As a Christian, is it because you follow the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity, that you teach “Jesus fulfilled the law” to mean that He abolished the law or that we in faith need not follow the Scriptures, despite what 2 Timothy 3:13–17 teaches?
That’s quite an interesting question that can be effectively explained by understanding how to rightly divide the scriptures.
Let’s start with the phrase “Jesus fulfilled the law.” It comes from Matthew 5:17, where Christ says:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
To “fulfil” the law doesn’t mean to abolish it or render Scripture irrelevant. It means that Christ completed its purpose. He satisfied its righteous demands, fulfilled its types and shadows, and brought its prophetic promises to their intended conclusion. The law pointed to Him—and He fulfilled it perfectly.
Now, regarding 2 Timothy 3:13–17, especially verses 16–17:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
This passage affirms the enduring value of Scripture. But notice—it doesn’t say all Scripture is written to us. It says all Scripture is profitable. That’s a dispensational distinction. We learn from all Scripture, but we don’t apply all Scripture directly to our walk. For example, we don’t offer animal sacrifices or follow Levitical dietary laws, even though they’re part of inspired Scripture.
So, when Paul teaches that we’re “not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14), he’s not rejecting Scripture—he’s clarifying our position in Christ. The law was given to Israel, not the Body of Christ. We are saved by grace through faith, and our walk is governed by the Spirit, not the Mosaic code.
In short: Jesus fulfilled the law, not abolished Scripture. And we, as believers today, are called to rightly divide the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), recognising what applies to Israel and what applies to the Church. That’s not dogma—it’s doctrinal clarity.
Comments
Post a Comment