Q: In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law but in Luke 16:16, Jesus says, The Law and the prophets were until John. Isnt this a contradiction? When, if ever, did the Law cease to be in force? And what about the statements of Paul in Romans 7:4-6 and Ephesians 2:15 and elsewhere which convey that Christians are free to completely disregard the Old Testament laws?
A: Im going to paint some scenery in the background before getting to the main point. In the broad sweep of Biblical history, the covenant of the Law is analogous to an egg, and the covenant of grace is analogous to a chick hatched from it. After the egg hatches, the time for sitting on the egg is over. Jesus did not come to destroy the egg; He came to hatch the egg.
The beginning of the end of the incubation-period occurred when Jesus began His ministry and was baptized by John the Baptist. This does not mean that the Law disappeared as the new covenant began to be enacted. It means that when John the Baptist and Jesus were preaching about the kingdom of God, there were at that point more than one way to get right with God. The covenant with Israel was still in force -- every bit of it -- but through John and Jesus, God was introducing a new covenant which would be implemented directly on a personal level.
Another analogy: a student goes to school. He lives according to the rules in the Student Handbook. Then he graduates. After that point, the Student Handbooks applicability to the graduate is nil except for the material in the Student Handbook that overlaps the law of the land. Similarly, Israel had lived under the Law, the old covenant, but Jesus introduced the new covenant of grace, under which each individual learns some law, but is purified and forgiven and cleansed in Gods sight by grace, not by law-keeping. But there was a brief period -- sort of like the period between the last day of school and the day of the graduation-ceremony -- in which both covenants co-existed. Its during that period that Jesus maintained that the Law should be kept in its entirety.
Theres an important phrase at the end of Matthew 5:18 that somehow was not highlighted in the SABs presentation: till all be fulfilled. This is pretty important, because it indicates the historical setting of the saying -- which profoundly influenced how the early church understood and applied this passage. The idea is that /at that time/ -- that is, during Jesus ministry -- Jesus affirmed that the Law, as a covenant between God and Israel, was still in place, and would continue to be in place in every respect until all is fulfilled. As the covenant of grace was being introduced during the ministry of Christ; there was a period of overlap between the era of the Law (as a covenant between God and Israel as a whole) and the era of the new covenant (between God and individual penitents).
The first part of Luke 16:16 is notable for its lack of a verb; the idea that should be harvested from the text is not merely that the Law and the Prophets existed until John, but that the Law and the Prophets were *the* covenant about which one should be concerned until John. A similar construction may be found in John 7:39 (ignore the italicized word given in the KJV, which the translators inserted), ( --Btw, the NRSV gets a little wacky in John 7:39, completely mis-rendering the pertinent phrase. -- ) where John comments, For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. The idea is not that Gods Spirit did not yet /exist/ -- Gods Spirit was present in Genesis 1 and is mentioned oodles of times in the Old Testament -- but that the Spirit did not, at that time, operate as He was to operate later, after Jesus was glorified. Similarly, in Luke 16:16, its the Laws mode of operation, not its existence, that is in view.
And now the foreground:
Matthew 5:18 means that the covenant of the Law would be in force until everything was fulfilled and the Law had served its primary purpose. This was done when Jesus rose again. Luke 16:16 means that the Law was the only covenant in force until the days of John the Baptist. (Technically, one should say that the Law was the /paramount/ covenant in force until the days of John the Baptist, since God was still relating to non-Jews on the basis of preceding dispensations, but thats another subject.) Theres no discord between these two statements, because of the existence of a short overlapping period when the kingdom of God was proclaimed by John and by Jesus.
In Romans 7:4-6 and Ephesians 2:15, and elsewhere (Galatians 5:18, for instance), Paul does not exactly teach that Christians are free to completely disregard the Old Testament laws. He teaches that Christians are completely released from the covenant of the Law, because they have entered the covenant of grace. This distinction may seem like a quibble, but I think it is important to notice because there are various commandments in the Law which are reiterated under the new covenant -- various responsibilities which are incumbent upon people under either covenant. (And the next section of the Sermon on the Mount mentions some of them.)
(Sub-question: what is a jot or tittle? -- By jot Jesus probably meant the Hebrew letter yodh, the smallest of the Hebrew letter-characters, and by tittle He refers to letter-extensions or serifs.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Im going to paint some scenery in the background before getting to the main point. In the broad sweep of Biblical history, the covenant of the Law is analogous to an egg, and the covenant of grace is analogous to a chick hatched from it. After the egg hatches, the time for sitting on the egg is over. Jesus did not come to destroy the egg; He came to hatch the egg.
The beginning of the end of the incubation-period occurred when Jesus began His ministry and was baptized by John the Baptist. This does not mean that the Law disappeared as the new covenant began to be enacted. It means that when John the Baptist and Jesus were preaching about the kingdom of God, there were at that point more than one way to get right with God. The covenant with Israel was still in force -- every bit of it -- but through John and Jesus, God was introducing a new covenant which would be implemented directly on a personal level.
Another analogy: a student goes to school. He lives according to the rules in the Student Handbook. Then he graduates. After that point, the Student Handbooks applicability to the graduate is nil except for the material in the Student Handbook that overlaps the law of the land. Similarly, Israel had lived under the Law, the old covenant, but Jesus introduced the new covenant of grace, under which each individual learns some law, but is purified and forgiven and cleansed in Gods sight by grace, not by law-keeping. But there was a brief period -- sort of like the period between the last day of school and the day of the graduation-ceremony -- in which both covenants co-existed. Its during that period that Jesus maintained that the Law should be kept in its entirety.
Theres an important phrase at the end of Matthew 5:18 that somehow was not highlighted in the SABs presentation: till all be fulfilled. This is pretty important, because it indicates the historical setting of the saying -- which profoundly influenced how the early church understood and applied this passage. The idea is that /at that time/ -- that is, during Jesus ministry -- Jesus affirmed that the Law, as a covenant between God and Israel, was still in place, and would continue to be in place in every respect until all is fulfilled. As the covenant of grace was being introduced during the ministry of Christ; there was a period of overlap between the era of the Law (as a covenant between God and Israel as a whole) and the era of the new covenant (between God and individual penitents).
The first part of Luke 16:16 is notable for its lack of a verb; the idea that should be harvested from the text is not merely that the Law and the Prophets existed until John, but that the Law and the Prophets were *the* covenant about which one should be concerned until John. A similar construction may be found in John 7:39 (ignore the italicized word given in the KJV, which the translators inserted), ( --Btw, the NRSV gets a little wacky in John 7:39, completely mis-rendering the pertinent phrase. -- ) where John comments, For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. The idea is not that Gods Spirit did not yet /exist/ -- Gods Spirit was present in Genesis 1 and is mentioned oodles of times in the Old Testament -- but that the Spirit did not, at that time, operate as He was to operate later, after Jesus was glorified. Similarly, in Luke 16:16, its the Laws mode of operation, not its existence, that is in view.
And now the foreground:
Matthew 5:18 means that the covenant of the Law would be in force until everything was fulfilled and the Law had served its primary purpose. This was done when Jesus rose again. Luke 16:16 means that the Law was the only covenant in force until the days of John the Baptist. (Technically, one should say that the Law was the /paramount/ covenant in force until the days of John the Baptist, since God was still relating to non-Jews on the basis of preceding dispensations, but thats another subject.) Theres no discord between these two statements, because of the existence of a short overlapping period when the kingdom of God was proclaimed by John and by Jesus.
In Romans 7:4-6 and Ephesians 2:15, and elsewhere (Galatians 5:18, for instance), Paul does not exactly teach that Christians are free to completely disregard the Old Testament laws. He teaches that Christians are completely released from the covenant of the Law, because they have entered the covenant of grace. This distinction may seem like a quibble, but I think it is important to notice because there are various commandments in the Law which are reiterated under the new covenant -- various responsibilities which are incumbent upon people under either covenant. (And the next section of the Sermon on the Mount mentions some of them.)
(Sub-question: what is a jot or tittle? -- By jot Jesus probably meant the Hebrew letter yodh, the smallest of the Hebrew letter-characters, and by tittle He refers to letter-extensions or serifs.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
