LAW

  • Thread starter Thread starter pac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pac

Guest
Hey,

Did Jesus come to abolish the old Law or fullfill it or both?

Does anyone know how many times Jesus was whipped during the scourging?

Thanks in advance
 
pac said:
Hey,

Did Jesus come to abolish the old Law or fullfill it or both?

Does anyone know how many times Jesus was whipped during the scourging?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Matthew chapter 5:17-ish).

Roman Law limited the scourging to 40. They typically dealt out 39 lashes, just in case the scourger lost count.
 
What does it mean to “fulfill” the Law?

I’m sort of mentally trapped in the OT because I’ve been doing a lot of reading there.

I’ll take the word of those of Jewish faith that there are 613 commands of the law. Suppose that is true, doesn’t it suggest what Psalm 1 asserts, that the just man is meditating on the law night and day? Doesn’t it suggest that there is no limit to the law, for starters?

Doesn’t it suggest, overall, that a true covenant person is one who is just totally (mind, heart, and soul) bound or committed to God? Is that what Jesus fulfilled?
 
Crumpy said:
What does it mean to “fulfill” the Law?

I’m sort of mentally trapped in the OT because I’ve been doing a lot of reading there.

I’ll take the word of those of Jewish faith that there are 613 commands of the law. Suppose that is true, doesn’t it suggest what Psalm 1 asserts, that the just man is meditating on the law night and day? Doesn’t it suggest that there is no limit to the law, for starters?

Doesn’t it suggest, overall, that a true covenant person is one who is just totally (mind, heart, and soul) bound or committed to God? Is that what Jesus fulfilled?
Click to expand...
The Jerusalem Bible footnote here comments as follows: “Jesus is speaking not of carrying into effect each single injunction of the old Law but of bestowing on that Law a new and definitive form by raising it to a higher place through the spirit of the gospel, cf. vv. 21-48. It is in this sense that no detail of the Law is to be neglected, vv. 18-19: each has its part to play in the unfolding of the divine plan.”
A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture; 1969……says in part, “There is never a suggestion in Mt that the Law has been superseded: in 3:15 Jesus fulfilled all justice; in 12:5-6 he claims to be greater than the temple, but invokes the Law as a witness; in 7:12; 22:40 he implies its lasting validity under this new interpretation. Even the ceremonial law as such is never questioned in principle, though its application is made to depend on the law of love. (717b, c”
 
Crumpy said:
What does it mean to “fulfill” the Law?

I’m sort of mentally trapped in the OT because I’ve been doing a lot of reading there.

I’ll take the word of those of Jewish faith that there are 613 commands of the law. Suppose that is true, doesn’t it suggest what Psalm 1 asserts, that the just man is meditating on the law night and day? Doesn’t it suggest that there is no limit to the law, for starters?

Doesn’t it suggest, overall, that a true covenant person is one who is just totally (mind, heart, and soul) bound or committed to God? Is that what Jesus fulfilled?
Click to expand...
Read the 2nd part of the Sermon on the Mount.

When the OT said, “Thou shalt not kill”, Jesus preached to eliminate the anger in your heart, before it leads to killing. The old Law “thou shalt not kill” is fulfilled by “remove the anger that can lead to violence and killing” (paraphrasing).

When the OT said, "thou shalt not commit adulterey, Jesus taught to remove lust from your heart so that it can’t lead to adultery. The OT law is fulfilled.

Basically, the OT laws were outward manifestations. Jesus taught that His Laws begin from within (they are written on our hearts).
 
To comment on my own question above, about what it meant to fulfill the law.

I’m sure it was someone on EWTN who provided some insight into this. It was probably Dr. Scott Hahn. If I am quoting him correctly, he said that when Jesus said “It is finished” on the cross, “it” was the old covenant, the old law.

The Old Covenant ended, as all covenant’s end, with the death of the party to the covenant. So, Jesus’ death was the end of the old covenant. Of course, he established a “new covenant” that would last forever, because he lives forever.

So, as the previous post from the 1969 commentary suggested, that we needn’t look at precept by precept of the old covenant. Yeah duh (to me) that’s why they called the two parts of the Bible the Old Testament and the New Testament. (yeah, contrary to the quotation from the 1969 commentary, there is SURELY an indication that the old law has been superceded in Mt – e.g. Jesus says “I give you a NEW commandment” etc. and many of the previous statues and ordinances were ended, in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.)

This really ties in well with Pope Benedict in his book “Jesus of Nazareth.” He points out there how Jesus fulfills all the requirements of putting in a new covenant: there is a new lawgiver, not Moses but Himself. There is a new Temple, not of bricks, but of HIm. There is a new law, which he was expressing, for example, in the sermon on the mount. He replaces the old priesthood, as the eternal priest.

Yeah, Hahn’s comment recently just came back to me in a very helpful way. Wow, that’s great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top