Dean Anderson

Christian apologists make a big deal out of the fact that Jesus does not destroy or replace the OT laws, but instead fulfils them. A typical verse quoted in this respect is Matthew 5:17...

How on earth do you 'fulfil' a law?

Does this mean the law no longer applies?

How is fulfilling a law different to replacing it or otherwise making it void?

It this a translation issue, where there is a Greek term with no English equivalent (and 'fulfil' is a poor match)?

The Greek word here is πληÏ?ωσαι. It and its variants appear 24 times in the NT, some are translated as 'fulfil' (as in prophecy, e.g. επληÏ?ωσαν in Acts 13:27), some are translated as 'fill' (as in a container, e.g. πληÏ?ωσεις in Acts 2:28), and some are translated as 'end' (as in finished, e.g. επληÏ?ωσεν in Luke 7:1).

It would appear that the second half Matthew 5:17 seems to be saying "I am not come to destroy, but to end".

So is there some extra meaning here in the Greek, that makes that verse make more sense than it appears to?

The only thing I can think of is that πληÏ?ωσαι means 'to bring to an end naturally' (as opposed to 'destroying' and bringing to a premature end).

However, that still does not gel very well with the following verse where Jesus says that the whole law is still in effect - and will not end until heaven and earth pass away.

To me, it would seem that Matthew 5:17-18 has Christ saying that he is not there to bring about a premature end to the law, but is there to enable an eventual natural end to the law when the world ends.

However, this interpretation would not fit with the apologetics that need to use these verses to show that the OT laws no longer apply - since it says the laws will apply until the end of the world.

Am I missing the point here?

Does 'fulfilling' a law mean something different?

Mathetes

The Greek verb πληÏ?όω, as you say, may mean many things. Almost all are related with the idea of "filling something" or "making something full".

Here is the entry in the Liddell and Scott Lexicon

My translation: "I didn't come to destroy, but to make full, or to make complete".

Concerning your question, I have no idea why Christians come to the conclusion that this means that the law does not apply. The text does not say that.

The truth is that Jesus (not Jesus the person, but Jesus the literary character that appears in the gospels) is ambiguous about this. He said that not a iota of the law would be changed, but then he broke the law whenever he saw fit. Maybe this is a consequence of the different factions that were re-writing the gospels to advance their own positions. Different oppinions were kept in different places.

Angrillori

Y'know I always wondered about that. The xian 'get out of kosher' excuse bothered me, because a plain reading of fulfill the law seems to mean just the opposite--

There were some laws left out, and Jesus was here to add them. Like if we had a book of criminal statutes, and it was missing a couple of pages. To fill the book and 'fulfil' the law would not nullify the OTHER laws in the book, would just add some new ones to obey.

But then again, the idea of a dude sacrificing himself to himself to appease his own blood-lust seems kind of silly in retrospect too....

Sensei Meela

I've heard that by 'fulfill' it meant 'make good' in a promise-keeping sense: one who promises to donate a million bucks must 'fulfill' or 'make good' on that promise by actually donating the million bucks. In this case, the 'promise' was of redemption, which (in the NT) the Law alone couldn't supply.

Alternately, I've heard that by 'fulfill' it meant 'adhere to' in an observational-type sense; Jesus was here to observe all the Laws of the OT such that he could be a perfect sacrifice and provide mankind with redemption.

Sure would be nice if we could get a little consistency.

Magdlyn

Well, that's not gonna happen. It has been 1700 yrs, get used to it! It is obvious the gospels and epistles are transparent attempts at compromise between warring factions of early Xtianity.

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man has some great explanations.

dado

i suspect the only way to answer this is to reconstruct what he would have said in Aramaic and go from there. which is, of course, impossible to do with any certainty. it's a damn shame we don't have the original words. the best i can offer is in rabbinic usage "destroy" often means "misinterpret" and "fulfill" means "interpret correctly". if this even applies - Jesus was apparently a rabbi but that isn't enough to go on - it suggests Jesus was defending observance, not suggesting dis-observance.

Toto

I am not an expert on the language or the religious concepts, but it is interesting to me that the word pleroma is a key word/concept in Gnosticism.

From here

I wonder if the "fulfillment" that the Gospel Jesus spoke about is related to the Gnostic pleroma, as some sort of hidden meaning available only to the elect. But I have to admit that this is just speculation. I have not studied the matter enough and probably won't in the forseeable future.

Toto

I should add that I assume that this saying is not a translation from the Aramaic, and that I doubt that Jesus said anything like that, if he in fact existed.

JerryM

The English translation that I like is the Revised English Bible (REB), the 1980s edition of the New English Bible. It was translated by a team from Oxford and Cambridge, and is very accurate and readible. It renders the passage (paraphrasing) "...I am here to complete the law." And in the next few sentences Jesus says (again paraphrasing) that not one dot or letter of the law shall disappear until all that must happen has happened, and that anyone who teaches that even the least of the law should be ignored will have the lowest place in the kingdom of heaven. You don't complete something by destroying it. It's always seemed contradictory to me that Christians say they don't have to observe the OT laws.

dado

now THOSE - assuming the translation is accurate - are the words of a rebbe. both precise and endlessly ambiguous at the same time. i would have absolutely no trouble at all believing a second-temple era jewish-trained individual made such a statement.