Abolish is a strong word.
People quote Matthew 5:17&18 at me, to say “See! We
still need to be under the Law! Look! See!”
These verses read, “Do not think that I came to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say
to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
I have to admit, if you grab that verse, yank it out of its
context, ignore the bit about the Prophets, and try to use it as a club to
support a need for the Law (or at least the 10 Commandments), then it kind of
fits. If you close one eye and squint the other.
Let’s look at this a little more closely, a little more
objectively, shall we? Is Jesus really saying, “Psych! I’m not really freeing
you from the Law!”? Or is Jesus saying something else.
That “Something else” could be several things:
the context tells us some things?
may be a Jewish metaphor here that we’re not catching because we’re not
first century Jews. That might change the meaning here.
might be talking about a purpose of the Law and the Prophets that he’s
going to fulfill.
might be talking about and end of the Law, but one that is not His doing.
Let’s look at these possibilities one by one.
1. First, what does the context tell us? This is in the
middle of a sermon where Jesus is completely re-interpreting their
understanding of the Law. The entire chapter is about Jesus saying, “You’ve
heard the Law taught this way…. But I tell you this other thing instead.”
So it’s not reasonable to assume that suddenly he breaks his train of thought and talks about
submitting to the Law, at least not without some more evidence to work with. It’s
more reasonable to infer that Jesus is doing away with how that Jewish culture
has always understood the Law, and replacing that with a completely new
understanding. That is the context.
2. Is there a Jewish metaphor here? I’m glad you asked. Yes
there is. Jesus says the Law is valid “until heaven and earth pass away.” Well,
when is that?
We, in our 21st
century, science-based world
interpret that literally, scientifically, and if Jesus were speaking on CNN or the Discover
Channel, that would probably be a reasonable interpretation. But that is not how
his audience at the time would interpret it. So it’s not permitted for us to
impose a 21st
century interpretation onto this first century
If you look at the phrase in scripture (http://nwp.link/2idn9Ml
), it’s used more
than 120 times (NKJV). In general, the words are used to describe “Pretty
much everything we know” (which was *much
* less than what we know today!),
but when used together, it’s specifically addressing the abode of God (see: http://nwp.link/2j2nNR5
, especially Isaiah
66:1 and Jeremiah 23:24). This is describing the Jewish temple.
In fact, this view was so prevalent that eventually the temple
and its courtyard in Jerusalem became known as “Heaven and Earth,” and was spoken
of as immovable. The temple itself, the “dwelling place of God” was Heaven, and
the courts, particularly with the court of Gentiles, was “the Earth. In more
poetical language, it was described as “Where Heaven and Earth meet.” (https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/grawhe
So the Law and the Prophets are still valid, under Jesus’ new interpretation, until the temple was destroyed. That’s what it meant to the writer and the original readers of the Gospels. We cannot impose our 21st century cosmology onto the text.
3. The structure of the sentence clearly points to the
fulfillment of “The Law and the Prophets.” We’ve taught for generations
(correctly) that the Law and the Prophets point to Jesus, and this passage in
Matthew has been part of that teaching. Certainly, the reference to “the
Prophets” would not be part of a declaration of keeping the Old Covenant Law.
These verses are clearly saying that the Law was still in place
as Jesus made the statement; it hadn’t been fulfilled yet. Recently, I fulfilled my obligations on a loan.
Until that loan was fulfilled, I kept making payments. If I missed even one
payment, even the very last payment, then the loan was in default, and the bank had
the right to seize my property and sell it off to cover my failure.
But when I fulfilled
that loan, when the payments were done,
then the loan no longer has any power over my behavior (“Payments are due!”) or
consequences (“…or we’ll seize your stuff!”). I was now free from that law.
Jesus was declaring that the fulfillment of everything the Law and the Prophets spoke about was upon them: they were about to see the realization of everything they’d been waiting for for the last couple of millennia!
4. The Old Covenant Law was still in place when Jesus spoke
these words about the Law being fulfilled. It was already “obsolete and growing
old is ready to vanish away,” (Hebrews 8:13), but it didn’t finally “vanish
away” until the last possible second: exactly one generation (40 years) after
Jesus’ death, when the Jerusalem, the temple (“Heaven & Earth”) and perhaps even most significantly, the genealogical records of Israel were all destroyed.
Without those records, it was impossible to determine who was a descendant of
Aaron, and therefore qualified to be a priest and to make the sacrifices the
Law demanded. Legitimate sacrifices could never be re-instituted.
When Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD (a description of which
is in Matthew 24, in answer to the question of “When will the stones of the
temple be thrown down?”), the Old Covenant finally breathed its last and died,
completely fulfilled in Christ.
So these verses are not a statement that Believers need to
keep the Old Covenant Law. They were a warning that while the Law was still in
force when the words were spoken, but that Law would end soon. Romans is blunt: “For
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness….” Done.
And Jesus didn't just end Ten Commandments. He ended 613
laws; he ended all of them. All of that is dead. It was obsolete. It wasn’t
needed any more.
You see, all of those commandments were the "terms and
conditions" for the Old Covenant. And Jesus ended the Old Covenant. (The
Epistle to the Hebrews describes that termination pretty well, better than this article has
So when that broken down, obsolete covenant was replaced
with a New Covenant, the terms and conditions of the first covenant (all those
laws, and the priesthood, and the sacrifices) were all replaced with the terms
and conditions of the New Covenant as well.
So anyone who names the name of Christ is not under the Old
Covenant, and not obligated – not even a smidgeon – to the terms and conditions
of that obsolete covenant. We share in a New Covenant, and no man can serve two