Jesus Fulfilled the Law, The text reads like this in Darby's translation:

Think not that I am come to make void the law or the

but What Does It Mean?
By Dr. Robbert A. Veen
Huizen, the Netherlands
@ all rights reserved 2008
Summary: In this article I address the reading strategy
that takes the fulfillment of the law in Matthew 5 as im-
plying materially the same thing as an abrogation. What
does it actually mean to fulfill the law in a Jewish con-
text?
Does it mean: obedience or completion?
The expression “fulfilling the law” has been taken
as the equivalent of “doing the law,” as in Rom.
2:13. Jesus then came to do the law, to be in ob-
edience to all its precepts. Although in general
Christians are required to follow their Master, it is
argued - on the basis of Acts 17, Galatians 4 and
Romans 3 - that the Law has been neutralized by the
death of Christ. Though obedient to the Law, Christ
was condemned under the Law in order to set all
His followers free from the Law.
Others have argued that fulfilling the Law means
to uphold the Law as a revelation, thought not as a
precept.
prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
The expression 'to fulfill takes its meaning ob-
viously from the context, where it is the direct op-
posite of 'to make void'. The Greek word katalusai is
taken to mean something like: to abrogate; to deny
divine authority; to set people free from the obliga-
tion to obey the law. To fulfill then can mean many
different things: to uphold the validity of the law; to
affirm divine authority; to reaffirm the obligation of
the people to obey the law. Darby's expression 'to
make void' is ambiguous to say the least.
Darby however added a footnote in his translation,
explaining that 'fulfilling' does not mean 'obe-
dience', but to 'give the fullness of.' In his dispensa-
tionalist way of thinking, the Law signifies a system
by which God dealt with men, and that system or
dispensation pointed toward the divine will and
thought that was now revealed in Christ.
So we speak about doing the law - which is now no
longer relevant for Christians - or we speak about
upholding the relevance of law and prophets as
pointing toward the coming of the Messiah. In one
respect it doesn't matter whether we speak about
fulfilling the Torah as obedience or completion, be-
cause in both cases, the Law as a standard for ethics
is abrogated.

1 2
So what does fulfilling the Law really mean?
Another way to explain the underlying issue is to
make a difference between doing the precepts of the
law and upholding it, i.e., maintaining it as a stan-
dard even when occasional transgressions against it
are committed.
The Greek pleroosai stands closer to the Hebrew le-
haqim which means to uphold, to accept as a stan-
dard.
That seems to be clear also from the Hebrew use of
jaqim in Deut. 27:26, where we have the meaning of
upholding (as standard) in order to do. The verse
itself conveys a link between two separate. Doing
the law implies not just obeying the individual pre-
cepts, but doing them with the intent to obey the
whole of it.
That certainly is the meaning of meqim in Mishna
Pirkei Avot 4:9, which speaks about fulfilling the
Torah in poverty.
R. Jonathan said: "Whosoever fulfils the Law in poverty
will at length fulfil it in wealth, and whosoever neglects
the Law in wealth will at length neglect it in poverty.
Surely, this does not mean doing all the mitzvoth,
but rather affirming their validity as is obvious from
the opposition between 'fulfilling" and 'neglecting.'
The LXX diminishes this impression slightly when
it translates the same word in Deut. 27:26 with “con-
tinue” (emmenei) and not with fulfill, thereby accen-
3 4
tuating the required persistence in obedience. It is
this LXX translation that may have given rise to
Pauls statements about doing the whole of the Law.
The Greek does not convey the notion of affirmas-
tion of the Law with the same force that the Hebrew
word contains.
On this basis we should reach the conclusion that
fulfilling the law goes beyond obeying it, and that it
has a meaning that cannot be harmonized so simply
with Pauls approach to the law in Galatians.
Paul is discussing the issue of the validity of the
Law in Galatians where he argues that by accepting
the Law, we enter a situation in which transgression
of a single law implies breaking the law as such -
which in the case of a conscious attempt to break
any single precept is quite true and evident. Of
course, Paul uses the argument to convince the Ga-
latians that they should not try to 'uphold' the Law
as a means of salvation. That is why he changes the
text a little by adding 'all' to 'things written' which is
not in the texts that we have. Besides that, Paul uses
a word that Darby correctly translates as 'abide',
which implies obedience.
Here is the text of Paul:
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;
for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide
(emmenei; meaning to remain) by all things written in the
Book of the Law, and do them." (Gal. 3:10)
Paul is making a specific argument here, that we
shall deal with later in this series. Suffice it now to
say, that his polemic is directed at the notion that
'doing' all of the law' is a means of salvation, which
of course, it wasn't, neither in early Christian nor
Jewish thinking. The emphasis was on the doing of
the law in such a way that it remained obvious that
someone was trying to uphold the Law even when
accidentally breaking it on occasion.
If we paraphrase the word as 'affirming the validi-
ty of the Law by doing it', and keep these two ideas
of obedience and affirmation linked together, we
cannot take the obedience as something that is only
demanded of Christ; nor can we speak about the
Law as being affirmed only as a (former) system of
Gods dealings with men.
Now in fact, this idea of 'upholding the standard'
is exactly how the Aramaic translation of Onqelos
interprets the Hebrew 'asah (doing, here “the law”)
by connecting it to lehaqim, to uphold, in Deut.
27:26. So when Deut. 27: 26 states:
'Cursed be anyone who does not confirm (jaqiem) the
words of this law by doing (la'asoot) them.'
The Targum Onqelos paraphrases that verse like
this:
Accursed is the man who confirmeth (jeqajam, from the
same root) not the words of this law to perform
(leme'bad;, synonym of the Hebrew 'asah, to do) them.1
5 6
For Onqelos 'doing' the law did not mean simply
to obey its rules, but more generally, to affirm the
validity of the law as a system by doing it. This con-
firms that 'doing' the law can in itself be intrinsically
connected to 'upholding the law.'
That is the way the verse was interpreted within
the Jewish tradition. Ramban (in his commentary on
the verse) ) explains the phrase to mean that every
Jew must accept the validity of the Torah in full and
dare not claim that even one of its commandments
is not relevant. The curse therefore is not imposed
on any Jew who commits a sin, only on one who
denies that a part of the Torah is relevant or re-
vealed.
The translation with “to uphold” brings it closer to
agreement with Rom. 3:31, where Paul states that he
is actually establishing the law (but using a form of
histemi, to establish).
Furthermore, the LXX2 in 1 K. 1:14 clearly shows
that the Greek pleroosai and the Hebrew word for
“fulfill” i.e. establish, uphold or affirm were seen as
equivalents. The prophet Nathan here announces
his intent to come to the king to corroborate the
words of Bathsheba.
From all of this it seems clear that Jesus wanted to
uphold the Law as a standard for obedience in a
Jewish sense. The Greek word derives from the He-
brew lehaqim, and suggests the firm connection be-
tween upholding the status of the Torah and being
obedient to it and not so much the specific sense
that Paul gives it in Galatians. Paul is arguing
against a specific pagan view, that obedience of the
law, i.e. keeping every single law fully, is a means
for salvation. Such a view might have been common
among proselytes or semi-proselytes.
But maybe it does mean 'obedience'?
The meaning of the expression is disputed, howev-
er, as we have seen in the first paragraph when we
dealt with Darby's translation.
One might argue that fulfilling the law equals
doing it, i.e., obeying its precepts individually and
all of them is simply the same. Jesus would then be
saying that he 'does' the law, and Paul can then say
to the Church in Galatians that the law is abrogated
because of changed circumstances: Israel after all
did not accept Jesus’ gospel and Jesus after all died
under the Law as a convicted sinner on the Cross..
The problem is that the Greek has a perfectly sim-
ple word for ”doing” the law that you should ex-
pect to be used in matthew in stead of this word
'fulfill' (pleroosai). The Greek poiesai is used, e.g., in
LXX Deut. 26:16, to translate the Hebrew for
“doing” (‘asah) i.e., obeying the law.
That does again suggest that to fulfill means more
than to obey or do it. It is hardly likely that doing
and fulfilling were seen as equivalents when the
LXX takes such pains to differentiate the two.
Another, more popular approach involves putting
the expression into connection with the so-called
7 8
“formula quotations” (Erfüllungszitate) that is an
editorial device used by Matthew, where the word
for “to fulfill” has the meaning of “to give them
their full meaning.” Law and prophets find their
deepest significance in the coming of the Messiah,
specifically in the way this Messiah acts and in-
structs His disciples on matters of law. Fulfilling the
Law must then mean that Jesus reveals the true in-
tent of the Torah and demonstrates it in action. This
messianic authority may on occasion come into con-
flict with Pharisaic halakah or even with contempo-
rary interpretations of the Torah. But the way of the
Messiah makes the Law 'whole', i.e. it makes the
goal of the Law transparent again.
In this case, we take the verb pleroosai to have re-
ceived its meaning from Matthew’s Christology. But
even here, the basic sense of “fulfill” is to corrobo-
rate. The expression does not lead us into the arena
of Pauline fulfillment-theology that would imply
abrogation at the same time. In Matt. 3:15, the ex-
pression “to fulfill all righteousness” is used to
mean something like “to do everything that is de-
manded by the standard of righteousness.” To fulfill
the law might then be taken to mean to do the law
and uphold it as standard insofar as it, as a written sta-
tute, leads to the fulfillment of the divine demand of righ-
teousness.
We should notice something else in this context.
There is no reference to Jesus as a person who might
annul the law here. In stead, we find a straightfor-
ward statement about Jesus’ obedience to and in-
deed reverence for the Torah.
The Jewish meaning of 'fulfilling the Law'
Another approach might be to look more closely at
the contents of this notion of fulfilling by trying to
figure out what its particular usage might have been
within 1st-century Judaism.
As we said earlier, we can infer from the opposi-
tion between katalusai (to annul) and pleroosai that to
fulfill does mean to uphold, to affirm its authority.
This idea is strengthened when we examine further
connotations that are implied in these terms.
As a technical term, pleroosai also denotes a process
of interpretation whereby individual laws are ex-
plained in such a way that they serve the goal of the
whole body of law, i.e., establish justice.
Another meaning of the word that plays into this,
is that of completion. When a road e.g. is “fulfilled”,
it is possible to reach ones destination by travelling
it. The Torah is understood as a road to life, and
fulfilling it might mean to apply it in such a way,
that this goal is reached.
Since we are now seeking a pattern of thought, and
not historical dependency, even relatively late texts
might provide us with valuable clues.
A passage in BMakkoth 23b-24a might help us out
here. R. Simlai opens a discussion with a statement
that God gave Moses 613 commandments. David
summarized (reduced) these 613 to eleven basic
9 10
precepts in Psalm 15 (24a). The Psalm ends with the
statement: “He that does these things will not be
moved.” Now this does not mean that David an-
nulled 600 commandments, but it does mean that
the manifold of commandments were seen as being
derived from a lesser number of major command-
ments, that could be regarded (a) as basic ethical
requirements and (b) as fundamental ways of inter-
preting and doing all other commandments.
Beyond that, (c) anyone who was able to perform
these commandments with the fundamental con-
centration on doing God’s will that was required
(what the Rabbis called “kawanah”) would merit
the world to come. So the eleven moral demands
David enumerated (which are not all part of the list
of 613) form the basis of obedience to all of the 613
precepts.
Rabban Gamliel then remarks that only someone
who can practice all of these precepts can merit the
world to come, but he is refuted: the text simply
states “these,” i.e., any of these, and does not say
“all of these.” So the merit of the world to come is
already earned by practicing merely one of the ethi-
cal requirements mentioned by David with the re-
quired concentration, and it will be that obedience
(which does not imply a rejection of the other 613
commandments) which brings salvation.
At the end of the passage, Amos 5:4 is quoted as
indicating that obedience to God (“And seek me
and you shall live”) is the fundamental “ethical”
requirement that will bring salvation. The Gemara
refutes this by quoting Rav Nachman b. Isaac as
saying that this ”seek Me” effectively includes all
the 613 precepts and can therefore not be called a
“reduction.” The Gemara then offers another text:
Hab. 2:14, “the righteous will live through his
faith.” It is not difficult to see how similar in reason-
ing, though different in result, this is from the text
we have in Romans 1:16, 17. Could it not be that
fulfilling the law is functionally the equivalent of a
fundamental ethical requirement, as well as a her-
meneutical perspective within which the precepts
should be applied?
To fulfill the law must then mean to uphold it by
effectively obeying it in accordance with its most
general principle, expressed in and as the summary
of the law. Matthew now expresses the righteous-
ness that is the inner standard of the law as written
statute as the double commandment upheld in a
specific community.
In Matthews version, this most general principle
involved (1) the basic principle and hermeneutic
perspective of the law as explained by Christ, i.e.,
love for God and neighbor, and more particularly
the nature of the eschatological community as de-
fined by the introductory Beatitudes; (2) the authori-
ty of the Messiah to formulate absolutely binding
halakhot while at the same relegating the formal rab-
binic authority to the community “assembled in His
name.” (Matthew 18)
11
The messianic authority as shared by the Church is
in fact in itself a sign of the new Messianic era. In
this respect, the anti-Pharisaic address in chapter 25
serves as a corollary to Jesus’ Messianic status, be-
cause it shows that the rabbinic decisions were be-
ing made by men. It is the interpretation of the To-
rah as 'civil law' that is deeply flawed according to
Jesus' remarks in the Sermon on the mount. The full
intent of the Torah is being established in the Mes-
sianic Kingdom because here it will be manifest that
indeed the Laws of God lead to the enhancement of
life.
The Pharisees according to Matthew were unable
themselves to “fulfill” the law in many respects.
Though they kept its rules and regulations, they did
not uphold the real authority of the Torah. They
were shown to be the opposite of Jesus as the one
who through His death had shown the ultimate
sacrifice in the service of God and His fellow-men,
thereby ultimately demonstrating the absolute au-
thority He had used in matters of law-exegesis.
Through his teachings, His death and resurrection,
Jesus upheld the authority of the Law by bringing it
to its conclusion in a life saving act. The Law was
complete because it was now part of the Messianic
age where it could become a road to life in stead of
being an excuse for sin or a standard that con-
demned.
12
 Footnotes

1 The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the

Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from
the Chaldee, by J. W. Etheridge, M.A., First Published 1862.
http://www.targum.info/?page_id=8
2 The Greek translation of the Old Testament.

13