In these passages in Matthew, Jesus specifically disclaims any conflict between Himself and Moses, and affirms His relationship with all of the Law and the Prophets. Just what exact relationship is He affirming? What continuity, or discontinuity, if any, is to be understood? It is this exact nature of this relationship that we must determine here in just what sense Christ came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Was it to be just "business as usual"? Or, was it to be an entirely different business, so-to-speak, in a completely different way? Shall I say, in a "spiritual" way?
“Covenant Theology,” a phrase coined by reformed brethren within the last century, is designed to show the unity or “continuity” in God’s purpose in human redemption by grace within and throughout all of the covenants. This is fine and dandy. I too believe in Covenant Theology in this respect. But there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over more than is necessary of the old order and way of doing things into the new order of doing things. All of the law—and particularly the ten commandments—is somehow and in some way still literally binding under the new covenant.
With regards to the theological status of modern day Jewish people, Covenant Theology is often referred to as “supersessionism,” or “replacement theology” by its Jewish detractors, and even by Christians who are dispensationalists, due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth. On the contrary, covenant theologians (and myself included here) deny that God has “abandoned” His promises to Israel, even as Paul has so vehemently affirmed of himself in Rom. 11:1-6, and see the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and the work of their Messiah, Jesus the Christ, who established the Church in organic unity and continuity with Israel, and not as a separate “replacement” entity. To be quite honest, it is actually the Jews and the dispensationalist brethren in the Church today who are teaching a “replacement” theology. They are the ones who have turned things upside down. And this was even true in the days of Christ and the apostles. The Jews thought that the covenants were theirs by "natural" right, but they were wrong. God's covenants of promise were for all of His "children of promise" according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh, and this includes Gentiles as well (cp. Rom. 9:8; Gal. 4:28). Gentiles have joined the Israel "of promise" within natural Israel to be inclusive of them, not exclusive; not to "replace" them, but to expand and enlarge upon them. For "more are the children of the barren woman, than of her who could have children" (Gal. 4:27).
Dispensational Theology (or dispensationalism), which has its roots in the teachings of Edward Irving and J. N. Darby of the Plymouth brethren back in the early 1800’s, is designed to show the various differences in God’s dealings with men. A “dispensation” is regarded as having to do with the various administrations of divine truth since the creation of Adam and Eve. And with new revelation comes new responsibilities and/or privileges. This change results in what they term as "a new economy or dispensation." With this emphasis on the various changes in God's past programs with mankind, dispensationalism labors to show the differences (or the discontinuity) between the old and new economies or dispensations.
So, for the dispensationalists, their emphasis is more on a “discontinuity,” rather than a “continuity” between the covenants—even to the point of their being a separate plan for Israel, apart and distinct from the Church—with even future literal rebuilt temples, the reinstating of circumcision (Ezk. 44:9), the return of the Levitical priesthood, atoning animal sacrifices, and the continual observance of the Sabbath and all the Festivals. Remarkable, to say the least, but true! All this, in essence, clearly incorporates a “disunity” of the covenants, rather than a “unity,” seeing everything more in a "natural" way rather than in a spiritual way.
Between these two systems of theology noted above, is a more biblical theology known today as “New Covenant Theology.” It has been spearheaded by such men as Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel, John Reisinger and C. J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries.org. Somewhat similar to dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology recognizes Christ’s new covenant as a separate and distinct covenant apart from the Mosaic Covenant, but like Covenant Theology it does not see all of the laws in the Mosaic law as a thing of the past. But neither do they see all of the ten commandments as still binding upon men’s consciences in the manner in which most reformed brethren who believe in Covenant Theology profess. Even John Calvin, whom I refer to later, didn’t go as far as many of these brethren do with regards to Sabbath-keeping, nor even in calling Sunday the Sabbath.
Clearly, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology disagree as to how Jesus was to come and “fulfill” all of the Law and the Prophets. New Covenant Theology understands that the laws, rites, and ceremonies of the Old Covenant were to somehow and in someway be “blended” into the teachings and out-workings of Christ, and not be “rubber stamped” with the exact same set of rules or standards. Yet similar to Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology sees in both the Old and New Covenants an Israel of God that is not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit of promise. Natural Israel was "a type" of that which “was” already a spiritual reality in some respects and, more importantly, that which was to be more fully realized in Christ's work on the cross, not only for Israelites but also for Gentiles who become fellow-citizens with Israel (cf. Eph. 2:12, 19). As such, all of these natural “types” and shadows would not cease to be until Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice was accomplished on the cross. Additionally, both Covenant Theologians and New Covenant Theologians believe that there has never been two plans of God, one for natural Israel and one for the Church. God's people, the Church (or, literally, the "called-out ones") have always been in existence since the time of Adam and Eve. A "remnant" of God's chosen people from out of the earth was God's plan and purpose right from the start. And the battle between Satan and God has always been a battle between the “seed of the woman” verses the “seed of the Serpent.”
Many reformed brethren want to carefully guard against any notion of “change” or further advancements or enhancements to the Law. So, when Jesus says, “you have heard it said” in His Beatitudes, this for them refers only to His correction of the “rabbinic perversions” of the law and not necessarily to what the law itself actually says. On the other extreme side of the fence though, the old-school Dispensationalists (such as Scofield) viewed the Sermon on the Mount as purely Mosaic law that is to be reinstated during a future earthly millennial reign of Christ. Such an assertion is remarkable, considering the fact that they believe the Christian today is under no such obligation whatsoever to observe any laws, but will be again in a future earthly millennium with natural Jews no less presiding over them in a fourth rebuilt temple that is built after the pattern of Ezekiel's visions in his last eight chapters. Strange indeed! And some modern dispensationalists in seeing the difficulty in all of this, have said that the Church will be in heaven, while natural Israel will remain here on the earth with Christ seated on His throne here with them, putting again a distinction (or a dividing wall) between the two. No matter which way they try to slice all of this here, none of it makes any sense whatsoever. They have just dug a deeper hole for themselves with no way out. They need to throw out this baby with its bath water and start all over again; with someone again teaching them what these first principles of the oracles of Christ were really all about.
Conversely, for the New Covenant Theology adherents, Christ's treatment of the Law in Matthew 5:21-48 is a new application of the law of Moses, reconstituted according to the teachings of Christ. Does Christ merely expound Moses and explain meanings that were always latent in the Law all along? Or is there some kind of advancement in His teaching? Is there any abrogation? Just what exactly does Jesus do with Moses? The older reformed view that the “fulfillment” in view here is Christ's active moral obedience to the Mosaic stipulations to the letter of the Law has largely—and justifiably—fallen out of favor; though not completely. And it was not until I recently read some comments in a current, and very popular reformed book, that I was prompted to write this article. Until recently, I had kept many of these thoughts to myself, thinking this subject not to be one of the most pressing on my "to do" list. But after reading this particular book, I could not help but to raise my voice and decry the error of those who would attempt to still in some way, shape, manner or form bring us under the Law of Moses, and particularly the ten commandments, with no change or annulment to any of those commandments whatsoever. Little do they realize that "we have been released from the Law, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom. 7:6). And this isn't just talking about our justification before God, but about the practical (and spiritual) application of that Law in a way that the Jews, and even many reformed brethren still today, just do not grasp or comprehend. As such, they are really more "carnal" in their understanding of these things rather than spiritual. And like the Jews, they have missed the mark in understanding the spiritual application of many of those laws, with them becoming nothing more than a stumbling block for them.
Before I venture further into this discussion, I would first like to take the time to define what “moral” law is, or isn't. What is one’s “moral” duty to God today anyway? Some things that are considered “morally” right for us to do and embedded into our conscience, don’t change. On the other hand, outward actions or conduct that may have been “morally” right to do at one time, may not be “morally” right or correct to do any more! This is a fact of life! And it is indeed a fact of life with God.
For example, “with a change of the priesthood, came a change in the law” (Heb. 7:12). It was the Jew's “moral” duty and obligation before God to maintain the priesthood as prescribed in God’s law, but it is not so today. One’s “moral” duty to God on all that has “changed.” And to this we would all agree. The so-called “unchanging moral law” of God has indeed been supplanted with new laws of moral obligations that go beyond even what the written code of Moses says. And according to Gal. 2:18, if we "rebuild" what has been "destroyed" by Christ with regards to the Law of Moses, then we are claiming ourselves to be "transgressors" of that which we say has been destroyed. But on the contrary, it is now considered a “transgression” for us to do what was formerly not a “transgression” for us to do. Many laws have changed or become reconstituted in a spiritual manner that supersedes that which was natural. We keep all of the Laws of God, but in a new and living way. As such, it is no longer considered “moral” for us to literally keep the Sabbath, to literally be circumcised, or to literally keep any ceremony or law under the Law of Moses. Isaiah foresaw such a day when God would consider all such ceremonies as no longer pleasing to Him, but actually a heinous transgression, when he writes: “But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig’s blood, and whoever burns memorial incense, like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations” (66:3). What was once “morally” right to do in the past before God, is now considered as an “abomination.” Even the author of Hebrews speaks of this when he talks about individuals “sinning willfully” by returning to Old Testament sacrifices and ceremonies, and not embracing the body from which those shadows were cast, and which we all now know is Christ (Heb. 10:26-28).
Consider this for a moment with regards to the Sabbath: The Gentiles knew of no such commandment. And it surely wasn’t something embedded into their conscience that they felt was their “moral” obligation to keep. This supposed “work of the law” was not written in their hearts. How many of us before being saved ever felt like we were doing something wrong by not obeying the Sabbath? I never did! And how many of us feel this way even after being saved? Similarly, it was not until I read in the Bible that Christians met on Sundays, that I felt any necessity to fellowship with the brethren on that day. And it is not done by way of a “commandment,” but from the fact that this is what Christ and the apostles did. I desire to follow their example. But I sure do not consider one day more “holy” or special than the other. Every day is alike to me. And according to the teaching of Paul, I am the “stronger” person for thinking this way (Rom. 14:1-5). The Sabbath is not an inbred moral duty of our conscience. It is an outward ceremony that was “commanded” to be observed by the covenant community of Israel, and as a “sign” of that covenantal relationship between them and God alone (Ex. 31:12-18; Ezk. 20:20). And as such, it was their “moral” obligation to keep the Sabbath holy the way that God had prescribed it. And in Exodus 20:8, when God tells them to “remember” the Sabbath, He was pointing back to just four chapters earlier where He first mandated the keeping of the Sabbath when He poured down manna from heaven (Ex. 16). He was not pointing them back to Himself resting on the seventh day. Although this was used as an analogy or example for them. But before Sinai, such a covenantal relationship with the Sabbath as a "sign" was never established with them, or anyone else for that matter (Deut. 5:2-3).
Again, what is “moral”? By definition, what is moral is simply this: Morals are principles (commands) or habits (conscience) with respect to what is right and wrong conduct. “Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual’s practice in relation to these."[1] You can look this up anywhere online or in any dictionary and they will all tell you basically the same thing.
The word “moral” is not found in the Bible. It is a convenient invention of our own making; therefore, you will not find the word, or its meaning, in any Greek lexicon. It is a word that has been coined by man and defined only by man. Are the ten commandments of God more “moral” with God than the rest of His commandments? By the definition above of what is "moral," not at! All of God’s commandments whenever or whatever are “morally” just, righteous, and true. And as such, they are “the generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in society, and to the individual’s practice in relation to these.”
If the United States Government commands us to pay taxes, then we are by definition of what is “moral” above, morally obligated to our government to pay those taxes. They are the “principles” with respect to what is considered “right” conduct set forth by our government, and as such, do not violate our conscience. Even Jesus said, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”; it was “morally” right to do so! Jesus did not consider it an immoral practice in which we should refuse to pay taxes. Similarly, being commanded to observe the Sabbath was not imposing upon the Jews something “immoral” for them to do. It was a “principle with respect to what is considered right conduct” before God for them to keep the Sabbath at that time, just like circumcision. A person back then could be killed for not circumcising their son (Ex. 24:26), but this is no longer true today. Every single “command” and ordinance imposed by God is one’s “moral” duty and obligation to keep before Him. When God commanded Israel in Leviticus 19 to “be ye holy, for I am holy,” the list of commands following that commandment established Israel's “sanctity” between them and God, and included everything from the clothing they wore and the way they cut their hair, to not stealing and lying.
Whatever laws the Jews were morally obligated to keep doesn’t necessarily make them morally obligated for us to keep any longer under our new covenant. Nor were these Mosaic Laws obligated of the Gentiles who were outside of their community. The Gentiles were not acting “immoral” for not observing the Sabbath. They were not in any covenantal relationship with God, and the “sign” of that covenant (keeping the Sabbath; cf. Ex. 31:12-18; Ezk. 20:12, 20) was not given to them! It was given to the covenant community of Israel. The Gentiles were not stoned for their disobedience. And neither did God judge them for a law that was not required of them to do. But only for such “works of the law” that were embedded in their consciences, and which either excused them or accused them, did God hold them accountable to adhere to.
So to say that the ten commandments are the everlasting “unchanging moral laws” of God is a misnomer. All the laws were morally binding upon the Jews under their covenant with God. One, five, or ten were no more “moral” than the rest.
John Reisinger has so aptly stated with regards to all of this:
The Bible defines moral duty according the laws of the specific covenant under which an individual lives and never by an imaginary code of “unchanging moral law.”[2]I was born in Stretford, England. I have dual-citizenship in both England and in the United States. When I lived in England, I had to abide by the rules of England. As the old saying goes, “when in Britain, do as the Brits.” But when I came to the United States, the rules had changed for me. Some of them are the same, some of them are different. When in the United States, I am no longer bound by the rules of England, or vice-versa. Similarly, under the Noahic covenant, Noah did not have to keep the Sabbath or circumcision. Under the Abrahamic covenant, Abraham did not have to keep the Sabbath. But under the Mosaic covenant, Moses had to not only keep circumcision and the Sabbath, but a multitude of other covenantal mandates as well. Within each covenant were “enhancements,” “changes,” or “additions” to those covenants. Within every principality or sovereign government there are unique requirements peculiar to those sovereign nations. And it is no different under our New Covenant with Christ. And out of His treasures He brings forth something new, and something old (cf. Mat. 13:52).
There has been a radical “change” in the laws of Moses for the better for us. They were a “schoolmaster” to bring the Jews to Christ. Once “in Christ,” that schoolmaster is no longer necessary. Love really and ideally fulfills all that needs to be fulfilled, from our hearts, not by keeping the outward observations and ceremonies of the past. That’s what ALL of those commandments and ceremonies from God were trying to tell us in the first place---ALL that was to be spiritually fulfilled in Christ! Nine out of the ten commandments have been retained under our new covenant in Christ, while the fourth, a ceremony and “sign” no less of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God in the past, has now also become spiritually realized (or FULFILLED) in our hearts in the rest that Christ gives to all of His new covenantal people. Thus the saying, “there remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9); for anyone who enters this rest of God, ceases from his own works, as God did from His. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest (cf. v. 10). As even Christ has said, “Come unto Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest…you will find rest for your souls” (Mat. 11:28). “This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear” (Isa. 28:12, KJV). Sadly, many brethren in the Church today still refuse to “hear” what the Spirit is saying to the Church. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in that which is now considered an abomination before God. They are the "transgressors," not those of us who choose not to "rebuild" what Christ and His apostles have indeed "destroyed."
Matthew 5:17-20
Verse 17a: Jesus said, “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.”
“Do not think that” must be understood not as the refutation of some already established and clearly defined position, or against any charges that Christ was breaking the law up to this time, but only as a teaching device to clarify certain aspects of the kingdom and of His own mission, and to remove any potential misgivings about what He actually came to do. Similarly in the statement where Jesus says in Mat. 10:34, “do not suppose [Gk. me nomisete] that I have come to bring peace,” are we to suppose that such an opposite notion of “not abolishing” some aspect of the Law can be absolute? By the same token, we cannot make an argument that there is in “no sense” in which Jesus actually came to bring "peace," when we know that from reading Mat. 5:9 that He does. So why then argue that there is in “no sense” in which Jesus abolishes the law? If anything really makes no sense at all, it just such nonsense as all of this which says Jesus hasn't in some way, manner, or form abolished the Law, while at the same time also fulfilling it! For clearly, in both Matthew and the other New Testament epistles some sort of “abolition” is recognized and assumed. Jesus has not come to “tear down” or “disassemble” the Law in the sense of destroying that for which it was intended. He has not come to make it fail its intended design. He will not render it invalid. He has come to validate it in His person and in His redemptive work. Simply put, Jesus denies that He has come with counter-purposes to the Law. His purpose is to see that every jot and every tittle finds its fulfillment in Him in a spiritual manner and no longer in a literal manner. The perpetuity of those laws necessitates such an interpretation. Only that which is spiritual and eternal can be that which can be said to be, "everlasting." God said what He meant, and meant what He said. But not in the way that many of us have thought what He has said, and this includes all unregenerate Jews as well. And yet many Christians would rather believe the Jews and how they believe what the Old Testament is pointing to, rather than to what Christ and His apostles have said. To understand what God "meant," we must go to Christ and His apostles.
To be sure, Jesus “fulfilled” all the Messianic prophecies of the Law (more than 300 of them) that heralded His coming (Luke 24:44); He “fulfilled” all the demands of the Law for perfect obedience—by His sinless life (Galatians 3:10; John 8:29, 46; 1 Peter 2:22); and He “fulfilled” the very purpose of the Law, being the very object of its glorious and preparatory designs (Galatians 3:24-25).
It must also be noted here that Jesus emphatically affirmed that neither a “jot” nor a “tittle” (terms used to represent the minutest portions of a document) would “pass away from the Law” until “all things be fulfilled” (v. 18b). If Christ did not fulfill all the Law, and it is still to literally remain until “heaven and earth pass away,” then all of the Law—every jot and tittle—still remains intact! Or, to say it another way—all the commands, from the greatest to the least, are still in force and binding upon the Christian's conscience today.
So, when someone like Terry L. Johnson in his book, When Grace Comes Home, speaks on behalf of most of those who are reformed, saying: “…the straight-forward intention of the clause ‘until heaven and earth pass away’ is to extend the normativity of the law until the end of history,” and “Jesus is teaching his disciples that the Law shall continue to be authoritative,” and that “all of the Law, down to the smallest letter or stroke, remains in force,” and that “it is all divine instruction which is [still] binding upon believers[3],” is he for real? It is just out of such a belief system as this, that such movements several years ago as Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism, and Greg Bahnsen’s attempted practical outworking of Theonomy in the Christian’s life, that such brethren have in some way, shape, manner or form tried to make the entire Mosaic Law applicable to us for our daily living.
It is all, or none! One cannot have it both ways by picking and choosing what they think is “moral,” verses what they believe is just “civil” or “ceremonial.” As I said earlier, it was all “moral” for the Jews to observe before God. They did not categorize or compartmentalize the Pentateuch into the “moral,” “civil,” and “ceremonial.” This only came later in our day, and by our own Church leaders no less. The Jews understood that it was their “moral” obligation and duty to keep all of the commands of God, not just the ten commandments. We’ll meditate upon these thoughts a little bit more throughout this article, but suffice it to say for now, this is the mindset of many well-intentioned reformed brethren. I too may be reformed, but I am not that reformed. This is where I draw the line. Such “reformation” borders on “legalism.” Indeed, Terry even said that one of the definitions of “legalism” is that “it refers to man-made rules that exceed the requirements of Scripture. Those who ‘bind the conscience’ of other believers with rules not found in Scripture are legalistic.”[4] I hope he is listening to himself, because he really needs to take heed to his own advice. I realize that in the context that he is saying this that he is referring to eating only certain foods, drinking, etc., that are not strictly forbidden of us in God’s Word. But if certain “laws” have been abolished under our new covenant, and yet still continue to be upheld by such people as Terry, then they too have become, “man-made rules that exceed the requirements of Scripture,” and “bind the conscience of other believers with rules not found in Scripture,” and thus become “LEGALISTIC.” This was true with regards to circumcision, as it is with the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath, or even tithing. Such commandments have been abolished at the cross and, as such, are become “man-made” rules and regulations. They “exceed” what God is mandating and requiring of us to do today! And Paul said if we “rebuild” what has been destroyed at the cross, then we are making ourselves out to be “transgressors” of God's Old Testament laws (Gal. 2:18). Therefore we must NOT "rebuild" such things, mistakenly proving to ourselves and to all unregenerate Jews, that we are the "transgressors." We who do not “rebuild” such things are not the transgressors! They are! But they will try to turn the tables on us, accusing us as the lawbreakers! Accusing “us” as being even antinomian, when it is they who are the ones who are breaking Christ’s Law! They are an abomination to God, not us! They have "chosen their own ways," not us!
While I do agree with Terry’s understanding and practical implications of the doctrines of grace, or “Calvinism,” I disagree entirely with his “legalism” in bringing Christians back under the "covenantal laws of Moses," and his third so-called use of the law coined by Calvin, which is really a mis-use of the law. Even Calvin, who coined the phrase, didn’t include Sabbath-keeping as one of its uses. Nor did he “christen” Sunday observance with the accolade “the Sabbath” He considered such antics asWoe to you experts of the Law,
because you have taken away the key to knowledge.
You yourselves have not entered,
and you have hindered those who were entering.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying.
a trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment (this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day), while the moral part remains—viz. the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity.[5]Terry continues to write: “The place of the law in the Christian life is certainly open to abuse. Legalism is always a danger….Elements of truth are seized upon, isolated, magnified, and thereby distorted.”[6] I couldn’t agree with him more. Now if he would only just listen to his own words.
Now when Jesus refers to “the Law or the Prophets,” He means the entire Old Testament canon of Scripture, not just the ten commandments. And as D. A. Carson notes here, “The disjunctive ‘or’ makes it clear that neither is to be abolished.”[7] Now before jumping to any conclusions with regards to Carson’s wording here, just bear with me for one moment. The Jews of Jesus’ day referred to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (Mat. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Lke. 16:16; Jhn. 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom. 3:21); “the Law…the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Lke. 24:44); or just the “Law” (Mat. 5:18; Jhn. 10:34; 15:25; 1Cor. 14:21). The divisions were not so typecast as they are today. Carson again adds, “…even if ‘or the Prophets’ is redactional,…the referent does not change when only law is mentioned in v. 18, but it may be a small hint that law, too, has a prophetic function (cf. 11:13)”.[7] In other words, Carson is saying that what seems to be hinted at here is not a continuation necessarily of all of the Law and Prophets in a woodenly literal manner, but in their “prophetic” and even spiritual fulfillment in the person and work of Christ. Which brings us to our next verse and topic for discussion: the meaning of “fulfill.”
Verse 17b: “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Any interpretation that says Jesus “fulfills” the law by just obeying its commands, misses the point here. Included under this main idea of “the Law and the Prophets” are specific predictions, typological fulfillment's, and the eschatological hope of the end of the ages. Again, Carson writes: “Most NT uses of pleroo [fulfill] in connection with Scripture…require some teleological force…; and even the ambiguous uses presuppose a typology that in its broadest dimensions is teleological, even if not in every detail.”[8] By “teleological,” he means some purpose, design, or direction in which the Law and the Prophets were directed towards. They were all a "prophecy" that was forward-looking.
Though the Greek pleroo is not always used in Matthew's gospel for the translation of our English "fulfill," it is overwhelmingly translated in many contexts “that it might be fulfilled” what the Prophets had said in times past. Similarly, Jesus was the prophetic fulfillment of all of redemptive history in the Law and the Prophets. And it is entirely arguable that Matthew’s entire theological motivation for writing his Gospel may be summed up in this one word—FULFILLED—with the Greek pleroo used 17 times in Matthew; whereas the Greek teleo (to complete, accomplish, fulfill, or bring to an end), is used only 6 times.[9] This is Matthew’s trademark and primary thrust that is emphasized over and again, even without the use of this Greek word pleroo. For Matthew, Jesus is the fulfillment of all the expectations regarding David’s and Abraham’s Son, and He is the one who “fulfills” all the promises made throughout Israel’s history. Within this entire context of Matthew's narrative, it would be surprising if chapter 5 were any different. Indeed, it isn't. So it seems then from Matthew’s repeated usages of “fulfill” (pleroo), that Christ's claim is intended to be understood in every sense of the way, of the prophetic sense! Every word of the Law will not fall to the ground, or “pass away,” but be “fulfilled” in Christ's person and work. So, in light of all this, it is natural to assume that the word “fulfill” should carry with it the corresponding prophetical significance of bringing about Christ's intended and ultimate purpose—which is also precisely the idea that is presented throughout the entire New Testament of how Christ has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.
As D. A. Carson also writes:
The manner of the prophetic foreshadowing varies. The Exodus, Matthew argues (2:15), foreshadows the calling out of Egypt God’s “Son.” The writer to the Hebrews argues that many cultic regulations of the OT pointed to Jesus and are now obsolete. In light of the antitheses (vv. 21-48), the passage before us insists that just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by His teaching. In no case does this “abolish” the OT as canon, any more than the obsolescence of the Levitical sacrificial system abolishes tabernacle ritual as canon. Instead, the OT’s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it….But vv. 17-18 do not wrestle abstractly with OT authority, but with the nature, extent, and duration of its validity and continuity. The nature of these has been set forth in v. 17. The reference to “jot and tittle” establishes its extent: it will not do to reduce the reference to [just] moral law, or the law as a whole, but necessarily to its parts, or to God’s will in some general sense. “Law” almost certainly refers to the entire OT Scriptures, not just the Pentateuch or moral law (note the parallel in v. 17). That leaves the duration [in v. 18].[10]Verse 18 (the duration): “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.” The Greek word panta (“all things” or “everything”), according to Carson, “has no antecedent,” meaning, that there is no specific command, regulation or prophecy that this word can point to at the expense of all the rest. It has to do with “everything” that the Old Testament canon embodies. Carson goes on to say that it is “best understood as referring to everything in the law, considered under the law’s prophetic function—viz., until all these things have taken place as prophesied.”[11] The word cannot be referring to all of the “demands” of the law that must be “accomplished,” because, first of all, the word “law” most certainly refers here to all of the Old Testament canon of Scripture, not just its so-called “moral” commandments. And secondly, the Greek word genetai (translated, “is accomplished”) must here be rendered “to become,” or “to come to pass” (i.e., to be accomplished in the sense of a fulfilled prophecy, not in the sense obedience to certain moral laws).
So when Jesus is saying that heaven and earth would not pass away until all is accomplished or “comes to pass,” He was not saying (or meaning) “until all is obeyed.” The best interpretation of these verses is to understand Jesus as saying that He fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they all point to Him (“they speak of Me,” to coin His own words in Jhn. 5:39). Likewise Matthew tells us, “The Law and the Prophets prophesied until John” (Mat. 11:13). The distinction to be noted here is not between “abolishing ” verses “keeping,” but between “abolishing” and “fulfilling.” It was to fulfill a “righteousness” that went beyond ceremonies and the legalities of the Law, to the realities of a life led by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus. The Law is fulfilled by love, in the sense that it was “prophetically” fulfilled in and through the love of God shed abroad in both Christ's and our heart. It has nothing to do with keeping outward “commands” per se, but with walking in love. Love “brings to pass,” or actualizes, what the “commandment” could not do. And it is in this sense that it “fulfills” all of the Laws mandates. As such, we don't want to worship any other god. We don't want to take the name of the Lord in vain. We don't want to lie, cheat, steal, murder, or commit adultery and fornication. It is no longer about “do’s” and “don’ts,” “touch not” or “taste not,” but about living out spiritually what all of the Law and the Prophets had prophesied would occur. We are no longer circumcised. We are the circumcision! We no longer literally obey the keeping of a Sabbath-day. We are living that Sabbath-rest! Christ became the Anti-type of both the typical sign of the cutting away of our flesh and a rest that is now realized in our hearts! Thus that Law is now said to be, “written on our hearts” by the very finger of God. As such, it is "fulfilled"! We no longer tithe, offer up firstfruits, or our firstborn. We are them! We are those sacrifices. We are our High Priest's “allotment,” “portion” and “inheritance” that those tithes bespoke of as well-pleasing and as “holy to the Lord” (cp. Num. 18:20-21, 24, 26, 28-29; Deut. 26:13-14; Lev. 27:30 with Isa. 6:13; Psm. 28:9; 33:12; 78:71; 94:5, 14; 106:5 and Deut. 32:9).[12] Christ and His Church are the "fulfillment" of all of those things (see also James 1:18 with regards to us being God's "firstfruits," and Heb. 12:23 with regards to us being God's "firstborn-ones," with the Greek using the plural form here as noted in the Aramaic Bible in Plain English at www.biblehub.com).
In light of all that has been said, Carson again concludes, “verse 18d simply means the entire divine purpose prophesied in Scripture must take place; not one jot or tittle will fail of its fulfillment”[13], or fall to the ground. “A similar point is made in [Matthew] 11:13. Thus the first ‘until’ clause focuses strictly on the duration of the OT authority [or canon] but the second [‘until’] returns to considering its nature; it reveals God’s redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their ‘accomplishment,’ in Jesus…”[14]
Verses 19-20: “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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 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.”
“The least of these commandments.” The interpretation of the above verse hinges on what Jesus means by “the least of these commandments.” To what, precisely, does this refer to? Several options are available:
First, it could be taken very literally to mean that throughout this age the Church should continue to observe every detail of the Mosaic law. And some in the Church have believed just that! But given the teachings in the book of Hebrews, few Christians would want to go that far.
Second, it could be taken to mean that the moral law in general (or the Decalogue in particular) should continue to be observed throughout this age. This is the standard Reformed position. But it would be difficult to understand “the least of these commandments” as a reference to these not so-called "least" laws of the decalogue! Furthermore, it introduces a division of the Law which is foreign to the passage: It is all the Law or the Prophets, and every last “jot and tittle,” that is in view here, not just the ten words (or commandments) of the Law.
And furthermore, the “commandments” that are directly linked to the word “these,” are not to the statements which follow, but of what has just been previously stated by Christ. The Greek demonstrative pronoun houtos (“these,” plural) never points forward, but backwards to what has just been referred to or spoken about. The Greek houtos, strictly forbids anything spoke about as "forward" looking. Additionally, such an idea would be strained, requiring the reader to know beforehand what the speaker is about to say in the future. And even a restriction to just the ten commandments is foreign to the context, since we are talking about the entire Law and the Prophets, and every “jot and tittle” a that! It clearly seems that the expression points back to the Law and the Prophets which are not to be scrapped by Jesus’ coming, but fulfilled; and more specifically, right down to “the least” of these commandments as expressed just moments earlier in verses 3-9, and for which the scribes and Pharisees also considered to be “the least” of their concerns. For Jesus then immediately says after this, “For I tell you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that [pure legalism] of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” This one express statement by Jesus speaks volumes about what it takes to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” It is not about keeping or obeying laws, but living a righteousness that is worked out by faith, which in turn works by love. The passage itself focuses not on Jesus’ actions nor on the mere occurrence of what was predicted, but on Jesus’ ethical teaching as well of that which went beyond just observing the legalities of the law—i.e., what is really considered to be “righteousness.” It expresses fully and ideally the “righteousness” anticipated at Sinai and in the prophets. The old law was not “full” in itself; it had a forward-looking prophetic aspect to it—a "fulfilling" need for something greater than just observing rules and regulations. It anticipated a “fulfilling” which in Christ's teaching and life finally came to a perfect realization.
As noted, in the same breath Jesus had just mentioned the “righteousness” in the Law and the Prophets that was to excel that of the Pharisees: (1) They were to become “poor in spirit” in verse 3; (2) they were to be “mournful” for others in verse 4; (3) they were to be clothed with “meekness” in verse 5; (4) they were to “hunger and thirst after righteousness,” i.e., righteous conduct in verse 6; (5) they were to exemplify “mercy” in verse 7; (6) they were in everything to be “pure in heart” in verse 8; (7) they were be those who brought “peace” wherever they went—not animosity, strife, and contention in verse 9; (8) they were to count it an honorable thing (unlike the Pharisees) to be ridiculed and persecuted for “righteousness” in verse 10). In all, they were to “rejoice and be glad” (vv. 11-12) and be “the salt” of the earth and “the light” of the world (vv. 13-16). It wasn’t just about observing strict legalisms. It was all about going beyond just the strict legal observances of the law. It was walking the extra mile and not only letting people have your coat, but your cloak as well. If someone strikes you on the cheek, you are to give them your other cheek as well. This was “humility” and being "meek" in its purest form. Such were those who were pure in heart.
Such “legalisms” of these Pharisees could not be expressed any more clearly than in the words again of Terry Johnson in his book, When Grace Comes Home. Just listen to what this "reformed" brother has to say about tithing: “Should you feel guilty about not giving more money to the church? Not if you are tithing.”[15] So, if God is putting it upon your heart to give "more," then don’t have to feel "guilty" for not doing so; but do feel "guilty" if you do not tithe! By tithing you have fulfilled your “duty,” your “obligation”—your “minimum” requirement before God and country! You are not required to give anymore than that, according to the Law of Moses, so do not feel "guilty" if you don’t give more! Remarkable! Understandably, in reading the rest of Terry's book, such promptings by the Holy Spirit to give freely as we please are “too subjective for sin-prone hearts,” and we should only be led by “the objective criteria of Scripture…”[16] In light of such reasoning as this, I guess we should also rule out those “subjective” experiences of all of the men and women in the Bible, since they too had such “sin-prone hearts” and were likewise not led by “the objective criteria of Scripture…”
Whether this author realizes it or not, his staunch position here on tithing is Pharisaical and legalistic. It exalts the letter of the law, at the expense of the Spirit of the law. This is exactly the kind of heart attitude that Jesus was coming against. The Pharisees didn’t see it! And many in the Church like Terry still do not see it even to this day. This is what it means to be “under bondage to the law”—and these people don’t even realize it! Such a legalist will pay attention to the tiniest of details in the tithing of his “mint,” while overlooking the “weightier” matters of the law, such as: love, justice, mercy, and faithfulness; and which just might include being “faithful” to the Lord by selling “all that you have and giving it to the poor.” But don’t feel “guilty” if you don’t, since there is no express “commandment” in the law that “requires” you to do so!
Look what Terry also says about the Sabbath: “One must not turn the Sabbath into a day for secular fun.”[19] This is walking in fear of the commands of Moses, not faith in Christ! Along with all the things that we would today correctly consider as “transgressions” against Christ, such as: cheating on taxes, stealing from our employer, drinking too much wine, viewing perversions on television and at the cinema, and breaking our marriage vows, Terry lists (along with these things just mentioned), “breaking the Sabbath.”[18] Calvin would turn over in his grave if he heard this man say this! I even once attended a reformed baptist church that prepared all of their meals on Saturday prior to Sunday which they now call: “the Sabbath.” If my recollection serves me right, literal Sabbath-keeping, according to the Law of Moses, is Saturday! And disobedience for it is “stoning,” and for which neither of these do these brethren practice. This Sabbath-keeping has now not only become a “commandment of men,” but it is now also observed according to the “traditions” of these men. And I am sure that many are also only doing it “to be seen of men.” They have “picked” and “chosen” (or "added" and "subtracted") that which they believe they are to still obey, and have thrown out the rest when it doesn’t seem to quite suit their own rationale; or, should I say, their own “private interpretations.” Again, Calvin had said of all such brethren, “they go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism” (ibid).
In Mat. 5:21-28 through chapter 6:1-18, Jesus continues to describe a “righteousness” that was to exceed that of just the Law of do’s and don’ts. It was a righteousness that transcends Law and goes right to the heart of what we really should or shouldn't do. As the Law and the Prophets point to Jesus who was to "fulfill" all of it, He establishes for us the true direction to which it all pointed, and the way it is to be obeyed and observed under our new covenant with Him. Instead of just obeying a commandment not to murder—we are not even to think about harboring hatred in our hearts! Instead of not committing adultery, we are not even to ponder the idea in our heart. Instead of divorce for any reason, only divorce in the case of an adulterous affair is acceptable. Instead of making vows and keeping them, don’t make any at all. Instead of an eye for eye as the law mandated, don’t pay back evil with evil but give someone your other cheek as well! Let them take your cloak! And instead of just loving your close friends and neighbors, love your enemies as well! When you do alms or good deeds, don’t announce it so as to be seen of men. When you pray and fast, don’t do it to be seen and to make a show so that you can exult in the accolades of others! One time I was told of a pastor who told everyone in his congregation who tithed, to stand up so that everyone could see who the tithers were. They all pridefully and jubilantly complied, while all the while taking note of those who didn’t. They all got their reward!
Concluding Remarks
Our New Covenant is not an expansion of the Old Covenant. It doesn’t “build upon” it; it's an absolutely "new" one. And while "grace" was present in the days of all of the various covenants in the past, it was not “one covenant of grace” administered in various ways, as many reformed brethren claim. Grace and works are diametrically opposed to one another (Rom. 4:4-5; 11:6). The Mosaic old covenant of law condemned, there was nothing gracious or salvific about it. Our New Covenant (which is all of grace) replaces the Mosaic Law entirely with new laws, a new priesthood and new mandates. That Old Covenant embedded in the Law and the Prophets has truly passed away—abolished forever! And it gives way to our New Covenant and freedoms that the Old Covenant just could not give to us. It all served as an “illustration” for the time now present (Heb. 9:9).
The Geneva Study Bible says here on these verses in Mat. 5:17-20:
Christ did not come to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but indeed to fulfill that which was shadowed by the figures of the Law, by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law: and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to engrave in our hearts the power for obedience. (g) That the prophecies may be accomplished.God’s Word Translation (GWT) translates Mat. 5:17 as:
Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.I like that. Christ's purpose was "to make them come true"—to FULFILL them in His person!
The People’s New Testament also adds:
He replies that he has not come to destroy it, but to fulfill. He does not say that he has come to perpetuate it.I like that as well. Christ didn't come to "perpetuate" the letter of the Law of Moses. It was no longer going to be: "business as usual." Christ came to abolish the letter and establish the better. A "better" covenant with "better" promises.
Generally, the more common understanding has been that Christ's “fulfillment” of the Law was just to correct it abuses and bring some further clarification. But any notion or idea of merely reissuing Moses’ law with just some “further clarification,” both ignores the redemptive-historical connotations of “fulfill” in Matthew’s entire gospel narrative, and makes Mat. 5:17 a misfit in such a context as that. And this is why many dispensationalists will say that Christ's words here are for another era of another time in the millennium, when the rule of Law will once again take precedence. And to even say that it is still to be "business as usual" for us today, reduces Christ's “fulfillment” to just a mere continuance and obedience, without any prophetic fulfillment whatsoever. The question in Christ's beatitudes here is not so much of the continuity verses the discontinuity of legal commandments, but of type verses anti-type. The type give way to the anti-type which actually transcends the Law of Moses in some way, shape, manner or form—right down to every jot and tittle. The entire law, then, was taken up in Christ—that we may live for Christ out of a deep love and appreciation for what He has truly done for us.
As said earlier, Jesus did not come to “rubber stamp” Moses, nor did His exposition in verses 21-48 resemble a mere exposition and continuance of the Law of Moses. It rather resembled One who was “greater than Moses,” assigning to the old order its much newer and deeper prophetic significance. This is what Christ claims in verse 17; this is what He does in verses 21-48. And this is what He requires in verse 19—a “righteousness” that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. The Law and the Prophets are not simply displaced; they are entirely replaced to become no longer literally but spiritually realized and fulfilled. Moses the servant's types, take “a back seat” to his greater Anti-type—the Son!
Christ (or God) determines what is to endure, and how or in what sense it is to endure. God’s Law comes to the Church through the hands (or grid) of Christ, the Lord of the Law. We are under “Christ’s Law” now, which is radically and supernaturally different than the Law of Moses. Moses’ Law was strict outward rules that condemned; whereas Christ’s law is an inward power and life that justifies and liberates us beyond just what strict adherence to laws and legalisms can, or even were meant, to do. There is though somewhat of a continuity with Moses: In Christ’s kingdom there is “something old and something new.” But the law of Moses is no longer our husband, the center of our attention, nor our final arbiter and court of appeal. That prerogative now belongs to the One greater than Moses that now stands among us. It is Jesus’ teaching which forms the ultimate standard of righteousness, and who pronounces with supreme authority what is or will not be—or better yet, how it will forever continue to be.
Interpreters often speak (in so many words) of the fulfillment of the ceremonial laws, the cancellation/abrogation of the civil laws, and the continuance of the moral law. But all this is completely unnecessary if the whole of the law may be viewed as being taken up into Christ and given His new and authoritative interpretation. With this, then, “every little jot, and every little detail” of the law (of Moses) may be observed by the new covenant believer in precisely the same way; namely, in the way that it spiritually comes to him through the hands of Christ. With some “details” of the Law such a “fulfillment” will entail extension or even addition (Mat. 5:21-22, 27-28); with some other “details” the “fulfillment” will involve restriction (vv. 38-39) or even abrogation (vv. 31-32, 33-34); and some “details” may be seen now to have served merely as illustrative of some greater purpose (i.e., circumcision, the sacrifices, the Sabbath, etc.). But no matter what it may be, the lead is taken by the Lord of the law to give His law its true eschatological significance. He determines what “details” remain, and in what form they are to remain; and it is in this form only that His law is to remain or have any significance in this Messianic age, called the Church age, where both Jews and Gentiles are united under One head, One king, One priest, One temple on One mountain in One city. For the new covenant believer, every last “detail” of Moses, right down to the very tent pegs and tent posts, is “kept and taught” in the New Testament in some way, shape, manner or form in keeping with its fulfillment.
As Fred Zaspel has noted:
In hermeneutical debate it is often asked whether it is right to assume that all of Moses’ law remains unless it is specifically abolished, or if it is right to assume that it is all abolished unless it is specifically stated to remain. In one sense the question is irrelevant, for it is the entire old covenant that is abolished (2Cor. 3) and not just certain categories of its law. But in another sense the question is wrong, for Christ’s claim here is that all of Moses is to be continually taught and observed—only in the form that He gives it. It is all of the law that remains, but it is to be obeyed as interpreted by Jesus.[20]For many, the rejection of Moses as the final authority is considered to be: “antinomian.” Yet as Calvin rightly pointed out, “That man does not break ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect.”[20] That is all that is simply being proposed here in this article, but consistently in every detail, and not just with regards to the ceremonial or civil aspects of the law. Even all of the civil laws, which are no longer mandated for us to observe under our New Covenant, in some way or manner we “retain their effect” in the world today in which we live.
The Church is not obliged to follow the former husband, the old Law, in its old form. She is required to follow the Law only as it comes to her through the grid of her new husband, Jesus Christ, the law’s absolute Usurper, Lord, and Fulfiller by right. Nor does it belong to any system of theology to dictate which parts are “moral,” and which parts are not. It is Christ’s prerogative, and His alone, to make such determinations. What Jesus presents to us is not a re-ratified Old Covenant Law, but a revised and fulfilled New Covenant Law for a new era and a New Covenant people.
If the Law’s fulfillment is to continue, the implication can only be that it is to continue to be obeyed, and faithfully taught, in the way that Jesus has “fulfilled” it—in every minute “detail.” Jesus clarifies for us a righteousness which Moses’ Law only dimly foreshadowed. It was holy alright, but Christ is the Most Holy. It was glorious alright, but Christ is far more glorious. And we all now with un-veiled faces behold as in a mirror, His glory! Moses’ image pales in comparison. The body that cast all those types and shadows is now dwelling among us; fulfilling in us that which was all perfectly fulfilled in Him. Praise be to God for this wonderful privilege to be called the sons of God; who all walk by faith in the Son of God, and not by the physical sight of the Law. May peace be upon all those who walk by this rule.
Footnotes:
[1] http://www.dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral.
[2] Tablets of Stone (Southbridge, MA: Crowne Pub. Inc., 1989), p. 27.
[3] pp. 122-123.
[4] p. 123.
[5] Institutes, vol. 1, book II, pp. 343-344.
[6] pp. 169, 170.
[7] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 142.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid, p. 143.
[10] The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 7th printing 1979), pp. 630, 727.
[11] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 144, 145.
[12] ibid, p. 145.
[13] See also my article, The Typology of the Tithes, Firstfruits, and Firsborn.
[14] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 146.
[15] ibid.
[16] p. 128.
[17] p. 155.
[18] p. 127.
[19] ibid, p. 128.
[20] As quoted from an online article written by him, called: New Covenant Theology and The Mosaic Law in Mat. 5: 17-20.
[21] John Calvin; cited in Greg Bahnsen’s, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 49.
No comments:
Post a Comment