Some Christians today imagine that they should be keeping Moses' Law, based on statements made by Jesus, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel.
For example, Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it.
He said anyone who did and taught the Law would be called great in the kingdom of heaven; and anyone who broke and taught men to break even the least point of the Law would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
He said that not one jot nor tittle of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled.
Some Christians today take these statements to mean that Christians should be keeping the Law.
But take notice that Jesus also made statements which indicated that the Law was about to be superseded.
For example, while speaking to the woman at the well, He insisted that Jerusalem was, at that time, the place where men ought to worship. That statement upheld the Law. But then He predicted an hour coming when the true worshipers would no longer be required to worship in Jerusalem. That statement shows that the Law was about to be superseded.
Then after His resurrection, Jesus commissioned the apostles to go into all the world and teach all nations all things that He had commanded them. Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus stated that He was not sent but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When He sent the twelve out, He had told them, "Enter not into any city of the Gentiles." But the inclusion of the Gentiles in God's program after His resurrection showed that the Law, which had excluded the Gentiles, was now being superseded.
At the last Passover, Jesus took the cup and stated, "This is the new testament in my blood which is shed for many". He morphed the Old Covenant feast into something new, and included the Gentiles in its scope. What Jesus was instituting was not a new way of keeping the Passover, but something new - the Lord's table - which the Gentile churches observed weekly - "as often as they drank it", as Jesus said - not exclusively in the month of Nisan, when the Passover had been celebrated.
So we see that Jesus on one hand obeyed, taught and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and explained that His ministry at that time was exclusively to the Jews; and on the other hand Jesus also stated that the Law would be superseded by a New Covenant which would include the Gentiles. Both aspects comprise the full package of what Jesus commanded His disciples.
Seeing the apostles were commissioned to teach all nations all things that Jesus had commanded them, it follows that they had to include Jesus' inferences about the Law being superseded - otherwise they wouldn't be teaching all things that Jesus commanded.
Why did Matthew's and John's Gospels emphasise different aspects of Jesus' ministry and doctrine? It's because of their target audience.
Matthew was writing His Gospel for Jews. He showed that Jesus perfectly kept the Law, and taught the true meaning of the Law, and that He xpected the Jews who were still under the Law to keep it at that time.
And Matthew shows how Jesus transformed the Old Covenant and its Law into a New Covenant seamlessly, without ever breaking the requirement of the Law in the process. Instead, Jesus obeyed it literally, fulfilled all of its symbolism, and fulfilled the prophecy contained in the Law of the Law's own replacement by a New Covenant.
The Jews could never have become convinced that Jesus was their Messiah unless they were satisfied that Jesus' had upheld the Law and the Prophets.
John's Gospel didn't make the same attempt to emphasise how Jesus obeyed the Law. This is because John was writing to Gentiles who didn't need to know how Jesus kept the Law in order to be convinced of Jesus' credentials.
John had to repeatedly mention that the Feasts were feasts of the Jews. If the Apostles had been teaching that the churches were to keep the Feasts, John would hardly have had to explain in His Gospel what the feasts were. And he wouldn't have called it a Feast of the Jews, if the feats had already been taught as feasts of the churches too.
Matthew makes little mention of the Gospel being for all nations until near the end. John mentions it from the start, and all the way through.
Matthew repeatedly shows how Jesus kept, taught and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. John repeatedly shows how Jesus came into conflict with the Jewish leaders.
Both records were true of Jesus. He obeyed, taught and fulfilled the Law and Prophets - which included morphing it into a New Covenant which superseded it. This is the whole package of what Jesus modelled and commanded His disciples. And this is the message which they were to teach all nations.
Many Jewish Christians continued keeping the Law for a while, especially in the church in Jerusalem. Some of the Christians who had been converted from a Pharisee background began insisting that the Gentiles keep the Law. But the Apostles stated that they had not authorised them to make any such demand. The Apostles and Elders responded by categorically stating that the Gentiles were not required to keep the Law. Paul taught that the Law had been replaced by a new and better covenant, and stated that it was vanishing away. It did end abruptly when the Temple and city were destroyed in approximately AD70. From then onwards it became forever impossible to comply with the requirements of the Law.
We are under a New Covenant, which happened to have been inaugurated not through a process of breaking the Law, but through the process of Jesus perfectly obeying and fulfilling it.
For example, Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it.
He said anyone who did and taught the Law would be called great in the kingdom of heaven; and anyone who broke and taught men to break even the least point of the Law would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
He said that not one jot nor tittle of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled.
Some Christians today take these statements to mean that Christians should be keeping the Law.
But take notice that Jesus also made statements which indicated that the Law was about to be superseded.
For example, while speaking to the woman at the well, He insisted that Jerusalem was, at that time, the place where men ought to worship. That statement upheld the Law. But then He predicted an hour coming when the true worshipers would no longer be required to worship in Jerusalem. That statement shows that the Law was about to be superseded.
Then after His resurrection, Jesus commissioned the apostles to go into all the world and teach all nations all things that He had commanded them. Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus stated that He was not sent but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When He sent the twelve out, He had told them, "Enter not into any city of the Gentiles." But the inclusion of the Gentiles in God's program after His resurrection showed that the Law, which had excluded the Gentiles, was now being superseded.
At the last Passover, Jesus took the cup and stated, "This is the new testament in my blood which is shed for many". He morphed the Old Covenant feast into something new, and included the Gentiles in its scope. What Jesus was instituting was not a new way of keeping the Passover, but something new - the Lord's table - which the Gentile churches observed weekly - "as often as they drank it", as Jesus said - not exclusively in the month of Nisan, when the Passover had been celebrated.
So we see that Jesus on one hand obeyed, taught and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and explained that His ministry at that time was exclusively to the Jews; and on the other hand Jesus also stated that the Law would be superseded by a New Covenant which would include the Gentiles. Both aspects comprise the full package of what Jesus commanded His disciples.
Seeing the apostles were commissioned to teach all nations all things that Jesus had commanded them, it follows that they had to include Jesus' inferences about the Law being superseded - otherwise they wouldn't be teaching all things that Jesus commanded.
Why did Matthew's and John's Gospels emphasise different aspects of Jesus' ministry and doctrine? It's because of their target audience.
Matthew was writing His Gospel for Jews. He showed that Jesus perfectly kept the Law, and taught the true meaning of the Law, and that He xpected the Jews who were still under the Law to keep it at that time.
And Matthew shows how Jesus transformed the Old Covenant and its Law into a New Covenant seamlessly, without ever breaking the requirement of the Law in the process. Instead, Jesus obeyed it literally, fulfilled all of its symbolism, and fulfilled the prophecy contained in the Law of the Law's own replacement by a New Covenant.
The Jews could never have become convinced that Jesus was their Messiah unless they were satisfied that Jesus' had upheld the Law and the Prophets.
John's Gospel didn't make the same attempt to emphasise how Jesus obeyed the Law. This is because John was writing to Gentiles who didn't need to know how Jesus kept the Law in order to be convinced of Jesus' credentials.
John had to repeatedly mention that the Feasts were feasts of the Jews. If the Apostles had been teaching that the churches were to keep the Feasts, John would hardly have had to explain in His Gospel what the feasts were. And he wouldn't have called it a Feast of the Jews, if the feats had already been taught as feasts of the churches too.
Matthew makes little mention of the Gospel being for all nations until near the end. John mentions it from the start, and all the way through.
Matthew repeatedly shows how Jesus kept, taught and fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. John repeatedly shows how Jesus came into conflict with the Jewish leaders.
Both records were true of Jesus. He obeyed, taught and fulfilled the Law and Prophets - which included morphing it into a New Covenant which superseded it. This is the whole package of what Jesus modelled and commanded His disciples. And this is the message which they were to teach all nations.
Many Jewish Christians continued keeping the Law for a while, especially in the church in Jerusalem. Some of the Christians who had been converted from a Pharisee background began insisting that the Gentiles keep the Law. But the Apostles stated that they had not authorised them to make any such demand. The Apostles and Elders responded by categorically stating that the Gentiles were not required to keep the Law. Paul taught that the Law had been replaced by a new and better covenant, and stated that it was vanishing away. It did end abruptly when the Temple and city were destroyed in approximately AD70. From then onwards it became forever impossible to comply with the requirements of the Law.
We are under a New Covenant, which happened to have been inaugurated not through a process of breaking the Law, but through the process of Jesus perfectly obeying and fulfilling it.
No comments:
Post a Comment