Matthew 5:17-20
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 tell you, 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. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-20
ReplyDeleteThings to look at:
- What part of the Law and Prophets are still in effect?
- What does it mean to them that Jesus came to fulfill them?
- What does it mean that not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished?
- What are the least of these commands and are we guilty of setting them aside?
- What does it mean to be called least or great in the kingdom of heaven?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17 says:
ReplyDelete"There are several parts of the New Testament where Jesus can be read as rejecting some tenets of Mosaic law. Issues are the traditional understanding of the Sabbath in Matthew 12:8, divorce laws in Matthew 5:31, and dietary prohibitions in Matthew 15:11.
Some scholars also believe that antinomianism, the belief that all was allowed because there were no laws, was believed by a faction in the early Christian community. In this verse the Gospel of Matthew directly counters these views by insisting the old laws such as the Ten Commandments are still valid. France notes that "law and prophets" was a common expression for the entirety of what Christians today call the Old Testament, though it more correctly refers to the Mosaic Law and Neviim, see Biblical Canon.
The main controversy over this verse is over the word "fulfill." . . . These varying definitions and the textual uncertainty over the status of the law have led to a number of understandings of the relationship between Mosaic law and the New Testament.
Another important writer who rejected any break between Jesus and Moses was St. Augustine . . that Jesus expanded the law but did not replace it. . . . Leading Protestants such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli rejected the idea Jesus had added to the Law. Rather they argued that Jesus only illustrated the true Law that had always existed, but had been badly understood by the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders. The Anabaptists took the opposite view and felt the Jesus had greatly reformed the Law and felt that Old Testament precepts could only be justified if they had been reaffirmed by Jesus.
The antinomian viewpoint mentioned above holds that, because Jesus accomplished all that was required by the law, thus fulfilling it, he made it unnecessary for anyone to do anything further. Proponents of this view believe this view was described by the Apostles in Acts of the Apostles, and that the Jewish Christians overlooked such teaching as they continued to worship in Herod's Temple as prescribed by the Mosaic Law, even after the resurrection. According to this view, anyone accepting his gift of salvation would not only avoid consequences of failing to live up to the law, but is no longer expected to do any works of the law for any spiritual reason.
The opposite of antinomianism, a view also mentioned above, is that the entire Torah Law is still entirely applicable to Christians; not for salvation, but rather for simple obedience. This interpretation stems primarily from the New Testament affirmation that Jesus Christ was sinless in every way (Heb. 4:15), sin is defined by the Torah (1 John 3:4), and that Jesus' followers, both Jew and Gentile, are admonished to imitate Him in every way (1 John 2:6). This view affirms the six points of St. Augustine listed above, but differs from other traditional views by affirming obedience to specific commands of the Law such as dietary laws; laws to which other views teach obedience is no longer intended by God. Proponents of this view see Matthew 23:1-3 and 23:23 as evidence that Jesus did not negate any aspects of the Biblical Torah Law for his followers. Furthermore, they see it as a contradiction of Jesus' sinlessness (according to His own words, Matt. 5:19) for Him to have taught disobedience to any Torah command, no matter how small.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3783/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-fulfilled-the-law-but-did-not-abolish-it says:
ReplyDelete"Romans 7:7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
I think we somehow overlook when discussing grace, as this seems to be exactly how Jesus came to be our savior offering us hope for life...He earned that right by fulfiling the law.
Romans 7:4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
The law is good, and it's been fulfilled by Christ. He was the one who fulfilled it; not us.
Romans 8: 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
(continued)
(continued from http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3783/what-does-it-mean-that-jesus-fulfilled-the-law-but-did-not-abolish-it)
ReplyDeleteThe righteous requirement of the law has been fulfilled in us (those who are in Christ Jesus) by virutue of us being in Christ. The law has been fulfilled, there is, therefore no condemnation for those who are clothed with Christ's righteousness, but we should remember that those who live according to the spirit set their minds on spiritual things and will see to live in accordance with God's moral law. Romans 6:15 reminds us of this, but note, (Paul does suggest again that we're not under the law, per se):
Romans 6:15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
With his blood, Jesus purchased us from death. Jesus was the fulfilment of the law; not us. Because of that, we are bound as slaves of righteousness. We're not going to fulfill the law in our own lives, and we're not expected to; but lest we use this as an excuse to sin without rein, we are supposed to set our sights on righteousness out of gratitude and duty to our Savior. Those who understand the Gospel (the goodness of God, the wickedness of sin, the graciousness of God to provide a savior) will, naturally seek to please the God who save them and whom they serve, and the best way we can know what this is it to look to the law He's given us.
. . .
It means that while the gospel state supersedes and makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, it does not do it by opposing it but by becoming the perfection and fulfillment of it."
http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html says
ReplyDeleteIt is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the Sabbath-day requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded in a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).
In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment.
If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.
http://christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html is a very long and academic article that goes into a ton of detail about this issue, and how it relates to the immutability of God, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the conclusion is this: Galatians 3:16 says that the law was between God, Abraham, and Christ. Jesus fulfilled the Law. We are under Christ, and under Law through Him. The Law hasn't disappeared, but has been fulfilled. We who are under Christ have met the requirements of the Law through Jesus. If we are saved, we automatically will follow Christ's Law (which is summarized as Love God first, and then love your neighbor as yourself). For we can't not follow Christ's law and not be saved - they go hand in hand.
ReplyDeleteThe original questions I had were:
ReplyDelete- What part of the Law and Prophets are still in effect?
- What does it mean to them that Jesus came to fulfill them?
- What does it mean that not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished?
- What are the least of these commands and are we guilty of setting them aside?
- What does it mean to be called least or great in the kingdom of heaven?
The first two, I think, are answered in the articles above. The answer to the third is that Jesus had accomplished everything in fulfilling the Law.
Addressing questions 4 and 5 next.
Question 4: What are the least of these commands and are we guilty of setting them aside?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517 addresses question 1-3 too. Scrolling down:
One explanation of this phrase is that "these commandments" refer to the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5-7, and not to the Old Testament or its law. . . .Jesus went on to give six units of teaching, each introduced by the phrase, "You have heard that it was said... But I say to you" . . .He began each section with how Jews might have taught and applied a literal understanding of Old Testament law. Then Jesus gave his more discerning view — the real intent or aim of the law in general, and the six examples he chose in particular.
The disciples of Jesus, in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees, must be "perfect," that is, have a life totally motivated by the will of God. Jesus contrasted this new and radical righteousness (5:20) with the scrupulous religious observance of old covenant demands practiced by Pharisees and other Jewish religious teachers (6:1-8. 16-18).
Jesus did not come to annul the Holy Scriptures as a body of holy writings since they were "God breathed" words of the Creator. But they were not an end in themselves, as many Jews thought. Jesus had come to bring the truth to which those Scriptures pointed (John 1:17).
He was pointing out which principles from the Holy Scriptures had an eternal validity and their intended purpose, and how both were to be understood. . . . In short, Jesus was creating a spiritual law, which we may call the "law of Christ" (John 13:33-35) — and this becomes the norm for Christian living, not the old covenant law.
While Jews concerned themselves with what Moses and their traditions said, Jesus superseded that approach to God with his own instruction. He became the standard of truth (John 1:17).
The great sermon of the new covenant is not the one given on Mt. Sinai, but by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He explained the spiritual-moral principles of the new covenant that apply to Christians. These are amply discussed in several places in the New Testament (in Galatians 5:22-25, for example). We should note that these places do not contain any mention of such ceremonial regulations as keeping a specific day of the week.
We have already seen that Jesus cannot be telling his disciples to keep each of the 613 regulations of the Law. That would lead to a logical absurdity, violate his own teaching in Matthew 5, and stand in conflict with other New Testament teachings and writings. (Since Jesus didn’t mention the Sabbath in Matthew 5, we cannot use this Scripture to insist that one of "these commandments" was the Sabbath "holy time" regulation.)
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp141.htm says many of the same things as above. Additionally,
ReplyDelete"Paul tells us what the laws usage is for, and it is not for the believers to keep-
1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”
This is how we use the law, we are told to preach Christ and use the scripture to present the gospel to people that do or do not recognize their sinners."
I've looked up several articles on the question of who will be called least or great in the kingdom of heaven. I'm finding that many of the answers are of our economy - which is the opposite of God's economy. They smell like the disciples arguing over which of them was the greatest.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2010/12/the-greatest-the-least-in-the-kingdom-of-heaven/ says:
"Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. . . . children then were seen as those who couldn’t offer anything, who needed care, and were a burden because they couldn’t contribute to the support of the family. This, Jesus says, is a picture of greatness in the kingdom of heaven.
but the spiritually poor, for they have the good news preached to them. They are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, for they receive the service and gifts and greatness of the king."
I think this is my conclusion to who will be called least or great in the kingdom of God. First of all, I believe it is God in this case doing the calling of great or least. We get it backwards. In fact, Luke 6:26 says, ""Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way."
ReplyDeleteI think that God will call the obedient great in the kingdom of heaven. And when other people are affected to be more obedient because they are convicted by our obedience, God will call us great. I think that most of the time obedience is pretty quiet. It's noticeable by others because they subconsciously want to imitate those who are obedient. But, in our conscious minds, I think we want to be like the charismatic people who attract attention to themselves.
Jesus said, "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." I think that we need to keep this in mind when we think of who will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
I can imagine the reaction of those when they find out they will be called great - I think they will be shocked and think it's ludicrous (except they don't want to contradict God). I can imagine that those who think they were to be called great will also have a shock - and be pretty upset to be called the least.