Not to Abolish but to Fulfill
May 26th, 2008 by JohnO
I was recently having a conversation with a good friend of mine. And he mentioned that he was having trouble understanding the true meaning behind Jesus’ phrase in Matt 5.17: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” I have to agree it is very hard to get just right. We have to do justice to Jesus’ full relationship with his Jewish religion in his time. And we have to understand the saying as the first Church did - which allowed Paul to not walk in line with every aspect while still remaining “in the fold” to the other Jewish-Christians that did continue to walk in line with the law of Moses. For starters, I have to say that in his Jewish Commentary on the New Testament, David Stern gets the first few bells rung right on tune:
–
Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete, to make their meaning full. The Hebrew word “Torah,” literally “teaching, doctrine,” is rendered in both the Septuagint and the New Testament by the Greek word “nomos,” which means “law.” Greek has had a more direct and pervasive influence on English and other modern Hebrew has, and this is why in most languages one speaks of the “Law” of Moses rather than the “Teaching” of Moses. It is also part of the reason why the Torah has mistakenly come to be thought of by Christians as legalistic in characters (See Romans 3.20, Gal 3.23)….
To complete The Greek word for “to complete” is “plerosai” literally “to fill”; the usual rendering here however is “to fulfill”. Replacement theology, which wrongly teaches that the Church has replaced the Jews as God’s people, understands this verse wrong in two ways. First, Yeshua’s fulfilling the Torah is thought to mean that it is unnecessary for people to fulfill it now. But there is no logic to the proposition that Yeshua’s obeying the Torah does away with our need to obey it. In fact Sha’ul (Paul), whose object in his letter to the Romans is to foster “the obedience that comes from trusting” in Yeshua, teaches that such trusting does not abolish Torah but confirms it (Rom 1.5, 3.31)…
It is true that Yeshua kept the Torah perfectly and fulfilled predictions of the Prophets, but that is snot the point here. Yeshua did not come to abolish but to “make full” (plerosai) the meaning of what the Torah and the ethical demands of the Prophets require. Thus he came to complete our understanding of the Torah and the Prophets, so that we can try more effectively to be and do what they say to be and do. Verses 18-20 enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the Prophets remain necessary, applicable, and in force… The Anglican Christian writer Brigid Younghughes supports my understanding of this passage in these words:
“I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.’ And surely to fulfil means to complete, in the sense of bringing to perfection, not, as Christians have all too often interpreted it, to render obsolete; to fulfil in such a way as to perfect a foundation on which to build further.
–
I happen to think that he rings the bell quite clearly. Jesus’ ministry was directed to Israel. He was a prophet of restoring them to their Abrahamic covenant with God. John the baptist did the same thing. Neither introduced a new religion, or new teaching concerning God or God’s plan. The message Jesus preached was intellegable in his time and by his audience. It made sense in that setting. It couldn’t really make sense that Jesus as a Jew rejects Moses. Instead God puts in Jesus the ethical teachings that perfects what God gave Moses. Since God’s law is merely the projection of his character (not in all ways, but essentially this is true), and Jesus, like Adam, was made in the image of God, Jesus imitated his Father perfectly - then Jesus is the supreme example, the fullness, of God’s revealed character to Moses - the perfect reflection of God.
So what is he saying in this verse then? I am particularly interested in the “it is accomplished” phrase. What had to be acomplished? christs fulfillment? and is this how the Jews he was talking to understand it?
As a avid reader of this blog in which I am in much agreement with, I am and have been neutral with the validity of the Law. On one hand the Law is said to not to have been changed, but on the other hand Paul occasionally used a “Torah-lite” approach in speaking to the Gentiles. This topic is very important, conclusions should not be drawn so quickly. Let the discussion begin…
What about the commandment of Shabbat (Sabbath)? This is part of the infallible Ten, why are many Christians then celebrating on yom rishon “first day” (Sunday)? Tradition, ignorance, arrogance?
Joe,
Shabbat is not a day of celebration - but a day of rest. Why would the early Christians have not rested, but celebrated on shabbat? Rather, they celebrated on Sunday, the first day, because that is the day that Messiah rose from the dead. The Christian practice of Sunday has absolutely nothing to do with resting/sabbath. I don’t know why people play the “either-or” game and not the “both” game, which is clearly what the early Jewish-Christians did - going into the synoguage on sabbath as they had before Jesus.
Well said JohnO. The Christian practice of worship on Sunday, the ‘first day of the week’, has nothing to do with resting or the Sabbath. Not only that, but it’s a practice which originated with the apostles, and isn’t even binding on the rest of us.
It just happens to be convenient at present, but many Christians in my fellowship worship and hold memorial services on different days also.
JohnO wrote: “Replacement theology, which wrongly teaches that the Church has replaced the Jews as God’s people, understands this verse wrong in two ways.”
Matt. 21:43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
JohnO wrote: “Shabbat is not a day of celebration - but a day of rest. Why would the early Christians have not rested, but celebrated on shabbat? Rather, they celebrated on Sunday, the first day, because that is the day that Messiah rose from the dead. The Christian practice of Sunday has absolutely nothing to do with resting/sabbath. I don’t know why people play the “either-or” game and not the “both” game, which is clearly what the early Jewish-Christians did - going into the synoguage on sabbath as they had before Jesus.”
Well said. There seems to be a tradtion of Sabbath keeping and Sunday worship beyond the NT days also.
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:
Book 2:XXXVI Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.
LIX but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord’s house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord’s resurrection, which is the Lord’s day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead.
Hi JohnO,
I just realized that you were quoting David Stern about replacement theology.
Anyways, on a more practical note where does this leave christians today?
Should modern christians rest on the sabbath? Seeing how it seems necessary for everyone to have at least one day off a week, should we conform our work week to the biblical pattern or to another?
How about Holidays? Should Christians celebrate biblical holidays or base their liturgical year around biblical holidays (Passover, Tabernacles, etc…)? or should we celebrate holidays that do not have a basis in the bible (ex. christmas)? Or neither?
For those that believe that christian involvement in government is legitimate, should we conform our ideas of justice and punishment based on the standards of the law of Moses or on a another standard? Let me give an example, in the law of Moses there are only three forms of punishment: monetary restitution, flogging and capital punishment. However, in this country we send criminals to “pentitentiaries” where they can supposedly do “penance” for their crimes, or where their behavior can be corrected. Does this work? Is this justice?
Concerning foods. Every culture has standards as to what is considered acceptable food. Here in the US we generally consider dogs, cats and humans unacceptable for food, yet in other cultures all three of these may be considered perfectly acceptable to eat, and others may be rejected. Should we reject all standards regarding food? Or should we follow the standards of the culture that we happen to be in? Or should we follow the counsel of God to his people regarding food?
These are just a few examples. I would like to hear what you all think about these things.
JohnO WROTE:
“Joe,
Shabbat is not a day of celebration - but a day of rest. Why would the early Christians have not rested, but celebrated on shabbat? Rather, they celebrated on Sunday, the first day, because that is the day that Messiah rose from the dead. The Christian practice of Sunday has absolutely nothing to do with resting/sabbath. I don’t know why people play the “either-or” game and not the “both” game, which is clearly what the early Jewish-Christians did - going into the synoguage on sabbath as they had before Jesus.”
Shalom JohnO,
Excuse the misunderstanding, I know that Shabbat is provided for a day of rest. I meant to say that we should “observe” on Shabbat day(Seventh day) as God COMMANDS as our day of rest, and not Sunday (First day) as our day of rest.
I agree with you on the points that we should celebrate our saviors resurrection, but one can also celebrate a day of rest, given by God. Shabbat is my favorite day of the week.
Karl,
I’d just like to throw one more wrench into the (ever-growing) bag. I’m not confident that the mosaic penalties were to “promote justice” on the whole - but more on a deterrent level. The prophets and psalms talk about how the law is a yolk to the stubborn people. And Stern does well to show us that this is Moses’ teaching, not necessarily a mathematical law. Other historians also show us that this is how the Israelite people ordered their society and government - which should give us pause about our own positions.
Hi all,
Everyone has great points. I have been studying this at length on and off for the past two years. I am not a believer that the Sabbath day is one that has to be observed. I believe that the old covenant was fulfilled on the cross through Christ, the Messiah, and that a new one was established. The new one is similar to the old one, but this new one includes Gentiles as well. My thought on why the old covenant/law is fulfilled but not done away with is that there are several references to Mosiac Law observances mentioned for the end of times, feasts and sacrifices. Two verses that would make me believe that the Sabbath would be an optional part of fulfilling the commandments of God are listed below. They seem to me to state that the Sabbath was necessary for the times to help God’s chosen people, but since now the Gentiles are included in the salvation plan that the restrictions are not as tight. That the Sabbath observance is one that is recommended, but not a direct commandment. I personally believe that “worship” of God is a daily activity that a day of rest is not necessary in the requirements of God’s law, but recommended. However, I have to say I have been on both sides of this belief at different points in my life and may change yet again. Though in my recent readings of Galations and Hebrews, it is difficult for me to see a current commandment to keep the Mosiac Law. Looking forward to reading more discussion and praising God in the process.
Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Romans 14:4-6 (English Standard Version)
4(A) Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5(B) One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.(C) Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since(D) he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
my two cents:
Hi All,
After reading this I have this question: All ten commandments are still in-force in the new covenant - why would the sabbath not be?
I was going to mention this from Joe’s first post, but forgot. There is nothing special about the first ten. There are not ten commandments, there are 613. If you are guilty of one, you are guilty of them all, so says James - a Jew(ish Christian).
And again, it isn’t about “in force” vs “not in force”. We aren’t talking a mathematical legalistic ideal here. The whole law has yielded to something higher (as Schweitzer says), higher in Jesus. That is the understanding behind “man is lord of the sabbath”. Life cannot be forfeited in order to keep that law. Life must always be honored above the law - and that is even taught in orthodox Judaism circles today (it came from Hillel, a generation earlier than Jesus). Therefore when Paul writes that the law was the schoolmaster - and now we’re out of school, the law yields to something higher and that is the way of Jesus.
Excellent points JohnO. It’s about principles, not law.
JohnO wrote: I’m not confident that the mosaic penalties were to “promote justice” on the whole - but more on a deterrent level.
Deut. 4:1 “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
Deut. 4:5 “See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.
Deut. 4:8 “Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?
Though I agree that the law was also meant to deter, I would have to say that by very definition the law is justice, since it is called “judgments.” In Hebrew the word for judgment means justice. (mishpat) There is no distinction between the two concepts.
But then what happens when we see justice with relation to Jesus? Isn’t it so very different than any justice the law puts forth? An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. It might put forth justice to act as a deterrent, but it surely it doesn’t promote wholeness and life. Which is why the standard Jewish practice says that the law can be put aside to save life (which is what we see when we go in depth with the parable of the good samaritan).
JohnO wrote: But then what happens when we see justice with relation to Jesus? Isn’t it so very different than any justice the law puts forth?
As far as I know, Jesus didn’t lay down any new system of justice regarding the punishment of criminals, and he certainly didn’t lay down the system of correctional facilities that is in use today.
Do these verses show us the justice of Christ?: Luke 19:27 “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”
2 thess. 1:7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
JohnO wrote: “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.”
Now come on JohnO, I know you know the “standard Jewish practice” regarding eye for an eye.
JohnO wrote: “It might put forth justice to act as a deterrent, but it surely it doesn’t promote wholeness and life.”
Would a torah observant Jew agree with you about this statement?
How about these: Deut. 30:16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.
Psa. 1:1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers.
Does Luke 19:27 promote wholeness and life?
JohnO wrote: Which is why the standard Jewish practice says that the law can be put aside to save life (which is what we see when we go in depth with the parable of the good samaritan).
True, but this has no relevance to the subject of abolition of the law. This is because the Jews do not abolish the particulars of the law just because they can think of a case where the particulars may have to be set aside for a greater principle.
Karl,
I think you missed my point of referencing Jesus, and to be sure I wasn’t clear enough - I was particularly thinking of the justifying nature of the cross. So when you write:
“Would a torah observant Jew agree with you about this statement?” - I am sure they would not, because I’m viewing it through the cross. Jesus puts aside the judgment of law, and in that process, those who partake and identify with him are justified. That is the wholeness I’m talking about, lifegiving in the present.
Therefore, when I say the law moves aside for something higher, the justice, life, and wholeness from Jesus (as are the ethics) is much higher than the law can possibly provide (isn’t that Paul’s argument in Romans, Jesus does what the law cannot?).
Hi JohnO,
Now your talking about justification. My original question was this:
“For those that believe that christian involvement in government is legitimate, should we conform our ideas of justice and punishment based on the standards of the law of Moses or on a another standard? Let me give an example, in the law of Moses there are only three forms of punishment: monetary restitution, flogging and capital punishment. However, in this country we send criminals to “pentitentiaries” where they can supposedly do “penance” for their crimes, or where their behavior can be corrected. Does this work? Is this justice?”
I’m not talking about being justified before God as Paul is in Romans, I’m talking about what is the just punishment for someone who does such and such crime.
To that, I would say the Christian cannot answer, Jesus has provided no answer for them. Everyone can have an opinion, but that opinion is no way reflects God or Jesus’ words. Since this country is not bound to Moses teaching on how Israel should be run. If we were to answer, it must take into account how Jesus has forgiven us.
Hi JohnO,
So whether a nation/legal system punishes thieves by: incarceration, amputation, death, restitution, or does not punish them, or even rewards them… These are all matters of opinion?
One punishment/legal ruling cannot be said to be more just than the other?
God’s word does not speak to this issue?
We can extrapolate something, but I wouldn’t consider it binding or Christian thought in either case. I would say that many of the american laws and ideas are meditations on both old and new testament themes. But its laws are not distinctly Christian whatsoever. The Christian faith denies any national system, it is multi-ethnic and global. So to extrapolate a national system out is anti-thetical.
JohnO, you make some good points. Disestablishmentarianism is a fundamental principle of true Christianity.
Karl, Romans 13:1-7.
oh my goodness, I’ve never seen that word used in a sentence.
And antidisestablishmentarianism is an even longer word!
Seriously, though, the whole argument about whether we should keep the law and/or which laws apply to us is rendered moot when we remember that Jesus and Paul both talked about walking by the spirit and walking in love, which fulfills the Law but is a higher standard than the Law. A couple of posts have said Jesus didn’t start anything new. Actually he did. He said, “You’ve heard it said in the Law… but I say to you…” He raised it to a higher standard which nobody can keep on their own. That’s why we need his help through the holy spirit. God is more interested in us doing what’s right out of a pure heart, than doing what’s right according to external rules and regs.
Hello Mark,
You wrote: “Jesus and Paul both talked about walking by the spirit and walking in love, which fulfills the Law but is a higher standard than the Law.”
So I would be interested to see what you think about some of the specific questions I asked earlier. How would you apply your understanding to these specific questions/situations?:
Should modern christians rest on the sabbath? Seeing how it seems necessary for everyone to have at least one day off a week, should we conform our work week to the biblical pattern or to another?
How about Holidays? Should Christians celebrate biblical holidays or base their liturgical year around biblical holidays (Passover, Tabernacles, etc…)? or should we celebrate holidays that do not have a basis in the bible (ex. christmas)? Or neither?
For those that believe that christian involvement in government is legitimate, should we conform our ideas of justice and punishment based on the standards of the law of Moses or on a another standard? Let me give an example, in the law of Moses there are only three forms of punishment: monetary restitution, flogging and capital punishment. However, in this country we send criminals to “pentitentiaries” where they can supposedly do “penance” for their crimes, or where their behavior can be corrected. Does this work? Is this justice?
Concerning foods. Every culture has standards as to what is considered acceptable food. Here in the US we generally consider dogs, cats, humans and blood to be unacceptable for food, yet in other cultures all of these may be considered perfectly acceptable to eat, and others may be rejected. Should we reject all standards regarding food? Or should we follow the standards of the culture that we happen to be in? Or should we follow the counsel of God to his people regarding food?
Mark,
For my understanding of “but I say unto you” please check my post on it here: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2007/11/12/ye-have-heard-but-i-say/ . Just to keep things centralized, if you have any comments just keep them in this thread.
JohnO,
A couple questions that I would be interested in your opinion.
Would you consider the brit chadasha (new covenant) similar to the faith of Abraham? Did Abraham speak on the law as Yeshua did?
Joe,
Maybe I’m missing what you’re getting at, but I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about those subjects like that. I don’t see how the new covenant could be a return to something old like Abraham. Revelation is progressive, the New Covenant is God doing something on top of the faith of Abraham. Surely God has not discarded Abraham - he will be in the Kingdom banquet according to Jesus, the mediator of the New Covenant. Nor can Abraham speak on the law, as he was before the law. Jesus speaks on the law from his perspective in history and what he sees he Israelite brothers doing at the time - and that is very instructive for all peoples of all times. These questions, if I may say so, seem to be a category mistake.
JohnO,
Thanks for the reply. As you will see as you get to know my approach scripturally, I am always asking the questions that most ignore. Not because I’m trying to set you up, but rather I like to take a approach from a different perspective, especially concerning the topic of Law. As you know there are many of opinions, and this topic can be rather grueling and confusing to newbies. Which is why I believe that Paul took the same approach when speaking to the Gentiles in scripture. You will see that as far as the topic of Law is concerned, I am more of a listener and questioner, rather than a “know it all”, so bear with me as I may ask many questions.
The reason I asked the question of Abrahamic faith is because so many compare the New Convenant as Christ authorizing going back in obediance to the Law and God as faith based, being instilled in us as believers in Christ. But would you say that there is a formula for Mosaic law, and Christ was not denying this, but rather bringing it back to the purist form in which Moses would have understood it?…
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat:
Mat 23:3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
I don’t think Jesus is going backwards to Abraham. And I don’t think Moses’ Law was going backwards (where Abraham would have been a better situation). I don’t think Jesus contradicted the law either. Rather he shows how to not treat it like a strict laywer’s document but instead the principle behind the precept. Therefore - find the principles, and live by those. Hillel did much the same thing.
How would one know what Torot (teachings) would apply today? If there are 613 mitzvot, which ones are for a certain time and people? Is there one law set above another?
Are Food laws bound by principles?
The Acts council, for me, decides what should be followed out of principle. Paul writes a lot of his epistles showing these very same things
The point is that walking by the spirit, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is about walking in love on a higher level than anything that would be encompassed by laws. Rules and regs that don’t don’t deal with the heart are going to fall short because there are always variables in any situation. Jesus spoke of healing, or pulling a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. And there are other examples.
I believe we are to follow “the Law of Christ” rather than the Law of Moses (which was only given to Israel). Many of Christ’s commands are similar to those of the Mosaic Law, and many of them are even more “strict” if we were to follow them. (Consider those passages in the Sermon on the Mount where he said, “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”).
The point was not to present a new set of rules, though. It was to show that we cannot be righteous on our own, and need to have God’s help though His spirit in order to live up to Christ’s standards. God is interested in our hearts being right more than our keeping the letter of the law.
I invite you to read what I wrote on my website about this:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomLiving.htm