Jesus fulfilled the Law

[liamconnor]

Some skeptics (mainly on the Apologetics forum) have point out that Jesus claims to fulfill the law (in Matthew) but in fact "radically" alters it.

These seem to take the word "fulfill" to mean "obey perfectly"; that is, all mankind previously were sinners: Israel failed to obey the law. Jesus was supposed to be unique because he "obeyed" the law, thus fulfilling it.

Hence skeptics have a difficult time when Jesus seems to NOT obey the law.

Now some of these are superficial and betray a misunderstanding of the law.

When Jesus opposed the principle of "lex talionis" (eye for an eye) he was not contradicting the law at all. The law did not state that a man HAD to exact equal punishment for a crime; only that, if he decided to exact punishment, the punishment had to fit the crime (i.e. "head for an eye" went beyond the law). There was no law about forgiveness.

But even ignoring such nuanced explanations, does the Greek term for "fulfill" mean "perfectly obey"?

After all, it says not "fulfill the law" but also "fulfill the prophets". And in fact, the two terms "law and the prophets" was used as a shorthand for "the whole old testament". But how does one fulfill the prophets? how does one fulfill the psalms? These are not reducible to "commandments"?


Question for debate:


How did the early church believe Jesus to have "fulfilled" the law? Did they merely mean "look at every law in the O.T., and look at Jesus' life in the gospels, and you will find that he obeyed every single one"?

I doubt it. I think the term "fulfill" mean something else.

[Divine Insight]

When Jesus opposed the principle of "lex talionis" (eye for an eye) he was not contradicting the law at all. The law did not state that a man HAD to exact equal punishment for a crime; only that, if he decided to exact punishment, the punishment had to fit the crime (i.e. "head for an eye" went beyond the law). There was no law about forgiveness.

This is not true. It was not merely a suggestion of something you could do if you merely felt like it. To the contrary it was mandatory.

Try reading Deuteronomy chapter 19.

[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

The purpose of this is to "put the evil away from among you"

This was never given as a mere option for "personal revenge" for your own vengeance pleasure, that you could chose to do or not do.

In fact, in verse 21 it clearly states that thine eye shall not pity, in other words, forgiveness is out of the question.

I've heard the apologetic argument you've given above many times over, it's simply not true. The law of an eye for an eye and a life for a life, was never offered as a mere option for personal vengeance in case you just happened to be so inclined.

And also, look at the purpose: "so shalt thou put the evil away from among you."

This is the reason that is given for this law.

But Jesus even defies that:

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus not only rebukes the law, but even even rebukes the very reason that the Old Testament gives for this law.

The Old Testament says that the reason for this law is to put evil away from among you.

But in Matthew 5 Jesus teaches not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek, and to allow the evil ones to continue to live among you without even being chastised.

~~~~~

I might add an interesting additional note here:

There are those who argue that Jesus was actually Satan in disguise precisely because he taught people not to resist evil and to allow the evil ones to live among them, and instead of giving the evil ones a hard time to actually surrender to them by turning the other cheek, etc.

I don't argue for this latter point because I don't believe in Satan anymore than I believe in Yahweh. But still, the people who make this argument make a good point.

Why would Jesus rebuke the laws of Yahweh and teach people to leave the evil ones roam free among them, and to even give into them by turning the other cheek ect.

This is in direct violation with the Old Testament scriptures. Both the law and the very reason that the Old Testament gives for this law.

[JehovahsWitness]

Question for debate:


How did the early church believe Jesus to have "fulfilled" the law? Did they merely mean "look at every law in the O.T., and look at Jesus' life in the gospels, and you will find that he obeyed every single one"?

I doubt it. I think the term "fulfill" mean something else.

Paul indicated Jesus fulfilled the law by perfectly keeping it without a single transgression. The law provided a blueprint for what perfection would need to be, only Christ embodied that to the superlative degree. In doing so he fulfilled its purpose namely to identify someone that could keep it perfectly (The Messiah).

The fullfillment of a contract means that all parties concerened are no longer under obigation to honor it. The first century Christians took a while to fully understand this but I should think the matter was driven home with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE.

JW

[Elijah John]

The fullfillment of a contract means that all parties concerened are no longer under obigation to honor it. The first century Christians took a while to fully understand this but I should think the matter was driven home with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE.

JW

What about the idea that the destruction of the Temple was to put an end to all blood sacrifice?

The Temple was not a symbol of the Law, Sinai, was...the stone tablets were.

[JehovahsWitness]

The fullfillment of a contract means that all parties concerened are no longer under obigation to honor it. The first century Christians took a while to fully understand this but I should think the matter was driven home with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE.

JW

What about the idea that the destruction of the Temple was to put an end to all blood sacrifice?

That was exactly the case; or rather the last blood sacrifice, that of the perfect man Jesus did and the destruction of the temple drove home as nothing else could that God no longer required blood sacrifices.

The temple based system was ended, a new religious era had began.


JW

[Divine Insight]

Question for debate:


How did the early church believe Jesus to have "fulfilled" the law? Did they merely mean "look at every law in the O.T., and look at Jesus' life in the gospels, and you will find that he obeyed every single one"?

I doubt it. I think the term "fulfill" mean something else.

Paul indicated Jesus fulfilled the law by perfectly keeping it without a single transgression. The law provided a blueprint for what perfection would need to be, only Christ embodied that to the superlative degree. In doing so he fulfilled its purpose namely to identify someone that could keep it perfectly (The Messiah).

The fullfillment of a contract means that all parties concerened are no longer under obigation to honor it. The first century Christians took a while to fully understand this but I should think the matter was driven home with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE.

JW

But Jesus clearly didn't fulfill the law in that way.

The incident with the adulteress at the well proves that Jesus did not fulfill the law.

Even according to Jesus those who are without sin should cast the first stone. So it must be the law that adulterers should be stoned to death by people who are without sin. Jesus was supposed to be sinless, therefore he would be obligated to stone the woman to death, but he chose to disobey that law.

So it cannot be said that Jesus fulfilled the law by obeying it completely. In order to do that he would have had to go around stoning every sinner to death according to the law. But he never stoned anyone to death.

[JehovahsWitness]

But Jesus clearly didn't fulfill the law in that way.

The incident with the adulteress at the well proves that Jesus did not fulfill the law.

A little research would reveal that the passage in question is not generally accepted to be part of the bible canon.

In order to do that he would have had to go around stoning every sinner to death according to the law. But he never stoned anyone to death.

Further there was no requirement in the Mosaic law for every member of the community to participate in every stoning. The law only stipulated that the primary witness that testified against someone in a court of law for a capital crime would be obliged to "cast the first stone" if the individual were found guilty.

The bible account does not include Jesus testifying against anyone in such a case, thus he obviously broke no law by not participating in any stonings.



JW

[Divine Insight]

A little research would reveal that the passage in question is not generally accepted to be part of the bible canon.

How convenient.

So you're saying that the Biblical Canon cannot be trusted then since its impossible to know which parts are valid and which parts aren't.

Or are you just claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses reign supreme in Christendom and everyone else just has it wrong?

Isn't this typical of ALL the disagreeing Christian factions?

In order to do that he would have had to go around stoning every sinner to death according to the law. But he never stoned anyone to death.

Further there was no requirement in the Mosaic law for every member of the community to participate in every stoning. The law only stipulated that the primary witness that testified against someone in a court of law for a capital crime would be obliged to "cast the first stone" if the individual were found guilty.

The bible account does not include Jesus testifying against anyone in such a case, thus he obviously broke no law by not participating in any stonings.

So why bother going on to try to defend something you claim isn't even legitimate?

Your defense falls short anyway, because the OT doesn't say that the accuser must cast the first stone. Not only this, but if you are going to hold to that ideology then you would have no choice but to also demand that in a modern day society that performs capital punishments in accordance with Biblical Law, the accuser would need to exercise the role of executor.

And by the way, your claim that Jesus "fulfilled the law" thus rending them no longer applicable is clearly wrong according to words attributed to Jesus as well. Matthew 5:17-18 has Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to destroy the law, and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

So according to Jesus every jot and tittle of the OT law shall not pass until heaven and earth pass.

Unless of course your Christian faction renounces that too as "Not belonging in the canon".

[JehovahsWitness]

A little research would reveal that the passage in question is not generally accepted to be part of the bible canon.

How convenient.

No, how well informed.

Or are you just claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses reign supreme in Christendom and everyone else just has it wrong?

No. I am claiming that far the majority of scholarly opinion is that the pericope adulterae was NOT part of the original text (see below)




QUESTION: Were the verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 [also known as the pericope adulterae]/[the Pericope de Adultera] part of John's original gospel?


MARGINAL NOTES

• "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other." - American Standard Version (1901)

• "John 7:53-8:11 is not found in most of the old mss." - New American Standard Version (1963)

• "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." - New International Version (1973)

• "the author of this passage is not John" - The Jerusalem Bible

BIBLE COMMENTATORS

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. [...] No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it. When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel [...] the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive." -- Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221

"St. John vii. 53--viii. 11, is a passage which has held its place in the text by a very doubtful tenure [...] We can no more canonise this passage, if it were not genuine Scripture from the beginning, than we can the books of the Apocrypha, or any other writings. If the best MSS., versions, and fathers, know nothing of such a portion of Holy Scripture, it behoves all who value God's word not to adopt, as part of it, what is not only unsupported by sufficient evidence, but which is opposed by that which could hardly be surmounted. " - Samuel P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854), pages 236-243

"It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here" -- John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 8:1

"On all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors" --
F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (4th edition. London, 1894), volume ii, pages 364-368

"The [...] question is whether the story of the adulteress was part of the original Gospel according to John or whether it was inserted at a later period. The answer to this question is clearly that it was a later insertion." - Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS



EARLY TRANSLATORS

"As far as I am concerned, I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration." -- Theodore Beza [whose annotated Greek text was the basis of the King James version] from Tregelles p. 34.


WEBSITE COMMENTARIES

"Modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery. [...] The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53-8:11 was not originally part of John's Gospel. No church father commented on the section until the twelfth century, and, even then, his comment was that accurate Greek manuscripts did not contain it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

Many analysts of the Greek text and manuscripts of the Gospel of John have argued that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."[3] - wikipedia





RELATED POSTS

How do church authorities establish if adultery has been committed?
viewtopic.php?p=1059842#p1059842

Is conjugal violence biblically ground for divorce?
viewtopic.php?p=1014005#p1014005

Were the verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 [also known as the pericope adulterae]/[the Pericope de Adultera] part of John's original gospel?
viewtopic.php?p=813108#p813108

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

MARRIAGE, ADULTERY and .... DIVORCE

[JehovahsWitness]

Further there was no requirement in the Mosaic law for every member of the community to participate in every stoning. The law only stipulated that the primary witness that testified against someone in a court of law for a capital crime would be obliged to "cast the first stone" if the individual were found guilty.

The OT doesn't say that the accuser must cast the first stone.

Please see below

"In case your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or your cherished wife or your companion who is like your own soul, should try to allure you in secrecy, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, . . . you must not accede to his wish or listen to him, nor should your eye feel sorry for him, nor must you feel compassion, nor cover him protectively; but you should kill him without fail. Your hand first of all should come upon him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward. And you must stone him with stones, and he must die, because he has sought to turn you away from Jehovah your God."Deut. 13:6-10.

"and the man or the woman must be stoned to death. On the testimony of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die should be put to death. He must not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hand of the witnesses should be the first to come against him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward." - Deut 17: 5b-7