Not abolish, but fulfill?

A prominent Christian belief is that when Jesus says He came to fulfill the Law & the Prophets that meant He lived according to the Law so that those who trusted in Him wouldn't have to. So He kept the Sabbath, observed the festivals, adhered to dietary laws etc and because He did so, we don't have to. We are "under grace" as they say. Does this really make any sense?

How is it grace to be without the instructions that God purposely created, carefully crafted, and obviously deemed important for His people? God created these instructions and taught them to His people who kept falling away from Him even with the instructions. How much moreso without them? And if the Law is abolished that would mean that God descended to earth as Jesus, lived as an obedient Jew, and left His people with . . . what instructions to follow? The 10 commandments? Those are from the Old Testament. Isn't that part of the Law that they say is done away with?

He left good teaching; He was a perfect and sinless example. But we are mere humans who need all the help we can get to move toward sanctification and discovering God's will and following it in the minute details as God leads. Wouldn't it be beneficial then to have that set of instructions that God deemed perfect and which God in His perfection adhered to?

Could it be that Jesus came to live out the Law perfectly and beautifully to show us the blessing, the sanctifying grace to be found in following God's holy instructions? If so, then He came not to abolish but to fulfill, or bring the Law to its fullness by living it. Could it be that He came to stress His instructions, not remove them. Many say the Law is a burden but those instructions are not burdens. Jesus said "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matthew 11:30). If we view the Law properly and keep it, maybe we will see that the so-called burden of the Law is light (in weight and in brightness of our Spirit: God is light; Jesus, the light of the world), a true blessing.

the Law or the Prophets

Matthew 5:17 "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." (NASB)

What does "the Law or the Prophets" refer to? The Hebrew word for the Old Testament is the Tanakh which is divided into 3 parts:

(1) T: the Law (Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Number, Deuteronomy)

(2) N: the Prophets (Nevi'im - any books related to the prophets, e.g. I & II Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah)

(3) K: the Writings (Ketuvim - books related to history, wisdom & poetry, e.g. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth Esther)

So when Jesus refers to the Law or the Prophets, He was referring to the Scriptures that were in existence at the time of and before His birth. It could easily be written: "I did not come to abolish the Tanakh" or "I did not come to abolish the Hebrew Scriptures."

And whenever "the Law" is mentioned (and notice that it's mentioned many times throughout the Bible), it can rightly be concluded that "the Law" could more accurately be written "Torah."

Shanah Tovah!

Jesus, the Walking Torah?

Jews and Christians have been historically divided for centuries. The main reason for that division is obviously the Christian belief in Jesus as Messiah, what amounts to the Trinity which we'll get to later. But another huge difference is the strong belief, on both sides, that believers in Jesus are not expected to live by Torah. Interesting contradiction when you consider that Torah is a good chunk of the Word of God, right?

And consider that God "spoke" the creation into being (Genesis 1) and that Jesus was the Word: John 1: 14 ~ "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NASB)

The whole thing can be summed up in John 1:1 ~ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But what part of the Word was John referring to? When Jesus and John referred to the Word, there was no New Testament. There was only the Old Testament, as Christians call it, or the Tanakh, as Jews refer to it--or more simply, the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bible says the Word is literally God Himself and Jesus was basically the walking Word. Could we say Walking Torah? Or is the "New Testament" simply a thoughtful, gentler revision of the "Old Testament"?

And so can we rationally say that the "New Testament" (roughly 1/3 of the Scriptures) basically replaces the "Old Testament" as far as in how we live our daily lives? If we believe that the Torah is not for Christians, then that is basically what we are saying. The Word has changed or has it?

Christians, Jews & Torah

For nearly 2000 years, Christians have argued that because Jesus came, the "Old Testament" has passed away--meaning we can and should read the stories, but God does not expect us to really live by any of what we find there. In other words, we are not to follow it like the Jews do. Instead, for Christians, the "New Testament" states how we are supposed to live. And many contend that the New Testament nullifies God's original instructions. (Incidentally, Torah means "instructions".)

And so the Torah, the first five books of both the Jewish and Christian Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy), which God gave His people to live by, has become a bunch of stories and rules that Christians have a hard time reading without nodding off, particularly when you get to Leviticus . . .

What role then should the Torah play in a Christian's life? Has it really passed away? Is it just for Jews? These are questions that many have struggled with over the past 2000 years. And many have a definite answer:

1) the Torah is or was only for the Jews

2) the Torah is also for Christians (believers) today

Which do you agree with and why? Before answering, did you even know what the Torah was? If we aren't familiar with the Torah, can we really have an informed answer?