siti
Well-Known Member
Well there's a huge amount of ground covered in this post and a lot I agree with - as far as it goes. And I agree with your main point (assuming I am reading you correctly) that Jesus' life and death was meant to be portrayed as a fulfillment of "the Law" rather than either a continuation or an abrupt "abolition" of it. But I suspect perhaps his life was more intended to "point to" a progressive spiritual fulfillment (remembering of course that the account of his life and teachings was written down much later by leading figures in an emerging Christian religion). The point about the "new covenant" was the writing of the law on the "tablets" of the "hearts" of human beings rather than stone (or parchment/paper etc.). For example, if we take the idea of the sabbath - in the Mosaic Law this was a literal day each week on which the mundane concerns were set aside so that focus could be on spiritual matters. In the spiritual "new covenant" there is no need for a literal day to be set aside (although there is certainly no reason why people should not do so if it aids their faith) because Christ - being the fulfillment of the Law - has set the hearts of humans free from undue concern about the mundane matters of life (compare for example Matthew 6:24-34).
The strictures against healing on the sabbath and the laws on divorce were possibly misinterpretations of the intent of the Law in any case - Jesus was (perhaps) not abolishing or abrogating anything in those cases, he was clarifying their understanding. I am sure one can see it that way on a careful reading of the various passages where Jesus explained why he was healing on the sabbath. Jesus himself seems to have observed the sabbath (Luke 4:16), as, apparently did Paul (Acts 17:2) and according to a reasonably careful reading of the Gospel accounts, he only seems to have "overstepped" the accretions of human tradition that had beclouded their understanding of the law (compare for example Matthew 12:1-14; Mark 7:13). And perhaps that was the point that was being made by the writers of the Gospels - that, in fact, it was religious tradition that had "overstepped" the commandments of God and not the actions of faithful individuals who were at the mercy of Pharisaical religious authority that itself had abandoned the "weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith..." (Matthew 23). But there was really nothing new in what Jesus was saying (1 Samuel 15:22; Proverbs 21:3; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:8).
So perhaps what was "abrogated" or "abolished" was not the law at all, but the religious tradition that had so encrusted and besmeared the law and obscured its spiritual intent. I think that is a more balanced and reasonable interpretation of what Jesus is reported to have taught. The law - as Paul had apparently already suggested by the time the Gospels were written - was a "tutor" leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24) and a "shadow of the good things to come" (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1) - but just because one is past the "school years" and is no longer "under a tutor", does that mean that the "tutor" must "pass away" or become "invalid"? I think not. I think it just requires a more mature understanding of what the law teaches - "...the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galatians 5:14; Mark 12:29-31).
Christ was indeed the fulfillment of the law (according to a careful reading of the Gospel account) not because he made the law invalid but because, by putting love of God and love of neighbour first and foremost, he completely validated its spiritual intent and enabled his followers to do likewise (if only they could have avoided the pitfalls of religious hypocrisy and sanctimony). If only!
Last edited:
