Ah, right—so now that previous presidents have fulfilled the requirements for presidency of the United States as set forth in the laws (they were all natural-born citizens at least 35 years of age), those requirements are no longer in effect. So if I were, say, a citizen of Indonesia or Kenya, I should have no problem becoming president, right? :rolleyes:
Heaven and earth have passed. In the Bible, “heaven and earth” does not literally mean the material heavens and earth.
Isaiah 65:17 “For, lo, I am creating new heavens, and a new earth, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart.”
This does not mean God literally created a new earth and we are not on the same planet Moses was on. Heaven and earth is metaphorical.
2 Peter 3:5-6 “for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God, through which the then world, by water having been deluged, was destroyed”
This doesn’t mean that the earth ever literally ceased to exist. God didn’t wipe the earth off the face of the universe and have Noah’s Ark floating in outer space while He whipped up a new one.
Not that kind of “fulfill”. The original Greek word here is πληρῶσαι, which literally means “to make full”. In other words, to complete.
Yes, I know Greek. That still doesn’t help you since following a law is not something that can semantically be “completed,” only complied with. It doesn’t have an ending.
That word also means “to execute,” or “carry out,” by the way.
And Earth is still here, dude, plus Jesus’ disciples somehow didn’t get the message to stop being Jewish. Jesus never said to stop following the law, and in fact, said to obey the Pharisees and keep following it.
You can’t have it both ways. In your example, a man is “fulfilling” a Hebrew law, thereby nullifying it. In my example, a man is “fulfilling” an American law, thereby nullifying it. Exactly what difference in the two examples causes the word “fulfill” to be assigned a different sense?
I think that’s the whole point of the OP.
Well, if the pigfarmer says so… 
That was amusing though.
I’ve noticed some Bibles attempt a little grammatical sleight-of-hand with Genesis.
The first chapter of Genesis lists the order in which God created everything:
Day 1: Heavens, earth, light
Day 2: Sky
Day 3: Dry land, ocean, plants
Day 4: Sun, moon, stars
Day 5: Fish, birds
Day 6: Land animals and then mankind
So Chapter 1 specifically says that man was the last thing God created and he created man after he created plants and animals.
Now you read Chapter 2, which repeats the story of creation. This doesn’t give a day-by-day account but it says the heaven and the earth were created, then water, then man, then plants, and then animals.
Obviously, this order of creation contradicts what was said in the first chapter.
Here’s the relevant scripture: “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” and “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (King James) Or “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” and “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” (Revised Standard). Or “And Jehovah God planteth a garden in Eden, at the east, and He setteth there the man whom He hath formed.” and “And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name.” (Young’s Literal Translation).
But here’s the fan-wanking: Some versions of Genesis now say “Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.” and “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.” (New International Version.)
Notice how they switched from the simple past tense (God created plants and animals) to the past perfect tense (God had created plants and animals).
Hebrew law would be better thought of as a contract - in fact, the word used is often “covenant” which is very similar. A contract may specify all kinds of requirements, but once the contract has been fulfilled, you are no longer subject to the terms of the contract.
For example, while you are renting an apartment, you must pay rent each month and you must not have any pets. Once you fulfill the contract (by serving your 12 months and giving 30 day written notice, say), then you no longer pay rent and can have all the pets you want.
The Messiah fulfills the contract. Christians believe that Jesus did the fulfilling, while Jews do not.
And the passage in Matthew simply reiterates this. Paraphrasing what’s already been quoted Jesus says “I am not here to get rid of the law but to fulfill it. The law will not pass away until it is fulfilled.” How much more clear can Jesus get that he’s here to fulfill the law? I suppose he could have gone on to say “Once I fulfill the law, it will pass away” but what other conclusion can reasonably be drawn from what he said?
The Messiah does not “fulfill the contract” in Jewish belief, and Jesus specifically said that the law was still binding. Only Paul said it wasn’t (in contradiction to Jesus, who said the law was binding “until Heaven and Earth pass away”).
So, I’m glad to hear that you think it’s OK for me to wear cotton-poly blends and eat ham and cheese sammiches, but now do you have any Biblical justification for telling me it’s a sin to sleep with that hunky firefighter?
Romans (among other sections of the New Testament) condemns homosexuality so the Old Testament isn’t necessary to justify it. On the other hand, that passage lists homosexuality along with a laundry list of other sins that include such things as anger, pride, disobedience to parents and gossiping. And the verse after the list (Romans 2:1) says “Therefore, you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”
So I’d say that an awful lot of Christians are narrowly focused on that particular sin, to their own detriment.
This is a usage of “fulfill” which I have never seen employed except by you. I’ve read a good number of rental contracts in my day, and without exception ending the contract according to its terms was deemed “termination”, not “fulfillment”. While the contract was in effect, there were requirements that one may have had to “fulfill”, but merely doing so did not mean that those requirements ceased to apply. On the contrary—it was failure to fulfill the terms of the contract that resulted in its termination.
Romans does not condemn homosexuality. Romans says that God himself turned people homosexual as punishment for worshiping idols.
The “laundry list” you refer to is from 1 Corinthians 6:9, in which the Greek words malakoi kai arsenokoitai are often incorrectly translated as referring to homosexuals. They don’t. The New Testament nowhere clearly condemns homosexuality.
There are lots of differences. Jesus didn’t fulfill a Hebrew law – he fulfilled the entire covenant. As I outlined above, “fulfill” has multiple definitions, as with many words in English. It is also an imprecise translation from the Ancient Greek language, in which it is a word that also has multiple definitions, but not the same set as in English.
Not all translations use the word “fulfill” in that passage. Look at the God’s Word translation:
“Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true. I can guarantee this truth: Until the earth and the heavens disappear, neither a period nor a comma will disappear from Moses’ Teachings before everything has come true.”
Not at all. Regardless of whether Jesus said it, Christians don’t believe that the “old law” applies to them. Virtually no one actually follows Old Testament law to a “T” today (including Jews, but there are different reasons for that). Those who invoke Leviticus against gays are being dishonest. Some try to justify it by splitting the law into categories and claiming that not all Old Testament law was nullified, but this isn’t supported by scripture at all. Furthermore, there is considerable debate as to whether Leviticus actually condemns homosexuality in the first place.
This is semantically senseless. Jewish law and “the entire covenant” are the same thing. The only way to “fulfill” the law is to obey it. It isn’t a task to be completed. It can’t be “finished,” or satisfied by someone else. It’s an ongoing way of life binding on the Jewish people.
I know Greek. I don’t need a translation. The translation is fine. The word literally means “to make full.”
Personally, I know at least two, but I like them way too much to expose them to this place.
But he didn’t say “Jewish law”.
So “to make the law full” means to obey it? That’s not something I’ve ever heard.
Yes he did. “The Law” was Jewish law." There was no other.
Figuratively, yes. It means to obey it in full. It makes no sense to say it can be completed. That’s like saying you have “completed” the speed limit laws simply by obeying them.
He didn’t say “The Law” either. The post I quoted quite clearly said “a Hebrew law”. “A law” is not the same thing as “the law”. I have no idea why you’re arguing this.
I have no idea how you get “obey it in full” out of “making it full”. They both contain the word “full” but otherwise they have nothing to do with each other.
If you make something full, no one else can fill it (unless it’s emptied). It’s been filled.
That’s because speed limit laws aren’t of the same nature. This is not a valid analogy.
This was God’s law and covenant. Jesus was sent from heaven to fulfill/complete it, by following it perfectly, which no one else was capable of. He didn’t do so just because he was really good. He did it on behalf of mankind. Then he died for mankind’s sins, and upon his ascension and resurrection heaven and earth passed. A new era was born and mankind was no longer bound by the old law.
This isn’t just my personal pet theory. This is what many Christians believe.