Contradiction or Harmony?

Is this a contradiction?

Or in context do we have harmony?

*sigh*
And I thought that you were going to cover one of the real disharmony/paradoxes of scripture.

nothing to see here unfortunately...I got excited for a moment. But now its just the same old stuff repackaged and repurposed.

Is this a contradiction? Or in context do we have harmony?

Matthew 5:17-18 ESV
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 say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.


Ephesians 2:15-16 ESV
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

Thanks for the chance to express thoughts on this matter.

There is no disharmony, providing that a person actually understands the Story of God, which happens to be the Gospel.

It should be noted that there are two different authors of the written materials, so what appears to be disharmony in the words may seem heightened.

The Law is the Law, whether Jesus sets His Elect free from the Law or not. The Law cannot be abolished. However, the primary Purpose of Christ is to set His Elect free from the Law, and He does so through . . . yes, broken record here . . . Circumcision of the Heart. When a person is separated from the Curse that stems from the unholy work of Adam and Eve, they are set free from the Law.

Romans 4:15 NLT - "For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)"

Perhaps you should start by trying to figure out exactly what Paul meant when he spoke of "abolishing the law of commandments".

I mean, in this same exact epistle, Paul went on to say the following:

Ephesians chapter 6

[1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
[2] Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)
[3] That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Here, Paul clearly quoted part of the law of Moses (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16) as instruction for CHRISTIAN children.

How do you reconcile that with what he said in Ephesians 2:15?

I'm asking a question with no anterior motive. So please explain. I believe I have an understanding but I like to see what others believe.

I have heard it put this way, Paul is saying that the hostility to the law is what was abolished.

I'm asking a question with no anterior motive. So please explain. I believe I have an understanding but I like to see what others believe.

Maybe it's time to join a different forum since this one causes so much internal angst.

I have no internal angst...
just disgust from having yet another chance at having a good discussion destroyed by someone wanting to discuss the most juvenile and spiritually immature topics. It's the classic bait and switch yet again.
But I live in hope.

I think I'm beginning to see why your bakery may have failed. A nasty attitude turns people off.

Is this a contradiction? Or in context do we have harmony?

Matthew 5:17-18 ESV
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 say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.


Ephesians 2:15-16 ESV
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

I have no internal angst...
just disgust from having yet another chance at having a good discussion destroyed by someone wanting to discuss the most juvenile and spiritually immature topics. It's the classic bait and switch yet again.
But I live in hope.

Again...you have no clue as to what you are talking about. You really don't.

I wasn't questioning your motives, but merely making a suggestion.

Personally, I believe that the epistle to the Hebrews is a major key towards understanding this whole "law vs. grace" thing.

In that epistle, we see Christ FULFILLING a lot of Old Testament types as the true antitype.

For example, he is the true sacrifice that all of the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to, and, therefore, they no longer need to be offered.

However, when it comes to certain commandments themselves, what the prophet Jeremiah wrote in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is twice quoted.

I'm referring, of course, to the following:

Hebrews chapter 8

[7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
[11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
[12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

This "new covenant" which is replacing "that which decays and waxes old" and "is ready to vanish away" does NOT remove certain of God's commandments. Instead, it transfers them from tables of stone to our minds and our hearts.

Again:

Hebrews chapter 10

[15] Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
[16] This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
[17] And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

This transference of God's commandments from outward tables of stone to fleshy tables of our hearts perfectly coincides with what Paul said to the saints at Corinth.

II Corinthians chapter 3

[2] Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
[3] Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Furthermore, if perfectly coincides with what Jesus went on to say in Matthew chapter 5.

We read:

Matthew chapter 5

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] 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.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
[22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
[23] Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
[24] Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
[25] Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
[26] Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
[27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Here, Jesus twice contrasts what "was said by them of old time" or the law of Moses with "but I say unto you" or how it will be under the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, someone had to literally murder or commit adultery in order to be guilty. Under the New Covenant, it's a matter of the heart, and not just a matter of an outward act or deed.

As Christians, are we free to steal?

Are we free to covet?

Are we free to bow to idols?

There are plenty of warnings against the same throughout the New Testament.

Similarly, there are several places in the New Testament (including what I previously quoted from Ephesians chapter 6) where an Old Testament commandment is presented to New Testament saints as doctrine.

With such being the case, I don't see any disharmony whatsoever between what both Jesus and Paul actually said.

Under the Old Covenant, someone had to literally murder or commit adultery in order to be guilty.

That is incorrect. What was abolished was the need for the temple, the Levitical priesthood, the temple sacrifices, the feasts, festivals, and holy days, the dietary restrictions, and the ceremonial observances. All of this was fulfilled in that one great sacrifice of Christ for sins forever. See the epistle to the Hebrews.

No one was hostile to the Law. Christ upheld the Law perfectly, and his enemies believed (mistakenly) that they could be justified by the works or deeds of the Law. But the Law was our "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ, and the Law is holy, righteous, and good.

I see what it is that you're saying, and I now see what it is that Paul was referring to in Ephesians chapter 2. The "hostility" only exists between the unholy "man" and the Law, but once a "man" has been set apart, Purified, etc, by the Hand of Christ, that hostility is gone. Why? Because the Old "Man" has been done away with, or, the Devil has been defeated in that "mans" life. The regenerated person would then live by the Spiritual Laws of the Spirit of Life, and these are Effectual Laws that cause a person to not only desire to obey, but to actually obey . . . thus the hostility (friction) between the unholy person and the Law has been abolished.

Does that seem to fit what you're getting at?