What does "fulfilling the covenant" mean?

[Redemptionsong]

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?

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:

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."​

Etc.

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?

Here's a thought I'd like to share with you, Harel13.

It says in Galatians 4, 'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.'

From this, I understand that Jesus spent his formative years under the law. When he met with his cousin John at the Jordan river, aged about thirty, Jesus said to John, 'it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness'. God's response to Jesus receiving baptism [water and Spirit] was to say, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' [Matthew 3:17]

I believe that Isaiah prophesied of this moment when he said, 'The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.' [Isaiah 42:21]

Jesus magnified the law by keeping all the law. Following baptism, He was no longer under the letter of the law, but under the anointing of the Spirit of God. In this capacity, he fulfilled all the inner requirements of the law, faithfully fulfilling the law in love. Only God, as our Saviour, could do this perfectly.

If only God's righteousness can fulfil the law in love, then the words of Job 35:7 ring very true. 'If thou be righteous, what gives thou him [God]? or what receiveth he of thy hand?'

Our righteousness is no match for God's righteousness! Even if we keep the letter of the law [Philippians 3:5,6], what chance have we of keeping the spirit of the law? [Matthew 5]

This is why it is through repentance and faith in Christ, that we receive His righteousness through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Through repentance, our righteousness, which is of the law, is dead. [Philippians 3:9]

Isaiah 1:18.'though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;'

 

[Redemptionsong]

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?

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?
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?

I'm not sure that I can answer your question without deviating wildly from the OP. Harel13 asked a very specific question that required a biblical answer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since this is a discussion rather than a debate thread, I'll just say that I find it impossible to understand the notion of a "covenant" that is dictated by one side, and demanded to be accepted by the other. That seems to me to be a very gross contradiction in terms.

In any case, in such a one-sided covenant, it does seem to me that "fulfillment" is only possible by the dictator, not by those who were dictated to.

 

[Vouthon]

@Harel13 Also worth noting, in terms of the contemporary understanding of the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination, still). Today, it rejects supersessionism (certainly in its hard form at least):


Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sacred Scripture

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked...

"Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers..."

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

​

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God

The Covenant with Noah

56 After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the "nations", in other words, towards men grouped "in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations".9

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity10 united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.11 But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.12

58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.13 The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright "Noah, Daniel, and Job".14 Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to "gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad".15

God chooses Abraham

59 In order to gather together scattered humanity God calls Abram from his country, his kindred and his father's house,16 and makes him Abraham, that is, "the father of a multitude of nations". "In you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."17

60 The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church.18 They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.19

61 The patriarchs, prophets and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church's liturgical traditions.

God forms his people Israel

62 After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior.20

63 Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God",21 the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.....

71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

​

I should probably have cited these catechical statements earlier in the thread, as they provide a good overview of our stance.

 

[Harel13]

He was no longer under the letter of the law, but under the anointing of the Spirit of God.

And he couldn't be under both?

If only God's righteousness can fulfil the law in love, then the words of Job 35:7 ring very true. 'If thou be righteous, what gives thou him [God]? or what receiveth he of thy hand?'

Then why bother giving laws in the first place?

our righteousness, which is of the law, is dead.

And this is good?

 

[Harel13]

Today, it rejects supersessionism (certainly in its hard form at least):

Yeah, I know. Vatican II + Pope Francis's announcement commemorating the 50th anniversary of Vatican II. I was impressed when I heard it. Still am.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And he couldn't be under both?

Then why bother giving laws in the first place?

And this is good?

The reason that I don't think Jesus was under both [law and Spirit at the same time] is that the gospel of grace does not come into effect until the giving of the Holy Spirit. Once the Holy Spirit becomes guide, the written law loses its authority in terms of tutoring. This is noticeable in the ministry of Jesus, when he finds Himself being confronted by the scribes and Pharisees for not following 'the letter of the law' on sabbath observance. It is also very obvious that Jesus only begins to minister in power having been anointed by the Holy Spirit. For thirty years of his life this power was not evident. Is this power to be found under the law?

The teaching of Paul, and the other apostles, makes it clear that the written law, the letter of the law, is superseded by faith and grace in matters of individual salvation. This does not mean that the law is abolished, or that it does not still have a function, only that for an individual to be saved it is necessary to repent and walk by faith in Jesus Christ.

The law for the individual acts as a schoolmaster. It teaches what is right and wrong, and points us to the righteousness that is to be found only in God. Paul describes the law as 'added because of transgressions', and in his first letter to Timothy he says, 'the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient'.

Some people refer to 'Christian nations', but as far as I can see there is no such thing. A national government must be able to offer law and justice to all its citizens. The objectivity of justice is unlike the subjectivity of forgiveness. Paul says, 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling'; and so we should, 'for mercy rejoiceth against judgment.'

As I understand the overall message of the Bible, individual Jews and Gentiles make up the Body of Christ, the Church. Israel, as a nation under law, is still following a separate path under God's eagle eye. It's not an easy message to convey, but, from what I understand of scripture, the great unbelief of the nation of Israel is to be summed up in their rejection of Jesus Christ as MESSIAH. There can be no national salvation until individual repentance turns the national 'stumbling block' into a national door way of salvation. Does Paul not say, 'And so all Israel shall be saved', also quoting Isaiah 59:20.

Zechariah 12:10.'And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.'

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Proverbs 10:12

covenant fulfilled

a new covenant[/MEDIA]

Not sure what proverbs 10:12 has to do with a covenant being fulfilled or a new covenant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Curious that after Jesus' ambiguous statement about fulfilling the covenant, he went on to say that he was changing nothing at all -- not a jot or a tittle.

It seems like his followers, the Christians, are still expected to follow the Torah.

And remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews. He said he came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Jews not obeying the law).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it's a thing,

The Covenant Fulfilled

Jesus Fulfilled the Covenant

How Jesus Fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant

Jesus keeping the Law doesn't mean that other Jews aren't still bound to keep the Law. Every Jew is responsible to keep the covenant as part of Israel. I wish that Christians could see this very simple point!

 

[Rival]

Jesus keeping the Law doesn't mean that other Jews aren't still bound to keep the Law. Every Jew is responsible to keep the covenant as part of Israel.

I wasn't making a judgement call about it. I was just pointing out that Harel hadn't made a mistake in his phrasing. I couldn't really care less about Christin doctrine on anything

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I wasn't making a judgement call about it. I was just pointing out that Harel hadn't made a mistake in his phrasing. I couldn't really care less about Christin doctrine on anything

Well it bothers me when Christians don't understand basic Jewish teaching. However, ignorance about other religions is just not a concern for people in general.

I was reading a study where people were to identify major figures in various religions. Like did they know Muhammad went with Islam (actually more people assigned Osama bin Laden to Islam, groan). Curiously, the person most Americans assigned to Judaism was Jesus (rather than Moses). This could be because of the movement in Christianity to understand Jesus as a Jew. But still, I'm like, WOW.

 

[Rival]

Well it bothers me when Christians don't understand basic Jewish teaching. However, ignorance about other religions is just not a concern for people in general.

I was reading a study where people were to identify major figures in various religions. Like did they know Muhammad went with Islam (actually more people assigned Osama bin Laden to Islam, groan). Curiously, the person most Americans assigned to Judaism was Jesus (rather than Moses). This could be because of the movement in Christianity to understand Jesus as a Jew. But still, I'm like, WOW.

Your country has a religious education problem. By the time I was 11 I was taught about Islam, Judaism, a Hinduism overview, Christianity, and the fact that some people had no religion at all. I'm pretty sure we did Buddhism and Sikhism as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your country has a religious education problem. By the time I was 11 I was taught about Islam, Judaism, a Hinduism overview, Christianity, and the fact that some people had no religion at all. I'm pretty sure we did Buddhism and Sikhism as well.

In California it is part of the State Curriculum, but teaching it is not the same as students learning it.

 

[Rival]

In California it is part of the State Curriculum, but teaching it is not the same as students learning it.

That is pretty poor then. Our R.E. lessons were made fairly interactive. We celebrated Divali and had sweet treats, lit candles and such. We watched informative cartoons and we learnt how to meditate. We even once had a mock Indian market where we learnt to haggle. We did stuff like that for our religious education. I guess that made it more enjoyable and therefore more retainable? I'm not sure how California does it. Still, if the majority of states don't have it, then I'm tipping those people are going to skew overall results.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is pretty poor then. Our R.E. lessons were made fairly interactive. We celebrated Divali and had sweet treats, lit candles and such. We watched informative cartoons and we learnt how to meditate. We even once had a mock Indian market where we learnt to haggle. We did stuff like that for our religious education. I guess that made it more enjoyable and therefore more retainable? I'm not sure how California does it. Still, if the majority of states don't have it, then I'm tipping those people are going to skew overall results.

After 9/11, my daughter's school had a Toleration Club which met and learned about other religions. She really did learn a lot, and I supported that. They even had a field trip to the Holocaust Museum, which some thought they were to young to go (middle school). I just wish that her regular classroom had had all those experiences.