(Part 2 of 3 – Go to Part 1, What “Fulfill the Law” Meant in its Jewish Context)
In the past, the idea that “Christ brought the Law to an end by fulfilling it” has been the traditional rationale of why Christians are not obligated to keep the laws of the Old Testament.
We overlook the fact that in Acts 15, the early church declared that Gentiles were not obligated to convert to Judaism by being circumcised and taking on the covenant of Torah that was given to Israel.
Instead they were told that they must simply observe the three most basic laws against idolatry, sexual immorality and murder, the minimal observance required of Gentile God-fearers.1
According to Acts, the reason Christians have not been required to observe the Torah was not because it has ended, but because we are Gentiles (at least most of us).
Paul, of course, was zealous in saying that Gentiles were not required to observe the Torah when some insisted they become circumcised and take on other observances. He himself still observed the Torah, and proved it to James when asked to do so in Acts 21:24-26. Yet he still maintained that Gentiles were saved apart from observing it.
Paul supported this idea by pointing out that the Gentiles were being filled with the Holy Spirit when they first believed in Christ, not after they had become Torah observant (Gal. 3:2-5).
He also pointed out that Abraham did not observe the laws of the Torah that were given 400 years later, but was justified because of his faith. (Gal. 3:6-9)2 He concluded that all who believe are “Sons of Abraham” even though this very term was usually reserved for circumcised Jews.
Paul’s use of “Fulfill the Law”
An important part of this discussion is that Christians widely misunderstand the word “Torah,” which we translate as “law.” We associate it with burdensome regulations and legal courts. In the Jewish mind, the main sense of “Torah” is teaching, guidance and instruction, rather than legal regulation. Notice – a torah of hesed, “a teaching of kindness” is on the tongue of the Proverbs 31 woman (Proverbs 31:26).
Why would torah be translated as law? Because when God instructs his people how to live, he does it with great authority. His torah demands obedience, so the word takes on the sense of “law.” But in Jewish parlance, torah has a very positive sense, that our loving Creator would teach us how to live. It was a joy and privilege to teach others how to live life by God’s instructions. This was the goal of every rabbi, including Jesus.
The question then becomes, if the Torah is God’s loving instructions for how to live, why would Gentiles be excluded from its wonderful truths? Surprisingly, in both Romans and Galatians, after Paul has spent a lot of time arguing against their need to observe the Torah, he actually answers this question by explaining how they can “fulfill the Law.” He says:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Rom. 13:8-10)
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14)
If Paul is using first idiomatic sense of “fulfill the Torah” (discussed in part 1), he is saying that love is the supreme interpretation of the Torah–the ultimate summation of everything that God has taught in the Scriptures.
Paul was reiterating Jesus’ key teaching about loving God and neighbor that says “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt. 22:40). The two laws about love are not just more important than the rest, they are actually the grand summation of it all.
About a century later, Rabbi Akiva put it this way: “Love your neighbor as yourself – this is the very essence (klal gadol) of the Torah.”3 Love is the overriding principle that shapes how all laws should be obeyed.
Love as Fulfilling the Torah
Paul also seems to be using the second idiomatic sense of “fulfill the Torah” (as obedience – see part 1) to say that loving your neighbor is actually the living out of the Torah. When we love our neighbor, it is as if we have done everything God has asked of us. A Jewish saying from around that time has a similar style:
If one is honest in his business dealings and people esteem him, it is accounted to him as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah.4
The point of the saying above is that a person who is honest and praiseworthy in all his dealings with others has truly hit God’s goal for how he should live. He didn’t cancel the Law, he did it to the utmost!
Similarly, Paul is saying that when we love our neighbor, we have truly achieved the goal of all the commandments. So instead of saying that the Gentiles are without the law altogether, he says that they are doing everything it requires when they obey the “Law of Christ,” which is to love one another.
For him, the command to love is the great equalizer between the Jew who observes the Torah, and Gentile who does not, but who both believe in Christ. Paul says,
“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (Galatians 5:6)
Read part 3 – Is Christ the End of the Law?
Read part 1 – What “Fulfill the Law” Meant in its Jewish Context
~~~~~
1 The three commandments against idolatry, sexual immorality and murder were considered the three most heinous sins, and also sins that Gentiles were particularly prone to commit. The requirements for Gentiles in Acts 15 are discussed more thoroughly in the chapter by this title in New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context, by David Bivin, pp. 141-144. See also the discussion in the article, Abortion, What the Early Church Said.
2 See the article Family is Key to the “Plot” of the Bible.
3 Rabbi Akiva, (who lived between about 50-135 AD); B. Talmud, Bava Metzia (62a). Also see the article, The Shema and the First Commandment.
4 Mekhilta, B’shalach 1 (written between 200-300 AD).
Image credit – Glen Edelson Photography, József Molnár.
Clarence Carey says
Shalom! Israel by means of keeping Torah was to be a light too the gentiles. Duet 4:6 By completely Fulfilling Torah, the nation of Israel would had successfully completed this mission. They totally and completely failed! Isaiah 24:5 Isaiah 65:1-15. YESHUA Fulfilled Torah(accomplish its purpose, completed its mission) Matthew 5:17 so that we don’t look at fail/failing National Israel under a mosaic Covenant, but to YESHUA under a new covenant! Are you not advocating dual covenant keeping? The mosaic AGE ended in A.D. 70. This is the new covenant AGE of messiah. G-D vindicated the new covenant AGE with the destruction of Jerusalem. Jews and gentiles together! A new creation/new man! Jewish culture keeping is based on ones level of Faith! Romans Cpt 14. Shalom
Mordechai Eitan says
If the mosaic age ended in A.D. 70 the apostles Peter,James,and John must have missed that teaching. They continued to obey torah and the festivals and always kept the sabbath on the 7th day as required by the law.
Scott says
If the reason James gave for why the gentile Christians are not obligated to follow the Law of Moses is that 1) it is a yoke on their necks that neither the Jews nor their ancestors were able to bear, and 2) salvation is by faith through/in Christ, then why reject this principle and think it is exclusive to non-Jewish believers and applicable only to Jewish ones? The logical form would be as such: Salvation is through grace and not by following the works of the law of Moses. As such, requiring that gentile believers, to be saved, must follow a list of regulations and codes that cannot save them from the penalty of sin and that neither we Jews nor our ancestors could bear is like placing a yoke upon their necks. Therefore the gentile believers are not required to follow the Law of Moses to obtain salvation.
Are the gentile believers required to keep the law for some other purpose other than to obtain salvation? NO! Because the very argument James gives for why the Gentile, believers are not under the yoke of the Law of Moses is because it doesn’t;t save them from their sins. Why, then, would this reason also not apply to Jewish believers?
Stephen Newman says
Hi, I’m new to this, so please forgive my ignorance, but where dose it say that Pete, James and John continued to obey the Torah after AD70.
Thanks
Lois Tverberg says
Dear Stephen –
Thanks for your question. I don’t believe we have any biblical information after 70 AD. James and Peter were both martyred before that and John was exiled to Patmos, where I assume he died.
When I think of James and Peter in the New Testament, I think of how they were known for their strident loyalty toward observance of Torah.
James was the one who said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law.” Then he asked Paul to show that he was still observant by taking part in a sacrifice in Acts 21:24.
Peter was the one who Paul argued with because while at one point he ate with Gentiles, later he reconsidered his decision. That tells me he’s very concerned about Jewish sensibilities.
From what I read in the NT, I really can’t see any evidence they cast off their Jewish identity — just the opposite, actually.
Scott says
You write, James was the one who said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law.” Then he asked Paul to show that he was still observant by taking part in a sacrifice in Acts 21:24.
Peter was the one who Paul argued with because while at one point he ate with Gentiles, later he reconsidered his decision. That tells me he’s very concerned about Jewish sensibilities.
Are we sure we can say that concern for adhering to the ordinances of the Law was not so as to avoid offending sensibilities? Causing our brethren to stumble? Also, why would God obligate Jewish believers to follow the precepts of the law of Moses (which ones by the way?), if He knew in advance that the temple would be destroyed, along with its system of sacrifices and priests? Which Laws were the Jewish believers obligated to follow after 70 A.D.? What is the binding force of such an obligation? Is it similar to Romans 7:1-5, where the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives? If so, would not the discharge of the free women’s obligation to the law of her husband apply in a similar manner to a freedman’s discharge of his duties to adhere to the strict letter of the law?
Andrius says
I apologize for the oversight. Here is a scholarly rewrite of your response:
kill: It seems there might be a misunderstanding of the central message in Romans 7:1-5. The passage delves into the concept of the law of sin and death, specifically addressing the condemnation of sin, which is eradicated by the sacrificial death of Christ. Paul utilizes the example of the “law of levirate” to illustrate how believers are liberated from the shackles of sin, transitioning from servitude to sin to a state of redemption through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This transformative process results in believers becoming slaves to righteousness, signifying their freedom from the power of sin.
Romans 7:21-25 further elucidates this internal struggle within individuals, where the desire to do right is countered by the proximity of evil. Paul acknowledges the ongoing battle between the law of God, cherished in the inner being, and the opposing law of sin residing in one’s members. The victory over this internal conflict is attributed to Jesus Christ, who delivers believers from the body of death.
Importantly, the focus here is not on liberation from God’s Torah (law), but rather from the consequences of sin, namely condemnation. The redemptive sacrifice of Christ empowers believers to joyfully embrace and adhere to God’s law, as expressed in Romans 7:22. This perspective aligns with the subsequent chapter, Romans 8, where Paul emphasizes the absence of condemnation for those in Christ and the freedom granted by the law of the Spirit of life, thus emancipating believers from the law of sin and death.
I hope this refined response more accurately captures the nuances of the biblical context and the theological themes present in your original message. If you have any further questions or points of discussion, feel free to share them.
Lori Taylor says
In your comment where Paul took part in purification-this was an example of how Paul became all
things to all people for the sake of the gospel. 1st Corinthians 9:19-23
Darryl E LaRocque says
Do you believe a Messianic Jew needs to be circumcised? On page 122 of your book “Reading the Bible with Rabbi Jesus” you say since the time of Abraham circumcision has been required of all males until this day.
The reason I ask, is that I have friends that are Messianic Jews that believe they do have to be circumcised and that they are held to a different standard than Gentiles. One of them has a grandson that is not circumcised and my friend feels guilty about his son not having his child circumcised. Your statement on page 122 reinforces his belief. They also believe that genealogy is very important. I believe this is what Paul was trying to tell them not to believe in Titus 3:9, that we are saved by Grace. It looks to me like a lot of Messianic Jews Believe, but they have a lot of “buts and ands”. I grew up I a religion that had a lot of buts and ands. Not much about Grace.
We are studying this book in a small group and this is why I ask you these questions.
Thank you and God Bless,
Darryl
Lois Tverberg says
I would say “yes” but not in order to earn salvation. The reason they need to be circumcised is to be faithful to the calling God gave to the Jewish people, to retain their identity as members of that community.
A lot of Christians read the Bible as if it was written to every person on earth. It really wasn’t. After Genesis 12, it is almost entirely addressed to children of Abraham, who have been given the promise that God would bless the world through them. How God would accomplish that goal is the plot that continues to the very end. Even in the NT, Jesus’ audience is mostly Jewish. It’s not until Acts 15 that the community of Jesus’ followers consider allowing non-Jews to be a part of it. How can the enemies of God be allowed in as family members? That was the message of grace in the New Testament that shocked and galled its first readers. That’s the source of controversy for Paul. Gentiles need to understand that while we are beloved members of God’s family, Jewish believers in Christ do indeed have a special calling that should not be ignored. Read Romans 11.
I am not Jewish, and I can’t answer the difficult questions of what exactly is expected of Messianic believers. But I can say that the issue is whether a person remains part of a community or not. You can’t disregard a community’s laws and traditions and still remain a part of it. I have some friends who have tried to retain their Jewish identity, and others who are effectively Gentile Christians. I would say they are simply members of the larger body of Christ.
Scott says
I would say “yes” but not in order to earn salvation. The reason they need to be circumcised is to be faithful to the calling God gave to the Jewish people, to retain their identity as members of that community.
The above is an interesting suggestion, but I can’t find it in the Bible. Where does it say this? The purpose of the law was to set the nation of Israel apart from the Gentile nations. Now that Gentile believers are one with Jewish believers in Christ, what purpose do they now serve as a separate nation, if not to be “called out” from the world (just like any believer)? How would they serve this latter function by keeping to the Law of Moses? Does this adherence produce a more forceful, persuasive “calling out” than if any believer were to only abide in the Law of Christ?
Michael Barton says
His name was not jesus. Jesus is a invention of the english. When you tell people his name is jesus it’s a flat out lie!
Brittney says
Correct
Scott says
No one cares or is offended by using the word “Jesus” any more than they are when a bible translation uses the phrase “only begotten” to mean “one and only.” This focus on the correct name (which is really only the original Hebrew name. Only the original is the “real/true” name if that’s what you mean by a ‘non-invention), overlooks the fact that all modern bible translations use phrases and terms/names that are a departure from the originals, as they existed before being translated into another language. I find this all a bit ironic (all this offense talk) when it’s a fact that most of the Jewish believers that started the “Messianic Movement” were saved during the “Jesus Movement.” It doesn’t appear they were so offended by the use and vocalization of that English invention, that they would reject Jesus as their Messiah. Should I say, El Nino or “Little Boy?” Which would be conceptual correct? If one v. the other makes a difference, in what way does such a difference matter? The question would then also apply to the use of Jesus v. Yeshua!
Kay says
Paul didn’t say that Gentile believers dont have to keep Torah.
Lois Tverberg says
Paul most certainly did so. Specifically he took the decision made in Acts 15 that Gentiles only are obligated to 4 basic laws and he abided by this in all his churches.
Steven Ponjel says
Paul certainly splitted hairs on the doctrine of Salvation so perfectly. In the process, the legal terms derived from the biblical Kingdom of Israel such as justification, sanctification or spiritual growth from spiritual baby to spiritually matured adult perfected in the image of the son of God (sinless perfection) before the death, burial and resurrection and then after resurrection. The resurrected body was the immortal body that which does not have the potential nor presence of sin thus reaching glorification.
Paul’s words were greatly misunderstood as he has been addressing the false doctrine of the judaizers who propagated that Salvation or Justification was faith in Jesus plus circumcision plus other laws. Paul presented that Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirement of the law of curse once and for all by the his blood atonement work. Thus, Justification was purely faith in the finished work of Christ (virgin birth, life, innocent death by false witness, resurrection and ascension). Sanctification initiated by the word (law, truth) of God prior to Justification, during Justification and after Justification to eventually grow up into the likeness of Christ!
Many misinterpreted his gospel of grace as a lawless gospel. That is the cause of all the many Christian denominations we have in the world.
If it was a lawless gospel, then his epistles as well as the other apostle’s writings would not have made numerous references to the Torah which has been summed up as Love; Love God and Love others!
Just list done all the new testament commandments beginning with the first 4 established by the Jerusalem Church Council and see how many more laws the gentile believers are supposed to keep?
The laws of God itself does not justify the condemned sinner to become regenerated child of God but our faith in the entire Laws or Truth or Jesus does justify and then sanctify the soul and body.
Without the Words of Prophesy of Jesus Christ there could never have been Justification! How could we have known Christ, instead we would have been like the Jewish Leaders who couldn’t identify the true identity of Jesus as Christ!
I welcome others in studying the entire laws of the Kingdom of God and not just the 10 commandments or 613 Laws etc…for the purposes of Holiness and Spiritual Growth, Maturity and Gifting for Stewardship.
Lois Tverberg says
I’m glad to hear about your positivity about God’s laws, but I would say that you’re still not quite there on understanding what the argument was about for Paul. The problem that Paul is dealing with is the idea among fellow Jews that Jews alone can be saved, and that a Gentile cannot be saved unless he converts to become a Jew, which requires circumcision. That’s why this law in particular is the center of discussion, because it separates Jews from Gentiles. I go into this more in part 3 of this series.
Scott says
The reason Peter gives for why the Gentile Believers are not obligated to keep the law of Moses should also apply to the Jewish believers (being a yoke around their neck that neither they nor their ancestors were able to bear). Notice that Peter is not merely saying they are not obligated to follow the law as a means of salvation (it never was), but that they are not obligated to follow the strict letter of the law for any reason. Why then would this general principle/reason for being released from the letter of the law, not equally apply to Jewish believers?
I’m Jewish by the way and, I have been a part of the Messianic Movement for a bit, but no longer.
Terri says
Thank you! Very, very well said.
Jay Litehiser says
Steven Ponjel is correct.
The claim that the judgement of the 1st church council (recorded in Acts 15) removed from Gentiles any obligation to walk in Torah is false. In the last statement of his judgement, James points out that Moses (i.e. Torah) is taught in every city every sabbath day. Why would he mention that? Because it was expected that the Gentile converts would learn Torah and grow in their obedience. This is the process of santification, the putting off of the old man and putting on of the new to which Paul refers. This is why Paul wrote to Timothy saying: “All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
It was Peter, by the way – not James, who spoke of a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. Here he cannot be referring to Torah; otherwise he would be in contradiction to the rest of Scripture. Consider, for example, Psalm 119 – how very much the Torah is praised. Or Psalm 19 – or so many other passages which are too numerous to be exhaustively listed here.
To what then was he referring? It can only have been to that body of rules and regulations which had been built up around the Torah. It is to that also that our Lord referred in His condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 where He said that “they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders”.
By following and promulgating the false teaching that Torah has been abolished, the Church has first replaced the Law of God with commandments of men – just that thing for which Christ also condemned the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 15 and Mark 7) – and now is moving ever more toward complete lawlessness.
Nichole says
The idea that gentile do not need to keep the law and that something lessor was placed on them in Acts 15 is a serious misreading of the text AND the law. The law states repeatedly that there is ONE law for the native born AND the foreigner (see Numbers 15:16 as an example). When a gentile clings to the Hebrew and the Hebrew God becomes their God… he is no longer a gentile, but a Hebrew (Ruth!). But let’s not ignore Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council! First things first, if the law does not apply to the gentile then why are the 4 things given to them at all? They are part of the law… does it apply or doesn’t it? How about the things that are NOT listed there in Acts 15:20… are gentiles allowed to steal? Why does this article say they must not murder? That is not even listed in Acts 15! The problem is that you can’t look past Acts 15:21. The reason WHY they must start with these few things listed in verse 20 is linked with the coordinating conjunction “FOR”… which can be understood also as BECAUSE… they start with these things listed BECAUSE… MOSES (i.e. The Torah/Law) is taught every Sabbath. THEY WILL LEARN THE REST OF THE LAW WEEK BY WEEK AS THEY GO!