When Jesus said he would fulfill the law, did he also change it?

Col 2:
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come;

Everyone who does not keep the feast points to this verse, saying that Paul is telling non feast keepers to not let people judge them for not keeping the feast. While the people who do keep them, say this verse is saying do not let people judge them for keeping these feast, and that we should keep them because they are a shadow of things to come (except for the Spring feasts that were fulfilled.) So, I think this verse could go both ways.

Also, what about Jesus' instructions on "Do this (the Passover supper) in remembrance".?

 

There should be a new rule added to the Baptist Board:
"No one is allowed to challange scripture without more scripture."

CAPITAL LETTERS AND EXPLANATION POINTS DO NOT HELP MAKE YOUR CASE. Give scripture.

 

Jesus did not tell the disciples to celebrate Passover in remembrance of Him, Caissie. The only Gospel in which we read any request He made in connection with this meal was in the passing of the broken bread -- when He asked them to eat that broken bread in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).

The Passover remained separate from that in terms of food.

No capitals, no exclamation points, and a Bible reference -- hope that is sufficient.

 

You are making divisions where the Bible does not. It treats the law as one complete whole unit. No divisions - you keep all of the law perfectly or you are guilty of breaking all of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus seems to have made a distinction, to beg your pardon. In Luke 18:20, and parallel verses, when He is responding to the rich young man about what must be done to inherit eternal life, Jesus responds with examples of the Ten Commandments and not a word about the ancient laws made for the theocracy of Israel.

Again, the Ten Commandments can be kepts by anyone, regardless of political system.

If you read the opening verse of chapter 21 of Exodus, you will also see the distinction made. Chapter 20 contained the Ten Commandments. Right after that, and after the people's response of fear, 20:22 reads

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.'"

He then goes on for a couple of sentences speaking directly to the Israelites as a people regarding how the altar is to be built. STILL CONTINUING, with no breaks except those made by whomever divided chapter 20 from 21, we read in 21:1
"These are the laws you are to set before them..."

Thus, God Himself made the distinction between the Ten Commandments and the specific laws that Moses was to set before the Israelites in establishing their theocracy.

Both Old and New Testaments thus give evidence of a definite division between the Ten Commandments and the laws given specifically to the Israelites.

 

Interesting how you skipped verse 9, which is in the middle of what you reference, and also negates it by being in the present tense:

verse 9: If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorous is the ministry that brings righteousness!

Granted the former is fading, but, as Jesus said in Matthew 5, not one tiny little stroke of the pen will be changed from it until all has been accomplished.

Going on, in 2 Cor. 3, let's follow it through to the end, OK?

Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

In other words, the old covenant is still read and still applies until the person turns to Christ.

Context is a wonderful thing, James.

 

Christ fulfilled all the Law. I have never said otherwise. That does not erase the Law for those who do not accept Christ, however. Trying to squeeze around that by evidently implying (if I am reading you correctly) that the law would now exist only in people's perceptions is fallacious and imaginary.

If the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, then sin must be defined. The Law defines it. Without the Law there is no basis for that conviction.

You might also notice HIS mention of the law in Matthew 5:19 as a matter that will be considered in judgment even of those whose destination is heaven.

Since Paul answered your first question in the material in question here, it would be silly for me to repeat what has already been typed.

As for the sarcasm at the end of your post, I'm not interested. I still prefer context.

 

Note: if the Law is dead, then idolatry, murder, adultery, thievery, deceit, etc. are all quite fine now!

Nahhhh, I don't go for that.

The Law was given in physical terms. Just because Jesus explained a good part of it in spiritual terms later does not negate it at all.

 

The law was fulfilled. But Jesus did not say "until the law is fulfilled," He said "until everything is accomplished."

Has everything been accomplished?

Is this creation finished?

If we are in heaven, I am having a horrible nightmare!

 

James (Daniel David), I wish you would check your Concordance. I assume you have one, since I believe you are studying to become a pastor???

The word Jesus used for 'law' in Matthew was NOMOS. That is the normal word for 'law' or 'regulation'. He stated that not the least stroke of a pen would dissappear from the NOMOS until PAS -- everything -- was, not 'fulfilled' [PLEROO], but 'done', or 'accomplished' -- GINOMAI.

The term used for the fulfilling of the law was used by Paul in Romans 13:8, when he states that Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. That term is pleroo. If Christ had been talking about fulfilling the law, that is the term he would have used -- pleroo, or some variant of it. But He did not use either 'pleroo' or 'nomos' when He stated that 'everything is accomplished.' He used 'pas' for 'everything' and 'ginomai' for 'accomplished.'

It might also be noted in the Romans 13 section, that when Paul refers to the law, he does not refer to anything other than examples of the Ten Commandments.

The law stands. It stands as a definition as sin for as long as sin stands.

 

It all was acoomplished/finished. Jesus Christ said so Himself from the cross.

 

Doesn't anyone around here actually STUDY their Bibles???

At the end of Luke, chapter 24, verse 44, after the Resurrection, and therefore AFTER the Cross, Jesus is talking to His disciples, and says

This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

Not just the law, folks, but the Prophets and the Psalms, too.

All that has not yet happened.

It is in John we find those famous words, "It is finished!"

The word used is 'teleo.' It is NOT 'pleroo'!

A very good and succinct study of what Christ said from the cross here is from a Calvary Chapel study on the net:

You can find that here: http://www.calvarychapel.com/cheyenne/Library/51-Colossians/Colossians0209.html

Or this one:

from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1464/mercysermon.html

There are tons more references on the net if you have trouble believing that Jesus' "It is finished" is not referring simply to 'debt paid' in regard to our sins. It was not a reference to everything being accomplished. If it were, He would not be coming again and there would be no judgment.

 

Correction in the last paragraph -- cancel the 'not' which is italicized here:
"There are tons more references on the net if you have trouble believing that Jesus' "It is finished" is not referring simply to 'debt paid' in regard to our sins. "

I was thinking ahead of my fingers....

 

And in context - of Christs death, burial, and resurrection (the subject Jesus was discussing with them) - it was.

 

The Prophets talk about the rule of Christ during the Millennium. Or do you think that is finished, too?

 

Jesus was discussing the events, with the two on the road to Emmaus, of the last few days. I.E. the death and burial of Jesus. And after Jesus departed fom them, they recognized who He was - resurrected. Context, context, context.