Fulfilling the Law

[roger1440]

Please re-read my post and realize that I said that Thana had said "The Torah doesn't apply to us, Christians.", that I would leave it at that.

We agree 100%. But to say that it has become irrelevant implies that it once was indeed relevant. If it was once relevant to Christians, then there is absolutely no reason or scriptural evidence to show that it no longer is. If it never was relevant to Christianity, then we are on the same page.

The relevance of Jewish scripture to a Christian is dependent on the interpretation of Christian scripture to the Christian. Both Pat Robertson and retired Bishop John Shelby Spong are Christians. If you ever heard them talk about the Bible you would think they are talking about two different books. Robertson is a Fundamentalist. Bishop Spong interprets the Bible mostly allegorically. They represent two extremes of Christianity. I lean towards the Spong camp of interpretation.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pat Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sees]

The relevance of Jewish scripture to a Christian is dependent on the interpretation of Christian scripture to the Christian. Both Pat Robertson and retired Bishop John Shelby Spong are Christians. If you ever heard them talk about the Bible you would think they are talking about two different books. Robertson is a Fundamentalist. Bishop Spong interprets the Bible mostly allegorically. They represent two extremes of Christianity. I lean towards the Spong camp of interpretation.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pat Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe we could call it "Philosophical Christianity" much like Philosophical Taoism...always seems too strange and, wrong, to address Spong's flavor of religion/philosophy with the plain term Christianity. Even then it's too much in opposition to the fundamentals of Christianity unlike philosophical vs. religious Taoism.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In Judaism when we speak about the act of performance of a positive commandment, we say "קיום המצוה" - "establishing the commandment." Not performing a positive commandment is called, "ביטול מצוה" - "abolishing a commandment." This type of phraseology can be found in Talmudic literature.

I've had heard Christians interpret Matthew 5:17 as meaning that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Using fulfillment to mean "complete" (which would be a different word in Hebrew). And that now there is no need to adhere to the Laws of the so-called "Old Testament."

I found that this word (#4137) in the Greek is found in three places:

Matthew 5:17 "... I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill."
Matthew 3:15 "...it is fitting for us to fulfill righteousness..."
Corinthians 1:25 "...that I might fulfill the preaching..."

If you translate this word to its Hebrew counterpart, then all three of these verses are speaking about the performance of some duty. Matthew 3:15 and 5:17 are speaking about fulfilling the Law or righteousness the same way I fulfill the Law by performing its requirements. Corinthians is speaking about fulfilling a duty of preaching, by performing the act of preaching.

I think that one should spend more time in Romans in order to answer why Christians do not follow the Law rather than a few verses out of Matthew.

 

[Benoni]

The relevance of Jewish scripture to a Christian is dependent on the interpretation of Christian scripture to the Christian. Both Pat Robertson and retired Bishop John Shelby Spong are Christians. If you ever heard them talk about the Bible you would think they are talking about two different books. Robertson is a Fundamentalist. Bishop Spong interprets the Bible mostly allegorically. They represent two extremes of Christianity. I lean towards the Spong camp of interpretation.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pat Robertson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The truth of Christianity depends not on a book or a ministry but it should depend on God's Spirit leading us and guiding us into what He trutly is saying. Thr broad way as spoken of in Matthew is the thousands of manmade religions, the narrow way is that spirit of God within us leading and guiding us.

The word Christ means anointing. Many follow religious logic which is mans anointing, and are anti Christ/anointing (same thing).

 

[roger1440]

The truth of Christianity depends not on a book or a ministry but it should depend on God's Spirit leading us and guiding us into what He trutly is saying. Thr broad way as spoken of in Matthew is the thousands of manmade religions, the narrow way is that spirit of God within us leading and guiding us.

The word Christ means anointing. Many follow religious logic which is mans anointing, and are anti Christ/anointing (same thing).

Christ is our English word for Messiah. All Christians know the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s execution. It’s written on every Christian’s membership card.

“20 Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, 21 but they kept on calling out, saying, “Crucify, crucify Him!”” (Luke 23:20-21)
​

Christian’s have been taught for 2000 years the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture. It was the lack of the Jews correct interpretation that lead to Jesus’s death. They have been nick named “Christ killers” for over two millennium. I have a problem with this scenario. Since the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture, how can Christians even trust the very concept of the Messiah? It’s a Jewish concept. Maybe the Jews were wrong about that to. I think the problem is the other way around. It’s the Christians who do not know how to interpret the Gospels. The Gospels are Jewish allegory. The problem is that the Gentiles long ago had interpreted the Gospels as literal. Long story short, Christians and modern day Jews have the Gospels all wrong. The Gospels are not about some 2000 year old dead Jew.

 

[Dinner123]

Christ is our English word for Messiah. All Christians know the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s execution. It’s written on every Christian’s membership card.

“20 Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, 21 but they kept on calling out, saying, “Crucify, crucify Him!”” (Luke 23:20-21)
​

Christian’s have been taught for 2000 years the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture. It was the lack of the Jews correct interpretation that lead to Jesus’s death. They have been nick named “Christ killers” for over two millennium. I have a problem with this scenario. Since the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture, how can Christians even trust the very concept of the Messiah? It’s a Jewish concept. Maybe the Jews were wrong about that to. I think the problem is the other way around. It’s the Christians who do not know how to interpret the Gospels. The Gospels are Jewish allegory. The problem is that the Gentiles long ago had interpreted the Gospels as literal. Long story short, Christians and modern day Jews have the Gospels all wrong. The Gospels are not about some 2000 year old dead Jew.

First of all Christ comes from the Greek which was a commonly used word in Jesus day for the Messiah.

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." (John 4:25)

You have to ignore God, to come to the conclusion that the Messiah is a Jewish concept. You must first conclude that God is not the author of that concept, and then and only then can you say it is a Jewish or a Gentile concept. I believe it is a concept that is from God and not any man whether Jew or gentile.

As for the Jews misunderstanding the scriptures. I disagree with that as well. We need to realize that not all of the Jews were wrong, but many were right. And many of them believed. From Abraham on the Jews who had received the revelation believed. As even Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day and was glad. Because they were wiser than the rest? No way. But, God gave them the understanding. As John testified a man can receive nothing unless it is given to him from above. So, we can only know the truth by revelation and grace.

 

[roger1440]

The early Church had listed the Gospel of Mathew first in the New Testament because they had believed Mathew’s Gospel was written first of the four Gospels. So let’s start there. In the beginning of the very first Gospel Mathew writes, “22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).” (Mathew 1:22-23). This verse would be meaningless unless the reader knew Jewish scripture. There are actually 12 fulfillments in the Gospel of Mathew. In essence Mathew is demanding from his readers that they read Jewish scripture first, a prerequisite. Throughout the entire Gospel, the author is constantly pointing the reader to Jewish scripture. Nowhere in this Gospel does the writer point the readers away from Jewish scripture. The New Testament does not make the Old Testament obsolete. It complements it.

 

[Tumah]

That's rather a unique take on the meaning of Mt. 5:17, one I've not heard before. I'm not quite buying it though. If by "abolish" Jesus means to say "not to perform" a positive commandment then what about the negative ones? And why should Jesus single himself out as the one who fulfills the Torah's mitzvot? That's incumbent on all Jews. Such an interpretation comes close to supporting the Christian view that only Jesus was able to keep the Law perfectly.

I believe the most logical interpretation follows the meaning of the Greek word translated as "fulfill":

πληρόω


Transliteration
plēroō
Pronunciation
plā-ro'-ō (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
From πλήρης (G4134)
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 6:286,867

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
   1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2. to render full, i.e. to complete
   1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
   2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
   3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
      3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In context, I would understand that he was saying that he didn't come to abolish the Laws, but to fulfill them...just like everyone else should be doing. I don't speak any Greek whatsoever, so I can't say what the word implies by itself.
I was only suggesting, that used in the same way that it is used in Herbew/Aramaic, it would mean something closer to "uphold" rather than "complete". Your question about positive vs. negative commadnments is a good one, but I've seen that when speaking about the commandments in general, the Talmud also uses the same terminology.

I think that one should spend more time in Romans in order to answer why Christians do not follow the Law rather than a few verses out of Matthew.

Would it not be problematic if Matthew and Romans were contradicting each other?

 

[Dinner123]

In context, I would understand that he was saying that he didn't come to abolish the Laws, but to fulfill them...just like everyone else should be doing. I don't speak any Greek whatsoever, so I can't say what the word implies by itself.
I was only suggesting, that used in the same way that it is used in Herbew/Aramaic, it would mean something closer to "uphold" rather than "complete". Your question about positive vs. negative commadnments is a good one, but I've seen that when speaking about the commandments in general, the Talmud also uses the same terminology.

Well you know that Jesus spoke in parables so that seeing they wouldn't see and hearing they wouldn't hear? Don't you think it's possible that what Jesus said would mean one thing to some people, but another thing to those who know what He was really saying? He spoke parables openly but in private expounded it all. Search and see, God has always hidden meanings in the scriptures. Jesus didn't start a new thing with that.

 

[Tumah]

Well you know that Jesus spoke in parables so that seeing they wouldn't see and hearing they wouldn't hear? Don't you think it's possible that what Jesus said would mean one thing to some people, but another thing to those who know what He was really saying? He spoke parables openly but in private expounded it all. Search and see, God has always hidden meanings in the scriptures. Jesus didn't start a new thing with that.

That's possible and it might have been helpful for the people who were there to hear the expounding. But it loses a lot of effect when later people have to read it and understand it themselves for what it says.

 

[nazz]

In context, I would understand that he was saying that he didn't come to abolish the Laws, but to fulfill them...just like everyone else should be doing. I don't speak any Greek whatsoever, so I can't say what the word implies by itself. I was only suggesting, that used in the same way that it is used in Herbew/Aramaic, it would mean something closer to "uphold" rather than "complete".

That is why I supplied the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Christian Bible. Certainly your idea has linguistic support in the sense given in 3.1: "of matters of duty: to perform, execute". I was just pointing out that I did not think that sense of the word made much sense in that context.

I think we need to understand this saying in the larger context of the community that produced this gospel. They were Torah observant Jewish Christians but they did not fully agree with the Torah as expounded by the Pharisees. If we view this saying as a bracket to what follows in chapters 5-7 we understand how Jesus interpreted the Torah law differently than his contemporaries. That is shown to be lacking and needing completion which as a result nullifies some of its previous instructions. For the community of the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is seen as a new law giver like Moses having authority to countermand or augment that which was "said to those of old".

 

[CMike]

Christ is our English word for Messiah. All Christians know the Jews were responsible for Jesus’s execution. It’s written on every Christian’s membership card.

“20 Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, 21 but they kept on calling out, saying, “Crucify, crucify Him!”” (Luke 23:20-21)
​

Christian’s have been taught for 2000 years the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture. It was the lack of the Jews correct interpretation that lead to Jesus’s death. They have been nick named “Christ killers” for over two millennium. I have a problem with this scenario. Since the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture, how can Christians even trust the very concept of the Messiah? It’s a Jewish concept. Maybe the Jews were wrong about that to. I think the problem is the other way around. It’s the Christians who do not know how to interpret the Gospels. The Gospels are Jewish allegory. The problem is that the Gentiles long ago had interpreted the Gospels as literal. Long story short, Christians and modern day Jews have the Gospels all wrong. The Gospels are not about some 2000 year old dead Jew.

It's also utterly rediculous that a blood thirsty Roman dictator like Pilate would give two hoots about jewish advice regarding Jesus.

It's another thing to pin hatred toward the jews.

 

[CMike]

That is why I supplied the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Christian Bible. Certainly your idea has linguistic support in the sense given in 3.1: "of matters of duty: to perform, execute". I was just pointing out that I did not think that sense of the word made much sense in that context.

I think we need to understand this saying in the larger context of the community that produced this gospel. They were Torah observant Jewish Christians but they did not fully agree with the Torah as expounded by the Pharisees. If we view this saying as a bracket to what follows in chapters 5-7 we understand how Jesus interpreted the Torah law differently than his contemporaries. That is shown to be lacking and needing completion which as a result nullifies some of its previous instructions. For the community of the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is seen as a new law giver like Moses having authority to countermand or augment that which was "said to those of old".

There is no such thing as "Torah observant Jewish Christians".

By definition if they are worshipping jesus they aren't following the Torah.

There is no such thing as a "new law giver".

G-D said in Deuteronomy 13:1 do not add nor subtract from the commandments given.

That too would be contrary to the Torah.

Also, by stating that the Torah "needs completion" you are actually criticizing G-D for messing up.

 

[CMike]

Let us notice a few of God's firsts and seconds. God's seconds are always better than His firsts which He gives to mankind. Meditate deeply upon these: Cain - Able; Cain's sacrifice - Able's sacrifice; Ishmael - Isaac; Esau - Jacob; Letter - Spirit; First Covenant - New Covenant; Water baptism - Spirit baptism; First Adam - Second Adam; First earth - New earth; Old man - New creation; Jesus in flesh - Jesus in Spirit. The New Testament presents a more glorious message than the Old; the last Adam redeems what the first Adam lost; the message of God's grace unfolded in the New Testament far excels the Law of the Old. The second is greater than the first. It always is when God takes and gives. As someone has written, "In His great wisdom our God has arranged many things in pairs, or shall we say, by contrasting twos. Some of the 'firsts' may seem to be very good, and for a time quite acceptable, but in due time they are to be followed by the 'seconds' which are higher, better, and more desirable than the firsts. Perfection is found in God's seconds. Often the firsts are but a type and a shadow of the reality which is later to be found in the seconds. In the former we find the negative realm working out its purpose, and in the latter there is the glorious positive fulfilling its sphere. The more one ponders each fragment of truth revealed, the more they yearn to leave behind the realm of imperfection, fragmentary, and enter into the freedom of the Spirit of Life in fullness" -end quote.

The first is of the earth earthy - the second is of God from heaven. And that is an epitome of the whole process of salvation, both for the individual and for the creation. He taketh away the outward that He may establish the inward, the seen that He may establish the unseen, the material that He may establish the spiritual. Israel had a religion that appealed to the senses. It was to some extent spectacular. Its tendency was temporal and local. It was a religion of times and places. The believing heart could not cling to it and at the same time enter into the timeless and universal gospel of Jesus Christ. And so the vision of the eyes had to go that the vision of the heart might grow clearer. The vision of Jerusalem of Judaea had to fade that the child of God, born now from above, might see the New Jerusalem, the City of God, coming down from heaven - a city ever being built of lives transformed by heaven's life into the radiance of God's glory on earth.

You have things backwards.

Moses is considered in the Torah the greatest of all the prophets. There will never be a greater prophet than Moses. Yet, he was just a human being.

Also when studying the oral law. The first generation of rabbis is considered more authoritative than the second, the second more authoritative than the third, and so on.

 

[roger1440]

Yes. Context is king. If you read Daniel's whole prayer there, you will see that he first offers prayers of repentance, then requests G-d's mercy on Jerusalem, the Temple and Israel. So the answer that he received is going to be about Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple.



I don't understand what you mean about "the very first one." In the verses you quote Israel is required to follow G-d's commandments. I don't understand what you meant to sat.

The first verse where the word “cleave” is used is,

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)
​

That verse must is read in conjunction with the very first words out of God’s mouth to mankind.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen. 1:28)
​

On the physical level the very first commandment is for a man to cleave to his wife to create offspring. On the spiritual level man is to cleave to God and the offspring is righteousness.

“Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in the spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (Mal. 2:15)
​

It is no mere coincidence Jewish scripture closes with the same concept it opens with, cleaving to God.


If you haven’t noticed by now, I read the Bible differently than most.


Wisdom of the Kabbalah - Torah.org

 

[Tumah]

The first verse where the word “cleave” is used is,

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)
​

That verse must is read in conjunction with the very first words out of God’s mouth to mankind.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen. 1:28)
​

On the physical level the very first commandment is for a man to cleave to his wife to create offspring. On the spiritual level man is to cleave to God and the offspring is righteousness.

“Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in the spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (Mal. 2:15)
​

It is no mere coincidence Jewish scripture closes with the same concept it opens with, cleaving to God.


If you haven’t noticed by now, I read the Bible differently than most.


Wisdom of the Kabbalah - Torah.org

I think I understand what you are saying, although for us Malachi is not the last book of Scriptures, Nehemiah is. Also, both the verse in Genesis and the one in Malachi are speaking about a man and his wife. As opposed to the ones you brought from Deuteronomy which are talking about man to G-d.

 

[nazz]

There is no such thing as "Torah observant Jewish Christians".

I guess such things as Sabbath observance, keeping kosher, and practicing circumcision have nothing to with the Torah then.

By definition if they are worshipping jesus they aren't following the Torah.

Who says they did? They certainly revered him since they believed him to be the Messiah. Their attitude toward him was probably much like the Chabadnik Meshichists have toward their Rebbe. At times the lines between the Rebbe and God become blurred:

the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god

There is no such thing as a "new law giver".

G-D said in Deuteronomy 13:1 do not add nor subtract from the commandments given.

That too would be contrary to the Torah.

Yes, I understand but they felt differently.

Also, by stating that the Torah "needs completion" you are actually criticizing G-D for messing up.

Since I don't believe God gave the Torah, at least not all of it, I can't be accused of that.

 

[Flankerl]

Who says they did? They certainly revered him since they believed him to be the Messiah. Their attitude toward him was probably much like the Chabadnik Meshichists have toward their Rebbe. At times the lines between the Rebbe and God become blurred:

the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god

Its just heresy. They are lucky we arent like the Inquisitors of WH40k. That would be fun.

 

[nazz]

Its just heresy. They are lucky we arent like the Inquisitors of WH40k. That would be fun.

It may be heresy by Jewish standards. That's none of my business. But the point is such a thing can develop among Orthodox Jews just as it did in the early years of Christianity.

 

[Dinner123]

That's possible and it might have been helpful for the people who were there to hear the expounding. But it loses a lot of effect when later people have to read it and understand it themselves for what it says.

That's where the epistles, book of Acts and the guidance of the holy Spirit come in handy.