance of Gods Law and what Jesus taught.

=We are absolutely capable of keeping the law with God’s help. God would not enjoin what is impossible upon us. His promises assure us of His help. An act of Faith consists in trusting that God will not foresake us and that He will grant what we need to keep His Commandments; through His mercy, He has given us the Sacrament of Confession in case we fall (break the commandments); nonetheless, that is a proof of His mercifulness and not a license to break His commandments…

No one is preaching licence. Paul had to face the same argument. I am only saying that Gods Law is summed up in loving ones neighbor as oneself and if we fail we may repent directly to God as Jesus taught and be forgiven. We should live a life of constant repentance. Sin is not to commit an act but to fail in Gods Law. The act is the symptom of our problem and not the extent of our problem.

=For example:
You may have a general inclination to forgive your children their faults or trespasses but you would become angry with them if they abused your love and mercy so as to grant themselves a license to break your commands, rules, precepts, etc. When you chastise your children generally you search them out for interior signs of sincere repentance or sorrow; and once detected, you then comfort and console them because you know such sorrow proves a change of heart; however, if you see them rolling their eyes or only producing words to distract you, then you know they haven’t learned their lesson, and may proceed to punish them (e.g. a grounding); whereas, had they fallen in tears begging your pardon, you may have been inclined to forgive them on the spot. Of course, you do not enjoin upon your children things impossible for them to actually keep: you know their capacities and limitations and you know what is easier or more difficult for them to keep. Because you are rational, you can judge prudently how much rigidity or laxity should be given in the maintence of your rule, as it were.

That is fine parenting. But God does not treat us as children but as mature people.

God expects more of us. He expects us to love our neighbor as ourself. He gave us Jesus as His example. There is no half way or almost here. We should ask ourselves the question if we come even close? Or we can deal with Jesus on the basis that we meet Gods Law and see how that works. It did not work so well with the YRM.

Peace, JohnR

 

[mercytruth]

Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

DeProfundus1,

We could translate ‘is accomplished’ as ‘come to pass’

Nothing in the Tanakh, that is, nothing in the Torah and the Prophets will be abolished until they are fulfilled by the Messiah. The last thing that the Messiah must fulfill from the Prophets (Isaiah, for one, Zechariah for another) is the abolishment of death. When Jesus Christ abolishes death, then the present heaven and earth will disappear, or come to pass. When this has come to pass, or has been accomplished, then there will be a new heavens and a new earth.

 

[mercytruth]

DeProfundis1,

As to the second half of this scripture:

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is most likely that Jesus Christ was speaking of the greater fulfillment of the Torah as expressed in His commands that he was about to delineate in the foregoing three chapters of Matthew 5-7, known as the 'Sermon on the Mount".

God’s peace.

 

[DeProfundis1]

Observance of the law does not make one righteous anymore than observance of secular laws makes one a hero. Yours is a pharisaical view of the law.

We see times were God plainly says that our actions can lead us to righteousness.

Isaiah 51:1

“Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness and who seek the LORD:

We can pursue righteousness. God can declare us righteous by walking in his statutes and keeping the laws. Of course we don’t do it on our own, He is the one that declares it and gives us the strength. We see another example in Isaiah,

Isaiah 33:15-17
*Those who walk righteously and speak what is right, who reject gain from extortion
and keep their hands from accepting bribes, who stop their ears against plots of murder
and shut their eyes against contemplating evil— they are the ones who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. Their bread will be supplied, and water will not fail them. Your eyes will see the king in his beauty and view a land that stretches afar. *

We see again in Ezekiel an example of God explaining mens actions can make them just in His eyes. This isn’t going “above and beyond”, why even consider such an idea when these things that God had laid out justify us? So shall we go above and beyond what God established? I would say that is not possible. God made it reasonable enough for men to live a just life.

Ezekiel 18:4-9

Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a woman in her impurity; and hath not wronged any, but hath restored his pledge for a debt, hath taken nought by robbery, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true justice between man and man, hath walked in My statutes, and hath kept Mine ordinances, to deal truly; HE IS JUST, he shall surely LIVE, saith the Lord GOD.

I see there can be a difference between following the law, and doing so in a more willful spirit. I wouldnt praise just getting by in the law, over someone that exceeds and does so with a more willful spirit. However, if God declares us justified, who are we to challenge.

How do you interpret Matthew 23:1-2?

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

Neither proposition have you established; not your strange idea of “words outside the gospels” (what is that supposed to mean?) or “a want to break from them” (who wants to break from them?).

Words outside the gospels, that is exactly what it means. Paul and the early church fathers are the ones who spoke of the old laws as less significant, largely it seems to separate the Christians from the Jews. Nowhere in the gospels are we given instruction to quit the laws most of the Jews were following at the time. The only specific laws questioned were about dietary law and ceremonial washing. But even then it was more about Jesus being angry with the people for being hypocritical.

 

[adrift]

Words outside the gospels, that is exactly what it means. Paul and the early church fathers are the ones who spoke of the old laws as less significant, largely it seems to separate the Christians from the Jews. Nowhere in the gospels are we given instruction to quit the laws most of the Jews were following at the time. The only specific laws questioned were about dietary law and ceremonial washing. But even then it was more about Jesus being angry with the people for being hypocritical.

This raises the question as to what you mean by the gospel. The Gospels that is Matthew Mark Luke and John are not the only Scriptures. The Gospels clearly show that a New Covenant will replace the Old. Jesus said that the old would be gone when He fulfilled the Old Testament. When Jesus comes back is part of the New Covenant.

 

[mercytruth]

DeProfundis1,

There is a certain movement among a Karaite leader who is drawing in Christians. If this is what you are involved, be very careful. There are wolves in sheep’s clothing surrounding this movement.

If you are speaking of the Tanakh as the living word of God that has as much significance today, as it did to the Jewish Christian church, you are partly correct. The perfect adherance of the Tanakh by Jesus Christ makes it possible for the disciples of Jesus Christ to be perfect. (Note: I say Tanakh, and not Torah, because Jesus Christ over rides the Torah by teaching from one of the prophets: “It is mercy that I require, and not sacrifice”).

He continued to over ride the written Torah in his Sermon on the Mount by emphasizing the **heart **observance of the Ten Commandments as well as the outward observance by instructing his disciples to ask for the Holy Spirit from the Father, who being good, certainly will give good gifts to His children.

The Sadduccees and the Karaites emphasize the outward observance of theTorah do they not?

The Jewish Christian disciples did not become perfect by following the example of Jesus Christ, but by Jesus Christ transforming the hearts of his disciples. Jeremiah 31:31 speaks of the new covenant that is written on the tablets of the heart, and not on tablets of stone.

As others have pointed out, the Tanakh is summed up in the two great commandments of loving God and one’s neighbor, and this is only possible through the transforming love of Jesus Christ abiding through the Holy Spirit in the tablets of our hearts.

It is the human condition to think one possesses a superior spirituality than others. This is just another form of deceptive spiritual pride lurking around the corner.

The peace of God be with you.

 

[robindenver]

There is the Old Testiment, with old testiment laws in the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, for the old chosen people. Laws such as those in purification rites, the washings, and those of clean and unclean food, and all sorts of other O.T. laws.

There is the New Testiment, with new testiment laws in the New Testiment books, for the new chosen people. Laws such as St. Paul mentioned in his letters.

When Jesus died, that was the end of all of those old rites in the old law. And when Jesus said that all would be fulfilled and not a letter could be forgotten, it wasn’t forgotten and was fulfilled in his death which started the New Law.

The old covenant was circumcision bringing a person into the body of the chosen Jewish people under the old law and establishing an agreement to observe the Old Covenant with God.

The new covenant was baptism bringing a person into the body of the chosen Christian people under the new law and establishing an agreement to observe the new covenant with God.

Paul says, that the old law is unnessary, circumcision, and the new law now makes a person part of the new chosen people,baptism.

If this were not true, then we would be bound to all the old laws, such as washing our bodies after doing certain things, eating certain foods and avoiding others, sacrificing doves or oxen according to our financial being, and so on. Clearly, in the New Covenant with God, these things are unnecessary and were abrogated with the comming of the New Law which Jesus Christ established with his death.

Just a few thoughts.

If by “old law” one is referring to the laws of Judaism, as suggested by the thread topic, it is not true that “we” (meaning all mankind), would still be bound by these laws were it not for the redemption of Christ.

Jewish law was given by G-d to the Jews. The laws themselves consist of 613 commandments, but only a small subset of those - the Noachide Laws - are (were) binding on non-Jews.

According to Judaism, with the arrival of the Messiah, a new kingdom of G-d on Earth would come to pass, and most of the ills of mankind would vanish. The righteous dead of all faiths, not just Judaism, would rise up to everlasting life.

Christians believe Christ to be the promised Messiah, and that acceptance of His divine sacrifice creates in any one who accepts Him, redemption from the wages of sin and everlasting life beyond physical death. It is in that sense that He came to fulfill the old law.

I think for Christians the relevancy of Jewish Law is that it captured the teachings and commandments of G-d in the pre-Messianic times. Many of these teachings, at least the moral commandments, were reaffirmed by Christ. But it was never binding upon gentiles to follow all of the 613 commandments. G-d chose the Jews to preserve them through adherence and teaching.

Paul taught that acceptance of Christ was sufficient for all people - Jew and gentile alike - to secure G-d’s forgiveness and redemption. I don’t think this universal message is best captured by using phrases like “new covenant”, or “new chosen”.

The Jewish people still have their Torah, and to them G-d’s covenant is eternal. For Christians, Christ is the Messiah G-d promised the Jews (and everyone else), and Christ therefore fulfills Jewish law completely, from the Christian point of view.

 

[malkmindav48]

You are seriously mistaken. Everything was fulfilled with the Crucifixion, Resurection, and Ascention of Christ.
You are confusing that passage with the Second Coming.
I strongly suggest you consult a priest about the meaning and intent of Holy Scripture before misinterpreting it on the internet.

Wow, that’s a little harsh. Jesus answered a lot of questions from people who were confused about the law. Perhaps we can follow His example and respond just as lovingly.

 

[Simka]

Fred is on it. It’s about the covenant.

Israelites before Jesus live under the laws of the Old Covenant. Christians live under the law of the new covenant.

The Book of Hebrews is pretty explicit in its teaching, consistent with Paul, that with the death and resurrection of Jesus there has been made known a God-given righteousness apart from the law. Jesus lived and died under the law, fully satisfying its demands … a life without sin, as no other human could do. Believers (members of his body) now share in his righteousness, imputed by grace through faith. The Old Covenant died with him, and the New Covenant of salvation in him was born with his resurrection. The Old Covenant has been replaced, as God promised in Jeremiah.

 

[tommoee]

Perhaps this point has been made previously, but there are some things to bear in mind (these are all my opinions):

1. There is more than one Law. There is the moral Law, (10 Commandments, etc.) there is the Deuteronomic Law, which was to be the Law of the people of Israel, there was the ceremonial law, (circumcision, etc). Jesus’ statement about fulfilling the law is the prologue to a series of new moral dictates, that expand upon the moral law as stated in outline in the 10 Commandments. So this statement only applies to the moral law.
2. When Jesus said “I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it…” He was about to launch into an exposition of the law of love, which supercedes the simple moral precepts of the 10 Commandments. These come in the form of “You have heard it said…, but I say…” It’s interesting that Jesus does NOT say, “It is written…” I believe this is because He is illustrating the temporary and incomplete nature of the 10 Commandments, which was the law the Israelites received at Mt. Sinai. The final word is the Law of Love, the 10 Commandments necessary preparation for that.
3. In Acts 10, Peter receives a revelation from the Holy Spirit, that eating “all foods” is acceptable to God, instead of the kosher law. Peter disseminates this teaching at the Council in Acts 15. The proviso against eating blood and meat sacrificed to gods was to eliminate scandal, not permanently binding.
4. Paul makes the point in Romans 3 and 4 that Abraham was justified PRIOR to being circumcised. So he is saying that the advantage of circumcision is not justification, but something less than that. The point is that Baptism has now taken the place of circumcision (see Romans 6:3).
5. Paul says in Eph 2:14-15: “For [Christ] now is our peace…abolishing the law with its commandmentsand legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two…”
6. Christ did not observe the law perfectly - he instruct those who wanted to follow him to “let the dead bury their dead.” He touched a dead girl and did not undergo seven days of ritual purification. He was touched by a hemorrhaging women, and did not undergo days of ritual purification. Christ demonstrated by this that the old law of separation (as particularly practiced by the Pharisees) was no longer to be binding - that HE is the law, and He is love.

 

[mercytruth]

Perhaps this point has been made previously, but there are some things to bear in mind (these are all my opinions):

1. There is more than one Law. There is the moral Law, (10 Commandments, etc.) there is the Deuteronomic Law, which was to be the Law of the people of Israel, there was the ceremonial law, (circumcision, etc). Jesus’ statement about fulfilling the law is the prologue to a series of new moral dictates, that expand upon the moral law as stated in outline in the 10 Commandments. So this statement only applies to the moral law.
2. When Jesus said “I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it…” He was about to launch into an exposition of the law of love, which supercedes the simple moral precepts of the 10 Commandments. These come in the form of “You have heard it said…, but I say…” It’s interesting that Jesus does NOT say, “It is written…” I believe this is because He is illustrating the temporary and incomplete nature of the 10 Commandments, which was the law the Israelites received at Mt. Sinai. The final word is the Law of Love, the 10 Commandments necessary preparation for that.
3. In Acts 10, Peter receives a revelation from the Holy Spirit, that eating “all foods” is acceptable to God, instead of the kosher law. Peter disseminates this teaching at the Council in Acts 15. The proviso against eating blood and meat sacrificed to gods was to eliminate scandal, not permanently binding.
4. Paul makes the point in Romans 3 and 4 that Abraham was justified PRIOR to being circumcised. So he is saying that the advantage of circumcision is not justification, but something less than that. The point is that Baptism has now taken the place of circumcision (see Romans 6:3).
5. Paul says in Eph 2:14-15: “For [Christ] now is our peace…abolishing the law with its commandmentsand legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two…”
6. Christ did not observe the law perfectly - he instruct those who wanted to follow him to “let the dead bury their dead.” He touched a dead girl and did not undergo seven days of ritual purification. He was touched by a hemorrhaging women, and did not undergo days of ritual purification. Christ demonstrated by this that the old law of separation (as particularly practiced by the Pharisees) was no longer to be binding - that HE is the law, and He is love.

Excellent!!