Understanding Christ's fulfilment of the law
Dec 28, 2013 4:20:03 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 28, 2013 4:20:03 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING CHRIST'S FULFILMENT OF THE LAW
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Mt 5:17
Because in discussions on legalism the issue of Christ’s fulfilling of the law is invariably brought up, it is appropriate that such issue be separated out and dealt with on its own.
So we shall look at how this word “fulfil” is being used when Christ said He had come to fulfil the law: is it being used in the sense of "to keep (the law)", as most presume, or is it being used some other way?
And what is meant by "the law, or the prophets"?
___
The first thing to note is that in the same breath that Jesus said He had come to fulfil the law, He said He had come to fulfil the prophets.
If then "fulfil" is being used in the sense of "to keep", a problem arises: although one can keep law, one can't keep prophets.
___
The next thing to note is that Christ held the word “fulfil” in tension with what might be superficially considered an opposite, “destroy”.
But if one thinks of “fulfil” as “to keep”, this is no opposite to “destroy”. That is, one would not say:
“I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to keep them”,
but rather:
“I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to affirm them”.
___
Finally, it was no claim to a special mission for a Jew to keep the law: it was the minimum expected of him anyway.
More importantly, Christ had come to do only one thing, not two: He came to save, not save and keep the law. That is, His saving of us was not contingent on His keeping the law, for that would be to subordinate the Creator to the law and thus to declare the law to be God.
___
So the word “fulfil” at Mt 5:17 is being used as neither "to keep", nor as an opposite of “destroy”. Rather, Jesus was using the word in its primary sense: "to bring into consummation”.
And so when appearing to the disciples after the resurrection, He said:
“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day" Luke 24:44-46.
That is, His “the law, or the prophets” at Mt 5:17 was in reference to the writings of the entire Old Testament at a very general level, a level in fact at which the terms “the law” and “the prophets” can even be interchanged, for Moses who gave the law was a prophet, and conversely, Paul at 1 Cor 14:21 declares the book of Isaiah the prophet to be part of the law.
And so we read at the first verse of Hebrews concerning this fulfilment:
"God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things" Heb 1:1.
___
In fact this fulfilment of which Jesus spoke - this bringing into consummation the complete writings of the Jews - was typed in Rachel’s being fulfilled in the birth of her last child Benoni:
1. She was fulfilled in a very direct sense by him who would be both her and Israel’s (Jacob’s) last son.
2. Thus she would die in the begetting, being of no more ‘use’ in the scheme of things, for her final begetting necessarily spoke to the fulfilment of the law. (For Rachel, being Jacob’s first love, represented Israel and thus the law, as distinct from Leah who, being not at first loved, represented the Gentiles.)
3. And thus upon the death of Rachel Jacob changed the child’s name from “Benoni – son of my sorrow” (which Rachel had given it) to “Benjamin – son of the right hand”, which two names respectively forespoke of Christ’s death at the hands of the law, and resurrection by the power of the Father.
And so we see, and particularly in Rachel, that contrary to those who think Jesus was saying He had come to keep the law perfectly, the actual fulfilment of which He spoke was, although not itself the death of the law, nevertheless that which resulted in the death of the law for anyone in Him. For Benoni indeed had had a mother, but Benjamin not so.
And thus:
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" Rom 10:4.
___
With regard to our salvation then, just as they of the law who could not give birth of themselves (Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth, etc), would do so solely by the miracle-working power of God, so too we who were under the law and thus under that which could not bring forth life (see Gal 3:21), would give birth to the Man Child Christ, not of ourselves.
For we read:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" Rom 7:4.
: the death of Christ at Calvary guaranteed our (the elect’s) being set free from the law.1
1 See also our work: “The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God” where this is explained in detail.
___
So this is what Jesus meant when He said He had come to fulfil the law and the prophets.
And thus and contrary to popular opinion, Christ did not seek to keep the law.
For "the law is not of faith" (Gal 3:12) and “the just shall live by faith” (Gal 3:11), and we know that Christ is the most just of the just.
Amen.
________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING CHRIST'S FULFILMENT OF THE LAW
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Mt 5:17
Because in discussions on legalism the issue of Christ’s fulfilling of the law is invariably brought up, it is appropriate that such issue be separated out and dealt with on its own.
So we shall look at how this word “fulfil” is being used when Christ said He had come to fulfil the law: is it being used in the sense of "to keep (the law)", as most presume, or is it being used some other way?
And what is meant by "the law, or the prophets"?
___
The first thing to note is that in the same breath that Jesus said He had come to fulfil the law, He said He had come to fulfil the prophets.
If then "fulfil" is being used in the sense of "to keep", a problem arises: although one can keep law, one can't keep prophets.
___
The next thing to note is that Christ held the word “fulfil” in tension with what might be superficially considered an opposite, “destroy”.
But if one thinks of “fulfil” as “to keep”, this is no opposite to “destroy”. That is, one would not say:
“I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to keep them”,
but rather:
“I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to affirm them”.
___
Finally, it was no claim to a special mission for a Jew to keep the law: it was the minimum expected of him anyway.
More importantly, Christ had come to do only one thing, not two: He came to save, not save and keep the law. That is, His saving of us was not contingent on His keeping the law, for that would be to subordinate the Creator to the law and thus to declare the law to be God.
___
So the word “fulfil” at Mt 5:17 is being used as neither "to keep", nor as an opposite of “destroy”. Rather, Jesus was using the word in its primary sense: "to bring into consummation”.
And so when appearing to the disciples after the resurrection, He said:
“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day" Luke 24:44-46.
That is, His “the law, or the prophets” at Mt 5:17 was in reference to the writings of the entire Old Testament at a very general level, a level in fact at which the terms “the law” and “the prophets” can even be interchanged, for Moses who gave the law was a prophet, and conversely, Paul at 1 Cor 14:21 declares the book of Isaiah the prophet to be part of the law.
And so we read at the first verse of Hebrews concerning this fulfilment:
"God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things" Heb 1:1.
___
In fact this fulfilment of which Jesus spoke - this bringing into consummation the complete writings of the Jews - was typed in Rachel’s being fulfilled in the birth of her last child Benoni:
1. She was fulfilled in a very direct sense by him who would be both her and Israel’s (Jacob’s) last son.
2. Thus she would die in the begetting, being of no more ‘use’ in the scheme of things, for her final begetting necessarily spoke to the fulfilment of the law. (For Rachel, being Jacob’s first love, represented Israel and thus the law, as distinct from Leah who, being not at first loved, represented the Gentiles.)
3. And thus upon the death of Rachel Jacob changed the child’s name from “Benoni – son of my sorrow” (which Rachel had given it) to “Benjamin – son of the right hand”, which two names respectively forespoke of Christ’s death at the hands of the law, and resurrection by the power of the Father.
And so we see, and particularly in Rachel, that contrary to those who think Jesus was saying He had come to keep the law perfectly, the actual fulfilment of which He spoke was, although not itself the death of the law, nevertheless that which resulted in the death of the law for anyone in Him. For Benoni indeed had had a mother, but Benjamin not so.
And thus:
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" Rom 10:4.
___
With regard to our salvation then, just as they of the law who could not give birth of themselves (Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth, etc), would do so solely by the miracle-working power of God, so too we who were under the law and thus under that which could not bring forth life (see Gal 3:21), would give birth to the Man Child Christ, not of ourselves.
For we read:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" Rom 7:4.
: the death of Christ at Calvary guaranteed our (the elect’s) being set free from the law.1
1 See also our work: “The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God” where this is explained in detail.
___
So this is what Jesus meant when He said He had come to fulfil the law and the prophets.
And thus and contrary to popular opinion, Christ did not seek to keep the law.
For "the law is not of faith" (Gal 3:12) and “the just shall live by faith” (Gal 3:11), and we know that Christ is the most just of the just.
Amen.