I want to respond to a series of articles
written by Andrew Schumacher, a Christian teacher and apologist. He runs the ministry, "The Beginning of Wisdom." I like Andrew. He seems like a really sharp thinker, and
I think he's pretty fair in how he represents views that he disagrees with. I want to interact with Andrew's content,
because a lot of what he focuses on in his videos and articles is the issue of the Torah
and its relevance to Christians today. Andrew responds to a lot of the errors that
he perceives within the Hebrew Roots movement, and of course a big belief within that movement
is this idea that the Torah is still valid and relevant to Christians -- that is, this
idea we should still keep commandments like the Sabbath, dietary laws, and so forth. While Andrew does affirm the authority of
what he calls "moral laws," which all Christians agree with (don't murder, steal, lie, and
so forth), he disagrees that we should still follow laws like the Sabbath and dietary instructions. Now, full disclosure, I don't consider myself
"Hebrew Roots." I'm often lumped in with them because I believe
in things like keeping the Sabbath. (I work for a ministry that is definitely
considered by many to be Hebrew Roots, and they use the term.) But I personally don't like the term because
it's so ill defined -- people have a million different ideas of what it is, and I simply
don't agree with a lot of what ... I guess the Hebrew Roots movement has gained a reputation
for. So, I'm not defending the Hebrew Roots movement. I don't care. I'm defending my theological belief that the
Torah still has a valid and authoritative role in our lives as Christians. Anyway, the series of articles I'm responding
to is centered on Matthew 5:17-20. There's a link to these articles below. But this is a very important passage regarding
the question of the Torah and its role in our lives as followers of Yeshua-Jesus. Obviously, the Messiah's direct statement
on this matter is worthy of our attention. Andrew recognizes this. He says: "While there is much diversity in
the Hebrew Roots Movement, the one thing almost all have in common is the view that the Law
of Moses is still fully in effect for all Christians today. This is nuanced among different groups, but
what is very common, wherever you look, is the view that Matthew 5:17-20 is clear teaching
by Jesus that His coming does not change our obligation to keep the whole law." Now, from here, Andrew goes on to give his
interpretation of this passage and explain why he thinks it does not affirm the ongoing
authority of God's Law. Before we address his arguments, let's look
at the passage: Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to
abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least
of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom
of heaven, but whoever 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." So, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that He came
to "fulfill" the Torah and the Prophets, not abolish them. In his articles, Andrew takes the traditional
position that "fulfill" -- pleroo -- essentially means "bringing to completion." Since Yeshua embodies the whole of the Tanakh
-- everything points to and culminates in Him. And by virtue of this fulfillment, some laws,
like the Sabbath, do not need to be kept anymore. They now function as signposts, if you will,
that direct us to the Messiah. The way Andrew puts it that our relationship
to some laws has changed in light of their fulfillment. They don't apply to us in the same way anymore
now that Christ has fulfilled them. By this he means we don't have to do things
like literally rest from our work on the seventh day anymore. Of course, I agree that the Messiah came to
"perfect" the Torah. He embodies the Torah to its fullest extent
in His Messianic work, and in His teachings and deeds. But I believe it's an overstatement -- a non
sequitur, really -- to say that this fact therefore means that Messiah rendered some
laws inapplicable to us. Quite the opposite, actually. And the rest of the passage makes this very
clear. I believe Yeshua saying He came to fulfill
the Torah is an affirmation of the Torah's ongoing authority. Listen to what New Testament scholar, Dr.
Craig Keener, says: "When Jesus says that he came not to "abolish"
the law and prophets but to "fulfill," he uses terms that would have conveyed his faithfulness
to the Scriptures. To "fulfill" God’s law was to "confirm"
it by obedience and demonstrating that one's teaching accorded with it; to "annul" it was
to cast off its yoke, treating God's law as void." What Yeshua is saying here is that He came
to confirm the Torah's validity and teach what it actually means to apply it properly,
the way God intends -- which, of course, makes the most sense in light of the context. Yeshua's entire sermon is predicated on the
idea that the Torah is still authoritative. By the way, if you're interested in an excellent
scholarly paper on this topic, there's one that was presented at ETS a while back written
by Tim Hegg. He demonstrates how the Greek "to fulfill"
in this verse can have the meaning "confirm" or "implement." I'll leave a link to that below. In summary, Yeshua did not come to "abolish"
the Torah -- that is, tear it down or annul it (which Andrew agrees). Instead, He came to "fulfill" it. Andrew thinks this entails that some laws
are now rendered non-authoritative to us. I disagree. I agree with scholars like Dr. Craig Keener
and others that to fulfill the law means to confirm it and demonstrate how to properly
live it out on the basis of love for God and one's neighbor. Listen to what Dr. Carmen Imes says in regard
to this passage. She's an Old Testament scholar. She recently spoke at Dr. Michael Heiser's
Naked Bible conference. (I know Andrew is a fan of Heiser because
he mentions him in his article.) Anyway, this is from her new book, Bearing
God's Name: Why Sinai Still Matters. After quoting Matthew 5:17 she says this: "If anyone was hoping to be done with Sinai
now that Jesus is here, this is the moment of truth. He upholds the law, telling the crowds that
every commandment matters and that entrance to God’s kingdom requires a righteousness
even greater than that of the current Jewish religious leaders ... He raises the bar by
retuning to the original intent of the Sinai instructions. "You have heard that it was said ... but I
tell you" ... Jesus does not do away with the Old Testament law. He calls people back to it. And he holds them to it." Again, this is what the Sermon on the Mount
is all about. The religious leaders have failed to properly
teach the people how to keep the Torah. Yeshua came to reveal how to keep the Torah
as God originally intended at Sinai. We are to walk out the Torah on the basis
of love for God and neighbor. Let's keep going, because this idea that Yeshua
is actually affirming the ongoing authority of the Torah will become even clearer as we
read through the rest of the passage: Matthew 5:18
"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will
pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Andrew doesn’t really unpack what he thinks
this verse means. He mainly just criticizes the pro-Torah interpretation
of it. From what I could gather, though, he takes
the position that "all" has already been accomplished through Christ's work on the cross, so now
iotas and dots can pass away from the Torah. However, according to Dr. Craig Keener, that
interpretation "violates the whole thrust of the passage." It's trying to force what you already believe
onto the verse rather than just taking it for what it says. I really like how New Testament scholar, Dr.
J. Andrew Overman, puts it. He calls Andrew's approach "hermeneutical
gymnastics," which is an awesome phrase that I've totally stolen and have used in other
discussions. Listen to what he says: "A host of monographs have been devoted to
these four verses attempting to show that Jesus did not mean that the law must be fulfilled
when he seemed to have said the law must be fulfilled. For example, some interpreters have found
an escape clause in 5:18b which concludes with the phrase "until all is accomplished." Some have claimed that Jesus "fulfilled all,"
and therefore the law and the prophets were in force during Jesus' lifetime, but not after
his death since, at that point, "all was accomplished." Such hermeneutical gymnastics seem excessive,
if not tortured. Such contrived interpretations of 5:17-20
are also a result of isolating these verses from the rest of the Gospel. Indeed, throughout the Gospel Matthew demonstrates
a sophisticated knowledge of the law, its interpretation, and the abiding validity of
the law as he interprets it ... Although this passage is the subject of lively controversy,
it is unambiguous and does indeed command obedience to the whole Torah." Basically, Andrew's objection to the plain
reading of the verse is to say that it contradicts Hebrews. His argument boils down to this (I'm paraphrasing):
"This verse can't mean that all the Torah still has an authoritative role in the lives
of Christians because that would mean that the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices
are still to be performed. But that idea contradicts the book of Hebrews." The problem is that Andrew approaches Matthew
5:18 already assuming that his interpretation of Hebrews is correct. And so he reads his interpretation of Hebrews
into Matthew 5:18 and says, "Oh, well, the time when all is accomplished must have already
occurred." Obviously, I disagree with Andrew's interpretation
of Hebrews. If you're interested in some scholarly resources
on the book of Hebrews that demonstrate that the author of Hebrews does NOT contradict
what Yeshua says in Matthew 5:18, both Tim Hegg and J.K. McKee have written excellent commentaries. But since getting into the entire book of
Hebrews is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, I'll leave it at that. I think we should take the plain sense of
Matthew 5:18, which is that nothing will pass from the Torah until heaven and earth pass
away and all is accomplished. According to scholars, Yeshua is making a
reference to the eschaton here -- that is, the end of the age and the consummation of
the eternal kingdom when heaven and earth pass away. But before we move on, what do we make about
the parts of the Torah pertaining to the priesthood and sacrifices? Well, as Andrew points out, I'm among those
who would say there's no reason to think the Levitical system has been annulled. For instance, the apostles continued to participate
in the Levitical system long after Jesus' death and resurrection (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:26). The author of Hebrews himself recognized the
ongoing service of the Levitical Priesthood in Jerusalem (Hebrews 8:4-5). Furthermore, both Ezekiel and Zechariah acknowledge
the reality of a future earthly priesthood, temple, Levites, and animal sacrifices during
the millennial reign of Messiah (Ezekiel 40-48; Zechariah 14:20-21). To be clear, Jesus is the High Priest of a
greater priesthood, as Hebrews clearly teaches. He is the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. The Levitical priesthood could not attain
perfection because it was made up of fallen men, and animal sacrifices could not provide
atonement because they could not provide the infinite payment for sin that only Messiah's
sacrifice could fulfill. But it doesn't follow from any of these facts
that the Levitical priesthood has been abolished. The Levitical Priesthood has always functioned
as the earthly shadow that points to the heavenly reality that the Messiah fulfilled -- it will
function in that role again during the millennial reign. There's no contradiction between Matthew 5:18
and the book of Hebrews. Andrew assumes his interpretation of Hebrews,
which abolishes parts of the Torah, is the correct interpretation, and so he imposes
that interpretation on Matthew 5:18. I agree with New Testament scholars that the
plain sense of Matthew 5:18 is correct and that Andrew is simply wrong in how he interprets
Hebrews. Let's move on to the next verse: Matthew 5:19
"Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to
do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches
them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." The meaning of this verse is very straightforward. Here, Yeshua directly admonishes His followers
to be great in the kingdom of heaven by doing and teaching the commandments. Which commandants? The commandments He's been talking about this
entire time -- the Torah. That's the context of this entire passage. Jesus says those who do and teach the law
will be great in the kingdom of heaven, and those who don't will be least. There's actually a polemic here against the
religious leadership of Yeshua's day, which is made clearer in the next verse. But here's what New Testament scholar, Dr.
J. Andrew Overman writes: "The Jewish leadership is alluded to in 5:19a
with the reference to the authoritative role of teaching. Those who teach others to do away with the
law are least in the kingdom. For Matthew teaching the law is bound up with
"doing" it (5:19). On other occasions Matthew claims that this
is a distinction between his community and the Jewish leadership (see 23:3, 23). Matthew's community understands, teaches,
and does the law. This is the fulfillment of the law and the
righteousness which surpasses that of the Matthean antagonists. If you not only teach the law but do it, applying
the dominant principles of love and compassion, you have fulfilled the law and properly enacted
the will of God in heaven (7:12; 12:50; 21:31). Love and mutuality, as seen in the antitheses,
guide the interpretation of the valid and enduring law." Again, throughout His Sermon on the Mount,
Yeshua is affirming the ongoing authority of the Torah, and He is teaching how to apply
it properly. This is in contrast to the hypocritical Jewish
leadership of the day, who preached Torah but did not practice it. They found all sorts of ways to circumvent
God's actual intention in his laws while still pretending to be religious, still pretending
the be righteous. That's what Jesus is addressing in His Sermon:
His followers actually do and teach the Torah, unlike the religious authorities of the day. Now, Andrew actually has a very peculiar interpretation
of verse 19. I've read a bazillion commentaries on Matthew,
and I've never heard his explanation before. Basically, Andrew makes a distinction between
the Torah and the "commandments" Jesus refers to in Matthew 5:19. Andrew argues that Yeshua does not admonish
his followers to do and teach the commands of the Torah, but actually admonishes them
to do and teach different commandments -- namely, the commands of Jesus. So, Andrew escapes from the implications of
the plain sense of this verse by saying that Jesus is introducing new and different commands
here, and that's what Jesus is referring to when He tells us to do and teach the commandments. But this interpretation is highly unlikely
due to the fact that the entire context of the passage is dealing with the Law of Moses. Not only that, but Jesus' teaching throughout
the entire Sermon on the Mount assumes the validity of the Torah. Now, Andrew appeals to the antitheses throughout
the Sermon to try to substantiate his point -- the "You’ve heard it said, but I say
to you" statements. Andrew says, "In His contrasts regarding murder,
adultery, and eye for eye, Jesus makes no reference to anything outside the law in the
contrast." Andrew's idea is that Jesus' teaching is contrasted
with the Law of God and therefore must be a different law. However, a much more parsimonious explanation
that makes much more sense in light of the immediate context is what the scholars I quoted
earlier have proposed: Jesus is offering the correct interpretation of the Torah, not issuing
new and different commandments. He is explaining how to properly keep the
Torah on the basis of love for God and neighbor -- how to live as those who have the Torah
written on the heart. Let's look at the last verse: Matthew 5:20
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Andrew says here that Yeshua cannot be affirming
the ongoing authority of the Torah in the pervious three verses, because that would
mean that verse 20 would logically entail that salvation is on the basis of Torah observance,
which we all know isn't true. Obviously, that idea would contradict the
biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith. Basically, what Andrew is doing here is creating
a false dilemma: either you reject the plain sense of what Yeshua is saying in Matthew
5:17-19 -- that the law still has an ongoing authoritative role in our lives as Christians,
or you reject the biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith. The first problem with Andrew's argument is
that HE faces the same dilemma, because he interprets verse 19 as Jesus admonishing His
followers to do and teach certain commandments. So either way -- whether you think verse 19
means following the Torah in accordance with Jesus' interpretation of it, or following
new and different commandments from Jesus -- we are still left with this dilemma in
verse 20. However, not to worry, because there is another
option that allows us to affirm both the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith
AND the plain sense of Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus is not talking about the doctrine of
salvation but about the natural outgrowth of saving faith -- that is, living as a member
of the kingdom of heaven. This could be compared to the epistle of James. A lot of people will accuse James of teaching
works-based salvation because of what he says in chapter 2 of his epistle about how faith
alone can't justify, we also need to do good works. James doesn't deny the fact that we're justified
by faith. He doesn't teach that faith can't save us;
he teaches that counterfeit faith can't save us. What is counterfeit faith? It's the kind of "faith" that doesn't lead
to doing good works. So James affirms that we're saved by faith,
but faith needs to be defined correctly. James emphasizes that doing good works is
the necessary outgrowth of saving faith, as every Christian agrees. Yeshua is basically saying the same thing:
members of the Kingdom of heaven -- that is, those who have been saved by faith by definition
-- will walk in righteousness. Their righteousness doesn't save them. But those who have been saved, who are genuine
members of the kingdom of heaven, will walk in righteousness. If you're not walking in righteousness, you
aren't a genuine member of the kingdom of heaven. Same thing as what James says. If you aren't doing good works, you don't
have genuine faith. The righteousness of Yeshua's followers will
exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, because our righteousness is based on Yeshua's
fulfillment of the Torah. His embodiment of the Torah in His work and
His teachings. Yeshua teaches us true Torah observance on
the basis of love for God and neighbor. He writes the Torah on the hearts of His followers,
transforming them from the inside out, in accordance with the New Covenant promises
-- as His entire sermon on the Mount goes on to demonstrate. He teaches Torah from the heart. So, a plain sense reading of Matthew 5:20
is fully compatible with the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, just
as James 2 is also fully compatible with that biblical doctrine. There's no reason to try to make Matthew 5:17-20
say something different than what it clearly says. In conclusion, Matthew 5:17-20 clearly affirms
the ongoing validity and authority of the Torah. Yeshua came to confirm the Torah and embody
it to is fullest extent, teaching how to properly apply it as God intends. Not a single part of the Torah will pass away
until the consummation of the Kingdom at the end of the age, when heaven and earth pass
away. Yeshua's followers will do and teach even
the least of the commandments of the Torah; and members of the kingdom of heaven will
have a righteousness that surpasses the scribes and Pharisees -- those religious leaders who
preach Torah but don't actually practice it. Their faith is dead, as James puts it. But as members of the kingdom -- those who
have been saved by grace through faith, who have genuine faith, who are genuine members
of the kingdom -- we walk in righteousness in accordance with the revealed will of God
in the Scriptures, including the Torah, as Messiah affirmed and taught. Hey, I hope this video was blessing to you. If you liked it, please give it a thumbs up. Also, feel free to share your thoughts in
the comments below. And, be sure to subscribe to this channel
and hit the notification bell so that you'll be notified whenever I post more content like
this. I hope you liked the video. Again, I'll see you next time. Blessings and Shalom!
