1

Jesus Fulfilled the Law,

but What Does It Mean?

By Dr. Robbert A. Veen Huizen, the Netherlands @ all rights reserved 2008

Summary: In this article I address the reading strategy

that takes the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5 as im-plying materially the same thing as an abrogation. What does it actually mean to fulfill the law in a Jewish con-text? Does it mean: obedience or completion? The expression “fulfilling the law” has been taken as the equivalent of “doing the law,” as in Rom. 2:13. Jesus then came to do the law, to be in ob-edience to all its precepts. Although in general Christians are required to follow their Master, it is argued - on the basis of Acts 17, Galatians 4 and Romans 3 - that the Law has been neutralized by the death of Christ. Though obedient to the Law, Christ was condemned under the Law in order to set all His followers free from the Law.

Others have argued that fulfilling the Law means to uphold the Law as a revelation, thought not as a precept.

2

The text reads like this in Darby's translation: Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.

The expression 'to fulfill takes its meaning ob-

viously from the context, where it is the direct op-posite of 'to make void'. The Greek word katalusai is taken to mean something like: to abrogate; to deny divine authority; to set people free from the obliga-tion to obey the law. To fulfill then can mean many different things: to uphold the validity of the law; to affirm divine authority; to reaffirm the obligation of the people to obey the law. Darby's expression 'to make void' is ambiguous to say the least.

Darby however added a footnote in his translation, explaining that 'fulfilling' does not mean 'obe-dience', but to 'give the fullness of.' In his dispensa-tionalist way of thinking, the Law signifies a system by which God dealt with men, and that system or dispensation pointed toward the divine will and thought that was now revealed in Christ.

So we speak about doing the law - which is now no longer relevant for Christians - or we speak about upholding the relevance of law and prophets as pointing toward the coming of the Messiah. In one respect it doesn't matter whether we speak about fulfilling the Torah as obedience or completion, be-cause in both cases, the Law as a standard for ethics is abrogated.

3

So what does fulfilling the Law really mean? Another way to explain the underlying issue is to make a difference between doing the precepts of the law and upholding it, i.e., maintaining it as a stan-dard even when occasional transgressions against it are committed.

The Greek pleroosai stands closer to the Hebrew le-haqim which means to uphold, to accept as a stan-dard.

That seems to be clear also from the Hebrew use of jaqim in Deut. 27:26, where we have the meaning of upholding (as standard) in order to do. The verse itself conveys a link between two separate. Doing the law implies not just obeying the individual pre-cepts, but doing them with the intent to obey the whole of it.

That certainly is the meaning of meqim in Mishna Pirkei Avot 4:9, which speaks about fulfilling the Torah in poverty.

R. Jonathan said: "Whosoever fulfils the Law in poverty

will at length fulfil it in wealth, and whosoever neglects the Law in wealth will at length neglect it in poverty.

Surely, this does not mean doing all the mitzvoth,

but rather affirming their validity as is obvious from the opposition between 'fulfilling" and 'neglecting.'

The LXX diminishes this impression slightly when it translates the same word in Deut. 27:26 with “con-tinue” (emmenei) and not with fulfill, thereby accen-

4

tuating the required persistence in obedience. It is this LXX translation that may have given rise to Pauls statements about doing the whole of the Law. The Greek does not convey the notion of affirmas-tion of the Law with the same force that the Hebrew word contains.

On this basis we should reach the conclusion that fulfilling the law goes beyond obeying it, and that it has a meaning that cannot be harmonized so simply with Pauls approach to the law in Galatians.

Paul is discussing the issue of the validity of the Law in Galatians where he argues that by accepting the Law, we enter a situation in which transgression of a single law implies breaking the law as such - which in the case of a conscious attempt to break any single precept is quite true and evident. Of course, Paul uses the argument to convince the Ga-latians that they should not try to 'uphold' the Law as a means of salvation. That is why he changes the text a little by adding 'all' to 'things written' which is not in the texts that we have. Besides that, Paul uses a word that Darby correctly translates as 'abide', which implies obedience.

Here is the text of Paul: For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;

for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide (emmenei; meaning to remain) by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10) Paul is making a specific argument here, that we

5

shall deal with later in this series. Suffice it now to say, that his polemic is directed at the notion that 'doing' all of the law' is a means of salvation, which of course, it wasn't, neither in early Christian nor Jewish thinking. The emphasis was on the doing of the law in such a way that it remained obvious that someone was trying to uphold the Law even when accidentally breaking it on occasion.

If we paraphrase the word as 'affirming the validi-ty of the Law by doing it', and keep these two ideas of obedience and affirmation linked together, we cannot take the obedience as something that is only demanded of Christ; nor can we speak about the Law as being affirmed only as a (former) system of Gods dealings with men.

Now in fact, this idea of 'upholding the standard' is exactly how the Aramaic translation of Onqelos interprets the Hebrew 'asah (doing, here “the law”) by connecting it to lehaqim, to uphold, in Deut. 27:26. So when Deut. 27: 26 states:

'Cursed be anyone who does not confirm (jaqiem) the

words of this law by doing (la'asoot) them.' The Targum Onqelos paraphrases that verse like

this: Accursed is the man who confirmeth (jeqajam, from the

same root) not the words of this law to perform (leme'bad;, synonym of the Hebrew 'asah, to do) them.1

6

For Onqelos 'doing' the law did not mean simply to obey its rules, but more generally, to affirm the validity of the law as a system by doing it. This con-firms that 'doing' the law can in itself be intrinsically connected to 'upholding the law.'

That is the way the verse was interpreted within the Jewish tradition. Ramban (in his commentary on the verse) ) explains the phrase to mean that every Jew must accept the validity of the Torah in full and dare not claim that even one of its commandments is not relevant. The curse therefore is not imposed on any Jew who commits a sin, only on one who denies that a part of the Torah is relevant or re-vealed.

The translation with “to uphold” brings it closer to agreement with Rom. 3:31, where Paul states that he is actually establishing the law (but using a form of histemi, to establish).

Furthermore, the LXX2 in 1 K. 1:14 clearly shows that the Greek pleroosai and the Hebrew word for “fulfill” i.e. establish, uphold or affirm were seen as equivalents. The prophet Nathan here announces his intent to come to the king to corroborate the words of Bathsheba.

From all of this it seems clear that Jesus wanted to uphold the Law as a standard for obedience in a Jewish sense. The Greek word derives from the He-brew lehaqim, and suggests the firm connection be-tween upholding the status of the Torah and being obedient to it and not so much the specific sense

7

that Paul gives it in Galatians. Paul is arguing against a specific pagan view, that obedience of the law, i.e. keeping every single law fully, is a means for salvation. Such a view might have been common among proselytes or semi-proselytes.

But maybe it does mean 'obedience'? The meaning of the expression is disputed, howev-er, as we have seen in the first paragraph when we dealt with Darby's translation.

One might argue that fulfilling the law equals doing it, i.e., obeying its precepts individually and all of them is simply the same. Jesus would then be saying that he 'does' the law, and Paul can then say to the Church in Galatians that the law is abrogated because of changed circumstances: Israel after all did not accept Jesus’ gospel and Jesus after all died under the Law as a convicted sinner on the Cross..

The problem is that the Greek has a perfectly sim-ple word for ”doing” the law that you should ex-pect to be used in matthew in stead of this word 'fulfill' (pleroosai). The Greek poiesai is used, e.g., in LXX Deut. 26:16, to translate the Hebrew for “doing” (‘asah) i.e., obeying the law.

That does again suggest that to fulfill means more than to obey or do it. It is hardly likely that doing and fulfilling were seen as equivalents when the LXX takes such pains to differentiate the two.

Another, more popular approach involves putting the expression into connection with the so-called

8

“formula quotations” (Erfüllungszitate) that is an editorial device used by Matthew, where the word for “to fulfill” has the meaning of “to give them their full meaning.” Law and prophets find their deepest significance in the coming of the Messiah, specifically in the way this Messiah acts and in-structs His disciples on matters of law. Fulfilling the Law must then mean that Jesus reveals the true in-tent of the Torah and demonstrates it in action. This messianic authority may on occasion come into con-flict with Pharisaic halakah or even with contempo-rary interpretations of the Torah. But the way of the Messiah makes the Law 'whole', i.e. it makes the goal of the Law transparent again.

In this case, we take the verb pleroosai to have re-ceived its meaning from Matthew’s Christology. But even here, the basic sense of “fulfill” is to corrobo-rate. The expression does not lead us into the arena of Pauline fulfillment-theology that would imply abrogation at the same time. In Matt. 3:15, the ex-pression “to fulfill all righteousness” is used to mean something like “to do everything that is de-manded by the standard of righteousness.” To fulfill the law might then be taken to mean to do the law and uphold it as standard insofar as it, as a written sta-tute, leads to the fulfillment of the divine demand of righ-teousness.

We should notice something else in this context. There is no reference to Jesus as a person who might annul the law here. In stead, we find a straightfor-

9

ward statement about Jesus’ obedience to and in-deed reverence for the Torah.

The Jewish meaning of 'fulfilling the Law' Another approach might be to look more closely at the contents of this notion of fulfilling by trying to figure out what its particular usage might have been within 1st-century Judaism.

As we said earlier, we can infer from the opposi-tion between katalusai (to annul) and pleroosai that to fulfill does mean to uphold, to affirm its authority. This idea is strengthened when we examine further connotations that are implied in these terms.

As a technical term, pleroosai also denotes a process of interpretation whereby individual laws are ex-plained in such a way that they serve the goal of the whole body of law, i.e., establish justice.

Another meaning of the word that plays into this, is that of completion. When a road e.g. is “fulfilled”, it is possible to reach ones destination by travelling it. The Torah is understood as a road to life, and fulfilling it might mean to apply it in such a way, that this goal is reached.

Since we are now seeking a pattern of thought, and not historical dependency, even relatively late texts might provide us with valuable clues.

A passage in BMakkoth 23b-24a might help us out here. R. Simlai opens a discussion with a statement that God gave Moses 613 commandments. David summarized (reduced) these 613 to eleven basic

10

precepts in Psalm 15 (24a). The Psalm ends with the statement: “He that does these things will not be moved.” Now this does not mean that David an-nulled 600 commandments, but it does mean that the manifold of commandments were seen as being derived from a lesser number of major command-ments, that could be regarded (a) as basic ethical requirements and (b) as fundamental ways of inter-preting and doing all other commandments.

Beyond that, (c) anyone who was able to perform these commandments with the fundamental con-centration on doing God’s will that was required (what the Rabbis called “kawanah”) would merit the world to come. So the eleven moral demands David enumerated (which are not all part of the list of 613) form the basis of obedience to all of the 613 precepts.

Rabban Gamliel then remarks that only someone who can practice all of these precepts can merit the world to come, but he is refuted: the text simply states “these,” i.e., any of these, and does not say “all of these.” So the merit of the world to come is already earned by practicing merely one of the ethi-cal requirements mentioned by David with the re-quired concentration, and it will be that obedience (which does not imply a rejection of the other 613 commandments) which brings salvation.

At the end of the passage, Amos 5:4 is quoted as indicating that obedience to God (“And seek me and you shall live”) is the fundamental “ethical”

11

requirement that will bring salvation. The Gemara refutes this by quoting Rav Nachman b. Isaac as saying that this ”seek Me” effectively includes all the 613 precepts and can therefore not be called a “reduction.” The Gemara then offers another text: Hab. 2:14, “the righteous will live through his faith.” It is not difficult to see how similar in reason-ing, though different in result, this is from the text we have in Romans 1:16, 17. Could it not be that fulfilling the law is functionally the equivalent of a fundamental ethical requirement, as well as a her-meneutical perspective within which the precepts should be applied?

To fulfill the law must then mean to uphold it by effectively obeying it in accordance with its most general principle, expressed in and as the summary of the law. Matthew now expresses the righteous-ness that is the inner standard of the law as written statute as the double commandment upheld in a specific community.

In Matthews version, this most general principle involved (1) the basic principle and hermeneutic perspective of the law as explained by Christ, i.e., love for God and neighbor, and more particularly the nature of the eschatological community as de-fined by the introductory Beatitudes; (2) the authori-ty of the Messiah to formulate absolutely binding halakhot while at the same relegating the formal rab-binic authority to the community “assembled in His name.” (Matthew 18)

12

The messianic authority as shared by the Church is in fact in itself a sign of the new Messianic era. In this respect, the anti-Pharisaic address in chapter 25 serves as a corollary to Jesus’ Messianic status, be-cause it shows that the rabbinic decisions were be-ing made by men. It is the interpretation of the To-rah as 'civil law' that is deeply flawed according to Jesus' remarks in the Sermon on the mount. The full intent of the Torah is being established in the Mes-sianic Kingdom because here it will be manifest that indeed the Laws of God lead to the enhancement of life.

The Pharisees according to Matthew were unable themselves to “fulfill” the law in many respects. Though they kept its rules and regulations, they did not uphold the real authority of the Torah. They were shown to be the opposite of Jesus as the one who through His death had shown the ultimate sacrifice in the service of God and His fellow-men, thereby ultimately demonstrating the absolute au-thority He had used in matters of law-exegesis. Through his teachings, His death and resurrection, Jesus upheld the authority of the Law by bringing it to its conclusion in a life saving act. The Law was complete because it was now part of the Messianic age where it could become a road to life in stead of being an excuse for sin or a standard that con-demned.

13

Footnotes 1 The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee, by J. W. Etheridge, M.A., First Published 1862. http://www.targum.info/?page_id=8 2 The Greek translation of the Old Testament.