Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The scholars of Hebrew who translated the OT for the NIV translate it as: "This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come."
You'll understand if I accept their translation.

I don't. Why pick the one over the other?

I did a quick skim of Exodus 12:17 in various English translations:

NET: "...you must keep this day perpetually as a lasting ordinance."
NASB: "...you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance."
KJV: "...shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever."
Darby Translation: "...ye shall keep this day in your generations [as] an ordinance for ever."
Young's Literal Translation: "...ye have observed this day to your generations -- a statute age-during."
NLT: "...This festival will be a permanent law for you; celebrate this day from generation to generation."

It seems to me that the consensus is that the passage refers to something permanent or eternal, not just long-lasting.

I understand that. . .it's part and parcel of not accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah.

But for those who do, the whole NT is authoritative.

... but not the OT?

 

[smokydot]

An indication that the notion of the Levitic Priesthood being set aside is absolute stupidity:
You shall cause his sons to come near, and dress them in Tunics. You shall girdle them with a Sash - Aaron and his sons - and you shall wrap the Headdresses on them. The priesthood shall be an eternal duty for them, and you shall inaugurate Aaron and his sons.
Exodus 29:8-9

However, in 1 Sam 2:30 we find that in one particular line of Aaron, God annuls that "eternal duty" of Aaron's descendants,
because in that particular line God was dishonored.

So a lasting ordinance can be set aside by God. . .which is the revelation given in the letter to the Hebrews.
It is revelation for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. No one else will believe it.

 

[smokydot]

Wait - you're saying that all Jewish law is predicating on having a "Levitical priesthood"? How does that make sense at all?

That refers to all law given subsequent to the priesthood. Is there any other law in the OT Scriptures, apart from the Decalogue?

What's the "that" that you're referring to? And what does Paul have to say on the subject?

It refers to what was said in the quote above that response.

This discussion is about Jesus' fulfillment of the Law. I will not go into Paul's revelation regarding our union with Christ.

There's another aspect to this question as well: one of the questions that the Epistles deal with is whether a person must be a Jew to be a Christian. In general, it seems to me that the answer it gives is "no"; I can see the reasoning behind the idea that Gentile Christians, having never been under the Law, are not required to subject themselves to the Law, even though the Law was established by the God they worship.
I can really only see two ways of reconciling the idea that Jewish Christians are no longer under the Law:

That all Christians are no longer under the laws of the old covenant is a revelation of the NT, which has been explained in a previous post, and which is the authority for Christian belief. See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310179-post232.html

- by arguing that the Jewish God and the Christian God are actually two different deities, as Marcion did.
- by arguing that believers are actually "dead", and therefore have no further obligaton under the law just as a literally dead person has no obligation either.
Personally, I have a suspicion about another explanation for this bit of Christian belief: I see strong parallels between the Christian idea of being released from the law and the Dharmic idea that, through yoga (meant in the full sense of "spiritual work" or "union", not just stretching), a person can be released from the wheel of Dharma or the cycle of karma. The parallels are strong enough, IMO, for me to suspect that this Christian doctrine is actually a Dharmic import that's been re-interpreted in a Jewish context... though with some points where this reinterpretation causes problems, as you noted.

You do realize that is called speculation. . .

 

[smokydot]

There is more to the law then just that. There is the written Torah, and Oral Torah. Jesus would have been aware of this.
Yet, the Gospels show us clearly that Jesus sinned by disrespecting his mother.

Jesus showed no disrespect to his mother. You don't know accepted manners of speaking 2,000 years ago.

That is clearly a sin, and since Jesus is said to have done just that, he was sinful.

The contrary testimony of the NT was presented.

Which points to the NT contradicting itself.
More so, it would be hard to argue that Jesus was fully human yet not sinful. But that is besides the point.
That isn't what Jesus is saying. He makes that clear in the context. Jesus is specifically speaking of the Law, not the Torah. If he was speaking about preserving the Torah, he would have said just that. Since he didn't, we can't assume he meant that, and honestly, it is illogical to assume he meant that.
Jesus meant the Law, the Jewish Law, that he followed and obeyed (for the most part), and that he commanded his followers to obey.
That doesn't make sense. It is as simple as that. Jesus wasn't referring to the scripture. He was referring to the Law. To state otherwise is either dishonest, or an argument from ignorance.
Are you going to start on the childish road again with insults instead of actually addressing the issues? Dismissing my argument, instead of actually addressing it, only shows that you have no ability to actually debate what I'm saying. It is dishonest, and has no place in an actual discussion. If you want to lower yourself to personal attacks, please just don't even bother responding at all.

I don't defend the NT. I present what it reports. You can either believe its testimony, or not. . .it's up to you. . .I believe it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

However, in 1 Sam 2:30 we find that in one particular line of Aaron, God annuls that "eternal duty" of Aaron's descendants,
because in that particular line God was dishonored.

So a lasting ordinance can be set aside by God. . .which is the revelation given in the letter to the Hebrews.
It is revelation for those who believe Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. No one else will believe it.

Neither Exodus nor Samuel use the word "all" in reference to Aaron's descendants. Which means a particular individual descendant from Aaron could have himself and his descendants cut off without God having annulled the Aaronic priesthood.

God set an everlasting decree... and for this to be set aside would make God a liar. I certainly don't believe that God is a liar.

 

[smokydot]

I don't. Why pick the one over the other?
I did a quick skim of Exodus 12:17 in various English translations:
NET: "...you must keep this day perpetually as a lasting ordinance."
NASB: "...you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance."
KJV: "...shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever."
Darby Translation: "...ye shall keep this day in your generations [as] an ordinance for ever."
Young's Literal Translation: "...ye have observed this day to your generations -- a statute age-during."
NLT: "...This festival will be a permanent law for you; celebrate this day from generation to generation."
It seems to me that the consensus is that the passage refers to something permanent or eternal, not just long-lasting.

The same Spirit of God who gave the OT also gave the NT (2 Tim 3:16), which includes the letter to the Hebrews.
That being the case for Christians, "long lasting" is the correct understanding of it for them.

... but not the OT?

Yes, understood in the light of the NT, the OT is authoritative for Christians.

 

[smokydot]

Neither Exodus nor Samuel use the word "all" in reference to Aaron's descendants. Which means a particular individual descendant from Aaron could have himself and his descendants cut off without God having annulled the Aaronic priesthood.

I tried to make that clear with the italicized "one particular line," who as a descendant of Aaron was also given the "eternal duty" of the priesthood.

I was not saying there that the whole Aaronic priesthood was annulled.
I was pointing out that God annulled in one line of Aaron's desdendants what he declared was an "eternal duty" for all of Aaron's descendants.

If all of Aaron's descendants are not meant, does that mean that any of them who didn't want the responsibility could claim exemption on the basis that it did not mean all?
I don't think so. . .and neither do you.

God set an everlasting decree... and for this to be set aside would make God a liar. I certainly don't believe that God is a liar.

The everlasting decree was to all the descendants of Aaron, yet God set it aside for some (one line) of Aaron's descendants who dishonored him.
And he has set it aside again for the reasons given in a previous post. See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2310179-post232.html

 

[Poisonshady313]

I tried to make that clear with "particular individual descendant," who was also given through Aaron the "eternal duty" of the priesthood.

I was not saying there the whole Aaronic priesthood was annulled.
I was pointing out that God annulled in one line of Aaron what he declared was an "eternal duty" for all of Aaron's descendants.

If all of Aaron's descendants are not meant, does that mean that any of them who didn't want the responsibility could claim exemption on the basis that it did not mean all?
I don't think so. . .and neither do you.

Actually, there are things a Kohen (Aaronic priest) could do to get himself and his children stripped of their priestly status/duties/responsibilities.

If a Kohen marries a
- convert
- non-Jew
- divorcee
- woman who has slept with a non-Jew
- prostitute

he is no longer a Kohen, nor are his children.

The everlasting decree was to all the descendants of Aaron, yet God set it aside for one line of Aaron's descendants who dishonored him.
And he has set it aside again for the reasons given in previous posts.

I pointed out already that Exodus did not use the word all... and the information I gave in this post shows you that it did not mean all.

Your line of reasoning does not work.

 

[Harmonious]

Jesus showed no disrespect to his mother. You don't know accepted manners of speaking 2,000 years ago.

More to the point, I would say that YOU don't know accepted manners of speaking 2,000 years ago, and the various words used.

If the English translation of those passages accurately reflects the Greek, and the Greek accurately reflects the Aramaic which Jesus probably used, I can pretty much promise you that Jesus certainly did indeed show egregious disrespect towards his mother.

 

[Harmonious]

I tried to make that clear with "particular individual descendant," who was also given through Aaron the "eternal duty" of the priesthood.

I was not saying there the whole Aaronic priesthood was annulled.
I was pointing out that God annulled in one line of Aaron what he declared was an "eternal duty" for all of Aaron's descendants.

If all of Aaron's descendants are not meant, does that mean that any of them who didn't want the responsibility could claim exemption on the basis that it did not mean all?
I don't think so. . .and neither do you.
The everlasting decree was to all the descendants of Aaron, yet God set it aside for one line of Aaron's descendants who dishonored him.
And he has set it aside again for the reasons given in previous posts.

You know...

It frustrates me when you speak about Jewish law as if you know what you are talking about.

The concept of Aaron's descendants as Cohanim is eternal. But individuals can manage to disqualify themselves. But assuming that the Cohanim did nothing to invalidate themselves, they are part of the eternal covenant.

It truly bothers me that you speak of Jewish law as if you know what you are talking about. But you wouldn't know how to perform even ONE of the commandments if the opportunity presented itself to you to do.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus showed no disrespect to his mother. You don't know accepted manners of speaking 2,000 years ago.

So please, explain how Jesus' clear disrespect for his mother, was excusable 2,000 years ago. I'm thinking you actually have no clue to what you're talking about, and thus made a dodge here instead of addressing the question. Because yes, I do understand the culture of Palestine in the 1st century C.E. More specifically, I have knowledge of the Jewish culture in Palestine in the 1st century C.E.

The contrary testimony of the NT was presented.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Two contrary testimonies in the NT have been presented. Thus, as contradiction. I don't see why that has to be explained.

I don't defend the NT. I present what it reports. You can either believe its testimony, or not. . .it's up to you. . .I believe it.

You are blindly defending the NT. You can't logically deny that. Because when I present a contradiction, you try to defend the NT by creating some circular reasoning as to why the Bible doesn't say what it does.

That, or as you did right here, you simply dodge the question.

 

[Ben Masada]

This is a common Christian belief, that Jesus fulfilled Jewish law. But is that even possible? As in, can anyone fulfill Jewish law?

To me, it simply doesn't sound right.

But of course we can! What are laws given for, not to be fulfilled? And what do you mean by your question if anyone can fulfill God's Law, that if one fulfills it today, tomorrow it will be no longer necessary? One can break God's Law but there is an enormous difference between breaking the Law and rejecting it. We can fulfill God's Law, but it does not mean we may break it sometimes. Jesus, for example, fulfilled God's Law and broke it sometimes. The problem is not with the breaking of God's Law, but with rejecting it.

 

[fallingblood]

The same Spirit of God who gave the OT also gave the NT (2 Tim 3:16), which includes the letter to the Hebrews.
Yes, in the light of the NT, the OT is authoritative.

So that means that if the OT contradicts the NT, the OT has to be saying something other than what it really states? So thousands of years of understanding, researching, and study all became annulled when some Christians decided to create their own scripture? That makes no sense, and really doesn't look good for God. Because it would means that God wasted all of that time because he just happened to forget to give his people the NT so they could see the OT in the correct light.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't have a Christian answer, but I have this to say: Only Jews had to fulfill the full complement of Jewish law. Non-Jews only have the Seven Noachide Laws. At least, that is the Jewish (and Noachide) understanding.

And it should be noted that with the exception of idolatry (and in some opinions the law of establishing a justice system) Christians keep to these fairly well.

Only seven?? I guess I'm being overzealous

There is no such thing.

There has only been one person that has fulfilled the Jewish law and that is Jesus of Nazaret.
Yes I have read 50/00 of the posts and I know what are you on about.

The fulfillement of the law means that a person has to die sinless, in other words throughout his life he never committed an offence.

Where did you get that definition of fulfillment?

1. He brought the law to its final state. The law is now complete as far as written law goes.

Complete? Is there any evidence that it wasn't? Especially when there are verses describing God's laws as perfect (feel free to read Psalm 119. It's all about the laws of God).

There's at least one more possible interpretation, and I think it fits with other aspects of the New Testament (especially the Pauline epistles):

3. Jesus fulfils the law by offering believers death. Death releases a person from all obligations under the law. The epistles go on at length about believers having "died with Christ". Admittedly, it's an odd sort of death that allows the deceased to still walk around and talk to people, but I think that's the idea that's being expressed.

That is quite possibly the best and most logical explanation of Christianity I've ever read.

1. Can you prove this?

Just read Isaiah. All of it, from cover to cover. I mean, it's really really obvious. Who reads a book about one character and then relates one chapter of the book to another character? That's what Christians do.

Isaiah is ALL ABOUT the people of Israel. Especially the "servant songs." Saying it's about Jesus is just unintelligent.

It is sort of like watching the first Spiderman movie, and saying that the scenes where he was working for the Daily Bugle were actually about Clark and not Peter Parker, but maintaining that the rest of the movie was about Peter.

4. The fact you do not accept certain parts of canonized scripture that undeniably refute your claims is an easy cop out.

Heed your own advice. The book upon which your faith is based undeniably refutes all invalid Christian claims.

6. You're right. He did not at His first coming. But He will at His second, as so many scriptures indicate.

!!! So you admit! We agree. Argument over. You and I both agree that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. The difference is you think he'll come back, I choose to wait until after he does it.

At the end of the day, that was my number one driving factor from Christianity. Because ultimately Jews and Christians both agree that Jesus didn't fulfill the qualifications for being the messiah in their entirety.

all we can do is believe with the hope to receive the witness that we are pleasing to God: I have that witness, that is a fact to me, this is the way God works.

How convenient.

The scholars of Hebrew who translated the OT for the NIV translate it as: "This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come."
You'll understand if I accept their translation.
I understand that. . .it's part and parcel of not accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Jewish Messiah.

But for those who do, the whole NT is authoritative.

What do you think lasting ordinance means?

Psalm 119:152 (NIV) : " Long ago I learned from your statutes
that you established them to last forever. "

Don't you guys ever get tired of disagreeing with the Bible says? Because you all seem to do it so often.

 

[Pegg]

So that means that if the OT contradicts the NT, the OT has to be saying something other than what it really states? So thousands of years of understanding, researching, and study all became annulled when some Christians decided to create their own scripture? That makes no sense, and really doesn't look good for God. Because it would means that God wasted all of that time because he just happened to forget to give his people the NT so they could see the OT in the correct light.

the new testament compliments the old because it shows how the promises in the old testament were being fulfilled

Eg, Jesus applied to himself the prophecy of Psalm 118:22 [117:22, Dy], saying: “The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone.” Matthew 21:42-44
Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch how the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7, 8 had been fulfilled. James applied the prophet Amos words at Acts 15:15 "And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down
Peter explained to the first gentile believer how forgiveness of sins is taking place as the prophets bear witness such as Isaiah 53:5 "But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us
Malachi 4:5 "Look! I am sending to YOU people E‧li′jah prophesies the returning of 'Elijah' and its this scripture Jesus applied to John the Baptist at Matt 11:13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if YOU want to accept it, He himself is ‘E‧li′jah who is destined to come.


The NT is full of the application of OT prophecies to the events of the first century.... there are also many OT prophecies repeated showing that some events were still for the future

This is what it means that Jesus fulfilled the law... as the Messiah, he was the fulfillment of the law - the law includes the prophecies...its not just the mosaic law code.

 

[fallingblood]

the new testament compliments the old because it shows how the promises in the old testament were being fulfilled

Eg, Jesus applied to himself the prophecy of Psalm 118:22 [117:22, Dy], saying: “The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone.” Matthew 21:42-44
Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch how the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7, 8 had been fulfilled. James applied the prophet Amos words at Acts 15:15 "And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down
Peter explained to the first gentile believer how forgiveness of sins is taking place as the prophets bear witness such as Isaiah 53:5 "But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us
Malachi 4:5 "Look! I am sending to YOU people E‧li′jah prophesies the returning of 'Elijah' and its this scripture Jesus applied to John the Baptist at Matt 11:13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if YOU want to accept it, He himself is ‘E‧li′jah who is destined to come.


The NT is full of the application of OT prophecies to the events of the first century.... there are also many OT prophecies repeated showing that some events were still for the future

This is what it means that Jesus fulfilled the law... as the Messiah, he was the fulfillment of the law - the law includes the prophecies...its not just the mosaic law code.

One major problem with that idea is that the prophecies that the NT refers to hardly ever have to do with what the NT writers claim. The vast majority of them are already fulfilled and thus need to be fulfilled no more, or have nothing at all to do with Jesus or the Messiah.

Even the Messianic prophecies are not fulfilled by Jesus, and thus rules him out as the Messiah. So there is little reason to think that Jesus fulfilled the law in the manner in which you are saying.

More so, the OT contradicts the NT on various occasions.

 

[TheKnight]

the new testament compliments the old because it shows how the promises in the old testament were being fulfilled

Eg, Jesus applied to himself the prophecy of Psalm 118:22 [117:22, Dy], saying: “The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone.”

Psalm 118:22 is not a promise. It is part of a song of praise to God.

Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch how the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7, 8 had been fulfilled.

Isaiah 53:7-8 is a part of the servant songs. A group of prophecies which outline God's relationship with the Jews. Read Isaiah.

Jesus applied to John the Baptist at Matt 11:13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if YOU want to accept it, He himself is ‘E‧li′jah who is destined to come.

"Now this was John’s testimony...They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”~ John 1:19-21

This is what it means that Jesus fulfilled the law...

What does "fulfill" mean in the sense? You mean he got rid of it?

I repost:

"Long ago I learned from your statutes
that you established them to last forever. "~Psalm 119:152 (NIV)

Over and over and over and over again you Christians argue with the words of the Bible you claim to believe in. It's been demonstrated consistently on this thread. Don't you ever wonder why it is that so many non-Christians know the Bible so well? Doesn't it ever strike that maybe we got sick of having pastors argue with the words of the Bible? So we left? Because it makes no sense if every verse has to be explained by the pastor? Or by the "Holy Spirit" that only some people have?

 

[Harmonious]

the new testament compliments the old because it shows how the promises in the old testament were being fulfilled

No, it really doesn't.

Eg, Jesus applied to himself the prophecy of Psalm 118:22 [117:22, Dy], saying: “The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone.” Matthew 21:42-44

Interesting concept, however the verse in Psalms refers to the entire Jewish people.

Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch how the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7, 8 had been fulfilled. James applied the prophet Amos words at Acts 15:15 "And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down

He could have said it, but that doesn't mean that anything was fulfilled.

I realize that Christians may believe as you do, but that doesn't make the meaning of Isaiah 53 any less about the entire Jewish people.

Peter explained to the first gentile believer how forgiveness of sins is taking place as the prophets bear witness such as Isaiah 53:5 "But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us

Still, that's a "no."

Malachi 4:5 "Look! I am sending to YOU people E‧li′jah prophesies the returning of 'Elijah' and its this scripture Jesus applied to John the Baptist at Matt 11:13 For all, the Prophets and the Law, prophesied until John; 14 and if YOU want to accept it, He himself is ‘E‧li′jah who is destined to come.

No, Elijah is Elijah. John the Baptist wasn't Elijah.

Sorry.

The NT is full of the application of OT prophecies to the events of the first century.... there are also many OT prophecies repeated showing that some events were still for the future

Only in the hearts and minds of Christians. The NT has nothing to do with the "OT", except as some Christians wish to interpret them.

This is what it means that Jesus fulfilled the law... as the Messiah, he was the fulfillment of the law - the law includes the prophecies...its not just the mosaic law code.

No, the Messiah will NOT be the "fulfillment of the law." The Messiah - when he gets here - will continue fulfilling the law, like every other Jew, except he'll have quite a few more to fulfill as a King.

Prophecies are NOT law, but you know... Even when prophecies are filled, the Jews will still have to follow Jewish law.

 

[james2ko]

They are nothing of the such. I gave a logical explanation of the verses, using the context of the verses. Not at all a "ferris wheel discussion."

I disagree.

No, there was never a refutation. You simply stated that scripture says Jesus was sinless. I pointed out where the Gospels indicate that Jesus did in fact sin, thus showing that there is a contradiction. You never refuted anything, you simply pointed out half of the contradiction.

Twisting the facts to blur and confuse the issue seems to be your mo. Which, by the way, I must admit you are very good at. Let me put it to you this way: I pointed out the NT verses that literally state He did not sin. You conveniently reject that part of scripture as being invalid (hmmm.. wonder why?) Then you express your interpretation of a circumstance of which "you feel" He did sin. Thus, I have written literal evidence stating He did not sin. You have circumstantial evidence saying He did. It's a no contest amigo.

Another contradiction though, the genealogies of Jesus. All one has to do is read them to see they don't agree, and thus show a contradiction.

The geneologies in the gospels differ because each gospel writer placed different emphasis on their individual geneologies to appeal to their intended ethnic audience. No contradiction exists.

He also calls the law a curse.

The curse of the law was completely refuted on another thread. You even gave me frubals and labeled it "good point" see here.

[He also states that followers of Jesus do not have to follow the law (such as the kosher laws as well as circumcision).

Paul was familiar with the law. He understood, or perhaps Jesus instructed him while in the desert, that physical circumcision was a type or symbollic of the type of circumcision God really desired for Israel---circumcision of the heart. The physical act of circumcision was never meant to be an everlasting covenant to identify His people. I explain why here.

I believe Poisonshady is correct, which is why I didn't expand on it.

Good, I can now refute two birds with one stone

 

[smokydot]

Actually, there are things a Kohen (Aaronic priest) could do to get himself and his children stripped of their priestly status/duties/responsibilities.
If a Kohen marries a
- convert
- non-Jew
- divorcee
- woman who has slept with a non-Jew
- prostitute
he is no longer a Kohen, nor are his children.

Yes, as violations of God's laws, the practice of these are dishonoring to God, which is the reason God revoked his promise to Eli and his descendants, a promise that they "would minister before me forever."

Speaking of which, so where is this priesthood (Ex 29:9) of Aaron today? Where is it ministering before the Lord forever (1 Sam 2:30)? Is God a liar?

I pointed out already that Exodus did not use the word all... and the information I gave in this post shows you that it did not mean all.
Your line of reasoning does not work.

No matter. . .the point is mute, since God proclaimed that he annulled what he did in fact promise to Eli (1 Sam 2:30).

And he has annulled it again for different reasons, as revealed and explained in the letter to the Hebrews.