How did Jesus fulfil the law and the prophets?

[eleos1954]

Perhaps it demonstrates a lack of understanding, and requires the need for further study.

Many beliefs out there religious or not ... each to their own ;o)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let me rephrase: What makes the heremeutical guidelines you follow authoritative, if they aren't found in your scriptures?

I'm not sure why it's important to ascertain some kind of authority behind the "correct" way to interpret the Bible. Couldn't we simply ascertain the need for making a strong effort to be open and for doing our human best to interpret ANY kind of human communication, for the sheer reason that the structure of human communication involves that very thing, even if and when the Bible is concerned, and even if and when we handle the contents of the Gospel of Matthew?

 

[ananda]

I'm not sure why it's important to ascertain some kind of authority behind the "correct" way to interpret the Bible. Couldn't we simply ascertain the need for making a strong effort to be open and for doing our human best to interpret ANY kind of human communication, for the sheer reason that the structure of human communication involves that very thing, even if and when the Bible is concerned, and even if and when we hande of the contents of the Gospel of Matthew?

If divinity used human language to communicate its thoughts, then is it not reasonable to expect that it should also communicate how its thoughts should be properly interpreted, without resorting to various human ideas about it (some of which you put forth)?

 

[cloudyday2]

It seems that the Biblical authors could've then used a more exact & precise term that speaks of "non-transgression" rather than fulfillment.

There are at least some Jews who share your understanding of fulfilling laws.

In Kabbalistic interpretation, each Jewish soul is reincarnated enough times only in order to fulfill each of the 613 Mitzvot.

Gilgul - Wikipedia

 

[Barney2.0]

Does it state that in the Bible?

Why would it? Its logic, laws that say apply to females wouldn't apply to Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If divinity used human language to communicate its thoughts, then is it not reasonable to expect that it should also communicate how its thoughts should be properly interpreted, without resorting to various human ideas about it (some of which you put forth)?

Why would we need to assume anything about God's direct involvement in the authorial processes taking place within Matthew's mind as he decides what to write about and how to selectively articulate his gospel. It seems to me that while your imputation of what it would be to be reasonable can be appreciated as we assess the contents of Matthew's gospel, you're putting way too much stock in the extent to which you think we have to assume that God directly 'caused' the writing of the gospel itself. Moreover, in my estimation, I think we probably need to be realistic and assume that God Himself did not create the various systems of human language themselves, especially not those used in the writing of the Bible; no, "we" humans created those systems of language.

So, while I understand your grievance and we can all say we wish God would have made the bible easier to understand on the whole, I also think it is more than reasonable to assume that where we find human writing within the bible (i.e. everywhere in the bible?), then therein we can find at least some of the answers we're looking for by paying attention to, and studying, the thought patterns, literary intentions and language use of the human writer of each biblical book or letter. In this case, if the motif of "fulfillment" is important to Matthew, then we'll have to carefully study his entire gospel to 'see' what he means in his attempt to illustrate his reference to that motif.

Cutting to the chase: the point is, Matthew seems to think "fulfillment" of the O.T. by Jesus is, and can be, something different in nature than what you're seemingly thinking it should be in some totalizing fashion.

 

[cloudyday2]

Why would we need to assume anything about God's direct involvement in the authorial processes taking place within Matthew's mind as he decides what to write about and how to selectively articulate his gospel.

It is possible that divine inspiration of the NT was at the end of the process rather than the beginning. This scenario is an oversimplification, but imagine people of varying sanities and sincerities and inspiration levels writing Christian scriptures. Then Christian leaders gather and pray for inspiration in deciding how to glean the scriptures that God wants in a NT canon from the pool of popular Christian scriptures. Maybe God made a special effort to inspire the gleaning rather than the sprouting of texts? ... If that is the case then maybe there is only one interpretation that we should apply to these texts - the interpretation of the Christians involved in canonizing the texts. If those people canonized Matthew with a certain understanding of what Matthew meant then that should be the understanding we take. What Matthew himself intended is irrelevant, because maybe that wasn't the stage when God's inspiration happened. Maybe Matthew was written by many people over many decades, and maybe none of them were actually inspired by God (aside from the inspiration that every living creature receives to unknowingly adhere to God's ultimate purpose). That's an extreme case of course. Probably inspiration happened at every stage of the process from sprouting to gleaning at varying intensities.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is possible that divine inspiration of the NT was at the end of the process rather than the beginning. This scenario is an oversimplification, but imagine people of varying sanities and sincerities and inspiration levels writing Christian scriptures. Then Christian leaders gather and pray for inspiration in deciding how to glean the scriptures that God wants in a NT canon from the pool of popular Christian scriptures. Maybe God made a special effort to inspire the gleaning rather than the sprouting of texts? ... If that is the case then maybe there is only one interpretation that we should apply to these texts - the interpretation of the Christians involved in canonizing the texts. If those people canonized Matthew with a certain understanding of what Matthew meant then that should be the understanding we take.

I'm sorry, Cloudy, but ... what?

On the one hand, I can lean toward your initial comment that the folks who wrote the books and letters of the N.T. had "varying sanities and sincerities and inspiration levels"--and I find this to be refreshingly realistic. But on the other hand, my understanding of what constitutes "canonization" involves not some 'official decree' once and for all by some authority, but a long social process of haggling among Christians--many of whom had, as you would say, "varying sanities and sincerities and inspiration levels" over which books should be considered authentic and 'inspired.' This means to me that there will always be a human dynamic where different people will bring diverse background expectations and aptitudes to their understanding of nearly anything that anyone else says at any given time; and the Bible being not withstanding of this common interpretive fluke among humanity.

And here's the upshot: this would imply that because of the fluke mentioned above, human beings will never have a consensus among themselves nor find that they at all times have an easy to come by understanding of their own communication processes, which in turn means that no matter what God does, there's something that will get a bit screwy in the processes of human understanding --- even if God has His hand in the middle of it. Otherwise, if I go with what you're saying about canonization, I'd have to commit myself to becoming either fully Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, and as a critical philosopher, neither of those choices sits well with me.

If we realize this, then, we'd probably be on safer ground to do our best to study and practice what can be gleaned from the field of human linguistics, cultural studies, social psychology, philosophy of history and historiography, and other disciplines that are germane to the praxis of doing Hermeneutics ... (some of which I realize you already try to do. )

 

[anx66]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

For example, a popular Christian site states "Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written ... the holy standard of the Law would be perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied ..."

It is obvious that Jesus could not have observed all of the strict requirements of the law to fulfil and satisfy them, since, for example, many of the laws applied only to women.

My understanding as an ex-christian is that Jesus fulfilled the law by being someone who obeyed it entirely, that is why he is said to be perfect. He only obeyed those parts of the law that applied to him, as it is illogical for him to obey those parts of the law which don't apply to him. What you seem to be suggesting could be analogised by claiming that someone who doesn't own a car hasn't kept the law of the land because they haven't kept the law to drive safely.

 

[zephcom]

Why would we need to assume anything about God's direct involvement in the authorial processes taking place within Matthew's mind as he decides what to write about and how to selectively articulate his gospel. It seems to me that while your imputation of what it would be to be reasonable can be appreciated as we assess the contents of Matthew's gospel, you're putting way too much stock in the extent to which you think we have to assume that God directly 'caused' the writing of the gospel itself. Moreover, in my estimation, I think we probably need to be realistic and assume that God Himself did not create the various systems of human language themselves, especially not those used in the writing of the Bible; no, "we" humans created those systems of language.

So, while I understand your grievance and we can all say we wish God would have made the bible easier to understand on the whole, I also think it is more than reasonable to assume that where we find human writing within the bible (i.e. everywhere in the bible?), then therein we can find at least some of the answers we're looking for by paying attention to, and studying, the thought patterns, literary intentions and language use of the human writer of each biblical book or letter. In this case, if the motif of "fulfillment" is important to Matthew, then we'll have to carefully study his entire gospel to 'see' what he means in his attempt to illustrate his reference to that motif.

Cutting to the chase: the point is, Matthew seems to think "fulfillment" of the O.T. by Jesus is, and can be, something different in nature than what you're seemingly thinking it should be in some totalizing fashion.

Along the lines of your thoughts about God's authorship, I think it is reasonable to assume that God had nothing at all to do with writing the Bible. IMMHO, had God been involved in writing the Bible, the Bible would have much the same elegance that the universe demonstrates.

 

[ananda]

Why would it? Its logic, laws that say apply to females wouldn't apply to Christ.

Then how did he "fulfil" those laws which didn't apply to him?

 

[ananda]

Why would we need to assume anything about God's direct involvement in the authorial processes taking place within Matthew's mind as he decides what to write about and how to selectively articulate his gospel. It seems to me that while your imputation of what it would be to be reasonable can be appreciated as we assess the contents of Matthew's gospel, you're putting way too much stock in the extent to which you think we have to assume that God directly 'caused' the writing of the gospel itself. Moreover, in my estimation, I think we probably need to be realistic and assume that God Himself did not create the various systems of human language themselves, especially not those used in the writing of the Bible; no, "we" humans created those systems of language.

So, while I understand your grievance and we can all say we wish God would have made the bible easier to understand on the whole, I also think it is more than reasonable to assume that where we find human writing within the bible (i.e. everywhere in the bible?), then therein we can find at least some of the answers we're looking for by paying attention to, and studying, the thought patterns, literary intentions and language use of the human writer of each biblical book or letter. In this case, if the motif of "fulfillment" is important to Matthew, then we'll have to carefully study his entire gospel to 'see' what he means in his attempt to illustrate his reference to that motif.

Cutting to the chase: the point is, Matthew seems to think "fulfillment" of the O.T. by Jesus is, and can be, something different in nature than what you're seemingly thinking it should be in some totalizing fashion.

What do you believe are Matthew's ideas regarding "fulfillment"?

 

[mmksparbud]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17

For example, a popular Christian site states "Jesus’ purpose was to establish the Word, to embody it, and to fully accomplish all that was written ... the holy standard of the Law would be perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied ..."

It is obvious that Jesus could not have observed all of the strict requirements of the law to fulfil and satisfy them, since, for example, many of the laws applied only to women.

The law and the prophets that He fulfilled are all the prophecies concerning His birth and life and death. He fulfilled all the Jewish ceremonial laws that pointed to His death. He kept the moral law of God perfectly by keeping the 10 commandments.

 

[ananda]

My understanding as an ex-christian is that Jesus fulfilled the law by being someone who obeyed it entirely, that is why he is said to be perfect. He only obeyed those parts of the law that applied to him, as it is illogical for him to obey those parts of the law which don't apply to him. What you seem to be suggesting could be analogised by claiming that someone who doesn't own a car hasn't kept the law of the land because they haven't kept the law to drive safely.

Do you believe he obeyed the law when he did not stone the woman caught in adultery (John 8)?

 

[ananda]

The law and the prophets that He fulfilled are all the prophecies concerning His birth and life and death. He fulfilled all the Jewish ceremonial laws that pointed to His death. He kept the moral law of God perfectly by keeping the 10 commandments.

Is there a verse which clearly differentiates "ceremonial" & "moral" laws in the Bible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you believe are Matthew's ideas regarding "fulfillment"?

To answer that, we can initially look at the following survey of collected excerpts from the gospel of Matthew? I think we should notice, too, for comparison's sake, the extent to which Matthew goes to attempt to illustrate "fulfillment" up and above what Mark does, the latter of whom supposedly provided to Matthew some of his content material. Can we say that Matthew seems to want to demonstrate the veracity of the fulfillment motif beyond, surprisingly, what his predecessor attempted? [Hint: look in the link below at the number of comparative references to "fulfillment" between the two, as well as with the other Synoptic gospel of Luke, or even with the non-synoptic gospel of John.]

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: fulfill

Moreover, just these 17 references alone represent Matthew's attempt to demonstrate what he understood to be Jesus' fulfillment pattern of the O.T. Scriptures, which leaves out a few indirect demonstrations that can be also gleaned from various contexts provided within other portions of Matthew's gospel.

Keep in mind that the above is not something I'm saying is the 'end of the matter.' Rather, it is the beginning point in the overall study of the matter.

 

[mmksparbud]

Do you believe he obeyed the law when he did not stone the woman caught in adultery (John 8)?

He obeyed God's law of love--the law also said both participants were to be stoned. He fulfilled what He came to do.

Joh_3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Is there a verse which clearly differentiates "ceremonial" & "moral" laws in the Bible?

The 10 were written on stone by the hand of God, twice, and kept in the ark. The ceremonial laws were written by Moses, on parchment, dictated by God and kept outside the ark.

Deu_10:2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Deu_31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

 

[cloudyday2]

If we realize this, then, we'd probably be on safer ground to do our best to study and practice what can be gleaned from the field of human linguistics, cultural studies, social psychology, philosophy of history and historiography, and other disciplines that are germane to the praxis of doing Hermeneutics ... (some of which I realize you already try to do. )

That might help but there is also on more thing - praying for personal divine inspiration when reading the Bible. Maybe the Bible is only inspired inside the brain of the individual contemporary Christian at a particular moment in time for particular circumstances. God might inspire a Christian to understand a Bible passage one way on one day and another way on another day.

This is maybe a bit off-topic but possibly relevant. Here is a quote from the Zohar on seeking the mystical meanings of scripture. I suspect that these mystical meanings cannot be written in a book or expressed precisely in human language, and that is why there isn't a "Kabbalah for Dummies" book I can buy LOL.

To put it another way. There is spiritual knowledge with God and there is a human spirit and there is a tiny thread of natural intellect and experiences and language that this spiritual knowledge must traverse. There is no way to squeeze that spiritual knowledge through the physical communication channels, so the human spirit can only hope for personal inspiration from God. And there is no reason to believe that the inspired meaning of a passage is not customized to an individual and particular circumstances.

"Woe unto the man," says Simeon ben Yohai, "who asserts that this Torah intends to relate only commonplace things and secular narratives; for if this were so, then in the present times likewise a Torah might be written with more attractive narratives. In truth, however, the matter is thus: The upper world and the lower are established upon one and the same principle; in the lower world is Israel, in the upper world are the angels. When the angels wish to descend to the lower world, they have to don earthly garments. If this be true of the angels, how much more so of the Torah, for whose sake, indeed, the world and the angels were alike created and exist. The world could simply not have endured to look upon it. Now the narratives of the Torah are its garments. He who thinks that these garments are the Torah itself deserves to perish and have no share in the world to come. Woe unto the fools who look no further when they see an elegant robe! More valuable than the garment is the body which carries it, and more valuable even than that is the soul which animates the body. Fools see only the garment of the Torah, the more intelligent see the body, the wise see the soul, its proper being; and in the Messianic time the 'upper soul' of the Torah will stand revealed."

The Zohar

 

[danny ski]

The starting point should be discovering what the Law actually is. Only then it may be ascertained if any one man can "fulfil" it all.

 

[zephcom]

That might help but there is also on more thing - praying for personal divine inspiration when reading the Bible. Maybe the Bible is only inspired inside the brain of the individual contemporary Christian at a particular moment in time for particular circumstances. God might inspire a Christian to understand a Bible passage one way on one day and another way on another day.

This is maybe a bit off-topic but possibly relevant. Here is a quote from the Zohar on seeking the mystical meanings of scripture. I suspect that these mystical meanings cannot be written in a book or expressed precisely in human language, and that is why there isn't a "Kabbalah for Dummies" book I can buy LOL.

The Zohar

My thoughts on the concept of getting 'personal divine inspiration' is that it pretty much makes the Bible worthless for anything but an idol used to focus attention. I have, personally, accepted that the plain text of the Bible is what the authors intended for the reader to understand.

Remember, the New Testament documents were designed to be read out loud at gatherings because most people couldn't read and making copies for everyone was too much work. There really wasn't any opportunity to dwell over single sentences. For the original audiences the plain text was all there was.