Exactly WHICH commandments did Jesus 'fulfill'?

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Strider324
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 8:12 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Exactly WHICH commandments did Jesus 'fulfill'?

Post #1

Post by Strider324 »

I have never gotten a straight answer to what should be a critically important question for any Christian - especially as they persistently judge others for violating any of the 613 mitzvot that they contend have NOT been fulfilled - like homosexuality.

Which commandments have been 'fulfilled'?

What specific scripture supports your contention?
"Do Good for Good is Good to do. Spurn Bribe of Heaven and Threat of Hell"
- The Kasidah of Haji abdu al-Yezdi

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Post #21

Post by Overcomer »

First of all, we need to establish what Jesus meant by the Law. He speaks of the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). It is generally assumed that, when Scripture is mentioned that way, it refers to the Pentateuch, that is, the first five books of the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Secondly, what does Jesus mean when he speaks of his fulfillment of their contents? On the one hand, he is talking about fulfilling all the prophecy that refers to him, beginning with the one in Gen. 3:15.

On the other hand, he is saying that he meets all the requirements of the Law. In the Old Testament, people made sacrifices to atone for their sins. However, those sacrifices only covered their sins. They didn’t remove them. People had to keep making sacrifices over and over again because they kept breaking God’s laws over and over again.

When Christ came, his sacrifice atoned for the sins of humanity once and for all (Heb. 10:10; 2 Cor. 5:21). His death and resurrection didn’t just cover people’s sins. They removed them. Now those who accepted Jesus could live under God’s grace, no longer having to make sacrifices for their sins because Christ had done it for them.

However, note that Jesus told them not to think that he came to abolish the law, meaning that they weren’t to think they could sin willy nilly because his sacrifice would cover those sins. They still had to obey God’s laws. Knowing that one’s sins have been forgiven doesn’t give one the right to sin all he or she wants as Paul noted in Romans 6. Just because the sacrifices were no longer needed, that didn’t mean that the laws themselves had been done away with. Jesus wanted to make that clear. And the reality is that, once in a relationship with the Lord, the believer wants to clean up his or her act out of love for him and can do so more readily because of the infilling of the Holy Spirit who empowers us.

As to what laws we still have to obey today, that’s simple. We have to obey the ones that deal with morality. God is immutable. So is his view of sin. Therefore, his laws with regard to ethics still have to be followed. However, the sacrificial laws and the ceremonial laws that were cultural in nature no longer apply to us. For example, in Col. 2:16, Paul talks about it no longer mattering what meat we eat, and in Ephesians 2, he talks about physical circumcision not being necessary to be a follower of the Lord.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #22

Post by bluethread »

Theodore A. Jones wrote:
Ribbi,
The wineskins. A puzzle, aye? "a change also of the law." New covenant. First you gotta have a new law. To fulfill the law one was added, but it was added after the murder and ascension of Jesus Christ. Got it Ribbi? The new law was put into effect through angels by the Mediator. Got it now Ribbi?
It is too bad this guy was banned. It would have been good if he could have presented this rambling in a more coherent fashion. If someone else would like to take a shot at it, I would be happy to respond.

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #23

Post by Ooberman »

Overcomer wrote: First of all, we need to establish what Jesus meant by the Law. He speaks of the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). It is generally assumed that, when Scripture is mentioned that way, it refers to the Pentateuch, that is, the first five books of the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Secondly, what does Jesus mean when he speaks of his fulfillment of their contents? On the one hand, he is talking about fulfilling all the prophecy that refers to him, beginning with the one in Gen. 3:15.

On the other hand, he is saying that he meets all the requirements of the Law. In the Old Testament, people made sacrifices to atone for their sins. However, those sacrifices only covered their sins. They didn’t remove them. People had to keep making sacrifices over and over again because they kept breaking God’s laws over and over again.

When Christ came, his sacrifice atoned for the sins of humanity once and for all (Heb. 10:10; 2 Cor. 5:21). His death and resurrection didn’t just cover people’s sins. They removed them. Now those who accepted Jesus could live under God’s grace, no longer having to make sacrifices for their sins because Christ had done it for them.

However, note that Jesus told them not to think that he came to abolish the law, meaning that they weren’t to think they could sin willy nilly because his sacrifice would cover those sins. They still had to obey God’s laws. Knowing that one’s sins have been forgiven doesn’t give one the right to sin all he or she wants as Paul noted in Romans 6. Just because the sacrifices were no longer needed, that didn’t mean that the laws themselves had been done away with. Jesus wanted to make that clear. And the reality is that, once in a relationship with the Lord, the believer wants to clean up his or her act out of love for him and can do so more readily because of the infilling of the Holy Spirit who empowers us.

As to what laws we still have to obey today, that’s simple. We have to obey the ones that deal with morality. God is immutable. So is his view of sin. Therefore, his laws with regard to ethics still have to be followed. However, the sacrificial laws and the ceremonial laws that were cultural in nature no longer apply to us. For example, in Col. 2:16, Paul talks about it no longer mattering what meat we eat, and in Ephesians 2, he talks about physical circumcision not being necessary to be a follower of the Lord.
Was that supposed to clarify the issue?

It seems like a bunch of loopy religious talk to me. I'm not sure if that's because God hardened my heart, or I am rational.

Can you help figure out which?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #24

Post by bluethread »

Overcomer wrote: First of all, we need to establish what Jesus meant by the Law. He speaks of the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17). It is generally assumed that, when Scripture is mentioned that way, it refers to the Pentateuch, that is, the first five books of the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
As a point of clarification, the reference to the Prophets refers to the Haftorah, so references to the Law and the Prophets are generally references to the entire Tanakh.

As to what laws we still have to obey today, that’s simple. We have to obey the ones that deal with morality. God is immutable. So is his view of sin. Therefore, his laws with regard to ethics still have to be followed. However, the sacrificial laws and the ceremonial laws that were cultural in nature no longer apply to us. For example, in Col. 2:16, Paul talks about it no longer mattering what meat we eat, and in Ephesians 2, he talks about physical circumcision not being necessary to be a follower of the Lord.
The entirety of the Tanakh is cultural. It only applies to those who wish to be considered Adonai's people. The fact the Apostolic Writings use the Tanakh as their basis shows they also are meant to be understood in that cultural context. Col. 2:16 is not saying it no longer matters what ne eats or drinks. He is talking about (Col. 2:8 & 21) "philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world" & "commandments and doctrines of men." That is not HaTorah. That is doctrine and fences added to the commandments of Adonai. Also, Eph. 2 is talking about what is called the Circumcision, that is those who say, (Acts 15:1) "You can't be saved unless you undergo b'rit-milah in the manner prescribed by Moshe." As is pointed out in Rom. 4 & Heb. 11, salvation is by grace through faith. If one does not want to be identified as one of Adonai's people one need not keep the commandments, but if one is a disciple of Yeshua, why would that one not want to be identified as one of His people?

Robert Barnes
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:04 pm

Post #25

Post by Robert Barnes »

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

The law is God's standard of how He wants us to live, however no man can live to this standard. To go against the law is sin, which is punishable by death, ( that is spiritual death not physicle). Jesus came to Earth, 1. to show man how to live a erfect life. 2. To take man's punishment by dying for them, any one who believes in Jesus, and His death on the cross, will not die (spiritually). So, 'the wages of sin is death', Jesus took that punishment therefore fulfilling the law.

User avatar
Ancient of Years
Guru
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:30 am
Location: In the forests of the night

Post #26

Post by Ancient of Years »

To understand the ‘fulfillment’ issue it is necessary to look at the passage in question,
Matthew 5
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.
As bluethread rightly pointed out in a previous post, the phrase ‘the Law and the Prophets’ referred to Jewish scriptures as they existed at that time, the Torah and the Nevi’im. (Writings - K’tuvim - was not yet a well-delineated canonical body of work. Some ‘writings’ that appear in the Septuagint do not appear in the TaNaKh.) The Law and Prophets phrase is used many times in the NT in contexts that make it clear that it is Jewish scriptures that is meant. Luke, who wrote for a mainly non-Jewish audience, changes it to Moses and the Prophets to avoid confusion over what ‘Law’ is intended. The Torah (Law) is the Five Books of Moses.

Matthew wrote to Jewish Christians who at that time were at odds with non-Jewish Christians over observing Jewish law. Matthew’s Jesus therefore was not going to abolish the Law. Matthew’s mission in writing his Gospel was to strongly establish Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, using many scriptural messianic references (real or imagined). Jesus was therefore fulfilling the scriptural prophecies, not ending the mitzvot.

According to this passage, the Law will remain in full effect until heaven and earth disappear, when everything is accomplished. When will that be? After the Son of Man appears in the clouds and the judgment takes place at the end of days. This is described in Matthew as well as in Mark and Luke.

In Matthew 15, Jesus argues with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law over the hand washing custom. This was a specific ritual not related to hygiene. It was an adaptation of a mitzvah relating to priests in the Temple introduced by the Pharisees to help extend Temple holiness to all Jews. But it was apparently not widely practiced far from Jerusalem. Jesus berates the Pharisees for demanding its observance and points out other ‘man-made’ rules that actually contradict the Law. Jesus was promoting a return to ‘pure’ Mosaic Law. In this way one needed to be more righteous than the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

Matthew’s Jesus is not opposed to ‘a hedge around the Torah’ as can be seen in the following ‘you have heard’ passage. It is the invention of arbitrary rules and the obsession with strict literalistic interpretation to the point of hypocrisy (as evidenced in other passages) that is the problem. Interestingly this sounds very much like the House of Shammai Pharisees who were dominant during the putative time of Jesus.

Summary: It is the messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. The Law is here to stay, for Jews anyway even if they are also Christians. Not that common a thing today but the original Jesus followers were all Jews.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

William Blake

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24864
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Post #27

Post by Goat »

Robert Barnes wrote: [Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

The law is God's standard of how He wants us to live, however no man can live to this standard. To go against the law is sin, which is punishable by death, ( that is spiritual death not physicle). Jesus came to Earth, 1. to show man how to live a erfect life. 2. To take man's punishment by dying for them, any one who believes in Jesus, and His death on the cross, will not die (spiritually). So, 'the wages of sin is death', Jesus took that punishment therefore fulfilling the law.
That doesn't appear to mean anything to me. What do you mean by 'fulfilling the law'? Could you explain what law, and how did dying on the cross 'full fill it'?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Revelations won
Sage
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Post #28

Post by Revelations won »

We should remember that Christ did NOT come to destroy the law, but renter He came to "fulfill the law".

The law of animal sacrifice was a schoolmaster and was a "type of Christ", given to lead us unto Christ. This earlier law was given to prepare the people for the great event presented in the meridian of time known as the atonement. This last, infinite and eternal sacrifice provided by a pure and sinless man (Christ) indeed fulfilled the law, thus ending the law for animal sacrifice. His was the last and great sacrifice which was declared and pronounced upon the "foreordained Christ", "before the foundations of this earth".

Our responsibility is to clearly understand the doctrine of the atonement and how it does or does not apply to our salvation and the ramifications we face if we fail to accept His redeeming atonement.

Post Reply