Matt. 05 - 07

[Curt]

Quote :The first point is to ask whether the group of books called 'the new testament' are Scripture on the SAME BASIS as the Law or are they halachic decisions which rest on the Law?

Yes, the New Testament is scripture on the SAME BASIS as the Law.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work


Quote: But, you are right in regards to these writings not being on the same level as the TeNaKh, as the TeNaKh is the foundation for the Brit HaDashah, and not the other way around

I respectfully disagree! The TeNaKh may have come before the Brit HaDashah and may act as a foundation but in no way is the Brit HaDashah on a lower level.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction instruction in righteousness,, for 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work

Quote: Is there any place in the Gospels that Yeshua taught the doing away of His Father's ?? Much of Christianity seems to think so...

In Ephesians 2:14-15 scripture teaches us Jesus abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Ephesians 2:14-15 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Christ Our Peace

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Also, Hebrews9:9-10 tells us laws concerning foods and drinks, various washings and fleshly ordinances were only valid until they were deemed no longer valid.


Hebrews 9:9-10 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

[Mark]

HI Curt,

It's obvious that taking the Scriptures you quote at face value , it appears that some laws are no longer valid. However, such an interpretation of these Scriptures makes Paul a profound hypocrite and Yeshua a liar. Therefore, it is prudent that we look a little closer to see if there is something else they might have been trying to say.

If I were to visit you in your home and record every word you say for one twenty-four hour period; then choose two sentences within that period and broadcast those sentences to everyone you know as, "Curt said this..." I could probably destroy your life. It's a that we feel at liberty to take Scripture out of context in that same way. If you read the entirety of Ephesians 2, you will find that Paul is simply saying that salvation is by grace through faith alone. Our failure to live up to Adonai's standard of righteousness (the emnity between God and man) is what was abolished, not the Law itself; but the debt which our failure to live by its standard has incurred.

Take a look at Isaiah chapter 1. It is so interesting that the strong language against the Hebrew worship is never suggested to mean that Adonai is doing away with the Sabbath. Yet in Hebrews, the same language has become an antinomain trump card.

Again, the context is reminding us that salvation is given by the work of Yeshua, not our ritual practices. There is much debate as to exactly when the book of Hebrews was written. Either the Temple had been destroyed recently or it was soon to be destroyed. Even if the occurance had not yet taken place, the political writing was, no doubt, written on the wall. Viewing the book of Hebrews in this context, it is easily seen as a letter of encouragement to the Hebrew believers in Messiah. The Temple no longer needed to be their beacon of righteousness. The sacrifices, while they understood already pointed toward the person of Yeshua, didn't need to continue in order for them to be at peace with Adonai (remembering the Babylonian exile). Again, the Scripture you use is taken out of context in order to prove your point.

Yeshua said that not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law until all has been fulfilled. But, He said more than that. In matthew 5:19, He said anyone who keeps and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven; whoever degrades the Law will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Then, in Matthew 24:35 He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall never pass away." I think we can safely say that all of the Law stands (as Paul confirmed in Romans 3:31).

Our exegisis of Scripture, based upon 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17 is to see how it fits together consistently, not to find contradiction that isn't really there. Paul told Titus that such activity is fruitless.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Our exegisis of Scripture, based upon 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17 is to see how it fits together consistently, not to find contradiction that isn't really there. Paul told Titus that such activity is fruitless.

Amein v’amein. I am in complete agreement. It is also worthy to note that 2Timothy 3:16-17 was written far before the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant.) were established. Read within the correct context we see that Sha’ul (Paul) was writing to Timothy regarding the TeNaKh (, Prophets, Writings) as this was the only holy scripture available during the time and in fact this was the case for over hundred years after that. I am not saying that the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Cov.) are not enspired text…only that 2Timothy 3:16-17 mainly speaks of the TeNaKh. Could you imagine someone reading Sha’ul’s letter to Timothy during the time that it was written and even over hundred years later not having any other established holy text to reference other than the TeNaKh…how do you think the people reading it during that time understood it? Of course, they would have understood it within the context that it was written. We have to be careful about forcing our own understanding upon the writings of the Brit Chadashah…This is especially true for those whom are coming out of a Western-Greek mindset which have a difficult time understanding the Hebraic origins and context in which all of our scriptures were written. We cannot simply claim to have the Spirit and reinterpret the scriptures to our liking.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[Curt]

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your response elaborating upon what you believe to be the Bible interpretations concerning this subject. First, I would just like to say I held your beliefs at least concerning keeping the annual feasts at one time. I came to be unsure what should be the true Bible interpretation. I asked God to show me the verses and make known His intent on this subject. Subsequentlly, I was forced to change my former belief to that which is at least a part of the law has been reformed or abolished.


Quote:[i] It's obvious that taking the Scriptures you quote at face value , it appears that some laws are no longer valid. However, such an interpretation of these Scriptures makes Paul a profound hypocrite and Yeshua a liar.[/i]

Curt: I believe the face value interpretation of Ephesians 2:14-15 and Hebrews 9:9-10 is the Bible interpretation God intended. I believe the quotes at face value are consistent with Jesus’s and Paul’s teachings. Although you have given your interpretation for the entirety of Ephesians 2 and I will deal with that later you have conspicuously not given what you believe to be the meaning of those verses of Ephesians 2:14-15 and Hebrews 9:9-10. Whenever I challenge someone that they have taken verses out of context I also give what I believe to be the Bible meaning of verses challenged.


Quote: It's a that we feel at liberty to take Scripture out of context in that same way. If you read the entirety of Ephesians 2, you will find that Paul is simply saying that salvation is by grace through faith alone.

Curt: Regarding Ephesians 2:14-15: I disagree that these two verses are taken out of context. Yes, Paul is speaking of salvation by grace.
In Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 (New King James Version)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.
But grace is irreversibly linked to faith and faith is linked to the law and faith came after the law. Grace, faith and the law are intertwined in this chapter that is why you have the two verses in Ephesians 2:14-15. Before faith was the law, once faith came that part of the law was no longer needed.
Galatians 3:23 (New King James Version)
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
Before faith we were kept under guard by the laws mentioned in Ephesians 2:14-16. These laws were are tutor.
Galatians 3:23 (New King James Version)
. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith
After faith this tutor or these laws were no longer needed and were abolished.
Galatians 3:25 (New King James Version)
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor
So you see grace, faith and the laws of commandments contained in ordinances are all intertwined in the same context in Ephesians 2.
Quote: Our failure to live up to Adonai's standard of righteousness (the emnity between God and man) is what was abolished, not the Law itself; but the debt which our failure to live by its standard has incurred.
Curt: I still have to disagree, The scripture is talking about enmity between the Jew and the Gentile. He is talking about creating one man from two. Jesus has made peace between the Jew and Gentile by dying on the cross and eliminating that which separated them which is the enmity or hostility, or animosity or antagonism.

Ephesians 2:14-16 (New King James Version) 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
I believe the verse clearly says the enmity is the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What separates the Jew and the Gentile , what causes the enmity, what makes the middle wall of separation is the law of commandments contained in ordinances. By eliminating those commandments He has made peace between the Jew and Gentile and has joined the two men to make one.
Ephesians 2:14-16 (New King James Version)
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Quote: Take a look at Isaiah chapter 1. It is so interesting that the strong language against the Hebrew worship is never suggested to mean that Adonai is doing away with the Sabbath. Yet in Hebrews, the same language has become an antinomain trump card.
Curt: I haven’t suggested the weekly Sabbath has been done away with, it is one of the Ten Commandments not one of the laws of commandments contained in ordinances. Nowhere in the Bible is their evidence the Sabbath has been done away with.
Quote: Again, the context is reminding us that salvation is given by the work of Yeshua, not our ritual practices. Again, the Scripture you use is taken out of context in order to prove your point
Curt: Hebrews 9 is comparing the limitations of the earthly service with that of the heavenly service. The earthly service could not give us salvation that is why it was ended A part of that earthly service was performed through the ordinances and laws of Moses.
Hebrews 9:9-10 (New King James Version)
9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation
What was ended?
Hebrews 9:10 (New King James Version)
10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
Why were these ended? Because salvation was by the one-time sacrifice of Jesus’s life. Salvation by Jesus eliminates all future earthly sacrifices. Reformation is necessary because these laws are no longer needed.
Hebrews 9:24-26 (New King James Version)
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself
Quote: Yeshua said that not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law until all has been fulfilled.
Curt: Now it is my turn to accuse you of taking this verse out of context to prove your point! Matthew 5:9 is speaking of the Ten Commandments and any laws that have not been abolished or reformed. If you read on in Matthew chapter 5 you will see of which commandments He is speaking. The commandments He reinforces (enhances or magnifies) are all the Ten Commandments.
Matthew 5:21 The fifth commandment.
Matthew 5:21 (New King James Version)

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.
Matthew 5:27 The sixth commandment.
Matthew 5:27 (New King James Version)

27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Matthew 5:33 is the eighth commandment.

Matthew 5:33 (New King James Version)

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.

The law that is not a part of the Ten Commandments but is a part of the Law of Moses is nullified or abolished by giving the exact opposite instruction that the law of Moses gave.
Matthew 5:38 (New King James Version)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
The above verse, Matt. 5:38 is a law of Moses. The following opposite instruction negating the law was given:
Matthew 5:39-42 (New King James Version)
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away
Just for good measure He negated a principle drawn by scribes and Pharisees from the Law of Moses. The principle is:
Matthew 5:43 (New King James Version)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy
Matthew 5:44 was written in opposition to, or abolishing or reforming Matthew 5:43.
Matthew 5:44 (New King James Version)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
The above is the negation of the drawn principle in Matt.5:43

Now to get back to the same verse you quoted, I will give you another reason why you are mistaken about the law of commandments contained in ordinances and the laws dealing with foods and drinks, as being considered by God as a part of the whole law.
Your verse again: Matthew 5:18 (New King James Version)18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Curt: First, let me give you some dictionary definitions.
whole P Pronunciation Key (h l)
adj.
1. Containing all components; complete: a whole wardrobe for the tropics.

and P Pronunciation Key ( nd, n; nd when stressed)
conj.
1. Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as

God does not consider the statutes and ordinances written by the hand of Moses as a part of the whole law.

2 Chronicles 33:8 (New King James Version)
8 and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers—only if they are careful to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”

The words “whole law and the statues and ordinances by the hand of Moses” separated by the word “and” show that God does not consider the statutes and ordinances by the hand of Moses to be a part of what He calls the “whole law.” The law spoken of in Matthew 5:18 refers to what God calls the whole law not the statues and ordinances by the hand of Moses. Whole by definition means containing all components. The whole law, the complete law or all the law does not include the statutes and ordinances by the hand of Moses. Why would Jesus consider the statutes and ordinances by the hand of Moses as a part of the whole law when you look in the rest of the contextual chapter of Matthew 5 and see He is giving new laws which oppose the old law of Moses. That’s nullifying, abolishing and reforming those specific laws.
Quote: " Then, in Matthew 24:35 He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall never pass away."
Curt: Those words include Ephesians 2:14-15 and Hebrews 9:9-10.
Quote: " I think we can safely say that all of the Law stands (as Paul confirmed in Romans 3:31).
Romans 3:31 (New King James Version)
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Curt: What some people do not understand is that sometimes when Paul uses the word “law”he is speaking of the whole law or the Ten commandments and “law in another area of the Bible he may be speaking of the statutes and ordinances by the hand of Moses. Which particular set of laws depends on the context of the writing.The law we establish is the Ten Commandments and those laws outside of the abolished and/or reformed. We certainly do void those laws that faith has negated.
Galatians 3:23-25 (New King James Version)
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Quote: , He said anyone who keeps and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven; whoever degrades the Law will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."
Curt: That verse is found in the same context of Matthew 5. Jesus is certainly not talking about laws He helped abolish or reform. By the way that verse to me means those who break God’s commandments and teaches men to break won’t even be in the kingdom of heaven. They will be spoken of by those in the kingdom of heaven as being least because they are not in the kingdom of heaven because of breaking god’s commandments.
Matthew 5:19 (New King James Version)
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus is certainly not speaking of laws that He abolished or reformed.
Quote: Our exegisis of Scripture, based upon 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17 is to see how it fits together consistently, not to find contradiction that isn't really there.
Curt: Your mistaken I don’t look for contradictions. There’s a good reason I don’t. I don’t believe there are any contradictions in the Bible. There are verses that appear to contradict but it’s really just us readers who don’t understand. Which is why I try to use the analytical approach of looking up all the verses on a subject in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. When you have all the verses it does fit together consistently. There may be a few verses out of the total verses on a subject that seem to contradict or be out of place but they will require more Bible study. With all the verses on a subject present the Bible truths and Bible doctrines can be determined. II timothy 3:16 illustrates that idea perfectly.I also rely on people like yourself to present verses that I may have missed.

[Mark]

Hi Curt,

I'm sorry for not getting back to you for such a time; but it has been a crazy-busy week. I want you to know that you have been on my mind. Foremost, I apologize if you are offended by my choice of wording in our disagreement. In re-reading our posts, I was speaking to the issue and not to the person; and that is always a mistake- never having room for grace.

If Yeshua is dismissing elements of in Matthew 5-7; then He is immediately contradicting Himself.

Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
(Mat 5:17-19 MKJV)

What we see debated by Yeshua in Matthew 5-7 is the difference between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai in rabbinical Judaism of the day. Shammai taught that each command, each mitzvot, was unique and individual and that obedience was to the full extent of the letter. This means if you pluck out my eye then your eye is mine- I have no opportunity nor ability to extend grace. In Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24, the tone is much different. If you pluck out my eye, the very worst I can due to you is demand your eye in repayment. This is the teaching of Hillel, that every mitzvot is a facet of the one Law; to love your neighbor as yourself. The Hillelic teaching is most strongly evidenced in James 2:10 "If you keep the whole Law and yet stumble in one point you are guilty of all." Yet, it is arguable that this is exactly the same message that Yeshua is teaching in Matthew 5. To a student of Shammai, when Yeshua stated, "if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery with her" He trangressed Deuteronomy 4:2 and added to the command. This is punishable by death (Deuteromomy 13, though they did it all the time). However, to a student of Hillel, He is demonstrating the "one Law" teaching, that each mitzvot is simply a facet of how Adonai has commanded us to show love. It is the same with His teaching which associates hate with murder. He is simply teaching Leviticus 19- there is no addition nor abbreviation of command; simply combining two principles (facets) of in order to give a more complete understanding.

If Paul taught against any of , then he lied to the Jews in Acts 28:17.

And after three days it happened that Paul called together those being chief of the Jews. And they coming together, he said to them, Men, brothers, I did nothing against the people or customs of our fathers. I was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans
(Act 28:17 MKJV)

The Jews understood the sacricial system to be their trump card into the heavenly kingdom. The middle wall of partition is referring to the separation between the Court of the Gentiles and the Court of the Jews. (See link www.ebibleteacher.com/imagehtml/jerumodel.html for helpful pictures.) Sacrifices occured within the Court of the Jews, out of reach from any gentile. Paul is demonstrating that salvation by grace through faith renders the sacrificial system ineffective for manipulating Adonai's relationship to man.

Henbrews 4:2 tells us that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone. Hebrews 10 tells us clearly that the blood of animals were never intended to cleanse anyone of their sins- they were simply given as an object lesson, a demonstration of (one of my favorite techno-theo speakie) substitutiary atonement.

It has been argued that Hebrews 9:10, since it says "food" is saying it's now okay to eat unclean meats (Matthew 5:17-19 comes blaring to the forefront of my mind) yet, in doing so it is forgotten that the writer of Hebrews is talking about the sacrificial ordinances and they ate and drank and washed ceremonially during these rituals. Hebrews 9 and Ephesians 2 are parallel. They are saying that this system was to point toward Messiah, not to restrain or replace the need for Him.

Please note that the sacrifices have not been abrogated- that Paul, in Acts 21 was involved in a practice that required sacrifice in order to demonstrate to the believing Jews in Jerusalem that he was observant. The circumstances today are not unlike those of the period between the first and second Temples. Sacrifices, according to , may only be performed in that place which is chosen by Adonai- His holy mountain in Jerusalem. I must re-iterate that salvation was never accomplished by sacrifices (as many Christians believe was the case in the Old Testament). If that were true, Daniel, Ezekiel and Mordecai will all burn in Hell, seeing they died in exile.

Our goal in these discussions is to live lives that are honoring to Messiah, holding the Word of Adonai in highest esteem and in honoring His creation: our brothers. I hope not to build antagonism or dissention. I don't know what your convictions are concerning any specific mitzvots; and frankly, it's none of my business. Yet, any time we take one Scripture and pit it against another to say, "We don't have to do this anymore because it says this" we are walking on very unstable ground. is a big book all by itself. If one were to commit himself to understanding fully what it means to live in celebration of the Sabbath or what it means to honor your father and mother without ever considering any other command, the material would be inexhaustible. I'm not concerned with those who are seeking to understand the Scriptures one at a time. The folks whom I appeal to are the ones who argue that Scripture (one or the other) is not for them- that they don't have to obey. They are holding their relationship with Adonai at arm's length.

[Chizuk Emunah]

I believe that Reuel and Mark have this conversation pretty well covered, so I won't add a whole lot.

Curt,
I would have to disagree with your statement that the Ten Commandments do not include the of Moshe. There are 613 distinct mitzvot or commandments within the . The only reason so much emphasis is put on the Ten Commandments, is because HaShem himself spoke those words to the Assembly of Yisrael (that was all the glory they could take of the Almighty's presence). The does go on to say that after that encounter, the people wanted Moshe to give them the rest of the , and he did. And when he had finished, they said that they would hear and obey all the mitzvot (commandments), not just the ones they heard from HaShem.

So in Matt. 5:17-19, when Yeshua specifically states that he did not come to abolish the Law (bad translation actually means instruction, ) or the Prophets (Nevi'im, part of the TaNaK), there is no way that his audience would think he was only referring to the Ten Commandments.

As Mark pointed out, Yeshua wasn't re-iterating the Ten Commandments, such an exercise would have been pointless, as his audience was strictly Jewish and had been taught the commandments from the time they were children. What he was doing was fulfilling prophecy.

The prophecies concerning the Messiah say that when the Messiah comes, he will give a fuller understanding of . That is exactly what Yeshua did in taking on these halachic debates in Matt. He took on both schools of Pharasaic thought, the Sadducees, and even the Essenes. Most of the time he sided with the school of Hillel, though he sided with the school of Shammai on the issue of divorce.

To a student of Shammai, when Yeshua stated, "if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery with her" He trangressed Deuteronomy 4:2 and added to the command.

I think this is a seriously misunderstood passage. I'll post more on it later.

[Chizuk Emunah]

(This was originally posted by Stacey in another thread, but I felt it belonged here.)



I see that this has been mentioned in previous posts, but in reading the Scripture again myself, something jumped out at me, and I would like some clarification if anyone has the time...

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 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."

Here is where my misunderstanding is. It says not one jot or tittle would pass from the law till it was fulfilled, but directly prior to that statement, Jesus said that He had come "to fulfill" the law. But when did that fulfillment take place? At his death, resurrection...? And if the law was indeed fulfilled (assuming it was, so as not to make him a liar), then what are the jots and tittles that would have passed away from the law? Perhaps the need for the yearly sacrifice?

Just some honest ponderings here. Thanks for the consideration.

Stacey~

[Mark]

Hi Stacey, and welcome:

This is one of my favorite questions: didn't Jesus fulfill the Law? With reference to Matthew 5:17, 18.

If you dig out your old risty Strong's concordance and look of the word "fulfill" and "fulfilled" in Matt. 5:17 -18, you'll see that they are not the same word. When Jesus said "I have come to "fulfill" the Greek word is play-roo. It means to level up or to do one's part. When He says that not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all has been fulfilled, the word is ginomai, which simply means done or completed. There are two conditions the Messiah places upon the doing away of the Law: 1. all has been fulfilled (done/ginomai) 2. heaven and earth pass away. Interestingly enough that the word ginomai does not occur as a completed act in tense and mood until; Revelation 21:6 when Jesus says "It is done." Ginomai. Just after there is a new heaven and a new earth.

Hope this is helpful.

Mark

[Stacey]

Thank you so much Mark! Yes, it is extremely helpful and gives me insight on the "translation" of the King James Bible. I am presently looking for a more precise translation that I can use and trust, since I don't know the original languages yet... (any suggestions?) Is Greek the original language of that Scripture?

I have been searching a couple of links I was given and am REALLY surprised at what I am learning, and suddenly years of confusion about the "contradiction within Scripture" is vanishing. I must have "preached" to my husband for over an hour when he came home from work last Friday LOL. I wanted to keep Shabbat but 1)I felt I didn't have enough knowledge about what/how to do it and 2) my husband said that he wasn't going to be a part of something he didn't believe right now. So I did the best I could and will do so again in the future. I'm so glad that G-d knows our hearts!

I'm just so pleased to have found this forum! Thanks again!

Shalom~
Stacey

[Stacey]

Oh, and thank you, Netzar Y'hudi, for moving my post to a more appropriate spot. I appreciate it.

Stacey~

[Chizuk Emunah]

I am presently looking for a more precise translation that I can use and trust, since I don't know the original languages yet... (any suggestions?)

There are many different versions out there. As a starter, I would recommend the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern. He still uses the Greek for the 'Newer Testament', but it at least gives you a "jewish feel" for the Scriptures. Here's a link with different versions that are available: Bibles

Is Greek the original language of that Scripture?

This is still a fairly debated topic, but there is substantial evidence that the 'Newer Testament' was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated (sometimes poorly) into Greek.

Oh, and thank you, Netzar Y'hudi, for moving my post to a more appropriate spot. I appreciate it.

No problem.

[Stacey]

I'm going to go out today and try buy one of the Bibles mentioined. In the meantime, I've been using all these wonderful online resources for reading and learning. Thanks!

Shalom~
Stacey

[Mark]

Take a look about 3/4 toward the bottom of this thread

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&n=1&thread=175&page=2

and into the next page and you'll find some of our discussion on the value of Greek.

[The 614th Mitzvot]

Does anyone truly understand what the Law of sin and death means? It does not mean that for a sin you die a spiritual death, no all are alive in the spirit, because we believe in Moshiach. What it is reffering to is the punishment, the way that one could atone for sins is always death; of the sacrifice, of oneself; but it must be death. This is why the instituted the death penalty, not because this man does not deserve to live, but because back then the only way certain sins could be attoned for was by the death of the person who had commited them. Some would merit death by a beit din (jewish court) and others by HaShem himself! When Yeshua HaMoshiach takes away the law of sin and death it is just that we are not longer bound by that very basis i.e. sin = a physical death, but instead we are bound to a new law which is life. Is the law actually new? No, it is not new in our view but it's mechanisms are new, its punishments it's fulfillments are new. Like a person who wears different clothes. The was and is emet (true) and tzedek (righteous) but was clothed with punishment because of our misdeeds. When we sin we cloth the that is written in our hearts with the sin and because of this the changes and the only way to remove this clothing is through atonement. With Yeshua HaMoshiach we can clothe our in his emet adn tzedek which is the true . So we can clothe the in our hearts with Yeshua HMoshiach and begin living free from sin and death or rather the law of SIN=DEATH.

www.geocities.com/~rabbi1/beit.html

Click on Articles then "History (Acts to 400 C.E.)"

[Chizuk Emunah]

Well said achi.