Contradictions in Matthew 5:17-18 and Acts 10:9-16?

[JulesR]

In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and He also said that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18). But in Acts 10:9-16 it describes how Peter received a vision and was told to “kill and eat” (Acts 10:13). Wasn’t it against Jewish law to eat things deemed “unclean”? Wouldn’t telling Peter to eat what was deemed “unclean” be abolishing a part of the law? I’m confused because these two scriptures seem to be contradicting each other but I feel like there’s gotta be something I’m missing.

 

[Sirach2]

Prior to Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the Jews were not to eat certain foods. Jesus corrected Peter who still wanted to follow the law, telling him, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” The three-fold attesting from God was a finality to assure him it was ok.

Glad to have you on board, Jules - welcome!

 

[Bruce_Killian]

he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it

In fulfilling the Law Jesus annulled portions of the law e.g. food laws, circumcision, etc. Peter was given the power to bind a loose, so in Acts 15 much of the food law was officially annulled, just like a marriage is annulled when one spouse dies. Jesus was the one who made the covenant with Moses and His death annulled that covenant.
Grace and peace, Bruce

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Jesus said that the law and the prophets lasted up until John. And the phrase “heaven and earth pass away” is thought to refer to the turning of an age, ie the death of Christ/start of the Church.

So, I believe that Jesus may be referring to something that may be two fold. One is that Jesus is referring to divine law, ie love God and neighbor. Two, it would make sense that even though Jesus said that the law lasted up until John, people were still subject to it until they became a disciple of Jesus??

 

[Ilkka]

The law never changed but the conditions under which certain parts of it apply can change. For example, the Mosaic ceremonial laws are still in place but cannot be applied to temple worship and sacrificial rites since the temple does no longer exist. Other laws concerning jewish customs are in place to separate the priestly people (Israel) from other peoples of the Earth. Those laws don’t apply to gentile Christians since they are not the Old Covenant priestly people but the priestly body of Christ that is separated from the world by the Spirit.

Edit: In addition, the moral laws are still in place as the conditions for those laws to be fulfilled are universally met throughout the Earth. Unlawful killing, stealing, coveting etc are all morally wrong and can be applied universally.

 

[Gorgias]

In fulfilling the Law Jesus annulled portions of the law e.g. food laws, circumcision, etc

No… not annulled. However, they were being attempted to be applied to other people than those to whom they were given. That was the big question: can a Gentile become a follower of Jesus without following all of the Mosaic covenant? The answer was “yes”.

Jesus said that the law and the prophets lasted up until John.

No. Do you have a Scriptural citation and magisterial teaching that asserts this?

And the phrase “heaven and earth pass away” is thought to refer to the turning of an age, ie the death of Christ/start of the Church.

Umm… says who? Do you have a magisterial citation to support that claim?

 

[JulesR]

So, the relation between Matthew 5:17-18 and Acts 10:9-16 would be that Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly in his sacrifice and so sacrifices are no longer necessary? Meaning, Jesus’s death was foreshadowed by the sacrifices of the spotless lambs, but when He sacrificed himself for us then the old sacrifices were fulfilled? So therefore, some of the rules such as not being allowed to eat certain foods and circumcision of baby boys were no longer necessary because they had been fulfilled in the death of Christ? If all this is true, then Jesus hasn’t abolished any part of the law, but rather fulfilled every part of it.

 

[Vico]

In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says that he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, …

Matt 22

35 And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him: 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Also see the Haydock Commentary on Matthew 5

Ver. 17. Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. Wi.
— To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. Ch.
— Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change being made in the letter of the law; more particularly, if the proposed change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways:

1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin?
2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law.
3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. Chry. hom. xvi.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

No… not annulled. However, they were being attempted to be applied to other people than those to whom they were given. That was the big question: can a Gentile become a follower of Jesus without following all of the Mosaic covenant? The answer was “yes”.

I must disagree. In the new covenant there is neither Jew nor gentile. Here are three supporting verses. Romans 10:12 RSV For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.
Galatians 3:28 RSV - 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 RSV - 11 Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth’ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all.
The final passing away of the Jews occurred with the destruction of the Temple. Hebrews 8:13 RSV In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Grace and peace, Bruce

 

[otjm]

There is a difference between a moral law and a disciplinary law; the law concerning certain foods was disciplinary. Adultery is not a disciplinary matter. Not eating pork is disciplinary (and possibly may have been related to the issue of trichinosis - from round worms).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Lk 16:16
“The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence.

Mt 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force.

Umm… says who? Do you have a magisterial citation to support that claim?

These are the footnotes from the Bible on the USCCB website.

Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” ([Is 65:17]

 

[JulesR]

Yes, for sure. And also, the disciplinary laws often foreshadowed the coming of Christ, when he would fulfill the law, such as sacrificing the most spotless lamb. When Christ gave Himself to us on the cross, he fulfilled the sacrifices, the law, and we no longer need to sacrifice lambs because the Lamb of God was the perfect sacrifice, the most spotless and pure.

 

[otjm]

I was taught it so long ago that I do not source it.

Moral law follows (but certainly is not exclusive to) the 10 Commandments.

And given the command to keep holy the Sabbath, some people have problems understanding how it could be that Christ apparently did not. What does not come through the Gospels are the laws as to what could or could not be done on the Sabbath. Those tended to be disciplinary - how many steps one could take, what constituted “work”; they were not the law, but were a way to guide people to keep the law. As such, they could be modified or changed.

As your profile is hidden, I do not know if you are Catholic, but a bit (assuming either you or another reader is not) by way of example: We are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday. By disciplinary law, that has been extended to include a Sunday Mass celebrated on Saturday evening. I do not presume to get into the “why” that was changed to include Saturday evening; one could point to Jewish understanding of “day” as ending at sunset (and I do not propose that was the specific reason for the change).

Catholics are required to fast before receiving the Eucharist. That fast when I was young started at midnight until reception (so, Saturday night before Sunday; Tuesday night midnight before a weekday Mass on Wednesday.

Eventually it was reduced to three hours before Mass (as best I recall - see further), and I suspect that some of that had to do with the fact that many people who went to a Mass later on Sunday (10 a.m. - 11 a.m.) needed to have breakfast . I recall occasionally someone passing out (low blood sugar likely) before that change was made. And now it is one hour before reception of Communion (which means if you are going to a 10:30 Mass, you likely will have eaten before leaving the house, 15 minutes to get to Church, and likely a half hour to 45 minutes before Communion is distributed.

Fasting goes back to pre-Christ times. Whether fasting in and of itself is mandatory I will leave to others; but how long that fast is, is a disciplinary matter.

(continued)

 

[otjm]

(continued)
In the Roman rite, celibacy for priests is a discipline. In the early Church and up to about the 10th century the Roman rite ordained both married men and celibate men; the Eastern rites have had both sine the founding of the Church. And it has been a law that if a married man was ordained and later his wife died, he could not remarry; that, too was disciplinary but had (and still has, within the Eastern rites) an exception for a married priest who still has young children. The Roman rite now has married priests (converts from Protestant communities who were ministers) and there has been recently some discussion of further limited exceptions. Those are disciplinary.

However, priesthood itself is considered a permanent sacrament; that is, “thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek”. A priest may be laicized and no longer act as a priest (no longer say Mass, here confessions, etc.), but he does not cease to be ontologically a priest (and, for example, even if laicized, he could hear confessions and administer the Sacrament of the Sick in an emergency situation). However, other functions of priesthood are disciplinary.

 

[JulesR]

Is there a place one could source the catechism for the difference between disciplinary and moral law?

 

[JulesR]

MasterHaster, you might find the 7th chapter of the book of Romans interesting, Paul talks about freedom from the law(Jewish law). Paul believed that gentile Christians shouldn’t be forced to follow Jewish religious practices, that Christians were free from the law.

 

[JulesR]

Paul wouldn’t have meant freedom from natural/moral law, so he must be talking about being free from having to practice the areas of Jewish law requiring certain practices such as sacrificing a lamb every year or celebrating Passover.

 

[Gorgias]

I must disagree. In the new covenant there is neither Jew nor gentile. Here are three supporting verses.

There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Trust me, if you asked a Jewish person if they’re a Gentile, they’d set you straight on your misunderstanding.

Moreover, inasmuch as we’re talking about Acts 10, what was decided there wasn’t that Jews didn’t have to follow the prescriptions of the Mosaic Covenant – the question was whether Gentiles had to, as well. I appreciate that you disagree, but you’re mistaken on this matter.

These are the footnotes from the Bible on the USCCB website.

Two thoughts:

• footnotes are neither Scripture nor magisterial teaching
• this footnote doesn’t make the claim you have made here

 

[otjm]

From Catholic Answers: Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline? | Catholic Answers

It may not be a satisfactory answer - a short answer is that discipline is what is not doctrine. I don’t find anything listed in the appendix; but for that matter, neither is “doctrine”. Or I looked in the wrong area.

 

[otjm]

A simple answer is that discipline is not doctrine. Doctrine can be refined, but not changed (as in, overturned). Disciplines can be changed or eliminated, or for that matter, created. One created would be the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. And it could be withdrawn. That is not doctrinal, and for sure it didn’t exist when I started going to Mass (that was in 1946 - okay, so I am old!). I would not be surprised if there is a list of disciplines somewhere; I have never come across it.

Moral law is not changing (as in reversing), but it can be expanded upon (grow); for example, some moral law which did not exit 100 years ago has to do with reproductive matters which did not exist at that time (such as what may be morally acceptable for a couple who is trying to conceive but has not been able to do so).