[servantofChrist]

I know that some, maybe all, will disagree with me on this, but I think that practically all of the new versions of the Bible, except the New King James Version missed the mark in their rendering of Matt. 5:17.

I'll cite the NASB as an example: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

The problem I see is with the word, "abolish." Because here you have Jesus saying that he did not come to "abolish" the Law and Prophets, but then Paul writes and says that He not only came to do exactly that, but He did abolish them by His death on the cross: "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances...." (Eph. 2:14-15)

The Greek word for "abolishing" in Eph. 2:15 is NOT the same as the Greek word for "abolish" in Matt. 5:17. The Gr. word in Eph. 2:15 is "katargeo," the Gr. word in Matt. 5:17 is "kataluo.

So, according to the nearly all of the new versions of the Bible, here are Jesus and Paul contradicting each another. Jesus says that He did NOT come to abolish the Law but Paul says that that is exactly what He DID come to do, and did it by His death on the cross. So which is it?

The old American Standard Version (1901), the King James Version, and the New King James Version all render Matt. 5:17, as "destroy," rather than abolish, and I believe that they are correct in doing so.

Again, the Greek word Jesus used in Matt. 5:17 is "kataluo." Jesus also used it when He told the Jews, "Destroy [kataluo] this temple , and in three days I will raise it up." Again He used it when, referring to the buildings of the temple in Jerusalem, He told His disciples, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down [kataluo]." (Matt. 24:2, Mk. 13:2)

Other "kataluo" references include: Matt. 26:61; 27:40... Mk. 13:2; 14:58; 15:29... Lk.21:6... Acts 5:38-39; 6:14... Rom. 14:20... 2 Cor. 5:1... Gal. 2:18. All of these show kataluo in the intensive usage: "destroy" or "throw down" or "come to nothing." Only two references use kataluo differently from those, and have to do with lodging or resting, Lk. 9:12; 19:7. Only two out of fifteen.

And once again -- "kataluo" is the word that Jesus used in speaking of the law and the prophets in Matt. 5:17. Because if He had come to destroy them, to take them out of existence or out of use, then the words of Paul in Rom. 15:4 would have never been written, and we would have no Old Testament in our Bible's today: "whatsoever things were written before were written for our learning...."

Jesus didn't destroy the law and the prophets, but in His death on the cross, He did abolish them, just as Paul said He did in Eph. 2:15.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Either way it became irrelevant. You say potato...

[freelight]

~*~*~

This primary question continues to be a 'tension-point' between Jewish and Christian relations (old and new covenent issues), ever since the Jerusalem Council, where gentile believers were only given 4 primary rules to follow, not being obligated to fulfill the traditional Jewish observances (circumcision, etc.). Paul threw a major wrench into the system which presents its own complications. Christians tote around a 'bible' that has the Torah attached to add more irony to things, but there you have it.

Messianic Jews, Jews for Jesus... and other 'reconcilatory' groups have sprung, or those Christians seeking to get back to their 'hebrew roots'. At best the NT is an innovation or fulfillment to the old, yet so much still needs to transpire according to Jewish tradition and scriptural interpretations concerning the Messiah's coming and what that Messiah is yet to accomplish whether you believe Jesus is that Messiah or not.


pj

[ChristNU]

Originally Posted by freelight

~*~*~

This primary question continues to be a 'tension-point' between Jewish and Christian relations (old and new covenent issues), ever since the Jerusalem Council, where gentile believers were only given 4 primary rules to follow, not being obligated to fulfill the traditional Jewish observances (circumcision, etc.). Paul threw a major wrench into the system which presents its own complications. Christians tote around a 'bible' that has the Torah attached to add more irony to things, but there you have it.

Messianic Jews, Jews for Jesus... and other 'reconcilatory' groups have sprung, or those Christians seeking to get back to their 'hebrew roots'. At best the NT is an innovation or fulfillment to the old, yet so much still needs to transpire according to Jewish tradition and scriptural interpretations concerning the Messiah's coming and what that Messiah is yet to accomplish whether you believe Jesus is that Messiah or not.


pj

Jesus Christ and the cross are a stumbling block. That "tension point" is not the result of the Jerusalem Council, it is the result of Jesus Christ and His finished work. The new covenant of grace brings all of God's people, both Jew and Gentile, into a unified covenant family, operating by the life of Jesus Christ.

The "new covenant" is not the "old covenant" renewed, reconstituted, refurbished, or reformed. There is a radical replacement of the old covenant by the new covenant, a definite discontinuity between law and grace. Unfortunately, these recent movements we see are nothing more than attempts return to the old, attempts to rebuild the wall of separation that was removed by Christ's own sacrifice on the cross. It is not a return to "roots", it is a return to that which Jesus Christ died to free us from.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Daedalean's_Sun

Obviously this is a question intended for Christians, what are your thoughts on this. Did the New Testament Abolish the Old Testament?

Give a brief explanation for your view, thanks in advance.

For me, it does. The OT is all about obeying an external concept of "God". The NT presents us with a new, internalized concept of "God". And this new internal conception of God changes everything. Life is no longer about obedience to some external Overseer, but is instead about changing one's own identity to become a living expression of divine love, and forgiveness, and healing.

I see a lot of "Christians" who are still living in the OT, and who are obsesses with religious rules and judgments and condemnations. And I don't understand why they even call themselves "Christians". They don't seem to have understood or appreciated this whole new concept of God's Spirit shining within and through us that the NT presents.

[faramir77]

To those who believe, no explaination is required.
To those who do not believe, no explaination is sufficant.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

alas for vain philosophy and so-called science.

[JonahofAkron]

Originally Posted by g_n_o_s_i_s

Analysis of what verse? the Paul one or the Jesus one?

Both. I was trying to convey a lack of understanding of Ephesians 2.15 through Matthew 5.17. I don't think that they are even referencing the same thing. Jesus is discussing His interpretation of Torah on the whole and Paul is discussing the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.

[JonahofAkron]

Originally Posted by ChristNU

Jesus Christ and the cross are a stumbling block. That "tension point" is not the result of the Jerusalem Council, it is the result of Jesus Christ and His finished work. The new covenant of grace brings all of God's people, both Jew and Gentile, into a unified covenant family, operating by the life of Jesus Christ.

Has there not always been Grace?

The "new covenant" is not the "old covenant" renewed, reconstituted, refurbished, or reformed. There is a radical replacement of the old covenant by the new covenant, a definite discontinuity between law and grace. Unfortunately, these recent movements we see are nothing more than attempts return to the old, attempts to rebuild the wall of separation that was removed by Christ's own sacrifice on the cross. It is not a return to "roots", it is a return to that which Jesus Christ died to free us from.

He died to free us from sin, not the Law. There is no discontinuity between Grace and Law; one is an extension of the other. What happened after freedom was given from the bondage of Egypt? It was the giving of the Law.

[g_n_o_s_i_s]

Originally Posted by JonahofAkron

Both. I was trying to convey a lack of understanding of Ephesians 2.15 through Matthew 5.17. I don't think that they are even referencing the same thing. Jesus is discussing His interpretation of Torah on the whole and Paul is discussing the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.

You are right that Paul is discussing the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. The contention between the two being the Torah, something Paul clearly states is abolished. So it seems both passages are in fact about the Torah unless Jesus have some other law in mind.

[ChristNU]

Originally Posted by JonahofAkron

Has there not always been Grace?

No, New covenant "grace" did not exist in the context of the old covenant.

He died to free us from sin, not the Law. There is no discontinuity between Grace and Law; one is an extension of the other. What happened after freedom was given from the bondage of Egypt? It was the giving of the Law.

...and the power of sin is the law. 1 Cor. 15:56

Christians have died to the law through the body of Christ, freeing us from the law. Romans 7:2-4