The Temporal Law

[randyk]

The Law was temporary and fulfilled in time.

Matt 5.17 “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. 18 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. 19 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."

The clause "until heaven and earth disappear" does not mean that the Law will remain in effect until that the universe disappears. It means that it is more certain that the Law must be fulfilled by Christ than the certainty that the universe will continue.

How do I know that? The same version is worded in a slightly different way elsewhere, indicating not that the universe is eternal, and therefore the Law is eternal.

On the contrary, it is stated clearly that the universe is, in fact, in a temporary mode until it is created new. Therefore, the Law is not being equated with the eternity of the Universe. On the contrary, it is being asserted that the Law is more certain to be fulfilled by Christ, in time, than the certainty that the universe will continue forever. The universe may not continue forever in its present mode. But the Law will most certainly be fulfilled in time, at the cross of Christ.

Luke 16.17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Matt 13.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The idea concerns the atonement of Christ being more important to be fulfilled than the need for the universe to continue in its present state forever.

Luke 12.33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Some people who want the covenant of Law to be eternal point to the often-used phrase, "it is for all your generations." But it was a contract in perpetuity, but not a contract guaranteed for eternity. Once a contract is broken, and it was a conditional contract, the contract ceases to exist. It was for all of Israel's generations, as long as they remained in compliance with the terms of the covenant.

There is a sense that Divine Law is eternal, stemming from the creation of Man "in God's image and likeness." But this is generic law, which does last forever. This concept of "law" is to be distinguished from the *covenant* of Law, which was designed to only temporarily establish a relationship between God and Israel until eternal atonement could take place, establishing an eternal relationship between them.

 

[JaumeJ]

Much of the law is still being fulfilled. Love never stops.

 

[randyk]

Much of the law is still being fulfilled. Love never stops.

No, the Law was completely fulfilled at the Cross where Jesus said, "It is finished."

 

[JaumeJ]

It is taught that the curse of the law was finished on the cross...... Now, hear Jesus Yeshua teaching in Matthew how He came to fulfill the law not to abolishe it. Do you suppose this to be untrue?

I know it is certain there are many who agree with you, however it is correct toagree with the taching of the Master and living as He did.

 

[randyk]

It is taught that the curse of the law was finished on the cross...... Now, hear Jesus Yeshua teaching in Matthew how He came to fulfill the law not to abolishe it. Do you suppose this to be untrue?

I know it is certain there are many who agree with you, however it is correct toagree with the taching of the Master and living as He did.

Yes, we *all* agree with the "Master." We all agree with whatever Jesus said. The problem is with understanding what he actually taught, what he actually meant by these comments in context.

In context, Jesus was talking about how relevant the laws were in the Law of Moses. Were all of them important? Were some of them less important? How much of it could be ignored as "forgivable?"

Jesus made it clear that *as long as the Law remained in play, as a covenant,* every law was important. It sure was forgivable to break the Law, and to then repent. But none were unimportant, according to Jesus.

So the context for this discussion was about the Law *while it remained in effect.* He was *not* arguing that it remains in effect as long as the heaven and the earth continues as it is! On the contrary, he said he specifically came to complete the Law, meaning that every regulation was considered important for him to complete by his atonement.

So as long as the Law as a covenant remained in effect, it was important to keep every law in the Law of Moses. It was more important for Jesus to fulfill every law than it was for the universe to continue forever in its present condition.

 

[JaumeJ]

Gee, you are saying He was kidding when He said He did not come to abolish the law? There is a bit of a mystery in your understanding, far above my intellect, so I will continue believing what Jesus Yeshau said., almost as if He knew what He was saying when He mad the differenctiation. It could be akin to my going along with God while others are going along with the gang.

 

[randyk]

Gee, you are saying He was kidding when He said He did not come to abolish the law? There is a bit of a mystery in your understanding, far above my intellect, so I will continue believing what Jesus Yeshau said., almost as if He knew what He was saying when He mad the differenctiation. It could be akin to my going along with God while others are going along with the gang.

You can then keep believing that Jesus was kidding when he said, "It is finished?" Let me rephrase, to see if that makes any difference. Jesus was saying that *as long as the Law remained in effect,* he had not come to abolish the Law--it remained in effect *as long as that covenant was in play.

It was Israel who broke the Law, causing it to be abrogated. Jesus always intended for the Law to be completed and to be fulfilled in his new covenant. He never meant for the contract of the Law to be broken, which would require one of the parties of the covenant to fail.

Jesus never meant for Israel to fail their part of the agreement. God certainly would never fail His part of the agreement. What about this don't you understand?

 

[Icedaisey]

If the law was fulfilled on the cross, does that mean the law no longer exists?

 

[randyk]

If the law was fulfilled on the cross, does that mean the law no longer exists?

The Law as a covenant no longer exists, unless you want to call "Judaism" a form of Moses' Law? The Law of God, in the generic sense, always exists--it is not dependent on there being a covenant. It is God's eternal mandate for Man in creating him in His own image.

The Law of Moses was a conditional covenant based on an eternal promise. The eternal promise remains, but the conditional covenant failed. Jesus did not come to make the Law as a covenant fail. He did not come to make Israel break the Law or to fail to keep their terms of the covenant. Nor did he come to render the requirements of no effect as long as the agreement stood.

But Jesus knew Israel would fail the Law, just as Israel had failed before the Babylonian Captivity. The indication that the covenant had failed was laid out in Deuteronomy, towards the end of the book, where God describes the blessings of obedience. When the nation, as a whole, turns to disobedience, the covenant fails. Curses fall upon the nation, and the people are thrown out of their land into exile.

Jesus foresaw this same scenario playing out in his own generation. He saw that the Law was going to fail as a contract between God and Israel. But he had not come to cause Israel to fail, nor to reduce the requirements to meaninglessness. No, he came to complete the process of producing a solution to the problem, which was to establish a brand new covenant. As the Scriptures say, "Sing to the heavens with a new song."

 

[Aaron56]

If the law was fulfilled on the cross, does that mean the law no longer exists?

The crib that protected you as a baby when you slept likely still exists. If you tried to rest in it today, however….

 

[Icedaisey]

The crib that protected you as a baby when you slept likely still exists. If you tried to rest in it today, however….

IMO, very poor analogy.

 

[JaumeJ]

Jesus Yeshua prayed in the garden before His mission on earth was to be fulfilled. He asked the Father, if it be your will let this cup pass from . Neverthless, not as I will but as You.

On the Corss when He was about to yield up his oul, He said, "It is finished."
This is a reference to the fact that He managed to do what He would have rather not have been required to do.
Now, you and a few who know more than what is written say He was referring to the Law. Boy is that a strange determination for anyone to come to.
I know He wanted to get it over with, and He did, for me, for you and for all. Only those who did not listen to His ver clear teaching on not destroying the law, rather to fulfill it would even consider such a larkish manner of interpretation. Again, I go along with our Lord, not with the gang and not by a popular vote.

 

[rayzor]

If the law was fulfilled on the cross, does that mean the law no longer exists?god is the torah = law

 

[Dino246]

If the law was fulfilled on the cross, does that mean the law no longer exists?god is the torah = law

God cannot be equated with the Torah. The Torah is the written record of creation, the patriarchs, Law, and the journey to the promised land. God is the Creator of all.

The Law was a temporary measure to bring people to Christ. Having done that, the Law has no further purpose for the Christian, but to teach us history; it is for our instruction, but not for our direction.

The Law was indeed fulfilled on the cross. That doesn't mean it no longer exists; rather, it means that it is now fulfilled law.

 

[rayzor]

Dino246 [your Defineing the sound Diffenert then me]s = Mem = water 119 o how we love the law he is our meditation all the day. like the [word is god]

 

[Aaron56]

IMO, very poor analogy.

Oh? Do you have one?

The Law kept the people, through whom the promised Messiah would come, alive by putting limits on the consequences of sin. Otherwise, the enemy had legal rights to kill anyone who sinned. After He arrived and died for our sins, the law was no longer needed. It still exists but its usefulness was achieved.

 

[Yahshua]

He saw that the Law was going to fail as a contract between God and Israel.

But the law didn't fail. The people did.

When the nation, as a whole, turns to disobedience, the covenant fails. Curses fall upon the nation, and the people are thrown out of their land into exile.

There were terms to the covenant: blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience. When the people "broke the covenant" (which simply meant they were in violation) they reaped the consequences enumerated in the terms of the covenant, showing that the 1st covenant was still in full force.

And even in Romans 11, Paul explains that there are still future promises made to Israel - enumerated in Deuteronomy under the covenant at Sinai - that Paul says will still be fulfilled after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, which shows that the 1st covenant with the people is still in full force.

---

I'm trying to recall, but I don't think any covenant that the Almighty established by His word has ever ended (because His Word can't return void). Instead, subsequent covenants appear to be stacked atop previous covenants.

So the new covenant (that the law would be placed in one's heart, and that sins would be forgiven) gets stacked atop the covenant at Sinai (which was for Israel to become a kingdom of priests most blessed IFF they obey His law but punished IFF they disobey it).

The new covenant was sort of like an amendment added to fix the weaknesses of the people so they could successfully keep the original and reap the promises made in it. It was only ever the 1st covenant that promised the people would become a kingdom of priests. The new covenant never promised that...but it is only through the fulfillment of the new covenant that the promises of the original covenant can be fulfilled because the people - now with the law in their hearts - would no longer disobey.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

The Law was temporary and fulfilled in time.

Matt 5.17 “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. 18 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. 19 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."

The clause "until heaven and earth disappear" does not mean that the Law will remain in effect until that the universe disappears. It means that it is more certain that the Law must be fulfilled by Christ than the certainty that the universe will continue.

How do I know that? The same version is worded in a slightly different way elsewhere, indicating not that the universe is eternal, and therefore the Law is eternal.

On the contrary, it is stated clearly that the universe is, in fact, in a temporary mode until it is created new. Therefore, the Law is not being equated with the eternity of the Universe. On the contrary, it is being asserted that the Law is more certain to be fulfilled by Christ, in time, than the certainty that the universe will continue forever. The universe may not continue forever in its present mode. But the Law will most certainly be fulfilled in time, at the cross of Christ.

Luke 16.17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Matt 13.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The idea concerns the atonement of Christ being more important to be fulfilled than the need for the universe to continue in its present state forever.

Luke 12.33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Some people who want the covenant of Law to be eternal point to the often-used phrase, "it is for all your generations." But it was a contract in perpetuity, but not a contract guaranteed for eternity. Once a contract is broken, and it was a conditional contract, the contract ceases to exist. It was for all of Israel's generations, as long as they remained in compliance with the terms of the covenant.

There is a sense that Divine Law is eternal, stemming from the creation of Man "in God's image and likeness." But this is generic law, which does last forever. This concept of "law" is to be distinguished from the *covenant* of Law, which was designed to only temporarily establish a relationship between God and Israel until eternal atonement could take place, establishing an eternal relationship between them.

yes Paul used the figure of Moses temporary glory that always faded after a time as a figure of what you are saying and it’s the reason Jews were unable to accept Jesus messiah

“But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament;

which veil is done away in Christ.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭3:7, 11-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬


The wuote your pointing to Jesus explained after he died and rose. He said when he was with them

“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.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:18‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Then he died on the cross saying

“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
‭‭John‬ ‭19:30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

then he rose and gave them understanding of what he had said about all being fulfilled

“And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:44‬ ‭KJV‬‬


really good post and informative

 

[randyk]

But the law didn't fail. The people did.

I personally see that when the people failed, the contract failed along with them. That's how contracts work. When a party to the contract fails to do his part, the contract fails. The failure of the party who fails causes the contract itself to fail.

There were terms to the covenant: blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience. When the people "broke the covenant" (which simply meant they were in violation) they reaped the consequences enumerated in the terms of the covenant, showing that the 1st covenant was still in full force.

That's not how I interpret it. There were varying degrees of failure under the Law. A single occasion of sin would not doom a nation, nor would the sins of a few individuals. However, once leaven had leavened the whole lump, and the whole nation was infected with sin, the end to the nation would come. And this I define as the failure of the covenant.

The curses of disobedience came on gradually. It was only when an enemy completely defeated the nation, and the nation was exiled that it became clear that the contract itself had failed. After all, the purpose of the contract was to keep Israel in good standing with their God in the land of Israel. Once the temple was gone, along with their home in the land, it became plain that the contract designed to protect them had failed completely.

Even more, it was described by the Prophets as a divorce. That is a completely failed contract of marriage. It isn't a temporary separation, nor a temporary squabble--it is a final separation, a divorce. That's how it was described by the Prophets.

And even in Romans 11, Paul explains that there are still future promises made to Israel - enumerated in Deuteronomy under the covenant at Sinai - that Paul says will still be fulfilled after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, which shows that the 1st covenant with the people is still in full force.

On the contrary, Paul couldn't be more clear about the extinction of the old covenant of Law. Hebrews also is very clear on this. What Paul described was an eternal promise coupled with a temporary covenant. And so, the promise of Israel's restoration remains, whereas the covenant of Law is gone and has expired.

I'm trying to recall, but I don't think any covenant that the Almighty established by His word has ever ended (because His Word can't return void). Instead, subsequent covenants appear to be stacked atop previous covenants.

Paul described the Law as a conditional covenant which could and did fail, with the failure of one party to the contract, namely Israel.

So the new covenant (that the law would be placed in one's heart, and that sins would be forgiven) gets stacked atop the covenant at Sinai (which was for Israel to become a kingdom of priests most blessed IFF they obey His law but punished IFF they disobey it).

The OT priests failed along with OT Israel. That was very plain, as written in the Prophets. Israel possessed God's Kingdom, but Jesus said it would be taken from them and given to what I think was the Roman Kingdom. Europe has been the center of Christianity ever since.

The new covenant was sort of like an amendment added to fix the weaknesses of the people so they could successfully keep the original and reap the promises made in it. It was only ever the 1st covenant that promised the people would become a kingdom of priests. The new covenant never promised that...but it is only through the fulfillment of the new covenant that the promises of the original covenant can be fulfilled because the people - now with the law in their hearts - would no longer disobey.

The old covenant, as I said, failed, and the Kingdom of God, in the earthly sense, was taken from Israel. Israel is no longer a "kingdom of priests." But the promise to restore them remains, as does the promise to include with them many nations of faith, namely Christian nations.

 

[Aaron56]

The covenant that would have made priests and kings of the Jewish people was the the one God made with God, the promise of which was given to Abraham. The covenant at Sinai was between the people present and God. God kept His end of the deal but the Jews did not. This incurred an indebtedness the Jews could not pay therefore, they became slaves: their lives was the only thing they possesed that they could give.

Let's look at Galatians, chapter 4, it's very clear here: Because the Jews were slaves they could never be sons.

Galatians 4 “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.”

Now note the references to Hagar and Sarah are references in terms of their liberty interest. Hagar is a slave; Sarah is a free woman, and that sets up the matter of the status of their sons. Abraham’s son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way. That means she could have children, she belonged to Abraham, was a member of his household as a slave, so she could have children to Abraham.
But the son by the free woman was born as a result of promise.

Now I said that the covenant of sonship, which was the first covenant, is between God and God and Abraham was the third party beneficiary, Abraham received the promise but he did not have to keep any part of the deal. I've explained this before like when a child shows up in a marriage and is born into a house of godly order. The child benefits from the covenant of marriage but was not part of it.

There was a promise made to Abraham. He was not entitled to sonship; it was a promise that God made to himself, which promise He attached to the lineage of Abraham. So that is the difference: born as a result of promise.

The passage says "These things may be taken figuratively". When the Bible says you may take something figuratively that is because it intends for you to take it figuratively. So, what's the figure of speech?

The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mt. Sinai. Which covenant is that? Unmistakably this is the law. It was enacted at Mt. Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves. And notice how the references flip:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!

We read this as Sarah because she was a barren woman but let's read on...

Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

Hold on, "she who has a husband" is also Sarah. That is because this is regarding children of promise. Hagar had no right to benefit from the promise of sonship through Abraham, BUT Hagar, representing the barren woman not connected to the spiritual promise, will have more children of promise than those who come naturally through Sarah.

Moses said it in Deuteronomy, chapter 5. “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, He has made it with us who are alive here at the mountain today.” It was God with the Jews. Now God would always keep his covenant, but the Jews would not. Therefore there rose an indebtedness under the law which, in order to satisfy that indebtedness, the Jews had to be converted from human beings to property to satisfy this. And they changed their status from being free people to the status of being slaves.

“One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.”

You must understand what an insult this would have been to the Jews and what an insult it would be to Jews today and to those people who are Judaizers among the people of God. It is a popular thing today to be a Judaizer but the danger that it is, is that it turns sons with liberty back to slavery and you lose your rights of sonship once you become a slave. Nevertheless, the natural children of Sarah and Abraham, the Jews, are the actual slaves if they remain under the law.

“Now Hagar stands for Mt. Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem.” At the point at which Paul was saying this, Jerusalem had not fallen so he was saying Mt. Sinai corresponds to Hagar because the children of the law are going to be made into slaves and that ties into the present city of Jerusalem with the Temple and with the worship associated with the Temple. And it says this about all of that: “She is in slavery with her children.”

Now for all of those who would go under the law, especially if you are a believer, never under the law, if you would go under the law this is what you have done. You have traded your liberty in Christ for the status of a slave. You have gone from a relationship of grace, the grace of sonship, to the restrictions of the law, which you can never keep. And because you cannot keep the law you have traded your place in the house of God for that of a slave—that’s what you have done because the law is only capable of making you into a slave. Now that’s what Paul is saying here when it says, “But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.”

Now here it gets to be amazingly plain. Galatian 3:15, this lays out everything that I’ve been saying. It lays out the fact that God began creation with a promise of sonship, a covenant that He swore to himself. That covenant pre-existed the Law and is known as a covenant. God attaches this covenant to Abraham and promises his descendents that they would be his heirs. At Mount Sinai, He offers this covenant to the Jews, promising to make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They elected not to, because that would have required them to go up into the presence of God, which, when they refused to, then God gave them the law. The law was between them and God because they couldn’t keep the law; the law made them a slave. God kept the law; they refused to keep it; they were made into slaves. But here the Scriptures line all of this out for us.

This is not a mystery. I would challenge anyone to read the following verses and say that believers are still to follow the law.

Galatians, chapter 3 beginning at verse 15,

“Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later…” Later than than this promise to Abraham. The law..., “…does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator” (the mediator was Moses.)

“A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.”

What are we then?

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” And then he says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

So first God promised them sonship. They refused sonship; they were put under the law, but because they couldn’t keep the law they became slaves. The law on Mount Sinai arrived 430 years after the original covenant was made. God first made a covenant with himself and then ratified that covenant with Abraham. That was the existing covenant.

That’s why God would have brought them up to Mount Sinai to have entered that covenant. When they rejected that covenant, then God gave them the law, which made them into slaves. He could hold them under the restrictions of the law until the Seed should come but once the Seed came He fulfilled the law and He did away with it.