Skeptics point to this verse and ask how Jesus could say he came to fulfill the law when he seemingly broke many Old Testament laws. Did he? In reality, in every instance where Jesus is accused of breaking the law (such as picking grain or carrying a bed on the Sabbath, or not washing hands before eating), he is not violating the actual Old Testament law, but rather the "tradition of the elders"—a Pharisaic code of interpretation and oral law. Furthermore, ancient law codes were not "fixed" and absolute in the same sense as our modern laws, but were rather didactic in nature. As the incarnate Word of God, Jesus was perfectly free to update the law and was also the one best qualified to interpret it.

Some argue that if God actually is concerned as to whether or not His 'words' from which not 'one jot or one tittle' (Matthew 5:18) will pass away, then the fact that this text fails to meet this standard in transmission tells us something about whether or not this God really does exist.

Though Matthew 5:18 has often been used as a proof of strict textual inerrancy, it is rather an expression related to the Jewish idea of God's Word as preexistent, enduring, and fulfilled in Christ, rather than a guarantee of flawless scribal transmission. The preservation of God's truth resides in the living Tradition of Christianity, not merely in the ink and parchment of earthly copies. As an analogy, inmates in a prison might think that if they tore down the signs where rules were posted, they could get away with breaking the rule; but the sign itself was not the ultimate authority—the warden was.

What is the role of the Law in the life of the Christian today? Do we need to trash our polyester? If we are true believers, do we need to execute witches? And finally, is the covenant still "good" with Israel today?

To answer these questions we need to establish some frameworks. Our primary framework has to do with the categories of the law.

First, some laws are universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, and others. There is no disagreement that these laws should indeed be continued to be obeyed today, so we need not discuss them further.

Second, some laws are cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel's culture that have a universal moral law behind them. As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the universal behind this cultural would be, don't do the occult. But here is my favorite example, from Deut. 22:8-9:

> When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

One might object that one would be hard-pressed to find home builders who follow this rule. But actually they do follow the modern equivalent. In ancient Israel, the flat roof of a house would be used for many purposes, such as sleeping, household chores, and entertaining. These chores included drying and storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations. We don't use our roof the same way -- the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter. At any rate, it would also be agreed that the universals behind these cultural applications should continue to be followed.

Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example, are definitely in this, as are sacrificial laws. What else belongs in here? Most likely the dietary laws belong here, as their purpose was to make the Jews "different" and to serve as a testimony to their difference in the most intimate ancient setting, that of meal fellowship.

With these matters in mind, we may now address some issues of how the law is regarded in the NT.

> Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

One might object that the Law of Moses is nothing to be 'fulfilled' in any way, but that one can only obey it. However, to fulfill God's law was to confirm it by obedience; whereas to "annul" the law was to treat it as void. This leads to our next passage:

> Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Hasn't Paul just said that 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law' (v. 28)?

Indeed he has. And this is where another concept comes into play: the Semitic Totality Concept. The Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111] And thus when Paul tells his readers that we "establish" (obey) the law by faith, he is saying no more than that it is our faith that prompts us to follow the law.

A believer in Jesus will indeed follow the dictates of the law -- the universal morals, of course, not the cultural particulars -- because of obedience to Christ.

Some may read passages in Romans (7:4) and Galatians (3:13) as referring to the law as ineffectual, or as something to be avoided, but it actually means we are ineffectual due to our fallen nature, and that is why the law's condemnation is a "curse," making it necessary for Christ to deliver us and unite us to Himself. "No flesh shall be justified" by the law because none of us can obey it fully. Paul is stating a condition of fact, not making a statement about the veracity of the law.