Matthew 5:17-20 explanation - How did Jesus not abolish but fulfill the law?

Matthew 5:17–20 is the most cited Bible passage in Torahism (Hebrew Roots), which teaches that all Christians are obligated to keep the Law of Moses. It's their proof text. But when we read this passage in light of the dynamic, thought-provoking, Middle Eastern teaching style of Jesus, it sheds some light on what He’s teaching here about the abolishing and the fulfilling of the law. And even if you don’t really have questions about this particular passage, I think you’ll find this discussion interesting. We’ll first spend some time exploring the amazing teaching style of Jesus, and then apply it to this passage in Matthew 5.

DONATE TO OUR MINISTRY

OUR LINKS

CHAPTERS
00:00 Open
01:10 In what sense? The amazing teaching style of Jesus
05:35 The Hard Teachings of Jesus
09:30 In what sense did Jesus not abolish but fulfill?
18:55 Wrap it up, Solberg

Subtítulos disponibles en español
Mateo 5:17–20 es el pasaje bíblico más citado en el toraísmo (raíces hebreas), que enseña que todos los cristianos están obligados a guardar la Ley de Moisés. Es su texto de prueba. Pero cuando leemos este pasaje a la luz del estilo de enseñanza dinámico y estimulante del Medio Oriente de Jesús, arroja algo de luz sobre lo que Él está enseñando aquí sobre la abolición y el cumplimiento de la ley. E incluso si realmente no tiene preguntas sobre este pasaje en particular, creo que encontrará esta discusión interesante. Primero dedicaremos un tiempo a explorar el asombroso estilo de enseñanza de Jesús y luego lo aplicaremos a este pasaje en Mateo 5.

[john]

The acorn analogy was an excellent way to explain the law and what Jesus accomplished

[josephjoelguerra]

Man I hope you never grow tired it doing this. So many people confuse me in their teachings but you lay it out so clearly

[dcg]

The acorn metaphor is probably the best explanation I have heard. This is always a contentious issue that Christians and Jews alike argue both sides, but for me, this has cleared this up once and for all.

[jaredg]

Intresting thought, Moses smashed the 10 Comandments literally, but Jesus fulfilled them.

[budcurtis]

Glory to God for revealing this truth.

[thirdplace]

I have no idea how people can still think Christians are under the Mosaic Law with Acts 15 in the Bible.

[WSelvig]

First time hearing you. Best explanation of this scripture I've heard yet. Thank you.

[rubeccashakeelsamuel]

Great teaching.May God keep using you for the expansion of his kingdom 🙏

[ForgedinTruth]

““Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.”
‭Matthew 5:19‬ ‭

Last time I checked the lake of fire would be the least of the kingdom for those who do and teach others not to do the commandments (Jesus words not mine)

““And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who do away with the Law of God that was given to Moses!’”
‭‭Matthew 7:23‬ ‭

[randylundgren]

I like the acorn analogy, it reminds me of this verse. “But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.”
— Matthew 13:8 (KJV)

[Liftingmycross]

Great study brother. I learned a lot, and I thank you with all my heart.

[jaylar]

14:10 My question is why does it sound like you think it's such an inherently bad thing to question the "traditional" and "orthodox" interpretation? We should always be willing to question and re-evaluate our ways and thinking, and make sure they line up with Scripture. If they don't line up, "orthodox" or not, we should be willing to throw them out in favor of Scripture.

[aarons]

Great content as usual. The concept of fulfill vs abolish makes perfect sense and Jesus explicitly stated this. I think that is a key issue with Hebrew Rooters. Would you consider doing a video on the role of works in a Christians life? For example, what is James 2 really teaching? I personally believe James 2 has nothing to do with being justified before God but is an exhortation for already saved Christians to show their faith by works to help others and be "justified by man" rather then God.

[dashriprock]

SUBSCRIBED! I look forward to watching more of your videos.

[Truth.Is.Intolerant]

Suppose I was found guilty of speeding and was penalized $100, but a stranger stood up in the court room and told the judge that he would pay my fine. By this act of kindness, was the speeding law just abolished or did he fullfill the law?

Correct, the stranger fulfilled the law.

In the same way Christ fulfilled the law.
That is why there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. The penalty has been paid. But the law still exists.

The law says that all capital sins require eternal death. Fortunately for us, Christ stepped up and paid the penalty for us, just as the stranger did in the court room story above. The law still exists.

If the law was abolished, then there is no laws to break and therefore no sin.
But if sin does exists, then the law also  must exist. If sin does not exist, there is no penalty and no payment necessary. If no penalty and no payment, no need for Christ.

Referring to the story above, the law requires that speeders be fined $100, when the payment is made, it can be said that the law has been fulfilled. A law was broken, justice was served and the penalty paid. Justice was served, the law served its purpose, therefore the law was fulfilled.

The law is very much alive and well today whether people believe it or not.
God's law never changes and neither does His word or His laws. In fact His laws are His Word and His Word are His laws.
But just because His laws don't change does not mean that something hasn't.
What we do has changed to some degree. The biggest change is that a blood sacrifice for sin is no longer required. Also, because the temple does not exist today, many laws cannot be preformed. It has been said that there are only 270 out of the 613 laws that we could actually keep today.
Since some laws are for women, some for men, some for priests, some for farmers etc, this leaves relatively few laws that each of us can actually fullfill today.

So why are people so worked up about it? I believe it is because Satan hates God, he hates God's  Word, he hates mankind and therefore wants us to be disobedient to the Father. Satan wants us to be "lawless" as the Bible says.
Being lawless does not refer to being  disobedient to our civil laws, it refers to being disobedient to God's laws. What better way for Satan to gain victory than to have God's children disobey Him. Even better, what if Satan could  convince Christians to believe that obediance to God's laws was. Actually SIN!  Woe unto us all.

[geef]

So I’m struggling with this passage. And this is the way I see it. Obviously, the temporary nature of the OT sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus. But does that mean that the law, as in how we live our lives is gone also? Many people say we can ignore the rules as well as the consequences. I see it that the rules still apply but the final sacrifice has already sanctified us. So the need for the sacrifice is gone but we should still live by the law. For example people will say we can now eat pork and shellfish (which I currently do eat). However if we are no longer under the law in that sense, does that mean that we can also sleep with our father wife or our sister?? That certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. The law was never an arbitrary set of rules for the sake of rules. God had reasons for each of the mosaic laws. God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. So I can’t imagine that his reasoning behind the law has changed. The blood of a goat or a bull was NEVER intended to be anything other than a pointer to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus. That much I get. But should we not strive to obey the commands behind the law?

[Gummy]

Great video! I’m still very confused about verse 19 specifically. Jesus seems to be saying that if anyone teaches not to follow even the tiniest bit of the law, they will be least in his kingdom. Wouldn’t blood sacrifice, for example’s sake, be counted in this? I’m still very fearful of misinterpreting this passage due to his qualifier in verse 19.

Because in my head, I have sorted some of the old commandments as “least”, like the food laws and sacrificial stuff. I feel like i’m banging my head against the wall every time I try and listen to a way around this issue but because of verse 19 I can’t seem to make sense of it. Your input would be greatly appreciated brother!

[jesusrevival-ministriessan]

Awesome! I wondered if my teaching about the END of the OLD covenant was out in left field, but I saw it plainly in the NEW covenant so I have realized that unless plain language says what it means and means what it says, then there is no way to know anything. Thank you for confirming in clear and plain teaching that I am NOT out in left field about these things! Your clear and Biblical teaching just reconfirms that, even though I am a Gentile, I can understand the plain teaching of scripture. Having heard some of those teachers who would have one believe that they can't really understand the Bible unless they are Jewish, I would sometimes say, I can't be wrong unless the Bible is wrong because that's where I got my understanding from! Thank you and keep up the great work!

[digimike]

Awesome video. Matthew 5:17-20 is crowd control. I had a big revelation regarding the Sermon on the Mount and this section of Matthew just recently. Jesus is preaching in the true authority of God, in the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 7. Think of the Sermon on the Mount as one sermon not 3 chapters in a bible with topic headers. Why is Matthew 5:17-20 even there and so early in the teaching? Imagine being at the sermon on the mount and the attendees are Jewish only familiar with the Law. He starts out with the what we now call the Beatitudes Matthew 5:1-11 about the poor in spirit, the morning and the meek. This teaching was starkly different from the teaching of the Law. While many of us been familiar with this writing of Matthew our whole lives. Questions start popping up in their minds. What is this teacher the Nazarene teaching? The attendees are starting to get restless. Some might have been elbowing each other, saying get a load of this guy. Some might have even given Jesus the good old side-eye and said, what are you talking about, none of this is in the Torah. This didn’t surprise Jesus, he expected it to come. Then he drops a bomb on them in Matthew 5:13-16 and refers to them, the Jews, as having lost their saltiness. Now he’s insulting us their thinking. They didn’t know it but he was revealing how to get the saltiness. Now the crowd was really agitated. Time to real them back in with Matthew 5:17-19. The Law was still intact at that exact time but it would soon be completed and fulfilled when Jesus utters “it is finished” John 19:30. Matthew 5:17-20 is crowd control, calming the restless so they could hear the truth and pay attention and not be offended.

[Maksym_Korchak]

Mr. Solberg! When you interpret the phrase "till heaven and earth pass" - you cannot escape the biblical explanation of these words in the context of the whole Scripture. In my opinion, "heaven and earth" in this case means "Jewish religious world". He, according to the words of Jesus, had to disappear soon. And it really happened in 70 AD. And until it disappeared, the law of Moses was actually still in effect, and accordingly, "one jot or one tittle" disappeared from it, until the entire Law was finally abolished in the 70th year.