For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
5:18
For truly, I say to you,
Jesus contrasts His view of Scripture with that of religious leaders. The words “for truly” literally mean surely, verily, certainly. A statement of utmost importance follows the word “truly.” Using this introductory formula, Jesus affirmed by solemn declaration His commitment to Scripture. The word “truly” comes from the word “amen,” which means “I believe it.” This word always involves personal acceptance of the truth presented. It was a word dealing with solemn truth.
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: Re 3:14
until heaven and earth pass away,
In Jesus’ view, nothing will abrogate Scripture.
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. Mt 24:35
“But the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. 1 Pe 1:25
not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law
Jesus’ belief in Scripture extended to the smallest Hebrew letter (the jot or yod) and to the smallest stroke of a part of a Hebrew letter (the tittle corresponds to a stroke of a Hebrew letter). Here is what the yod looks like: ? and here is the difference between the marks of the tittle in two Hebrew letters: ? and ?. No aspect of Scripture will pass away until creation as we know it passes away.
until all is accomplished.
This is the second “until” clause in this verse, and the repetition indicates strong emphasis. Scriptures emphatically will exist until the end of time. The word “until” introduces time into Jesus’ view of Scripture—Scriptures will exist until God accomplishes what He needs to accomplish. When Jesus fulfills His purpose for time in His Millennial kingdom, He will usher His earthly kingdom into eternity.
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 1 Co 15:24-25
PRINCIPLE: Inspiration of Scripture extends to its words.
APPLICATION: Jesus had a complete and thorough view of the inspiration of Scripture. His high view of Scripture did not accommodate culture.
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Jn 10:35
Dr. Richison:
Maybe you can help me to better understand this, then. If Jesus clearly says that not a single jot or tittle will pass from the Law, until heaven and earth pass away, why is it that Christians do not live their lives according to all Old Testament laws?
I mean, it seems clear as day, to me, that Jesus was Jewish, followed every ‘jot and tittle’ of Torah law, observed Jewish holidays, customs, and traditions, and yet, it’s utterly forgotten, if not completely ignored, by modern Christians.
Thank you for your help,
Reggie
Reggie, the “law” here is the Bible, not Jewish laws. The laws of Israel were given to a national entity. Jesus offered Himself as the Messiah and offered Israel the kingdom. Israel as a nation turned from Jesus as the Messiah and attributed His works to the Devil. Jesus then set up another institution called the church, which does not operate by the laws of the nation Israel (see the book of Galatians, for example). Thus, Jesus set up a whole new economy of grace versus the law.
Grant
While I would like to think that your exegesis is correct, I find the references just a couple of verses earlier to specifically the Law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets hard to interpret in the same way!
I like your interpretation as in Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus seems to be implying the opposite of what seems to be said here in Matthew 5 (not your spin). Jesus appears to be saying that the two commandments to love “supercede” all the Law and Prophets as your interpretation of chapter 5 also implies.
The jot and tittle piece seems to some to imply that JESUS said we 21st centrury believers aught still to be celebrating ALL the old feasts etc. In practice though the extent to which the Law is practiced tends to be very selective.
Your views on harmonizing these two Matthew sayings would be appreciated
Reg, I don’t think I said in 22:37-40 that the two core commandments “supersede” the Old Testament but that they are the least common denominator of what the Old Testament is about.
Jesus said that He “fulfilled” both the Law and the Prophets. There were three aspects to Jewish law: 1) ceremonial (ordinances–the spiritual code which was Old Testament Christology. The Tabernacle, Holy Days, Levitical Officers are included in this. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, for example, as the Lamb of God or the Temple itself (the place of worship). The book of Hebrews argues that since the anti-type has come, there is no more need for a type (sacrificial lamb). 2) moral (commandments such as the Ten Commandments); the moral code never changes because morality is manifestation of the character of God which never changes, Jesus lived a perfect life in His humanity fulfilling the moral law. Since we are “in Him” we have perfectly fulfilled the moral law. 3) The judgments (the social code for the nation; these are questions of diet, taxation, divorce, marriage, etc). The judgments were social standards for living in the national economy of Israel. Jesus took all judgment upon Himself for our sin. He became a “curse” for us.
Since Jesus fulfilled the law(Mt 5:17) by living perfectly under it, the believer is not under the law; Jesus made an end to the law for believers (Ro 10:4). The law cannot provide justification (Ga 2:16; Ro 3:20, 28; Ac 13:39; Phil 3:9). The law cannot “give life” (Ga 3:21). Only Jesus can do that (see my study of the book of Galatians).
It is very important not to confuse God’s purpose for a national entity and God’s purpose for the church. These are two very different economies.
Grant,
I do not see this as many do to be evidence for inerrant scripture as although Jesus seems to be saying that the physical words (the actual scratches of ink) of the law would never pass and never change I believe that Jesus meant the overall objective truth of the words and not the physical scratches of ink. I think this because the stories in the Old Testament were told orally as many could not read. These stories would then be told down the generations and would be very open to the odd errancy here and there.This would make the old testament at least have some form of mistake in it. However if the overall truth of the words (such as that God is the only God) hits home to the person who hears these words then what is the problem? Merley the truth has been clothed in different words. I also think this because it is historically impossible for the words of the bible to have been left unchanged over the many thousands of years. However my view may seem contradictory to other things that Jesus said such as his reference to the law as “the law of moses” despite many scholars now thinking that authors other than moses probably wrote it. So without Biblical inerrency then Jesus the son of God can be wrong? I do not think so. For why should Jesus call the law something other than the traditional author? If the law is true then what of the author? I believe we all have a moral law, an inner moral compass given by god to find the way and an instict to know that god is there (this has been scientifically proven) which means, as paul states in Romans “Man is without excuse” to witness God, and know he is there. This is why I believe that we do not need inerrancy for we have that deep God given conviction and the scriptures (which although errant are still historical) that tells us the right path to follow.
I shall end by stating that the quote “The scipture cannot be broken” is true but not in a physical sense. For Jesus is the word and Jesus died and was resurrected. His body was the same but it was somehow different. So much so that his fellow disciples who were travelling didnt recognise him walking beside them.yet he was still the truth. This is like the Bible for the words may change, may be contorted by man but the truth is still there. We may not be able to see it but it is there and if the truth has been distorted to such an extent then I believe we must look to our own God given moral compass and figure what the truth is. So to finally conclude I would say that “the scripture cannot be broken” refers to the truth of the scripture and that Jesus believed that it did not matter what clothes the truth disguised itself as (the Old testament, the law whatever) so long as it was the truth of love and hope. That I believe is all God ever wanted us to understand.
I am sorry if my point is difficult to understand but I find it hard to try and get this idea into words and I would like to know your opinion on it
All the best,
-Mark
Mark, thanks for your thoughtful and poignant blog. I cannot answer all your questions because you raise quite a few points relating to inerrancy/errancy of Scripture. I leave for Bangladesh and India tomorrow so I am under time pressure. However, here is a kick at the cat!
This passage (Matthew 5) is not central to the inerrancy/errancy debate although it is important in the debate. The issue more revolves around the doctrine of “inspiration.”
The key passage on the doctrine of inspiration is 2 Timothy 3:15-16, “and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”
The normal use of the word “all” is “every” or “each” (???, pas)in the Greek structure (singular without the article). The Holy Spirit did not allow any word to carelessly be placed in Scripture without His superintendence. The idea is “each,” not most. So every Scripture means “every individual Scripture.” God inspired each or every portion of Scripture.
The Greek word for “Scripture” is ?????, graphe. Something that is “graphed” is something that is written, or scribed. God inspired that which was written, not the author (the inspiration of the author is an interpretation we interpolate on this passage). The Holy Spirit superintended the author to put down each written word He purposed to put down. This is not dictation for the Holy Spirit used the vocabulary, experience, intent, among other things to finally put the word that he wanted in Scripture. In other words, the Holy Spirit dynamically used the experience and situation of the human author to write Scripture. It is the words of Scripture that are inspired, not the author.
The Greek word “inspired” is ???????????, literally, God breathed. In other words, God breathed into what was scribed or written and each/every word written at that! Again, He did not inspire the author but superintended the author through the process of revelation.
The inerrancy/errancy debate revolves around two views (both are philosophical categories as well as theological): 1) the coherentist view and the 2) correspondent view of inerrancy.
The coherentist view holds that God got His general message across without stating it accurately, that is, there are many errors in Scripture. The coherentist view holds that God got His purpose across but fumbled in the facts in presenting Scripture.
The correspondent view holds that God’s statements correspond to the facts presented. This view does not mean that Scriptures present facts with scientific exactitude for the Bible is not a scientific textbook. However, what it does present corresponds with facts.
It seems to me that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not correspond with your view!
Thanks for making a very good contribution to this blog.
OK, this is how it is: Matthew 5:18 contains two conditions and one statement dependent on these two conditions. We would have put their order a bit differently, something like “nothing will change in the law until heavens and Earth pass away and all is fulfilled.” The default conjunctive is “and.” This means both conditions must be met before we can even think that anything has changed about the law. Earth is still standing, so are the ten commandments. Maybe “the law” contains more than the 10 commandments, but the ten commandments are definitely in “the law.” That’s it. Short and sweet.
That’s pithy Chris!
Grant,
What is a pity?
Coming to a conclusion is only based on three things: 1)The fact/s used as the starting point – Matthew 5:18 in this case. 2)The logic applied to arrive at the conclusion based on no 1). 3) The conclusion itself.
So, what don’t you agree with: Matthew 5:18? Or maybe the fact that it contains two conditions? Or maybe me saying that the only conjunction that can be applied here is AND? There are other logical conjunctions: OR, NOR, XOR and NAND, off the top of my head. Or is it maybe me saying that at the very least the ten commandments are included in “the law”? Or did I use too few words?
If the law has been abolished at the cross, why do people born after the cross still need Jesus? There is no law to make them guilty of sin according to the “law has been nailed to the cross” crowd, so they are sinless and therefore not in need of a redeemer. I suppose a heavy session with the crack pipe will provide an answer to that. Of course the answer will be in a great many words and contain many logical fallacies.
Chris, I am sorry, I should have typed “pithy,” not “pity.” I changed it by edit.
Chris, I am afraid your view of the text does not accord with the Greek. The verse begins with a GAR, (for—explanation). This GAR explains verse 17. The point of v.17 is that Jesus said He did not come to “abolish the Law or the Prophets.” That is a technical phrase for the Old Testament. In other words, He establishes a contrast between “abolish” and “fulfill.” He did not come to do away with the Word of God known as the Old Testament but to fulfill the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament. He did not come to rival the Old Testament but to fulfill it.
Secondly, the word “truth” in “I tell you the truth” is the Greek word AMEN (truly, it is truth). Jesus now asserts an emphatic truth—He will fulfill the demands of the Law and Prophets. This is a solemn declaration that his listeners should note.
The fulfillment of the Old Testament extends to the smallest Hebrew letter—“jot” (literally the Hebrew letter YOD and even to the smallest stroke of a Hebrew letter—the “tittle.”
Jesus said that He would obey Scriptures perfectly. This would fulfill the prophets’ predictions of the Messiah and His kingdom.
The word “till” (HEWS) is an adverb of time and place. The idea is “unto,” “as long as” marking the continuance of an action up to the time or another action. Matthew uses this word twice in this verse—“until heaven…” and “until all….”The law has continuing validity “until” something occurs (not that it does not have eternal validity as well). One clause precedes and one follows the main clause just examined. The idea is that nothing will happen to the Law or Prophets in the universe (regarding the promises of the coming Messiah) “until” the Messiah fulfills them. The second HEWS clause refers to the accomplishment of the ministry of Jesus. In other words, the two HEWS clauses are synonymous. For example, the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ. We no longer sacrifice a lamb for forgiveness because Christ was the antitype. The type (as the book of Hebrews says) could never take away sins but only point to the One who would paid for sins of all people of all time.
The phrase “until all is accomplished” (HEWS AN PANTA GENJTAI), the second of these clauses, clarifies the first HEWS clause. Jesus is the goal of the Law and Prophets. The partical AN introduces a conditional clause. In this case it is a third class condition: The particle AN plus the aorist, middle, subjunctive is an hypothetical condition. The condition in this case is the reality of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. The Greek word “accomplished” or “fulfilled” is GINOMAI—to become, to become something it was not before. No one fulfilled the Messianic prophecies before Jesus—He is the one and only Messiah. It may be that this also refers to what Jesus will do through His kingdom but the context does not indicate this.
Grant,
Your argument is that Jesus fulfilled the old testament prophesies. I never said He did not. What I said is that there are two conditions – they are separate and in no way influence each other – and a statement dependent on both these conditions being met before it can be true – the law changed, abolished, etc. Heaven and Earth is still here, so the Ten commandments still stand.
There is no hypothetical (contrary to fact) statement here and the subjunctive is not used in Matthew 5:18 – it’s all in the indicative present and future indefinite tenses. This indicates facts, not speculation. Even in English hypothetical statements will have the conditional and subjunctive modes; if he were to steal (present subjunctive) a car he would (conditional) go to jail, but of course, (fact reported from here, so the indicative) he won’t steal a car. Surely the Bible translators had languages at university and would have gotten something that basic right. My last formal language education was at school.
So, all I said was that, according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18 all ten commandments still stand in 2011.
Chris,
I appreciate your responses and opinion with regard to this topic.
You write in your last post that, “…according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18 all ten commandments still stand in 2011.”
If, then, the ten commandments still stand, what is your view with regard to the remaining 603 commandments found in Torah? Would you say they also still stand?
I appreciate your time and opinion.
Cheers,
Reggie
Reggie, I realize that you address your comments to Chris but I thought I give my comment to your point. Yes, the ten commandments and all moral law of the Old Testament were not abrogated by Jesus’ fulfillment of the law. All of them are still extant today. This is the point that Chris missed. It may be that he did not read my response to your previous blog.
To repeat what I said before but with a little more clarification, it is important to remember that there were three different classifications of law in the Old Testament: 1) the moral law, 2) the ceremonial law, and 3) the civil law. The moral law never changes but the ceremonial and civil laws do. The ceremonial law oriented to worship; it depicted the coming Messiah in types, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross by sacrificial offerings, the glory of God in the holy of holies, for example. All that Jesus fulfilled by His coming, death, and resurrection on our behalf; He also fulfilled the moral law (only a perfect sacrifice was qualified to pay for our sin (Ro 8:3,4; 10:3,4). Romans 10: 4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The civil law had to do with Israel functioning as a national entity. When God rejected Israel as a nation and turned to the church (an organism rather than an organization), He set aside all civil laws that related to the nation Israel. This is the argument behind Galatians, Romans, and many other books of the New Testament. Those books also argue that Jesus fulfilled the moral and ceremonial aspect of the “Law and Prophets.” Hebrews argues that if we revert to the types of Old Testament sacrifices, we distort what the antitype did. The type could never pay for sins (OT sacrifices), they could only point to the One who could. That is why Hebrews talks about the “finished” work of Christ (He 9 among other passages).
Thanks for calling attention to this point.
Dr. Richinson,
Thank you for taking the time to further explain your view of this passage.
I do, respectfully, take issue with something you said, however. You wrote, “…it is important to remember that there were three different classifications of law in the Old Testament. 1) the moral law, 2) the ceremonial law, and 3) the civil law.” I would argue those distinctions are man made, since there is no Scriptural support for the terms, though I’ve read the passages people use to try and extrapolate them from.
Rather, G-d’s commandments in Torah are classified in one of two ways: positive (commanded to do something) or negative (commanded not to do something). This is the way my rabbis in yeshiva teach me, and it’s the way Torah has been taught since the beginning. In fact, throughout the Tanakh we find prophets referring to the completeness or oneness of the Law itself. Saul in Galatians 5:7 himself says, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised (physically and/or of the heart), that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.”
If I were to read that I am “a debtor to do the whole Law” I would interpret that to mean I am not free to pick and choose which commandments and aspects of Torah to follow, but that I have been commanded to follow, as it says, the whole of it–all of it.
What are you thoughts regarding my interpretation?
Thank you, as always, for your time.
Reggie
Reggie,
I agree with your classification if you begin with the presupposition of the Old Testament as the exclusive Bible (not including the New Testament) in the sense that the Hebrew text itself differentiates between positive and negative commands. However, the Bible does not use the term monotheism yet it is a true concept found in Scripture, the same would be true with the term trinity. The three point classification is not the important idea but that the Old Testament differentiates between them.
Your quote of Galatians 5:7 argues for the opposite of what you desire to do with the law. In that passage Paul argues against reverting to Judaism and makes the point that if you choose to be circumcised (the sign of being a Jew), then you need to keep the entire law, as you argue.
Note the context: 3 “And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” Also, note my exposition on that passage.
The problem with trying to keep the “whole law” is that if you offend in “one point” then you are “guilty of all.” It is like putting a hole in a window, if you do, it breaks the whole thing. The issue here is that God is absolute and cannot tolerate any unrighteousness. That is why we have to be declared righteous by faith–the argument of Romans and Galatians and other passages.
Ja 2: 10 “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.”
Thanks Reggie for your comments,
Grant
Reggie,
You asked: “If, then, the ten commandments still stand, what is your view with regard to the remaining 603 commandments found in Torah? Would you say they also still stand?”
To know this beyond a doubt we need to know what Jesus meant with “the law.” To know that we need to ask him. However, although we can ask in prayer we can’t be sure of a clear answer, and definitely not an answer that everyone will believe came from Jesus. This leaves us with what we can know for sure: whatever else Jesus included in “the law”, the ten commandments are there, too. This gives us something to work with. Know this, the ten commandments were kept inside the ark, the other laws, whatever you want to call them, were not. Paul was very much against circumcision. To such an extent he said he wished the proponents of circumcision would go the whole way and emasculate themselves. This at least shows that there were some of the other laws the apostles thought need not be followed. Remember, in the end they agreed with Paul. Getting rid of circumcision caused a big hullabaloo. It would be very strange that dropping a law which didn’t even make it into the big ten kept inside the ark made such a commotion while dropping or changing one or more of the big ten caused nary a ripple, if they were dropped or changed.
If it wasn’t for the fourth commandment – a very inconvenient commandment interfering with our lives at least weekly – there would not have been such a push to get rid of the ten commandments. Now how to get rid of the bothersome one while we keep the rest… The nine commandments. Nah, doesn’t sound as good. We’ll have to ditch the whole lot.
We can’t be sure of everything in the Bible. Many passages are unclear. Even Peter said Paul was hard to understand. Paul found it very hard to express abstract ideas. He did not succeed in putting the relationship between grace and works into easily understood words. If we are honest and know about logic and truth we will have to admit that sometimes we just do not know. Logic is a branch of mathematics, not the arts. Theology is closer to the arts than to the sciences, and when it comes to logic it flounders badly, thinking that words, the more the better, create facts and building dogma on speculation. That’s not all. Everything that makes logic crooked is found in theological discussions: cherry picking, ignoring relevant facts, bringing in the irrelevant, ridiculous extremes, circular reasoning and more. Some aspects of logic are not intuitive, they have to be learned.