What does "fulfilling the covenant" mean?

[Harel13]

I understand the covenant of faith to be everlasting.

Yeah, I got that. I'm wondering why. In what way, per your explanation, is it different from the "covenant of law"? You suggest both were fulfilled by Jesus. Both were also described in the Torah as eternal. In what way exactly is the covenant of law different from the covenant of faith?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, I got that. I'm wondering why. In what way, per your explanation, is it different from the "covenant of law"? You suggest both were fulfilled by Jesus. Both were also described in the Torah as eternal. In what way exactly is the covenant of law different from the covenant of faith?

The man who walks by faith, walks by the righteousness of God. The man who observes the law walks in their own righteousness. [Job 35]

Is the covenant of law described as eternal?

 

[Harel13]

Is the covenant of law described as eternal?

Gen. 17:4-11:
"'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations...And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee...And God said unto Abraham: 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you..."
Exo. 31:13-16:
"'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying: Verily ye shall keep My sabbaths, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that ye may know that I am the LORD who sanctify you...Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant."
Levi. 26:41-45:
"When I, in turn, have been hostile to them and have removed them into the land of their enemies, then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself, and they shall atone for their iniquity. Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob; I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham; and I will remember the land. For the land shall be forsaken of them, making up for its sabbath years by being desolate of them, while they atone for their iniquity; for the abundant reason that they rejected My rules and spurned My laws. Yet, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, annulling My covenant with them: for I the LORD am their God. I will remember in their favor the covenant with the ancients, whom I freed from the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God: I, the LORD."
Deut. 29:13-14:
"I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here this day."

It certainly seems so.

The man who walks by faith, walks by the righteousness of God. The man who observes the law walks in their own righteousness.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from that chapter in Job.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It certainly seems so.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from that chapter in Job.

The covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of faith, not works. You're quoting from Genesis 17, before the covenant was made at Horeb.

 

[rosends]

'Fulfill' the law is a term found repeatedly in ancient Jewish writings. It is not used in the sense of 'fill up', but 'to do' and 'to keep' the law. Here are a few examples:

If the Sanhedrin gives a decision to abolish (uproot, la'akor) a law, by saying for instance, that the Torah does not include the laws of Sabbath or idolatry, the members of the court are free from a sin offering if they obey them; but if the Sanhedrin abolishes (la'akor) only one part of a law but fulfills (lekayem) the other part, they are liable. - Mishnah, Horayot 1:3

If this is how you act, you have never in your whole life fulfilled the requirement of dwelling in a sukkah! - Mishnah, Sukkot 2:7

Whoever fulfills the Torah when poor will in the end fulfill it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty - Mishnah, Avot 4:9

For more, see J. B. Lightfoots Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica on Matthew 5.

Midrash

Midrash Rabbah - Exodus 30:22

22. Another explanation of NOW THESE ARE THE ORDINANCES. Both the heathen and Israel have judges, and you do not know what difference there is between both. It can be compared to a sick man whose doctor paid him a visit and then said to the family: ' Give him to eat whatever he wants.' When he came to the other, he left word: ' Take care not to let him eat that and that thing.' When he was asked, `The first, thou didst allow to eat whatever he wishes, and the second, thou didst forbid certain things,' his reply was: `The first has no chance of recovering; for this reason did I allow him to eat what he fancies; but the second will yet live and therefore did I command strict caution in his diet.' Similarly the heathen have judges, but neither study the Torah nor fulfil it, as it says, Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and ordinances whereby they should not live (Ezek.XX, 25),1 but with regard to the commandments it says, Which if a man do, he shall live by them (Lev. XVIII, 5).

Exodus Rabbah 40:1
R. Hoshaya said: Anyone who has knowledge but lacks the fear of sin, really has nothing, just as a carpenter who has no tools with him is not a real carpenter; because the bolts which guard learning are the fear of sin, as it says, And the fear of the Lord is its treasure-house (Isa. XXXIII, 6). R. Johanan said: If one knows the Torah but does not fulfil it, it were better for him that he had not been born,

Numbers Rabbah 3:12
He was called Kohath for this reason: You read: If the iron be blunt (Eccl. X, 10), which means, if you perceive that the heavens have become `blunt' and refuse to send down rain, having become like iron- as you read: 'And I will make your heaven as iron'-be assured that it is as a punishment for the non-observance of the Torah; for it is written, And one do not whet the edge (ib.), that is, because they did not fulfil the commandments of the Torah which was given to them by God face to face-as you read, The Lord spoke with you face to face, etc. (Deut. V, 4)

Numbers Rabbah 11:1
The wise shall inherit honour (Prov. III, 35) applies to Israel who are called wise when they fulfil the Torah and the commandments; as it says, Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding, etc. (Deut. IV, 6)

Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21
The Rabbis say: Moses declared before God: `Master of the Universe, just because the Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath, wilt Thou show favour to them if they do observe it?' God replied to him: ' Do you really fear this? By your life, even if they fulfil all the commandments in the Torah, yet will I cause them to fall before you.' Whence this? Because the text says, BEHOLD, I HAVE BEGUN TO DELIVER UP BEFORE THEE.

Deuteronomy Rabbah 7:4
TO OBSERVE TO DO ALL HIS COMMANDMENTS (XXVIII, 1). R. Simeon b. Halafta said: If one learns the words of the Torah and does not fulfil them, his punishment is more severe than that of him who has not learnt at all.

Deuteronomy Rabbah 11:6
Halachah: When a Jew goes up to read the Law, he is not permitted to commence reading it before he has recited the blessings. First he must recite the blessings and then he reads. And thus Moses, when he had the privilege of receiving the Torah, first recited a blessing, and then he read it. R. Eleazar asked: What was the blessing which Moses recited before reading it? [It was], Blessed art Thou, O Lord, King of the Universe, who hast chosen this law and sanctified it and hast found pleasure in them who fulfil it. He did not say, ' in them that labour at it,' nor, ' in them who meditate in it,' but, ' in them that fulfil it,' that is to say, in them who carry out the words of the Torah.

Numbers Rabbah 10:8
For thus have the Sages said: Keep away from a small sin lest it lead you to a grievous one; run to fulfil a small commandment, for it will lead you to an important one.

Talmud
Chagigah 4b
Samuel went and brought Moses with him, Saying to him: Perhaps, Heaven forfend,21 I am summoned to Judgment: arise with me,22 for there is nothing that thou hast written in the Torah, which I did not fulfil.

Arachin 22a
R. Papa said: The paying of a debt is a commandment and [minor] orphans are not obliged to fulfil the commandment.

Mishnah
AVOT 4:9
R. JONATHAN SAID: WHOEVER FULFILS THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY, HIS END [WILL BE] TO FULFIL IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH; AND WHOEVER DISCARDS THE TORAH OUT OF [A STATE OF] WEALTH, HIS END [WILL BE] TO DISCARD IT OUT OF [A STATE OF] POVERTY.

So just to confirm, you are saying that the notion of "fulfilling" the law should be understood as in the Hebrew "q-y-m" (like in Deut Rab. 7:4 -- וְאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּם) root which means "to uphold" or "to follow and discharge ones personal obligation" but in no way means "to complete and make no longer obligatory in the future"?

An individual then, who says he comes to fulfill law (which a person by dint of identity, can't do -- discharging an obligation through a ritual act) is actually saying that by his fulfilling, he is reasserting its continued existence.

Additionally, the Hebrew in the Rabbah quotes (Num 11:1 for example) is actually the ayin-sin-hay root ( בְּעֵת שֶׁהֵם עוֹשִׂים אֶת הַתּוֹרָה) which means "at the time that they "do" the Torah). Translating it as fulfill might capture an idea, but not the language and it conflates the two distinct roots under the heading of a single English concept which is problematic. The same holds true in the Deut 11:6 ("אֶלָּא בְּעוֹשֶׂיהָ, בְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן עוֹשִׂין אֶת דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה") which speaks of those that DO the words of the Torah.

Is there a way to trace backwards from the Gospel accounts and see which verb in Greek Jesus was purported to have used so one can trace back to the Hebrew and see if, for example, he invoked the a-s-h or the q-y-m?

----------
A side note -- you quote talmudic passages and highlight the English but in some of them (the Arachin 22a) for example, the word you note in English is a translator's interpolation and the word/concept isn't in the original text. There, the talmud reads "ויתמי לא בני מיעבד מצוה נינהו" which, translated more closely (though allowing idioms to be idioms), is "and orphans, not those who subject of this commandment they are".

 

[Vouthon]

The covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of faith, not works. You're quoting from Genesis 17, before the covenant was made at Horeb.

What is your definition of "works", if I may ask?

 

[Harel13]

not works.

What's circumcision, if not a work?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What is your definition of "works", if I may ask?

I understand 'works' to be the doing, or observance, of the letter of the law.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What's circumcision, if not a work?

Abraham heard the voice of God, and believed; he was not following the letter of the law. [Genesis 15:6]

 

[Vouthon]

I understand 'works' to be the doing, or observance, of the letter of the law.

Which is what circumcision is, no? The covenant of Abraham is called the covenant of circumcision, thereby a covenant of faith - because he trusted in the promise - expressed through works?

This was the very exegetical point made by James in the New Testament, in his exegesis of this section of the Torah:


oremus Bible Browser : James 1

18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

20Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith without works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.

23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’, and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.​

 

[Harel13]

Abraham heard the voice of God, and believed; he was not following the letter of the law

So what's circumcision?

 

[pearl]

So what's circumcision?

The external sign of those who enter the Covenant.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In recent years, I've been hearing more and more the claim made by Christians that the reason they don't keep any (or hardly any) of the Torah's commandments is that Jesus "fulfilled" the old covenant and ushered in the new covenant.

What does "fulfilling" mean exactly?

I, too, am interested in understanding how this usage came about. I think your question has been answered about what many Christians think it means, however its usage in Christian verses and how the usage came about, long ago, may be different. In pursuit of that think there is a different meaning than anything proposed earlier in the thread and that is 'Duplicate' or 'Clone'. Based upon the usages of 'Fulfill' in the gospel of Matthew I'm starting to think its likely. There are frequent allusions to Jewish major prophets throughout the gospels and letters of the NT, and these connect us to Ezekiel's vision of an impossibly large temple and also to Zechariah's vision of a world where holiness seems to radiate from the temple instead of being maintained within it. I think the use of this word 'Fulfil' is confusing to us today, because it is used originally in a different sense. Context is king, however; and the gospels use it much as if it were the word 'Duplicate'.

To me, it seems that fulfilling a covenant means upholding - each side keeps their end of the bargain. In this case, Jews keep all of the commandments while God blesses them. When they don't keep the commandments, God punishes them - but that's a fact that's actually taken into account as part of the deal of the covenant. Jews not keeping the covenant doesn't annul it. And it is stated that this covenant is eternal - no expiration date:

I understand what you're saying. Yes, you cannot expire an eternal covenant, and I'm sure that isn't what these early Christians think is happening. Modern Christians, however, frequently do think so and say so! Its a simple misunderstanding in my opinion. I don't think it is a direct cause of any trouble between Jews and Christians though it catches blame. Blame should go to other causes and faults, and I think any direct attempt to correct this misunderstanding is not going to solve much. It is interesting but disappointingly unimportant.

So how exactly do Christians understand the term "fulfillment", and why, when taking into consideration that it seems that this covenant is meant to be eternal?

Let me return, instead, to your previous comment which for me is the central question. Why did the Christians stop acting like Jews? I think they believed that Abraham's 'Blessing' was to bring peace to the entirety of the human race. They interpreted that the Jews had the first covenant or the model covenant, and Jesus covenant had to 'Fulfil' that. In this scheme the Jews are like one vine, and so should be the gentiles. Somehow they also posit that all will be one vine together, and that part I'm unclear on except that Paul mentions something about grafting. The gentiles are 'Grafted' on. I don't mind telling you that I don't have that brains and attention to thoroughly look into this, however I think I'm sitting on the right egg when I say this is how it all seems.

 

[Harel13]

The external sign of those who enter the Covenant.

Yet Christians don't circumcise.

 

[Vouthon]

Yet Christians don't circumcise.

Yup, because as noted in one of my earlier posts, it was deemed at the council of Jerusalem by the apostles that God wanted to bring Gentiles into the covenant of Abraham - graft them in, so to speak - in fulfilment of the prophecy I cited from Isaiah, without coming under the ceremonial or cultic mitzvot of the Torah (the "letter" of the law).

 

[Harel13]

without coming under the ceremonial or cultic mitzvot of the Torah (the "letter" of the law).

Though per @pcarl's definition, circumcision isn't a law...

 

[Vouthon]

Though per @pcarl's definition, circumcision isn't a law...

Well, the Torah does state that circumcision was given to Abraham, as “a sign of the covenant” (Gen. xvii, 11).

In this sense, it pertains to the 'outer' cultic dimension of the covenant, for Christians. In Jeremiah (iv, 4; ix, 25, 26), the prophet calls attention to the necessity of circumcision of the heart: "circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem". One may take this as just proverbial but Christians discerned a deeper meaning to it.

As I noted earlier on, to circumcise the heart for St. Paul (Rom., ii, 29) meant to regenerate or reform the 'inner man', the heart or conscience of a person.

Jews are subject to both the 'outer' and the 'inner', Christians only to the circumcision of heart through faith in Jesus as Messiah and incorporation into his community (the church) through baptism, which the New Testament claims brings us under the covenant of Abraham - but in a manner appropriate for Gentiles as Gentiles and not as Jews.

To cite St. Paul in Romans 11:


scripture

I ask, then, has God rejected his people [the Jewish people]? Of course not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew....

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry

If the firstfruits are holy [the Jews], so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot [Gentile], were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree [Israel], do not boast against the branches [Jews]. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you...

I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise [in] your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in...

...But in respect to election, they [Jews] are beloved [by God] because of the patriarchs 29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable​

(This passage also confirms that 'replacement theology' is not taught by the New Testament)​

So what you have here is an exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant in the Torah, which uses a parable - or analogy - of an olive tree to represent the people of Israel under the covenant with God. Jews are described by Paul as the 'firstfruits' and 'natural branches' of the olive tree, whereas Gentiles are "wild olive shoots" who have been grafted into the olive tree to have a share in the Messianic Age.

Christians interpret Jeremiah 31:33 along those lines of spiritual circumcision: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD, I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

This is not, necessarily, to deny the utility of the outward conformance to the covenant for Jews (in addition to the more mystical inner circumcision) just that it isn't of relevance to Gentiles, only the inner.

 

[rosends]

Though per @pcarl's definition, circumcision isn't a law...

I'm not clear on that. Lev 12:3 isn't a law?

 

[Vouthon]

I'm not clear on that. Lev 12:3 isn't a law?

I would say it is a law but I'm not really party to that other discussion.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So just to confirm, you are saying that the notion of "fulfilling" the law should be understood as in the Hebrew "q-y-m" (like in Deut Rab. 7:4 -- וְאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּם) root which means "to uphold" or "to follow and discharge ones personal obligation" but in no way means "to complete and make no longer obligatory in the future"?

Yes.

An individual then, who says he comes to fulfill law (which a person by dint of identity, can't do -- discharging an obligation through a ritual act) is actually saying that by his fulfilling, he is reasserting its continued existence.

Yes.

Is there a way to trace backwards from the Gospel accounts and see which verb in Greek Jesus was purported to have used so one can trace back to the Hebrew and see if, for example, he invoked the a-s-h or the q-y-m?

In Matthew 5:17, the word translated 'fulfill' is the root 'pleroo' in Greek.

In the Septuagint the word 'pleroo' in Greek translates the Hebrew word 'malei'. It almost always means 'to fill', but there are other nuances of the word. It can also mean 'accomplish, confirm, and consecrate.'

There are a couple of usages of 'malei' in the Tanakh that seem to use the second set of meanings:

1 Ki 1:13 Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign? 14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm (Heb. malei, Gk. pleroo) thy words.
​

There is another word in Hebrew often translated as 'fulfil'; it is the word 'kum.' This word is often used by the Sages in the Mishnah and Talmud and means 'to do, to carry out.' From the following passage you can see that 'malei' and 'kum' are nearly synonymous.

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled (malei) with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish (kum) your vows, and surely perform your vows.
​