Did Jesus Make the Old Testament Obsolete?  Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen and I'm Dan Beecher >> and this is Data Over Dogma where we increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion and we combat the spread of misinformation about the same. How are things today Dan? >> Things are good, things are fine. Uh, >> excellent. >> As as as addressing one of the comments in our uh YouTube channel, I will I will ask you Dan, h how are you doing? Uh, I'm doing well. We've got uh we've got some normal uh high school student drama going on at my house, but nothing uh nothing that we can't handle. We're just we're just trying to get a kid to successfully graduate, which uh which I've I've always marveled that that that has been difficult for other folks. And uh so uh but I mean >> you're talking to a guy who did who didn't manage to graduate. So, >> I uh I I I mean, I got a I eventually got the equivalent of a high school education, >> the proverbial GED. >> I did. I I took that test. Uh that was easy. Uh I think everyone should just do that. It's silly how easy it is. >> And uh and then I Yeah, but I dropped out of high school. I'm a dropper outer. I'm good at it. >> Go with what you know. That's what I've always said. Anyway, uh that's enough of us blathering. And that, by the way, everybody, is why when Dan says how are asks me how I'm doing, I don't ask him back because we're just doing pleasantries here. We're not actually trying to get into our real lives. >> This is this is all part of the podcast magic. Uh where we we're just performing concern for each other's well-being. >> Yeah, we don't really care. Uh anyway, well, we we do care about each other, but that's neither here nor there. what is here nor there is what we're going to be talking about right now and that is a chapter and verse about the fulfillment of the law as uh as Matthew has Jesus saying. So >> I've I've heard lots of different things about it and uh and I think we should dive right in. >> Let's do it. >> Okay. So the reason Dan that I wanted to do this uh topic is because I have heard I've been told by multiple people uh from different religious backgrounds all Christian but different Christian backgrounds and I've asked about you know a question about why is one law still very much in effect and why is another law you know why is it okay to eat shellfish now and okay to blah blah blah, but you know, obviously we can't, you know, stone our wives if they are whatever or, you know, sell our girl our daughters off into slavery or any of those sorts of things. >> Mhm. >> Just because it feels like there's a, you know, that's a hypocrisy or or that's a question that needs answering uh in in a modern Christian context. Mhm. >> And a lot of the time what I got back was this idea that well Jesus fulfilled the old law, the law of Moses, the whatever. And that means that it doesn't apply anymore. >> And then I would ask, okay, but why do you want why do you care then about things like the Ten Commandments or whatever? And then they're like, oh, but that's still good law. And it it just gets very confusing to me. I don't know what's happening. Uh so so I I'm going to make you talk about it and figure out what Jesus is actually saying in Matthew 5. Yeah. And this is just one of multiple different ways that people have tried to to rationalize the fact that Christians are really not hip to uh a lot of the legislation that is in the Hebrew Bible. And and I think you're you're going to bring up the division of the law into different categories and stuff like that. Um because I I think you said you told me that uh you saw somebody who was trying to explain the fulfill along those lines that there are some laws that were that were there to be fulfilled the entire time. >> Yeah. Yeah. And maybe we need to save the the the idea of the ceremonial laws versus the moral laws for for its own segment. I don't know. Maybe maybe that should be a thing. >> I I thought we had done a segment on that already. >> Oh, maybe we did. I don't know. I gosh, >> I' I've got the the the pleasure of uh having a parallel social media life >> to the podcast and uh after uh years of doing this, they begin to blend together. But I mean, you know, if we retread a little bit of ground, we're only helping you remember it better, right? Please don't hold it against us. Um, so we're in Matthew 5, which is the the grand sermon on the mount. Uh, >> oh yeah, it's a good one. >> We've just uh got done with the biatitudes. >> His sermon in the hole was no good at all, but once he got on the mount, it was great. >> Yeah. >> Um, and we've talked about the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and on and on. And then we get to uh verse 17. I want to read 17 through 20. >> Yeah. >> And then talk a little bit about what's going on here. Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. And then it goes on to uh have the um the the antithesis where where Jesus says, "You've heard that Moses wrote, you shall not do this while I say unto you." Uh and then he escalates things, right? It's not it's not just you you shall not uh murder. You can't even get angry. You can't even um accuse your your brother of uh of being a bad person or something like that. And and it's that first verse that a lot of people seem to get snagged on >> and they don't seem to move past it. But um one thing that I've pointed out in in a number of videos that is that if you're trying to rationalize why Christians don't need to follow the law, you run into a problem with with Matthew 5 because it certainly sounds like Jesus is saying, "Yeah, you do need to follow all the law." Yeah. I mean, I guess one of the I guess sort of a lot of it hinges on this question of what the heck does he mean by I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Like what does that even mean? I don't like in terms of a law. I know what it means if it's like fulfill a promise or fulfill a you know an order of French fries or something. >> Yeah. Um um I and the the the Greek word here is um pledo which uh I'm looking in the uh theological dictionary of the new test. No, I'm looking at bag, not tdt. I'm looking in bag. Uh to make full to fill. Probably not that. To complete a period of time, fill up complete. Probably not that. Um to bring to completion that which was already begun. Complete. Finish. Yeah, we're getting we're getting closer. Uh and then to bring to a designed end to fulfill here like a a prophecy, an obligation, a promise, a law, a request, a purpose. So in in other words, if one of these things suggest this is the this is the circumstance we're trying to arrive at or this is how things are going to be until this moment. Uh it seems to be that. But Jesus also and and what I hear a lot of people say cuz Jesus says um till heaven and earth pass away not one letter not one stroke of a letter and in the KJV this is jot and tit these are little little flourishes on on the letters uh will pass from the law until all is accomplished and and what I hear people say is well Jesus accomplished everything that was supposed to be accomplished and so that's the time when when everything is uh fulfilled or something like that. But we've got two chronological markers here. >> Okay. >> Cuz it doesn't just say until everything is accomplished. It says till heaven and earth pass away. So it sounds like >> Yeah, that's a different thing. >> Yeah, we've got we've got dual chronological markers here. And I think the we really have to assume that these are supposed to be synonymous events. the heaven and earth passing passing away is supposed to correspond to all being accomplished. >> Yeah. >> Which suggests um apocalyptics uh an apocalyptic vision. This is about everything wrapping up at some point in the future. It really sounds like uh Matthew has Jesus saying none of this is going away. But some people think, well, Jesus did accomplish all. And so like all of the requirements are subsumed in in Jesus and they're still they still exist. They're still active, but Jesus like holds them all within him and no, you're not getting away. And oh, this is all I >> the laws are bouncing around inside of him and can't get to us some. >> Yeah. So for some for some arbitrary reason they still need to exist but they need to exist entirely uh consumed by Jesus's righteousness. The the notion that you know this event the the atonement his sacrifice once and for all kind of trapped the laws within his being and and they are still in force but within a a limited scope or or something silly like that like that. That's a I think that's a rather ridiculous way to think about what's going on here because if you do think of it that way that the laws are, you know, the the no jot or tit has uh has been loosed or passed from the law, we just don't have to obey them anymore. If you want to interpret it like that, that kind of renders meaningless verse 19 where Jesus says, "Whoever breaks one of these will be called the least in the kingdom of God." and and whoever teaches others to break them uh will be called least in the in the kingdom of God. So it seems that what Jesus is saying here is that you have to continue to follow these laws until heaven and earth pass away. Uh and that it's not just this notion that his sacrifice subsumes all of the law and and frees us from the expectation of following them. Jesus quite explicitly says, "No, you still have to follow them." >> Yeah. >> So, I don't I don't think that reading makes much sense. And then he goes on to uh like we said, escalate things saying, "You have to be you have to be better followers of the law than the Pharisees." And um >> right, >> and this is something interesting. We we >> and presumably the Pharisees were really good at following the law. >> Well, that's that's the thing. The New Testament tries to make the in some parts tries to make it seem like the Pharisees were like the super strict followers of the law. But when you look at uh some of the other literature from early Judaism, the Pharisees were were kind of mocked as as kind of um relaxed loose followers. >> Oh, or if not interpreters uh of the law. And and which is probably one of the reasons that Jesus is saying Pharisees are not good enough. You got to be better than the Pharisees. uh those slouches, they're not they're not gonna make it into the kingdom of heaven. Um >> but at least it's a lower bar to clear. So that's nice if it if they're if they're not like super if you know I was thinking we got >> Oh, the Pharisees. Yeah, we got >> Oh, yeah. I can do better than I look, I'm not great, but I can do better than one of those Pharisees. >> Yeah, as long as you're not talking about the Essenes. Like I don't I don't want to mess with with them. Um but the Pharisees, I think we can swing Pharisees. Um uh and so yeah, the I don't think that reading makes much sense. Uh it it it certainly seems to me to be an attempt to try to harmonize what's going on with Matthew uh with what's going on in the other gospels uh particularly Luke because we have the sermon on the plane in Luke. But what uh what Luke has Jesus say is not that uh not one jot or tit will fail until heaven and earth pass away. What what Luke has Jesus say is it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tit of the law to fail. >> Interesting. >> And and that's a that's a different uh kind of dimension here. We're not talking about time. We're talking about difficulty. And that's something that you could argue Jesus is able to do um because as the creator of heaven and earth um ostensibly or at least the the mechanism for the creation of heaven and earth if that if that understanding of Jesus's role in creation already obtains within Luke uh he has the authority to end heaven and earth. So it it alters things a little bit, but if you demand that they all agree, then you really have to squint at Matthew until the edges blur and begin to run together with with Luke and the others. >> It's a it I I do want to understand what Matthew is saying, though. I think you're right that it doesn't make sense to say those laws don't don't count anymore because somehow Jesus Jesus I don't know what like followed them so perfectly that they're done. Like how do you like I understand the fulfillment of a law if it's a law that says you know X Y and Z need to happen and then that is fulfilled but the filament of a law that's like don't do X Y or Z don't murder don't you know steal or whatever >> you can't fulfill a negative you can't you can't you can just keep not doing it >> but like you can't >> it doesn't end so any I don't I don't know that doesn't make sense one of the things I wanted to ask about you ask about was uh I do I I have don't think that I've I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Uh, I saw somewhere in in my reading about this that the law or and the prophets as a as a unit was sort of how they referred to the Hebrew Bible just that is that true or or did I just like did they call it the law and the prophets or or something like that? >> So th this gets into a a complex discussion of how of the concept of scripture and the concept of canon. you do have either a two uh part or a threepart concept of scripture in in this period within Judaism where it's either the law and the prophets or the law of the prophets and the psalms >> and and so um this it's probably not indicative of a closed complete cannon but it it does seem to be indicative of a kind of general genre division of uh of the different types of um uh of literature that that make up the early Jewish scriptures. >> So in the same way that we would refer to an old and a new testament, it would would it have been a common practice to refer to one sort of subdivision of old scripture as the law and another subdivision as uh the as the prophets. Is that what you're saying? >> Something like that. because you would you would look at the penetuk and um there there are a few different divisions. You have like the uh like the word Tanakh uh that's that's how many modern um Jewish folks refer to their Bible and it's an acronym um for uh the Torah, the Nevim, and the Ketuim. And so that would be the Torah, which would be the law, the Nevim is the prophets, and the Ketuim are the writings. Okay? And so that would that would be a three-part. And then you have some Christians who come in and say, "No, it's four-part. It's the law, the prophets, the writings, and the histories." Because you have folks who take like 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, and that would be lumped in with the prophets. But for a lot of Christians and uh you they look at that and they're like, "It's different enough. It should have its own category." And so we would say no, those are those are the histories, not not part of the prophets. Uh and so yeah, it it's a it's a division of the genre based division of uh the Jewish scriptures. And and yeah, the the idea is that this is Jesus is addressing what is the relevance of all of the instruction, all the law that has been passed down to us in the Jewish scriptures. do we still have to follow all of this? >> Because it's not just the ten commandments. Um, and you know, they count up like 613 >> laws, but you can also find all kinds of, you know, you look in the Proverbs and you've got all kinds of uh wisdom that is probably could be leveraged as uh something authoritative or at least prescriptive. A lot of people do that today, talking about why it's good or bad to do this or that because, you know, they'll appeal to a psalm or a proverb or something like that. Not one of the 613 uh commandments of the halaka, but um or at least the uh commandments that are interpreted within the halaka, but or uh halakot, but it's uh it's just good advice and it's in the scriptures, so therefore it should be authoritative. Um, and and I think what what Matthew has Jesus doing is is saying, "No, this is we're all we're still sticking to all of this." Um, and and I think the idea of fulfill is is >> it's everything is going to be completed, fulfilled when the heaven and earth pass away. >> And so at that point, there's no more context for the law. There's no more reason for the law. And so the law wraps up and it's finished. Uh, and so I I think that's that's probably what's what's going on here. Um, it's all done. We've we've completed our our uh turn in this mortal coil and uh and so there's no more uh reason to have a law. I think that's probably what's going on there. Uh, I don't think we can superimpose upon the author of the Gospel of Matthew our own notion of of eternity of heaven, the way we think about it as um, strumming harps in the clouds or or whatever uh, the reformed folks have turned it into these days. >> I wonder if maybe in light of what you just said, um, because one of my questions is what what what question is he trying to answer with this? Mhm. >> Uh and I wonder if maybe it's being asked of him as a prophet uh in a time when it seems like esquetology is sort of heavy on the minds of people. Uh I wonder if it's being asked are you uh bringing about I mean he he talks about himself bringing about the end times right or or somebody talks about him doing that. So, >> well, well, yeah, you you've got Matthew has a a pretty escortical outlook or at least there's an escaton off in the in the future. However, the I we're we're kind of presupposing that this might be historical when we say Jesus might be responding to a question asked of him. I think more than likely what we have is the author aware that there are followers of Jesus out there saying, "Hey, guess what? We don't have to keep all the law anymore." And Matthew's like, "Oh, we'll see about that." Okay. um way do you get to this part of what I'm writing? And I'm going to have Jesus say this, that, and the other. And you know, it's uh it's like if you know, you can imagine uh Jesus being like, "And some guy named Dave will borrow something from Matthew and not give it back." And that guy sucks. Like, it's not because somebody asked Jesus about this. It's because the author wants to achieve something with their composition. And uh and so this is this is the perfect opportunity to to slide this into uh the narrative when he's on his his uh sermonizing soapbox. >> But I guess it doesn't actually matter to me for the purposes of my question whether this is just the author of Matthew sort of making this up, putting some words into Jesus's mouth to conveniently serve a a need, you know, some sort of theological need that he needs to convey. or if it's actually a historical thing that happened and that Jesus said like to my mind it doesn't actually matter. Uh because the because what I'm still trying to get at is like is he is is he Yeah. I mean, it's it's that it's like people are starting to think in their minds, maybe this is the end of maybe maybe, you know, Jesus represents the the cataclysm, the end of everything, and we can just relax on all of the laws. And Jesus is saying, "Nope. Sorry. You you can't relax on the laws. Uh, I'm going to make them even harsher, even more." >> Yeah. And it and at the time that this is being written, the the gospel is already being shared um among the Gentiles. And so you got a lot of Gentiles coming in and they're the ones who were like, "Don't like that circumcision thing. I'm going to can I can I not do that?" And uh and and that's what Paul was uh that was Paul's big challenge decades before these texts were written. And so I think it's it's not so much an inner Jewish exeetical thing where Jewish folks were like, "Well, now that we have Jesus, I guess we don't need any of the other stuff. I it's a social thing. It's because we're now bringing Gentiles in and to make to open the door to Gentiles, we have to consider what's what's required of them." And and I think you have people um scattered across the entire spectrum of yes, they must keep every last law all the way to no, they don't have to keep any law. And >> I I was going to bring that up. That is fasc because I did remember like Paul talking about you don't have to keep the kosher eating laws and you don't have to do the Gentiles have to get circumcised. It's probably fine. And so and and I what's funny is that in my mind probably just because of the order that the books are in in the book I was thinking of Matthew as predating Paul but obviously not. So is Matthew is the author of Matthew trying to refute Paul's assertion that it's okay for the Gentiles not to follow some of these laws? >> I think that's a reasonable way to interpret what's going on. Matthew is coming around 80 80 to 90 CE somewhere around there. Paul was in the was mostly active in the 50s and early 60s CE. And so Paul's the followers of Paul are probably um getting pretty large. Uh and I think the Gospel of Matthew is probably pushing back from the other end of the spectrum >> saying no it turns out Jesus doesn't want you to um uh to not follow these laws. and anybody who teaches you otherwise um you know is going to be least in the kingdom of he like I I think that's a reasonable understanding of of the background of this. I I would have to I'm sure there are New Testament scholars out there who would know a lot better than me where this this discussion stands precisely. Uh but but I think that's probably a reasonable question to ask. Uh and and it makes sense to me. Uh and and we have, you know, in the other gospels, they're a little closer to Paul than than the Gospel of Matthew is, but Matthew is the place where you find a lot of stuff about making sure you keep the law. So, for instance, um when when Matthew has Jesus um scold the Pharisees, saying you tithe um dill and cumin uh and uh you know, you you neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice, righteousness, and mercy. He says the uh you should make sure you do these without leaving the other undone. In other words, the the Mathean Jesus is still saying, "Yes, you still tithe. You still have to do the tithe. So, go ahead and tithe your mint and your dill, but just make sure you're being exactly as precise uh with the other weightier uh matters of the law." And and there's no part of Matthew where Jesus actually endorses the just straight up rejection of uh any Mosaic law. He there are reinterpretations, but not as a way to say we're we're um getting away, you know, we're doing away with this, but oh, you guys have been understanding it wrong. It's actually like this. There's there's still always going to be an expectation that that uh the person is to meet. It just might not be the way it is has been traditionally interpreted. So that you find that throughout Matthew. Yeah. You don't find it in the others. Uh you don't have references to continuing to to tithe dill and cumin and stuff like that in the other gospels. I guess you know I think that one of the things about this discussion that is something that we circle back to a lot which is that there is you know the tension between that I described early on with me having conversations with Christians about things that seem to be conflicting uh in their theology. I think that it's very clear that the Bible itself has plenty of those tensions where it is not clear one book to the next what the what like you have to bend it to come up with a biblical a unified biblical theology. >> Mhm. where where you know probably the the the more the more honest look at it and and maybe the more useful but more complicated look at at the theology of the Bible is just that uh it's not it's it's it's not clear. It it argues with itself about it. >> Yeah. And and it should be seen as a conversation more than anything declarative declarative or or or or final. >> Yeah. I I think the reason Matthew writes a gospel or whoever the author of the Gospel of Matthew was, it's not because Mark got everything right. >> It's precisely because wait, what about all this other stuff and oh, I disagree about that. And so Matthew is really it it is putting up another it's a volley. It's kind of a a discursive volley. Mark's like, ha. And Matthew goes and they're they're kind of going back and forth and and suddenly Luke drops onto the court and goes, "Haha." And and then John is like, "I got you all beat." And >> John's just sitting in the back with a cigarette waiting. >> Yeah. In the shadows. Um but but yeah, I I think what happens is you've got all these folks making their case for a way of thinking about Jesus's identity and mission and the responsibility of those who are going to follow Jesus and their different cases. And then when that was all done, all the followers of Jesus were like, "We need to come together, guys. Why can't we all just get along?" And they took the the the texts and went, "Okay, now they're all one collection. Now, let's figure out the one thing that they all mean. And they didn't mean one thing. They meant a bunch of different things. And and so now we we look back at the text and we impose this unifying framework of of inspiration, inherency, univocality, historicity, and you have no choice but to just meddle with and do violence to what the authors were trying to get across and what they were trying to accomplish. And uh and I think that's one of the biggest problems with the presupposition of univocality is that it it basically says I'm in charge of what this is allowed to say. And uh and you know if James says I disagree with Paul, we got to we got to figure out a way to um to screw with James's text until we can understand it as being in perfect harmony with Paul. Uh and that's I think that's problematic. >> Yeah. It's it's it's just so much like you're just going to do your own brain a a big favor if you just relax and go, "Okay, they disagree. So, I'm gonna figure out what me what's meaningful to me and make it work in my mind." But like >> it's just like the cognitive dissonance is is too painful. It's too just >> So, yeah. I don't know. >> Just treat yourself. Just >> like let that weight just vanish. >> Yeah. And you know there there are a lot of things that that people are are white knuckling because they it's tied up with that conception of scripture. But um good golly uh you're going to shorten your lifespan if not the just the acid reflux that you're going to cause by just bearing down on this this understanding of scripture for all that is good and holy. Just let the text be what they were intended to be. Uh it it's so much it's so much easier and also I think more interesting. >> Yeah. >> Because if if you get to say, "Wow, what is what is this author trying to do here?" without saying whatever it is, it has to agree with everything that I'm bringing to the text and my pastor and my parents and my wife are telling me I'm not allowed to to deviate from. You know, you it's it's pretty milktoast. It's pretty bland. But but if it can be whatever it the author wanted it to be, I think it's just so much more fascinating >> and and intellectually honest. >> So, but you know, that's just me. >> Us. It's just we. It's just the official position of this podcast. >> The royal we, if you will. >> It is. It is the royal. It is us. All right. Well, that was fun. >> Uh I enjoyed that. Uh listen, if you've enjoyed what you've seen, like, comment, subscribe, do all of those things. It's really important. Just hit the subscribe button. It doesn't hurt. And if you want to be extra special supportive of us, you can join us over on patreon.com/data overdogma where you can become a part of uh keeping this thing going. We really appreciate our patrons. There's also bonus uh content every week that you won't get anywhere else. Uh, so head over there and become one of our patrons. Thanks so much to Roger Gaudy for editing the show and we will talk to you again next time. Bye everybody., Did Jesus Make the Old Testament Obsolete?, YouTube, 01kfb9yayp6sjw6g7fmgdb2286.