“Do not think that I came
to abolish the Law
or the Prophets;
I did not come to abolish,
but to fulfill.“
-Matthew 5:17
So what did Yeshua mean when he proclaimed he had “fulfilled the Law”?
Let’s first take a look at the dictionary definition of the word “fulfill”.
Here’s what we get from good ‘ole Webster’s:
1) To carry out something that has been promised.
2) To obey.
3) To fill all the requirements.
4) To satisfy all the conditions.
5) to complete or end
Okay, so the first thing we need to do when analyzing Matthew 5:17 is to break it up into two parts as follows:
PART ONE:
“Do not think that I came
to abolish the Law
or the Prophets;
PART TWO:
“I did not come to abolish,
but to fulfill.”
It’s critical to break down verses like this homies.
First, notice the first thing Yeshua said he came NOT to abolish is the Law.
And let’s be clear here…
When I say the Law, I’m talking about that specific legal section of the Torah the Jews refer to as the “Law of Moses”.
Onward.
Next, notice the second thing Yeshua said he didn’t come to abolish was the prophets.
The prophets represent Adonai’s proclamations regarding Israel’s future and the salvation history of all mankind.
So if the first part of Matthew 5:17 clearly states that Yeshua did not come to end the Law or the Prophets, then that bit has to harmonize with the second part where he says “I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill“.
Because if we interpret “fulfill” like how the gentile church has been interpreting it over the past centuries, we get a statement of pure hypocrisy.
Yeshua is literally saying something like “I didn’t come to abolish the Law, but to do away with it?“
“Huh?” is your response, right?
The statement makes no sense.
The man is contradicting himself.
We have the Messiah literally saying “I didn’t come to abolish but to abolish”…LOL.
Like make up your mind man…
Did you come to abolish the Law or not?
Ya feel me?
My point is we can completely disregard Webster’s 5th definition above where it says “to complete or end”.
Not to mention any person who thumbs his nose at God’s Law would immediately disqualify himself as the Messiah anyway.
So I think it’s safe to conclude that in the Biblical context here, “to fulfill” does NOT mean “to end” in the sense of terminating completely.
Because the opposite is the truth actually.
Yeshua came to FULFILL or bring the Law of Moses to its fullness.
The Greek word for “fulfill” being used here is PLEROOS which literally means “to fill up”….as in to fill up a tank of gasoline.
Bottomline, Yeshua didn’t end the biblical legal code.
Quite the opposite, he brought it to its full fruition.
And how did he do that?
By OBEYING it man!
He didn’t do away with the Mosaic Law…
He accomplished all of its requirements.
So yes, I think you could say Yeshua was a legalist.
He was the most Torah-observant human being who ever lived if you think about it.
And not just Yeshua…
But also all of His Disciples…
And the Apostle Paul…
They were all legalists.
Why?
Because they continued to obey the Law of Moses even after Yeshua’s death and resurrection.
But weren’t they “under grace” you ask?
Man, that’s another thing Christians don’t understand.
God’s Grace and His Law are NOT mutually exclusive things.
They go hand in hand.
Remember, God saved Israel from Egypt FIRST and then AFTERWARDS He gave them the Law.
God never said to Israel “Obey my Law first, and if you do well in that, then I’ll consider if you’re worthy of salvation”.
Are you with me here homeroos?
Obeying God’s Law is the natural next step you take AFTER BEING SAVED!
Being under grace does NOT relieve you of your obligation to obey the Law.
That twisted Christian notion is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.
And the gentile church’s hypocrisy is brought to the fore all the more when they hang up the so-called Ten Commandments (really the ten “words” or DABAR of Adonai) in their congregations while at the same time teaching that the Law has been done away with.
Ya feel me homeroos?
Done.
I have also read that in First Century “Rabbi-speak”, to “fulfill the law” meant to interpret it correctly. I think we can see this clearly in Yeshua’s Sermon on the Mount, when he took what the Pharisees had been teaching, the P’shat (plain language understanding) of the laws and taught us the deeper, spiritual understanding, called the Remes.
Yes, he also fulfilled the law by doing everything completely. If he hadn’t, then he would not have been the sinless lamb, his sacrifice would not have been accepted, and we would all be in deep doo-doo right now.
Fortunately, his sacrifice was accepted.
Whew!
Interesting. Hadn’t heard that before. That to “fulfill the law” meant to interpret it correctly. But it makes sense. And indeed, that’s exactly what Yeshua was doing when he spoke his famous Sermon on the Mount.
Rich – you put it so simply and brilliantly!
We all depend on the legal aspect of Torah to be declared right before God.
And our response to that declaration is to do our best to live according to the instructions of the law-giver. Out of gratitude!
Thank you, Mighty One, for arranging a total fulfillment of your righteous legal requirements on my behalf! Empower me to live as you have directed in your Word. Thank you for the Law-abiding example of our brother and Master Yeshua . . .I want to live like Him!
Amen Eric!
Paul was a self-proclaimed apostle. He shouldn’t even be mentioned here as he contradicts the Torah.
Paul does not contradict Torah.
“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”-Romans 3:31
Hi Renee,
I’m curious – When you say Paul was self-proclaimed, do you agree Paul was God’s “chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel”, BUT the title of “apostle” should not apply?
Yes, Paul does refer to himself as an apostle, and you are saying he is not . . .is that because he did not see Jesus while he was walking around on the earth, like the others?
What would be a better title for Paul? Missionary?
Would you mind sharing more about your point of view when it comes to Paul contradicting the Torah?
Shabbat Shalom. What I am about to write is a very short version my teaching from the Holy Spirit.
Let me preface this answer by saying that I once was a Christian, I held administrative positions in churches and served on church committees but reading the “New Testament” always made me feel empty. The “Gospels” to me are just testimonies of what Isaiah prophesied – that God would walk among us. One day reading the second half of Acts, I was astonished that the Jerusalem Council only held Paul accountable for teaching a few of God’s laws “so as not to trouble those among the Gentiles who are turning to God.” (Acts 15:18-21). couldn’t believe I read this. Now if God never changes, how can that be? Now there were two ways into God’s family? He didn’t say anything about that.
I also actually got physically sick reading Paul’s letters. I asked the Holy Spirit what was happening (I always ask Her for divine wisdom, divine knowledge, divine understanding, divine discernment and divine revelation of God’s word) and what came to me was that Paul’s letters were not of God.
After being shut out of a Bible Study because of this (Christian’s don’t take opposing views well), I was led to the introduction of a book by Craig Winn called “Questioning Paul:Towrahless.” This book only confirmed what I received from the Holy Spirit.
Getting back to your original question, there were requirements that had to be met to be considered an Apostle:
The candidate was required to be someone who followed Yahshua during his entire earthly ministry, beginning from His baptism by John to His’ ascension into heaven (Acts1:21–22a).
The candidate was required to have seen Yahshua after His resurrection (Acts1:22b).
The candidate needed to have been appointed by the Yahshua himself (Acts 1:24–25).
Also, nothing in his letters comes from God Himself. There are no instances where Paul quotes from God.
God’s Word is a book of prophesy. There is nothing prophetic in anything that Paul writes.
Also, why wasn’t Paul chosen to write The Book of Revelation? It was written to Gentile churches which Paul said he was commanded to be their Apostle.
Wasn’t it Peter who God assigned to be the Apostle to the Gentiles? (Acts 10:9-16)
There are many other reasons why I said this, too many to write in this space. I found another website where the author writes many of the other reasons. They can be found at:
https://www.judaismvschristianity.com/chapter-8-paul-the-false-apostle/
It also continues in Chapter 9.
I hope I have answered your question.
God bless you.
Thank you for taking time for a thorough answer. My response is also thorough, meaning long 🙂
And thanks for the link – I will read chapters 8-9.
In humility I believe you have missed something the Jerusalem Council did which is crucial to understanding there are NOT two ways into the Kingdom.
Acts 15, verse 20 implies a *question*. The question is: WHY should the Council write to the Gentiles to do those four things ONLY?
The answer to this question is given in the next verse – verse 21:
“Because since ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Remember we are talking about requirements for new converts, not all of Paul’s ministry.
The expectation for Paul’s converts was they would begin their path with 4 critical things and learn the rest of Torah each week as they attended Synagogue. They didn’t have to WAIT to be in the Kingdom until they completed a conversion process first.
Based on two unambiguous verses that summarize the Council’s findings . . .
your statement “the Jerusalem Council only held Paul accountable for teaching a few of God’s laws” is without truth.
Paul’s letters bear this out. Not a single place in his letters does he discourage his converts and mature believers from the Torah, but in fact the opposite. Is it possible you are reading your assumptions into the text?
Kindly, I tell you this is also untruthful: “There are no instances where Paul quotes from God”. Assuming the Torah and Prophets are God’s voice, Paul quotes both frequently — about 170 times in 10 letters. Pretty amazing!
Yes, “God’s word is a book of prophecy” but also of narrative, promises, history, theology, poetry. Paul was many things but not a prophet, yet he explains much prophecy.
Yes, the Disciples used two criteria to present candidates for God to choose from: With them from the beginning, and witnesses to the resurrection. It is certainly within God’s prerogative to waive the first of the Disciples’ requirements if He wants to choose Paul.
Paul – who went on to spend 3 years in the Arabian desert communing with the Lord, including experiencing visions. Paul, who said the Lord Jesus – resurrected – appeared to him “last of all, as though to one unnaturally born”. Paul himself recognized (1) the different way He was appointed to be an Apostle and (2) the grace in this appointment which he didn’t deserve.
There are only two options for Paul. Either God chose him to be an Apostle to the Gentiles, along with Phillip and Peter and the others, or Paul was duped by Satan.
But it would require extreme heights of self-deception for us to believe that both Ananias (in a vsion of the Lord Jesus) and (praying) Paul heard Satan – not God – speaking to them in Damascus, right before Paul was immersed into following Rabbi Jesus. And to believe that Paul’s fruit-bearing repentance and martyrdom for God were inspired by Satan.
As far as Paul not being chosen to write Revelation instead of John . . .good grief 🙂
Who knows the mind of God? God chose Paul for tasks and chose John for others. We don’t know the ethnic makeup of the 7 churches of Asia minor but undoubtedly they were some mix of Jew and Gentile, joined in one “new man”, the “Israel of God”.
There is no shortage of authors, ancient or modern, who have misunderstood Paul. As Peter points out, “ignorant and unstable people” twist Paul’s words, leading to Torah-lessness and instability (2 Peter 3:15-17).
The fact that Paul can be misunderstood as teaching lawlessness has been evident for 2,000 years! I urge you not to fall into that old trap.
In love I recognize you are making patently untrue statements about Paul being anti-Torah, about the Jerusalem Council, and about Paul not quoting God.
You know people who have mis-heard the Holy Spirit. There is every biblical reason to think you have done so regarding Paul.
Would love any thoughts you have on this. Happy to end our dialogue when you are ready, as well.
Thank you for your blessing. God bless you, too.