By Rev. Professor George B. Stevens, PH.D., D.D.,
Yale Divinity School.
Jesus takes his stand on the Old Testament—Old Testament not adequate to the needs of the world—incidental imperfections— revenge—ceremonial system.—Jesus' teaching the fulfilment of the Old Testament law—taught in his own personal life—in the absolute truths of religion—in the conservation of all that was of permanent value for religion—in the abrogation of the Old Testament system as such.—The practical effect of such teaching on Christian thought and life;—Christianity a wholly new garment with the permanent elements of Judaism woven in. In his teaching Jesus takes his stand, as we have seen, upon the Old Testament. He has no new religion to introduce. He clearly foresaw that some of his disciples would suppose that it was his purpose to break with the Old Testament system, and he warned them against this serious mistake by telling them that any of them who should feel themselves free to break away from the Old Testament law, and should teach others accordingly, should "be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19). His constant manner of speaking in regard to the Jewish religion and Scriptures shows the reverence in which he held them. Some of the expressions which illustrate this reverence are: "I came not to destroy the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17); "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35); "That the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 13:18).
There is in one of
his parables a significant
expression in regard to the
gradual progress of his truth in
the world: "First the blade,
then the ear, after that the
full corn in the ear" (Mark
4:28). This statement might be
fitly applied to the whole process of revelation of which the
Old Testament represents the
earlier stages. It would as
truly describe Jesus' idea of
this process as it does the
process to which he immediately
applied it.
The Old Testament represents the
first steps in a great course of
revelation and redemption which
reaches its consummation in
Christ himself.
While,
therefore, Jesus builds upon the
Jewish religious system, he
also builds far above and beyond
it. While salvation,
historically considered, is from
the Jews, it is none the less necessary
that the Jewish religion should
be greatly elevated and
enriched. The actual religion of
the people, though embodying
essential and permanent elements
of true religion, is not
adequate to the needs of the
world; it must be further
developed, supplemented, and completed at many
points before it can become the
universal, the absolute
religion.
There were
imperfections in the Jewish
religion which were incidental
to its character and purpose. It
was in its very nature
provisional and preparatory. It
was adapted to an early and rude
stage of human development. A
convenient illustration is found
in the principle of revenge
which, within certain limits,
the Old Testament sanctioned.
"Ye have heard," said Jesus,
"that it was said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
but I say unto you, Resist not
him that is evil," etc. (Matt. 5:38, 39). Another example is
found in his conversation with
the Pharisees when they asked
him why, if a man and wife
became one in marriage, Moses
commanded to give a bill of
divorcement." Jesus answered,
"Moses for your hardness of
heart suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the
beginning it hath not been so.
And I say unto you," etc. (Matt.
19:8).
Jesus undermined the
whole ceremonial system of the
Jews by his teaching that it is
not what enters into a man which
defiles him, but that it is that
which proceeds out of him, that
is, from his heart, which
defiles him (Mark 7:15). The Levitical system of sacrifices
could not long survive among
those who accepted the principle
of Jesus that "to love God with
all the heart, and with all the
understanding, and with all the
strength, and to love his
neighbor as himself, is much
more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" (Mark
12:33). It is obvious, then,
that the actual effect of the
gospel in doing away with the
Jewish sacrificial and
ceremonial system, was a natural
and logical result of the
principles which Jesus laid
down, and may be said to have
been contemplated by him.
But
the question now arises, Did
Jesus intend to abrogate the
whole Old Testament religious
system, and, if so, by what
means ? This question also
involves another, If he did do
away with this system, how is
the fact to be reconciled with
his frequent assertion of its
divineness ? The most important
passage, in its bearing on
these problems, is Matt. 5:17:
"Think not that I am come to
destroy the law or the prophets:
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." This passage must be
read in the light of the
explanations and applications
which follow it. Jesus proceeds
to say that not a jot or tittle
shall pass away from the law,-a
statement which, if read by
itself, would seem to indicate
the perpetual validity of the
whole Old Testament system,
ritual, sacrifices, and all. But
to the statement in question he
immediately adds: "till all
things be fulfiled, or
accomplished." He does not,
therefore, say that no part of
this system shall ever pass away
(as it has done, and that, too,
in consequence of his own
teaching), but only that no part
of it shall escape the process
of fulfilment; that it shall not
pass away till, having served
its providential purpose, it is
fulfilled in the gospel. What,
now, is this fulfilment which is
to be accomplished for the whole
law, even for its least
portions?
This question is not
to be answered in a single
sentence or definition. The fulfilment of the Old system by
the New is a great historic
process, the adequate
understanding of which requires
a careful study of the whole New
Testament. Its salient features,
however, may be briefly
indicated. Jesus fulfils the Old
Testament system by rounding
out into ideal completeness what
is incomplete in that system. In
this process of fulfilment, all
that is imperfect, provisional,
temporary or, for any reason,
needless to the perfect
religion, falls away of its own
accord, and all that is
essential and permanent is
conserved and embodied in
Christianity. Some of the
elements of this fulfilment are
as follows:
(1) Jesus fulfils
the law perfectly in his own
personal life. The character of
Jesus was the realization of the
ideal which the law
contemplated. He was a perfectly
righteous person, and it was
righteousness which the law
demanded and aimed to secure.
But it is not merely or mainly
the personal fulfilment of the
law's ideal to which Jesus
refers in saying that he came to
fulfil the law.
(2) Jesus
fulfilled the law in his
teaching by setting forth
therein the absolute truths of
religion and the universal
principles of goodness. This
point may best be illustrated
from the context of the passage
under review. Our Lord says that
the true righteousness must
exceed that of the scribes and
Pharisees (vs. 20). Their
righteousness consisted in the
punctilious observance of the
bare letter of the law, quite to
the neglect of its spirit. Jesus
then proceeds to show the
difference between such
external, superficial
righteousness and that which
corresponds to the law's true
ideal. He says (vss. 21 seq.):
You have in the Old Testament
the commandment, Thou shalt not
kill. It is commonly supposed
that to refrain from the actual,
overt act of murder is to keep
that commandment, but I tell you
that he only truly keeps it who
refrains from anger and hate. In
the sight of God, hate is the
essence of murder. He thus finds
the seat of all goodness, and of
all sin in the heart, that is,
in the sphere of the motives and
the desires.
In like manner, he
declares that the essence of
adultery is in the lustful
desire and the impure look. He
thus makes righteousness an
inward and moral affair. It
depends upon the state of the
heart. This truth he next
illustrates by reference to a
more subtle distinction (vss.
33-37). He cites the commandment
which requires men to speak the
truth, and to perform their vows
unto God. It appears that under
cover of this second requirement
the Jews permitted themselves to
make subtle distinctions between
vows or oaths taken "to
Jehovah," and those taken, for
example, "by the heaven," or "by
Jerusalem." Oaths taken in
Jehovah's name were regarded as
more sacred and binding than
those not so taken, and thus an
easy way was opened for
disregarding the real
sacredness of vows and promises.
Jesus strikes at the root of all
these hollow and dishonest
distinctions, and discountenances altogether the use of
oaths in apparent confirmation
of one's
word. Such oaths, he says in
effect, are either meaningless
or irreverent. Let your simple
word be enough. Esteem that to
be as binding as if you had
coupled your statement with
Jehovah's name. The Jews had
made the commandment of
truthfulness an instrument of
untruthfulness; Jesus insists
upon a truthful heart which (to
use a modern phrase) makes one's
"word as good as his bond."
The
illustrations of fulfilment thus
far given are examples of the
way in which Jesus penetrated in
his teaching to the inner meaning of Old Testament precepts
and exhibited their true ideal
requirements, as against the
superficial application of them
which regarded them as relating
to outward action only. Now,
however, he takes an example
of an Old Testament maxim to
which in itself he objects: Ye
have heard that it was said, An
eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth (Ex. 21:24); but I say
unto you, Resist not him that is
evil, etc. (vss. 38, 39). The
maxim here cited was a part of
the Mosaic system. It was a law
of retaliation which
magistrates were to apply under
certain restrictions in the
punishment of crimes; it was
popularly applied to justify
personal, private revenge.
Unwarranted as the application
was, we cannot justly say that
it was this alone to which Jesus
objected. The principle which he
enunciates is certainly opposed
to retaliation itself, though
not to retribution. The rule
that the wrongdoer was to
suffer the same kind of an
injury which he had done to
another represented a rude kind
of justice which was better than
none; but it did not accord with
the spirit of the teaching of
Jesus.
As a final example of fulfilment he cited the
commandment: "Thou shalt love
thy neighbor," and joined with
it the popular addition which
was derived by inference from
it: "and hate thine enemy"
(Matt. 5:43). By leaving off
from the Old Testament
requirement the words "as
thyself," and by restricting the
meaning of "neighbor" as much
as possible, so as to make love
to the "neighbor" suggest hatred
of those who were not regarded
as "neighbors," the Jews had
completely perverted the true
and natural sense of the passage
in question. Jesus, on the
contrary, sets forth the ideal
import of the commandment and
illustrates and
enforces the duty which it
enjoins by showing that the love
of God, which is the type of all
true love, is not niggardly, but
large and generous. He then
concludes : "Ye therefore shall
be perfect (that is, complete in
love-generous, helpful and
forgiving), as your heavenly
Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48).
These are examples of the way in
which Jesus fulfilled the law in
his teaching, both by rescuing
its true import from the
perversions and exaggerations to
which the scribes had subjected
it, also by recognizing the
ethical imperfections in the law
itself, and by replacing them by
absolute principles of truth and
right which are universally
applicable.
(3) This fulfilment
conserves all that is of
permanent value and validity for
religion in the Old Testament
system. Jesus teaches that this
whole system, in all its parts,
is involved in the process of
fulfilment. He did not
illustrate in detail how the
fulfilment applied to the
various parts of the law. We
must ascertain this from the
nature of the Gospel and from
the history and teaching which
the New Testament records. How,
for example, did he fulfil the
sacrificial system ? No doubt by
realizing in his own life,
sufferings, and death the true,
ideal meaning of sacrifice.
How did he fulfil that part of
the law which seems strangest to
us, the regulations respecting
meats and drinks ? These rules
were, I suppose, partly hygienic
and partly moral in their
purpose. Does not Jesus fulfil
them by the emphasis which he
lays in his teaching upon
purity, both of body and of soul
? Whatever they included or
suggested that was important for
man's permanent well-being will
be found to have been
incorporated in the
comprehensive principles of
Jesus.
He fulfils the prophets
by realizing their highest
ideals of religion no less than
by accomplishing their
predictions. The great fact in
this connection is that Jesus
fulfils the Jewish history; in
him the development of revealed
religion culminates; he is its
realization and its goal. The
aspirations and hopes of the
nation had been directed for
centuries to some great consummation, some wonderful expansion
of the kingdom of God; this
Christ came to accomplish, but
into its realization the Jewish
nation, through blindness and
perversity, did not largely
enter.
(4) The
process of fulfilment involves
the passing away of the Old
Testament system as such. As the
fulfilling of the blossom by the
fruit involves the passing away
of the former, so does the New
system replace the Old. This
view of the matter is abundantly
recognized in the teaching of
our Lord and his apostles. He
described his truth as new wine
which must not be put into the
old bottles of Judaism (Matt. 9:17). He said that his gospel was
not merely a new patch which was
to be sewed onto the old garment
of the law; it was rather a new
garment complete and
sufficient in itself (Matt. 9:
16). In entire accord with this
teaching Paul says that
Christians are "not under the
law" (Rom. 6:14), and he exhorts
the Colossians not to allow
anyone to sit in judgment upon
their liberty in regard to the
observance of the various parts
of the Jewish system, which, he
says, are a "shadow of the
things to come" (Col. 2:16, 17).
In teaching that the Old
Testament system is done away in
Christ, the Epistle to the
Hebrews is especially explicit;
indeed the whole force of the
argument rests upon this idea.
The writer quotes a passage from
Jeremiah in which the giving of
a new covenant is promised, and
adds: "In that he saith, A new
covenant, he hath made the
first old. But that which is
becoming old and waxeth aged is
nigh unto vanishing away" (Heb.
8:13). The point here is that
the very idea of a new covenant
which, according to the prophet,
was not to be like the covenant
which God had made with the
fathers, implied its final
abrogation.
It is certainly a
matter of great interest to
observe that the prophets
themselves discerned the
temporary character of their own cultus. What religion, besides
Judaism, ever predicted its own
passing away ? One of the most
significant facts of prophecy is
that the loftiest spirits in the
nation were led to look for the
dawning of larger truth, and for
a more complete form of the
kingdom of God.
But when it is
said that the Old Testament
system is abrogated in the
New, it is of capital importance
to observe that the New replaces
the Old, not by destruction, but
by fulfilment. The New does not
reject and discard the Old; it
preserves and embodies it, just
so far as it has elements of
permanent value for
the world's religion. The fulfilment is, therefore, an
organic process; the New comes
out of the Old by a natural and
orderly process of development.
In that process what is
unessential falls away of its
own accord, while all that is
essential and permanently useful
is taken up into Christianity,
more completely developed and
applied, and reinforced by
higher motives on the plane of
broader principles.
This subject
is a very practical one in its
bearing upon Christian thought
and life. Speaking generally,
the Christian world has never
very clearly perceived what was
its relation to the Old
Testament religion. How
discordant and inconsistent have
been the prevailing views on
this subject. Commonly some
rough distinction has been made
between those parts of the system which were supposed to be
binding and those from which the
Christian was believed to be
free, but this distinction
rested on no well-defined
principle whatever. The
discrimination has ordinarily
been perfectly arbitrary, having
no better grounds than those of
practical convenience. Let me
illustrate. No Christians, in
our time, hold that they must
observe the Old Testament rules
respecting meats and drinks, or
suppose that they are bound to
observe the sacrificial system.
But this was not always so. In
the apostolic church there was a
large party who held that it was
necessary for the Christian even
to keep the whole law of Moses
in order to be saved (see, e.g.,
Acts 15:1). Their view was
that Christianity was a kind of
addition or appendix to Judaism and that their former
religion, in all its
particulars, was in full force
and perpetually binding. Paul
had his sharpest conflicts with
this party. He showed that they
were quite consistent, though
consistently wrong. In insisting
on the necessity of a continued
observance of circumcision, they
logically committed themselves
to the keeping of the whole law.
But it was impossible that
Christians should long continue
to observe the whole Mosaic
ritual, and the effort to do so
was less and less consistently
made.
In modern times we not
infrequently find Christians who
have conscientiously placed
themselves under some part of
the Old system, believing that
it is binding upon them. Who has
not heard
Christian men argue that the law
of tithes was still binding, or
that the Jewish Sabbath-day (our
Saturday) was of perpetual
obligation? Some Christians have
separated themselves from their
brethren and organized separate
churches because they believed
that it was obligatory upon
Christians in all ages to sing
in public worship only the hymns
which were sung in Old Testament times. Some have
discarded pipe organs because
there were no pipe organs in the
Jewish temple, although it would
seem from the Psalms that every
kind of musical instrument known
to the time was in use there.
It
is much more common to make a
distinction between the
ceremonial and the moral parts
of the law, and to suppose that,
while the former are done away,
the latter are still binding
upon Christians. But this
distinction is recognized
neither in the Old nor in the
New Testament; it is a modern
division of the law which is
quite convenient and natural for
us, but one of which a quite
unwarrantable use is commonly
made. Christ did not fulfil a
part of the law merely, but the
whole of it. He does not complete
the ritual part of the Old
Testament alone, but all its
moral parts as well. This is but
to say that it was not merely
the ritual element of the law
which was imperfect and
temporary, but the moral element
as well. Many a moral maxim and
practice of the Old Testament,
as we have seen, was below the
plane of Jesus' ideal morality.
If he fulfils the system in all
its parts, then must the system
as such pass away. And this is
the fact in the case. On no
other supposition can the New
Testament references to the
subject be naturally explained;
on no other view can a clear
definition be given of the
relation of the two Testaments.
On hearing this view of the
matter stated the question will
naturally arise in many minds,
Is the Old Testament, then,
destroyed ? I answer, It is not
destroyed, but it has been
fulfilled. On this distinction
between destruction and fulfilment turns my whole view
of the question at issue. The
fulfilment is, by its very
nature, a conserving process; it
rejects nothing which it can use
by embodying it in its perfect
result. All the essentials of
the Old Testament are preserved
in the New, and it is as parts of
the gospel of Christ that they
belong to us and are binding
upon us. The Old Testament
system as such we are not under;
in other words, we are under
only so much of it as has been
taken up and incorporated in
Christianity, and we are under
that because it is a part of
Christianity, not because it is
a part of the Old Testament
religion. But some one will ask,
Are we not under the authority
of the ten commandments? I
reply, In their Old Testament
form and as part of that system,
we are not; else should we be
bound to observe Saturday as a
day of rest and worship, instead
of Sunday, since the fourth
commandment requires the
sanctifying of the seventh day.
The main substance of the ten
commandments consists of
changeless principles of
righteousness and is therefore a
part of Christianity; in that
sense we are under the
commandments, and in no other.
The duty to obey parents, for
example, is just as urgently
inculcated in the gospel as in
the commandments, and is, of
course, perpetually binding,
but the reason by which it is
enforced in the Old
Testament—that by obedience one
may win a long residence in the
land of Canaan—is not at all
applicable to us.
The truth
which we have been considering,
stated on its positive side, is
that Christianity is complete
and sufficient in itself as a
guide to faith and action. The
whole truth of the matter is in
that most expressive figure of
Jesus to which we have referred:
His gospel is not a patch to be
sewed on the old garment of
Judaism, but a wholly new
garment. We might carry out the
figure a step further by
saying—quite in harmony with his
thought—that into the texture of
that garment have been woven all
the elements of Judaism which
are adapted to become parts of
its permanent and perfect
structure.
While, then, we are
not under the old system at all,
it must always have the greatest
value in helping us to
understand historically its
own fulfilment in Christianity.
To speak in Paul's language, the
Old Testament is glorious, but
not with "the glory that
surpasseth" (2 Cor. 3:10), that
is, it has its true glory in the
fact that its mission was to
prepare for and to usher in a
more perfect system. It was
glorious, not so much in itself,
as in the great end which it
contemplated.
In this
view it will be seen that the
old system could well be both
temporary and divine. Its glory
lay in the very fact that it was
to give itself up to decay in
order that from it, as from the
seed, a larger life might
spring. Had this truth been
clearly seen by the church of
the apostolic age, many great
controversies and alienations
would have been avoided. It was
naturally hard for those who had
been reared and trained as Jews
to see the sufficiency and
independence of Christianity and
to recognize the complementary
truth that the Jewish religion
had waxed old and was ready to
vanish away. It required a
vision to convince Peter of
the largeness and newness of the
gospel, and even then he does
not seem to have stayed
convinced. The whole dispute
about circumcision which so
tried the soul of the apostle
Paul would have been settled in
an instant if all could have
seen Christ's truth of fulfilment. It was incapable of
real settlement except upon
Paul's bold principle that the
Christian is not under the law,
either in whole or in part.
Our
Lord seems to have foreseen the
perplexity and friction which
this question would make among
his followers and to have
described the situation in
parabolic language when he
said:" No man having drunk old
wine desireth new: for he saith,
The old is good" (Luke 5:39).
His meaning evidently was that
men would find it hard to adapt
themselves to his higher
standards and ideals after
having been so long used to
other and lower ones. The
natural and, within limits,
useful conservatism of men in
religion often prevents them
from rising to higher
standpoints and dulls their
minds to the perception of new
truth. A blind attachment to the
old, in the conviction that it
represented the full and final
truth, proved a great hindrance
to the spread and full reception
of the gospel in the apostolic
age.
In conclusion I can do no
better than to commend to the
student of this subject a
careful study of that remarkable
prophecy of Jeremiah to which
reference has been made, in
regard to the new and more
perfect covenant which God will
give to his people (Jer.
31:31-34); and in connection
with this passage, the use which
is made of it in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (8:8-13) should also
be carefully observed.
|
||
|
||