or, "Until Now "Luke 16:16,17; Matthew 11:12-13; Matthew 5:17,18

Question:

Doesn’t Jesus teach in Luke 16:16 that “the Law and the Prophets were only until John” but after that only the prophecies began their fulfilment?

I believe this question was prompted by my article on the Old Testament Law and Prophets being effective unto the cross.

The passage reads, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:16,17). A parallel passage says that Jesus said, “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:12-13).

A commentator stated, “Interestingly enough, if one were to take this verse to mean that the Law and Prophets and the Writings were [only] until John, then that could be taken as an unequivocal statement from [Jesus] himself that the [Old Covenant] is a closed canon” at this point in time.ⁱ At first glance perhaps the interpretation of Jesus’ statement in Luke 16:16 and Matthew 11:13 is that John’s ministry was a pivotal point between the Old and the New covenants, but upon critical investigation this can not be true.

MISLEADING ASSUMPTIONS.

The Assumption That The Kingdom Began With John. One error for interpreting Jesus’ statement along this line is that one may think John established the Kingdom of Christ. Hence, John’s kingdom would replace the Law and the Prophets. However, even those close to Jesus asked Him after His resurrection about restoring the Kingdom (Acts 1:6). The kingdom to them did not yet exist. Jesus in fact had said that John the Baptist, although a great man, was NOT in the kingdom that he preached. “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). If the least person in the kingdom is greater than John who was the greatest among those born of women, then John was not in that kingdom.

The Assumption of Assigning Modern Definitions. Another error is always interpreting the word “fulfil” as referring strictly to predictions coming to pass. The English word “fulfil” is traced back to the 13^th centuryⁱⁱ at which time it especially used to mean "fill up" (a room, a ship, etc.), i.e., "make full; take the place of (something)," … with a sense of "completion.” It is interesting that Merriam-Webster classifies this meaning “make full”ⁱⁱⁱ as now being archaic. Which is correct for translating such passages as Matthew 5:17?

DETERMINANTS OF WHAT JESUS MEANT. But we can know what Jesus meant, because of the following points.

1. HIS AUDIENCE WERE PHARISEES. Did Jesus actually proclaim to His powerful enemies the Pharisees that “their” Covenant [Law and Prophets] had ended?^iv For they along with the scribes were “Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him” (Luke 11:54). Those hearers were His accusers, the Pharisees (v. 14), and yet they never accused Him of saying such a thing at His trial. He would have deserved death if He was speaking against Moses (Deuteronomy 13:5,6) and we would still be lost in our sins. This would have been a “slam dunk” for His enemies.

2. JESUS CLARIFIED IT. Jesus immediately adds (verse 17) for His audience that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to fall away.” It is as if Jesus knew that 2000 years later people would misunderstand what He said. Jesus would have indeed contradicted Himself IF He had said that the Law had already failed or ended with the advent of John.

3. THE NECESSITY FOR A LAW. If the authority of the Law and the Prophets had ended when John began preaching what Law would John, the people as well as the Pharisees and Jesus be under? Since sin is breaking the Law, no one would have been sinners anymore (Romans 4:15; 1 John 3:4)?

Both the Law and the Prophets would contain governance from God. Violating this governance is sin. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). The Law of Moses [or Lord] contained commandments from God. The Prophets hang upon the Law’s Commandments as well. “The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments [of loving the Lord and your neighbor]” (Matthew 22:40, New Living Translation). Was not the purpose of the Prophets to command the errant? 2 Chronicles 24:19, NKJV, speaks of the role of all of the prophets, “Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the LORD; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.”

Even Jesus Himself was subject to the Law and the Prophets. He so declared when the devil tempted Him (Matthew 4:4,7). The Scriptures say that even Jesus had been born “under the Law (of Moses)” (Galatians 4:4). He was subject to the Law. If the Law stopped with John, what Law would Jesus have been subject to?

4. THE CROSS. What Law of commandments did Jesus abolish in His flesh (Ephesians 2:15) if the Law had already ended? In fact, what “Handwriting of Law” would Jesus have nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14) if the Law had failed with the beginning of John. We know that the New Testament of Jesus came into effect AFTER Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9:15, 16). There’s no room in the record for any intermediate government.

5. NEW VS. OLD. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). Jeremiah the prophet spoke thus of the new covenant. Hebrews makes the argument that by Jeremiah speaking of a new covenant, the first is declared to be “old.” This simply means in our context that without a new covenant in existence, the one that Jesus was born under could not be declared old nor could it end or be done away with. This establishes my point that Jesus did not mean the Law and the Prophets were ended with the arrival of John the Baptist.

6. DEFINITION OF “UNTIL”

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). “Until John” does not mean that anything “has ended at this point.” Actually, Jesus had just used the same phrase “until now” in the previous verse (v. 12). “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” If “until” required that it meant “it was ended” then would not Jesus have been in error with the “until now” expression in verse 12. “Until now” cannot truthfully mean that the “violence” ended. Surely such an interpretation would have predicted the demise of the Kingdom itself. “Until” does not mean the “end” of something.

“Until” means simply “up to this time.” Mickelson’s Enhansed Strong’s Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments define “until” as “a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance.” In addition, Thayer’s Dictionary under its Greek reference^v states that this word “until^G2193 used before adverbs of time … : ἕως^G2193 ἄρτι, [would mean] up to this time, until now.” That is, it would not have a terminal meaning in this passage but is describing what had been happening. The dictionary points out that if “until” is used with the noun John, it is used as a preposition and has a meaning of terminus post quem (Latin)^vi which “indicates the earliest time the event may have happened.”^vii It is interesting that Westcott-Hort’s manuscript has a variant on this passage and has a different Greek word in its manuscript copy for Luke 16:16. Its word (Strong’s G3360 instead of G2163) means, “as far as; up to a certain point”.

JOHN AND JESUS FINISH IT UP.

Instead of the “fulfil” in Matthew 5:17 the BBE version more clearly and better uses “make complete.” Thayer’s Greek Definitions for fulfil^G4147 correctly supports this meaning as “(1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full; (2) to render full, i.e. to complete.” Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary defines the Biblical word “fulfil” as “to make replete (complete).” It is completely filling. Obviously, Merriam-Webster’s archaic definition of “make complete” is correct for the Biblical fulfil^G4147.

What did John and Jesus do? They added to what is lacking in the (Mosaic) Law and the (literary) Prophets. Matthew 5 deals with this subject. “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” (Matthew 5:17,18). Although Jesus did “complete” the OT predictions, He did more than that; Jesus filled up everything that was lacking in the Old Testament. He made it complete. In this sense Jesus was part of the Old Testament but would establish a New One.

- Gaylon West Throw Out The Lifeline