Did Jesus destroy the Law?

[ipu]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

1) This says Jesus came to fulfil the OT law in its entirety.

2) Christians claim this means Jesus came to complete the law and replace it with a new convenent so that we are no longer bound by that OT covenent. If we are not still under the Old Testament law, then why did Jesus say we still are. Why did he demand quite emphatically that all people, for as long as the earth continues to exists, must fulfil every commandment in the Old Testament in every detail, EXACTLY as they are written?

The word fulfill is often interpreted as meaning to complete the law, but to complete the law such that it does not need to be followed any more (as in, that covenent is no longer binding) just does not make sense here. Mat 5:18 are not the words of someone intending to put an end to the necessity of following God's laws when, or soon after, they were spoken, since in that case "till Heaven and earth pass" would make no sense.

I suggest that fulfill meaning to follow, as in fulfilling the terms of a contract, is the unmistakable meaning Jesus is using. He reinforces that meaning by demonstrating in his own life that the entirety of the law can be followed. He not only is claimed to have led a perfect life (including following all of the OT covenent of the Jews, which includes himself), but seems to be extending that covenent here, not replacing it. In following verses, Jesus talks about people's behavior in the future and tell them that not fulfilling even the least important of the laws of the Torah would cause one to be ranked lowest in the kingdom of heaven. It would make no sense for Jesus to complete the law such that it was not necessary for anyone from then on to follow the law, and then for Jesus to go on and say every bit of the law must be followed by all, lest they be low on the totem pole in heaven.

Therefore, I propose that Mat 5:17-18 demonstrates a fundamental contradiction in modern Christian theology.

-- Alan

[ipu]

Where does one seek to find an answer for what are errors?

I search the Strong's Hebrew and Greek Concordance. I'm still trying to get my hands on the Hebrew and Greek lexicons. If you read something and find that what you have read in one revision is different than another and this difference changes the meaning of the scripture or verse then you have an error somewhere.

Some of the brightest and most devoted theologians of the last 2000 years who are true experts in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic have dedicated many years of their lives to produce the best possible translations of the Bible they could. These are the various translations we have at our disposal. Do you really think you will be able to extract more with your own search? I do wish you the best of luck in your efforts, and hope you can accomplish your goals.

Note that there are no original texts known to exist. There are many manuscripts older than 2000 years well preserved, but somehow it wasn't important enough to preserve any of God's writings. Even more interesting is that Jesus seems to have not written a single word by his own hand in his life! But, I digress...

I think what I am now hearing you claim is that MAT 5 is in error as modern English translations of the Bible have it written, as they claim Jesus requires complete adherence to the OT law, but you claim the real Bible does not say that. Is that fair?

For instance the Worldwide English has Matt 5:19
19So anyone who does not obey one of the smallest laws, and teaches other people not to obey it, will have the smallest part in the kingdom of heaven. But any one who obeys and teaches the law, will have a big part in the kingdom of heaven.

I claim that for any reasonably respected translation you have, you will find that my description of the the words in MAT 5 is appropriate. That is, while there are small discrepancies in the exact words used between the various translations, none of the discrepancies are relevant to my arguments in this thread.

To tell you the truth I don't know of any 'real bible'. I only know we have what we have and are muddling through the best we can.

I see a pretty clear message in MAT 5, and I am getting a lot of argument that I am misunderstanding MAT 5. To the extent that all of the translations of the Bible have any connection to God's words, I claim they are in agreement on the core message of MAT 5, and it is modern Christianity in general that refuses to accept MAT 5 for what it actually says.

I am only asking that instead of saying "Jesus said" when you are paraphrasing to say that it is what you believe he is saying. I've heard too much of men saying what Jesus or God said and it is not found in scripture. That's all. Thank u

I will try to be more careful. I think you will find that when I mean to be quoting Jesus' actual words, I put them in quotes, or block them off with verse numbers to make it clear when I am quoting, versus when I am paraphrasing. Please correct every paraphrase error or other misquote I might make, as it is never intentional, and I appreciate having the record correct.

-- Alan

[ipu]

I am sorry for not reviewing your posts more carefully. Let's continue you logic then. So if you believe that the fufillment of the law was in his life and not in his death? So what was the purpose of his death? Why did Jesus fortell his death in Matt 16:21 as divine purpose?

Apology accepted!

I do think MAT 5 is quoting Jesus as he was speaking about his life, and does not mention or otherwise refer to his death or resurrection. The purpose of his death, therefore, as well as MAT 16 does not seem to me to be relevant to my arguments about MAT 5. That is not to say that nothing other than MAT 5 is relevant, but I see nothing in MAT 5 referring to MAT 16 or the topics in MAT 16, nor anything in MAT 16 referring to MAT 5.

What do you suppose fulfill means then? I fulfilled the law, now you can fulfill it too?

Very close. I think it means that Jesus is claiming to have followed the law and now he expects everyone else to know what the law is, and to be obligated to follow it. I do not see that he expects everyone to follow it perfectly, but that they must try to do so. In other words, any breaking of any OT law is a sin according MAT 5. MAT 5 does not claim anyone other than Jesus is capable of never sinning.

and my belief in whether Jesus did or did not fulfill the law is not relevant to this discussion

That simply isn't logical. Since you don't believe that Jesus's death is relavant for attonement, it is very difficult for you to understand this verse. I believe your vision of a contradiction is in your exegesis. You think that the fufillment is from his life. That is only partly true. The real fufillment I believe he is talking about is in his death and resurrection. It no longer is an issue of christians living like someone else. They must first die like Jesus, and be born again. In their faith they, like Jesus, live in perfect accordance to the law.

First, it does not follow that my beliefs make it difficult for me to understand what is written. I can read and comprehend the message independent of believing it to be true. Second, you claim that MAT 5 deals with the topic of resurrection, yet nothing in this chapter addresses that topic. Resurrection may be critical to Jesus' life/death story, but it is not part of this chapter. Clearly, the OT law applied to those living, specifically, the Hebrews it was presented to, but MAT 5 says it still applies, and will apply forevermore to all. The context is clearly to the living, as nothing about the OT law has any rules for what the dead need to do. There is no hint of afterlife in any of the OT law, and MAT 5 is talking about the OT law. Until you establish a logical connection between resurrection and MAT 5, it is nothing but another diversion to this discussion.

-- Alan

[ipu]

I was reading through this thread again and a thought occurred to me: Didn't Christ demonstrate to us that the Law, the letter of the Law, is merely the surface of the truth of the Law? Is there not more to the spirit of the law than there is to the letter?

I agree. The spirit compliments, enhances, clarifies the law, but does not replace or contradict the law. However, when a conflict exists within the law, such as a catch-22 situation, then the spirit may effectively override a particular application of a particular law for that circumstance. At least that is how I resolve what otherwise seems to be a contradiction of MAT 5 within itself. I am not claiming such a self-contradiction of this chapter.

...yet ipu says we are capable of completely obeying the law - wouldn't complete obedience equal sinlessness?

No, I do not say any such thing. I don't even claim Jesus says that. I claim Jesus commands you to completely obey the law, but not that he expects every person to do so perfectly. MAT 5 talks about how you must view and understand what the law is and how it applies to you. It does not make a claim of the sort that God insures that every law will be followed perfectly by all. Do you think God expected 100% perfect obedience to the law when he gave it to Moses? Why would Jesus think anyone other than Himself was capable of perfectly following the law? The law is the law, and following the law is another issue! The law is unchanged and applies to all forever is what MAT 5 says. MAT 5 does not say all of the law will be followed perfectly by all, nor do I claim such is possible.

Since it should be clear now that there is a difference between having a law apply to you, and you following a law, it should be obvious that your claim of complete obedience equalling silliness is not applicable to what MAT 5 says (whether it is true or not).

Also, I agree with Lotan's comments about your post, so do not need to comment further.

-- Alan

[youngborean]

First, it does not follow that my beliefs make it difficult for me to understand what is written. I can read and comprehend the message independent of believing it to be true. Second, you claim that MAT 5 deals with the topic of resurrection, yet nothing in this chapter addresses that topic. Resurrection may be critical to Jesus' life/death story, but it is not part of this chapter. Clearly, the OT law applied to those living, specifically, the Hebrews it was presented to, but MAT 5 says it still applies, and will apply forevermore to all. The context is clearly to the living, as nothing about the OT law has any rules for what the dead need to do. There is no hint of afterlife in any of the OT law, and MAT 5 is talking about the OT law. Until you establish a logical connection between resurrection and MAT 5, it is nothing but another diversion to this discussion.

Can you develop an interpretation based on one statement in context? I would argue that the whole of Matthew (at the very least) is relavant in this discussion. You are saying that Jesus's life fufills the law. But that is no way stated in that verse either. The only thing that is stated is that Jesus fufills the law. It is your choice of interpretation. You also claim that Jesus's later statement to "Pluck out eyes" is only allegorical, this is also your interpretation but it doesn't follow the previous logic of a strict literal interpretation. So we are left to ask how or why we interpret.

You do make an interesting claim. That Jesus fufills the law by his actions and so we can too (i am paraphrasing). But then why hadn't others fufilled the law? (Moses, etc) They were righteous by biblical accounts but never able to be seen as without sin. It is interesting that you believe that Jesus was able to do what others could not. So I must believe that your stance is a bit of a contradiction. Jesus is telling us to keep the whole law, but he is the only one who is able to do it? I can see why you feel a contradiction, because this idea would be in conflict with other things said by Jesus and a good portion of the New Testament. So can this contradiction be explained? I would offer that Jesus's death and resurrection fufills the law. Through faith in that people become one with him, and are able to satisfy the requirements of the law.

[ipu]

Can you develop an interpretation based on one statement in context? I would argue that the whole of Matthew (at the very least) is relavant in this discussion.

There is a big gap between one statement, and one book. How about we compromise and settle on one chapter. Say, the entirety of chapter 5 of Matthew? Yes, I think there is reasonable context when considering the whole of the chapter, and NOT ignoring anything else in the entirety of scripture that discusses the same issues. That is what I have been trying to do. It is also very possible for a clear contradiction to be contained within a single statement (in context), but I am not claiming this is such an example.

You are saying that Jesus's life fufills the law. But that is no way stated in that verse either. The only thing that is stated is that Jesus fufills the law. It is your choice of interpretation. You also claim that Jesus's later statement to "Pluck out eyes" is only allegorical, this is also your interpretation but it doesn't follow the previous logic of a strict literal interpretation. So we are left to ask how or why we interpret.

First, I am allowing for the sake of argument that Jesus' life fulfills the law. I do not personally believe it, but I do not think that point weakens the point I am trying to make. When someone else made that claim, I said, fine, it is not the point, and we can accept that as true for the sake of this discussion, because it is irrelevant to me. I agree it is not in the verses of MAT 5, but I did not want to divert the discussion. I still don't!

Similarly, it was not me that said the eye plucking was allegorical. Nor do I think it is relevant. If you think it is allegorical, then my claims about MAT 5 stand. If you think it is not allegorical, then my claims about MAT 5 stand. Take your pick, but don't use that to try to derail my argument.

You do make an interesting claim. That Jesus fufills the law by his actions and so we can too (i am paraphrasing). But then why hadn't others fufilled the law? (Moses, etc) They were righteous by biblical accounts but never able to be seen as without sin. It is interesting that you believe that Jesus was able to do what others could not.

I do not believe Jesus had perfectly followed the OT law. I do believe MAT 5 claims that Jesus said he did. My argument is based on what MAT 5 says, not what my personal beliefs are. MAT 5 does not claim Moses followed the law perfectly, nor anyone else, only Jesus did according to MAT 5. I do not believe Jesus was able to do what others could not, but I do believe that MAT 5 says Jesus did do what is not claimed for others. My argument is based on the teachings of MAT 5, not on my teachings.

So I must believe that your stance is a bit of a contradiction. Jesus is telling us to keep the whole law, but he is the only one who is able to do it? I can see why you feel a contradiction, because this idea would be in conflict with other things said by Jesus and a good portion of the New Testament. So can this contradiction be explained?

I do not think you have demonstrated any contradiction in my stance, only in the strawman you claim is my stance. I do think Jesus is telling us, according to the words of MAT 5, that Jesus kept the whole law, and that Jesus is instructing us to keep all of the law. I do not see where anything in MAT 5 claims we are capable of keeping the whole law as Jesus is claimed to have done, but that we are bound by the whole law.

Clarifying what is or is not law is a different issue than following or not following the law. MAT 5 clarifies what the law is. It also claims that unless all of the law is followed completely by all that it will remain the law forever. In other words, with the obvious assumption that everyone cannot follow all of the law, then the law will be the law forever. If the law could be followed, then the law might change!!!!! Jesus is making it perfectly clear that the law will never change because of the absurdity of the only condition which would make it OK to change the law. No contradiction with that point.

I would offer that Jesus's death and resurrection fufills the law. Through faith in that people become one with him, and are able to satisfy the requirements of the law.

I will concede that Jesus' death and resurrection may fulfill some prophesy. I do not believe there is such a prophesy, nor do I believe Jesus was resurrected, nor do I believe it has anything to do with MAT 5, but that is another diversion from my argument, and my concession of this point does not change my argument!

Obviously "Jesus's death and resurrection fufills the law" has a different meaning for the word fulfill than does the use of that word in MAT 5. I think you are suggesting that this "fulfill" means "complete" where the "fulfill" in MAT 5 means "follow", or "abide by", or "satisfy the requirements of" and not "put an end to".

Similarly, your "law" is relevant to prophesy and not commandments and rules and statutes. I think MAT 5 is talking about all those things, but your death and resurrection comment is only in reference to prophesy. You may not therefore conclude that since I have accepted (for the sake of argument) that Jesus' death did fulfill some prophesy, that therefor "law" in MAT 5 is only in reference to OT prophesy. To the contrary, the claim that Jesus put an end to the OT laws by his death and ressurection is clearly a contradiction to the words of MAT 5 which says the law will not end.

-- Alan

[RevJP]

ipu,

In re-reading the last few posts, I have gleened this as your view, please correct me if I am wrong:

Jesus did not completely follow the law, Jesus was not without sin but only claimed to be, Jesus did not rise again.

The law is the law regardless of if it can be followed perfectly or not. God gave us the law even though He knew it could not be followed perfectly, but commanded us to follow it anyway.

Nothing else in scripture pertains to the fact of the law other than passages which deal specifcally with adherence to or disobedience to the law. Nothing of the spirit, nothing of the Son and His life and nothing of the reasons for these things, only that which refers to the physical act of obeying or disobeying the law.

Have I got the gist of what you beleive?

[ipu]

Jesus did not completely follow the law, Jesus was not without sin but only claimed to be, Jesus did not rise again.

No, this is a slight misstatement of my position. It is mixing my personal beliefs with the position of my arguments regarding MAT 5. I do not believe Jesus is God, nor do I believe God exists. However, that has nothing to do with this thread. This debate is about what is written in the NT, and not whether I believe in the NT. The debate assumes that the Bible is the word of God. I am not trying to prove otherwise, as that would be a different debating topic.

What is written in MAT 5 is that Jesus did completely follow the law (and therefore is without sin), and in other parts of scripture, not mentioned or necessarily relevant to MAT 5, it is also written that Jesus did rise again. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not arguing my personal beliefs; I am not claiming, or in any way trying to argue that Jesus is not God or did not rise from the dead or was not without sin (even though, personally, that is my belief). I am assuming for this discussion that Jesus did follow the law and is without sin and was resurrected because that is what scripture says (unless any of these points are contradicted by scripture). This argument is about what scripture says, specifically MAT 5 and related scripture says. This argument is not about my personal belief.

The law is the law regardless of if it can be followed perfectly or not. God gave us the law even though He knew it could not be followed perfectly, but commanded us to follow it anyway.

God gave Moses the law even though He knew it could not be followed perfectly then! Why would it be any different for Jesus to confirm what God did before? You and other seem to have a hard time separating the idea that laws can be given with an expectation that they may not be perfectly followed by all who are subject to them. Man does not pass a law saying the speed limit is 65 MPH with the expectation that nobody will ever exceed that limit. Obviously, God gives laws that God knows will not always be perfectly followed, too. Jesus is saying in MAT 5 that the law is the law; that His coming did not change the law God gave before Jesus came. Any argument you can make about the absurdity of giving laws which certainly will be broken applies exactly the same to when God first gave the law to Moses. I am not claiming this is an absurdity, but that seems to be the argument here!

Nothing else in scripture pertains to the fact of the law other than passages which deal specifcally with adherence to or disobedience to the law. Nothing of the spirit, nothing of the Son and His life and nothing of the reasons for these things, only that which refers to the physical act of obeying or disobeying the law.

Not at all!!!! If we are going to discuss the meaning of MAT 5, then things that talk about Jesus' virgin birth, or the parting of the Red Sea, or Job's travails, etc., etc., are not relevant to the discussion. Likewise, the other parts of scripture on which you and others have tried to present as being relevant to this discussion, so far, have had little relevance to MAT 5 as far as I can tell. If you want to talk about parts of scripture that is relevant to MAT 5, then let's do so. If I say it is a diversion, and you think I am wrong, just please be very clear about how it is relevant and try again. I do make mistakes! (And, I try to own up to them.)

So far I have only seen arguments quoting scriptures that either have no relevance to the message of MAT 5, or simply contradict what MAT 5 says. Unfortunately, you can't use one verse that says MAT 5 says something different from what it does say as proof that it does not say what it says! That only proves my main argument of this thread!

-- Alan

[youngborean]

What is written in MAT 5 is that Jesus did completely follow the law (and therefore is without sin),

So where exactly does it say this in Matthew 5? I will make the point again that your reading is based on how you interpret the word fufill to mean do everything in the law in his life. In my mind the word fufill does mean to complete. You yourself are saying that men cannot follow the laws perfectly.

God gave Moses the law even though He knew it could not be followed perfectly then! Why would it be any different for Jesus to confirm what God did before? You and other seem to have a hard time separating the idea that laws can be given with an expectation that they may not be perfectly followed by all who are subject to them.

So then his fufillment doesn't mean anything according to you? Since he is doing nothing other then reminding men that they have to keep the law. From your position there he is really claiming that there is nothing new to his coming. But your are arguing this position completely in isolation. For instance I could argue that men that sinful should pluck their eyes out in isolation, but that would be missing the rest of the things that Jesus said. Most notably is this:

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now if you interpret that "fulfill" means "do" as you are then Jesus would be extending the law as you claim. So in this one verse this would stand in isolation and for a minute Jesus would be saying that he had no new purpose in coming to earth. But then later he says that his blood is the blood of the New Covenant. So either we interpret this verse in isolation and choose a meaning of fufill that you do. Or, we choose the correct meaning of fulfill (complete) to be consistent with his idea that he was establishing a new covenant through his blood, just as he says in Matt 26:28. It is only a contradiction if you make your choice in translation. Otherwise it is in no way inconsistent. The law still stands for lawbreakers, just as it says in Timothy

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

The believer is removed from this category by their faith in Jesus. They are one with him and are Complete in him. The law is powerless to condem them and they, like Jesus, complete all of the righteous requirements of the law through faith.

[ipu]

What is written in MAT 5 is that Jesus did completely follow the law (and therefore is without sin)

So where exactly does it say this in Matthew 5? I will make the point again that your reading is based on how you interpret the word fufill to mean do everything in the law in his life. In my mind the word fufill does mean to complete. You yourself are saying that men cannot follow the laws perfectly.

I stand slightly corrected! MAT 5 does not say Jesus did completely follow the law, it says he came to follow the law. I made the assumption that it should follow that he did what he came to do, just as it follows that Jesus must be without sin if he never broke any of God's law. Well, actually, that second part doesn't necessarily follow either, as Christianity believes we are born into sin, except that maybe Jesus is an exception born of sinless virgin birth. At any rate, MAT 5 says Jesus came to not change the law in any way, but to follow it.

So then his fufillment doesn't mean anything according to you? Since he is doing nothing other then reminding men that they have to keep the law. From your position there he is really claiming that there is nothing new to his coming. But your are arguing this position completely in isolation.

I am not arguing that there is nothing new to Jesus' coming, but I am arguing that MAT 5 is not talking about the new things Jesus does, it is confirming the old things God already did.

For instance I could argue that men that sinful should pluck their eyes out in isolation, but that would be missing the rest of the things that Jesus said. Most notably is this:

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That is a different discussion, and perhaps the plucking is allegorical or optional or somesuch, and perhaps MAT 26 does have bearing on how to interpret the plucking. I'd rather keep this discussion focused on the meaning of MAT 5!

Now if you interpret that "fulfill" means "do" as you are then Jesus would be extending the law as you claim. So in this one verse this would stand in isolation and for a minute Jesus would be saying that he had no new purpose in coming to earth.

That simply does not follow. Jesus said the old law is still valid. That does not mean there is no additional new law, or that there is no other purpose to Jesus' life than to say the old law is still valid. Why do you think the fact that Jesus says the old law is still valid implies that Jesus had nothing else to say or do? I have not said or implied this.

But then later he says that his blood is the blood of the New Covenant. So either we interpret this verse in isolation and choose a meaning of fufill that you do. Or, we choose the correct meaning of fulfill (complete) to be consistent with his idea that he was establishing a new covenant through his blood, just as he says in Matt 26:28. It is only a contradiction if you make your choice in translation. Otherwise it is in no way inconsistent.

That Jesus' blood is or is not the blood of the New Covenant, does not mean that the New Covenant replaces or eliminates or changes the old covenant. Jesus says in MAT 5 that it the old covenant does not change, and therefore, the new covenant must add to it, not replace it. MAT 5 is most clear that Jesus did not come to change the law in any way. To suggest that fulfill means to complete, as in terminate or end the old law would make MAT 5 read equivalently as:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to end.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ended.

Surely you can see how ridiculous MAT 5 reads when fulfill is translated as you suggest. To complete the law puts the law to rest, which is the same as destroying the law as law. Only follow is a reasonable meaning for fulfill without making MAT 5 self contradicting.

The law still stands for lawbreakers, just as it says in Timothy

Fine. I read 1TI 1:9 as not saying the law does not apply to the righteous! It's like saying the good people do not have to be told how to be good, and not saying good people do not have to be good. They already are being good and will continue to be good. No contradiction or modification of understanding MAT 5 here as far as I can see.

The believer is removed from this category by their faith in Jesus. They are one with him and are Complete in him. The law is powerless to condem them and they, like Jesus, complete all of the righteous requirements of the law through faith.

This is not what 1Ti 1:9-10 says. You are reading more into it than it says. In fact, MAT 5 would pretty much suggest that your extra reading here is incorrect. The believer may be one and complete in Jesus, but that does not make the believe exempt from the law. It seems more to suggest that the believe will naturally follow the law, just as the righteous are law abiding.

-- Alan

[youngborean]

but I am arguing that MAT 5 is not talking about the new things Jesus does, it is confirming the old things God already did.

But if someone were to follow the law completely this would be a new thing.

That Jesus' blood is or is not the blood of the New Covenant, does not mean that the New Covenant replaces or eliminates or changes the old covenant. Jesus says in MAT 5 that it the old covenant does not change, and therefore, the new covenant must add to it, not replace it. MAT 5 is most clear that Jesus did not come to change the law in any way. To suggest that fulfill means to complete, as in terminate or end the old law would make MAT 5 read equivalently as:

I did not say replace, I said fufill. This is exactly what Matt 5 says.

Complete does not mean terminate to me. Jesus to me fufills the requirement for attonement. God never expected man to be able to keep the commandments as you suggest. Attonement was needed then, it is now. The bonus of the new covenant is clear. Faith in Jesus gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, just a Jeremiah 31 states. So the spirit of God causes the law to be written in the Heart. People are no longer bound by the letter, but by the Spirit on their heart. The law still stays in this, it is useful for teaching. But as a covenant that brings death it has no power over the believer. Another way of putting it, the law is only complete for those that accept Jesus and recieve the spirit. Otherwise, what would be the reason for writing the law on the hearts as Jeremiah 31 states?

That is a different discussion, and perhaps the plucking is allegorical or optional or somesuch, and perhaps MAT 26 does have bearing on how to interpret the plucking. I'd rather keep this discussion focused on the meaning of MAT 5!

Not a different discussion at all. You have claimed a particular translation that could have 2 options. Complete or do. Your choice contradicts the Character and teachings of Jesus in other parts of the same book, mine doesn't. It is very valid to the discussion.

That Jesus' blood is or is not the blood of the New Covenant, does not mean that the New Covenant replaces or eliminates or changes the old covenant.

Then why is it called new? I think your assertion should be explained a little more.

To suggest that fulfill means to complete, as in terminate or end the old law would make MAT 5 read equivalently as:
Quote:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to end.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ended.

Surely you can see how ridiculous MAT 5 reads when fulfill is translated as you suggest. To complete the law puts the law to rest, which is the same as destroying the law as law. Only follow is a reasonable meaning for fulfill without making MAT 5 self contradicting.

I don't understand this since fufilling (completing) would not destroy (end), it would only render the law powerless under certain conditions. For example, the law has no power to kill the believer, since Jesus was able to live and be resurrected by his perfect adherence to the law. The law had no power to destroy him, and now under the new Covenant the law has no power to destroy the believer, because their faith has made them complete in the law. If you take this word and translate it the way you do, you undoubtedly run into a contradiction. Becuase then the believer would have to be perfect or sinless out of works like Jesus for death to have no power over them. As we both agree, this is impossible. Now throughout the sermon on the Mount Jesus asks the Impossible, so what is the purpose? To me it is to bring the open Heart into a humble state to accept fully his sacrifice for us.