Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Law Abolished!
#1
Matt 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
kataluō
1) to dissolve, disunite
1a) (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish
1b) metaphorically to overthrow, i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught
1b1) to subvert, overthrow
1b1a) of institutions, forms of government, laws, etc., to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard
1c) of travellers, to halt on a journey, to put up, lodge (the figurative expression originating in the circumstance that, to put up for the night, the straps and packs of the beasts of burden are unbound and taken off; or, more correctly from the fact that the traveller’s garments, tied up when he is on the journey, are unloosed at it end)
kata is frequently found as a prefix to other words – as we see in both these instances – typically it tends to add force to the word it is attached to – it frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.
luō is the root word of the word used by Jesus when He spoke of not coming to ‘abolish’ the Law but to ‘fulfill’ it – the basic meaning of luō is ‘to loose’ but as with so many Greek words one must pay close attention to the context in order to derive the proper meaning of the word – sooo – seeing as there is a contrast developed between ‘abolish’ and ‘fulfill’ that is not ‘obvious’ in English – therefore we should look at the meaning of ‘fulfill’ as well to get the full picture of that contrast.

plēroō
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1a1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
2a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2b) to consummate: a number
2b1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2b2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
2c) to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize
2c1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute
2c2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
2c3) to fulfill, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment

What was the attitude of ‘the people’ as to ‘the Law’? Consider what Peter had to say at the Jerusalem Council ‘Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?’ That was a powerful ‘slam’ against ‘the Law’ – once again the meaning of luō is ‘to loose’ but in order to ‘let something go’ that something must first be ‘bound’ – but – Jesus did not come to set the people free from their bondage to the Law by simply tossing the Law out with the trash – no – He was going to free them by rendering the Law complete in every particular stipulation. Jesus is here describing ‘how’ He was goin to accomplish the task set by the Father.

Eph 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances
katargeō
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one

kata is frequently found as a prefix to other words – as we see in both these instances – typically it tends to add force to the word it is attached to – it frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.
argeō means to be idle, inactive, to linger, or delay
Here Paul uses a different word which is still usually translated ‘abolish’ – but here Paul not only specifies the exact ‘how’ he also describes the ‘end result’ – specifically Christ accomplished His task of fulfilling the Law by going to the cross – the Law required death as propitiation for sin – so it was by His death that He rendered the Law of no effect – the Law became inoperative – inactive – of no influence or power over those who will place their trust in Him.
#2
That line of thinking is a careful line to walk though - because if Jesus is the messiah than he did not have the authority to negate the law in any way for any Jewish person because to do so would of rendered him a false prophet.

Now one way I have heard Matthew 5:17 explained is that Jesus is saying he came to make the law and prophets known correctly, or filled with meaning. Which, I see under your second list for meanings for the word that is rendered "fulfill" there are two meanings which point in that direction.

Eph 2:15 CJB: "by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances...."

The version of the verse that you used seems to come with the idea that Torah is the enmity. The idea that God gave the Torah with enmity in mind is ridiculous and if He did not have enmity in mind then would He of given the Torah in it's form when He could of given one which did not have enmity as an essential characteristic?

What I have read is that the enmity is the result of the way Jews and Gentiles would interact because of the condition of their heart, and also the sin which resulted when people would transgress the Torah.

To do away with those two things is in no way to do away with the Torah.
#3
Col 2:13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

This passage says much the same thing – He saved us on the basis of the cancellation of the certificate of debt – through His death as the ‘just price’ – the propitiation for our sins – the certificate of debt are the decrees (the Law) that had condemned us to death and were ‘against us’ and ‘hostile to us’ – by paying the price He has taken IT (the decrees – the Law) out of the way – He pick them up and carried them away – having nailed IT to the cross – through His death on the cross.

But please note that the Law was not ‘abrogated’ ‘destroyed’ or ‘cancelled’ IT stands in full force today and continues to do the ‘job’ that God intended it to do – to convict of sin and to convince of the need for a Savior. Jesus did not ‘negate’ the Law He ‘satisfied’ the Law for all those who will put their trust in Him.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
Rom 9:31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
Rom 9:33 just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
Rom 10:3 For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Here ‘righteousness’ is spoken of as ‘salvation’ – Christ is the ‘termination’ of the Law for Salvation to everyone who believes – through His death He now offers His ‘righteousness’ to the one who will receive it through Faith – The Law has been moved out of the way for those who will trust if Christ.
#4
What translation are you using?

Col 2:14 CJB: "He wiped away the bill of charges against us. Because of the regulations, it stood as a testimony against us; but he removed it by nailing it to the execution-stake."

The "it" in this case is the bill of charges and not the regulations. I see how by reading your translation you can come to the conclusion that the Torah and law do not count at all; it equates the certificate of debt and the decrees to be the same thing.

Col 2:13 YLT: "And you--being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh--He made alive together with him, having forgiven you all your trespasses"
14 "having 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"

I suppose the YLT is a little vague since Paul only writes "ordinances", but it should be noted that he says "ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us", for which I will stand on my point made earlier that God would not of given a hateful, contrary, or in someway deficient Torah. Which leads me to believe that the consequence is what gets blotted out; but that following Torah is still important for those who are under it by birth or choice.

Romans 9:31-32 also backs up my point. It did not work out because Israel pursued Torah by legalism and not by trust. The lesson is Torah is meant to be followed by trust. Though I do want to say I have the impression that the Jewish people are not as legalistic now.

My only real problem is when people say things like "The Law is abolished" or "The Law is of no more use for us", both of which are ridiculous. Torah remains a great way to be holy for God and to come close to Him. Also nothing ever loosed the Jewish people from Torah.
#5
I use many translations but I think I used the [NASB] in my last post. Let me clarify something, the ‘title’ of this thread is a ‘ploy’ intended to draw people into conversation. I am not suggesting that ‘the Law’ has been ‘abolished’ – Jesus said He did not come to ‘abolish’ the Law but to ‘satisfy’ its requirements. Also, I did not say that the Law had become ‘useless’ – I said, that ‘by His death Jesus rendered the Law of no effect – the Law became inoperative – inactive – of no influence or power over those who will place their trust in Him.’
Col 2:14 [CJB] "He wiped away the bill of charges against us. Because of the regulations, it stood as a testimony against us; but he removed it by nailing it to the execution-stake."
Col 2:14 [ALT] having blotted out [or, canceled] the handwritten record of debts in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Col 2:14 [YLT] having 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;
Col 2:14 [LITV] blotting out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, even He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross;
Col 2:14 [NET] He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:14 [ISV] having erased the charges that were brought against us with their decrees that were hostile to us. He took those charges away when he nailed them to the cross.
Col 2:14 [EMTV] having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:14 [NASB] having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Col 2:14 [ESV] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Now τοις δογμασιν is in the Dative Case and it is these two words that bear the burden of proof as to the proper understanding of this verse – the Dative Case has many uses; one of these uses is as the indirect object i.e. τω σταυρω is also in the Dative Case, when translated into English it takes a key word for it to make sense and sound right, in this case the word is ‘to’ – there are other key words that ‘apply’ to the Dative Case such as ‘in’ but this is a tricky one – as it could be ‘in reference to’ ‘in the sphere of’ ‘in accordance with’ – there is a use of the Dative called the Dative of Rule and is defined as such when ‘the dative substantive specifies the rule or code a person follows’ – how convenient τοις δογμασιν does carry that meaning even the meaning ‘the rules and requirements of the Law of Moses and carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment’ [Thayer] – so τοις δογμασιν could effective be translated ‘in accordance with the Law’. I thoroughly searched my Greek Grammar for a use of the Dative that could be translated ‘because of’ – and I found one called Dative of Cause – however – ‘because of’ the root meaning of δογμα this is almost undeniably a Dative of Rule construct. In ο ην υπεναντιον ημιν – the word υπεναντιον (opposed) is an adjective that modifies ο (that) which is a pronoun that refers back to δογμασιν (doctrine – dogma – law) – ημιν (to us) is a pronoun, in the Dative Case, and is the indirect object of the clause – ην (was) is the verb, it is in the Imperfect Tense, Active Voice, Indicative Mood – the Imperfect Tense presents the idea of something that was happening in the past is happening now and will continue to happen – the Active Voice says that the subject is actively involved in doing the action that is happening and the object is receiving the effect of what is happening – the Indicative Mood means that from the writers perspective what s/he is writing is truthful.

Having wiped away the handwritten certificate of debt against us, in accordance with the Law that was (and continues to be) opposed to us, He has taken IT out of the way, having nailed IT to the cross.

Our last task is to decide what IT refers to – looking at the translations I provided above and comparing them to my own I have to suggest that there is a ‘connection’ between the ‘certificate of debt’ and that which produced it, the Law, making them essentially the IT – to my thinking the CJB makes too laborious an effort to separate the two, adding words that, technically, cannot be found or even implied in the Greek – sorry.
#6
Well your right in that the CJB is a... what is the word, transliteration?It intends to get the meaning as opposed to the literal words. It is more like the NLT or The Message in that respect.

I have a feeling from here on out we're going to be splitting hairs, lol.

As I recall the purpose of the Law was righteousness, not condemnation. But condemnation is a natural result because of the bi-polar world we live in. By that I mean that in many ways our world is split in two: right and wrong, light and dark, etc. The absence of righteousness is condemnation, which the Law caused defacto because of the nature of world. Saying the Law is of no effect now is like saying the only purpose of the law or the main purpose of the Law is condemnation.

Might want to write more later, but I gotta go now.
#7
We are free from the condemnation of the Law, because of Jesus PTL, but its the law that also brings us wisdom and peace. I have been struggling lately with what day is Sabbath, and I assigned my family the book, I thought was just a random choice from my library titled, " THE TEN COMMMANDMENTS TWICE REMOVED" and they are to read it and write a report. So we are reading it together and WOW! I recommend this book to all bloggers here! I couldnt help but feel that it was no accident that I choose this book! What I have learned from the first few chapters is that others too struggle to know about Sabbath and have done much Biblical research and Saturday is the Sabbath Day! Also that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were never nailed to the cross, they where never abolished, but as it has been said, fulfilled in Jesus!
#8
(09-20-2011, 10:32 AM)Dewdrop Wrote: Well your right in that the CJB is a... what is the word, transliteration?It intends to get the meaning as opposed to the literal words. It is more like the NLT or The Message in that respect.

I have a feeling from here on out we're going to be splitting hairs, lol.

As I recall the purpose of the Law was righteousness, not condemnation. But condemnation is a natural result because of the bi-polar world we live in. By that I mean that in many ways our world is split in two: right and wrong, light and dark, etc. The absence of righteousness is condemnation, which the Law caused defacto because of the nature of world. Saying the Law is of no effect now is like saying the only purpose of the law or the main purpose of the Law is condemnation.

Might want to write more later, but I gotta go now.
I think 'paraphrase' is the word you were looking for.

Deu 6:25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.

Actually I agree with you whole heartedly the law was intended to bring about righteousness - but - 'you' had to 'observe to do' ALL THE LAW - Paul conceded that the mere 'knowledge' of the Law caused him to sin all the more - Jesus made the Law even more difficult to keep as He added to our actions our thoughts and emotions as ways that the Law could be broken then He said 'be PERFECT as your Father in heaven is PERFECT' - PERFECT - that is the 'standard' one must attain to - so then Paul concluded that the Law though meant to give life only brought about death for no one can 'do' the Law 'perfectly'.
(09-20-2011, 11:59 AM)HOPE7 Wrote: We are free from the condemnation of the Law, because of Jesus PTL, but its the law that also brings us wisdom and peace. I have been struggling lately with what day is Sabbath, and I assigned my family the book, I thought was just a random choice from my library titled, " THE TEN COMMMANDMENTS TWICE REMOVED" and they are to read it and write a report. So we are reading it together and WOW! I recommend this book to all bloggers here! I couldnt help but feel that it was no accident that I choose this book! What I have learned from the first few chapters is that others too struggle to know about Sabbath and have done much Biblical research and Saturday is the Sabbath Day! Also that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were never nailed to the cross, they where never abolished, but as it has been said, fulfilled in Jesus!
There are many books 'out there' designed to persuade that the 10 commandments are still a requirement for the Christian to observe - this is legalism plain and simple...

Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

Note that 4 of the 10 are quoted here followed by 'and if there is any other commandment' - that gathers up the other 6 - all of these and any other 'laws' you would care to toss in the mix are 'summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.' Period.

Now, of course, Saturday is the Sabbath - so what - Jesus said it was good to do good on the Sabbath - so the 'restrictions' that legalists will put on the unwary regarding what ought and what ought not be done on the Sabbath are things that God never intended - Paul there were some 'men' who looked upon every day as being the same - meaning every day ought to be a Sabbath - a Sabbath for doing good. But there is no 'law' to be kept with regard to keeping the Sabbath.
#9
(09-20-2011, 03:43 PM)Oliver Wrote: Actually I agree with you whole heartedly the law was intended to bring about righteousness - but - 'you' had to 'observe to do' ALL THE LAW - Paul conceded that the mere 'knowledge' of the Law caused him to sin all the more - Jesus made the Law even more difficult to keep as He added to our actions our thoughts and emotions as ways that the Law could be broken then He said 'be PERFECT as your Father in heaven is PERFECT' - PERFECT - that is the 'standard' one must attain to - so then Paul concluded that the Law though meant to give life only brought about death for no one can 'do' the Law 'perfectly'.

Well if Jesus said be perfect, I guess we should try and be perfect ^_^;; One thing that is important to remember is that anything done out of faith is not legalism.

I disagree with the idea that keeping the law as written in Torah isn't possible. I know that Jesus said something about "binding the people with the traditions of men" and that "you travel the world for one proselyte and then make him more a son of hell than he was", but from what I understand he was talking about the traditions of the Pharisees. I believe their tradition was repealed in the first century? Paul was probably talking about the law including the rulings by the Pharisees.

(09-20-2011, 03:43 PM)Oliver Wrote: Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

Note that 4 of the 10 are quoted here followed by 'and if there is any other commandment' - that gathers up the other 6 - all of these and any other 'laws' you would care to toss in the mix are 'summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.' Period.

Now, of course, Saturday is the Sabbath - so what - Jesus said it was good to do good on the Sabbath - so the 'restrictions' that legalists will put on the unwary regarding what ought and what ought not be done on the Sabbath are things that God never intended - Paul there were some 'men' who looked upon every day as being the same - meaning every day ought to be a Sabbath - a Sabbath for doing good. But there is no 'law' to be kept with regard to keeping the Sabbath.

The law is about love. It is about loving God by doing what He asks and loving people by being helpful, not hurtful. Love is such a big concept that it needs to be drawn out to be applicable to everyday life. That's one of the things the law is for.
#10
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

It is true that without ‘faith’ it is impossible to please Him – but note ‘Whom’ our faith must be in – Him. It is not faith in ‘our doing anything for Him’ (Works) but faith in ‘Him doing something for us’ (Grace). The reason for ‘observing to do all the Law’ was for ‘righteousness’ – so – anything ‘done’ by means of the Law to attain ‘righteousness’ IS Legalism and the ‘faith’ is in the ‘works’ not in the One who ‘justifies’ the one who does not ‘work’. Besides – one would have to be ‘perfect’ from the moment one became conscience of one’s ‘accountability’ to the Law – and remember – the penalty for even one ‘failure’ is ‘death’. Paul said of himself ‘as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless’ – sooo – was Paul ‘sinless’ being ‘blameless’ – NO – was Paul ‘righteous’ from the standpoint of the Law – YES – but not from the standpoint of God – Paul’s personal example was that of coveting – he said that before he knew about ‘you shall not covet’ he was ‘alive’ but when he became aware of the commandment ‘you shall not covet’ he ‘died’ for the commandment produced all sorts of coveting in him and he stood ‘condemned’ – sooo – how is it that Paul was able to say ‘as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless’ – for Paul also ‘confessed’ to being ‘the worst of sinners’ – hint – during Paul’s entire lifetime there was the Temple and its means of attaining ‘atonement’ – but the sacrificial ‘system’ was still a ‘work’ of the Law – and like the ‘sinners’ who had to use it – the ‘system’ was not ‘perfect’ for it provided only a temporary ‘covering’ until Messiah came and bore away the iniquity of the people.

John 6:28 They said therefore to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

In their mind these people were ‘willing and able’ to do the works of God IF it was a matter of their doing the work – but – Jesus told them to simply ‘believe’ in Him and His work that the Father had sent Him to do – sooo – guess what – the people balked at trusting their fate to another for they wanted to ‘work out their own righteousness’.

Man cannot ‘produce’ the kind of ‘righteousness’ required to enter the Kingdom of God – it is not attainable through the works of the Law…

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God;
Rom 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 3:22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
Rom 3:26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

The kind of righteousness required to enter the Kingdom of God is that righteousness attainable only through faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ…

Jesus said ‘seek first the Kingdom of God’ and ‘hunger and thirst after righteousness’ – we are to greatly desire His righteousness in order to enter into the Kingdom of God…

Only after attaining that righteousness can we ‘do justice’ – ‘be merciful’ and ‘walk humbly before our God’.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)