Jesus Fulfilled the Law. But What Does That Mean?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ThyKingdomComeSoon

Well-known member
Apr 1, 2023
974
596
93
#21
I wrote this about two years ago. It is a summary about how we are to regard the law as those in Christ.

The covenant that would have made priests and kings of the Jewish people was the the one God made with God, the promise of which was given to Abraham. The covenant at Sinai was between the people present and God. God kept His end of the deal but the Jews did not. This incurred an indebtedness the Jews could not pay therefore, they became slaves: their lives was the only thing they possesed that they could give.

Let's look at Galatians, chapter 4, it's very clear here: Because the Jews were slaves they could never be sons. Remember: Paul is writing to believers in Christ.

Galatians 4 “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.”

Now note the references to Hagar and Sarah are references in terms of their liberty. Hagar is a slave; Sarah is a free woman, and that sets up the matter of the status of their sons. Abraham’s son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way. That means she could have children, she belonged to Abraham, was a member of his household as a slave, so she could have children to Abraham.
But the son by the free woman was born as a result of promise.

Now I said that the covenant of sonship, which was the first covenant, is between God and God and Abraham was the third party beneficiary, Abraham received the promise but he did not have to keep any part of the deal. This is like when a child shows up in a marriage and is born into a house of godly order. The child benefits from the covenant of marriage but was not part of it.

There was a promise made to Abraham. He was not entitled to sonship; it was a promise that God made to himself, He attached this promise to the lineage of Abraham. So that is the difference: born as a result of promise vs born the natural way.

The passage says "These things may be taken figuratively". When the Bible says you may take something figuratively that is because it intends for you to take it figuratively. So, what's the figure of speech?

The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mt. Sinai. Which covenant is that? Unmistakably this is the law. It was enacted at Mt. Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves. And notice how the references flip:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!


We read this as Sarah because she was a barren woman but let's read on...

Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”


Hold on, "she who has a husband" is also Sarah. That is because this is regarding children of promise. Hagar had no right to benefit from the promise of sonship through Abraham, BUT Hagar, representing the barren woman not connected to the spiritual promise, will have more children of promise than those who come naturally through Sarah.

Moses said it in Deuteronomy, chapter 5. “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, He has made it with us who are alive here at the mountain today.” The Law governed the relationship between God with the Jews. Now God would always keep his covenant, but the Jews would not. Therefore there arose an indebtedness under the law which, in order to satisfy that indebtedness, the Jews had to be converted from human beings to property to satisfy this. And they changed their status from being free people to the status of being slaves.

“One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.”

You must understand what an insult this would have been to the Jews and what an insult it would be to Jews today and to those people who are Judaizers among the people of God. It is a popular thing today to be a Judaizer but the danger that it is, is that it turns sons with liberty back to slavery and you lose your rights of sonship once you become a slave. Nevertheless, the natural children of Sarah and Abraham, the Jews, are the actual slaves if they remain under the law.

Now Hagar stands for Mt. Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem.” At the point at which Paul was saying this, Jerusalem had not fallen so he was saying Mt. Sinai corresponds to Hagar because the children of the law are going to be made into slaves and that ties into the present city of Jerusalem with the Temple and with the worship associated with the Temple. And it says this about all of that: “She is in slavery with her children.”

Now for all of those who would go under the law, especially if you are a believer, never under the law, if you would go under the law this is what you have done. You have traded your liberty in Christ for the status of a slave. You have gone from a relationship of grace, the grace of sonship, to the restrictions of the law, which you can never keep. And because you cannot keep the law you have traded your place in the house of God for that of a slave—that’s what you have done because the law is only capable of making you into a slave. Now that’s what Paul is saying here when it says, “But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.”

Now here it gets to be amazingly plain. Galatian 3:15, this lays out everything that I’ve been saying. It lays out the fact that God began creation with a promise of sonship, a covenant that He swore to Himself. That covenant pre-existed the Law and is known as a covenant. God attaches this covenant to Abraham and promises his descendents that they would be his heirs. At Mount Sinai, He offers this covenant to the Jews, promising to make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They elected not to, because that would have required them to go up into the presence of God, which, when they refused to, then God gave them the law. The law was between them and God because they couldn’t keep the law; the law made them a slave. God kept the law; they refused to keep it; they were made into slaves. But here the Scriptures line all of this out for us.

This is not a mystery. I would challenge anyone to read the following verses and say that believers are still to follow the law.

Galatians, chapter 3 beginning at verse 15,

“Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later…” Later than than this promise to Abraham. The law..., “…does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator” (the mediator was Moses.)

“A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not!

For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.”

What are we then?

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” And then he says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

So first God promised the Jews sonship. They would have been refined in the presence of God on Sinai. But they refused sonship; they were put under the law, but, because they couldn’t keep the law, they became slaves. The law on Mount Sinai arrived 430 years after the original covenant was made. God first made a covenant with himself and then ratified that covenant with Abraham. That was the existing covenant.

That’s why God would have brought them up to Mount Sinai to have entered that covenant. When they rejected that covenant, then God gave them the law, which made them into slaves. He could hold them under the restrictions of the law until the Seed should come but once the Seed came He fulfilled the law. Once the Law was fulfilled there is no benefit of the Law for those in Christ. Sons are now led by the Spirit of God. He is our Father. If you say that the “do and don’ts” of the Law (which include the 10 Commandments) are your direction for life then you have agreed to a slave’s wage; you are not thinking as a son. Furthermore, no one who thinks this way (a transactional relationship in the Law vs one of love and sameness in the Spirit) can please God.
Thank you Brother Aaron, I have to go but will be back on Monday a friend needs help, I will reply then.

Blessings.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,776
113
#22
if you do that, you are actually fulfilling the intention of the LAW, even though, the LAW, just shows us our SIN, it's not a way for Salvation.
The Law is not limited to just showing us our SIN, but it does do that.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,429
6,707
113
#25
what I will explain to you is something I learned the hard way, who to believe and why and what to do in the case of a
discrepancy.

First it is evident that many here come from different denominations, I was raised as a Catholic in the province of Quebec. I do not know all the denominations as there are too many and they all differ in many ways. But I know that catholics and other demonimations do not follow proper scriptures, have twister it's meaning, The Written word of GOD from the Bible should be our PRIMARY source!

Second, as you know there are some differences between the gospel of Paul ( Yes, Paul said he preached HIS own gospel ) and the gospel of Jesus about the good news of the kingdom of heaven. I fear many forget the words of Christ and place Paul words before Jesus's words which is a terrible mistake to make. In the case of a difference in meaning, one must give precedence to the words of the old testament and Jesus, this is a well known fact. I have learned this during my personal bible studies. I am certain of this In case of a discrepancy in meaning, Jesus written word win over Paul's. Jesus came to teach the law the proper way. Are Jesus followers of that time greater than the creator (GOD) of all things?

As for GAl 5:14, It is a teaching of Jesus that the law comes from first, the love of GOD our Father in heaven ( the first 4 commandments) then to again LOVE one another ( the last 6 commandments ) it is close to what jesus was teaching but not quite the same, Paul omitting ( surely not intentionally ) the love for GOD above all else. This is why we must compare to Jesus's teaching and place Jesus teachings first in case of a difference. Again on Rom 13:8-10, no mention to love God First from the first 4 commandments, another unintentional omission?
from Mark chapter 12;

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Thank you for these prefect examples in Gal and Rom that validate what I wrote about always putting the words of the Jesus, Messiah first!
Luk 6:39 And he spake a simile to them, 'Is blind able to lead blind? shall they not both fall into a pit?
Luk 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one perfected shall be as his teacher.

Blessings!
Amen, we should always stand upon the Rock.. Merci bien..
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,314
3,618
113
#26
It means we're no longer under law—including the ten laws written is stone. It means we obey the Holy Spirit, not the letter of the law. It means Christ is our Savior, not our works. It mean we no longer walk in condemnation, which is the fate of all those who try to be justified by works.
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,294
4,340
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
#27
I Timothy 1

6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,477
13,421
113
58
#28
It means we're no longer under law—including the ten laws written is stone. It means we obey the Holy Spirit, not the letter of the law. It means Christ is our Savior, not our works. It mean we no longer walk in condemnation, which is the fate of all those who try to be justified by works.
2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,314
3,618
113
#29
I Timothy 1

6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine
What does this have to do with Jesus fulfilling the law? Can you translate please?
 

Walter

Well-known member
Jul 20, 2022
1,282
597
113
77
Washington
firstthings1sttab.tripod.com
#30
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
What does this mean? What is the relationship between Jesus’ teaching and the Old Testament? Three ideas require definition here.
The phrase “the Law or the Prophets” is a common way of referring to the Old Testament, Israel’s Bible in Jesus’ day. The “Law” comprised the first five books of the OT, and the “Prophets” captured the rest (see also Luke 24:27).
The word “abolish” means “invalidate.” Jesus did not come to “do away with” or “repeal” the OT.1 Jesus respected the authority of the Law and the Prophets.

The word “fulfill” is the hinge on which the meaning of this verse turns. While it’s tempting to read this as a reference to Jesus’ obedience to the law, the verb translated “fulfill” did not mean “obey.” Rather, the word “fulfill” meant to bring to a designed goal, to fill up and complete, to bring to full expression. Jesus was declaring that he fulfilled the prophecies and even the patterns of Scripture; he showed forth their true meaning.
This interpretation is consistent with how Matthew uses the word “fulfill” in the opening chapters of his Gospel. Jesus’ virgin birth “fulfills” the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (Matt 1:22–23) and also “fulfills” the pattern of the expectation of a divine ruler who will bring about God’s salvation (Isa 7–12). The slaughter of the innocents under Herod “fulfills” the pattern established in Jeremiah 31:15 when the mothers of Israel wept at Judah’s exile (Matt 2:17–18).
Matthew writes that Jesus’ deliverance from Herod “fulfills” Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son” (2:15). In Hosea’s original context, that sentence is just a historical statement referring to the Exodus. How then does Jesus fulfill it? Because Jesus fulfills the historical pattern of God rescuing his “Son” from danger (see Exod 4:22). The same could be said of the wordplay in Matthew 2:23: Jesus’ humble origins in Nazareth fulfill the OT theme of the Messiah’s humble origins (e.g., Isa 11:1).
Therefore, Jesus fulfills the specific prophecies of the Old Testament, and he also fulfills the storyline of the whole OT. That is why he represents Israel when he is baptized and then, like Israel, goes into the wilderness—though, unlike Israel, not because of disobedience. No, Christ perfectly obeys in our place. Like Moses going up Mount Sinai, Jesus “goes up on the mount” to deliver his famous Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is a new Moses. He has come to show how he “fulfills” the OT story in and by himself.
Jesus therefore has the authority to interpret the Old Testament and its laws, which is just what he goes on to do in Matthew 5:21–48. He hasn’t come to invalidate the Mosaic law, but to show where it was always pointing.
Jesus fulfills—fills out—the entire OT.

Article from Richard Winston link; https://www.logos.com/grow/jesus-fulfilled-the-law-but-what-does-that-mean/

Blessings
Great post ThyKingdomSoon.

Love, Walter And Debbie
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,320
113
mywebsite.us
#31
Matthew 5:

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

In fulfilling the law, Jesus "answered" the 'requirement' of the law. The law itself is not destroyed - only the 'requirement' of the law.

Colossians 2:

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The law still exists - and, is "in full force" - for any who are trusting in it for their salvation.

However, for us, the law "still exists" only in the form of [it being] a/the 'schoolmaster'.

Galatians 3:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

We are not "under" the law.

Romans 6:

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,776
113
#32
In fulfilling the law, Jesus "answered" the 'requirement' of the law. The law itself is not destroyed - only the 'requirement' of the law.
This has no Scriptural basis. Sounds like some kind of mysticism. Also there is a huge difference between DESTROYED and ABOLISHED.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,320
113
mywebsite.us
#33
People always make the mistake of using strong concordance as a dictionary It is not!
You are mistaken.

No - it is not a dictionary, per se; however, it functions as one by virtue of the fact that it defines - in English words (of the period) - what the Greek and Hebrew words mean. Now, it is important to understand that Strongs definitions are given only for the root words and not for every different variation of every word in the Bible. In some cases, when you must obtain a really fine-tuned definition for a word, you also need to consult a good lexicon. However, for many/most cases in general - where the basic/main definition will suffice - it is really good for that.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,320
113
mywebsite.us
#34
The word “abolish” means “invalidate.”
The Greek word (translated 'destroy' in the KJV) means "to demolish" and not "invalidate"; a corrupt Bible version (and/or concordance/lexicon) is used in the article.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,320
113
mywebsite.us
#35
Jesus did not come to “do away with” or “repeal” the OT.
"do away with" (completely) - no; "repeal" - in a sense, yes - so that we are not bound by it.

"do away with" in the same sense as "repeal" - yes.

You see - He did not 'destroy' it - but, He did - in a sense - 'invalidate' it.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,834
4,320
113
mywebsite.us
#38
This has no Scriptural basis.
Show me in scripture where the requirement of the law exists for Christians.

The Law is not limited to just showing us our SIN, but it does do that.
How does it do that if it has been destroyed (or, "done away with") and no longer exists?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,776
113
#39
Show me in scripture where the requirement of the law exists for Christians.
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,429
6,707
113
#40
what I will explain to you is something I learned the hard way, who to believe and why and what to do in the case of a
discrepancy.

First it is evident that many here come from different denominations, I was raised as a Catholic in the province of Quebec. I do not know all the denominations as there are too many and they all differ in many ways. But I know that catholics and other demonimations do not follow proper scriptures, have twister it's meaning, The Written word of GOD from the Bible should be our PRIMARY source!

Second, as you know there are some differences between the gospel of Paul ( Yes, Paul said he preached HIS own gospel ) and the gospel of Jesus about the good news of the kingdom of heaven. I fear many forget the words of Christ and place Paul words before Jesus's words which is a terrible mistake to make. In the case of a difference in meaning, one must give precedence to the words of the old testament and Jesus, this is a well known fact. I have learned this during my personal bible studies. I am certain of this In case of a discrepancy in meaning, Jesus written word win over Paul's. Jesus came to teach the law the proper way. Are Jesus followers of that time greater than the creator (GOD) of all things?

As for GAl 5:14, It is a teaching of Jesus that the law comes from first, the love of GOD our Father in heaven ( the first 4 commandments) then to again LOVE one another ( the last 6 commandments ) it is close to what jesus was teaching but not quite the same, Paul omitting ( surely not intentionally ) the love for GOD above all else. This is why we must compare to Jesus's teaching and place Jesus teachings first in case of a difference. Again on Rom 13:8-10, no mention to love God First from the first 4 commandments, another unintentional omission?
from Mark chapter 12;

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Thank you for these prefect examples in Gal and Rom that validate what I wrote about always putting the words of the Jesus, Messiah first!
Luk 6:39 And he spake a simile to them, 'Is blind able to lead blind? shall they not both fall into a pit?
Luk 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one perfected shall be as his teacher.

Blessings!
It is spiritually refreshing to read of another who understands about learning directly from our Savior, Jesus Yeshua. Equally encouraging and blessing is to hear another voice just how important the Commandment to love God with all our heart, soul and understanding is.
It has always been my blessed understanding that if a person saved does this, he or she is fulfilling all of the law, statues and commandments that are contained in the Love of our Father, under grace and mercy at all times. Forgive my clumsy working, but I believe I am understood. God bless you always.