In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus introduced a large section of his teaching by saying,
(Mat 5:17-18) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
This passage has troubled commentators for centuries. If Jesus didn’t abolish the Law of Moses, then are we still under the Law? Paul plainly teaches to the contrary. What could Jesus have possibly meant?
When RVL studied in a Jewish seminary, his professors would return his papers with either of two grades: lekayem, meaning fulfill, or batel, meaning abolish, in rabbinic terminology. In other words, to fulfill the Law means to interpret the Law correctly so that it can be lived correctly. To abolish the Law is to incorrectly interpret it — or to interpret it without giving the student what he needs to know to live it.
Lois Tverberg gives a First Century example from Mishnah, Horayot 1:3 —
If the Sanhedrin gives a decision to abolish a law, by saying for instance, that the Torah does not include the laws of Sabbath or idolatry, the members of the court are free from a sin offering if they obey them; but if the Sanhedrin abolishes only one part of a law but fulfills the other part, they are liable.
Jesus is saying that the Sermon on the Mount is a correct interpretation of the Law and the Prophets, in a way that tells us how to live the Law and the Prophets. And this tells us a lot about how to read the Law as Jesus wants it read. Continue reading →