Christ is the Fulfillment of the Law
I am continuing with Chapter Six of Arthur Pink's "An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount"
"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"
Pink begins commenting on this statement of Christ's by saying, "We must now carefully inquire what our Lord here meant by 'fulfil'." And he understands the word to primarily mean that, far from intending to set aside the moral law and opposing the testimony of the prophets, He had come to offer unto God the perfect obedience that the Law required and to make good on all the predictions of the prophets who testified of Him and what He was to accomplish.
"In a word, we regard this statement of Christ's as a definite declaration that He had entered this world with the object of bringing in a perfect righteousness, which should be imputed to all His believing people."
Pink then spends a few paragraphs refuting an error of the Socinians who deny that Christ performed a vicarious obedience to the law on behalf of His people. He describes their misinterpretation thus:
"They contend that the word 'fulfil' in this passage simply means to 'fill out' or 'fill full.' They imagine that in the remainder of the chapter Christ partly cancels and partly adds to the moral Law."
In refuting this error, Pink gives a total of five reasons for rejecting it -- three from excerpts of George Smeaton's writings and two of his own. But since two of Smeaton's assertions were based on the usage of a verb, and I have not studied the passage in the original Greek, I do not know for certain that the assertions made were true. Therefore, I have only summarized three of the five points:
(1) Mat 5:18 must be seen as giving a reason for the statement made in Mat. 5:17. But how is this so if the connected verses have this meaning: "I came to fill out or to supplement the Law, for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled"?
(2) The term "fulfil" is placed in direct antithesis to "destroy," indicating opposite concepts. Destroying the Law means disregarding it completely and fulfilling the Law means obeying it completely. But filling it out or supplementing it means something else.
(3) Reestablishing the Law by correcting the perverted interpretations of the Jews and explaining its higher moral meaning was business which could have been done by the apostles, but no mere man was capable of bringing in an "everlasting righteousness." Law can only be fulfilled by perfect obedience and that perfect obedience was found only in Christ.
Having given a refutation of the Socinian error, Pink returns to addressing the ways in which Christ fulfilled the Law, using the threefold definition of William Perkins:
(1) Christ fulfilled the Law by His doctrine: "both by restoring to it its proper meaning and true use, and by revealing the right way in which the Law may be fulfilled."
(2) Christ fulfilled the Law in His person: "both by performing perfect and perpetual obedience unto its precepts, and by suffering its penalty, enduring death upon the Cross for His people."
(3) Christ fulfilled the Law in men: "in the elect by imparting faith to their hearts, so that they lay hold of Christ who fulfilled it for them, and by giving them His own Spirit which imparts to them a love for the Law and sets them on endeavouring to obey it; and in the reprobate when He executes the curse of the Law upon them."
Pink then gives an overview: "Taking our verses as a whole, we may perceive how that though the Law and the Gospel vary in some respects very widely, yet there is a perfect consonance and agreement between them." Though many erroneously believe the two to be adversaries to one another, "there is a sweet consent between the Law and Gospel, for Christ came to fulfil the former and is the substance of the latter."
Therefore, Paul says that through faith we establish the law (Rom. 3:21). The harmony of the Law and Gospel was illustrated when Moses gave the Law unto the children of Israel. In doing so, he offered sacrifices and sprinkled the blood of them on the book and the people. The book was the book of the Law, and the sacrifices and blood represented the sacrifice and blood of Christ declared in the Gospel.
The Law required perfect obedience and pronounced death on he who was guilty of the least transgression thereof. And since all transgress the Law, there is no way to fulfill it in ourselves. But the Gospel makes Christ known to us, and declares that He fulfilled the Law for us. For this reason Christ is called "The end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" (Rom. 10:4).
"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"
Pink begins commenting on this statement of Christ's by saying, "We must now carefully inquire what our Lord here meant by 'fulfil'." And he understands the word to primarily mean that, far from intending to set aside the moral law and opposing the testimony of the prophets, He had come to offer unto God the perfect obedience that the Law required and to make good on all the predictions of the prophets who testified of Him and what He was to accomplish.
"In a word, we regard this statement of Christ's as a definite declaration that He had entered this world with the object of bringing in a perfect righteousness, which should be imputed to all His believing people."
Pink then spends a few paragraphs refuting an error of the Socinians who deny that Christ performed a vicarious obedience to the law on behalf of His people. He describes their misinterpretation thus:
"They contend that the word 'fulfil' in this passage simply means to 'fill out' or 'fill full.' They imagine that in the remainder of the chapter Christ partly cancels and partly adds to the moral Law."
In refuting this error, Pink gives a total of five reasons for rejecting it -- three from excerpts of George Smeaton's writings and two of his own. But since two of Smeaton's assertions were based on the usage of a verb, and I have not studied the passage in the original Greek, I do not know for certain that the assertions made were true. Therefore, I have only summarized three of the five points:
(1) Mat 5:18 must be seen as giving a reason for the statement made in Mat. 5:17. But how is this so if the connected verses have this meaning: "I came to fill out or to supplement the Law, for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled"?
(2) The term "fulfil" is placed in direct antithesis to "destroy," indicating opposite concepts. Destroying the Law means disregarding it completely and fulfilling the Law means obeying it completely. But filling it out or supplementing it means something else.
(3) Reestablishing the Law by correcting the perverted interpretations of the Jews and explaining its higher moral meaning was business which could have been done by the apostles, but no mere man was capable of bringing in an "everlasting righteousness." Law can only be fulfilled by perfect obedience and that perfect obedience was found only in Christ.
Having given a refutation of the Socinian error, Pink returns to addressing the ways in which Christ fulfilled the Law, using the threefold definition of William Perkins:
(1) Christ fulfilled the Law by His doctrine: "both by restoring to it its proper meaning and true use, and by revealing the right way in which the Law may be fulfilled."
(2) Christ fulfilled the Law in His person: "both by performing perfect and perpetual obedience unto its precepts, and by suffering its penalty, enduring death upon the Cross for His people."
(3) Christ fulfilled the Law in men: "in the elect by imparting faith to their hearts, so that they lay hold of Christ who fulfilled it for them, and by giving them His own Spirit which imparts to them a love for the Law and sets them on endeavouring to obey it; and in the reprobate when He executes the curse of the Law upon them."
Pink then gives an overview: "Taking our verses as a whole, we may perceive how that though the Law and the Gospel vary in some respects very widely, yet there is a perfect consonance and agreement between them." Though many erroneously believe the two to be adversaries to one another, "there is a sweet consent between the Law and Gospel, for Christ came to fulfil the former and is the substance of the latter."
Therefore, Paul says that through faith we establish the law (Rom. 3:21). The harmony of the Law and Gospel was illustrated when Moses gave the Law unto the children of Israel. In doing so, he offered sacrifices and sprinkled the blood of them on the book and the people. The book was the book of the Law, and the sacrifices and blood represented the sacrifice and blood of Christ declared in the Gospel.
The Law required perfect obedience and pronounced death on he who was guilty of the least transgression thereof. And since all transgress the Law, there is no way to fulfill it in ourselves. But the Gospel makes Christ known to us, and declares that He fulfilled the Law for us. For this reason Christ is called "The end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" (Rom. 10:4).
posted by Stuart DiNenno at 11/30/2004 10:03:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home