- Apr 25, 2017
Thus, those who make this argument would have Christ teach that He came not to destroy the law but to destroy the law. That doesn't make sense, does it?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Jesus didnt come to destroy this Prophecy, as in get rid of it as tho it is of no use or value, instead He came and FULFILLED it. He completed everything necessary so that the Prophecy itself is no longer in effect going forward. Jesus was born of a Virgin and was called Immanuel, therefore that Prophecy is completed and no longer binding and necessary to be in effect moving forward from Christs Birth on...
That is the meaning of FULFILLING, vs the idea of destroying. If Jesus came to destroy the Prophecy then He would have stated it was pointless and has no need and get rid of it, which Jesus clearly tells the Pharisees some of their man made laws needed to be destroyed, because they interfered with the Law that they supposedly were keeping:
Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
So in these Scriptures we see that the Pharisees had a man made tradition that called for people to wash their hands before they eat, however the Disciples at that time didnt follow it and so the Pharisees tried to call Jesus out on that and how does Jesus respond? He brings up the fact that they have changed the Law of Moses that called for them to stone their disrespectful children and replaced it with their own Law that as long as the child gives a "gift to God" or pronounces something as being in service to God, then no longer would the child be penalized as the Law stated.
Here is a good overview of how the Pharisees used this and broke the Law:
Hence to say of anything, "It is Corban," was to say that it had a prior and more sacred destination. And when it was something that a parent might need, to say, "It is Corban," i.e. it is already appropriated to another purpose, was simply to refuse his request and to deny him assistance, and so to break one of the first of the Divine commandments. Thus the son, by crying "Corban" to his needy parents, shut their mouths, by opposing to them a scruple of conscience, and suggesting to them a superstitious fear. It was as much as to say, "That which you ask of me is a sacred thing which I have devoted to God. Beware, therefore, lest you, by asking this of me, commit sacrilege by converting it to your own uses." Thus the parents would be silenced and alarmed, choosing rather to perish of hunger than to rob God. To such extremities did these covetous scribes and Pharisees drive their victims, compelling a son to abstain from any kind offices for his father or his mother.
So Jesus shows them how they have usurped the actual Law and created their own Law while trying to accuse Him of not keeping the Law. Jesus clearly shows that the washing of hands was NOT part of the Law of Moses and then DESTROYS their false Law saying it is not what enters your mouth that defiles you its what comes out of your mouth.
IF Jesus would have stated their made up Law concerning "Corban" was correct and stated it overruled the Law of Moses at that time, THEN Jesus would have DESTROYED the Law. Jesus states that He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, so is there anywhere we can point to and see clearly that because of His Life Death and Resurrection, something that was in the Law was changed and no longer in force going forward?
Is what I am saying concerning Fulfillment Biblical?
The Law of Moses states that THERE MUST BE SACRIFICE for Sin, I can quote dozens of Scriptures but one should suffice:
Lev 4:1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering.
4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the Lord.
5 And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:
6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary.
So if the idea presented by Phipps concerning Christ destroying vs fulfilling is correct, then this Law should still be in force, however Christ came and fulfilled this Law with His Death and Sacrifice on the Cross and therefore this Law was FULFILLED and is no longer in effect. Of course Phipps and other Sabbatarians would agree that the Law of Moses in this aspect was FULFILLED and no longer to be in force to us today.
So we can see that when it suites them to argue concerning this, they will indeed recognize that Jesus FULFILLED the Law of Moses and thus in FULFILLING it, it is no longer in force or effect to us today.
The next argument is usually to try and differentiate the 10 Commandments from all the rest of the Law of Moses, and of course they dont believe that the other 603 Laws are really in force to us today, because they were FULFILLED in Christ. So the real question comes down to a few things.
One, is the 10 Commandments part of the Old Covenant?
Another is, does Scripture state that the Law can or has been changed?
So are the 10 Commandments part of the Old Covenant or not?
Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
We can quote more, but it is readily apparent that the 10 Commandments ARE indeed part of the Old Covenant, and are NOT Separate from them. So too the second question, has or can the Law be changed?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
So we can establish clearly in Scripture that the 10 Commandments were part of the Old Covenant and we know that because of Christ there was "made of necessity a change also in the law." Therefore the idea that Christ couldnt or didnt or wouldnt come to change the Law is completely incorrect, the Scripture states that the 10 Commandments were apart of the Old Covenant.
With that said the next question is, what has become of the Old Covenant? Scripture tells us clearly what has happened to it:
Heb 8:13 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.
The Old Covenant was made Old, it was FULFILLED and according to Scripture it has VANISHED AWAY. Since we know that the Ten Commandments were apart of the Old Covenant, then we know that the LAWS of the Ten Commandments have also vanished and we are no longer bound by them, instead we are bound by the LAW of the New Covenant and what is that Law?
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
This is the LAW of the New Covenant, this is the ONLY Law we have and are bound to, and it is above and beyond the entire Old Testament Laws, it surpasses them and all of the Old Testament Law is contained in it. So when it comes to the Sabbath or any other person who tries to put others back under the Old Covenant, the Scripture is clear we are no longer bound by ANY of it at all.
When it specifically comes to worship and days we ought to worship which is the same with food (another "Law" SDA and other Sabbatarians want others to keep), again Scripture is absolutely clear on it:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
There is no need to judge one another on what days we want to worship or what food we eat. If you want to worship on Saturday then by all means go for it, however the second you try and state EVERYONE needs to worship on Saturday you immediately go against clear Scripture and are in the wrong.
I believe it has already been mentioned but the entire idea of the Sabbath was REST from WORK, and as the Scripture in Colossians states all of these things were nothing but a SHADOW of what was to come in Christ. Christ Himself is the True Sabbath, He is our Rest, Rest from WORKING our way into Heaven, REST from Sacrificing and Legalism for Salvation or Justification before God. Israel (again a SHADOW) was the picture of REST from all the battles the Israelities went thru, just as Jesus is the REST from all the battles we endure in this life and will find that pasture of REST after Death.
The Old Covenant has passed away, Christ FULFILLED it, the 10 Commandments including the Sabbath Christ FULFILLED and all of them are just SHADOWS of what Christ would usher in, which is the New Covenant. We are no longer under the Old Covenant or its Laws and whoever tries to teach ANYTHING about going back under the Law is teaching Falsehoods. Paul went to great lengths to explain all of this and called out those who dare tried to get others to go back under the Law, because Christ has ushered in the New Covenant.
His Law is the only Law, His Covenant is the only Covenant, and His Rest is the only Rest that remains, Sabbatarianism is a False Doctrine, plain and simple...