Matthew 5:17-19 and the law

[guibox]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

Now some of our brethren here are making this verse basically say that Christ did away with the law and He is our Sabbath. In arguing their point they say that 'heaven and earth did not pass away until Christ fulfilled the law.' In other words, Christ's admonishment basically was saying that the earth would not pass away before the law was fulfilled.

This, however causes two problems:

1) It ignores the immediate context of the verse and misinterprets what Christ was saying about 'heaven and earth passing away'

2) It makes Christ's meaning of the word 'fulfill' to contradict exactly what He said He would not do in verse 17

Here we go...

1) In this pronouncement, Christ teaches three important truths: (a) Twice He denies that His coming had the purpose of abrogating "the law and the prophets"; (b) all of the Law of God, including its minute details, is valid until the termination of the present age; and (c) anyone who teaches that even the least of God’s commandments can be broken stands under divine condemnation.

The immediate context of Matthew 5:17-19 clearly indicates that the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets ultimately takes place, not at Christ’s death but at the close of the present age. Look closely at the usage of the words:

"I tell you the truth, UNTIL heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

Since, at Christ’s death, heaven and earth did not disappear, it is evident that, according to Jesus, the function of the Law will continue until the end of the present age. 

2) The narrow interpretation of the word, 'fulfill'.

It is true that 'to fulfill' implies that certain aspects of the Law such as the Levitical services and messianic prophecies, came to an end in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But this interpretation cannot be applied to the moral aspects of God’s Law mentioned by Jesus, because verse 18 explicitly affirms that the Law would be valid "till heaven and earth pass away." "In the light of the antitheses of verses 21-48, To fulfill" means especially "to explain" the fuller meaning of the Law and the prophets. Repeatedly, in Matthew, Jesus acts as the supreme interpreter of the Law who attacks external obedience and some of the rabbinical (Halakic) traditions (Matt 15:3-6; 9:13; 12:7; 23:1-39)." (Dr. Bacchiocchi, 'Sabbath Under Crossfire)

"In Matthew, Christ’s teachings are presented not as a replacement of God’s moral Law but as the continuation and confirmation of the Old Testament. Matthew sees in Christ not the termination of the Law and the prophets but their realization and continuation. The "golden rule" in Matthew 7:12 is presented as being the essence of "the Law and the prophets." In Matthew 19:16-19, the rich young man wanted to know what he should do to have eternal life. Jesus told him to "keep the commandments," and then He listed five of them." (Dr. Bacchiocchi, 'Sabbath Under Crossfire') 

"Christ did not modify or replace the Law. Instead, He revealed its divine intent which affects not only the outward conduct but also the inner motives. The Law condemned murder; Jesus condemned anger as sin (Matt 5:21-26). The Law condemned adultery; Jesus condemned lustful appetites (Matt 5:27-28). This is not a replacement of the Law, but a clarification and intensification of its divine intent. Anger and lust cannot be controlled by Law, because legislation has to do with outward conduct that can be controlled. Jesus is concerned with showing that obedience to the spirit of God’s commandments involves inner motives as well as outer actions."  (Dr. Bacchiocchi, 'Sabbath Under Crossfire') 

Unfortunately, our friends misunderstand the usage of the language in Matthew 5:17-19 and use it to further their preconceived notions that the law is no longer binding on the Christian in ANY form.

 

[guibox]

Where are you, law abrogators? This is the verse you like to quote so much and claim Christ is our Sabbath because He 'fulfilled' the law.

Comments would be appreciated from all.

 

[Scott]

The Law isn't trashed. The Law isn't abolished. The Law is fulfilled. The Law is completed.

Think of it this way, imagine every law written down in print. By itself it is the law, but not yet fulfilled. Now a man comes along named Jesus who meets every requirement of the law and still is willing to die an innocent man in order to fulfill the law. Look at it this way, a guilty man dies for his crimes in order to pay back the debt he owed the law for his lawlessness. Now being an innocent man, Jesus never owed a debt to the law but died anyway. By doing so, the debt that is now owed is by the law itself. Therefore Christ is master over the Law and supercedes the law. The law itself is no longer in charge but has become a debtor itself.

Under every part of the law written down in print, there is a response to each written in Christ's blood. The response is only one word. Done.

A completed law is not thrown out, it serves as a reference but is no longer binding. It has been completed, the requirements have been met.

 

[SputnikBoy]

The Law isn't trashed. The Law isn't abolished. The Law is fulfilled. The Law is completed.

Um, WHICH Laws, Scott? Those to whom Jesus gave to the Pharisee lawyer as a means of fulfilling the Law (Matthew 22:37-39) through one's good deeds? Jesus personally fulfilled (executed) those Laws by living a sinless life. That doesn't mean that they are of no effect to us today. HOWEVER, the Law that WAS completed and made of no further effect was the one pertaining to the sacrificial system.

Think of it this way, imagine every law written down in print. By itself it is the law, but not yet fulfilled. Now a man comes along named Jesus who meets every requirement of the law and still is willing to die an innocent man in order to fulfill the law. Look at it this way, a guilty man dies for his crimes in order to pay back the debt he owed the law for his lawlessness. Now being an innocent man, Jesus never owed a debt to the law but died anyway. By doing so, the debt that is now owed is by the law itself. Therefore Christ is master over the Law and supercedes the law. The law itself is no longer in charge but has become a debtor itself.

Under every part of the law written down in print, there is a response to each written in Christ's blood. The response is only one word. Done.

A completed law is not thrown out, it serves as a reference but is no longer binding. It has been completed, the requirements have been met.

No longer binding? Not so, even though you give your response in a convincing 'lawyer-like' manner, Scott. Yes, the requirements of the Law were certainly met in Jesus but that in no way negates responsibility on our part. I realize that we're all 'as filthy rags' but that surely doesn't mean that we have to be 'filthy morons' in the bargain! God gave us a brain to reason with. He also gave us abilities and the freedom to choose. Hey, that also means that we can choose obedience if we so desire! We might feign helplessness (poor little us!) but a little action on our part (as in deeds) is not an impossibility. It sorts out the sheep from the goats. Faith without deeds is dead, so I'm told. And, I'm sure that God has at least SOME faith in us too. Don't sell us short ...each one of us is an example of God's handiwork!

According to this modern-day mainstream Christian thinking the contract (covenant) between us and God has God fulfilling 100% of it and us doing jack-squat. Why then bother with a contract in the first place? Why even bother being a Christian? The two greatest commandments are 1. Commandments 1-4 (the ones that set Christians apart from nonChristians) and 2. Commandments 5-10 (those that have us treating everyone else with honor). Too hard? Well ...okay. I guess they CAN be difficult to keep at times. Forgiving someone or saying "I'm sorry" is also difficult to do. This is why it becomes so special when we DO do it!

Besides the 4th-commandment - which mainstream Christians hate with a passion - I defy any Christian on this board to recommend to anyone else that they actively break any of the other nine! Come on, anyone ...as long as you believe that the Ten (nine?) Commandments are of no effect what's the harm in telling everyone else that they are free to break them? I hope there are at least some of you who will accept that challenge. Otherwise your belief that the commandments are kaput becomes little more than empty nonsense.

 

[Vic C.]

*Just wondering if this should be in the Bible Study Forum*

 

[Aloha Joe]

Guibox--

Your argument rests on the assumption that the Sabbath is an immutable moral law. Those who believe we are not longer bound to the Sabbath commandment hold that the Sabbath commandment was not an immutable, eternal moral law, but was a shadow of the true rest to be found in Christ. It existed for its benefit to mankind (Sabbath made for man, etc.)--and now that benefit is more perfectly bestowed by Christ. The imperfect, earthly, physical shadow of the perfect, heavenly, spiritual Sabbath is obsolete and redundant.

This is why Hebrews 4 says that the seventh day never gave actual rest, which is why God set another day, "Today," to be the Sabbath for those who enter into Christ's rest.

 

[Heidi]

Guibox--

Your argument rests on the assumption that the Sabbath is an immutable moral law. Those who believe we are not longer bound to the Sabbath commandment hold that the Sabbath commandment was not an immutable, eternal moral law, but was a shadow of the true rest to be found in Christ. It existed for its benefit to mankind (Sabbath made for man, etc.)--and now that benefit is more perfectly bestowed by Christ. The imperfect, earthly, physical shadow of the perfect, heavenly, spiritual Sabbath is obsolete and redundant.

This is why Hebrews 4 says that the seventh day never gave actual rest, which is why God set another day, "Today," to be the Sabbath for those who enter into Christ's rest.

Good response, Joe. But I will add that the law is just as true today as it was when it was written. The difference now lies in the way we obey it. Since Jesus fulfilled it for us, we now come to him to amdit when we transgress it, and his love and forgiveness through his death now replaces our desire to sin with his love which actually enables us to keep the law! "For love is the fulfillment of the law."

 

[Scott]

No longer binding? Not so, even though you give your response in a convincing 'lawyer-like' manner, Scott.

This is how you try to draw people back into these debates with yourself and thats why they turn ugly so quickly. Taking little cheap shots and mumbling insults under your breath or your empty challenge. I'm not playing this time, cuz I can guarantee if we met face to face you'd have a lot more respect in discussing. Nonetheless you can have the law, I'll take Jesus.

 

[Heidi]

So if Guibox is still trying to rationalize that the law is to be continued, then what was Christ's death for? Why did it happen? Why do we not just have the Old Testament today instead? :o But of course, since he contradicts so many passages in the bible, then his opinions cannot be taken seriously. He is a classic example of only picking and choosing phrases in the bible instead of bringing it all into agreement, so I don't take his posts seriously.

 

[Aloha Joe]

Good response, Joe. But I will add that the law is just as true today as it was when it was written. The difference now lies in the way we obey it. Since Jesus fulfilled it for us, we now come to him to amdit when we transgress it, and his love and forgiveness through his death now replaces our desire to sin with his love which actually enables us to keep the law! "For love is the fulfillment of the law."

I'm not sure I understand you, Heidi. Are you saying that disobedience to the Law is still sin, but that the price for that disobedience has been paid, so we don't have to obey it? If this is so, why feel any more free to disobey the Sabbath than to commit adultery? If Christ enables us, though love, to keep the Law, why do you not keep the Sabbath? This is essentially what guibox is saying--that, out of love, we obey the Law, including the Sabbath. Please clarify. Thanks.

 

[PHIL121]

But I will add that the law is just as true today as it was when it was written.

While the LAW may be true today, those appointed to uphold it are NOT.

 

[PHIL121]

*Just wondering if this should be in the Bible Study Forum*

: :

Yeah.... this discussion is right up Jay T's alley!

 

[Heidi]

Good response, Joe. But I will add that the law is just as true today as it was when it was written. The difference now lies in the way we obey it. Since Jesus fulfilled it for us, we now come to him to amdit when we transgress it, and his love and forgiveness through his death now replaces our desire to sin with his love which actually enables us to keep the law! "For love is the fulfillment of the law."

I'm not sure I understand you, Heidi. Are you saying that disobedience to the Law is still sin, but that the price for that disobedience has been paid, so we don't have to obey it? If this is so, why feel any more free to disobey the Sabbath than to commit adultery? If Christ enables us, though love, to keep the Law, why do you not keep the Sabbath? This is essentially what guibox is saying--that, out of love, we obey the Law, including the Sabbath. Please clarify. Thanks.

No Joe. We now obey the law through love by asking for God's forgiveness that we then give to others. And that is why Paul said the "love is the fulfillment of the law." Because we have been forgiven, we forgive. And as Paul says, that love harms no one which actually leads us into obeying the Ten Commandments! When we love our neighbor, we do not steal from him, murder him, lie to him, commit adultery with him or his spouse, and because we are thankful, we love God with all our hearts, souls and minds, and do not put any other gods before him and come to Jesus for the sabbath rest. And that's why "love is the fulfillment of the law."

 

[SputnikBoy]

No longer binding? Not so, even though you give your response in a convincing 'lawyer-like' manner, Scott.

This is how you try to draw people back into these debates with yourself and thats why they turn ugly so quickly. Taking little cheap shots and mumbling insults under your breath or your empty challenge. I'm not playing this time, cuz I can guarantee if we met face to face you'd have a lot more respect in discussing. Nonetheless you can have the law, I'll take Jesus.

Huh? Did I miss something? I must have said something that touched a nerve. Don't be so defensive, Scott, I'm not your enemy.

 

[Aloha Joe]

And as Paul says, that love harms no one which actually leads us into obeying the Ten Commandments!

I'm sure guibox would say the same thing--that love leads us to obey the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath commandment is one of the Ten Commandments--if love leads us to obey the Ten Commandments, shouldn't it then lead us to observe the seventh day Sabbath, as that was the Sabbath referred to in the Ten Commandments? I'm not sure I understand how you say that love leads us to obey the Ten Commandments, but at the same time say that love does not lead us to obey the seventh-day Sabbath commandment.

 

[guibox]

So if Guibox is still trying to rationalize that the law is to be continued, then what was Christ's death for? Why did it happen? Why do we not just have the Old Testament today instead? :o But of course, since he contradicts so many passages in the bible, then his opinions cannot be taken seriously. He is a classic example of only picking and choosing phrases in the bible instead of bringing it all into agreement, so I don't take his posts seriously.

Christ's death was to take away our sins brought on by disobedience. That part doesn't change in the NC, Heidi. We still sin, we still disobey. The commandments have nothing to do with why Christ came.

I do not contradict so many passages. Rather it is you who IGNORES many passages for your one tracked interpretation. I have provided enough biblical support and reasoning for what I believe. I would bet that you barely give it a cursory glance before going off on your 'Christ is the Sabbath' mantra.

I think Aloha is pointing out that your reasoning is redundant at best (as most of us Sabbath keepers have been pointing out for weeks now) and that you do keep the law (exactly as we do, BTW). The only commandment that seems to have completely changed in its nature is the Sabbath commandment.

Your only support is your interpretation of Hebrews 4. I have provided enough evidence, links and other support to clarify this passage but you seem to ignore it for your own interpretation most of the time.

Without it, you have nothing to stand on. Christ's example and words contradicts your narrow interpretation of Paul's writings.

 

[Heidi]

So if Guibox is still trying to rationalize that the law is to be continued, then what was Christ's death for? Why did it happen? Why do we not just have the Old Testament today instead? :o But of course, since he contradicts so many passages in the bible, then his opinions cannot be taken seriously. He is a classic example of only picking and choosing phrases in the bible instead of bringing it all into agreement, so I don't take his posts seriously.

Christ's death was to take away our sins brought on by disobedience. That part doesn't change in the NC, Heidi. We still sin, we still disobey. The commandments have nothing to do with why Christ came.

I do not contradict so many passages. Rather it is you who IGNORES many passages for your one tracked interpretation. I have provided enough biblical support and reasoning for what I believe. I would bet that you barely give it a cursory glance before going off on your 'Christ is the Sabbath' mantra.

I think Aloha is pointing out that your reasoning is redundant at best (as most of us Sabbath keepers have been pointing out for weeks now) and that you do keep the law (exactly as we do, BTW). The only commandment that seems to have completely changed in its nature is the Sabbath commandment.

Your only support is your interpretation of Hebrews 4. I have provided enough evidence, links and other support to clarify this passage but you seem to ignore it for your own interpretation most of the time.

Without it, you have nothing to stand on. Christ's example and words contradicts your narrow interpretation of Paul's writings.

If we are supposed to still keep the Sabbath, then why didn't Paul tell us which day it was, Guibox? Why didn't he tell us which laws to keep? :o But he didn't. Instead he told us;

Romans 14:5, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers everyday alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Now the Sabbath law is a commandment. So why didn't Paul care if we broke it? Maybe he forgot. Or maybe he was just too tired to tell us.

Here are some more passages that you contradict:

Romans 3:20, "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

Romans 6:14, "For sin shall not be your master because you are not under law, but under grace."

Romans 10:4, Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. "

Galatians 2:16, "know that a man is not justified by observing the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

Galatians 2:21"...for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing."

Galatians 3:2, "Did you receive the Spirit be observing the law or by believing what you heard?"

galatians 3:10, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written:'Cursed is everything written in the Book of the Law."

Romans 10:4, says that Christ is the end of the law, Guibox, which of course, you have blatantly contradicted. And since you do not believe Paul when he said that "love is the fulfillment of the law" then you are still under the curse of the law.

Therefore, you are stuck quibbling about which day of the week you should observe because you have not accepted Christ's sacrifice for your disobedience of the law and still have to try to obey it like the Jews still do. But my interpretations contradict no scripture. Nothing. We are saved by grace, not by observing the law. And that grace breeds love which is the fulfillment of the law. I'm sorry you don't understand that. But since you don't, then explaining it to you won't make any difference.

 

[Aloha Joe]

Heidi,

I'm afraid I still don't quite understand your viewpoint. On one hand, you say God's love leads us to obey the Ten Commandments, but on the other hand, you say that we are not to obey one of the Ten Commandments. You say that we are no longer under the law, but at the same time say that love leads us to obey the law. Why do you say that love leads us to obey the law, but when guibox obeys the law, you say that that's not led by his love of the Lord? I'm afraid I'm unclear on exactly where you stand. Should we, out of love, obey the Ten Commandments? And if love does lead us to obey the Ten Commandments, does that not include the Sabbath observance?

 

[Scott]

Sorry Sputnik, I've had a lot of things on my mind today and am very much on edge. I apologize for blowing up at you.

 

[Klee shay]

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

Please let me add some passages from Matthew 23:

37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38. This is the first and great commandment.

39. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

While Jesus spoke nothing but truth in the passage you quoted in Matthew, 5:19 it is Matthew 23 where Jesus explains the context of the law and the prophets.

One of the Pharisees sought to tempt Jesus by asking; "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" Matthew 23:36, to which Jesus replied as I quoted above.

The Lord will not be tempted by the Law. He did not answer the Pharisees in regards to saying which was the great commandment - he answered by saying that all the Law hung upon the two commandments which were to love thy God and thy neighbour.

How then does one consider the great commandment in the law, if it is not understood in the context of loving God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind - as well as loving thy neighbour as thyself?

Considering Jesus as being the "Lord of the Sabbath", instead of the DAY being likened as the same, is how some choose to view the scriptures. I personally would not begrudge anyone their Sabbath or their understanding of it; as it is a gift from God for mankind. However, I will argue for the full understanding of the scriptures as I see it *IF* by arguing for the sake of Law, it persecutes another Christian's understanding of the Lord's grace and what he did achieve on the cross.

If someone sees Jesus as the fulfillment of "the law"; why persecute them? Will the blood of Jesus steer them wrong?

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.