Was the law of God abolished by the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Let us listen to his own words.
"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 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." Matt.
5:17-19.
Our Lord here testifies that he did not come to destroy the law or the
prophets. Then it is a fact that he did not destroy either. But what is it to destroy
the law? We answer, that it can only signify to abolish, or to annul it. And thus
Campbell renders the word:- "Think not that I am come to subvert the law."
Whiting renders it:- "Think not that I am come to annul the law." It is therefore
certain that our Lord did not come to subvert, annul, or destroy, the law of God.
Hence it follows that the law of God was not annulled or abrogated by him. He
adds, that instead of coming to destroy, he came to fulfill. If this was the object of
the Saviour's mission, did he not by this act do away the law, set
4
is aside, and relieve us from obligation to keep its precepts? Let us see. As
Campbell renders the text, it reads, "I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." That
is, I am not come to abolish the law, but to confirm, and render still more sacred,
its just demands. If that was the object of our Lord's mission, it follows that he did
not lessen our obligation to obey the law of his Father.
But let us return to the word "fulfill." Christ came to fulfill the law, hence he did
fulfill it. What is it to fulfill a law? Let the apostle James answer: "If ye fulfill the
royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye
do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of
the law as transgressors." James2:8,9. It is evident that James here places the
transgression of the law in contrast with, or in opposition to, the fulfillment of the
law; therefore it follows that the fulfillment of the law is the reverse of its violation.
In other words, it is its observance. To fulfill the law in the manner that James
enjoins, is to render complete obedience to its divine requirements.
But it may be contended that to fulfill the law in the sense of our Lord's
declaration, accomplishes its purpose, and takes it out of the way. To show the
absurdity of this view, let us take another of Christ's sayings which is of the same
character, precisely. When John refused to baptize the Saviour, Jesus
5
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
said, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."
Matt.3:15. Did the Saviour, by fulfilling all righteousness, weaken, take out of the
way, or destroy all righteousness? Certainly not. No one will claim that he
lessened our obligation to fulfill all righteousness also.
But how did Christ fulfill the law of his Father? There is but one way in which
this could be accomplished, and that is to answer its just demands. What were
