Exactly what I'm explaining is that God doesn't contradict himself in his own book, and that Jesus and Paul teach the same thing, and so does the Old Testament. The Law was given as a temporary tutor (1) to show people that none were righteous and (2) to lead people to Jesus. While it was a temporary tutor, it was still an eternal dictum. Jesus came to fulfill it, meaning that he would actually do what the law was calling for: complete godliness in both attitudes and actions. He did that, so now our lives are governed by conformity to the person of Jesus rather than conformity to the dictates of the law. But since Jesus conformed to the dictates of the law, they are still there, but in effect in a different way, like a smaller volcano that gets swallowed up when the new, bigger volcano erupts. Jesus abolished in his flesh the barriers that the law created, the salvation by works that the law was misinterpreted as, and any privilege for the Jews that the law was misinterpreted to give. Salvation was by grace through faith, as it had always been. The Law still stands as God's covenant with his people, and will always be instructive to us as it helps us define holiness. It's not going away, but it has been subsumed under the person of Jesus, as it was always pointing to anyway. But because we now live by grace rather than by law, no one should interpret that as meaning the chains of the law are off and we can do as we please. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount (as well as other places), let us know that living in Christ by the Spirit was actually a more demanding way live, and holiness was even sharper than had been imagined under the law. The Law, Jesus, and Paul can be summarized by the "two greatest commands": Love God with everything you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. Those are not the complete extent of the law, which encompasses a wider circle of personal holiness, but those two provide a great platform of understanding.

> In Matthew 5.17, Jesus uses the word πληρῶσαι. It means "to fulfill; to fill up; complete; bring to full expression." Paul uses a word with the same import in Romans 10.4 when he says, "Christ is the culmination of the law..." Paul uses τέλος which means the maturation point, the goal of it, the culmination. You made reference to that verse yourself.

OK. Romans 13:8 uses πεπλήρωκεν which, when you click on the numerical link above the word (4137), you will see that this is the same word used by Jesus in Matthew 5:17.

> Paul said the barrier caused by the law was abolished, not the law itself. That's Ephesians 2.15.

No he didn't.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 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,

> Colossians 2.14 means that when God forgave us (13), he cancelled the judgment in God's Law against us, not abolishing the Law itself. You can't just yank these verses out of context.

You can't change the fact that the verse actually says that Jesus' death wiped away the actual handwriting of the law.

> And it's true that we are dead to the law, delivered from it, and not under it. Christ has fulfilled it. But the law isn't set aside

I don't recall citing a translation that uses the phrase "set aside".

> Regarding Mt. 5.19, Erdman says, "Jesus came not to amend or abrogate the law, but to interpret it accurately and in himself to realize its demands both in his own experience and increasingly in the experience of his followers.

As Paul said, any Tom Dick or Harry who loves others is fulfilling the Law.

> Jesus regards the law as changeless and eternal."

Paul disagrees. Paul regards the law as "transient" and "passing away".

> But in Matt. 5.18, we find that the eternity of the law is conditioned on the job it has to do. Once everything is accomplished, Jesus says, presumably, it can "disappear." So you can't hang onto 5.19 as a contradiction to Paul.

Thank you. Please explain why God contradicts himself in his own book. Is it to preserve our free will? And/or does he want us to have the wisdom to cherry pick the errors out of his book?

> Jesus' point in Mt. 5.19 is that just because the law has been fulfilled doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you please.

Say what? Jesus would never have to make that point because by "fulfilled' he did not mean that the law would no longer be in effect.

In Matthew 5.17, Jesus uses the word πληρῶσαι. It means "to fulfill; to fill up; complete; bring to full expression." Paul uses a word with the same import in Romans 10.4 when he says, "Christ is the culmination of the law..." Paul uses τέλος which means the maturation point, the goal of it, the culmination. You made reference to that verse yourself.

> Paul said the law was abolished.

Paul said the barrier caused by the law was abolished, not the law itself. That's Ephesians 2.15. It's a matter of correct grammatical reference. The "enmity" was between Jews and Gentiles (v. 14); "in his flesh" refers to Jesus' death on the cross; the "setting aside" refers back to the "dividing wall of hostility" in v. 14, not to the law of v. 15. What the verse is about is that the Law is no longer a barrier, keeping Gentiles out of the Kingdom of God. The **barrier** that the Law was has been abolished so that all humans can come to the Father through Jesus, as I said. This is confirmed by the second half of v. 15, which states that "His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace." The barrier is what has been abolished, not the law. You've bolded that in your response, but you're misunderstanding Paul's meaning.

Colossians 2.14 means that when God forgave us (13), he cancelled the judgment in God's Law against us, not abolishing the Law itself. You can't just yank these verses out of context.

And it's true that we are dead to the law, delivered from it, and not under it. Christ has fulfilled it. But the law isn't set aside (Mt. 5.17, 19; Rom. 3.30). It's still there. But it has fulfilled its purpose (to lead us to Christ—Gal. 3.24), and we are no longer under its authority (Gal. 4.1-7).

Regarding Mt. 5.19, Erdman says, "Jesus came not to amend or abrogate the law, but to interpret it accurately and in himself to realize its demands both in his own experience and increasingly in the experience of his followers. Jesus regards the law as changeless and eternal." But in Matt. 5.18, we find that the eternity of the law is conditioned on the job it has to do. Once everything is accomplished, Jesus says, presumably, it can "disappear." So you can't hang onto 5.19 as a contradiction to Paul.

Jesus' point in Mt. 5.19 is that just because the law has been fulfilled doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you please. Paul makes the same point in Rom. 6.1 and Gal. 2.17. The law is still there. Its fulfillment and freedom that we have in Christ don't lead us away from the Law but under a greater authority: Jesus himself. Now, as Paul says (Gal. 4.1-7), we are no longer students or slaves, but children—part of the family.

> Your argument is reductionistic and selective.

Unless you quote the entire Bible, your argument will also be reductionist and selective.

> Volumes of books have been written on

...a lot of things. That does not make them true.

> He never said that the law would no longer be in effect.

Yes. That was part of my point. Another part of my point is the fact that many Christians claim he did say the law would no longer be in effect by invoking, "I came to fulfill the law".

> He claimed that the Law would be filled up in him.

Whatever that means. It's not in the Bible. Unless you are turning "fulfilled' into "filled up".

> Jesus did what the Law failed to do: showed people how to live godly lives.

Paul said that loving people fulfills the law. Jesus was not the first person to love people and Paul does not say he was the first person to love people.

> You saying, "By saying, 'I have come to fulfill the law', Jesus was simply vowing that He came to love others," is simply incorrect and a misinterpretation of Jesus' words.

Then Paul teaching that loving others fulfills the law is simply incorrect.

> Paul said far more about the Law than what you quoted in Rom. 13.8-10. He also said that faith doesn't nullify the Law, but upholds it (Rom. 3.30), and that the Law is spiritual (Rom. 7.14). Both Paul and Jesus say that the Law has not been abolished but has been fulfilled.'

Paul said the law was abolished. Jesus did not even suggest that it would ever happen.
> Jesus has established once and for all that salvation is by grace through faith and not by obedience to the Law.

This does nothing to negate the fact that Paul also said that the law is fulfilled by people loving people.

> Thus the Law is no longer a barrier, keeping Gentiles out of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus never said the law was a barrier. And there were millions of Gentile converts to Judaism in the time of Jesus and Paul. That baloney about the law being a barrier is pretty obviously an anachronism devised by a later Gentile writer who had no idea about Gentile conversion rates in an earlier time.

> The barrier that the Law was has been abolished so that all humans can come to the Father through Jesus (cf. also Jn. 14.6).

That passage does not say the Law was ever a barrier.

> but he says nothing about being set free from the Mosaic Law.

In Galatians 5:1 he calls the Mosaic Law a "yoke of slavery". In 2 Cor 3 he calls the Ten Commandments "transient" and "passing away".

> The Mosaic Law is still in effect,

It's about as "in effect" as the Code of Hammurabi.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, (Eph. 2:15)

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col 2:14)

"We are not under the law" (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 5:18)

We are dead to the law (Rom. 7:4)

We are delivered from the law (Rom. 7:6)

Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4)

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ .... we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24, 25)
it just doesn't lead to salvation (Gal. 3.24). We're not under the Law's supervision (Gan. 3.25-4.7), just as Jesus would claim (Mk. 2.28 and other places).

No Jesus said this:
Matthew 5:19 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.

Your argument is reductionistic and selective. Volumes of books have been written on the perspectives of Jesus and Paul on the Law, but your summary hasn't captured it.

Jesus, in Mt. 5.17, in contrast to what you have said, claimed that he didn't come to abolish the law at all. He never said that the law would no longer be in effect. On the contrary, Mt. 5.17-20 is an uncompromising affirmation of the eternal validity of the Law. He claimed that the Law would be filled up in him. Jesus did what the Law failed to do: showed people how to live godly lives. God wanted his people to have certain attitudes, and He did that by commanding certain actions with the idea that the people would see the attitudes behind them as well. The people failed. But Christ did not. He not only preached the attitudes, but he lived them; he not only preached obedience to God in actions, but he lived it. You saying, "By saying, 'I have come to fulfill the law', Jesus was simply vowing that He came to love others," is simply incorrect and a misinterpretation of Jesus' words.

Paul said far more about the Law than what you quoted in Rom. 13.8-10. He also said that faith doesn't nullify the Law, but upholds it (Rom. 3.30), and that the Law is spiritual (Rom. 7.14). In Romans 13.8-10, as you quoted, he agrees with Jesus in saying that love is the fulfillment of the Law (see Jesus in Matt. 22.37-40 where he says the same thing). Both Paul and Jesus say that the Law has not been abolished but has been fulfilled.'

You have misunderstood Eph. 2.15 completely by lifting it out of context. What Paul is saying is that Jesus has established once and for all that salvation is by grace through faith and not by obedience to the Law. Thus the Law is no longer a barrier, keeping Gentiles out of the Kingdom of God. The **barrier** that the Law was has been abolished so that all humans can come to the Father through Jesus (cf. also Jn. 14.6).

In Romans 7.25 Paul talks about being a slave of the Law in his mind, and a slave to sin in his sinful nature. He continues in Romans 8 to explain how salvation has set him free from his slavery to sin, but he says nothing about being set free from the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law is still in effect, it just doesn't lead to salvation (Gal. 3.24). We're not under the Law's supervision (Gan. 3.25-4.7), just as Jesus would claim (Mk. 2.28 and other places).

Therefore your conclusion fails. Paul and Jesus were in agreement that the Law would never be abolished, but it was filled up in Jesus, and thus is was a temporary guardian that had served its purpose but was going to be subsumed under the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Paul's writing demolishes the idea that "fulfilling" the Mosaic law was some mystical woo-woo phenomenon that could only be accomplished by God dying on the cross.

In Matthew 5 Jesus states that he came to "fulfill" the law.

Every Christian cites this passage as proof Jesus taught that, after his crucifixion, the Mosaic Law would no longer be in effect.

Paul is the guy who declared the Law abolished. But ironically, Paul's writing demolishes the idea that "fulfilling" the Mosaic Law was some mystical woo-woo phenomenon that could only be accomplished by God dying on the cross.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10)

Paul makes it clear that anyone can fulfill the law simply by loving others. And Jesus makes it clear that loving others does not abolish the law. By saying, "I have come to fulfill the law", Jesus was simply vowing that He came to love others.

Now that the false equivalence of "fulfill" and "abolish" has been debunked, it can be said that Jesus never so much as hints that the Mosaic law is coming to an end.

And neither does any passage in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 31:33-34, for instance, simply says that the law will be written on the hearts and in the minds of everyone. By no means does it say that the Mosaic Law will ever be abolished.

The new covenant does not abolish the Mosaic Law. It simply writes it on the hearts and in the minds of all people.

152 Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever.

160 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 119)

The bottom line is that there is a very good reason the Jews were chasing Paul down the street for declaring the law abolished: Paul was a heretic. And Jesus would not have agreed with him either.