Christians: How do you explain this feature of Jesus' teaching?

[vulcanlogician]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Ok. Got it. The Torah (or Law) is to remain unedited and in tact. The Law as it is written will remain unaltered.

But then Jesus says in 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil."

There are quite examples where Jesus quotes the Law verbatim.... and then says "but I teach [something else]"

Aren't each of these some kind of "jot" or some kind of "tittle" of the Law that Jesus is apparently editing, revising, or changing in some way?

This isn't a "gotcha" type question. I'm curious how Christians reconcile these (seemingly) contradictory passages.

 

[stvdv]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Thank you for sharing this quote
Seems strange English to me "that I am come..." instead of "I have come..."

To me this only makes sense if "I Am...." means "I Am = God's Name"

Another example that comes to mind is:
Jesus said "I Am (God), the way etc."

 

[mangalavara]

Although I am not a Christian, I would like to offer a reconciliation of what you stated are seemingly contradictory passages.

Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

The most important idea in this passage is fulfillment. Fulfilling the law and the prophets is something that Jesus intended to do in his life. It might sound like he meant that he would do all the commandments in the law (which would be impossible) and bring about everything that was promised in the prophets all in his lifetime. In actuality, he meant that he would fulfill what he believed the law and prophets said about himself in particular (Luke 24:27). So, when he says that no jot or tittle shall be removed from the law, it is in the context of him fulfilling all that he believed was written about himself in the law. If the law and prophets suddenly vanished, how could he fulfill what they say about him? The phrase ‘Till heaven and earth pass’ and so on is a figure of speech. He means something like, ‘It’s going to happen come hell or high water.’

There are quite examples where Jesus quotes the Law verbatim.... and then says "but I teach [something else]"

When it comes to the law, Jesus quotes its commandments verbatim, and then sometimes he tells his audience what they should do instead. It’s not so much that he is changing the law as it is that he is teaching a new way of life to his audience. Notice that there is nothing about a scribe writing ‘Torah Second Edition?’ The law remained in existence so that he might fulfill what he believed it said about himself.

To summarize, Jesus said with a strong promise that he came to fulfill what the law and prophets said about himself. For that reason, the law could not vanish. When quoting commandments and sometimes advising what to do instead, he was not literally changing the law but offering a new way of life to his audience.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Seems strange English to me "that I am come..." instead of "I have come..."

That's mainly because I used KJV, because it is in the public domain. I use adblock, and Biblegateway was formerly my goto source for Christian scriptures. Now they make you remove ad block before you can peruse their site. Bible gateway is awesome, but I have many versions of the Bible on my bookshelf to use for study. I just went to the KJV, so I could (lazily) copy/paste the text.

I'm sure that NIV and other translations have it as "I have come."

Now Jesus, especially in the Gospel of John, does in fact use the term "I AM" in order to associate himself with divinity. But, as far as I know, he does not do this in Mathew, Mark, or John.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The most important idea in this passage is fulfillment. Fulfilling the law and the prophets is something that Jesus intended to do in his life.

I liked your analysis. Maybe some of the Bible fans we have on this site can comment on what is exactly meant by "fulfil."

In one sense, Jesus might be saying that the law is "fulfilled" as in-- it has served its purpose. But then we get the jot and tittle remark which seems to suggest that Jesus means "the law still stands."

All these passages are found in the book of Matthew, which is my favorite Gospel. (Mark is my second fave). I'm not a Christian either. But I am quite fond of the synoptic Gospels. I am aware that Jesus isn't trying to revise the Torah, but it is rather unclear what Jesus' position is on keeping the law. Throughout the Gospels he makes some (seemingly) contradictory declarations of the law. Once he names two laws (found in Deuteronomy) as being "greater" than the rest of the Law.

It's a huge quagmire of theology to figure out a doctrine of Jewish Law according to Jesus, that's why I wanted to confine this conversation to Matthew if it is at all possible to do so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Ok. Got it. The Torah (or Law) is to remain unedited and in tact. The Law as it is written will remain unaltered.

But then Jesus says in 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil."

There are quite examples where Jesus quotes the Law verbatim.... and then says "but I teach [something else]"

Aren't each of these some kind of "jot" or some kind of "tittle" of the Law that Jesus is apparently editing, revising, or changing in some way?

This isn't a "gotcha" type question. I'm curious how Christians reconcile these (seemingly) contradictory passages.

I find many contradictions in scripture and am often troubled by them. Certainly, I count them among the reasons I do not follow a blanket literal interpretation.

I agree with @mangalavara about fulfillment of the law by the presence of Jesus being the most important theme of these passages. But I'm not so certain that 5:38-39 is an example of a typical biblical contradiction. An eye for an eye is the law. But it is also a metaphor for the punishment fitting the crime. I see this as an instance where Jesus in counselling turn the other cheek and not seek revenge using the law as an excuse. Don't take the law into your own hands. And He is doing so without subverting or rewriting the judicial position of the law. I think He is telling us to de-escalate those situations on a personal level. Telling us not to go after those evil people that have harmed us or we will, in our turn, embrace and foster that evil.

 

[Brian2]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Ok. Got it. The Torah (or Law) is to remain unedited and in tact. The Law as it is written will remain unaltered.

But then Jesus says in 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil."

There are quite examples where Jesus quotes the Law verbatim.... and then says "but I teach [something else]"

Aren't each of these some kind of "jot" or some kind of "tittle" of the Law that Jesus is apparently editing, revising, or changing in some way?

This isn't a "gotcha" type question. I'm curious how Christians reconcile these (seemingly) contradictory passages.

Many Christians find it hard to understand what Jesus meant by what He is quoted as saying in Matthew (mainly). I find it hard.
Certainly the prophecies remain till fulfilled.
The Law also remains for a Christian but is in a different form in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is also in the Torah and tells us of God sending His Spirit into people, and Law being written in our hearts. The Law is fulfilled in those who love God and neighbour, and love is meant to have been what sums up the law and prophets (the law and the prophets also being the teachings found in other parts of the OT apart from the Law of Moses).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I liked your analysis. Maybe some of the Bible fans we have on this site can comment on what is exactly meant by "fulfil."

In one sense, Jesus might be saying that the law is "fulfilled" as in-- it has served its purpose. But then we get the jot and tittle remark which seems to suggest that Jesus means "the law still stands."

All these passages are found in the book of Matthew, which is my favorite Gospel. (Mark is my second fave). I'm not a Christian either. But I am quite fond of the synoptic Gospels. I am aware that Jesus isn't trying to revise the Torah, but it is rather unclear what Jesus' position is on keeping the law. Throughout the Gospels he makes some (seemingly) contradictory declarations of the law. Once he names two laws (found in Deuteronomy) as being "greater" than the rest of the Law.

It's a huge quagmire of theology to figure out a doctrine of Jewish Law according to Jesus, that's why I wanted to confine this conversation to Matthew if it is at all possible to do so.

I can tell you what I think fulfill means.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy. He is not the warrior king that had become the popular expectation, but he is the messiah that would lead Israel and bring them to God in faithfulness. He fulfilled the law by surpassing it as the key to salvation without eliminating it. In essence the law will not get you into Heaven, but by accepting Christ as your savior you would want to follow the law without needing to. In other words, a person possessed of Christs salvation wouldn't want to do the things that were proscribed by law.

That is my limited interpretation of what fulfillment means. Others may have a better notion of it than I do.

 

[vulcanlogician]

That is my limited interpretation of what fulfillment means. Others may have a better notion of it than I do.

That's very similar to what I hear when I read the verses. But I just wanted to hear what each Christian thinks when he tries to interpret the passage. I'm not out to get the "correct" interpretation here. (I personally question if Jesus's remarks were ever meant to coalesce into a untitary theology as many presume.) I'm just happy to hear people's thoughts on the matter. So thanks, Dan.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Thank you for sharing this quote
Seems strange English to me "that I am come..." instead of "I have come..."

To me this only makes sense if "I Am...." means "I Am = God's Name"

Another example that comes to mind is:
Jesus said "I Am (God), the way etc."

I can tell you what I think fulfill means.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy. He is not the warrior king that had become the popular expectation, but he is the messiah that would lead Israel and bring them to God in faithfulness. He fulfilled the law by surpassing it as the key to salvation without eliminating it. In essence the law will not get you into Heaven, but by accepting Christ as your savior you would want to follow the law without needing to. In other words, a person possessed of Christs salvation wouldn't want to do the things that were proscribed by law.

That is my limited interpretation of what fulfillment means. Others may have a better notion of it than I do.

Maybe that’s what Jesus will do soon. Lead Israel to faithfulness and bring them out of the dark they’re in today. Maybe he’s doing it now. I hope he is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe that’s what Jesus will do soon. Lead Israel to faithfulness and bring them out of the dark they’re in today. Maybe he’s doing it now. I hope he is.

I pray that something does, but I don't know what or who it will be.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

According to Matthew 5:17, Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Ok. Got it. The Torah (or Law) is to remain unedited and in tact. The Law as it is written will remain unaltered.

But then Jesus says in 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, y‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil."

There are quite examples where Jesus quotes the Law verbatim.... and then says "but I teach [something else]"

Aren't each of these some kind of "jot" or some kind of "tittle" of the Law that Jesus is apparently editing, revising, or changing in some way?

This isn't a "gotcha" type question. I'm curious how Christians reconcile these (seemingly) contradictory passages.

IMHO, Most Christians try very hard to forget this passage. Heck, if they accepted it, what would it mean except having to keep the law? Rather, Christians' opt for Paul's teachings over Jesus'.

 

[mangalavara]

In one sense, Jesus might be saying that the law is "fulfilled" as in-- it has served its purpose. But then we get the jot and tittle remark which seems to suggest that Jesus means "the law still stands."

‘One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ Suppose he plays a role in the law’s purpose being served as his way of fulfilling the law. If by the jot and tittle remark he means that the law still stands, that may imply that the law would have a new purpose or function. This would work if the word till is not used in the way that we normally do but rather in the sense of emphasizing the first clause. For example, ‘I am with you always, till the end of the age.’ I think the first clause is being emphasized instead of him meaning something like, ‘I am with you all the time, but I’ll leave you when the age ends.’

All these passages are found in the book of Matthew, which is my favorite Gospel. (Mark is my second fave).

I always liked them in that order, too.

I am aware that Jesus isn't trying to revise the Torah, but it is rather unclear what Jesus' position is on keeping the law.

It is unclear even in Matthew, yes.