Not my kind of sense...truth. Part of the problem here is a faulty translation, but we will fix that...
Abrogated is abrogated. Did you read the passages that I gave that clearly tells you that the old covenant with its law has been abrogated? If not, go back and read them...they are very clear. The only people the 10 Commandments adhere to today, are those who are not in Christ, just as Paul teaches in Galatians...it is their schoolmaster to show them their need for Christ. The person who is in Christ answers to only one law, the Law of Christ, NOT the law of Moses. As for the passage that you reference without referencing...
Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV)
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Unfortunately for the uneducated in Greek, this is not what the original text states, so I will help you here:
Matthew 5:17-18
17 Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 Truthfully, I tell you,
if heaven and earth perish, not one dot or the smallest stroke of the pen will pass away from the law without being fulfilled.
"
if heaven and earth..." = the translation here "if" is arrived at by taking the grammar of the Greek into consideration,
where it is usually ignored in word-for-word translations. It is the Greek word
heos which basically means "until," but when it is followed by the particle "
an" as it is in this text, it indicates mere probability,
not certainty, of the action addressed; this is particularly true (in this case as well) when the word is immediately followed by a verb in the
Subjunctive mood. Therefore, it takes on the meaning of "if" and not "until."
Secondly, the word "perish" comes from the first appearance of the word
parerchomai (παρέρχομαι), which has the basic meaning of "to pass away" or "to pass near," but in this first use of the word in this text (for there are two times that it appears), it takes on the meaning of "to perish," whereas in its second appearance and use, it takes on the implied meaning of "to pass away without being fulfilled." Therefore, Jesus is not saying that He did not come to do away with the law or prophets, but rather that neither heaven nor earth would pass away
before all had been fulfilled in the law and prophets. This is a far cry from what Reformed Theology tells us that the passage means.
Here Christ tells us that not one thing from the law of Moses will pass away, "without being fulfilled." He was speaking in an unusual way, for He is referring to the law of Moses which He Himself had already fulfilled, and more, at His baptism. John at first refused to baptize Jesus because he knew that Jesus didn't need a baptism of repentance, because He was the Messiah -
He had never sinned. In Christ the law of Moses was completely fulfilled, but Jesus said to him, "Suffer it to be so now, for this is how we are to fulfill all righteousness," and then John baptized Him. We also know that Jesus fulfilled all the Mosaic law because we have other passages that tell us that He abrogated the law of Moses, and replaced it with the Law of Christ (see
Luke 16:16;
Eph. 2:15; and
Heb. 7:12,
8:13, and
10:9). When looking up these references, remember that the words 'law' and 'covenant' are synonymous - the law is the covenant, and the covenant is the law (see
Exo. 24:38 and Deu. 4:13). Another example of Christ speaking this way about something as if it had not yet been fulfilled, when it actually had been fulfilled, is when He said that Elijah was coming, and then a few lines later explained that "Elijah had already come," and then explained that John the Baptist was Elijah. When comparing this text with passages that teach that Christ did fulfill and abrogate the law of Moses, keep in mind that
God does not contradict Himself, ever...therefore, the answer will only be found when we take all the passages pertinent to this 'apparent' contradiction,
and harmonize them together with each other.
Therefore, even without the correct translation on this passage, if someone knows how to read and study Scripture with even these three basic principles of Biblical interpretation (Topical Principle, Contradiction Principle, Harmony Principle), then they could see that when you have 9 passages clearly telling you that the old law and covenant were abrogated, and 1 passage where it appears that it contradicts 9 others...there is clearly something wrong with the idea that Christ has not abrogated the law of Moses.
