DID CHRIST DESTROY THE LAW?
By Jas. A. Smith
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. v, 17-19. When the subject of the law of God is presented to the people, there are many excuses framed by which to evade its force. Some contend that it was destroyed at the crucifixion; others, that it is binding yet, but that it only requires the seventh part of time to be kept sacred. It is not our object in this article to notice all the objections brought against us, but to prove that Christ did not destroy nor do away the law. While some are busily engaged in trying to prove the abolition of the commandments, we should be equally busy in trying to "do and teach them." It is astonishing that men will "cast away the law of the Lord of hosts," and substitute in its place the "doctrines and commandments of men." The scripture at the head of this article is often referred to as proof that Christ destroyed the law. It is by some claimed that Christ came to fulfill the law, that is, destroy it; and hence we are under no obligation to observe it. They say that the word "fulfill" means to FILL FULL, abolish, or destroy; so then Christ destroyed the law. But does Matt. v, 17, 18 prove their position? Let us examine that passage and see. According to their definition of the word fulfill, the meaning of verse 17 would be: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to DESTROY!" Would not this be a contradiction in Christ's own words? It most assuredly would be, if this is the meaning of the word. Christ could not be made to contradict himself; but he did it here within the compass of a single verse, if the word fulfill means to destroy. Having seen that this argument makes Christ contradict himself, and that it proves too much for the objector, let us now notice verse 18, and see if that does not prove too much for him also: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be destroyed!" This is the meaning of this verse according to the objector's definition of the word fulfill. If then this is the meaning of this word, it proves that the law will not be done away until all be destroyed. How the carnal heart can pervert scripture. They here make another contradiction. They say the word fulfill means to destroy; so that, according to verse 17, Christ destroyed the law at his first advent. But if we carry out their definition of the word, it follows according to verse 18, that the law is to last till all be destroyed. Is heaven and earth destroyed yet? No, hence the law is binding yet. The objector can see at a glance that this proves too much for him, and that it therefore proves nothing. With this brief notice of the objector's argument on the above passage, we pass on. We have shown what this scripture does not mean; now we shall endeavor to show what it does mean. 1. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Verse 17. Christ's words are, "Think not that I am come to destroy." He would not even have us think he came to destroy the law. But some people now-a-days not only think he destroyed the law, but they loudly preach it wherever they go. The word "destroy" is from the Greek word kataluo, which Greenfield defines thus—"To destroy, to demolish, overthrow, render null and void, abrogate." Why cannot the people believe what Christ has said? He said he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets. Then most assuredly he did not destroy either. If Christ did destroy the law he did something which he said he did not come to do. It surely would be strange in the Saviour to say in his first sermon on the Mount that he did not come to destroy the law, and then in a few years afterward do this very work. But what does the word fulfill mean? We have shown what it does not mean. Let us now inquire what it does mean. The word fulfill is from the Greek word plero-o, which Greenfield defines, "To fulfill, to teach, to preach." "To answer a law by obedience." Webster. "To ratify." Campbell. John and Christ fulfilled all righteousness. "And Jesus answering said unto him [John], Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him." Matt. iii, 15. According to the objector's definition of the word fulfill, Christ and John destroyed all righteousness when "he suffered him." "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Gal. vi, 2. This the objector says is the gospel. Does the objector believe that the Galatians destroyed that law? or that Paul told them to destroy it? According to his definition, Paul commanded and they destroyed. What perversion! According to the objector, Christ destroyed his Father's law and the Galatians destroyed Christ's law; and hence the world has neither law nor gospel! God chose David to fulfill his will. Acts xiii, 22. Does the objector believe that God would choose any one to destroy his will? Which does the objector believe, that God chose David to destroy, or to do, his will? He will certainly have to admit that the word fulfill means to do, or to render obedience to a law or thing commanded, and not to destroy. If the word fulfill in the above passages does not mean to destroy, why should it have this meaning in Matt. v, 17, 18? The word fulfill in the above Scriptures does not, and can not, mean any thing else but to obey, or render obedience to. 2. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Verse 18. Here63Christ has declared that the law would not pass till all be fulfilled. Till what be fulfilled? There is something to be fulfilled before the law can pass away. Christ speaks of the prophets in verse 17. The prophets must surely then be included in that which is to be fulfilled before the law can pass away. But says one, Are not all the prophets fulfilled yet? We answer, They are not. We will notice some of the prophets and see whether they are yet fulfilled or not. In Isa. ii, 17-21, we have the scene of Christ's second advent portrayed. The loftiness of men shall be bowed down, the idols shall be utterly abolished, the wicked shall go into the clefts of the rocks and to the tops of the ragged rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. The second advent is future, therefore this prophecy remains to be fulfilled. Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." See also Jer. xxv, 15-33; Eze. xxxvii, 11-14; Dan. xii, 2; Nah. i, 10; Zeph. i, 14-18; Mal. iv, 1-3, &c. Have these prophecies been fulfilled yet? Certainly not. Hence the law is binding yet, because it is going to be in force till all be fulfilled. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." It seems that Christ meant in this passage that the heavens and earth should be a pledge that the law would not pass till all be fulfilled, that heaven and earth would pass first. We have proved that all these things have not been fulfilled, hence it must be that the law is binding yet. 3. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Verse 19. It must be that the "commandments" here spoken of, are the same as the "law" spoken of in verses 17, 18. The commandments spoken of here are certainly the ten commandments, because Christ's commandments had not come into existence yet; neither can he be speaking of the ceremonial law, because he did destroy that. But the law spoken of in this Scripture he said he did not come to destroy. Neither can it mean the blessings spoken of in verses 2-11, because they are not commandments. To show the difference between blessings and commandments, we will cite Rev. xxii, 14, which is another blessing Christ promised to commandment-keepers. It has been said that Christ broke the fourth commandment. If he did, he has fallen under his own penalty: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Or as Campbell translates, "shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven." Does any one believe that Christ has fallen under this penalty? He surely has if he transgressed any of the commandments. He is "of no esteem in the reign of heaven." "Whosoever," includes every one. But if Christ destroyed the law, did he not "break one of these commandments?" and not only one, but all of them? And if the penalty for breaking only one, was to be of no esteem in the reign of heaven, what would it be for breaking all of them? "But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom." Christ is numbered with the great. He is sitting on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, is high, and exalted, and lifted up. Surely he did not "break one of these least commandments." But do people in our days do and teach the commandments? Those certainly do not do it who go about preaching that the law is abolished, that it was nailed to the cross, and that we are under no obligation to observe it. They say there is no Sabbath, and they labor on the seventh day. Now do they do and teach the commandments? No. Therefore they are (or shall be) of no esteem in the reign of heaven. Hear what they say, then read Matt. v, 19, and see if they fulfill that Scripture. As for me I would rather do and teach the commandments and receive the reward, than to break them and teach men so. Libertyville, Jeff. Co., Iowa.