Matthew 5.17-20
17Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
18ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν· ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.
19ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος
κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· ὃς δ’ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.
20Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν
γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.
INTRODUCTION
Matthew
5.17-20 is an important passage for a number of reasons. It plays a pivotal role in the Gospel
of Matthew and in the larger theological issue of how the law of God applies to
the life of the New Covenant believer.
D. A. Carson articulates something of this passage’s importance:
The theological and canonical
ramifications of one’s exegetical conclusions on this pericope are so numerous
that discussion becomes freighted with the intricacies of biblical
theology. At stake are the
relations between the testaments, the place of law in the context of gospel,
and the relation of this pericope to other NT passages that unambiguously
affirm that certain parts of the law have been abrogated as obsolete.[1]
In light of these matters a proper
understanding of this passage is needed for the church today.
CONTEXTUAL
SITUATION
Matthew
5.17-20 is found within the larger section of Matthew’s Gospel (chapters 5-7) traditionally
known as “the Sermon on the Mount.”[2] The structure of Matthew 5-7 is
relatively straight-forward:[3]
A. 5.1-2: The multitudes gather
B. 5.3-16: Introduction
1. Beatitudes (3-12)
2. Salt and light (13-16)
C. 5.17-7.12: Central section
D. 7.13-27: Epilogue
E. 7.28-29: The multitudes amazed
The central section is bracketed by
an inclusio that mentions “the law
and the prophets” (Matthew 5.27; 7.12). Dale Allison argues that this central
section of the Sermon (5.17-7.12) can be outlined as providing teaching on the
three issues of: (1) Jesus and the Torah (5.17-48), (2) the Christian cult
(6.1-18), and (3) Social issues (6.19-7.12).[4] Thus, Matthew 5.17-20 is the beginning
of the sermon’s main section that focuses on the righteousness expected of a participant
in the kingdom of God, as articulated by Jesus.
In
terms of its immediate context, Matthew 5.17-20 is linked to 5.16 and its
mention of “good works” that are to be seen by the world. This brings up the issue of the
standard of such good works being the law and the prophets of verse 17. Matthew 5.17-20 then serves as “a
thesis statement for the whole of 5:21-48 that follows.”[5]
Chapters
5-7 are part of the larger structure of the Gospel of Matthew. Although differing organizational
structures have been noted for Matthew most recognize that Matthew has five
large blocks of discourse material: (1) chapters 5-7, (2) chapter 10, (3)
chapter 13, (4) chapter 18, (5) chapters 23-25. Craig Blomberg helpfully comments:
That Matthew intends these five major
sermons of Jesus to be viewed as unified discourses punctuating his historical
narrative is clear from the recurring refrains with which he concludes each of
them: “When Jesus had finished saying these things…” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1
and 26:1—which adds “all” before “these things”).[6]
The placement of Matthew 5.17-20
very early in the first discourse of Matthew’s Gospel highlights its importance
in the book.
GENRE
The
genre of “gospel” is a controversial topic and consensus has not been reached
as to its exact nature. Richard
Burridge has argued that the genre of the gospels is that of ancient biography.[7] One of Burridge’s deductions from this
designation is that this helps “liberate us from the circularity of deducing
communities from the text and then interpreting the text in light of these
(deduced) communities.”[8] There is an author behind Matthew who
is accurately rehearsing the message of Jesus. This not to deny that Matthew, as the author of this Gospel,
plays a role in organization and, perhaps, even translation of the message of
Jesus. There are distinctive
“Matthean emphases” and Matthew is writing with a particular viewpoint in light
of his intended audience. Many
have argued that Matthew is writing to an audience with a Jewish background. Burridge states:
Therefore it is reasonable to
assume that Matthew has as his target audience Christians from a Jewish
background who have a high regard for the Mosaic law and who have suffered antagonism
or persecution from other Jews, perhaps around the time of the separation of
the church from the synagogue in the later years of the first century.[9]
This becomes significant for
interpretation of Matthew 5.17-20 and understanding the view of the law being
espoused by Jesus through Matthew.
Recognizing
Matthew’s distinctive role in the formation of his gospel is important but
caution is needed. Matthew is an
interpreter of Jesus but this is not to accept the view of some who see in
Matthew’s portrait of Jesus wholesale creation of words and events that have no
foundation in the historical Jesus.
This is crucial in that some interpreters attempt to ascribe pieces of
Matthew 5.17-20 to the early church’s view of the law that is in
contradistinction to the message of Jesus.[10] Furthermore, there is a tendency on the
part of some to see a larger role for the author of Matthew in his bringing
together bits and pieces of the teaching of Jesus and placing them in the form
of the larger discourse that is found in Matthew 5-7. This would not necessarily be a problem—even for
conservative evangelicals with a high view of Scripture. However, there are scholars who defend
the fundamental unity of the discourse as having come from Jesus himself.[11]
Therefore,
in examining Matthew 5.17-20 attention will be paid to distinctively Matthean
themes but the larger unit of chapters 5-7 will be seen as conveying the
essential voice—ipsissima vox—of
Jesus as translated and faithfully interpreted through his disciple Matthew.[12]
TEXTUAL
VARIANTS
There
are only a few textual variants in Matthew 5.17-20 and none of them are of much
significance. The text here is
very stable.[13] Four variants are listed in NA28:
(1) Matthew
5.18: addition of και των προφητων after ἀπὸ τοῦ
νόμου.
|
Θ
|
Ninth
century
|
|
f13
|
11th-15th
century
|
|
565
|
Ninth
century
|
|
Irlat
|
Irenaeus
latin c. 395
|
This variant seems to come from an
attempt to match the phraseology of verse 17--
τὸν
νόμον ἢ τοὺς
προφήτας.
(2) Matthew
5.18: omission of ἂν
after the second ἕως.
|
B*
|
Vaticanus
(original reading)—fourth century
|
|
2211
|
995/996
|
(3) Matthew
5.19: omission of ὃς
δ’ ἂν ποιήσῃ
καὶ διδάξῃ,
οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν
τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν
οὐρανῶν.
|
א*
|
Sinaiticus
(original reading)—fourth century
|
|
D
|
Bezae—fifth
century
|
|
W
|
Washingtonianus—fifth
century
|
|
579
|
13th
century
|
|
boms
|
Bohairic
|
John Nolland notes that these variants are “probably
because of a jump from the previous
occurrence of ‘in the kingdom of heaven’ (in D the jump is even further—to the
end of v. 20).”[14]
(4) Matthew
5.20: omission of all of verse 20.
|
D
|
Bezae—fifth
century
|
TRANSLATION
AND ENGLISH TEXT COMPARISION
Translation
17Μὴ[15] νομίσητε[16]
ὅτι ἦλθον[17]
καταλῦσαι[18] τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ[19] πληρῶσαι[20].
Do
not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I did not come to
destroy but to fulfill.
18ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω[21]
ὑμῖν[22]·
ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ[23] ὁ οὐρανὸς[24]
καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ[25] παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται[26].
For
truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, one letter or stroke will never
pass away from the law until all has taken place.
19ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ[27] μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ[28] οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος
κληθήσεται[29]
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· ὃς δ’ ἂν ποιήσῃ[30] καὶ διδάξῃ[31], οὗτος[32]
μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν.
Therefore
whoever abolishes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men in
this manner, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whoever keeps
and teaches (them), this one will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ[33] ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον[34]
τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.
For I say to you that if your
righteousness does not abound greater than (the righteousness) of the scribes
and Pharisees, you will never enter into the kingdom of heaven.
English Texts
King
James Version
17 Think
not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. 19 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. 20 For I say unto you, That except your
righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into
the kingdom of heaven. [35]
New
American Standard Version
17 “Do not think that I came to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest
letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others
to do the same, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless
your righteousness surpasses that of
the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.[36]
New International Version
17 “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. 18 For truly I tell you,
until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the
least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be
called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of
the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.[37]
English Standard Version
17 “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. 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. 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. 20 For
I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. [38]
The translations are fairly consistent with only a few items
to note. In Matthew 5.17 the
translations use either “destroy” or “abolish” to translate καταλῦσαι. Both of these are accurate translations. Matthew 5.19 shows a diversity of
expression for λύσῃ--“abolish”
(my translation), “annuls” (NASV), “sets aside” (NIV), “relaxes” (ESV), and “breaks”
(KJV and 1984 NIV). Of these the
only one to seriously question is “breaks.”
This gives the idea of morally transgressing the law whereas “the
context of 5:17 (καταλῦσαι)
determines our rendering of λυεῖν: ‘breaking of annulling by
action,’ or ‘a relaxing’ (equivalent to the Hebrew natar), a ‘loosing of what was binding.’”[39] Thus, R. T. France argues that “breaks”
is an inappropriate translation.[40] Matthew 5.20 speaks of “not entering
the kingdom of heaven.” All the
translations except the NASV appropriately modify this so as to show the
impossibility—“never” (my translation and ESV), “in no case” (KJV), and
“certainly” (NIV). These
translations accurately capture the nuance of the οὐ μὴ when used with the aorist subjunctive.[41] In terms of which translational
differences to note in a teaching context only “breaks” of 5.19 is worth drawing attention to
for the sake of the congregation.
Noting the strong negation of οὐ μὴ would be worthwhile as well but there is
little need to speak against any translation that fails to specifically bring
this strong negation out. Simply
mentioning the point of strong negation would serve the purpose for the
congregation.
SYNTACTICAL
ISSUES
(1) Matthew 5.17 begins with a prohibition: Μὴ νομίσητε. This is a subjunctive used in a
prohibition. The force of this
construction is mentioned by David Black when he compares the use of μὴ
when used with a present imperative and an aorist subjunctive:
Prohibition
may also be expressed by μὴ with the present imperative.
However, the present imperative is normally used when the command is to stop doing something, whereas the aorist
subjunctive is normally used when the command is not to start doing something.[42]
The implication
for Matthew 5.17 is that Jesus is calling people to not even begin to
think that he had
come to destroy the law.
(2) Matthew 5.18 contains two ἕως clauses. There is disagreement as to how to
understand the relationship between these clauses. Some understand the two ἕως
clauses to be parallel and, thus, functionally equivalent.[43] Others take the second ἕως clause to be subordinate to the
first.[44] Of these two options the first, which
sees the two clauses as parallel and coordinate, seems more likely from a
syntactical view. The two ἕως clauses “syntactically parallel
to each other vis-à-vis the main clause, and both are identically introduced with
ἕως ἂν.”[45]
(3) The mention of πάντα in Matthew 5.18 also deserves
mention. Πάντα is a neuter plural and is functioning
substantively. It has no
antecedent although some have attempted to find the antecedent in the phrase
“one letter or stroke” (ἰῶτα
ἓν ἢ μία
κεραία).[46] This would require taking the phrase as
a collective neuter plural which takes a singular verb (παρέλθῃ).
Bahnsen argues against this view.
He notes, first of all, that the “practice of using a singular verb with
neuter plural subjects pertains to words,
not phrases; at least Fowler offers us no examples at all of nominal phrases or
compound subjects being treated in this way.”[47]
Furthermore, Fowler “has committed a basic logical fallacy—namely,
affirming the consequent. His
argument runs like this:
i. If a subject is neuter plural, then it takes a singular verb;
ii. “one
jot or one tittle” is a subject taking a singular verb; and
SEMANTIC ISSUES
πληρὀω
Of
all the words in Matthew 5.17-20 perhaps the most widely discussed is πληρῶσαι. A full list of all the occurrences of πληρὀω is supplied in Appendix A. BDAG lists the following definitions
for πληρὀω:[49]
1.
to
make full, fill (full)
2.
to
complete a period of time, fill (up),
complete
3.
to
bring to completion that which was already begun, complete, finish
4.
to
bring to a designed end, fulfill
5.
to
bring to completion an activity in which one has been involved from its
beginning, complete, finish
6.
complete
Vern Poythress in an appendix entitled “Does the Greek Word πληρὀω Sometimes Mean ‘Confirm’?”
helpfully analyzes these lexical entries:[50]
Bauer’s lexicon enumerates six distinct categories of meaning
for πληρὀω (see the list above). For convenience, we may call these six
senses. But several of the senses
are virtually indistinguishable from one another. For example, sense three, “bring something to
completion, finish something” is virtually identical with sense five, “complete, finish.” Thus Bauer’s entries three and five can
be grouped together and regarded as a single meaning of the word, namely, the
meaning “bring something to completion, finish.” Bauer’s sense six, “complete a number,” appears to differ
not by giving a new meaning to the word πληρὀω but by supplying a different kind of object for the
completion, namely a number. Similarly
Bauer’s sense two, “complete a period
of time,” differs from the other senses mainly by having a different object of
completion, i.e., a period of time.
The word πληρὀω
seems in all these cases to retain the basic meaning “complete.” Bauer’s attempt to give special space to the cases of
completing a time or completing a number is obviously useful, but it does not
necessarily imply that the word πληρὀω
has a distinct new meaning in each case.[51]
Although this gets at the basic meaning of πληρὀω there is still disagreement as
to the precise nuance in Matthew 5.17.
The entry in BDAG recognizes this when it states regarding Matthew 5.17:
“depending on how one prefers to interpret the context, πληρὀω is understood here either as fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full expression=show it forth
in its true mng., or as fill up=complete.”[52]
In
his entry for πληρόω
in the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Gerhard Delling recognizes Matthew’s unique usage for
prophetic-fulfillment with the distinctive phraseology, “ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῆ τὸ ῥηθλὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.”[53] Delling attempt to read this
prophetic-fulfillment aspect into Matthew 5.17. This will be analyzed below.
ἐντολή
A
full list of all the occurrences of ἐντολή
is contained in Appendix B. BDAG
lists out the following nuances of meaning:[54]
1. an
order authorizing a specific action, writ,
warrant
2. a
mandate or ordinance, command
Under the second
definition above BDAG recognizes that ἐντολή
can mean the commandments of the Old Testament as well as the precepts of
Jesus.[55] As will be seen below, determining
which of these is the case in Matthew 5.19 is important for interpreting the
passage.
γραμματεύς
This
word is used 63 times in the New Testament. All but one are clear references to a Jewish background in
which certain trained theologians are in view.[56]
“According to this
use, first attested in the LXX in 2 Esr. and 1 Ch., γραμματεύς … means a ‘man learned in the
Torah,’ a ‘rabbi,’ an ‘ordained theologian.’”[57] Joachim Jeremias notes that a γραμματεύς
was to be distinguished from the Pharisees “whose societies were mostly composed of small people with
no theological mastery.”[58]
INTERPRETATION ISSUES
AND SCHOLARLY INTERACTION
Although
there are any number of exegetical details to look at in Matthew 5.17-20 four
particular issues will be examined in that crucial theological implications are
at stake in these instances.
First, the word πληρόω
in verse 17 will be considered.
Second, the nature and meaning of the ἕως
clauses in verse 18 will be considered.
Third, the reference to “commandments” (ἐντολή)
in verse 19 will be addressed—whether this refers to the Old Testament commands
or to the commands of Jesus.
Fourth, the meaning of “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) will be examined—whether
this refer to imputed righteousness or the disciples’ good works.
The
use of πληρόω has
already been given some consideration above. A number of commentators have seen
prophetic-typological significance in Matthew’s use of πληρὀω. This seems justified in terms of Matthew’s usage outside of
chapter five. The following is a
list of all of the uses of πληρόω
in Matthew:
|
Reference
|
Result
|
Tense
|
Voice
|
Mood
|
|
Matthew 1:22
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 2:15
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 2:17
|
ἐπληρώθη
|
aorist
|
passive
|
indicative
|
|
Matthew 2:23
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 3:15
|
πληρῶσαι
|
aorist
|
active
|
infinitive
|
|
Matthew 4:14
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 5:17
|
πληρῶσαι
|
aorist
|
active
|
infinitive
|
|
Matthew 8:17
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 12:17
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 13:35
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 13:48
|
ἐπληρώθη
|
aorist
|
passive
|
indicative
|
|
Matthew 21:4
|
πληρωθῇ
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 23:32
|
πληρώσατε
|
aorist
|
active
|
imperative
|
|
Matthew 26:54
|
πληρωθῶσιν
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 26:56
|
πληρωθῶσιν
|
aorist
|
passive
|
subjunctive
|
|
Matthew 27:9
|
ἐπληρώθη
|
aorist
|
passive
|
indicative
|
Twelve of these sixteen uses of πληρόω are clearly prophetic in nature
(1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 26.54, 56; 27.9). All twelve of these passages use the
phrase, “πληρωθῆ τὸ ῥηθλὲν” (“ fulfill what was spoken”) which is an aorist passive.[59] This phrase is usually in reference to
the “Scriptures” or a specific prophet.
This data is important in that many commentators wish to import this
prophetic-fulfillment nuance into the usage of πληρόω in Matthew 5.17.[60] For example, Robert Gundry states, “πληρῶσαι refers to the
accomplishment of prophecies Jesus did come to accomplish.”[61] There are, however, contextual reasons
to resist this interpretative suggestion.
J. Daryl Charles recognizes the prophetic-fulfillment usage of πληρόω throughout Matthew’s Gospel but
argues that “the extent of Matthew’s interests should not be limited to the
semantic field of word-groups such as πληρόω, or even τύπος for that matter. Our concern as it touches Matt 5:17 exceeds the mere
incidence of the verb πληρόω
in Matthew.”[62] Three reasons to question the
prophetic-fulfillment understanding in Matthew 5.17 should be considered.
First,
“the use of πληρόω
here is governed foremost by its juxtaposition to καταλύω.”[63] Second, the immediate context revolves
around ethical stipulations. While
verse 17 mentions “the law or the prophets, “ verse 18 refers to the “law” and
verse 19 mentions the “commandments.”
The use of this language is ethical in nature rather than focusing on
prophetic elements. This is
further strengthened by the language of “keeping” the commandments in verse
19. Third, the larger context of
the unit itself (the whole Sermon on the Mount) speaks of ethical commands. As mentioned above, Matthew 5.17 forms
the first part of an inclusio with
7.12 forming the end piece.
Matthew 7.12 states, “Therefore, however you want people to treat you,
so treat them for this is the law and the prophets.” Again, the phrase “the law and the prophets” is used in an
ethical context rather than a prophetic-fulfillment context as is seen
elsewhere in Matthew.
Delling,
in his TDNT article attempts to read
this prophetic element into Matthew 5.17.
He argues that πληρόω
“cannot be determined simply by the contrast with καταλῦσαι” due to the fact that in verse
19 “λύω stands in constrast to ποιεῖν
as well as διδάσκειν.”[64] Delling, however, has been criticized
on this point by Greg Bahnsen.
Bahnsen counters with the following argument:
However, Delling has committed the
error of assuming that the complex word will be identical in meaning with one
of its simple elements; he has, aside from that, assumed that word meaning is
to be found in word disection rather than the use (function) of the word in the
contexts where it appears.
Consequently, it is not surprising (to get to the most crucial problem
in Delling’s pronouncement) that he has overlooked the “patent distinction”
between λύω and καταλύω, as John Murray calls it;… One does not look
to the contrasts in verse 19 to determine the contrast in verse 17 for the
simple reason that there is no contrasting word common to both verses (καταλύω
with πληρόω in v. 17;
ποιέω and διδάσκω with λύω in v. 19).[65]
The word πληρόω has the basic meaning of
“fulfill” with a nuance of “completion” as argued by Poythress above. Some have attempted to read
prophetic-typological nuance into this word in Matthew 5.17 but this seems to
be stretching the word too far.
Any prophetic-fulfillment themes need to be argued from the larger
context and not merely imported into the word itself.
Francois
Viljoen lists out three interpretations of the relationship between Jesus’
teaching and the Law:
1.
He
fulfills it up by expressing its full intended meaning;
2.
He
completes the Law by extending its demands; and
3.
He
brings the Law to which it pointed forward to.[66]
Viljoen goes on to argue that the fulfillment citations of the
larger context of Matthew should be used to understand the meaning of πληρόω in Matthew 5.17 but this has
already been questioned above.
Nolland
seems to come closest to getting at the meaning of πληρόω in Matthew 5.17. He correctly notes that the word “must
be taken in a manner that allows for it to be an appropriate counterpart to
‘annul’.”[67] He then adds that the meaning of πληρόω must “also illuminate what is
coming in 5:21-48: it is clear that Matthew is not simply reaffirming the
status quo.”[68] This focus on the so-called
“antitheses” is important since many commentators attempt to define πληρόω either by looking at the
prophetic-typological usage elsewhere in Matthew or by seeking to import larger
New Testament themes into this text.
Nolland effectively argues:
In and of itself the language [of fulfill—rjk] lacks precision
of content since in the first instance it has the function of emphatic
denial. The sense in which the
positive counterpart is to be understood gains in clarity only through the
analysis of the antitheses to come.
To anticipate, it would appear that Matthew holds that Jesus offered, in
part by drawing on the insight of the Prophets, a new depth of insight into
what the Law requires over against what he (Matthew) considered to be a general
superficiality, a fore-shortened perspective, in the reading of the Law.[69]
Examination of Matthew 5.21-48 is beyond the scope of this
paper but one of the crucial questions to be addressed is whether Jesus is
contradicting the Mosaic law or scribal interpretations. Viljoen seems to capture a potentially
mediating position when he writes that the “formula used by Jesus suggests He
is quoting the Torah as it was
usually heard by his audience.”[70] There is no “bare Torah.” The Law is always an interpreted law
and Jesus “has the authority to interpret the Scriptures. His interpretation provides the answer
to the correct way of understanding the Scriptures.”[71] The rest of the Gospel of Matthew will
flesh out what the proper interpretation of the law is as defined by Jesus’
teaching and lifestyle. Snodgrass
thus concludes, “In Matthew, Jesus provides a scriptural hermeneutic for
reading the law.”[72]
The
understanding of the ἕως
clauses of verse 18 has also been discussed above. As noted Klyne Snodgrass, as well as others, argue that,
“the two ‘until’ clauses in 5:18 are difficult to interpret, but for practical
purposes they are virtually equivalent.”[73] Others attempt to separate the referent
for the two ἕως
clauses. House and Ice recognize
the first clause--
ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ
οὐρανὸς καὶ
ἡ γῆ--means
“never” or “until the end of time.”[74]
They go on to argue that the second ἕως
clause-- ἕως ἂν
πάντα γένηται—qualifies the first. The offer the following interpretative
gloss on Matthew 5.18: “Within the framework of all time, not the smallest
detail of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled; at this time it
can then pass away.”[75] Fellow dispensationalist theologian,
Wayne Strickland, also leans in this exegetical direction. Strickland picks up on the mention of
“prophets” in verse 17 and thus sees the second ἕως
clause as being a reference to the fulfillment of prophetic statements. Strickland states: “The prophetic
statements of Scripture can be abolished only when they are fulfilled, and
Christ in fact perfectly fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament.”[76] The problem with this interpretation is
that the context, as has been noted above, is not one of
prophetic-fulfillment. Strickland
has allowed the mere mention of the word “prophets” to override the ethical
context. Douglas Moo, in
responding to Strickland’s presentation, responds:
In fact, however, the phrase [“law
or prophets”—rjk] in Matthew plainly focuses not on the prophecies of the Old
Testament but on the legal, or commanding, aspects of the Old Testament. In both the other texts where Matthew
uses the phrase (contra Strickland, this exact phrase does not occur in 11:13), it is compared with Jesus’ teaching or commands:…[77]
Craig Keener
quotes John Overman who argues that any view which see the second ἕως clause as referring to the death
and resurrection of Jesus as being “such hermeneutical gymnastics… excessive…
tortured” and “contrived.”[78]
Furthermore,
if the two ἕως
clauses are separated as to referent this creates a tension within verse 18
itself. Writing in reference to
the second ἕως
clause, Bahnsen notes that “if this formula is taken to refer to an event in
the present order, then the entire verse would be made self-contradictory; we
know from the previous ἕως
clause that the details of the law remain in force as long as the world lasts.”[79]
In
verse 19 there is reference to “commandments” which are not to be abolished
but, rather, taught and obeyed. A
few scholars have argued that is a reference to the commandments of Jesus and
not a reference to the Old Testament commandments.[80] This understanding has not convinced
other scholars interacting with this passage as they note that the consistent
use of the noun ἐντολή
in Matthew is a reference to the Old Testament law.[81]
|
Reference
|
Result
|
Case
|
Number
|
|
Matthew 5:19
|
ἐντολῶν
|
genitive
|
plural
|
|
Matthew 15:3
|
ἐντολὴν
|
accusative
|
singular
|
|
Matthew 19:17
|
ἐντολάς
|
accusative
|
plural
|
|
Matthew 22:36
|
ἐντολὴ
|
nominative
|
singular
|
|
Matthew 22:38
|
ἐντολή
|
nominative
|
singular
|
|
Matthew 22:40
|
ἐντολαῖς
|
dative
|
plural
|
Gundry further
strengthens this argument when he points out that, “Because of the adjective
‘least,’ the demonstrative pronoun ‘these’ identifies the commandments with the
jot and tittle mentioned in v. 18.”[82]
The
mention of the need for a “greater righteousness” found in verse 20 has been
variously interpreted. On the one
hand there are those who see this “greater righteousness” as something that is
impossible to fulfill by the disciple.
“What Jesus is requiring is a righteousness that goes beyond what human
beings are able to achieve.”[83] This righteousness is seen to be
qualitatively different; a righteousness that must be “given” to the disciple.[84] This view seems to be driven by a need
to safe-guard the Pauline view of imputed righteousness. It is precisely this theological desire
for canonical consistency that over-rides careful exegesis in the above
view. “In Matthew, righteousness
refers to ethical behavior and not, as in Paul, to either a gift from God or a
status in the eyes of God.”[85] John Murray effectively argues:
It might be supposed that the
righteousness in view here is the righteousness of imputation… The context,
however, offers no warrant for this interpretation. There is a close relationship between verses 19 and 20. In the former Jesus is speaking of
human behaviour, as regards breaking the least of the commandments and teaching
accordingly, of doing the commandments and teaching accordingly. It would be utterly harsh to suppose a
complete break in the thought at verse 20 and a transition from the thought of
doing and teaching on our part to the doing that does not in the least degree
engage or include our doing in obedience do divine commandments.[86]
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS
John
Chrysostom delivered his homilies on the Gospel of Matthew between A.D. 386-388. His comments on Matthew 5.17-20 show a
concern to uphold the authority of the Old Testament. Various false teachers of Chrysostom’s time—Gnostics and
Manichaeans—disparaged the Old Testament.
In regards to Matthew 5.17-20 Chrysostom states: “Now this not only
obstructs the obstinacy of the Jews, but stops also the mouths of those
heretics, who say that the old covenant is of the devil.”[87] He argues that Jesus is not finding fault
with the old law but making it stricter with his teaching.[88] In reference to the important concept
of “fulfill” Chrysostom teaches that it means three things: (1) Jesus does not
transgress any of the precepts of the law, (2) Jesus helps believers to obey
the law, and (3) there is no repeal of the former law “but a drawing out, and
filling up of them.”[89] By this third element Chrysostom means
that in making the law stricter the former law is not done away with but rather
“put in greater security.”[90] Of interest is Chrysostom’s teaching
about verse 19. He understands the
“commandments” as being those of Christ which he is about to elucidate in
5.21-48—“For as to his having said this in behalf not of the ancient laws, but
of those which he was proceeding to enact.”[91]
Augustine
treats Matthew 5.17-20 in a few different places. In his work Our Lord’s
Sermon on the Mount he has some brief comments. In reference to verse 17 he states that Jesus “means it
either in the way of adding what is wanting, or of doing what is in it.”[92] By this Augustine means that Jesus
fulfills the Old Testament law by either adding his own interpretations which
deepen the law or by fulfilling the prophetic-typological elements. Augustine’s understanding of verse 19
and the need to obey the “least commandments” is that these refer to the commands
of Christ which he is “about to mention” in the following context.[93]
Augustine
has a much more extensive discussion about Matthew 5.17-20 in his Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. Faustus seeks to divorce the teaching
of Jesus from the Old Testament.
In so doing he attempts to argue that the statements in Matthew 5.17-20
are not, in fact, the words of Jesus.
They are not even the words of Matthew but someone else writing in
Matthew’s name.[94] Faustus does not stop there. He further alleges that even if Jesus
did say something like Matthew 5.17-20 then this undermines Augustine’s
Christianity. He challenges
Augustine to explain why, if the entirety of the Old Testament law is upheld by
Jesus, do Christians not uphold the laws regarding circumcision, Sabbath, and
the sacrificial system.[95] In light of this challenge Augustine focuses
on the notion of typological fulfillment—Christ fills up the shadows of the Old
Covenant. Augustine concludes:
Thus we have shown regarding
circumcision, and the Sabbath, and the distinction of food, and the sacrifice
of animals, that all these things were our examples, and our prophecies, which
Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, by fulfilling what was thus
foretold.[96]
Augustine is not
so much exegeting Matthew 5.17-20 but, rather, giving a biblical-theological
overview of discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants utilizing a
number of texts—particularly Pauline—drawn from the full range of the New
Testament.
John
Calvin’s comments on Matthew 5.17-20 allow for a great deal of continuity
between the Old Testament law and Jesus’ teaching. As Calvin remarks, “By these words he is so far from
departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it
will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new.”[97] Calvin argues that with respect to
doctrine the law is still authoritative for the Christian whereas with respect
to ceremonies “there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it
was only the use of them, that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully
confirmed.”[98] Calvin is thus able to affirm that all
of the law—including the ceremonial aspects—remains in force. He is able to argue this because he
makes a distinction between the “outward” form of the ceremonial law which is
“temporal” and the “meaning” of the ceremonies which is “eternal.”[99] In reference to verse 19 and its
mention of “commandments,” Calvin seemingly limits these to the “ten words.”[100] Calvin’s view of the eternality of the
law of God leads him to deny the view of those who see the Old Testament law as
being somehow inferior to New Covenant ethics. Calvin states the matter thusly: “Away, then, with that
error, ‘The deficiencies of the law are here supplied by Christ.’ We must not imagine Christ to be a new
legislator, who adds any thing to the eternal righteousness of his Father.”[101]
CITATIONS, ALLUSIONS, AND ECHOES
There
are no direct citations or allusions within Matthew 5.17-20 to specific Old
Testament passages. The phrase τὸν νόμον
ἢ τοὺς προφήτας
(“the law or the prophets”) is a reference to the Hebrew canon of Jesus’
time. As D. A. Carson comments:
The Jews of Jesus’ day could refer
to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke
16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom 3:21); “the Law…, the Prophets, and
the Psalms” (Luke 24:44); or just “Law” (5:18; John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1 Cor 14:21);
the divisions were not yet stereotyped.[102]
There
is one potential allusion that appears in Matthew 5.19. The reference to “the least of these
commandments” has caused some commentators to look for possible referents in
the Law of Moses. A common suggestion
is Deuteronomy 22.6-7:
If you happen to come upon a
bird’s nest along the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or
eggs, and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take
the mother with the young; you shall certainly let the mother go, but the young
you may take for yourself, in order that it may be well with you and that you
may prolong your days.
It is precisely
this passage from Deuteronomy 22 which later Rabbi’s pointed to as one of the
“least” of the Mosaic commandments.
Robert Johnston has traced this idea of the least commandment in rabbinic
Judaism and early Christianity.[103] He quotes Abba b. Kahana as saying,
“The Scripture has made alike the least of the commandments and the weightiest
of the commandments. The least
commandment is that dealing with sending away the mother bird (Deut 22:6-7),
and the weightiest is that dealing with honoring parents (Exod 20:12); and with
both it is written, ‘That you may prolong your days’.”[104] Johnston concludes his study with these
words:
If there was any specific precept
of Moses which Matthew or Jesus could call “the least of the commandments,” it
seems likely that the law of the bird’s nest is the best candidate for that
distinction. It is so designated
in the rabbinic literature, and is the only precept given that appellation
there.[105]
CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
The
contemporary evangelical church needs the message of Jesus in Matthew
5.17-20. Jesus upholds the
importance of the Old Testament law and this perspective is needed today. There are teachers within the
evangelical tradition that are seeking to undermine the Old Testament and its
ethical requirements. Jesus shows
no hesitation to affirm the value of God’s law even down to its details. Evangelicalism is still suffering from
the remnants of a wide-scale dispensationalism that drove a wedge between God’s
law and the New Testament believer.
Walter Kaiser, writing in 1987, points to the importance of knowing and
applying God’s law today:
More and more our fast moving
society is asking more and more difficult ethical questions of those who are
working in religion and theology.
If proper extensions of the law of God in all of its wholeness are not
legitimately utilized, we shall find ourselves in as difficult straits as
people were when the Wade-Roe decision suddenly broke over our heads and no one
had any biblical directives to offer, since the NT says nothing explicitly
about abortion.[106]
The twenty-first
century church cannot ignore the wisdom of God’s law if she is to be an
effective light to the nations.
A
further application from the text and in line with the above thoughts is the
need for detailed obedience. Jesus
has pointed to the “least of these commands” as worthy of being taught and
practiced. Some Christians have
thought a concern for detail is indicative of “legalism.” John Murray has helpfully written:
Too often the person imbued with
meticulous concern for the ordinances of God and conscientious regard for the
minutiae of God’s commandments is judged as a legalist, while the person who is
not bothered by details is judged to be the practical person who exemplifies
the liberty of the gospel. Here
Jesus is reminding us of the same great truth which he declares elsewhere: ‘He
that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that
is unjust in the least is unjust also in much’ (Luke 16:10). The criterion of our standing in the
kingdom of God and of reward in the age to come is nothing else than meticulous
observance of the commandments of God in the minutial details of their
prescription and the earnest inculcation of such observance on the part of
others.[107]
Such teaching, at
times, makes evangelicals nervous.
They are so eager to uphold the doctrine of justification by faith with
its consequent notion of imputation of the righteousness of Christ that any
talk of acting in a righteous manner is suspect. At times this has led some to attempt to import these ideas
into Matthew 5.17-20—particularly verse 20. A better understanding of the text recognizes the call for
righteousness in the life of the follower of Jesus.
SOURCES CITED
Allison, Jr. Dale C. “The Structure of the Sermon on the
Mount.” Journal of Biblical Literature
106 (1987): 423-445.
Augustine. Homilies on
the Gospel of St. Matthew. In vol. 6 of The
Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
Augustine. Reply to
Faustus the Manichaean. In vol. 4 of The
Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
Bahnsen, Greg L. “The Exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20.” No Pages. Cited 25 November 2014.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy
in Christian Ethics 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984.
Banks, Robert. “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law:
Authenticity and Interpretation in
Matthew 5:17-20.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93
(1974): 226-242.
Baur, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill.:
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Black, David Alan. Learn
to Read New Testament Greek 3rd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman
and Holman, 2009.
Blomberg, Craig. The
Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity,
1987.
Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus
and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. Nasville, Tenn.:
Broadman and Holman, 1997.
Bock, Darrell L. “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live,
Jive, or Memorex?” Pages 73-99 in
Jesus
Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Edited by
Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995.
Borg, Marcus J. Conflict,
Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus. Lewistown, New York:
Edwin Mellen Press, 1984
Burridge, Richard A. “About People, By People, For People:
Gospel Genre and Audiences.”
Pages 113-145 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking
the Gospel Audiences. Edited by
Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.
Calvin, John. A Harmony of the Evangelists vol. 1 in Calvin’s Commentaries vol. 16. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2003.
Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” Pages 1-599 in Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E.
Gaebelein. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1984.
Charles, J. Daryl. “The Function of Matthew 5:17-20 in the
Matthean Gospel.” Journal of
Christian
Reconstruction 12 (1989): 213-257.
Charles, J. Daryl. “The Greatest or the Least in the
Kingdom? The Disciple’s Relationship to
the Law (Matt 5:17-20).” Trinity Journal NS 13 (1992): 139-162.
Chyrsostom. Homilies
on the Gospel of St. Matthew.
In vol. 10 of The Nicene and
Post-Nicene
Fathers. Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886-1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
France, R. T. Matthew.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Intervarsity, 1985.
Gallant, Tim. “Fulfillment in the Gospel of Matthew:
Theonomy and Matthew 5:17-20.” No
Pages. Cited 26 November
2014. Online: http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/interpretation/fulfillment.htm.
Gundry, Robert H.
Matthew: A Commentary on His
Literary and Theological Art. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982.
Hill, David. The
Gospel of Matthew. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1972.
House, H. Wayne and Thomas Ice. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? An Analysis of
Christian
Reconstructionism. Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988.
Johnston, Robert M. “’The Least of the Commandments’: Deuteronomy 22:6-7 in
Rabbinic
Judaism and Early
Christianity.” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 20 (1982): 205-215.
Kaiser, Walter C. Toward
Rediscovering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1987.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the
Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1999.
Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by
G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.
Long, Gary D. Biblical
Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal—An Exegetical and
Theological
Study of Matthew 5:17-20. Rochester, New York: Backus Books, 1981.
Moo, Douglas. “Response to Wayne G. Strickland.” Pages
309-315 in The Law, the Gospel,
and
the Modern Christian: Five Views. Edited by Wayne G. Strickland. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993.
Morris, Leon. The
Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992.
Nolland, John. The
Gospel of Matthew. New International Greek Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.
Poythress, Vern. The
Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth
and Hyatt, 1991.
Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 368-
378.
Stanton, G. N. “The Sermon on the Mount/Plain.” Pages
735-744 in Dictionary of Jesus and
the
Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Intervarsity, 1992.
Strickland, Wayne G. “The Inauguration of the Law of Christ
with the Gospel of Christ: A
Dispensational View.” Pages 229-279
in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern
Christian: Five Views. Edited by Wayne G. Strickland. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1993.
Viljoen, Francois P. “Jesus’ Teaching on the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount.”
Neotestamentica
40 (2006): 135-155.
Wallace, Daniel B. The
Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
2000.
Wenham, David. “Guelich on the Sermon on the Mount: A
Critical Review.” Trinity Journal
NS 4 (1983): 92-108.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1996.
Yri, Norvald. “Seek God’s Righteousness: Righteousness in
the Gospel of Matthew.” Pages
96-105 in Right With God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Edited by
D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992.
[2]
“The term ‘the Sermon on the Mount’ goes back to the title Augustine gave to
his important commentary on Matthew 5-7, De
Sermone Domini in Monte, which was probably written between 392 and
396. In spite of Augustine’s
enormous influence on many later Christian writers, Matthew 5-7 was not
generally referred to as ‘the Sermon on the Mount’ until the sixteenth
century.” G. N. Stanton, “Sermon
on the Mount/Plain,” DJG, 736.
[4]
Dale C. Allison, Jr. “The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106
(1987), 431-432. Allison goes on
to note the similarity of this outline to Simeon the Just, a rabbi of the
Maccabean period. “He is purported
to have declared: ‘Upon three things the world standeth: upon Torah, upon
Temple service and upon gemilut hasadim’
(m. ‘Abot 1.2). The two words left untranslated are
usually rendered, ‘deeds of loving-kindness.’ Judah Goldin, however, has persuasively argued that the
phrase refers more precisely to any pious act of social or religious character…
The first evangelist, one is tempted to conclude, arranged his discourse so as
to create a Christian interpretation of the three classical pillars.” (p. 443)
[10]
Robert Guelich argues that in Matthew 5 verses 17 and 18 come from Jesus, verse
19 comes from a strongly Jewish-Christian element which contradicted Jesus’
understanding and verse 20 is from the author of the Gospel of Matthew who is
seeking to counter the strong Jewish-Christian view of the law. For critical interaction with this view
see David Wenham, “Guelich on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critical Review,” Trinity Journal NS 4 (1983),
92-108—especially 96-98.
[11]
“It has, of course, been fashionable to split up the sermon (and it Lukan
counterpart) into small pieces, to assign them to places all round the
Mediterranean world and times all through the first century, and to credit the
evangelists with complete originality in arranging or even inventing the
material. I wish to question this
current fashion.” N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1996), 287. Also see Craig Blomberg, The
Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity,
1987), 138-141.
[12]
For a conservative evangelical view of the distinction between the ipsissima vox and the ipsissima verba of Jesus see Darrell L.
Bock, “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex?” in Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship
Reinvents the Historical Jesus (ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), 73-99.
[24]
Singular. Nolland comments:
“’Heaven’ here is probably the upper reaches of the created order (of which the
sky is the most proximate part), and not the dwelling place of God (in Matthean
use the plural always means the latter—often as a euphemism for God—except in
24:31, while the singular spans the two senses).” Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 219.
[45]
Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20” unpublished manuscript
(1983), n.p. [cited 25 November 2014]. Online: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pb055.htm.
[46]
This is the view of Paul Fowler in an unpublished paper “God’s Law Free from
Legalism: Critique of Theonomy in
Christian Ethics.” Fowler’s
essay is the foundation for the exegesis offered by H. Wayne House and Thomas
Ice in Dominion Theology: Blessing or
Curse? An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionism (Portland, Ore.:
Multnomah, 1988), 120.
[60]
D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” 141; France, Matthew,
114; Tim Gallant, “Fulfillment in the Gospel of Matthew: Theonomy and Matthew
5:17-20,” n.p. [cited 26 November 2014]. Online: http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/interpretation/fulfillment.htm.
[63]
Charles, “The Greatest or the Least in the Kingdom?,” 150. Snodgrass argues the same point: “Plerosai (‘fulfill’) in 5:17 does not
refer to the predictive function of scripture and must be antithetical to the
idea of destroying or nullifying.” Snodgrass, “Matthew’s Understanding of the
Law,” 372; cf. Nolland, The Gospel of
Matthew, 218.
[72]
Snodgrass, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 371. Cf. the comment by Marcus Borg, “Ultimately, the conflict
between Jesus and the Pharisees was a hermeneutical battle between mercy and
holiness, a struggle concerning the correct interpretation of Torah.” Conflict,
Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus (Lewistown, New York: Edwin
Mellen Press, 1984), 142-143.
[80]
Robert Banks, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and
Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), 239-240. David Hill notes that G. K. Kilpatrick [The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (1946)] also
holds that the “commandments” of verse 19 refer to Jesus’ commandments. In order to argue for this Kilpatrick
“suggested that originally verse 19 followed verse 41.” David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCBC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972),
118.
[81]
“It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT
Scriptures.” Carson, “Matthew,” 146.
Also see France, Matthew, 116;
Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 118-119. It should be noted that the verb ἐντέλλομαι is used in reference to the commandments of
Jesus in Matthew 28.20.
