What does "fulfilling the covenant" mean?

[rosends]

Yes.



Yes.



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.
​

The root would be Kayam, not kum -- kum means to stand. They are clearly related as kayam would refer to an idea like "to help continue to stand"

The m-l-a word means "make full or complete" (like to fill a jug or a series of events) or to finish (when a period of time is complete), to confirm (as in Kings I, 1:13) or even to write with nothing missing. In Jeremiah it points to the actions taken (followed almost immediately by asoh na'aseh).

So if the Jesus quote is traced back to m-l-a (and not q-y-m or a-s-h) then that would still invoke an action, not a state, and a continuation, not a cessation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.​

As James states, works follow faith.

Was Abraham justified by faith before, or after, circumcision?

 

[Wandering Monk]

So if the Jesus quote is traced back to m-l-a (and not q-y-m or a-s-h) then that would still invoke an action, not a state, and a continuation, not a cessation.

Yes

 

[Redemptionsong]

So what's circumcision?

A work that follows faith.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The root would be Kayam, not kum -- kum means to stand. They are clearly related as kayam would refer to an idea like "to help continue to stand"

The m-l-a word means "make full or complete" (like to fill a jug or a series of events) or to finish (when a period of time is complete), to confirm (as in Kings I, 1:13) or even to write with nothing missing. In Jeremiah it points to the actions taken (followed almost immediately by asoh na'aseh).

So if the Jesus quote is traced back to m-l-a (and not q-y-m or a-s-h) then that would still invoke an action, not a state, and a continuation, not a cessation.

In a Jewish context, 'abolish' and 'fulfil' in relation to the Torah have very specific meanings. There are many examples of this in the Mishnah and Talmud.

This passage from Exodus Rabbah ties in nicely with Matthew 5:17.

Exodus Rabbah VI: 1. …When God gave the Torah to Israel, He inserted therein positive and negative commands and gave some commandments for a king, as it says: ‘Only he shall not multiply horses to himself... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither silver and gold (Deut. XVII, 16-17)’. But Solomon arose and studied the reason of God's decree, saying: ‘Why did God command, " He shall not multiply wives to himself? Is it not " That his heart turn not away "? Well, I will multiply and still my heart will not turn away. Our Sages said: At that time, the yod of the word yarbeh went up on high and prostrated itself before God and said: ‘Master of the Universe! Hast thou not said that no letter shall ever be abolished from the Torah? Behold, Solomon has now arisen and abolished one. Who knows? Today he has abolished one letter, to-morrow he will abolish another until the whole Torah will be nullified? ' God replied: ' Solomon and a thousand like him will pass away, but the smallest tittle will not be erased from thee.’ …For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods (I Kings XI, 4). R. Simeon b. Yohai said: It had been better for Solomon to clean sewers than to have this verse written of him; for this reason did Solomon say of himself: ’And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness and folly’ (Eccl. II, 12). Solomon said: ‘Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.’​

 

[Wandering Monk]

Let's not forget that Jesus told his disciples to obey the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:1-3.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do,
​

They had the authority to make rulings for Israel (sitting in Moses' seat; see Deut. 17) If they erred in their rulings, the people were still obliged to obey them. But the sin becomes that of the elders, not the people. The elders were required to make sacrifice when erroneous rulings were discovered. (Lev. 4)

 

[Vouthon]

As James states, works follow faith.

Was Abraham justified by faith before, or after, circumcision?

I would say that God acted first through his free gift of grace, in calling Abraham, and that Abraham responded by a living faith through which he was "justified".

And that living faith involved the free assent - trust in God - which was preserved and witnessed to through circumcision.

If he had not been circumcised then I think his faith would not have been "living", however I don't deny that the "justification" began with his profession of faith/trust in God's promise which compelled him to circumcise.

 

[Harel13]

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

If I were to take the Christian side for a moment (just to see if I've been following correctly), it seems that circumcision is both part of the covenant of faith as an outward sign caused by faith and a part of the covenant of law as an actual honest-to-goodness law.

Either way, Christians feel no need to keep circumcision - on the faith side because decisions by the church to draw in gentiles and on the law side because all laws were fulfilled by Jesus, the freeing them from the need to keep any laws.

 

[rosends]

In a Jewish context, 'abolish' and 'fulfil' in relation to the Torah have very specific meanings. There are many examples of this in the Mishnah and Talmud.

This passage from Exodus Rabbah ties in nicely with Matthew 5:17.

Exodus Rabbah VI: 1. …When God gave the Torah to Israel, He inserted therein positive and negative commands and gave some commandments for a king, as it says: ‘Only he shall not multiply horses to himself... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither silver and gold (Deut. XVII, 16-17)’. But Solomon arose and studied the reason of God's decree, saying: ‘Why did God command, " He shall not multiply wives to himself? Is it not " That his heart turn not away "? Well, I will multiply and still my heart will not turn away. Our Sages said: At that time, the yod of the word yarbeh went up on high and prostrated itself before God and said: ‘Master of the Universe! Hast thou not said that no letter shall ever be abolished from the Torah? Behold, Solomon has now arisen and abolished one. Who knows? Today he has abolished one letter, to-morrow he will abolish another until the whole Torah will be nullified? ' God replied: ' Solomon and a thousand like him will pass away, but the smallest tittle will not be erased from thee.’ …For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods (I Kings XI, 4). R. Simeon b. Yohai said: It had been better for Solomon to clean sewers than to have this verse written of him; for this reason did Solomon say of himself: ’And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness and folly’ (Eccl. II, 12). Solomon said: ‘Because I tried to be wiser than the Torah and persuaded myself that I knew the intention of the Torah, did this understanding and knowledge turn out to be madness and folly.’​

This quote uses the b-t-l root הֲרֵי שְׁלֹמֹה עוֹמֵד וּמְבַטֵּל אוֹתִי, וְשֶׁמָּא הַיּוֹם יְבַטֵּל אַחַת וּלְמָחָר אַחֶרֶת עַד שֶׁתִּתְבַּטֵּל כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ
as "nullify" (make empty). What's interesting to me is that the translation uses 2 different words (abolish and nullify) for the same root in the same sentence. Solomon was doing this by not following the commandments.

 

[Vouthon]

If I were to take the Christian side for a moment (just to see if I've been following correctly), it seems that circumcision is both part of the covenant of faith as an outward sign caused by faith and a part of the covenant of law as an actual honest-to-goodness law.

Either way, Christians feel no need to keep circumcision - on the faith side because decisions by the church to draw in gentiles and on the law side because all laws were fulfilled by Jesus, the freeing them from the need to keep any laws.

An estimable summary of our general position, I think.

It's the "fulfilled" part that is the more contentious element, given that it need not be understood in a supersessionary way (indeed it wasn't initially).

That he fulfilled it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the law is "replaced"; merely that he has brought it to a higher fullness of understanding and meaning, and that Gentiles are justified through the same living faith in God as are Jews, only that ours has no need of outward conformance to the "works of the law" (that is, the outward ceremonial, cultic, ritual dimension) but only the moral laws, through which our faith in God through Jesus as Messiah is animated by love which is expressed - daily and constantly - by means of those good works taught by the Torah/law (i.e. twofold command to love God and neighbour, Ten Words).

But it's an excessively complicated area of Christian theology and fraught with disagreements.

 

[Harel13]

that Gentiles are justified through the same living faith in God as are Jews

Is it just me, or did early Christians, even with their attempt to 'graft' gentiles into the covenant, still continued to differentiate between those of Jewish birth and those of gentile birth?

 

[Rival]

Is it just me, or did early Christians, even with their attempt to 'graft' gentiles into the covenant, still continued to differentiate between those of Jewish birth and those of gentile birth?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Paul)

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Jesus)

But he answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Jesus)

Whole thing,

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came to him, crying out, “Lord, son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.” But Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us. He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ”The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” “O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Christians generally have a positive explanation for that encounter, but it never sat right with me or many people.

 

[Vouthon]

Is it just me, or did early Christians, even with their attempt to 'graft' gentiles into the covenant, still continued to differentiate between those of Jewish birth and those of gentile birth?

I imagine they understood it more in collective terms - i.e. the people of Israel, Jewish people, are still the "first-fruits" children of the covenant and the patriarchs. The attitude of the first Jewish Christians was kind of like, "you've been grafted into the Promise in the Messianic Age as an adopted younger brother, so count yourself lucky and don't use it as an excuse to bash the "elder" children" kind of thing.

That attitude obviously didn't last, when it became a Gentile church. In fact, it was probably turned on it's head in violation of the original vision.

It's slightly awkward reading, perhaps, for modern Christians given the very clear egalitarianism which underpins the "there's no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female" mantra of the New Testament (which arose because the apostles thought they were living in Micah and Isaiah's Messianic Age where swords are beaten into ploughshares and the whole human race emerges into a new degree of unity and love etc. etc.), which is true from the perspective of faith.

But then Paul would also write:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16)
​

While as "individuals" all people are equal and even in a sense as nations as well, Paul never lost this sense of the Jewish nation as an "elect" people into whom Gentiles had now been grafted spiritually, although not according to the flesh.

But a moderate degree of national chauvinism or Israelite patriotism does still sometimes seep through, as when Paul writes:

"15We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 2:15-16)"
​

He's talking to fellow Jewish Christians here in this letter.

 

[Vouthon]

Christians generally have a positive explanation for that encounter,

Well, I think he's actually using the encounter as an opportunity to show his disciples that Gentiles too can have faith.

They didn't want him to talk to her at all but he plays along and she then shows that she has greater humility, possibly greater faith in God, than the Jewish apostles of Jesus.

It ends up with her being vindicated and the apostles being indicted for their ethno-religious chauvinism.

To me at least, it seems like he and her engage in wordplay - like a kind of game that's lost sometimes in translation - in which she outsmarts everyone and gets what she wanted from the encounter.

 

[Rival]

Well, I think he's actually using the encounter as an opportunity to show his disciples that Gentiles too can have faith.

They didn't want him to talk to her at all but he plays along and she then shows that she has greater humility, possibly greater faith in God, than the Jewish apostles of Jesus.

It ends up with her being vindicated and the apostles being indicted for their ethno-religious chauvinism.

To me at least, it seems like he and her engage in wordplay - like a kind of game that's lost sometimes in translation - in which she outsmarts everyone and gets what she wanted from the encounter.

Yeah, that's the same as what I was taught. It didn't really help though and still left a bad taste.

It fits the bizarre arch-theme of the Gospels of Jesus' disciples being kind of thick, though, which I always found completely baffling.

 

[Vouthon]

It fits the bizarre arch-theme of the Gospels of Jesus' disciples being kind of thick, though, which I always found completely baffling.

It's interesting but the "smartest" people always tend to be those outside the Twelve in the gospels - the Roman centurion (another Gentile) who begged Jesus to heal his slave, the Good Samaritan who cared for the wounded Jew when the priest and Levite both walked by - which I think is actually the point.

Another example of the "good Gentile" trope:


Matthew 8:5–13 (TNIV)

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a Roman centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly." Jesus said to him, "Shall I come and heal him?"

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven​

The gospels consistently portray Jesus as the only one who isn't racist, isn't sexist, isn't puritanical - whereas his disciples become the foil in the narrative to highlight how enlightened Jesus is.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Faith is unjustified belief. That's why there are so many different faiths -- because no evidence is required. Are men walking in the Aztec faith, the Christian faith, the Nazi faith or the Hindu faith all walking in God's righteousness?

Law? Laws change all the time, and they're different in different places. What's mandatory at one time, or in one place, becomes illegal in six months, or in the next county.
What makes adherence to something so capricious meritorious?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Faith is unjustified belief. That's why there are so many different faiths -- because no evidence is required. Are men walking in the Aztec faith, the Christian faith, the Nazi faith or the Hindu faith all walking in God's righteousness?

Law? Laws change all the time, and they're different in different places. What's mandatory at one time, or in one place, becomes illegal in six months, or in the next county.
What makes adherence to something so capricious meritorious?

The faith of Abraham was trust in the goodness of God's Word. The promise made by God to Abraham was to a future rest and salvation in Christ.

Justification, I believe, comes by faith in Christ, not by the law. But God's law is still good!

 

[1213]

...To me, it seems that fulfilling a covenant means upholding...

I think that is correct understanding.

 

[Valjean]

Valjean said: ↑

Faith is unjustified belief. That's why there are so many different faiths -- because no evidence is required. Are men walking in the Aztec faith, the Christian faith, the Nazi faith or the Hindu faith all walking in God's righteousness?

Law? Laws change all the time, and they're different in different places. What's mandatory at one time, or in one place, becomes illegal in six months, or in the next county.
What makes adherence to something so capricious meritorious?

The faith of Abraham was trust in the goodness of God's Word. The promise made by God to Abraham was to a future rest and salvation in Christ.

You didn't answer my question. Why do you believe this particular story? Why do you not believe any of the others?

Wasn't the original Hebrew god a local war god? Wasn't his original promise to the Jews victory in war, if they would put their faith in him alone? Where is Jesus in the Torah?

Justification, I believe, comes by faith in Christ, not by the law. But God's law is still good!

What does justification mean? What makes one law correct and another incorrect? People with faith in Christ believe all sorts of different things. People who believed in Christ burned witches and warred amongst themselves.

Which good law of God are you referring to?