Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:17

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:17” utilice nuestra app.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

B. The Kingdom of Heaven is a fulfilment of the law, Mat 5:17-48. Stated generally, Mat 5:17-20.

17. I am come ] Lit. I came.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Think not that I am come … – Our Saviour was just entering on his work. It was important for him to state what he came to do. By his setting up to be a teacher in opposition to the scribes and Pharisees, some might charge him with an intention to destroy their law, and to abolish the customs of the nation. He therefore told them that he did not come for that end, but really to fulfill or accomplish what was in the law and the prophets.

To destroy – To abrogate; to deny their divine authority; to set people free from the obligation to obey them. The law. The five books of Moses called the law. See the notes at Luk 24:44.

The Prophets – The books which the prophets wrote. These two divisions here seem to comprehend the Old Testament, and Jesus says that he came not to do away or destroy the authority of the Old Testament.

But to fulfil – To complete the design; to fill up what was predicted; to accomplish what was intended in them. The word fulfill also means sometimes to teach or to inculcate, Col 1:25. The law of Moses contained many sacrifices and rites which were designed to shadow forth the Messiah. See the notes at Heb. 9. These were fulfilled when he came and offered himself a sacrifice to God,

A sacrifice of nobler name.

And richer blood than they.

The prophets contained many predictions respecting his coming and death. These were all to be fulfilled and fully accomplished by his life and his sufferings.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 5:17

But to fulfil.

The moral law eternal and immutable

I. Negatively-that Christ did not come to destroy the law or the prophets. This may be illustrated as follows.

1. If the cause be immutably good, the operation and effects must be the same; especially if the cause be infinitely wise; all this is evident from the Word of God. If any persons declare that the moral law is altered, to be consistent, they must also suppose that the Divine nature is altered.

2. The law of God is perfect, the ceremonial law was imperfect. The moral law being perfect, the impress of the Divine image, it cannot be done away.

II. The great end that our lord had in view with respect to the moral law-to fulfil. He undertakes this important work with the greatest cheerfulness, lie was obedient to the moral law in His childhood. Sufferings were necessary as well as active obedience. Our Lord set forth the spirituality of the moral law, and could not after that set about to destroy it. (W. Kemp.)

Jesus Christ the moral legislator

I. lie fulfilled the law by spiritualizing it.

II. He fulfilled the law by developing it.

III. He fulfilled the law by generalising it and making it universal.

1. Breaking down class distinctions.

2. He abolished national distinctions in morality.

3. He abolished sex distinctions in morality. (J. C. Jones.)

The mission of Christ in relation to the moral law.

I. To expound its spirituality.

II. To embody its principles.

III. To honour its breach.

1. It had been broken in the practice of man, and He came to atone for it.

2. It had been broken in the estimation of man, and He came to show him its glory.

IV. To secure its fulfilment.

1. By the presentation of a sufficient motive.

2. By the impartation of Divine power. (T. Baron.)

I. The greatness of the assumption here made by Christ. Christ accepts the prophecies of the Old Testament as Divine, and points to Himself as their fulfilment.

II. These words of Jesus reveal the historical continuity of Christianity.

III. These words teach us the permanent authority of the moral principles of the Jewish law. Nothing that is moral can be destroyed. We do not need the light of stars when the sun has risen; but the stars are shining still. (G. S. Barrett.)

Christs relation to the law

I. Mark the position our Saviour occupied, as forming a key to the whole of the Sermon on the Mount.

II. The meaning of these words.

1. Christ fulfilled the law in His teaching. He completed it.

2. Christ fulfilled the law by His own personal, unbroken obedience.

3. Christ fulfilled the law by. His sufferings and death. (W. G. Barrett.)

Positive religion

I. In a critical age, that has so many errors to be destroyed, reason acquires a destructive habit; against this habit one must guard, lest, instead of being a light to guide us, reason becomes only mildew to blight a world once beautiful.

II. The soul grows great, useful, and happy, not by what it denies, but by what it cordially affirms and loves.

III. Should you not all seek union with some positive, active, trusting Church? Let the Church you seek be broad, but not broad in its destructiveness, but in its soul, hopes, and charity; not broad by the absence of God, but by His infinite presence; not broad like the Sahara, in its treeless, birdless, dewless sands; not broad like the Arctic Sea, in perpetual silence and ice, but broad like an infinite paradise, full of all verdure, fruits, music, industry, happiness, and worship; wide enough for all to come. (D. Swing.)

Destruction the law of increase

Christ certainly did come to destroy the law and the prophets-the outside of them. He knew perfectly well, if He had foresight, that they would be, as they have largely been, swept away; but He said, That which these externalities include-the kernel, the heart-I came to fulfil. It was not the morality and spirituality for the sake of which Moses and the prophets had written that were to be destroyed. Even a crab knows enough once a year to get rid of its shell in order to have a bigger one: it is the sectary that does not know it! Men think, if you disturb beliefs, creeds, institutions, customs, methods, manners, that of course you disturb all they contain; but Christ said, No; the very way to fulfil these things is to give them a chance to open a larger way. h bud must be destroyed if you are going to have a flower. The flower must be destroyed if you are going to have a seed. The seed must die if you are going to have the same thing a hundred-fold increased. (Beecher.)

Law tends to enlarge itself

So all institutions that carry in themselves, not merely external procedure, but methods of truth, justice, and righteousness, must of necessity, if they follow the ages, dig their own graves. A law that can last a thousand years is a law that is inefficacious. A law that is active, influential, fruitful, destroys itself. It is not large enough. It produces a state of things among men which requires that the law itself should have a larger expression and a different application. (Beecher.)

As a painter laying fresh colours upon an old picture. (Hacket.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law] Do not imagine that I am come to violate the law , from , and , I loose, violate, or dissolve – I am not come to make the law of none effect-to dissolve the connection which subsists between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives regulated by its moral precepts; nor am I come to dissolve the connecting reference it has to the good things promised. But I am come, , to complete – to perfect its connection and reference, to accomplish every thing shadowed forth in the Mosaic ritual, to fill up its great design; and to give grace to all my followers, , to fill up, or complete, every moral duty. In a word, Christ completed the law:

1st. In itself, it was only the shadow, the typical representation, of good things to come; and he added to it that which was necessary to make it perfect, HIS OWN SACRIFICE, without which it could neither satisfy God, nor sanctify men.

2dly. He completed it in himself by submitting to its types with an exact obedience, and verifying them by his death upon the cross.

3dly. He completes this law, and the sayings of his prophets, in his members, by giving them grace to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbour as themselves; for this is all the law and the prophets.

It is worthy of observation, that the word gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfil, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the Gospels and epistles; and see especially this sermon on the mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle’s words, Col 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, , to fulfil the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

There are so many adversaries, Jews, papists, Socinians, Anabaptists, Antinomians, &c., that make their advantages of this text, for the establishing their several errors, that it would require a volume to vindicate it from their several exceptions; those who desire satisfaction may read Spanhemius Dub. Evang. 12.3. The plain sense of the text is this: It would have been a great cavil, with the Jews especially, (who had a great reverence for the law), if either our Saviours enemies amongst them could have persuaded people that Christ came to destroy the law and the prophets, or his own hearers had entertained from his discourse any such apprehensions. Our Saviour designing, in his following discourse, to give a more full and strict interpretation of the law than had been given by the Pharisees and other Jewish doctors, prefaces that discourse with a protestation against his coming

to destroy the law, and averring that he came

to fulfil it. It is manifest, by his following discourse, that he principally spake of the moral law, though he also fulfilled the ceremonial law, he being the Antitype in whom all the types of that had their complement, and real fulfilling and accomplishment. Saith he, I am not come to destroy and put an end to the moral law. I am come to fulfil it: not to fill it up, as papists and Socinians contend, adding any new precept to it; but by yielding myself a personal obedience to it, by giving a fuller and stricter interpretation of it than you have formerly had, and by taking the curse of it (so far as concerneth my disciples) upon myself, and giving a just satisfaction to Divine justice for it. The greatest objection urged against Christ destroying part of the law, and adding new precepts to the moral law, is that about the change of the sabbath; but this is none, if we consider that the moral law required no more than one day of seven to be kept as a day of holy rest, not this or that particular day; for the particular day, the Jews learned it from the ceremonial law, as Christians learn theirs from Christs and the apostles practice. Nor is it any objection against this, that the seventh day from the creation is mentioned in the law, to those who know how to distinguish between the precept and the argument; the seventh from the creation is not in the precept, but in the argument, For in six days, & c. Now there is nothing more ordinary than to have arguments of a particular temporary concernment used to enforce precepts of an eternal obligation, where the precepts were first given to that particular people, as to whom those arguments were of force, an instance of which is in the first commandment, as well as in this: as, on the other side, arguments of universal force are oft annexed to precepts, which had but a particular obligation upon a particular people for a time. Thus in the ceremonial law, we often find it is an argument to enforce many ceremonial precepts, For I am the Lord thy God.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

17. Think not that I am comethatI came.

to destroy the law, or theprophetsthat is, “the authority and principles of the OldTestament.” (On the phrase, see Mat 7:12;Mat 22:40; Luk 16:16;Act 13:15). This general way oftaking the phrase is much better than understanding “the law”and “the prophets” separately, and inquiring, as many goodcritics do, in what sense our Lord could be supposed to meditate thesubversion of each. To the various classes of His hearers, who mightview such supposed abrogation of the law and the prophets with verydifferent feelings, our Lord’s announcement would, in effect, be suchas this”Ye who tremble at the word of the Lord, fearnot that I am going to sweep the foundation from under your feet: Yerestless and revolutionary spirits, hope not that I am goingto head any revolutionary movement: And ye who hypocritically affectgreat reverence for the law and the prophets, pretend not tofind anything in My teaching derogatory to God’s living oracles.”

I am not come to destroy, butto fulfilNot to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establishthe law and the prophetsto unfold them, to embody them in livingform, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and characterof men, am I come.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets,…. From verse 3 to the 10th inclusive, our Lord seems chiefly to respect the whole body of his true disciples and followers; from thence, to the 16th inclusive, he addresses the disciples, whom he had called to be ministers of the word; and in this “verse”, to the end of his discourse, he applies himself to the whole multitude in general; many of whom might be ready to imagine, that by the light of the Gospel, he was giving his disciples instructions to spread in the world, he was going to set aside, as useless, the law of Moses, or the prophets, the interpreters of it, and commentators upon it. Christ knew the thoughts of their hearts, that they had taken up such prejudices in their minds against him; wherefore he says, “think not”; he was sensible what objections they were forming, and what an improvement they would make of them against his being the Messiah, and therefore prevents them, saying,

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By “the law” is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to “destroy”, or loose men’s obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but “to fulfil” it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became “the end”, the fulfilling end of it. By “the prophets” are meant the writings of the prophets, in which they illustrated and explained the law of Moses; urged the duties of it; encouraged men thereunto by promises; and directed the people to the Messiah, and to an expectation of the blessings of grace by him: all which explanations, promises, and prophecies, were so far from being made void by Christ, that they receive their full accomplishment in him. The Jews t pretend that these words of Christ are contrary to the religion and faith of his followers, who assert, that the law of Moses is abolished; which is easily refuted, by observing the exact agreement between Christ and the Apostle Paul, Ro 3:31 and whenever he, or any other of the apostles, speaks of the abrogation of the law, it is to be understood of the ceremonial law, which in course ceased by being fulfilled; or if of the moral law, not of the matter, but of the ministry of it. This passage of Christ is cited in the Talmud u, after this manner:

“it is written in it, i.e. in the Gospel, “I Aven”, neither to diminish from the law of Moses am I come, “but”, or “nor” (for in the Amsterdam edition they have inserted between two hooks), to add to the law of Moses am I come.”

Which, with their last correction, though not a just citation, yet tolerably well expresses the sense; but a most blasphemous character is affixed to Christ, when they call him “Aven”; which signifies “iniquity” itself, and seems to be a wilful corruption of the word “Amen”, which begins the next “verse”.

t R. Isaac Chizuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 10. p. 401. u T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 116. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Sermon on the Mount.

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.

Those to whom Christ preached, and for whose use he gave these instructions to his disciples, were such as in their religion had an eye, 1. To the scriptures of the Old Testament as their rule, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the right: 2. To the scribes and the Pharisees as their example, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the wrong; for,

I. The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets. The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.

1. He protests against the thought of cancelling and weakening the Old Testament; Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. (1.) “Let not the pious Jews, who have an affection for the law and the prophets, fear that I come to destroy them.” Let them be not prejudiced against Christ and his doctrine, from a jealousy that this kingdom he came to set up, would derogate from the honour of the scriptures, which they had embraced as coming from God, and of which they had experienced the power and purity; no, let them be satisfied that Christ has no ill design upon the law and the prophets. “Let not the profane Jews, who have a disaffection to the law and the prophets, and are weary of that yoke, hope that I am come to destroy them.” Let not carnal libertines imagine that the Messiah is come to discharge them from the obligation of divine precepts and yet to secure to them divine promises, to make the happy and yet to give them leave to live as they list. Christ commands nothing now which was forbidden either by the law of nature or the moral law, nor forbids any thing which those laws had enjoined; it is a great mistake to think he does, and he here takes care to rectify the mistake; I am not come to destroy. The Saviour of souls is the destroyer of nothing but the works of the devil, of nothing that comes from God, much less of those excellent dictates which we have from Moses and the prophets. No, he came to fulfil them. That is, [1.] To obey the commands of the law, for he was made under the law, Gal. iv. 4. He in all respects yielded obedience to the law, honoured his parents, sanctified the sabbath, prayed, gave alms, and did that which never any one else did, obeyed perfectly, and never broke the law in any thing. [2.] To make good the promises of the law, and the predictions of the prophets, which did all bear witness to him. The covenant of grace is, for substance, the same now that it was then, and Christ the Mediator of it. [3.] To answer the types of the law; thus (as bishop Tillotson expresses it), he did not make void, but make good, the ceremonial law, and manifested himself to be the Substance of all those shadows. [4.] To fill up the defects of it, and so to complete and perfect it. Thus the word plerosai properly signifies. If we consider the law as a vessel that had some water in it before, he did not come to pour out the water, but to fill the vessel up to the brim; or, as a picture that is first rough-drawn, displays some outlines only of the piece intended, which are afterwards filled up; so Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets by his additions and explications. [5.] To carry on the same design; the Christian institutes are so far from thwarting and contradicting that which was the main design of the Jewish religion, that they promote it to the highest degree. The gospel is the time of reformation (Heb. ix. 10), not the repeal of the law, but the amendment of it, and, consequently, its establishment.

2. He asserts the perpetuity of it; that not only he designed not the abrogation of it, but that it never should be abrogated (v. 18); “Verily I say unto you, I, the Amen, the faithful Witness, solemnly declare it, that till heaven and earth pass, when time shall be no more, and the unchangeable state of recompences shall supersede all laws, one jot, or one tittle, the least and most minute circumstance, shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled;” for what is it that God is doing in all the operations both of providence and grace, but fulfilling the scripture? Heaven and earth shall come together, and all the fulness thereof be wrapped up in ruin and confusion, rather than any word of God shall fall to the ground, or be in vain. The word of the Lord endures for ever, both that of the law, and that of the gospel. Observe, The care of God concerning his law extends itself even to those things that seem to be of least account in it, the iotas and the tittles; for whatever belongs to God, and bears his stamp, be it ever so little, shall be preserved. The laws of men are conscious to themselves of so much imperfection, that they allow it for a maxim, Apices juris non sunt jura–The extreme points of the law are not the law, but God will stand by and maintain every iota and every tittle of his law.

3. He gives it in charge to his disciples, carefully to preserve the law, and shows them the danger of the neglect and contempt of it (v. 19); Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments of the law of Moses, much more any of the greater, as the Pharisees did, who neglected the weightier matters of the law, and shall teach men so as they did, who made void the commandment of God with their traditions (ch. xv. 3), he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Though the Pharisees be cried up for such teachers as should be, they shall not be employed as teachers in Christ’s kingdom; but whosoever shall do and teach them, as Christ’s disciples would, and thereby prove themselves better friends to the Old Testament than the Pharisees were, they, though despised by men, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note, (1.) Among the commands of God there are some less than others; none absolutely little, but comparatively so. The Jews reckon the least of the commandments of the law to be that of the bird’s nest (Deu 22:6; Deu 22:7); yet even that had a significance and an intention very great and considerable. (2.) It is a dangerous thing, in doctrine or practice, to disannul the least of God’s commands; to break them, that is, to go about either to contract the extent, or weaken the obligation of them; whoever does so, will find it is at his peril. Thus to vacate any of the ten commandments, is too bold a stroke for the jealous God to pass by. It is something more than transgressing the law, it is making void the law, Ps. cxix. 126. (3.) That the further such corruptions as they spread, the worse they are. It is impudence enough to break the command, but is a greater degree of it to teach men so. This plainly refers to those who at this time sat in Moses’ seat, and by their comments corrupted and perverted the text. Opinions that tend to the destruction of serious godliness and the vitals of religion, by corrupt glosses on the scripture, are bad when they are held, but worse when they are propagated and taught, as the word of God. He that does so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, in the kingdom of glory; he shall never come thither, but be eternally excluded; or, rather, in the kingdom of the gospel-church. He is so far from deserving the dignity of a teacher in it, that he shall not so much as be accounted a member of it. The prophet that teaches these lies shall be the tail in that kingdom (Isa. ix. 15); when truth shall appear in its own evidence, such corrupt teachers, though cried up as the Pharisees, shall be of no account with the wise and good. Nothing makes ministers more contemptible and base than corrupting the law, Mal 2:8; Mal 2:11. Those who extenuate and encourage sin, and discountenance and put contempt upon strictness in religion and serious devotion, are the dregs of the church. But, on the other hand, Those are truly honourable, and of great account in the church of Christ, who lay out themselves by their life and doctrine to promote the purity and strictness of practical religion; who both do and teach that which is good; for those who do not as they teach, pull down with one hand what they build up with the other, and give themselves the lie, and tempt men to think that all religion is a delusion; but those who speak from experience, who live up to what they preach, are truly great; they honour God, and God will honour them (1 Sam. ii. 30), and hereafter they shall shine as the stars in the kingdom of our Father.

II. The righteousness which Christ came to establish by this rule, must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, v. 20. This was strange doctrine to those who looked upon the scribes and Pharisees as having arrived at the highest pitch of religion. The scribes were the most noted teachers of the law, and the Pharisees the most celebrated professors of it, and they both sat in Moses’ chair (ch. xxiii. 2), and had such a reputation among the people, that they were looked upon as super-conformable to the law, and people did not think themselves obliged to be as good as they; it was therefore a great surprise to them, to hear that they must be better than they, or they should not go to heaven; and therefore Christ here avers it with solemnity; I say unto you, It is so. The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to Christ and his doctrine, and were great oppressors; and yet it must be owned, that there was something commendable in them. They were much in fasting and prayer, and giving of alms; they were punctual in observing the ceremonial appointments, and made it their business to teach others; they had such an interest in the people that they ought, if but two men went to heaven, one would be a Pharisee; and yet our Lord Jesus here tells his disciples, that the religion he came to establish, did not only exclude the badness, but excel the goodness, of the scribes and Pharisees. We must do more than they, and better than they, or we shall come short of heaven. They were partial in the law, and laid most stress upon the ritual part of it; but we must be universal, and not think it enough to give the priest his tithe, but must give God our hearts. They minded only the outside, but we must make conscience of inside godliness. They aimed at the praise and applause of men, but we must aim at acceptance with God: they were proud of what they did in religion, and trusted to it as a righteousness; but we, when we have done all, must deny ourselves, and say, We are unprofitable servants, and trust only to the righteousness of Christ; and thus we may go beyond the scribes and Pharisees.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

I came not to destroy, but to fulfil ( ). The verb “destroy” means to “loosen down” as of a house or tent (2Co 5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. “He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold” (McNeile).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

To destroy [] . Lit., to loosen down, dissolve; Wyc., undo.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Think not that I am come,” (me nomisete hoti ethon) “Think not (within yourselves) that I came,” of my own will and accord, as a civil revolutionary or insurrectionist, against either established government or religious orders.

2) “To destroy the law, or the prophets:” (katalusai ton nomon he tous prophetas) “To destroy or abrogate the law or the prophets,” under which Israel had been trustee or custodian of a program of sacrifices and Divine worship and service for near 1,500 years. For these had ‘pointed to Jesus Christ as the one and only hope and way of salvation from sin, Luk 16:29-31; Act 10:43; Gal 3:22-25.

3) “I am not come to destroy,” (ouk elthon katalusai came not to destroy,” abrogate, annul or demean the law or the authority and principles of the law, Luk 16:16; Luk 19:10. He came to save the bad, not to destroy the good.

4) “But to fulfill.” (alla plerosai) “But instead, to fulfill,” that of which the law and the prophets spoke and witnessed by word, type, shadow, and object lessons, as He Himself explained, Luk 24:44-45. Jesus came to fulfill or live up to the demands of the Holy Law, then die for all who had fallen short of its standards and demands, Gal 3:13; 1Pe 2:24; 2Pe 3:18.

Jesus “made under the law”, Gal 4:4, lived in perfect obedience to meet the standards of the law, Joh 8:46, fulfilled the types and shadows of the law, Gal 3:13-14; 1Pe 2:21-23, thus establishing the holiness of the law, Gal 6:2.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Mat 5:17

. Think not. With regard to the perfection of his life, Christ might justly have maintained that he came to fulfill the law: but here he treats of doctrine, not of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that “ the kingdom of God is come, ” (Mat 12:28,) and raised the minds of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted disciples by baptism, it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of suspense and doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that novelty. Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.

There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.

Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail, — and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its authority.

The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander which, he knew was brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This charge, it is evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he proceeds immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law; and, on the other hand, he boldly refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by which his enemies labored to make his preaching infamous or suspected.

If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must endeavor to oppose a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to prevent religion from being despised by the ignorant. The defense which Christ makes, to free his doctrine from slanders, ought to encourage us, if we are now exposed to the same calumnies. That crime was charged against Paul, that he was an apostate from the law of God, (Act 21:21) and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to clear ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the truth freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.

I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.

“

I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember their iniquities no more,” (Jer 31:33.) (383)

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. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.

With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. 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. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.

(383) The reader will find a copious illustration of this remarkable passage in Jeremiah, and of its bearing on the Christian system, in the author’s commentary on the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The aim and contents of the Sermon.No mere sermon is this, only distinguished from others of its class by its reach and sweep and power; it stands alone as the grand charter of the commonwealth of heaven; or, to keep the simple title the Evangelist himself suggests (Mat. 4:23), it is the gospel (or good news) of the kingdom. To understand it aright we must keep this in mind, avoiding the easy method of treating it as a mere series of lessons on different subjects, and endeavouring to grasp the unity of thought and purpose which binds its different parts into one grand whole. It may help us to do this if we first ask ourselves what questions would naturally arise in the minds of the more thoughtful of the people, when they heard the announcement, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. It was evidently to such persons the Lord addressed Himself. In their minds they would, in all probability, be revolving such questions as these:

1. What is this kingdom, what advantages does it offer, and who are the people that belong to it?
2. What is required of those that belong to it? What are its laws and obligations? And if these two questions were answered satisfactorily, a third would naturally follow.
3. How may those who desire to share its privileges and assume its obligations become citizens of it? These, accordingly, are the three great questions dealt with in succession (J. M. Gibson, D.D.).

The originality of the Sermon.We are not careful to deny, we are eager to admit, that many even of the most admirable sayings in the Sermon on the Mount had been anticipated by heathen moralists and poets (S. Cox, D.D.). To affirm that Christ was not in the world, nor in the thoughts of men, until He took flesh and dwelt among us, is no more to honour Him than it is to affirm that, when He came into the world, He showed Himself to be no wiser than the men whose thoughts He had previously guided and inspired. His teaching, we may be sure, will not be new in the sense of having no connection with the truths He had already taught by them; but it will be new in this sense, that it will perfect that which in them was imperfect; that it will gather up their scattered thoughts, free them from the errors with which they had blended them, and harmonise, develop, and complete them (S. Cox, D D.).

Is the Sermon on the Mount evangelical?You have heard, as I have, that there is no Cross in this Sermon on the Mount; that we are at the foot of Sinai listening to Moses, and not at Calvary beholding the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. Let us not be deceived. You might as well say there is no sun in a coal-pit or a geyser because you do not see his form there. Your British coalfields are as truly the-children of the sun as is the ray of light that last fell upon our eyes, and the high-pitched morality of this sermon is as really the offspring of the death and resurrection of Christ as the first pulse-beat of joy on the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Will you say that the writer of Todhunters Trigonometry is unfamiliar with the first four rules of arithmetic because he assumes instead of stating and proving them? No more should we conclude that salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God for men is absent from the Sermon on the Mount, because it is not expressly stated and argued as it is in the third of the Romans. There is not a benediction that does not take us to Calvary. There is not a warning that may not urge us to Christ. There is not a mountain elevation of holiness that will not force from us the cry, Lord, help me, or I perish. The Sermon is full of the great principles we have to preach, and those principles are all embodied in the Speaker Himself. Teaching Him we teach the principles of this Sermon, and it is of little use teaching the ideas of this Sermon without also teaching Him (J. Clifford, D.D.). The Lord Jesus did not give the world His best wine in this cup, marvellous and precious though it be. The best thing in the Gospels is the gospel itselfthat manifestation of the righteousness and love of God in the person, the life, and the death of His Son by which He wins our love and makes us righteous (S. Cox, D.D.).

The relation between the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St. Matthew and the account of it in St. Luke 6Commentators are divided in opinion as to whether or not these are two versions of the same discourse. Augustine suggests a solution of the difficulty by saying that the two discourses are entirely distinct, though delivered on the same occasionthat reported by St. Matthew, on the mountain to the disciples; that of St. Luke, delivered on the plain just below to the multitude. Dean Vaughan concurs in this view, and says: Men have doubted whether the discourse in St. Matthew is to be regarded as an ampler account of that which is reported by St. Luke. The general scope and purport is the same. Yet, as St. Matthew says expressly that Jesus spake sitting on the mountain, and St. Luke says that He spake standing on the plain, it seems not very unnatural to suppose that the one (that given by St. Matthew) was a discourse delivered, as it were, to the inner circle of His disciples, apart from the crowd outside; the other (preserved by St. Luke), a briefer and more popular rehearsal of the chief topics of the former, addressed, immediately afterwards, in descending the hill, to the promiscuous multitude. Lange also favours this view. Carr (Cambridge Bible for Schools) states the arguments in favour of the identity of the Sermon on the Mount with the Sermon on the Plain, thus:

1. The beginning and end are identical as well as much of the intervening matter.
2. The portions omitteda comparison between the old and the new legislationare such as would be less adapted for St. Lukes readers than for St. Matthews.
3. The mount and the plain are not necessarily distinct localities. The plain is more accurately translated a level place, a platform on the high land.
4. The place in the order of events differs in St. Luke, but it is probable that here as well as elsewhere St. Matthew does not observe the order of time.

Mat. 5:17.A fresh line of thought begins here and extends to the conclusion of the chapter. Its purport is to tighten the bands of morality upon the consciences of our Saviours followers (Morison).

Mat. 5:18. Jot.The smallest of the Hebrew letters. Tittle.One of those little strokes by which alone some of the Hebrew letters are distinguished from others like them (Brown).

Mat. 5:19. Least.As the thing spoken of is not the practical breaking, or disobeying, of the law, but annulling or enervating its obligations by a vicious system of interpretation, and teaching others to do the same; so the thing threatened is not exclusion from heaven, and still less the lowest place in it, but a degraded and contemptuous position in the present stage of the kingdom of God (ibid.).

Mat. 5:20. Scribes and Pharisees.The frequent combination of the two words (thirteen times in the first three Gospels) implies that for the most part the scribes were of the school of the Pharisees, just as the chief priests were, for the most part, of that of the Sadducees (Act. 5:17). The New Testament use of the word differs from the Old. There the scribe is simply the man who writes, the secretary or registrar of the kings edicts and official documents (2Sa. 8:17; 2Sa. 20:25; 2Ki. 18:18). After the return from Babylon, as in the case of Ezra (Ezr. 7:6; Ezr. 7:12), it was used first of the transcribers and editors of the sacred books, and then, by a natural transition, of their interpreters; and this is the dominant sense of the word in the New Testament (Plumptre).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 5:17-20

A definite aim.To many who heard themperhaps to most who heard them at firstthe opening words of the Sermon on the Mount must have had a well-nigh revolutionary sound. How different from the thunders of Sinai their proclamation of blessings! How strange the persons declared to be blessed! How all but unheard of the character of those blessings! Was everything, then, to be new? Were the old lines to be entirely obliterated? Were all previous teachers to be superseded by this? To such thoughts as theseas so often afterwardsthe Saviour seems, next, to reply. His hearers are not to think thus for a moment (Mat. 5:17). Alike the general character of His mission, and the special character of those older dispensations, and the special character of that which He is about to introduce, forbid such ideas.

I. The general character of His mission.Notwithstanding what He had said, it was quite a mistake to look upon this as a mission to destroy. He came not to destroy but to fulfil; not to condemn, but to save (Joh. 3:17); not to pull down, but to build up; not to diminish, but to enlarge; not to obliterate, but to restore. All the names that had been given Him signified this. He was to be a Redeemer (Isa. 49:26), a Saviour (Mat. 1:21), a Healer (Mal. 4:2), a Rebuilder (Act. 15:16), a Shepherd (Joh. 10:11, etc.), a Hope (Jer. 14:8), a Restorer of paths to dwell in (Isa. 58:12). If there were, therefore, to be things of a contrary kindif there were to be destruction and supercessionHe was not the person to do them. Those after Him, indeed, might have to behold (Joh. 4:21), those after Him might have to proclaim (Act. 15:10; Gal. 5:3), a good deal in that way. It was not for Him, with His mission, to bring it about. Rather, it was for Him, by His personal teaching, to fortify and enlarge that which previous teachers had taught.

II. The special nature of those older dispensations.For what were those things in effect? What, if we think of them as we ought? They were declarations, in their day, of Gods will; they were words which came from His mouth (Joh. 9:29; 2Sa. 23:2); and they were meant to do what He wished (Isa. 55:11). And to what, therefore, being such, were those economies like? They were like those created marvels which we see all around uswhether in heaven above, or on earth beneath (Mat. 5:18). For what are these also, if we think of it, but so many expressions of His will? (Gen. 1:3; Gen. 1:6, etc.; Psa. 33:9). And why are these also, on the other hand, but to fulfil what He wills? (Gen. 1:14-18; Psa. 148:8). And how is it, therefore, that we may argue legitimately, as well of those as of these? Because the heavens are thus the results of Gods will, and intended also (in their way) to accomplish His will, we see them continuing till they do so (Psa. 119:89; Psa. 119:91). So, also, because the law and the prophets, in a different sphere, were the same, they also shall in like manner abide until their work be fulfilled. Not a jot or tittle of what is necessary to this can in any way pass. Even, therefore, if Christ had come as a destroyer, He would not have destroyed these.

III. The special character of the dispensation which He had come to set up.In the last two verses of this passage this is mentioned three times in succession. Three times over we are told in them what is to be the rule of His kingdom. The rule of His kingdom towards those who shall even in part set those old commandments aside, whether in deed or in word. The same shall be regarded as only least heirs, in that kingdom (Mat. 5:19). Even if the Saviour does not proceed to extremities against such, there shall be no room for supposing that He looks upon them with favour (Mat. 5:19). The rule towards those who shall not desire, in any way, to set these commandments aside, whether in word or in deed. The same shall be called correspondingly great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 5:19). The more this is true of them, the more fit for it He will pronounce them to be. Double honour (1Ti. 5:17) will willingly be rendered to such. The rule of His kingdom, in the last place, towards those unhappy ones who virtually set these commandments wholly aside. They shall be regarded as not even belonging to that kingdom at all. It is true there were some, at that time, and those in very high places also, who were doing as much (Mar. 7:6-13). None the less shall the rule He speaks of be true about them; and about all those also, who, though they listen to Him, are not on a higher level than they (Mat. 5:20). So far is He, in short, from Himself wishing to destroy those ancient commandments that He will not connive at this being attempted on the part of any one else!

In conclusion, what striking combinations are visible here:

1. Of severity and goodness.The utterly false are altogether outside. The unwillingly weak have an innerthough not innermostplace.

2. Of the minute and the comprehensive.The jots and tittles on the one hand, heaven and earth on the other.

3. Of deference and demand.What respect is here paid to His predecessors! What superiority is claimed over them! To fulfil and surpass their words is what His words are to do! Great are they amongst men! Still greater Himself!

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 5:17-19. The unity and perpetuity of the moral law.Gods law is like Himselfinflexible, unchangeable, and eternal. Observe:

I. The organic unity of the moral law.Think not that I am come to destroy the law. It is here suggested:

1. That the law is one.It is a complete thing; it is a unity. You cannot take any part away without injuring the rest; you cannot relax one part without dislocating the other. As the ocean is onea unity so made up of seas, and bays, and gulfs, and straits, that if you cast a stone into any portion, the disturbance is felt at its farthest shoresso with the law, if you touch any part, you disturb the whole. Again, the law is like the bodyan organic whole, so that if you injure a limb you affect the whole system. Hence we gather that:

2. The Bible is one.That is, the Old and New Testaments constitute but one system of Divine truth. The law and the gospel are not separate or opposing forces. The Bible is a single and perfect body; not one member added, but the whole developed. There is a homogeneous process of revelation, communication, and verbal expression in the two divisions of the inspired volume.

3. The purpose is one.One of Gods revelations cannot contradict or do away with the other.

II. The infallible authority of the moral law.Delivered by the Most High Himself; written by His finger on tables of stone; placed in the ark of the covenant; bespeaking essential distinction; and occupying a position of glory and supremacy altogether unique. Therefore we consider the law:

1. Royal.God is the Author of it.

2. Supreme.It cannot be improved; it cannot be annulled.

3. Certain.It is raised above all doubts in its declaration, and verifies itself in its promises and its threatenings.

4. Final.From its commands there is no appeal.

III. The Divine perfectness of the moral law.The word fulfil does not imply imperfection, but rather implies to embody in the living form, Christ, the principles of the law; to unfold and interpret and to enshrine the same in the affection and character of men. The moral law in principle is incapable of improvement. The law of the Lord is perfect. It legislates for all our relations to God and the conditions of our being.

1. It is a perfect transcript of the Divine mind.

2. It is a perfect organ for Divine good.Its meaning is the well-being of the creature, and it is altogether directed to promote his happiness.

3. It is perfectly sound throughout.Agrees with reason and conscience.

IV. The important duty enforced respecting the law.Whosoever therefore shall break, etc. There are three classes here referred to by the great Teacher.

1. The least.Meaning those who are loose or lax in relation to the authority and obligation of the moral law and Christian doctrine, and who urge their own loose or lax views on others in things moral; they may be saved if otherwise consistent, but only as by fire (1Co. 3:15).

2. The great.They who earnestly contend for the faith and live it.

3. The scribes and Pharisees seem excluded. For want of spiritual sympathy and sincerity, they are shut out of the kingdom.J. Harries.

Mat. 5:17. Christ a great encourager of good morals.

1. He has much better cleared up the spiritual meaning of the law, whereas the Jews commonly understood it only in an external, carnal sense.
2. He has likewise cautioned us against all the causes, occasions, and inlets of sin, than which nothing could have been a greater bar against it; laying restraints on the eyes and ears, and hands, and tongue, and all our members.
3. He has more clearly proposed the benefit, as well as duty of repentance, accepting of repentance instead of innocence; which is a mighty encouragement to come off from a sinful course.
4. He has called us more off from the ceremonials of religion, and taught us to bend all our strength to the substantials of it.
5. There were a great many things permitted to the Jews, because of the hardness of their hearts, which kept them very low in goodness and virtue.
6. The doctrine of our Saviour is better suited to work on our hopes and fears than the law of Moses was, having added much better sanctions of rewards and punishments.
7. There is a much larger measure of grace and of the assistance of Gods Holy Spirit promised and exhibited under the gospel than there was under the law.
8. The gospel furnishes us with a much more perfect pattern of all duty, in the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, than any they had under the law.Jas. Blair, M.A.

The significance of our Lords teaching.The Pharisaic type of conformity to law was accepted without challenge as the ideal of righteousness; but one of the very first impressions created by Jesus was the impression that He was the enemy of such righteousness. Renouncing as He explicitly, emphatically, and with the utmost warmth renounced, the goodness of the Pharisees, the cry was at once raised against Him that He was destroying the law, and was Himself a libertine, and a companion of loose people. And perceiving that even in honest and unprejudiced minds, this impression was gaining ground, He feels Himself called upon publicly to repudiate the attitude towards the law which was ascribed to Him, and to explain elaborately what the righteousness which He required and exhibited really was, and how it was related to the law. And it is as one who speaks to the uppermost thought in the mind of His hearers that He says, Think not that I am come, etc. The word or means to fill up. It is used of filling to the brim a vessel empty or half-full. And hence it means to complete, to perfect. There are two senses in which a law may be completed or fulfilled.

1. By being obeyed. Thus Paul in Rom. 13:8.

2. By being issued in a more complete and adequate form. In which of these senses does our Lord use the word ? Hardly in the former sense, because He immediately goes on to illustrate His meaning, and His attitude to the law by citing a number of instances in which the precepts of the old law are to be replaced by precepts of His own. Besides, had practical keeping of the law been meant by , then its proper opposite would have been not but, as Wendt points out, . The word means a good deal more than practical disobedience of a law; it means to deprive it of authority and destroy it as a law. And the proper opposite of this is not the practical observance of a law, but something more, the issuing of it with authority.

Luther, then, was on the right track when he said that here means to show the real kernel and true significance of the law, that men might learn what it is, and what it requires. Or, rather, it may be said that it means the issuing of the law in its ideal form. It is thus that our Lord fulfils the law; He keeps and He teaches it in a form that no longer needs amendment, revisal, improvement, as the Old Testament law did, but in a form that cannot be improved, that is perfect, full. That this was our Lords meaning is apparent from the abundant instances He proceeds to cite, in which the old law was to be henceforth known in a higher and more perfect form.Prof. M. Dods, D.D. See entire article in Expositor, Fourth Series, 9:70.

Mat. 5:19. The authority of the law.It is as much treason to coin a penny as a twenty shilling piece, because the authority of law is as much violated in the one as in the other. There is the same rotundity in the little ball or bullet as in a great one. The authority of God is as truly despised in the breach of the least commandments, as some are called, as in the breach of the greatest, as others are called.Christian World Pulpit.

Mat. 5:20. The sin of the Pharisees.

I. The good traits in the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

1. The Pharisees were orthodox.

2. They were eminently respectable.

3. They were eminently religious.

II. Why the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees fell short and where.

1. Their religious life, as well as their private life, was marked by a pride fatal to true spirituality. They were proud of their sect, and they were proud of their own personal character.

2. Closely allied to this vital defect was the sin of selfishness. Phariseeism as a system would never have produced the true missionary spirit. The Pharisee wished for the prosperity of his own sect and the triumph of Israel over her oppressors and enemies, but never sought an outpouring of the Divine blessing upon all nations.

3. Equally allied with this defect was the fatal vice of formalism.

III. The principles by carrying out which we shall be able to attain a righteousness exceeding theirs, and so exceeding theirs as to merit the kingdom of heaven. Many are placing their dependence as much upon a past incident in their spiritual life, which they rightly term conversion as the Pharisees did upon having Abraham to their father.

1. Having uttered this warning against resting content with the blessing of regeneration, we must emphasise that change as the first essential of a true righteousness which shall exceed the formal religion of the scribes and Pharisees.

2. Another great principle is, that if any man will follow Christ, he must daily take up his cross.H. S. Lunn, M.D.

Pharisaical and Chsristian righteousness.

I. The defects of this Pharisaical righteousness.The faults and the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees are to be distinguished. By their righteousness, I mean the rule of duties which they set. Their faults, like other mens, might be personal transgressions of good rules; and we have nothing to do with them in this place.

1. The scribes and Pharisees in their interpretations of the law, contented themselves with the external part of duty, without minding the spiritual sense.
2. Their righteousness consisted in a strictness concerning the ceremonials and circumstantials of religion, with a neglect of the greater and more substantial duties.
3. They showed a zeal for traditions, which they observed with an equal veneration with the precepts of Almighty God; nay, sometimes gave them the preference.

4. When pinched between duty and interest, they stocked themselves with evasions and distinctions, whereby they satisfied their consciences in several things, wherein they would have been bound by the law (Mat. 23:16).

5. They showed a zeal for all those duties and customs which made a great show of devotion and mortification to the world.
6. They valued themselves exceedingly upon their external privileges as being descended from Abraham, as if they had been the only elect people of God, and all the rest of the world castaways.

II. What further degrees of perfection our Saviour requires of His disciples.

1. Evangelical righteousness chiefly regards the inner man and goes about all duty with a pure eye to God.
2. It lays no great stress on ceremonials, though it uses them for decency and order, but reserves its zeal for more substantial matters.
3. It delights in the study of the Holy Scriptures; the good Christian forms his practice by that model.
4. It neither seeks for, nor admits of, any evasions or subterfuges to avoid duty.
5. It is well guarded by moderation and humility against the effects of blind zeal.
6. The good Christian believes God to be no respecter of persons, and so works out his salvation with fear and trembling.

III. The penalty upon which this higher degree of duty is enjoined.Viz., exclusion from the kingdom of heaven.

IV. The equity of this sentence.

1. The great corruption of the Jewish doctors in our Saviours days, requiring a great deal of reformation.
2. The greater advantages of Christianity beyond the Jewish religion, making it very reasonable that higher degrees of righteousness should be required of us than of them.

V. Practical inferences.

1. We come nearest to the spirit of our Master, Christ, when by our life and doctrine we are the greatest promoters of Christian morals.
(1) Of all notions in religion, beware of those which undermine Christian practice.
(2) Good morality is good Christianity.
(3) Good moral preaching is good Christian preaching.
(4) A good moral life is one of the truest characteristics of a good Christian.
2. Let us look with a jealous eye on ourselves and examine ourselves very narrowly, to make sure that our righteousness is such as exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.
3. Our Saviours precepts are not mere counsels of perfection. Let us, as a thing of infinite consequence, set about the study of this gospel righteousness, as we expect to avoid hell and enter the kingdom of heaven.Jas. Blair, M.A.

The excelling righteousness.What is righteousness, and how can it be attained? were the great questions which the systems of the Rabbis pressed most urgently on the attention of the people in the time of our Lord. No teacher could gain attention who did not deal with them. Indeed, the religious questioning of all ages and of all lands comes to the same thing. Jesus Christ in this Sermon has taken righteousness for His great theme and has shown us clearly:

I. What it is in itself.Righteousness consists:

1. In principle within.It does not consist in rites, and creeds, and ceremonies without, but it is the inward condition of the heart.

2. In likeness to God.From Mat. 5:1 to Mat. 5:16 Christ shows what virtues righteousness inculcates and demands, which may be summed up in one wordholiness. Jesus Christ is the Model.

3. In moral meetness for glory, honour, and immortality. Observe:

II. How it is to be attained.

1. Historically. Of Abel it is said that he found out the secret (Heb. 11:4). Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Abraham by his unquestioning obedience to the will of God had his faith counted for righteousness. The prophets teach, Wash you, make you clean, etc. And our Lord in this Sermon therefore recalls the spiritual conception of the righteousness of the kingdom of God.

2. Evangelically.True righteousness begins

(1) In repentance.
(2) Attained by a living and loving faith in ChristThe righteousness which is of faith.
(3) Result: joy, and peace, and love. Observe:

III. Wherein does Christian righteousness excel that of the scribes and Pharisees?In order to understand rightly what was the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and how far that is to be exceeded by the righteousness of Christians, we need to consider:

1. Who these scribes and Pharisees were.The scribes were the learned theorists. The Pharisees were the religious professors.

2. What was their religion?

(1) It was speculative.
(2) Negative. Free from scandalous sins, though the heart was full of corruption.
(3) Outwardly scrupulous, but inwardly mean. They were mere machines, polished pillars, etc.
3. How Christian righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.

(1) In its source. The heart.
(2) In its nature. Christ is our righteousness, not self.
(3) In its motive. Not to be seen of men that men may glorify us, but that they, seeing our good works, may glorify our Father.
(4) In its quality. Spiritual, not earthly.
(5) In its end. Love to God is the beginning and ending of the service, worship, and life. The scribes and Pharisees are representative men of two classes of formalists: 1st, of those who are mere theorists in their treatment of the Word of God. Their religion is technical. 2nd, of those whose religion consists in mere ceremony, dead formality, and sham; an elaborate system of mimicry, artificiality, and egotism; stereotyped routine.J. Harries.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW (Mat. 5:17-48)

1. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE STANDARD,
TEXT: 5:17-20

17. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he 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 wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Describe the righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees and which secures one a place in the kingdom.

Quote several NT Scriptures which state plainly our relation to the Law.

Discuss the relationship between true righteousness in fellowship with God and the keeping of laws. Could God produce righteousness in man by law? What makes you think so? Can true righteousness even be described in a code of regulations for conduct? How is conduct controlled in a Christian without his being regulated by law?

What did the law accomplish? What will the Sermon on the Mount accomplish if it too is used as a law or code of conduct without the supernaturally-revealed redemption that is available in Jesus death and resurrection?

Is the law of any use for Christians today? If so, what use is to be made of it? If the lofty ideals of this Sermon serve to produce the same effect as the law, why did Jesus preach it? Is He laying just another burdensome law upon His disciples that demands absolute perfection? If not, what is the difference?

By His reference to one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till all things be accomplished, was Jesus thereby guaranteeing the accuracy of the Old Testament text? Is this a positive declaration that OT is verbally inspired down to the smallest part of the very letters which comprise it?

Why was it so important that Jesus deny His intent to annul the law and prophets?

What do you think is the basis for the distinction Jesus makes between those who shall be called least and those who shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven?

In Mat. 5:19, Jesus speaks of those who break commandments and teach others so, and of those who shall do and teach them, as being considered in some way in the kingdom of heaven. Now, to what does Jesus refer by that phrase: in the kingdom? Does He mean a time or a place or a dispensation or what?

j. Why should we get all stirred up about seeing to it that our piety surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees? What if it does not?

k. Who would call them great or least in the kingdom? (Mat. 5:19)

PARAPHRASE

Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets, for my intention is not to destroy the effect of their witness but to fulfil them to the fullest extent. For truly I say to you that heaven and earth would sooner disappear than that the smallest letter or even a part of a letter pass from the Law until all that must be fulfilled have been fulfilled. The man who breaks or even relaxes the force of one of the minor commandments and teaches others to do so, shall be least esteemed in the kingdom of God, whereas he who practices and teaches them shall be considered great in God’s kingdom. For I tell you that unless your religion is a far better thing than that of your theologians and the Pharisees, you will never even make it into Gods kingdom!

NOTES

I. THE OBLIGATION TO THE OLD

Mat. 5:17 Think not that I came . .. Why was it necessary for Jesus to open this section of His message with this denial? Were some inclined to suppose that Jesus was coming to destroy the Law and prophets?

Yes, some viewed the law as an intolerable burden either because of a lack of the spirit of loving obedience to the Father’s will (Cf. Isa. 28:15; Amo. 8:5), or because of personal painful, awareness of sin they might have been caused to hope for greater leniency upon sin in the messianic kingdom. To these Jesus needed to uphold Gods unvarying standard that condemns all sin, humbling the former to unqualified repentance while pointing the latter to a righteousness based upon something other than harsh, legal justice.

Yes, the jealous religious leaders, their confidence shaken by Jesus unconventional but obviously true religion and widespread popularity, probably suspected His previous preaching of possessing revolutionary implications which could destroy the existing order and all their carefully-worded interpretations of the Law and prophets. They had so thoroughly confused their traditional interpretations with Gods original revelation, that to attack the one was to -put the other in doubt. They mutter fearfully, He’s taking the Law into His own handsand the prophets too! To this He is answering, Do not worry about me or what I might do to the Law of God or to His prophets!

In the beatitudes Jesus had contradicted practically every dearly-held tenet of the scribes and Pharisees. In this present section He will make some sweeping criticisms of the OT Law. Because the popular confusion of the voice of the Pharisees with the voice of God, in the minds of His hearers, Jesus would appear to destroy that for which the Pharisees officially stood: the Law and prophets themselves. This denial, therefore, is a most-needed premise to His revolutionary preaching which follows.

I came not to destroy (kataluein) i.e., to do away with. abolish, annul, make invalid, repeal, ruin, bring to an end, defeat, (Amdt-Gingrich, 415) As some of these meanings may appear to be mutually contradictory when applied to the Law, we must determine what Jesus regards as the antithesis or opposite of what Me means by destroy, In Jesus’ mind, the antithesis of destroy is fulfil. Thus, He did not come to ruin, to bring to an end by defeating the purpose of the Law or prophets, but rather to fulfil them,

Should a pretender to the Messiahship intend to nullify the predictive types in the Law or the predictions of the prophets, how could he ever appeal to their words, as correctly representing God’s message relevant to that generation, to justify his claims to be the true Messiah? Again, if Jesus had categorically rejected the Law and repealed it before fulfilling its standard, how could He claim to save men from its guilt and from their responsibility to justify themselves through perfect fulfilment of its standard? God gave the Law and the prophets to indicate the true nature of sin. (Rom. 3:20; Rom. 7:13) This is why the Law must remain in force: it has been established as the standard against which those will be judged who will not accept God’s leniency through faith in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:31; Jas. 2:9-11), However, to those who surrender their struggle to be good enough by whatever code, to them who are willing to believe Jesus, ONLY TO THEM He becomes the end of the Law (Rom. 10:3-4). The unrelenting, unforgiving Law will stand up at the judgment to condemn all who do not believe Him. (Rom. 2:12). (See below on Mat. 5:18.)

I came to fulfil (the law and the prophets). I am the exact meaning of all that God intended to say in the Old Testament! is Jesus’ bold, thrilling claim. Whoever reads the OT without seeing the mighty figure of Christ Jesus, just has not understood what he reads. (Cf. Act. 8:30-35) Just how did Jesus fulfil the Jewish Scriptures?

Jesus fulfilled the Laws purpose to demonstrate the standard of righteousness by showing Himself to be the perfect Man and all that God had in mind when He originally gave the Law, (Mat. 3:15; Heb. 4:15; Heb. 7:26-28; 1Pe. 2:22; 2Co. 5:21; Joh. 8:46)

Jesus fulfilled the Law’s purpose to declare the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Rom. 7:13) by living as a Man above sin, thus condemning all sin that men commit (Rom. 8:3), thus dissolving all the rationalizations they offer to justify their sinning.

Jesus fulfilled the Laws righteous sentence by receiving in his own body the execution of the death penalty (1Pe. 2:24; Gal. 3:13).

Jesus fulfilled the Laws patterns and predictions of the new covenant. He used the Law by pointing to the purpose behind its true history, to its types and prophecies as having exact fulfilment either in Himself or in His messianic rule. (Cf. Luk. 4:21; Luk. 24:25-27; Luk. 24:44-47; 2Pe. 1:19) Some of its predictions find fulfilment in the Church; others in all that Christ will yet do until the consummation of Gods plans at the end of time. (Act. 3:20-21)

His standard of righteousness requires of His disciples all that was really essential in the Mosaic code (Mat. 22:34-40). Thus, the spirit and substance of the Law and prophets will be in effect: love for God and man. This is the real meaning of all of Gods will given at any time.

The preceding five points picture Jesus attitude toward the OT Law as one of complete support and dedication to its true intent. It is also true that . . . :

He considered the Old Testaments message as binding in its true, original form upon those to whom it had been given. (Joh. 10:35; Mat. 5:18-20; Mat. 8:4; Mat. 19:16-20; Mat. 22:35-40). To Jesus, faithfulness to Gods Word is NOT secondary. God does care about what men do with the revelations He gives them of His will.

He constantly corrected the Pharisaic concepts and corruptions of the Law and misunderstandings of the prophets, which nullified the force of Gods will (Mat. 5:20; Mat. 12:1-14; Mat. 15:1-20; Mat. 23:1-36). To the strict orthodox Jew of the time, service to God was a matter of keeping thousands of man-made rules and regulations handed down from the ancients. These traditions were confused with Gods Law which they were intended to clarify, and, more often than not, they contradicted its true intent.

Consequently, He viewed as of no consequence the human regulations added by tradition, He cared nothing about the ritual handwashings (Mat. 15:2; Mar. 7:1-5) or the traditional definitions of what constituted work on the sabbath (Mat. 12:1-2; Mat. 12:9-10).

Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the Law and prophets to the full extent that God had intended.

As stated above, Jesus COULD NOT break by defeating the true intention of the OT without also undermining His own position and mission. To render vital and valid Jesus salvation from sin, the Law must continue in force to describe and condemn sin. But this cannot mean that Jesus, not having destroyed the Law, could not therefore abrogate, repeal, annul, abolish or render it invalid after He had fulfilled it. (See in Mat. 5:18) Neither does fulfilling the Law mean to perpetuate its force upon those saved by grace and faith. Though kataluein, as indicated above, may mean both repeal and break the force of, yet Jesus did the former and could never do the latter. By His intention to fulfil the Law and prophets, He admitted its God-given authority in full, By His design to set it aside, having completely fulfilled its requirements, He is not failing to acknowledge its importance and authority for those to whom it was given. Rather, He is upholding the Law as a principle of judgment, valid for those who are not willing to be clothed in His righteousness. Nevertheless, His fulfilling the Law was His preparation to abrogate it altogether for those who accept Him.

Jesus did NOT mean that EVERY law of God is binding upon Christians and that the whole of it should be obeyed without regard to important differences in the persons involved. ALL of Gods commands are not addressed to all the race. While it is true that all of Gods revealed will, directed to a specific group such as the Jews, the Christians, or the world at large, must be faithfully obeyed by that group, yet it cannot and must not be considered obligatory for those to whom it was not given by God.

Nor by His claiming to fulfil the law, does Jesus mean to give the true meaning of it, or complete what was lacking in the deep, spiritual content or merely reveal all that is implicit in Moses system. Some hold that Jesus raised the Mosaic standard to spiritual perfection, leaving thus intact Moses morality with Jesus more rigid requirements added besides, This could not be His meaning, as the prophets clearly understood the Law to require heartfelt righteousness that motivated men to love and good works because of their faith in God.

See, for examples, Isa. 1:11-20; Isa. 33:14-16; Isa. 51:1-9; Isa. 52:11; Isaiah 55; Isa. 57:1-2; Isaiah 58; Isaiah 59; Isaiah 64; Isa. 66:1-5; Jer. 7:1-7; Jer. 17:9-10; Hos. 6:6; Hos. 10:12; Joe. 2:12-14; Amo. 5:10-15; Amo. 5:21-24; Mic. 6:8; Hab. 2:4; Zec. 7:9-12.

Moses Law was already directed to mens hearts! (Deu. 4:8; Deu. 4:29; Deu. 5:29; Deu. 32:46; Psa. 37:31; Psa. 40:6-8; Psa. 119:11; Psa. 119:172; Psa. 19:7-14) Jesus came not to give His disciples another law, the same in kind as the Mosaic system, but to give them a new nature which could help them to rise to moral heights unapproachable under law.

II. THE OMINOUS OVERTURE TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE OBSOLETE

Mat. 5:18 The Law does not here refer only to the Torah, i.e. merely the legal requirements, but also the prophets who are its God-sent interpreters. Jesus means the Law in its broader sense of every part of the OT, prophecy and command.

To paraphrase Jesus another way: The Law and prophets mean more to me than all the destiny of the universe! Every little item in them will be carried out.

According to Jesus, there are two points that must be reached before even the smallest part of the total Law could be forgotten:

1. Till heaven and earth pass away, How does Jesus intend this?

Literally? Until the end of time? This interpretation seems to overlap the second point to be reached. (See 2 below. )

Proverbially? It would be easier for the universe to crumble than for Gods Law and prophets to fail of their intended purpose and fulfilment. Compare Lukes wording, Luk. 16:17. According to Jesus, The Scripture cannot be broken (Joh. 10:35); i.e. it applied to those under its authority and could not be abrogated or annulled by them or by anyone without Gods express mandate.

Till all things be accomplished, i.e., until Gods purpose for giving them had been fulfilled, Since Gods purpose is fulfilled in Jesus and His Church, some of the details my yet be in the process of completion clear down to the end of time. Certainly, Gods judgment against sinners who reject Jesus will be upheld by Gods unchanging Law, for the vindication of Gods righteousness at the last day.

But with reference to believers, all things have already been (actually or potentially) accomplished by Jesus, for He set in motion, either in His life, message, suffering, glorification, Church or His glorious reign, all those principles which would accomplish all of Gods OT predictions and standards. No wonder Paul shouts to the Greco-Jewish world, God is the source of life in Christ Jesus, whom He has made to be our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification and redemption! (1Co. 1:30) look at all Jesus did! (Rom. 3:21-26; Rom. 5:1-11; Rom. 7:4; Rom. 9:1-11; Rom. 9:32; Rom. 10:4; 1Co. 15:24-47; 2Co. 5:18-21; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 4:4-5; Eph. 1:3-14; Eph. 3:8-12; Col. 1:12-23; Col. 2:3; Col. 2:10)

During His ministry, Jesus hinted at the complete abrogation of the Law (See Mar. 7:19 in contrast with Leviticus 11; Joh. 4:21 contrasted with Deu. 12:1-32). But after He had accomplished all things that were written in the Law and prophets that required fulfilment (Luk. 24:25-27; Luk. 24:44-48; Act. 3:18; Act. 3:22-26; Act. 13:17-40; Act. 26:22), Jesus, whose very Spirit inspired their writings (1Pe. 1:10-11; 1Pe. 3:18-20), could do with them as He chose. What He actually did is revealed in long treatises on this subject: Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, with much clear teaching in 2 Corinthians 3; Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2.

Feel the impact of these specific, revealing texts: Act. 13:38-39; Act. 15:10; Act. 15:28; Rom. 3:19-23; Rom. 6:7; Rom. 6:14; Rom. 7:4; Rom. 7:6; Rom. 8:1-4; Rom. 10:3-4; 2Co. 3:1-14; Gal. 2:16-21; Gal. 3:10-11; Gal. 3:21; Gal. 3:24-25; Gal. 5:1-4; Gal. 5:18; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 7:12; Heb. 7:18-19; Heb. 8:1-12; Heb. 9:15-17; Heb. 10:1-4; Heb. 10:9.

Having fulfilled the Law perfectly, Jesus abolished it. The man who is justified by faith in Jesus has no relationship to the Law and must never try to justify himself before God by ANY law!

But why bring up the question of a Christians relationship to the Law in a discussion of Jesus relation to it? Simply because of the great and lasting harm that has been wrought in the Church because of the misconceptions that so many have about what Jesus actually did to the principle of law. Textually deprived of the Mosaic Law by such passages as those cited above, men have sought to write thousands of other laws whereby they might be able to justify themselves and judge others. Some have even viewed the NT Scriptures as another law, somehow higher arid better than that of Moses, but nevertheless, law. But by saying, I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil, does Jesus mean to uphold forever a system which His own apostles will later declare invalid and incapable of ever making man right before God?

Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law: the Law shall most certainly stand (Greek double negative: ou me parelthe) This is the obvious meaning of Jesus allusions to the smallest Hebrew letter, the jodh, and to the little stroke of the pen that would differentiate one Hebrew letter from another of similar appearance. In our alphabet the tittle would make the difference between, for example, c and e or between G and C. Jesus means, simply, the most minimal part of the Law, and not the verbal inspiration of the smallest part of the very letters that comprise the OT.

One important reason for this conclusion is the absence of the original autograph copies to whose letters this interpretation would refer. The written form of the Law and prophets which would have existed in Jesus time would have been either in Hebrew copies made from the long-lost originals, or else in copies of translations made from the copies of the originals. Today, it is a gigantic task to compare available Hebrew manuscripts with their early translations to arrive at the most nearly perfect reproduction of the original wording. But no editor could truly say that his edition of the Hebrew Bible is verbally inspired down to the smallest letters or parts of letters.

What does the Law accomplish that makes it so important to Jesus?

In the work which it accomplished in preparation for Jesus coming:

The Law preserved law and order for a time until Gods purposes for the Jewish people could reach fruition. It was intended to provide an outward control of their conduct, even if it could not convert their lawless hearts, (Cf. 1Ti. 1:8-11; Gal. 3:19; Gal. 3:23-25; Jer. 24:7; Jer. 31:33; Jer. 34:40)

The Law and the prophets, whose works explained Gods true intent in the Law, identify the Savior and His system.

The Law furnished a vocabulary and a thought framework (Act. 3:17-25; Act. 8:35; Act. 10:43; Act. 13:16-41) for Jesus revelation of God and His salvation.

In the function it continues to carry out:

The Law condemns sin by showing the heinous nature of rebellion against God and the dire need of salvation on some other basis than law. (Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:7-14; Gal. 3:10; Jas. 2:10)

The Law, by its inability to give life and righteousness, demands a different arrangement of a new covenant. (Heb. 7:19; Heb. 8:7; Heb. 10:1-4; Gal. 3:21) It shows for all ages the incapacity of law, as a principle of giving right-standing with God, to make men right.

The Law, not having been abrogated for those who reject Jesus cross, provides the standard of condemnation. (Rom. 12:15; Gal. 5:3-4; Jas. 2:8-13; Act. 13:39)

III. OBEDIENCE IS OBVIOUSLY OBLIGATORY

Mat. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break. Therefore announces the first practical application of the principle that Gods Law and prophets must have complete fulfilment, Mat. 5:17-18. Break (luen) has about the same breadth of meaning as kataluein, destroy of Mat. 5:17 (Arndt-Gingrich, 485). However, Jesus refers not so much to that open disobedience or unblushing defiance of Gods government as to all the compromising and shrewd evasion of the force of Gods commands by those who profess to serve God, There are many ways to loose or untie (luein) one from his obligation to the Law: through ignorant or wrong interpretations, by deliberate manipulation of the Law for selfish or ulterior motives, by cunningly devised rationalizations and justifications adopted as a means of escaping the guilt of violation. This subtle spirit of disobedience seeks to realize its desires just like the openly sinful, but it always maintains a cloak of respectability and superficial piety, continually stretched to cover every act. This is the same attitude toward Gods will that keeps a person from rendering wholehearted allegiance and service to God and satisfies him with external piety that passes for purity.

One of these least commandments. Who said that some commands are less important than others? The Pharisees? Jesus? If so, what did they mean?

The Pharisees were experts at this sort of dodging moral responsibility by demoting commands of supreme and essential importance so that they might be ignored as trivial offences, while giving top priority to clearly secondary issues. (See Mat. 15:1-20; Mat. 23:16-23) In this case, Jesus may be admitting their terminology while condemning their use of it. If so, He is indicting them with encouraging people to presume that little disobedience to God is unimportant, or that violation of less important commands was only a trivial matter.

However, even if Jesus were not accommodating His language to Pharisaic distinctions to make His point, yet it is quite true that there are weightier matters of the law that dwarf all the rest by comparison. (Mat. 23:23; cf. Mat. 9:13; Mat. 12:1-12) While anything Gal commands is obligatory to those of whom He requires it, Jesus does not view every command as of the same importance. For instance, the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic code would be considered of certainly less importance than love, justice, mercy and faith. (Cf. Mat. 9:13; Mat. 22:34-40)

Though the Christian must not view his relation to God as a legal contract, yet for those in Jesus audience who so view it, He reminds that the authority of the Law is defied just as much by the violation of a least commandment as by a greater one. (Jas. 2:8-11) By this fact all are damned as sinners and must be saved by Gods grace! (Romans 1-3)

He shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom does not refer to that kingdom of glory where the saints will see the Fathers face, but that kingdom a b u t which Jesus has already taught much in Galilee (Mat. 4:17; Mat. 4:23) and would yet explain more clearly (Mat. 11:11-14; Mat. 13:1-52; Mat. 16:18-19; Mat. 16:28) which found its immediate and practical application in the Church. Jesus expression regards two viewpoints:

The present condition of His hearers in view of the future. Men who show little reverence for the present revelation of God, as represented in the Law and prophets, would have the same disregard for further revelation brought in the kingdom by the Messiah. (Cf. Luk. 16:27-31; Joh. 5:38-47) If you act this way now, before the kingdom comes, your habits of disobedience will not easily be laid aside and will carry over with you into that epoch when the kingdom becomes a reality.

The future attitudes in the kingdom considered as already realized. After the Church becomes a reality, those members who regard God-appointed commands as non-essentials and neglect them and urge others to follow suit, will be the least esteemed in the kingdom. Though they had entered the kingdom by accepting Christ, they might be slighting His authority on some questions. (Mat. 28:20; Act. 20:20; Act. 20:27)

Who will be making this judgment? They shall be called least by whom? Jesus here declares His own verdict: In my kingdom I will consider those who do this as nobodies, as teachers who do not know what they are talking about. Christians, following their Lord’s sentence, must evaluate would-be leaders on the same basis. (Cf. 1Ti. 1:-20)

Why is this judgment necessary? Because those who hold that some of God’s commands can be ignored with impunity, are fundamentally eroding the conscience and undermining God’s authority or right to command. Any unconscientiousness in small matters opens psychological doors to indifference toward greater, (Cf. 1Ti. 1:5-6; 1Ti. 1:19)

Observe carefully the emphasis and order Jesus uses as He describes insignificance or greatness in the kingdom: (1) Whosoever vitiates a small part of God’s revelation and (2) teaches men so . . . (1) Whosoever practices and (2) teaches . . . The practice usually and quite naturally precedes the teaching. Psychologically, it could not be otherwise. No teacher is capable of convincing others of that of which he himself is not the first example. (Cf. 1Ti. 4:6-7; 1Ti. 4:11-16) Jesus will have much to say about the hypocrites who try to teach while not having the character they expect from others. The truly great, in Jesus’ holy eyes, are those who do and teach. But greatness in the kingdom is measured by conscientiousness, not punctiliousness, in regard to its least commands. Jesus is not blessing that strict devotion to forms and ceremonies which He condemns in the Pharisees.

Rather, He encourages that heart which eagerly does anything God says and joyfully urges others to follow suit, to seek true greatness by continuing to obey just as they are already doing. ( 1Co. 11:1; Php. 4:9)

IV. THE ORDER TO OUTSTRIP THE OFFICIAL ORTHODOXY

Mat. 5:20 Unless you are better men than the orthodox theological doctors demand, you will not make it into my kingdom! Sin and transgression do matter: righteousness in my kingdom is no secondary issue. In fact, it is so important that entrance is prohibited to those who are no closer to God than the most religious people you can think of!

Your righteousness is your view about what you think constitutes true righteousness. This, in turn, affects your dedication to God and modifies your character. Ones attitude toward Gods standards is reflected in his character and conduct and incisively affects his obedience. This would naturally come to the mind of the thoughtful. But another series of steps must be taken before Jesus revelation of the true nature of righteousness will be complete:

Men are just not good enough, on the basis of legal justification, to merit entrance into the Kingdom. (Rom. 2:12; Rom. 3:9-23; Rom. 11:32; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 5:3-4; Gal. 6:13)

Only Jesus fulfilled the Laws demands, thereby providing Gods gracious opportunity for men to be declared righteous on the basis of faith in Him. (Mat. 5:17-18; Rom. 3:24-26; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 2:8-9)

Man must surrender, therefore, his struggle to be good enough to satisfy Gods Law, and he must accept Jesus righteousness as his.

Imputed righteousness is valid only where the faith is real. (Rom. 1:17; Rom. 11:20-23)

Faith is only. genuine where the conduct demonstrates its vitality. (Jas. 1:22-25; Jas. 2:14-26; Gal. 5:6)

Imputed righteousness is only of value to the man whose whole being is transformed and made truly good by Gods Spirit working from within, rather than Gods Law coercing him from without. (Rom. 6:12-22; Rom. 7:6; Rom. 12:2; 1Co. 6:9-11; 2Co. 3:17-18; Gal. 4:19; Gal. 5:18; Php. 1:27; Col. 1:27-28) (Rom. 4:5 to Rom. 5:1; Rom. 6:1-11; 1Co. 1:30; Php. 3:4-16)

The man who depends upon his personal goodness, established on the basis of so many good works and so much obedience to law, is damned. (Rom. 3:19-20; Rom. 3:31; Rom. 4:15; Rom. 7:7-24; Rom. 10:1-4; Gal. 3:10; Gal. 5:4)

Therefore, imputed righteousness is the only righteousness which truly excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, but it must be backed by a righteous character which responds to Gods grace, These tremendous concepts are uniquely Christian and probably would have never crossed the mind of man had not Jesus and His apostles taught them. But they are absolutely necessary, logical conclusions if one uses as a point of departure perfect fulfilment of the Law and the prophets, (Mat. 5:17-18) or the very perfection of God Himself (Mat. 5:48) .

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were the acknowledged expounders of the Law because of their particular familiarity with its contents as the men of letters (grammateus) of that day. Their life-work consisted in the study and interpretation of the Law: they were the lawyers (Cf. Mat. 22:35 with Mar. 12:28; Luk. 11:52-53). They were the rabbis, the cream of Jewish scholarship in that period. (Cf. Mat. 2:4; Mat. 7:29; Mat. 9:3; Mat. 12:38; Mat. 15:1; Mat. 16:21; Mat. 17:10; Mat. 21:15; Mat. 23:2 ff; Mar. 12:35; Mar. 12:38 ff) The Pharisees were that Jewish party which professed scrupulous adherence to all the legal requirements of the Law as interpreted by the scribes. But why bring them into the argument? They made a valuable point of reference, since, in the eyes of the people and especially in their own sight, they were the very models of righteousness. As such, they represented the strictest type of Judaism. Not only that, but they also picture for us the strictest legal interpreters of the highest moral law known to man. They should therefore be the purest among men; at least, this was their own ideal. This declaration of Jesus must have hit hard, since all were agreed: If a Pharisee or a scribe be not the first to enter the kingdom, who would? Here again, Jesus contradicts the popular concept, not only of His day, but of every age: Unless your religion excels that of the best men on earth you know, the doors of the kingdom are closed to you!

But what was the so-called righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? Surely Jesus does not accept their own estimate of themselves. Their religiosity and real character may be learned from these suggestive passages: (Matthew 23; cf. Mat. 9:11; Mat. 9:34; Mat. 12:1-45; Mat. 15:1-20; Mat. 16:1-12; Mat. 16:21; Mat. 21:33-45; Luk. 12:1; Luk. 15:2; Luk. 16:14; Luk. 20:45-47) From these we see their:

Ostentatious piety and frequent hypocrisy.

Punctilious regard for ceremonial law.

Frequent, monstrous neglect of moral law.

Consequent harshness in judging others.

Contempt for the masses of the people; partisan zeal; pride. (Cf. Joh. 7:48-49)

Convenient evasions and distinctions used to satisfy their conscience in matters of duty whereby they would have been bound by the Law to obey.

Miserable failure in attaining the righteousness which God expects in those who would enter His kingdom (Rom. 10:1-3). At least theoretically, it is possible to satisfy the demands of law, so that man can say, I have discharged my duty to the Law, but it is impossible to satisfy the claims of love that go far beyond the requirements of any law.

In short, their righteousness was LEGAL. But that was its fault, and that very attitude toward Gods standard produced the aberrations listed above. The tragedy lies in their apparent sincerity in supposing that such conduct constitutes true piety. They were satisfied with the superficial. Point for point, our religion must be far superior to this: it must emanate from a pure heart; render humble, useful service; demonstrate loving, conscientious obedience in all things; possess a fear of God and a consciousness of ones own imperfections; be merciful and moderate; and, really love men.

But if Jesus refers not to their actual and practical impiety revealed in the above seven points, then He is taking them at their ideal as exponents of any and all legal systems, and declares that His disciples must possess a righteousness that surpasses the righteousness demanded by law. This surpassing righteousness obviously must be imputed to the sinner on the basis of his faith in Jesus.

Ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. In the strongest language possible (Greek double negative emphatic: ou me eiselthete) Jesus denies entrance into the kingdom to those of the same brand of religion as the Jewish leaders. But here a problem arises: is He demanding moral and spiritual maturity before one may become a citizen of His kingdom? May only the absolutely perfect enter there? Two answers are possible:

It would not have taken much for almost any sincere Jew to be a far better man than the conventional rabbi, as described above. In fact, Jesus found expressions of true faith that ran deep (Mat. 8:10-12; Mat. 11:7-15; Mat. 11:25; Mat. 13:16; Mat. 13:51-52; Mat. 15:21-28; Mat. 16:13-19; Mat. 19:13-15), deeper understanding of the nature of real righteousness (Mat. 12:28-34), and love stronger than fear (Mar. 15:43-45; Luk. 7:36-50; Joh. 19:25-26). Thus, any humble disciple of Jesus, whose mind was open to teaching and could be brought to repentance, already possessed a far superior religion than his leaders. (Psa. 119:98-100) According to this interpretation, Jesus is not requiring absolute perfection but only a heart relatively more righteous or more genuinely dedicated to God than the heart of the theologians.

Only the absolutely perfect may enter Jesus kingdom, This would keep us all out, unless Jesus can remake us! But that is exactly what He intends to do through our new birth and regeneration. It is no longer a question of taking the infinitely long stairway to ultimate perfection, on which we are always imperfect at any point. Rather, we may take the elevator of Christs righteousness clear to the top and be considered perfectly righteous from the very beginning of our new life in Christ! (Rom. 8:4; 1Co. 1:30; 2Co. 5:21; Php. 3:10)

Verses 21-48 are but illustrations how Jesus disciple may rise infinitely higher than the piety of these petty scholars. But there is by no means agreement among the commentaries regarding Jesus purpose for giving these illustrations.

JESUS PURPOSE

What does Jesus intend to accomplish in these following verses? (Mat. 5:21-48)

A. TO CORRECT POPULAR FALSE INTERPREIATIONS OF THE LAW?

Not a few commentators do not hesitate to declare that Jesus is distinguishing the false and inadequate though popular teachings of the scribes regarding the meaning of the Law from its true meaning. Thus, the positive declarations made by Jesus (Mat. 5:21-48) only reveal the true implications of each legal precept treated, This view suggests that Jesus is expounding what God intended for the Israelites to understand when He gave each precept and prohibition to them at the beginning. By logical extension, any wise and godly Hebrew could have arrived at the same understanding of the Law expressed by Jesus in this Sermon on the Mount. In fact, many of the Proverbs attest such an understanding. In this case, what is Jesus revealing that is really unique and new? Again, is it always necessary or even possible to prove that Jesus is objecting to some erroneous interpretation or mistaken application popular among the scribes? (See Notes on Mat. 5:21; Mat. 5:27; Mat. 5:31; Mat. 5:33; Mat. 5:38; Mat. 5:43 which offer the opposite conclusion.) The view of the commentators assumes that Jesus COULD NOT be drawing a contrast between His standard and the Law of Moses without, first, contradicting His declared purpose not to defeat the purpose of the Law and prophets (Mat. 5:17-18), and, second, appearing to contrast His teachings with the moral principles of His Father or correcting God. In regard to the first objection, see above on Mat. 5:17-18; as to the second, see below under letter B. Further, is Jesus the exponent of merely legal righteousness and not rather of fulfilling and surpassing righteousness?

The basis for this opinion that Jesus corrects the scribal misinterpretations of the Law, as offered by many commentators, is the introductory phrase He uses to open His examples: Ye have heard that it was said. It is argued that since His usual manner of citing the Law is It is written, therefore, what He cites in Mat. 5:21-48 could not be the Law, but must be only what was said, i.e. the oral traditions of the elders and rabbis. But this opinion seems to be weak at the following points:

This opinion, followed even by many who are usually capable of distinguishing the covenants, seems to be motivated by an over-weighing desire to retain the moral law of God as a standard for justification. To demonstrate the existence of the moral law of God, they cite certain precepts of the Mosaic system upon which Jesus comments. Thus, they suppose that Moses ethics, as interpreted by Jesus, to be the epitome of real righteousness. But Jesus claims to be presenting a concept of morality that far surpasses the highest legal ideals.

2. The introductory phrase (ye have heard that it was said) may just as easily refer, not to the late scribal authorities, but to those ancient patriarchal mores which preceded the Mosaic legislation and were regulated or modified by it or simply included in it. (Cf. Joh. 7:22):

Laws regarding murder and punishment were known to the ancients (Cf. Gen. 4:14-15 with Num. 35:19, Gen. 9:5-6).

Gods revelation against sexual sins such as adultery was known (Gen. 12:10-19; Gen. 20:2-18; Gen. 26:7-11; Gen. 39:9).

The basic philosophy behind swearing and oaths was already formed before the Law (Gen. 14:22-23; Gen. 21:22-31; Gen. 24:2-9; Gen. 47:29-31; Gen. 50:24).

Retaliation arising from a sense of wounded family honor was practiced (Gen. 34:1-31) or arising from a sense of human value (Gen. 4:14-15 ) .

Love of ones neighbor was shown in practical oriental courtesy (Gen. 18:1-8; Gen. 19:1-3; Gen. 23:1-16) as well as concern for others (Gen. 18:16-33).

Further, the suggestion that It is written is Jesus usual formula for introducing a citation (18 times not counting synoptic duplications) proves nothing about Jesus habits, since these are learned from the evidence, which also contains other modes equally clear. (Mat. 9:13; Mat. 12:3-8; Mat. 13:14; Mat. 15:4 [Mar. 7:10], Mat. 15:7; Mat. 19:4-5; Mat. 19:18-19; Mat. 21:4; Mat. 21:16; Mat. 21:42) Certainly Jesus said It is written many times, even in the synoptic parallels of some of these passages cited, but what does this prove about His meaning in those passages in which He does not? Does it prove that these latter texts are not, therefore, scripture? Or does it prove that He is not citing Scripture when He said Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time? No.

Even though Edersheim (Life, I, 538) and others affirm that the expression they of old corresponds perfectly to the rabbinic appeal to those that had preceded, the Zeqenim or Rishonim (the elders or the ancients), yet these same Hebrew words may refer equally well to those which preceded even Moses day, or else to those who were his contemporaries to whom he spoke. For example of Zeuenim, see Gen. 50:7; Exo. 3:16; Exo. 3:18; Exo. 4:29 etc. Jos. 24:31; for Rishonim, see Deu. 19:14; Lev. 26:45.

Then it is said that the illustrations (Mat. 5:21-48) are indications as to how Christian righteousness supersedes the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. (Mat. 5:20) But the view taken in this study is that such a position is inadequate if it only correct the false or inadequate interpretations of the Law and somehow leave the Law intact. We should rather take the illustrations (Mat. 5:21-48) as indications as to how Christian righteousness goes beyond all legal ideals of which the Mosaic code is the chief example. If Jesus ideal goes beyond that of Moses, it certainly supersedes that standard of the rabbis.

B. TO REVEAL TRUE (AS CONTRASTED TO LEGAL) RIGHTEOUSNESS?

In this view, He proceeds to contrast the old time views of morality, as represented in the true teaching of the Mosaic Law, with the true righteousness as represented in His message. Far from contradicting Moses or correcting God or causing one of the minutest points of the Law to fall, Jesus contrast, indicated in the phrase but I say unto you, means, Do not suppose that all of righteousness is bound up in Moses Law and interpreted by the prophets. For real righteousness is a much higher standard, a more far-reaching ethic than that dictated by God to Moses for the exigencies of a primitive people. Yes, God still hates murder, adultery, divorce, false swearing and partiality, but there is more to what constitutes sin than just that. Moses Law could not possibly touch the actual disposition of the heart like the searching judgments I am about to announce. True righteousness not only fulfils the requirements of Moses and the prophets clear to the limit of their intended meaning, but also so far excels them that you will be able to see revealed the perfections of the very character of God Himself! (Cf. Mat. 5:48) The standard that I am presenting condemns as sin those wicked heart motives which never emerge as visible deeds. I want to show you that a man is not truly pure until he never desires to do a forbidden thing!

FACT QUESTIONS

Discuss Jesus relation to the Old Testament and His attitude toward it. What use did He make of the OT? Cite His statements about it. Was He superior or inferior to its institutions? Explain His purpose to destroy, fulfil or abrogate it.

What is the distinction in Jesus mind between destroying the law and prophets and fulfilling them? In what ways would it be possible to destroy them?

What are the jot and the tittle? What does He mean by them? In what way fulfil them?

Does Jesus contemplate the actual destruction of heaven and earth as the time when the minutest particulars of the law would finally cease to be in force and all things would be accomplished?

What are those things that must be accomplished?

Have they been completed yet, as far as the Christian is concerned? If so, how or when?

Have they been accomplished yet, as far as the world is concerned? If so, how and when?

Describe the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees and show point by point how our righteousness must exceed it.

Who made the distinction between one of these least commandment and those which by implication are greater? Jesus? the Pharisees? Explain your answer.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(17) Here a new section of the discourse begins, and is carried on to the end of the chapter. From the ideal picture of the life of the society which He came to found, our Lord passes to a protest against the current teaching of the scribes, sometimes adhering to the letter and neglecting the spirit, sometimes overriding even the letter by unauthorised traditionslowering the standard of righteousness to the level of mens practices, instead of raising their practices to the standard which God had fixed.

Think not that I am come.The words imply that men had begun so to think. The Teacher who came preaching repentance, but also promising forgiveness, was supposed to be what in later times has been called Antinomian, attacking the authority of the two great channels through which the will of God had been revealed. The Law and the prophets were popularly equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament, though a strict classification required the addition of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, i.e., the poetical and miscellaneous books.

I am not come.Better, I came not. The words might be naturally used by any teacher conscious of a mission, but they gain a new meaning when we remember that He who so spake was emphatically He that should come; that He came into the world not in the same sense as other men, but in a manner absolutely His own.

Not . . . to destroy, but to fulfil.Explained by the immediate context, the words would seem to point chiefly to our Lords work as a teacher. He came to fill up what was lacking, to develop hints and germs of truth, to turn rules into principles. Interpreted on a wider scale, He came to fulfil the Law and prophets, as He came to fulfil all righteousness (3:15) by a perfect obedience to its precepts, to fulfil whatever in it was typical of Himself and His work by presenting the realities. The further thought that He came to fulfil what are called the Messianic prophecies hardly comes within the range of the words. No one could dream for a moment that the Christ could do anything else, and throughout the whole discourse there is no reference to those predictions. The prophets are named, partly in conformity with usage, partly in their character as ethical teachers, expounding and spiritualising the Law, and preparing the way for a further and fuller development.

It may be noted as a singular instance of the boldness of some of the early heretics, that Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament altogether, maintained that these words had been altered by the Judaisers of the apostolic age, and that the true reading was, Think ye that I came to fulfil the Law or the prophets? I came not to fulfil, but to destroy.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

II. CHRISTIAN PIETY DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDAISM, Mat 5:17 to Mat 6:19.

The Saviour next proceeds to show the relations in which his GOSPEL stands to the previous dispensation, as being the fulfilment and confirmation of true Judaism, and the reformation of degenerate Judaism.

1 . Christianity the completion of pure Judaism, Mat 5:17-20.

17. Think not The crowds who came to the great gathering at the Mount had their thoughts. What will this great Jesus do? Will he destroy the law by letting all commandment go, and fulfil the prophets by a great and glorious kingdom? Or will he wholly destroy Moses, and set the Old Testament at naught? Our Lord gives them a powerful think not. Believe not, O ye people, whatever I may say of your elders as false interpreters, that I for a moment disparage Moses. Think it not, whatever your false shepherds may hereafter charge against me. Nor think ye, my disciples, who are to preach my doctrines, that while ye must rend away the false interpretations of the doctors, ye must overthrow the foundations laid by God’s ancient word.

It is remarked by Alford that rationalism generally commences by doubting the Old Testament. Paley had said before him, that infidels generally endeavour to wound the New Testament through the Old. Indeed, in the second century a half Christian, Marcion, endeavoured wholly to abandon the Old Testament, and retain Christianity wholly separate. And as these words of Christ were in his way, he altered the text and made it read, “What think ye? That I have come to fulfil the law or the prophets? I have come to destroy, but not to fulfil.”

I am come Not I am born. He is the great Comer. He has come for a work, and what that work is he will now pronounce. By so doing he answers the question, Art thou He that should come?

The law, or the prophets The Law and the Prophets was a customary phrase for the whole Old Testament. See Mat 7:12; Mat 11:13; Mat 22:40. But the Law and the Prophets are here viewed not as merely separate books of the Old Testament. Law, as God’s commandment, and prophecy, as God’s promises or threatenings for the future, are blended in the whole Old Testament. The law Christ fulfils not only by his own obedience and atonement, but by perfecting its obedience in his saints, and executing its penalty upon the impenitent. The prophecies he fulfils not only in his own life and sufferings, but in the establishment, glory, and perpetuity of his kingdom.

The law, as requiring the Mosaic ritual and the Jewish state, was fully accomplished, and both ceased at the required time. So that Christ does not require any obedience to the peculiarities of the Old Testament in the New. On the other hand, the Old Testament remains divinely sanctioned by Christ as the first volume to the New. Its law was God’s law; its prophets were God’s prophets. So that no one can strike at one Testament without striking at the other.

Destroy the law but to fulfil The ceremonial law, consisting of types and shadows, would be fulfilled in the Anti-type, Christ. The moral law, which requires man to do right, and only right, and which is mainly embodied in the Decalogue, is perpetual. Prophets They are not destroyed, but their authority is forever established by the fulfilment of all their predictions. Christianity, therefore, is not the destruction, but the completion of Mosaicism. A greater than Moses carries the work of Moses to an honourable consummation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

“Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets,

I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

This dramatic statement can be viewed in a number of ways (although the list is by no means exhaustive).

As an emphatic statement, stressed by a denying of the negative, that His coming into the world was in order in Himself to totally fulfil all that was pointed to by both the Law and the Prophets (Mat 1:23; Mat 2:15; Mat 2:23; Mat 4:15; Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17-21). Thus by it Jesus is seen as saying precisely what Matthew is declaring in his Gospel, that He has come as the fulfilment of all that the Scriptures have looked forward to (see Mat 10:34-36; Mat 11:3-5; Mat 12:40; Mat 16:21; Mat 20:28; Mat 21:42; Mat 22:42-45; Mat 26:24; Mat 26:54; Mat 26:56; and for example Luk 10:23-24; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:27; Joh 5:45-46). His is a building up not a pulling down.

As a statement that He has come to fulfil all that was demanded by the Law and the Prophets in order to prepare Himself to be the perfect sacrifice without blemish (1Pe 1:19), and/or in order that He might be the fully ‘innocent’ One Who was fit to die on behalf of the guilty (Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28; see Isa 53:9 and compare 1Pe 2:22.)

As a general statement of His attitude to the Law and the Prophets, prior to considering it in some detail in what follows, so that no one might be in any doubt of His support for and commitment to, the Law and the Prophets. The first part of His statement being thus seen as a negative which is intended to underline the second part. (‘Far from coming to destroy the Law, He is saying, I have come to fulfil it’).

As an introductory statement to what is to follow, as He moves on to explain what being a light to the world will involve, the contrast not suggesting that anyone has said otherwise, but simply being in order to doubly emphasise that His purpose in coming was for the purpose of bringing about the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the way in which He will now speak of them, and not to set them aside, even though at first glance it might seem that He is doing otherwise.

As a general warning, which was not specifically connected with what has gone before, that they were not to take what He was about to say in Mat 5:21 onwards as an attempt to destroy the Law, but rather as a means of seeking to achieve its fulfilment

As indicating that by describing His disciples as the light of the world He is not suggesting for one moment that the Law and the Prophets are not also be seen as the light of the world as believed by many Jews (consider Psa 19:8; Psa 43:3; Psa 119:105; Psa 119:130; Pro 6:23; Isa 8:20), and assuring them and others that it is actually by following the light of the Law in the light of their new experience of God that they will themselves be the light of the world. Thus Jesus may be seen as assuring them that He is not by His previous description of His disciples annulling the Law. Indeed, as He will go on to point out, He wants all to know that He requires them to treat the Law so seriously that they embrace every last bit of it.

As combating suggestions that had arisen, or might arise, that He was seeking to destroy the Law of Moses and the prophetic interpretations of it. For in attacking the oral Law built up by the Scribes around the Law of Moses He would certainly be seen by some as doing precisely that very thing, because of the sacredness in which they held their traditions (Mat 15:2-3). Thus Jesus may here be seen as wanting His disciples, and all who heard Him, to recognise that in spite of His attitude towards ‘the tradition of the elders’, which He considered did actually make void the Law (Mar 7:13), He was not Himself here seeking to destroy the Law of Moses itself but to honour it. Indeed that He had come to ‘fill it full’ by bringing out its full meaning.

We do not necessarily have to select just one of the above. Jesus might well have been embracing a number of them in His mind in an overall, majestic statement that He was here to fulfil the Scriptures in every detail and from every angle (as He then emphasises), so as to make them flower in every aspect of what they declare, both instruction-wise, and prophetically. For we must not let the term ‘Law’ deceive us. It covered the whole of the Pentateuch, not just the regulations but its whole future expectations. The Pentateuch depicts the establishment of the Kingly Rule of God over His people (Exo 19:6; Exo 20:1-18) and is also written with the expectancy that the Kingly Rule of God will be permanently established in the promised land. That was the whole purpose of the deliverance from Egypt, and why Moses climbed the mountain so that he could survey the land of His Kingly Rule before he died (Deuteronomy 34). The Law was expecting the seed of the woman to bruise the Serpent’s head (Gen 3:15 compare Rom 16:20). It was expecting Shiloh to come to Whom would be the gathering of the people (Gen 49:10). It was expecting a star out of Jacob (Num 24:17). It was anticipating a King Who ruled according to God’s Law (Deu 17:18-20). It was anticipating another prophet like Moses (Deu 18:15). All that is why Matthew has pointed out in Mat 2:15 that The Exodus deliverance will go forward in Jesus.

For as we have seen and are to see, there is no doubt that Jesus did see the Law and the Prophets as being fulfilled in Himself, that He did see Himself as coming to give His life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28) and as a sacrifice for sin (Mat 26:28), that He certainly never suggested that the Law and the Prophets were not binding on Himself and His disciples (Mat 23:2), even though at times He did reinterpret them in order to give them a greater impact, and that He did exhort men to keep God’s Law and rebuked those who treated it lightly.

Furthermore as He was in this very sermon about to lay the fullest emphasis on the need to observe God’s Law, not only in letter, but in spirit, it would seem very capricious not to include this in what He was intending to indicate. But it should then be noted that His sermon did not stop at that. The expounding of the Law was in order to lead on to the need to seek for the spiritual wellbeing which would enable them to fulfil it (Mat 7:7-13) and to the recognition of Jesus’ Lordship, in the light of which they should live (Mat 7:22-23). It thus covers both instruction and prophetic attitude, as well as revealing Him as the Coming One above and beyond that. For the second part of His sermon, and even parts of the first, are very reminiscent of the prophetic attitude, and indeed few would deny that in fact He goes even beyond the prophets in His requirements, while His reference to His status as ‘Lord’, in such a way as to indicate that their attitude towards Him, and His attitude towards them, would determine their eternal destiny (Mat 7:21-23), is not only the fulfilment of what the prophets had spoken, but a clear indication that He is present as the Sovereign Lord and Judge in a way beyond what even they expected. He is the Shiloh Who is to come to Whom the people will gather (Gen 49:10). He is Himself the Judge of all the world (Gen 18:25). And this is especially so as He then closes off the Sermon by stressing His own sayings, rather than the sayings of Moses (Mat 7:24; Mat 7:26). Thus we will not go too far wrong if we are inclusive rather than exclusive when we consider His meaning here in the light of the whole sermon.

Note on The Oral Law.

After the Exile there had been great concern among the faithful concerning the keeping of the Law of God, and as time went by a group of Scribes gradually built up who sought to analyse and interpret the Law in detail in order to help the people to know what they should do in order to keep it. These interpretations then grew and grew in number, and were passed on by the Scribes to their students, who in turn became Scribes. And as will happen with human beings the detail took over and the spirit behind them was excluded (the same would also happen with the church). They analysed the Law into over six hundred stipulations, and sought to comment authoritatively in some detail on all. These authoritative pronouncements were a part of ‘The Traditions of the Elders’. But they had become a burden too grievous to be borne. The idea had originally been good, but of course not all the interpretations were of the same quality, and the multiplicity of them was simply confusing, not to say overpowering. Furthermore some of them were simply ways of avoiding the original intention of the Law, even though sometimes with sympathetic intent. Jesus put them to one side and refused to accept their authority. He felt that too much stress was being laid on them, and that they often actually evaded the Law, or interpreted them in a way that was more profitable for the Scribes and their supporters than for the people (Mar 7:9-13). And in fact He would now set about reinterpreting the Law in another way, in a way that took people away from trying to keep a list of rules and emphasised rather the taking up of a right attitude towards each other, towards material things, and towards God. Get the attitude right, He was saying, and the Law would then, as it were, look after itself.

End of note.

‘Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets.’ Any thought of the destruction of the Law would have been abhorrent to every Jew (and indeed to Jesus Himself). The people might empathise with His partial rejection of the traditions upheld by the Scribes and Pharisees (for the fact that it was only partial see Mat 23:3), but they would not have accepted the idea of the destruction of the Law itself. It lay at the very heart of their beliefs, as in fact it did His, and they loved it and trusted in it. They did not want it removed or destroyed. He was seen as acceptable precisely because they did actually believe that in Him and in His teaching the Law was being given its full weight and authority, as supported by His own prophetic authority. He was a full upholder of God’s word (unlike the Scribes and Pharisees, although they would have claimed to be – Mar 7:9; Mar 7:13).

This then does raise the question asked by some as to whether Jesus was speaking about the whole Law or just the moral law. It is doubtful whether such a thought would have crossed anyone’s mind in those days. Such distinctions were not then made. All was seen as God’s Law. He was thus speaking about the whole Torah. But certainly Jesus did gradually introduce the idea that He was replacing the old ordinances of the Law, not by them ceasing to be a part of God’s revelation, but by His own fulfilment of them (Mat 20:28; Mat 26:28), so that once the ultimate sacrifice had taken place there was no requirement for any further sacrifices. The revelation with regard to this was thus not abrogated, it still stood firm but was fulfilled through a greater and better sacrifice (which is the message of the letter to the Hebrews). All the ritual obligations were fulfilled in Jesus Christ for those who believed in Him.

And He elsewhere also drew attention to the fact that the lessons behind the old rituals having been learned, they no longer needed to be given such emphasis (Mar 7:15-23). What needed rather to be learned was the lessons that they contained. Thus while He Himself observed them, the old laws of cleanness and uncleanness were to be seen rather as pointing to the need for God’s people to keep themselves from all that could be seen as coming short of the ideal, all that connected with sin and the dust of death. And now that same purpose was to be fulfilled by God’s people separating themselves from the impurity of sin, the thing that really spoiled man within (Mat 15:17-20; Mar 8:18-23). By separating themselves from what was really unclean they would become sons of God (2Co 6:16-18, compare Mat 5:9), so that the rituals that had once been the evidences of a people separated to God as His holy people, were no longer required , having been replaced by something new, deliverance from all the sins of the inner heart (Mar 8:18-23), a process already begun in the disciples (Mat 5:3-9). In the end therefore it is true that it is the moral aspect of the Law that is seen as still retaining its full usefulness, but not because the law was seen as needing to be replaced or was rejected as such, but because having achieved its ends parts of it were to be seen as having been filled to the full, with the lessons of the old Law made redundant and replaced by the new.

‘I came.’ Compare Mat 11:18; Mat 21:32, where ‘John came’. The thought in both cases is that both John and Jesus came from God, but it clearly does not indicate pre-existence in the case of John. It rather in both cases emphasises that they have a mission from God. However, in John’s Gospel Jesus would certainly be seen as emphasising His pre-existence (Joh 3:13; Joh 8:58), and Matthew has earlier given an indication of something similar in that He is seen by him as ‘God with us’ (Mat 1:23).

‘The Law or the Prophets.’ The Law was technically the first five books of the Bible (‘the Torah’ – God’s ‘Instruction’), but the term was soon used loosely by some to describe the whole of the Scriptures (Joh 12:34; Rom 3:19; 1Co 14:21), including the Psalms (Joh 10:34). As far as they were concerned God spoke through it all. This may therefore be why Jesus did not feel any need to continually mention the prophets separately once He had made the position clear. The expression ‘The Law’ could then be seen as covering both. The ‘Prophets’ included the former prophets (many of what we call the historical books, from Joshua to Kings), as well as the great prophets themselves. But notice the ‘or’ which indicates that here the two ideas, while close, are also to be seen separately.

The Law unquestionably had a special importance for the Jews. It was always read first in Synagogue services, and at this stage all who claimed to be Jews (including also the Samaritans, although they would not have seen themselves as Jews, nor have been seen as Jews) would without exception have seen the Law as central to their religion, and pivotal (the whole Law not just the regulations), while the prophets were variously assessed, with some leaning towards putting great weight on them, while others gave them less of an emphasis, although apart from the Samaritans all probably gave them some weight. Thus the mention of the Prophets as well as the Law in what was the opening verse of the central part of the sermon (see above) may well be seen as indicating that, in spite of the emphasis He would now lay on the Law, in viewing Him it was necessary to look wider than just to the Law. He was not to be seen as just another expounder of the Law. He was also the fulfilment of the flowering of both the Old Testament Law and the Old Testament prophecy.

‘Not to destroy, but to fulfil.’ The negative emphasises the positive, a device often used in Scripture. It brings out that His aim was the exact opposite of destruction. For His aim was to confirm, to build up and to cause to flower, and His purpose was to establish all that the Scriptures spoke of. It was to build it up and fulfil it in order to make both Law and Prophets come to completion. That is the purpose of His coming. It is to ‘fill both to the full’. And this includes the fulfilling of all the expectations and promises of both, for the Law also contained prophecies of the future, both typologically (Mat 2:15; Mat 2:23) and prophetically (Gen 12:3; Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Deu 18:15, all of which were also interpreted prophetically at Qumran), while the Prophets were full of them. So His aim was to bring both to their fully determined end.

It may be asked, why did Jesus speak of the possible destruction of the Torah, even if it was only as a negative? At least three answers are possible:

1). His purpose may have been to emphasise the positive by contrasting it with the negative. Thus He may be seen as saying, ‘Rather than coming to destroy the Torah and the Prophets, I have come to bring them to their ultimate completion.’ Thus His purpose may have been in order to underline their indestructibility, something He then brings out in Mat 5:18.

2). He may have been hinting at a comparison between His own positive attitude towards them, and the negative attitude of the Scribes and Pharisees whom He saw as by their teachings slowly strangling the Law, and making it void through their traditions (Mat 15:6; Mar 7:9; Mar 7:13).

3). He may have been combating rumours that were already in circulation that He was a destroyer of the Law.

That the confirming of the Torah is at least a part of His purpose comes out in His continual emphasis on the fact that it must be observed; that the building up of the Torah is a part of His purpose comes out in that He does go on to ‘build it up’ in the following verses; and that the final fulfilment of the Torah is part of His purpose comes out in that His Sermon ends with Him being revealed as ‘Lord’, where He is clearly to be seen as both Arbiter and Judge (Mat 7:22). And as the first two suggestions certainly concentrate on the Law needing to be lived out, the inclusive reference to ‘the prophets’ as an alternative in Mat 5:17 emphasises that the third is very much included in His thinking, and that His words therefore also unquestionably signify bringing the Law and the Prophets to their full fruition in Himself, so that not one part of them will be lacking in accomplishment, something which is His own constant theme (see Mat 10:34-36; Mat 11:3-5; Mat 12:40; Mat 16:21; Mat 20:28; Mat 21:42; Mat 22:42-45; Mat 26:24; Mat 26:54; Mat 26:56; and for example Luk 10:23-24; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:27; Joh 5:45-46), as well as being the theme of Matthew as we have already seen.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Permanence of the Law And The Warning To Observe It Truly So As To Experience A Fuller Righteousness (5:17-20).

Having spoken to His disciples of a life which acts as a preservative in the world, and which abounds in ‘good works’ which glorify and reveal God because of the love that they reveal, a love that shows them to be ‘sons of God’ and to be imbued with the righteousness of God (Mat 5:3-16), Jesus commences this central section of His sermon by declaring that they are therefore now to see Him, not as a destroyer of the Law or the Prophets, but rather as their fulfiller (compare Mat 2:15; Mat 2:23; Mat 4:16). They should recognise that He has come to ‘fill the Law and the Prophets to the full’. They must not therefore think that the message of repentance and forgiveness, and of the working of the Holy Spirit through the Messiah, makes their required response to the Law or the Prophets unnecessary. Rather it encourages it. And He stresses the essential permanence of the message of both the Law and the Prophets. By responding to both the Law and the Prophets (note how the ‘or’ indicates that they should be seen as separate issues in the argument) they will be what they ought to be. He thus thoroughly vindicates the Law and the Prophets and points out that in order to fulfil them truly the people must rise well above the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees. They must reveal a righteousness which is the result of the working of the One Who works in righteousness and deliverance (Isa 46:13; Isa 51:5; Isa 51:8; Isa 56:1; Isa 61:3). And they must see to the heart of God’s message, and not be tied up by the observance of regulations, even though such observance may be helpful within reason (Mat 23:3). In that way they will experience and walk in the way of true righteousness as preached by John (Mat 21:32) and Himself (Mat 5:6; Mat 6:33).

The fulfilment of the Law is very much in mind in the first part of the sermon and the fulfilment of the Prophets in the last part, but it would be a mistake to make this a strict separation, for in the end both are fulfilled throughout.

Analysis of Mat 5:17-20 .

a Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil (Mat 5:17-18 a).

b For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass away from the law, until all things be accomplished (Mat 5:18 b).

c Whoever therefore shall loose (relax, release from) one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, will be called least in the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 5:19 a).

b But whoever shall do and teach them, he will be called great in the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 5:19 b).

a For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will in no way enter into the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 5:20).

Note that in ‘a’ He has not come to destroy the Instruction (Law) of God, or the words of the Prophets. Rather His aim is the true ‘filling full’ of the Law, and in the parallel the true achieving of it is demanded and if not He will destroy their hopes of entering the everlasting Kingly Rule. In ‘b’ the permanence of the Law is emphasised and in the parallel the doing and the keeping of it leads to a permanently high place in the everlasting Kingly Rule of Heaven. Central in ‘c’ is the warning against failing to support even the ‘least’ of the commandments, something which will result in being ‘least’ in the Kingly Rule of Heaven.

But there is also another pattern to be found here, as well as the chiasmus.

a Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

b For truly I say to you, until Heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass away from the law, until all things be accomplished.”

c Whoever therefore shall loose one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so

d Will be called least in the Kingly Rule of Heaven,

c But whoever shall do and teach them,

d He will be called great in the Kingly Rule of Heaven.

c For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,

d You will in no way enter into the Kingly Rule of Heaven.

Here again, as well as the chiasmus, we also have a sequential arrangement. ‘a’ leads to ‘b’ and each ‘c’ leads to its ‘d’. Furthermore each ‘d’ reveals a consequence as regards the Kingly Rule of Heaven, (the least, the great, and the no way), while the first two ‘c’ and ‘d’ items are also direct contrasts with each other.

We also remind ourselves that in Mat 5:17-20 the ‘Law’ is firstly to last as long as the present creation does (Mat 5:18), secondly it is not to be relaxed but is rather to be done and taught (Mat 5:19 b), and thirdly it must be fulfilled in the right way, and not in the way of the Scribes and the Pharisees.

We shall now consider each verse in detail.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. THE FULFILMENT OF THE INSTRUCTION OF YHWH AND OF THE PROPHETIC HOPES (5:17-7:12).

Having revealed how God has worked in His disciples in a life-transforming way in Mat 5:3-9, and having shown them that they are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world in Mat 5:13-16, Jesus now goes into detail about what that will involve, and how it will lead up to the final consummation, that is to the fulfilment of the Law (the Torah – The Instruction of God) and of the Prophetic hopes.

This passage begins with a short introduction (Mat 5:17-20) and then considers:

Firstly the basis of the relationships required between people, as evidenced in Scripture (Mat 5:20-48).

Secondly what should be the basis of their religious lives and worship (Mat 6:1-18).

And thirdly what their relationship should be towards external things (Mat 6:19 to Mat 7:6).

This is then followed by a closing summary (Mat 7:7-12) in which they are to ask for and seek all that He has spoken of.

The Scriptures were the be all and end all to most Jews, and that was especially true of the Law (the Torah), that is the first five books of the Bible. They were the centre of their faith and of their being. And they considered that their own final fulfilment would only be found in a perfect existence under that very Torah, with it having been fully illuminated to them under the Messiah (compare Deu 17:18-20), so that they would enjoy all that it promised for the future as it came to its final consummation in the way described by the Prophets.

It is true that the Sadducees with their interest in the priesthood were on the whole more interested in the application of the Torah to the Temple, and to the status quo, and concentrated on the maintenance of the Temple ritual and on getting along with their Gentile rulers. As far as they were concerned the Torah was fulfilled in this. But for most of the Scribes, together with the Pharisees and the common people, (thus the vast majority of Israel), their hopes were firmly set (at least in theory) on the fulfilment of the Torah when the Messiah, (or in the Dead Sea Scrolls even more than one Messiah, a priestly and kingly one) would come and establish God’s everlasting kingdom, ensuring in it that they lived under the Torah as illuminated by the Messiah (Deu 17:18-20). It would be the perfect age (Isa 11:1-10; Isa 65:17-25).

In this section (Mat 5:17 to Mat 7:12) therefore Jesus now emphasised that He had come to bring this about, but as interpreted in His own way. This, He said, was why He had come. He had not come ‘to destroy’ the Torah or the Prophets, but ‘to fulfil’ them, with this contrast between destruction and fulfilment intended to bring out the emphasis on His intent to fulfil them. The point that is being made is that the Law and the Prophets are certain of fulfilment, and that all that they have pointed forward to will therefore undoubtedly come about, and that His purpose in being here is in order to ensure that this will happen. For there is no root of destruction in the Torah and the Prophets. Indeed if anyone was destroying them it was those who opposed Him, the Scribes and their acolytes.

And in order to demonstrate that this is so He will now explain and expand on the Torah, rooting out its deepest meaning, for He wishes it to be fully understood that He will not only ‘fulfil’ them by fulfilling the promises concerning the Coming One, but will also ‘fulfil’ them by ‘filling them full, and bringing out their deeper meaning. But in doing so it must be in order to introduce the golden age of righteousness, not in order to produce a lot of mini-Scribes and mini-Pharisees. So He will now proceed to fix men’s minds firmly on the Kingly Rule of God, with God as their Father in Heaven (as long as they have repented and come under that Kingly Rule), and will call on them to walk in true love towards others, to avoid hypocrisy, to set their minds and hearts on things above, and not to be judgmental of each other. Rather they are to strive to assist each other by removing splinters from each other’s eyes while at the same time being fully aware of their own deep failings (Mat 7:1-5). On the other hand they must also not waste their time on those whose hearts are closed to their message (Mat 7:6). So to that end they are to pray earnestly and continually for the ‘good things’ of God (Mat 7:7-12), which include the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 5:3; Mat 6:10; Mat 6:33), the enjoying of His righteous deliverance (Mat 5:6; Mat 6:33), and the full working of the Holy Spirit (Luk 11:13). All this will then prepare them for the final calling to account of men and women which will be required at His own hands as ‘the Lord’ (Mat 7:22-23). This is what the shining forth of His followers (Mat 5:14-16), and the fulfilment of the Torah and the prophets (Mat 5:17), was finally to result in.

It is with this in mind that He now emphasises that He has not come to destroy either the Law (in Hebrew the ‘Instruction’ of God) OR the Prophets.

By speaking of ‘not destroying’ the either The Torah or the Prophets He may be:

Simply using an emphasising negative which by contrast adds force to the positive ‘fulfil it’.

Indicating that already there were murmurings about what others saw as His attitude to the Scriptures.

Or as suggested above it might be a hint as to who were actually guilty of destroying it. (Thus in effect saying, ‘I have not come to do it, rather they themselves are accomplishing it very well’).

But whichever way it is, His main point is that whatever might or might not be said He has not come to destroy either the Torah or the Prophets, but to ‘fill them full’, that is, to bring them to their ultimate completeness, and to accomplish all the purposes of God revealed in them. And He adds that this must be so because from an earthly point of view they are indestructible.

And with this in mind He warns of what their attitude to ‘the Law’ (the Torah and the Prophets) must now be. They must not treat any of it lightly, but must honour the whole. For anyone who treats even one part of it lightly will thereby lose out, while those who honour it will themselves be honoured. And He adds as a final warning that they must certainly not see it as the majority of the Scribes and Pharisees do. The Scribes and Pharisees used it as a means of trying to establish their own righteousness through ritual and through their own self-exalting ideas. But those who are His must recognise that they must rather seek a different kind of righteousness, the righteousness of the poor in spirit, the righteousness that will come with power from God as He comes in salvation in the way that Isaiah had promised, a righteousness which will result in a life lived in accordance with what He will now reveal in what follows in His sermon.

It is thus His intention so to magnify and expand on God’s Instruction (the Law in the light of the Prophets), that He reveals more of its real requirements, and at the same time as He is doing this, to point forward to the necessary bringing about of all that Moses had hoped for in it, by the establishing God’s Kingly Rule as men enter it under His Lordship (Mat 7:21) and themselves build on a foundation that will last for ever (Mat 7:25). He thus has in mind to ‘fulfil’, that is, to bring to completeness both the Law as God’s revealed manner of living (Mat 5:21 to Mat 7:12), and the Law with its future hopes (Gen 3:15; Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Deu 17:18-20) concerning the establishment of God’s rule (Mat 7:21).

With regard to the expectations of the Torah we must never forget what Moses’ hopes were as revealed in the Torah. We must never forget that his last sight on earth was the country in which he thought that God’s Kingly Rule would be established (Deu 34:4). And at that stage he had thought that he was surveying the future ‘kingdom of God’. That was his hope and the hope of his people, and that was why he had given them God’s Law, and as far as Jesus’ listeners were concerned he had written of that hope in such places as Gen 3:15; Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Deu 17:18-20. Thus the Torah was seen by Moses as very much pointing forward to the establishment of the coming Kingly Rule of God.

Furthermore in Mat 2:15 Matthew has already stressed the coming of the King out of Egypt, and that for the very purpose of establishing that Kingly Rule which had previously failed of fulfilment (Hos 11:1-12). And now here it was happening before their very eyes (compare Mat 21:31-32). And He firmly assures them (Mat 7:13-23) that He will fulfil both the hopes of the Torah and the Prophets in Himself, by Himself being the fulfilment of all to which they point, as ‘the Lord’ Who will call all to account (Mat 7:23), will remove all that offends (Mat 7:19; Mat 7:27), and will establish all that endures (Mat 7:25), and will thus bring His people into the everlasting Kingdom (Mat 7:13-23).

Jesus sees nothing negative about the Torah or the Prophets as properly interpreted. He sees the Law as holy, and just, and good in the same way as Paul does (Rom 7:12). The only reservations that He does have are about the interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees. Furthermore He also does not want the people to see anything negative about the Torah and the Prophets either. Indeed He will now stress their earthly permanence. He loves the word of God and He loves the Law, for they reveal what God is and point forward to what He intends to accomplish.

We can compare how Paul also sees the Law as something that he delights in, in his inmost self (Rom 7:22), so that with his mind he serves ‘the Law of God’ (Rom 7:25). The Law was no enemy to Paul when rightly used. Its achievement was a part of his hope. He too desired that Christians should live in accordance with the Law (Gal 6:13-14). It was sin and the ‘law’ or principle of sin within him, and the Law as misused and misapplied in the wrong way, that was his enemy. As a joyous response to the mercy and gracious working of God it was a delight, it was as a means of legally being made acceptable to God that it was a curse. And these he also recognised could only be combated in Jesus Christ, for in Him sin could be defeated and as a justifying medium the Law was ‘ended’ in Christ (Rom 10:2).

So both Jesus and Paul make clear that they honour the Law, while at the same time speaking of man as misusing the Law. Jesus makes this clear in Mat 5:20, and constantly throughout Matthew, culminating with chapter 23. Paul does so by his constant attempt to bring men out from ‘under the Law’ when seen as a threatening executioner, so that they can then live out the Law in perfect freedom from condemnation in the way in which it was intended to be lived. Thus in this sermon, by bringing out its inner and glorious meaning, Jesus will reveal that what God is more concerned with in the Law is the attitude of the heart that looks to be God-like (‘sons of their Father’), rather than the specific slavish keeping of individual commandments and rituals which was the forte of the Scribes and Pharisees. For the latter approach to the Law could only trick men (like the rich young man) into thinking that they were ‘getting along fairly well’ (Mat 19:20). But He wants people to recognise that it is not a matter of ‘getting along fairly well’. It is a matter of having a heart right towards God, brought about by God’s saving work within, and of recognising the need for the inner sinful heart to be dealt with. It is a matter of acknowledging their need to come to Him as their Father in Heaven with all their thoughts on things above. It is man’s hatred and contempt for others (Mat 5:22), and his lust (Mat 5:28) and his perversity and dishonesty (Mat 5:37) and his desire for vengeance (Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43) that have to be dealt with, not just his outward disobedience to certain individual, but limited and even sometimes misrepresented, commandments. Thus His disciples have to learn not to be vengeful, and not to be at enmity with their brothers, or with the world outside Judaism (Mat 5:43), but to respond in love and compassion and consideration (Mat 5:39-42) and to reveal love as their heavenly Father does (Mat 5:44-45) both among their own people and to the world ‘outside’ (Mat 5:45; Mat 5:48). This is the true purpose of the Law, of God’s Instruction.

He then goes on to call for a true-hearted response to God (Mat 6:1-18), and a setting of the mind on the Kingly Rule of God and His righteousness (using ‘God’ here rather than ‘Heaven’ so as to link Him firmly with His righteousness), which will result in their using all their earthly possessions in the purposes of God (Mat 6:19-34). And this must include the casting off of a judgmental attitude of heart (Mat 7:1), for who are they to act as judges? Rather than setting themselves up as Judges they should make themselves able to ‘doctor’ others (take the splinters out of their eyes) (Mat 7:1-5), although even then they must still be aware of those whose hearts are so hardened that they will not be receptive to what they have to offer (Mat 7:6). And as they do this, they must do it with constant prayer for the bringing in of the good things of God which God longs to give them, which will result in the fulfilment of the Law and the prophets, in that they will be doing to others what they would have them do to them (Mat 7:7-12).

But He then concludes by stressing that all this summation of the Law and the prophets (Mat 5:17 to Mat 7:12) reveals the narrow way that leads to life, in contrast to the broad way that leads to destruction (Mat 7:13-14). As they face up to Him and what He has come to do they must choose this day Whom they will serve, and how they will respond to Him. And that leads on to men having to face up to His Lordship and the fact that all will be called to account, and will either find that they are established or will come crashing down. In the light of this they must therefore beware of false teachers and prophets (Mat 7:15-20). For in the final analysis all will be accountable to Him as their Lord, when the truly righteous will come into their own, and those who have refused to respond to His words will find that everything will collapse around them (Mat 7:21-27). In ALL of this is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets.

A Digression On The Attitude Of Paul To The Law.

The problem, however, with the particular passage of the Sermon on the Mount that we are looking at is that many Christians have gained a false idea about the Law based on the use of it by some of the Scribes and the Pharisees (as represented by the old Paul). They have failed to note that when Paul has seemingly written in order to displace the Law, it has not actually been with the intention of rendering it void or of suggesting that it is of no concern or interest to the Christian, but has rather been in order to put right the wrong use of it. He has simply revealed what its correct use is (Rom 3:31). When for example he says that we are not ‘under the Law’ (Rom 3:19; Rom 6:15; 1Co 9:20-21; Gal 3:23; Gal 4:4-5; Gal 4:21; Gal 5:15), he does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to seek to carry it out with our whole heart in the way that Jesus describes here. He would have agreed wholeheartedly with Jesus about that. He means that we are not to see it as the method of determining our salvation. It is not to be the arbiter of whether we are saved or not. It is not a means by which we can measure our own righteousness. (And Jesus nowhere suggests that it was).

Nor, Paul points out, are we to look for salvation by an assiduous keeping of the Law. That was the mistake being made by many of the Scribes and Pharisees, whatever might have been the ‘official position’. All the Scribes and Pharisees laid great emphasis on the keeping of the covenant and on the mercy of God, but it was very easy to go a step beyond that, as many of them did, and actually see the ‘keeping of the covenant’ as a way of becoming acceptable with God. It is ever the tendency of man’s heart to think that he can be saved by ‘keeping the Law’, by being ‘good enough’ for God. And this is simply because we are too foolish to recognise that whatever ‘good’ we may do it makes not a jot of difference to our position before God as far as salvation is concerned, because we can never be good enough. We cannot change ourselves. Our hope with God must lie in His mercy. For as with Israel at Sinai the truth is that our acceptance with God and our deliverance from evil can only come about through His graciousness and mercy (Exo 20:2). God sovereignly intervened in order to deliver Israel from Egypt and from bondage, and in the same way He must sovereignly intervene if we are to be saved from the grip and condemnation of sin. But there seems little doubt that many Pharisees did believe that if only they could get their covenant-keeping right (which then became a matter of fulfilling all necessary ritual requirements), all would be well and God would step in to act on behalf of Israel. And that is why Paul points out that the moment that we put ourselves ‘under the Law’ as the arbiter of our salvation in this way we are lost. For the Law condemns us and our hopes are over almost before we even start. And James says precisely the same thing (Jas 2:10). The Law in this sense is like a mirror which shows us the kind of people we are (compare Jas 1:23). But we do not pick up the mirror and try to wash our faces with it. Rather it turns us to the soap and water. And in the same way the Law is intended to turn us to Christ and to His salvation, as originally depicted by the offerings and sacrifices (Hebrews 7-10).

Paul does, however, make quite clear elsewhere that while Christians may not be ‘under the Law’, in that they see it as hanging over their heads like an executioner’s axe, he does expect Christians to ‘fulfil the Law’ (Gal 5:14; Gal 6:2; 1Co 9:21), in the same way as James does (Jas 2:8). There is no disagreement between Paul and James on this. And Paul’s attitude to the Law can possibly be summed up as follows:

1). As far as salvation is concerned the Law condemns the sinner. It declares him guilty before God (Rom 3:19). James agrees (Jas 2:10).

2). Because of this it becomes our slave-teacher in order to keep us in order before we come to faith, and in order to bring us to Christ, by showing us our need and pointing us to Him. And once it has done that it has no further responsibility for us as far as our accetance before God is concerned (Gal 3:23-26; Rom 7:7).

3). But the Law is also the model by which Christians ought to live, and therefore having accepted God’s gracious offer of salvation we ought to seek to fulfil it by loving our neighbour as ourselves (Lev 19:18; Rom 13:8; Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14), while at the same time recognising that this will have nothing to do with whether we are saved or not (Gal 5:14; Gal 6:2; 1Co 9:21). Indeed it will be the evidence that God’s saving work has already taken place within us. James agrees (Jas 2:8). We will do this because we love God, not in order to earn His love.

4). It is this point about our obedience to the Law having nothing to do with our salvation that results in many becoming unstuck. The human heart, ever ready to avoid obedience to God, seizes on this and says ‘Good. If keeping the law is not a necessary part of the process by which we obtain salvation then in that case we can be saved and do what we like’ (Rom 3:3; Rom 6:1; Rom 6:15). But that is like saying that when we enter a hospital to be healed we do not need to worry about things being sterilised and about a few germs, because the hospital is there to heal us. Such a man may deservedly die in hospital. And what does this attitude demonstrate? Why, that such a person is not really wanting to be healed, is not desirous of being ‘saved’ at all. For a saved person who has been transformed in the way that we have just examined in Mat 5:3-9 would never have said that. He would have carried on obeying God’s Law because of the compulsion within him. We can compare here the two women who were arguing before Solomon as to whose the live baby was (1Ki 3:16-22). One was prepared to lose the baby rather than see it killed. The other was prepared to see it killed rather than that the other should have it. Solomon thus had no doubt as to whose the baby really was. She proved it by her attitude of heart. And we prove whether we are His by our attitude towards His instruction. As Jesus will shortly say, ‘he who hears my words (concerning the Law) and does them not’ — will be caught up in a flood of judgment and will be destroyed (Mat 7:27).

Show me the person who genuinely says to God, ‘O how I love Your Instruction (Law)’ (Psa 119:97; Psa 119:159), and I will show you the one whose heart has been transformed by God and who is saved, even though he may sometimes become unstuck in his obedience. He will not be looking at his own righteousness but at God. But show me the one who totally disregards His Instruction, and I will show you the one who is not saved (see Mat 21:28-29). For had he been saved he would have begun to love God’s Instruction, just as the blessed persons in Mat 5:3-9 reveal it by their new attitudes, and the Psalmist in Psalms 1 delighted in it. The truth is that while salvation is not of man’s works, it does work. For it is God Who works by means of it. It transforms individuals so that they begin to walk according to the Law of God, which then becomes the Law of Christ, as given here in the Sermon on the Mount (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2 compare Jas 1:25). And it transforms their view of His Instruction. They begin to will and to do according to His good pleasure because God has worked within them (Php 2:13). They are ‘created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has foreordained that they should walk in them’ (Eph 2:10). They say, ‘Oh how I love your Law!’ (Psa 119:97).

End of Digression.

But what does Jesus then teach with regard to the Law? As we have seen He teaches that people must repent and come under the Kingly Rule of God (Mat 4:17), and the assumption behind this is that they thereby receive forgiveness (Mar 1:4). He teaches that God then shines on their lives in Jesus Christ (Mat 4:16), and works in such people’s hearts so as to transform their lives, with the result that, because of His ‘blessing’ them they begin to live as revealed in Mat 5:3-9, and thus become the light of the world (Mat 5:14-16). They can then be seen as being God’s beloved children, called upon to please their heavenly Father (Mat 5:48; Mat 6:1; Mat 6:4; Mat 6:6; Mat 6:9; Mat 7:21). Then they must live this out in terms of the Sermon on the Mount, not in order to find mercy (be saved), but because they have obtained mercy (have been saved) and desire to please Him and do His will.

We can analyse this central part of the Sermon (Mat 5:17 to Mat 7:12) as follows:

a Jesus has not come to destroy or replace the Law of God or the Prophets, but is establishing and reinterpreting them (filling them full) so as to lift them out of the straitjacket in which men have placed them, in order through them to lead His people to a fuller life. And they will finally all be fulfilled in Him. Meanwhile they are to achieve a true righteousness through God’s saving power, a righteousness which exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, a righteousness resulting from their being the planting of the Lord (Isa 61:3), without which they cannot enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven. His people are therefore to launch out on the basis of this new Law for that reason (Mat 5:17-20). Such a righteousness is revealed by Isa 1:16-18 in comparison with Mat 1:11-15 (which was typical of the Sadducees, but a common fault of all), especially when these latter verses (Mat 1:11-15) are reinterpreted with regard to some in terms of washings, and tithing and Sabbath-keeping. These latter were typical of the Pharisees who were constantly at Jesus’ heels.

b Following on this Jesus gives five expansions and fuller explanations of the Law, each following the pattern ‘you have heard that it was said — but I say to you –’, stressing the inner meaning of each Law. In each case He brings out the essential heart of them, and reveals them as showing an attitude towards life to be followed, rather than just as rules to be obeyed, exhorting them by it to be true sons of their Father (Mat 5:17-43).

b Jesus then gives six more general exhortations based on the principle of ‘do not — but –.’ Three of these are warnings against hypocritical ostentation in religious behaviour and they follow the pattern commencing, ‘when you — do not — but when you –’, the middle one of which includes the pattern prayer in which they are to seek the coming of His Kingly Rule and set their eyes on Tomorrow’s bread. And these are accompanied by three caveats against self-seeking behaviour, accompanied by encouragements to do the opposite, each of which culminates in assurances of the Father’s resultant blessing, the middle one of which includes the need to seek the Kingly Rule of God and not to seek earthly bread and clothing (Mat 6:1 to Mat 7:6).

a They are to recognise all the good things that He has for them as revealed in His general exhortations (including the delights of His Law, the Kingly Rule of Heaven Mat 6:10; Mat 6:33), and the righteousness of God (Mat 6:33)) and are to seek God earnestly for them because He delights to give them, in order that they might enjoy a fuller life, the ‘better things’ than the Scribes and Pharisees can offer. It should be recognised that here He is talking of spiritual things and spiritual enlightenment, not of obtaining material possessions, the latter idea being excluded by what has been said previously (Mat 7:7-12).

Thus in ‘a’ Jesus backs up the Law but says that He will fill it to the full, and the aim is to lead the people into a fuller life by their achieving a righteousness ‘exceeding that (better than that) of the Scribes and Pharisees, while in the parallel He exhorts them to achieve that fuller life by a persistent seeking of their Father in Heaven for ‘good things’, things that pertain to an abundant life (Joh 10:10), which will result in the same. In ‘b’ and its parallel we have the negatives and the positives of His teaching, the first aspect related to the Instruction (Law) of their Father and the second aspect relating to seeking their Father in Heaven. Underlying all is the getting away from individual commandments and achieving rather a different attitude towards life.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Fulfillment of the Law In Mat 5:17-20 Jesus explains the original purpose and intent of the Law, which is followed by a number of examples.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mat 5:17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” Comments – We know that the Hebrew Bible was made up of three divisions: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Perhaps Jesus only referred to two of these divisions in Mat 5:17 because they contained the major prophecies of the Messiah.

“I am not come to destroy” – Comments – Why would the Pharisees be thinking Jesus would destroy the law? Because He did so many things that contradicted their traditions.

“but to fulfil” – Comments – Jesus goes on in His sermon in Mat 5:21-48 to explain what it means to fulfill the law. Jesus shows that the Mosaic Law that God put Israel under was a law of loving one another. Jesus sat and taught, not as the Pharisees taught, but as one who was fulfilling God’s Word.

Why was it necessary for Jesus to fulfill the Mosaic Law? The purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24). The goal of the Law was Christ (Rom 10:1-4).

Gal 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Rom 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

By faith in Jesus, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Rom 8:4). Jesus fulfilled the law (Mat 5:17). This is the righteousness which comes by faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Anointed One.

Rom 8:4, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

How did Jesus fulfill the Law and the Prophets? Many passages in the Gospel of Matthew quote Old Testament passages that Jesus fulfilled in His earthly ministry. Thus, Jesus statement that He had come to fulfill the Old Testament Scriptures reflects the secondary theme of the Gospel of Matthew, which is the testimony of Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus makes a parallel statement in Luk 4:18 that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him, and He began to prophesy.

Mat 5:18 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.

Mat 5:18 “For verily I say unto you” Comments – We have the first occurrence of Jesus saying “verily” in Mat 5:18. This term will be used repeatedly throughout the four Gospels, with John’s Gospel using the more intensive form “verily, verily.” We can understand from Heb 6:13-14 that this is a form of a divine oath that Jesus is making to His disciples. Since He cannot swear by anyone greater, He swears by Himself.

Heb 6:13-14, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.”

Benny Hinn interprets this phrase to means, “I guarantee it, I give you My word.” [372]

[372] Benny Hinn, Monthly Newsletter, April 2009 (Benny Hinn Ministries, Irving, Texas), 6.

Mat 5:18 “Till heaven and earth pass” – Comments – To pass away, to be done away with, refers to this present heaven and earth being destroyed so that a new heavens and earth is created as we enter eternity.

Mat 5:18 “one jot or one tittle” Comments – A “jot” refers to the name of the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, called “Yod” ( ). This letter is shaped like a comma, but is above the bottom line. BDAG says the Greek word “tittle” Greek ( ) (G2762) literally means, “horn,” and is used in the sense of “projection, hook as part of a letter, a serif.” Strong says it means, “the apex of a Hebrew letter,” and figuratively, “the least particle.” Thus, it is generally understood that the tittle is either (1) an accent or diacritical mark attached to the letters of the Hebrew text, or (2) the particular, distinguishing strokes that give unique shape to each Hebrew letter.

Matthew Henry believes the phrase “one jot or one tittle” refers to “the least and most minute circumstance” of the Law that will be fulfilled. [373]

[373] Matthew Henry, Matthew, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Matthew :18.

Mat 5:18 “shall in no wise” – Comments – This is called the emphatic subjunctive in Greek syntax, meaning that Jesus placed much emphasis on this negative statement.

Mat 5:18 “pass from the law” Comments – The phrase “pass from the law” means to pass away in the sense of losing force, or becoming invalid (Heb 7:18-19; Heb 8:13; Heb 10:9). Within the context of this passage of Scripture, the law refers to the entire Old Testament.

Heb 7:18-19, “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

Heb 8:13, “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.”

Heb 10:9, “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

Mat 5:18 “till all be fulfilled” – Comments – Jesus’ first coming fulfilled much of the Law, the prophets, and the Psalms. He is yet to fulfilled additional prophetic Scripture with His second coming and other end-time events. Thus, we still study the Word of God.

Note Psa 119:89, “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” This shows that even the Law of Moses, which is also God’s Word, is settled in Heaven and will be fulfilled during the course of redemptive history.

Mat 5:18 Comments – Regarding the importance of every letter and every stroke of each letter of the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, we must understand the responsibility of the Hebrew scribes and particularly the order of the Massorites in their tedious task as custodians of the sacred Scriptures. They were given the task of copying the Scriptures to new manuscripts flawlessly without error and delivering these Scriptures to a new generation. Therfore, each jot and tittle was critical to the accuracy of the Hebrew manuscript. These manuscripts had to be flawless in order to hand down to the next generation. The margins of these Hebrew manuscripts were used to write the characteristics of the adjacent columns. These marginal notes contained various descriptions, such as the number of rows or letters or names of God in a particular column so that the scribes could accurately proof read the manuscript for errors.

E. W. Bullinger tells us the Jewish tradition how that after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah began the task of setting the Old Testament Scriptures in order. We see this in Ezr 7:6; Ezr 7:11 and Neh 8:8. They created an order of scribes called the Sopherim (from the Hebrew word “saphar,” which means, “to count or number”). Their task was to set the original text in order. This means, that they counted each line, each word and each letter of the books of the Old Testament. They devised the way each page of Scripture was to have a certain column of text with the known amount of words and letters on each particular page. These pages could then be copied without error using this counting system because each page would always look the same. This meant that each letter was locked into same place on its designated page in the Scriptures and could never be moved. Only the order of the Sopherim had the authority to revise the original text or to move text to a new place. Jewish tradition tells us that the men of “the Great Synagogue” as they were known, took about one hundred years to complete this work, from the time of Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C.

After the text was set, the order of the Massorites was established. This title comes from the Hebrew word “maser,” which means, “to deliver something into the hand of another, so as to commit it to his trust.” They became the custodians of the Sacred Scriptures. Their job was to preserve the Scriptures so that no changes took place. A look at an ancient Hebrew manuscript reveals how this was done. In the upper and lower margins of these ancient manuscripts and between and along the outside of the columns of Sacred Text, you can see small writings by these Massorites which contains a counting system for the text. These side notes are not commentaries, but rather information about the text on that particular page, such as the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, etc. It even listed the one hundred thirty-four passages in which the Hebrew word “Adonai” was substituted for the original “YHWH.” [374]

[374] E. W. Bullinger, Appendix 30: Massrah, in The Companion Bible Being The Authorized Version of 1611 With The Structures And Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive And With 198 Appendixes (London: Oxford University Press, c1909-22), 31.

When the Hebrew Bible came into print in the fifteenth century, only the Sacred Text was printed and all of the marginal notes were disregarded. This is why we are not familiar with this ancient Hebrew tradition today. To the Jews, every jot and tittle held importance as it indicated the accuracy of the text. Thus, Jesus Christ promises that God is watching over His Word to a greater degree than even the Jews are watching over it.

In addition, the Jewish rabbis were given the task of watching for each fulfillment of prophecy from the sacred pages.

Scripture Reference – Note a parallel verse in Luke’s Gospel:

Luk 16:17, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

Mat 5:19 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.

Mat 5:20 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.

Mat 5:20 “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” Comments – The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisee came by the Law (Rom 10:3). Our righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21-22; Rom 4:13; Rom 5:1; Rom 8:4; Rom 9:30-31; Rom 10:3-4, Php 3:9, Tit 3:5). Man’s righteousness is considered as “filthy rags” in the sight of God (Isa 64:6). Jesus takes the rest of the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:21 to Mat 7:27) to explain how our righteousness is to exceed that of the Pharisees. In other words, Jesus will explain God’s way of justifying mankind as He lays down the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Rom 10:3, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

Rom 3:21-22, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:”

Rom 4:13, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”

Rom 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”

Rom 8:4, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Rom 9:30-31, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”

Rom 10:3-4, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

Php 3:9, “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:”

Tit 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”

Isa 64:6, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags ; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Mat 5:20 Comments – If righteousness could not come by the law, but only by faith, then why the law?

Gal 3:19-29, “Why the law?” It was given because of transgressions until Jesus came to fulfill the Law. The Law manifested the works of the flesh.

Gal 5:19, “ Now the works of the flesh are manifest , which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,”

How are the works of the flesh manifest? By the Law.

Rom 7:7, “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law : for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Indoctrination: The Laws of the Kingdom – Mat 5:17-48 emphasizes the process of indoctrination for God’s children after they have experienced genuine conversion and justification. In this passage of Scripture Jesus teaches the people the meaning of the original intent of the Law of Moses. In Mat 5:17-20 Jesus refers to divine authority of the Law of Moses, which serves as an introduction to His teaching on the Ten Commandments in Mat 5:21-48. This introduction (Mat 5:17-20) says that true righteousness means something different from what they see in the lifestyle of the scribes and the Pharisees. Therefore, these four verses serve as a basis of how true righteous, or the keeping of the laws of God, proceeds from the heart and not from the letter. In the passage following this introduction (Mat 5:17-20), Jesus teaches us how to follow the Ten Commandments from our hearts (Mat 5:21-48).

In Mat 5:21-48 Jesus takes some of the Ten Commandments and statutes of the Mosaic Law to teach on the laws of the Kingdom. This passage in the Sermon on the Mount can be likened to the giving of the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai. Just as Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel, so now Jesus teaches the true meaning of these Ten Commandments. In the passage following His introduction about true righteousness (Mat 5:17-20), Jesus now teaches us how to follow the Ten Commandments from our hearts and not from the letter of the Law (Mat 5:21-48). He teaches us on three of the Ten Commandments and on two statues of the Law of Moses.

Mat 1:17-20 The Fulfillment of the Law

Mat 5:21-26 – The Sixth Commandment on Murder.

Mat 5:27-32 – The Seventh Commandment on Adultery.

Mat 5:33-37 – The Ninth Commandment on Swearing

Mat 5:38-42 Law of Retribution (Exo 21:24)

Mat 5:43-48 Law of Your Enemies (Lev 19:18)

Why would Jesus teach on only three of the Ten Commandments? Perhaps the answer is found in the content of these three commandments. Since man is a three-fold make-up, spirit, soul and body, Jesus used these three commandments to deal with these three parts of man’s make-up. For example, the teaching on murder deals with a sin that proceeds from the heart. Adultery deals with the fleshly lusts that proceed from the body. Swearing deals with our words, which proceed from our mind, which is the realm of the soul. Therefore, Jesus dealt briefly with how a man is to walk in spirit, soul and body.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

Mat 1:17-20 The Fulfillment of the Law

Mat 5:21-26 – The Sixth Commandment on Murder

Mat 5:27-32 – The Seventh Commandment on Adultery

Mat 5:33-37 – The Ninth Commandment on Swearing

Mat 5:38-42 The Law of Retribution (Exo 21:24)

Mat 5:43-48 The Law of Your Enemies (Lev 19:18)

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Christ Confirms and Expounds the Law of Moses.

Good works Jesus has just urged. He now proceeds to give a definition of good works from the Law. He makes clear His position with regard to the Law:

v. 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

The teaching of the Kingdom, the Gospel which He came to proclaim, is a doctrine radically different from the teaching of Moses. But it does not invalidate the demands of the moral law as taught by Moses, it does not substitute a new moral law. Jesus rather emphasizes its proper understanding, and for that reason takes great pains to explain its spiritual content. He wants to fulfill, to bring out fully, the real import, to counteract the influence of the shallow, superficial explanation then in common use; and then to render a perfect obedience to the Law. He who might abrogate all its demands, who has power to modify any of its injunctions, places Himself under the Law, Gal 4:4, and, by fulfilling its every letter, cancels the law of the letter. And He fulfills the prophets. Whatever, in the revelation of the Old Testament, is type and prophecy, finds its completion, its realization in Christ the Redeemer, Col 2:17.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:17-20. Think not that I am come to destroy, &c. Because the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning happiness was contrary to that which the Jews were accustomed to hear, and which their preachers pretended to derive from the prophets, whose descriptions of the glory of the Messiah’s kingdom they understood in a literal sense; also because he was about to give explications of the moral precepts, of very different tenor from those which the Scribes and Pharisees commonlygave, but which his disciples, as instructors of mankind, were to inculcate: he ended this branch of his discourse, and introduced that which followed, with declaring that he was by no means come to destroy the law or the prophets; that is to say, the moral precepts contained in them; for he came to destroy the whole ceremonial precepts of the law, the hand-writing of ordinances, which he blotted out and nailed to his cross, that its abolition might be known to all. See Col 2:14. Besides, we find the phrase law and prophets made use of elsewhere, to signify the moral precepts contained in them. See chap. Mat 7:12 Mat 22:40. Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil; , to confirm, for so the word is used, 1Ki 1:14. See the margin of our bibles on that passage. Accordingly it follows, Mat 5:18. Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth, &c. Eternity and immutability are by no means the attributes of any ceremonial precept whatever. They are the distinguishing characters of the precepts of holiness and morality enjoined in the law and the prophets. None of them shall pass, or be abrogated, till all be fulfilled: : “till all the things mentioned be done;” that is, till the heavens and the earth pass, or are destroyed. Our Lord’s meaning therefore is, that there is nothing in the universe so stable as the eternal truths of morality: the heavens may fall, the whole frame of nature be unhinged; nay, every part of it be dissolved; but the rules of righteousness shall remain immutable and immortal: wherefore he ordered his disciples, on the severest penalties, both by their doctrine and example, to enforce the strict observation of all the moral precepts contained in the sacred writings, and that to their utmost extent.

Mat 5:19. Whosoever therefore shall break, that is, destroy (the original word being here put for , as it is likewise Joh 2:19.) one these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called, that is, shall bethe least in the kingdom of heaven. Since the moral precepts of the law are eternal and immutable, whatever weakens their obligation shall never enter intoheaven: for there is in the text a figure which the rhetoricians call meiosis (diminution), often elegantly used to convey a strong idea. Thus, Gal 5:21. They that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God; that is, shall be severely punished. Our divine teacher adds, Mat 5:20., Except your righteousness,the righteousness which you experience and practise yourselves, and enjoin upon others,shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,the Jewish doctors of the strictest sects,ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven; for ye, like them, will be corrupters of others, and consequently monsters of the blackest kind. But because this was a subject of great importance, our Lord goes on to specify various particulars, wherein theirs should excel the doctrine and practice of the Jewish teachers. This appears to be the true and proper explanation of this passage; and, from the whole of what follows, it is manifest that Christ refers to the moral, and not the ceremonial law; for he does not give a single instance from the latter. The original word , which we render jot, Mat 5:18 undoubtedly answers to the Hebrew letter jod, whence the English word here used seems to be derived; and which, being the least letter of their alphabet, might properly be used proverbially on this occasion. The original word , which we render tittle, properly signifies one of those little ornamental curlatures or flourishes, which, when Hebrew is elegantly written, are generally used at the beginning and end of a letter, and sometimes at the corners. The clause might have been rendered, Not the least letter or stroke. The latter part of the 20th verse must have greatly surprised Christ’s hearers, if the proverb which has since prevailed were of so ancient a date: for it has been commonly said by the Jews, “That if but two men were to enter into the kingdom of heaven, one of them would be a Pharisee, and the other a Scribe.” See Chemnitz, Calmet, and Macknight. Dr. Heylin observes very well, nearly in these words,* that it clearly appears from these verses, that our Lord certainly foresaw the great abuses which would be made of the Christian religion; how some would think that they might compensate for the neglect of moral duties, by deeds of superstition and will-worship; and how others, glorying in their presumptuous assurances, would insist upon a faith destitute of morality; and by taking away the moral law, and consequently all holiness and love, leave Christianity a mere castle in the air, an enthusiastic system of absurdities. Christ therefore solemnly, and with great emphasis, asserts the perpetual obligation of the moral law, till nature itself should be so changed, as to render its dictates useless. In the present course of things the law is so far from abating, or being abrogated in any essential point of duty, that, on the contrary, all who faithfully practise the law through the power of almighty grace, find by experience that it increases, and spreads its jurisdiction farther, in proportion to the progress that they make; for the moral sense greatly improves by exercise, and as men advance in their obedience to the law, they also advance in the knowledge of it; so as to discover new duties, and stricter obligations, whereof they had not before been sensible. But Dr. Campbell translates the 19th verse, Whosoever shall violate, or teach others to violate, were it the least of these commandments, shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven; but whosoever shall practise and teach them, shall be highly esteemed in the reign of heaven. And he observes, that to be called great and to be called little, for to be esteemed and to be disesteemed, is so obvious a figure, of the effect for the cause, that it naturally suggests itself to every discerning reader. By rendering, therefore, the Greek phrase, , agreeably to its meaning in most places, the reign of heaven, that is, the Gospel dispensation, there is not the smallest difficulty in the passage. But if this phrase be rendered the kingdom of heaven, as referring to the state of the blessed, and if he shall be called the least in that kingdom mean, as some explain it, he shall never be admitted into it, a most unnatural figure of speech is introduced, whereof I do not recollect to have seen an example in any author, sacred or prophane.

* When I quote writers who are not perfectly evangelical, I make such alterations as I judge necessary, giving intimation to the reader of the liberty I take, if the alteration be of any importance, and referring him to the original work; as my intention is, in this Commentary, to present to the congregation of the Lord a work which shall, to the best of my judgment, be perfectly consistent with the whole analogy of faith.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:17 . [399] A connection with what precedes is not to be artificially sought out. Jesus breaks off and introduces the new section without any intermediate remarks , which corresponds, precisely to its pre-eminent importance (for He shows how the Christian , having its root in that of the Old Testament , is its consummation). On . ., comp. Mat 10:34 .

] never stands for (see Winer, p. 410 [E. T. 549 f.]; comp. on 1Co 11:27 ), but is always distinctive . Here, to abrogate the one or the other. I have to abrogate neither that nor this. The is the divine institute of the law, which has its original document in the Pentateuch. The further Old Testament revelation, in so far as its final aim is the Messiah and His work, is represented by , who make up its principal part; accordingly, and summarily denote the whole Old Testament revelation (comp. Luk 16:6 ), partly as a living divine economy, as here; partly as , as in Luk 24:27 ; Act 24:14 ; Act 28:23 ; Rom 3:21 . Moreover, in the expression tow we are not to think of their predictions as such (the Greek Fathers, Augustine, Beza, Calovius, and others; also Tholuck, Neander, Harnaek, Bleek, Lechler, Schegg, and others), as nobody could imagine that their abrogation was to be expected from the Messiah, but, as the connection with shows (and comp. Mat 7:12 , Mat 22:40 ; Luk 16:29 ), and as is in keeping with the manner in which the idea is carried out in the following verses, their contents as commands , in which respect the prophets have carried on the development of the law in an ethical manner (Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 36 f.). In , however, to think merely of the moral law is erroneous, as it always signifies the entire law, and the distinction between the ritualistic, civil, and moral law is modern; comp. on Rom 3:20 . If, afterwards, sentences are given from the moral law , yet these are only quotations by way of illustration from the whole , from which, however, the moral precepts very naturally suggested themselves for quotations, because the idea of righteousness is before the mind. He has fulfilled the entire law, and in so doing has not destroyed the slightest provision of the ritualistic or civil code, so far as its general moral idea is concerned , but precisely everything which the law prescribes is raised to an ideal, of which the old legal commands are only . Theophylact well illustrates the matter by the instance of a silhouette, which the painter , but carries out to completion , .

] often employed by classical writers to denote the dissolution of existing constitutions (specially also of the abrogation of laws, Isocr. p. 129 E; Polyb. iii. 8. 2), which are thereby rendered non-existent and invalid; comp. 2Ma 2:22 ; Joh 7:23 ; also , Rom 3:31 ; , Heb 10:28 ; Gal 3:15 .

The of the law and the prophets is their fulfilment by the re-establishment of their absolute meaning, so that now nothing more is wanting to what they ought to be in accordance with the divine ideas which lie at the foundation of their commands. It is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited . So substantially, Luther, Calvin (comp. before them Chrysostom; he, however, introduces what is incongruous), Lightfoot, Hammond, Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Olshausen, Ritschl, Ewald, Weiss, Hilgenfeld; likewise Schleiermacher, L. J . p. 314 ff., and others. Comp. Tholuck (who, however, brings together the too varying elements of different explanations), also Kahnis, Dogmat . I, p. 474, who understands it as the development of what is not completed into something higher, which preserves the substance of the lower. This explanation, which makes absolute the righteousness enjoined and set forth in the law and the prophets, is converted into a certainty by the two verses that follow. The matter is represented by . as a making complete (Joh 15:11 ; 2Co 10:6 ), in opposition to , which expresses the not allowing the thing to remain. Others (Bretschneider, Fritzsche): facere quae de Messia pre-scripta sunt; others (Kuffer, B. Crusius, Bleek, Lechler, Weizscker, after Beza, Eisner, Vorst, Wolf, and many older interpreters): legi satisfacere , as in Rom 13:8 , where, in reference to the prophets , . is taken in the common sense of the fulfilment of the prophecies (see specially, Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius, and Bleek), but thereby introducing a reference which is not merely opposed to the context (see Mat 5:18 f.), but also an unendurable twofold reference of . [400] Luther well says: “Christ is speaking of the fulfilment , and so deals with doctrines , in like manner as He calls ‘ destroying ’ a not acting with works against the law, but a breaking off from the law with the doctrine .” The fulfilling is “showing the right kernel and understanding, that they may learn what the law is and desires to have.”

I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil; the object is understood of itself, but the declaration delivered in this general way is more solemn without the addition of the pronoun.

[399] Special writings upon the passage: Baumgarten, doctrina J. Ch. de lege Mos. ex oral. mont . 1838; Harnack, Jesus d. Christ oder der Erfller d. Gesetzes , 1842; J. E. Meyer, ber d. Verhltn. Jesu und seiner Jnger zum alttest. Gesetz . 1853. See especially, Ritschl, altkathol. K . p. 35 ff.; Bleek in d. Stud. u. Krit . 1853, p. 304; Lechler, ibidem , 1854, p. 787 ff.; Weiss, ibidem , 1858, p. 50 ff., and bibl. Theol. 27; Ewald, Jahrb . X. p. 114 ff. The collection of sayings is to be simply regarded as the source of this section, not any special treatise upon the position of Jesus towards that law (Holtzmann); comp. Weiss in d. Stud. u. Krit . 1864, p. 56 f.

[400] Vitringa, who compares , even brings out the meaning “to expound.” The explanation of Kuinoel goes back to the legi satisfacere, but gives as meaning, docendo vivendoque stabilire. Comp. Keim, “to teach the law, to do it, and to impose it.” The older dogmatic exegetes, who explained it by satisfacere, here found the satisfactio activa. See, for example, Er. Schmid and Calovius; recently, Philippi, vom tht. Gehors. Chr. p. 34; Baumgarten, p. 15. On the other hand, B. Crusius and also Tholuck. According to Bleek, p. 304, Christ has fulfilled the moral law by His sinless life, the ceremonial law by His sacrificial death, by means of which the prophecies also are fulfilled. According to Lechler, Jesus fulfils the law as doer, by His holy life and sacrificial death; as teacher, in teaching mankind rightly to understand and fulfil the commandments.

REMARK.

The Apostle Paul worked quite in the sense of our passage; his writings are full of the fulfilment of the law in the sense in which Christ means it; and his doctrine of its abrogation refers only to its validity for justification to the exclusion of faith. It is without any ground, therefore, that this passage, and especially Mat 5:18 f., have been regarded by Baur ( neutest. Theol. p. 55) as Judaistic , and supposed not to have proceeded in this form from Jesus, whom, rather in opposition to the higher standpoint already gained by Him, (Schenkel), the Apostle Matthew has apprehended and edited in so Judaistic a manner (Kstlin, p. 55 f.), or the supposed Matthew has made to speak in so anti-Pauline a way (Gfrrer, h. Sage , II. p. 84); according to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr . 1867, p. 374, Mat 5:17 is indeed original, but in accordance with the view of the Hebrew gospel; Mat 5:18 f., however, is an anti-Pauline addition; Weizscker sees in Mat 5:19 only an interpolation; but Schenkel finds in Mat 5:18 f. the proud assertion of the Pharisee, not Jesus’ own conviction. Paul did not advance beyond this declaration (comp. Planck in d. theol. Jahrb . 1847, p. 268 ff.), but he applied his right understanding boldly and freely, and in so doing the breaking up of the old form by the new spirit could not but necessarily begin, as Jesus Himself clearly recognised (comp. Mat 9:16 ; Joh 4:21 ; Joh 4:23 f.) and set forth to those who believed in His own person and His completed righteousness (comp. Ritschl). But even in this self-representation of Christ the new principle is not severed from the O. T. piety, but is the highest fulfilment of the latter, its anti-typical consummation, its realized ideal. Christianity itself is in so far a law. Comp. Wittichen, p. 328; Holtzmann, p: 457 f.; Weizscker, p. 348 f.; see also on Rom 3:27 ; Gal 6:2 ; 1Co 9:21 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

Mat 5:17-48 . Messianic fulfilment of the law by the setting forth of which Jesus now, after He had made clear to the disciples their high destiny, desired to establish, before all other things the relation of Sis ministry to the religion of the Old Testament , introducing it, indeed, with , . . .; because the thought of an abrogation of the law by the Messiah (which was actually current among the Jews, upon the basis of Jer 31:31 , see Gfrrer, Jahrh. d. Heils , II. p. 341), and therewith a renewal of religion from the very foundation, might easily suggest itself so as to become highly injurious, and might give to the work of the disciples themselves an altogether perverted direction, as it was, moreover, maliciously laid hold of by their enemies in order to accuse the Lord (Mat 26:61 ) and His disciples (Act 6:14 ; Act 21:21 ). The more designedly Jesus introduces and carries through this part (of His discourse), the less does it suffice to assume the occasion thereto as arising from the law retiring into the background in His daily life, and from a neglect of the law thus inferred (Keim); or from this, that Jesus was accustomed to set out, not from the law, but from the universal truths of faith, from testimonies of nature and life (Weizscker, p. 346). In this way the twice sharply emphasized “destroy” especially would appear altogether out of proportion.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

The doctrine and righteousness of Christ the genuine development and fulfilment of the Old Testament, as being the true and absolute fulfilment of the law in contradistinction to spurious traditionalism, or the ossification and perversion of the law exhibited in the righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes, in respect both of their teaching and in their practice. Christ and Moses; Christ and traditionalism.Descent from the Mount of Divine Revelation to the arbitrary dispensations and ordinances of man. Mat 5:17 to Mat 7:6.

( Mat 5:20-26, the Gospel for the 6th Sunday after Trinity. Mat 6:24-34, the Gospel for the 15th Sunday after Trinity.)

Christ and the Law; or, Christ the absolute fulfilment

Mat 5:17-19

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot orone tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever 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.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Mat 5:17. Think not, .The choice of the expression, , in connection with the word immediately following, must not be overlooked. The verb implies: to recognize as use and customto be accustomed, to think, to imagin. (to suppose according to custom). Hence the expression here points to a legal prejudice: Do not suppose that I am come to destroy the law.9

The connection between this and what precedes, is evident, although Meyer denies it. Immediately before, Jesus had spoken of persecution for righteousness sake and for His sake. This implied a contrast between His righteousness and that of the Pharisees and scribes. Accordingly, the question would naturally arise as to the relation between His doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, the law, and the Old Testament generally, since the disciples could not, at the time, have been fully alive to the contrast between Jewish traditionalism and the law of Moses. Evidently the prejudice might arise in their minds, that Jesus intended to destroy the law.
This difficulty is immediately met by the declaration, that He was come, not to destroy, but to fulfil the law; nay that he was Himself its fulfilment, and that not merely in respect of its types, but of all the symbols of truth which were afloat among men, whether specially Jewish, or in heathen religions, or even of those presented by history and nature generally. Still, we must bear in mind that Matthew always chiefly points to the fulfilment of the Old Testament in Christ. The idea of an absolute fulfilment of all types, is brought out in the Gospel by John.

The law, or the prophets.Not merely the Pentateuch as a book, or the prophets as the other portions of the Old Testament, but also the gradual spiritual development of Old Testament revelation which they embody. The is never used for , but always as a particle of distinction (comp. Winer, Gram. of the N. T.; Fritzsche ad Marc., p. 276 sqq.). In the present instance it means, to abrogate the one, or the other. The Jews were guilty of various kinds of abrogation of the law. The Sadducees destroyed the prophets, the Pharisees the law, the Essenes, in part, both the law and the prophets. But Christ preserved the Old Testament in all its entirety, and fulfilled it in its deepest meaning. As everywhere else, so here, the word refers to the whole law, and not merely to the Decalogue; although we recognize in the Old Testament a manifest distinction between the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the national or civil law. The ceremonial was intended to supplement the moral law; while the civil law supplemented both, and formed their basis. The special quotations from the moral law which are afterward adduced by the Saviour, are only intended as examples of the whole law (or of what was most important)consisting of some of those moral precepts which would most readily occur in the circumstances. He fulfilled the whole law,not the smallest ceremonial or national ordinance being destroyed in its ultimate idea, while everything which the law prescribed, and of which the ancient ordinances were only the , was carried out to its full ideal (Meyer). The expression, , cannot possibly refer to the predictions contained in their writings (the Greek Fathers: Beza, Calovius, and others,among them, Tholuck and Neander), as nobody would imagine that the Messiah would destroy them. Taken in connection with the (comp. also Mat 7:12; Mat 22:40), it must refer to the injunctions of the prophetic writings. But carnal Judaizers might regard the contrast between the life of Jesus and their fanciful and secularized views of what the language of the prophets conveyed, as destroying not only the law, but the prophets.

To destroy, ,in the sense of abrogating, a revolutionary destruction of existing institutions.

But to fulfil, .The expression is differently interpreted, as meaning: 1. actually to fulfil (Elsner, Wolf, Bleek, and others); 2. to complete doctrinally, = , to interpret more fully, to perfect, i.e., to bring out its spiritual meaning (Lightfoot, Hammond, etc.); 3. combining the two views: to make perfect as doctrine, and to exhibit perfectly in the life. In adopting the latter interpretation, we must keep in mind that this is not to be understood as implying that an imperfect revelation was to be completed, but that a preliminary and typical revelation was to be presented in all its fulness, and completely realized by word and deed. [Dr. Wordsworth: Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets by obedience, by accomplishment of types, ceremonies, rites, and prophecies, and by explaining, spiritualizing, elevating, enlarging, and perfecting the moral law, by writing it on the heart, and by giving grace to obey it, as well as an example of obedience, by taking away its curse; and by the doctrine of free justification by faith in Himself, which the law prefigured and anticipated, but could not give. Augustine: Ante Christi adventum lex jubebat, non juvabat; post, et jubet et juvat. Maldonatus: Abolet non dissolvendo sed absolvendo, non delendo sed perficiendo.P. S.]

Mat 5:18. For verily, ; ,a solemn asseveration, used to introduce important announcements. In such cases, St. John 10 always repeated the word.

Till heaven and earth shall pass away.1. In the sense of never: Calvin, Luther, Zwingle, etc.,heaven and earth being regarded as everlasting: Bar 3:32, comp. Luk 16:17. 2. To the end of the world: Paulus, Tholuck. The law shall last till a new order of things shall be introduced. Proof: According to the New Testament, heaven and earth are to pass away. The old and symbolical shape and arrangements of this world shall pass away sooner than the old symbolical law, just as the extremities of the body die before the centre, or the heart. But the law can only pass away in the letter by being accomplished in the spirit and in truth. Viewed as a shadow and type of things to come, the law disappears in Christ; but as to its substance, it is part of the word of God, and as such it abideth for ever, even in heaven.

The Iota refers to the smallest Hebrew letter ; the tittle, , to a still smaller mark, by which similar-looking letters were distinguished, or else to the little dot inserted in the . The meaning is, that the most delicate and apparently smallest determinations and distinctions were to be preserved in the delicate and finer outlines of spiritual life.

Till all be fulfilled.Thus the law has a twofold termination, a negative and a positive. Negatively, it terminates with the old world; positively, it is realized in the new and spiritual world, now inaugurated. Comp. Luk 16:17.

Mat 5:19. Whosoever therefore shall break, .In the Conj. Aor., indicating what may take place at some future period (the possible futurum exactum). The term used is , not , since, according to the Divine arrangement, none could in the old world achieve the of the law.

One of these least commandments; referring to the iota and tittle.The expression, least, does not apply to the pharisaical distinction between great and small commandments (according to Wet-stein), but to the difference made by the Lord Himself, between the law generally and its iota and tittle. Such a person is not entirely excluded from the kingdom, because his opposition is not one of principle, nor directed against the law itself, but only against its minuti.Meyer.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The humility and majesty of Christ in defining his relation to the law. He declares at once his subordination to the Old Testament, and his superiority over it.

2. Christ destroys nothing but sin, which indeed destroys itself. All that is divine in this world, nay, even all that is truly human, He elevates and spiritualizes. Thus Christ is the absolute fulfilment of the Old Testament and of the old worldand that, both in His life and doctrine. All that is transientit is only a likeness, incomplete herebut reality there.11Generally, and in every respect, I have come, not to destroy aught that is right or true: the object of My advent has been to preserve, to carry on, and to perfect every commencement, preparation for, and expectancy of, the kingdom of God throughout humanity. Thus the Saviour lifts His eyes beyond Israel on the heathen world, for whose sake also He has come, and where his advent marks a fulfilment of spiritual aspirations, which, though dim, were already in existence, and only waited for their unfolding and accomplishment. He looks into the depths of humanity, as opened up before Him, and views all history in its highest import as tending toward, and as expectancy of, Himself.Stier.

3. The fulfilment of the law and prophets is implied in the appearance of Jesus: it has been carried out in His life; it is still developing in His Church; and will continue until it becomes perfectly manifest in the reappearing of Christ, or the manifestation of the new order of things, of which He is the centre.
4. There is a fulfilment of the law in its mere letter, which is really a transgression of the law, as expressed in that true saying: summum jus, summa injuria. On the other hand, there is a transgression of the letter of the law, which may be a fulfilment of its spirit.Tholuck (p. 148). We add, that there is a seeming destruction of the old, which, in reality, is its fulfilment; while its spurious preservation implies real destruction.

5. The Lord here sets before us the contrast, not between entire opposition to the law and its perfect fulfilment, but between partial opposition and perfect fulfilment. To attempt destroying the law entirely, were to be an enemy of the kingdom of heaven, and hence beyond its pale. But even the attempt to destroy it partially in its least, but, at the same time, most delicate injunctions, brings down the punishment of being called least in the kingdom of heaven. So far as it goes, every such destruction is a revolution, not a reform. He shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, because his spirit is least capacious, and because he finds it impossible to realize the life of the law without surrendering its special directions, and confining himself to a few abstract principles.Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 593.

6. The order which Christ establishes, is that of doing and teaching, not the reverse. But this order of life becomes a disorder, where doing and teaching have a negative tendency. If, on the contrary, we do and teach the law in a proper spirit, we shall be the means by which Christ fulfils and accomplishes His regeneration and transformation of the world. Hence we shall also be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
7. In connection with this subject, we recall to mind the various antinomian tendencies; not merely those in direct opposition to the law, but such, when, under the guise of obedience, the spirit of the law was contravened. The context shows that our Lord referred to the latter as well as to the former. For nothing is more revolutionary than rigid and tyrannical traditionalism.

8. Jesus carefully guards Himself against the suspicion that He was about violently to put an end to the Old Dispensation and the ancient theocratic order of things. The same line of argument was, at a later period, adopted by the Apostle Paul, when defending himself against a similar charge, Rom 3:31. When Paul speaks of the abrogation of the law, he always refers only to its temporary, transient, and traditional form (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14). In this sense the law must pass away, in order that its real nature as the law of the spirit may appear.But it is important to remember, that in this passage the Lord passed over the abolition of outward and temporary ordinances, while He laid emphasis upon the fulfilment of the law in the Gospel, and that not merely for the purpose of rebutting the antinomian expectations hitherto entertained, as if the revelation of the kingdom of heaven implied the destruction of the law. We rather conceive that His argument was mainly directed against the popular prejudice, that He intended to detract from the character and obligations of the law.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Even on His first appearance, Christ felt that He would be represented as a rebel and destroyer of the authority of the law.Against such suspicions He solemnly protested.Christ has guarded His Gospel and His Church from the suspicion of revolutionary tendencies.The old error, which seeks to identify the religion of the Spirit with rebellion, as appearing, 1. in the history of Christ; 2. in that of His Church.Christ the fulfiller of the law.The law and the prophets.The absolute fulfilment: 1. in His doctrine; 2. in His life; 3. in His history; 2Co 1:20; Heb 13:8.Import of the name of Jehovah, Rev 1:4.The law in its essence is eternal.The law must be fulfilled in all its parts: 1. As spiritual requirement, which must be spiritually accomplished; 2. as an emblem of the Spirit, which is to be realized by the Spirit; 3. as a promise of the Spirit, which the Spirit will fulfil.Every sacred emblem has its corresponding reality in the kingdom of Christ.Christ has fulfilled the law: 1. The moral law by His obedience; 2. the sacrificial law by His sufferings; 3. the civil or national law by His institutions.Even the laws and emblems of our lives must become reality.The law fulfilled by the manifestation of the spirit of the law, since the Spirit brings out, 1. the one grand principle of the law, instead of its many injunctions; 2. the life of the law in the individual; 3. reveals the infinite depth of the law.The law is transformed and glorified in its fulfilment.A mere carnal observance of the letter may in reality be an abrogation of the law.To resist the spiritual unfolding of the law, is, under the guise of allegiance, to rebel against its authority.The Gospel presents the law in its spiritual aspect.He who, by his interpretations of the law, attempts to make the kingdom of heaven small, cannot himself be great in the kingdom of heaven.Grandeur of free obedience.Doing and teaching: such is the order of Christ.The righteousness of Christ, and that of the Pharisees and scribes.

Starke:The word of God abideth for ever, Luk 16:17.There is no commandment of God too small to be obeyed, Jam 2:10.

Gerlach:The law was essentially spiritual; but on account of the hardness of the Jewish heart, it was fenced in under the Old Testament by outward ordinances, which, for the time, prevented the full manifestation of its depth. Hence, in order to fulfil it, Christ broke through the barriers, and thus unfolded its true glory; while the Pharisees contravened the spirit of the law by the observance of its letter, which in reality destroyed, instead of fulfilling it.

Footnotes:

[9][German: das Gesets su entsetzen, which might perhaps be rendered: to illegalize or to outlaw the law.P. S.]

[10][The Edinb. translator here erroneously substitutes the Baptist for the Evangelist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in the discourses of the Saviour, uniformly (in more than 50 passages) use the single , while the Saviour, in the Gospel of John, always (in 24 passages) uses the double (a Hebrew epizeuxis, or emphatic repetition of the same word, comp. ). See Joh 1:51 (52); Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5; Joh 3:11; Joh 5:19; Joh 5:24-25; Joh 6:26; Joh 6:32; Joh 6:47; Joh 6:53; Joh 8:34; Joh 8:51; Joh 8:58, etc. etc. The uniformity of this usage in the mouth of the Saviour, and the Saviour only, is significant. Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, and Meyer state the fact, but attempt no explanation. Bengel (Gnomon ad Joh 1:51) accounts for it on the ground that the Saviour spoke in the name of the Father and in His own, and adds that at the time when the first three Gospels were written it was not yet seasonable to record the double , and the argument for the Divinity of Christ implied in it. I venture to suggest that John, or rather Christ himself, desired to emphasize the fact that He was the absolute, the personal Truth, as He says, Joh 14:6, or the Amen, as He is called, Rev 3:14. For no one else in the N. T. ventures to use the phrase: Verily (not even once) I say unto you.P. S.]

[11] [Allusion to the mysterious conclusion of the second word of Goethes Faust:

Alles Vergaengliche ist nur ein Gleichnies;

Das Unzulaengliche hier wirds Ereigness;
Das Unbegreifliche hier wirds gethan;
Das swig Weibliche zicht uns hinan.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1297
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS CONFIRMED BY CHRIST

Mat 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.

TO have just sentiments on religion is a matter of incalculable importance. Whilst we are mistaken respecting any fundamental truths, we not only lose the benefit and comfort of those truths, but are in danger of rejecting them when proposed to our consideration, and enlisting ourselves amongst the avowed enemies of the Gospel. The Jews were almost universally expecting a temporal Messiah. Hence, when our blessed Lord appeared in such mean circumstances, and inculcated doctrines so opposite to their carnal expectations, the people thought either that he was an impostor who deceived them, or that he was come to subvert and destroy all that had been delivered to them by their forefathers. Our blessed Lord anticipated and obviated their objections: Think not, says he, that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
By the law and the prophets, I understand, that system of religion which the moral law inculcated, and all the prophets enforced. To establish and confirm these was the great end of our Saviours advent. He has confirmed them as to the great scope of all that they have spoken in reference to,

The way of salvation

The way of salvation, as revealed in the Old Testament, is by faith in the promised Messiah
[The moral law proclaimed this. The moral law, it is true, said, Do this and live [Note: Rom 10:5.]. But it was never the intent of the moral law to put men upon working out their salvation by their obedience to its commands. The law could never give life to man since the fall. It could only shew him his duty, and thunder out its curses against him for his manifold transgressions. It required perfect and perpetual obedience; in default of which, it doomed him to everlasting destruction [Note: Deu 27:26. with Gal 3:10.]. Thus by its unbending severity it compelled every one that was under it to seek salvation in some other way. It shewed to men the necessity of a Saviour, and thus prepared them for the manifestation of Christ by the Gospel. This is the very account given of it by St. Paul, who sums up his testimony in these significant expressions, Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith [Note: Gal 3:21-24.].

The ceremonial law held forth the remedy, of which the moral law declared our need. All its sacrifices directed men to that great Sacrifice which should in due time be offered on the cross: whilst the brazen serpent, the scape-goat, and all the various lustrations, displayed the efficacy of that remedy, and encouraged penitents to accept it. That the ceremonial law was intended to answer this end, we are sure; because our Saviour himself and his Apostles constantly appealed to it, as prefiguring Christ, who is expressly said to be the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Note: Rom 10:4.].

Precisely to the same effect is the testimony of all the prophets. Who can read the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and not see that salvation is to be obtained through the atoning blood of Christ? We see him wounded for our transgressions, and all our iniquities laid on him, in order that we may be healed by his stripes. Similar to this is the declaration of Daniel, who says, that Christ should finish transgression, make an end of sin, and bring in an everlasting righteousness. In a word, To him, says the Apostle, give all the Prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins [Note: Act 10:43.]: and again, The righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe [Note: Rom 3:21-22.].]

And what, we ask, is the way of salvation in the New Testament?
[Has the Lord Jesus Christ put aside this way of salvation? Has he not rather established it beyond all possibility of doubt? Hear his own words: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me. To cite all his declarations upon this subject would detain us too long: suffice it to say, that he speaks of his blood as shed for the remission of sins, and his life as given to be a ransom for many; and declares, that, by being lifted up upon the cross, he is qualified and empowered to draw all men unto him.]

Thus far then we have seen that Christ has confirmed the law and the prophets, as far as relates to the way of salvation. Let us now mark the same in reference to,

II.

The path of duty

The ten commandments were given as a rule of conduct to the Jews
[This summary of religious duties is emphatically called, The Law. It was given by God in the most solemn manner, and enjoined without exception on the whole nation. The prophets, in their respective ages and places, maintained the authority of this law, and laboured to bring the people into a conformity to its precepts.]
And what other rule is there prescribed to us?
[The Lord Jesus Christ has neither added to the Ten Commandments, nor taken from them. He has freed them from the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, and has explained them according to their spiritual import. He has also specified certain duties which were not so clearly seen under the Mosaic dispensation, and has added new motives to the performance of them. But he has enjoined nothing which is not comprehended in one of those two commandments, that of loving God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and that of loving our neighbour as ourselves. On the other hand, he has bound upon us these duties in the most solemn manner; and told us, that he will estimate our character, not by the zeal with which we cry Lord, Lord, but by the care and uniformity with which we keep his commandments [Note: Joh 14:15; Joh 14:21; Joh 14:23.].

Here then is proof sufficient, that our Lord has not destroyed the law and the prophets, or in the slightest degree weakened our obligations to obey them. There are some professors of religion, and indeed not a few, who think that Christ has set aside the law as a rule of life. But they labour under a dangerous, yea, a fatal error. When they say that we are released from the law as a covenant of works, they are right: but so were believers under the Old Testament. When they say that we are released from the whole ceremonial law, they are right: but we must still observe every part of it in a spiritual manner, presenting Christ as our sacrifice, washing daily in the fountain of his blood, and cleansing ourselves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit, that we may perfect holiness in the fear of God. But when they speak of being released from the law as a rule of life, they open the floodgates of licentiousness [Note: Rom 3:31.]: and were it not that some of them, as we hope, have more piety in their practice than in their principles, they would have just reason to tremble for their state [Note: See ver. 19.]. The truth is, that the advancing of our souls in holiness was a very principal object of Christs incarnation and death [Note: Tit 2:14.]. And that very grace of God which bringeth salvation, so far from annulling any single command of God, itself teacheth us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.]

This subject is of peculiar use,
1.

To rectify our views

[As for those who think that salvation is by the works of the law, we shall pass them over on the present occasion; praying only that God may open their eyes ere it be too late. But there are many thoughtful and intelligent persons, and not altogether destitute of piety, who imagine, that Christ has lowered the demands of the moral law, and purchased for us the liberty of being saved by a new law of sincere obedience: they think that for his sake our sincere obedience will be accepted, instead of perfect obedience: and that the defects of our obedience will be made up by the merits of Jesus Christ.
To such persons I would say, Read the words of our text. Christ says he did not come to destroy the law; and you affirm that he did; that he has softened its rigours, and dispensed with those high attainments which the perfect law of God requires. You will reply perhaps, If these things be not dispensed with, how are we to be saved? I answer, They are not dispensed with, no, not one of them: it is as much our duty to fulfil the whole law of God as it was Adams duty in Paradise: nor, if we would be saved by the law, can we be saved on any lower terms. But of salvation by the law we must not entertain a thought: we are condemned by the law, and must flee as condemned sinners to Jesus Christ, that he may wash us from our sins in his blood, and clothe us in his own unspotted robe of righteousness and salvation. Some will exclaim, What new doctrine is this? I answer, this was the way of salvation revealed to Adam after the Fall; and it has been continued in all successive ages, till Christ himself came. Then was this mystery more clearly revealed to the world; and from henceforth the voice of God to every human Being is, He that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Lay aside then your erroneous notions respecting a mitigated law and sincere obedience; and seek salvation in Gods only dear Son, in whom alone it can be found [Note: Act 4:12. 1Co 3:11.].]

To regulate our lives

[Whilst some persons object to salvation by faith alone as a licentious doctrine, others complain of us as raising the standard of holiness so high, that none, except a few devotees, can possibly attain it. But I would ask these objectors, Which of Gods laws are we authorized to set aside? Which are we even suffered to palliate and soften? Our blessed Lord has, with the strongest possible asseveration, said, that not so much as a jot or tittle of the law shall ever pass away: how then can we presume to say, It shall pass away? Suppose we do lower the standard of obedience in compliance with your wishes, what will it profit you, unless he do it also? We should only deceive you, and ruin ourselves together with you. But you will say, It is hard to have so much required of us. Well, suppose it be hard; if it be required, we must do it: our only alternative is, to obey or perish. But there is not any one of his commandments grievous: on the contrary, they all together form a light and easy yoke: and so far are they from being deemed too strict by any real Christian, that there is not a true Christian in the world that would wish any one of the commandments to require less than it does. A spiritual man does not complain of the strictness of the law, but of the wickedness of his own heart: and his desire is, not to have the commandments of God lowered to his attainments, but his attainments elevated to the utmost height of Gods commandments.

Let this then be the desire and endeavour of us all: let there be no sin harboured, not even in thought; nor any duty neglected, whatever difficulties we may have to encounter, or whatever trials to endure. If we have a hope of salvation through Christ, we must purify ourselves even as he is pure.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 17

Fulfilling the Law The Minuteness of the Law Learn By Doing a Grand Opportunity

Prayer

Almighty God, surely thou dost put us into the fire to take out of us all that is bad, and to make us as good as thou art, according to our degree. Thou dost not delight to see our life in pain, thou hast no pleasure in death, and the darkness thou dost abhor. All thy purpose concerning us is love, therefore dost thou try us by many ways, that we may be brought into thy purity and love, and show forth thine infinite holiness. Thou dost smite the pride of our eyes and rob our right hand of its riches, and cause our right foot to tremble and to fall, that thou mayest do some good to our soul, awakening the attention of our love, and charming the trust of our heart that it may give itself wholly to thee and live in none beside. Give us this view of thy way amongst us, and then our fears shall no longer distress us, but upon our smitten life there shall shine a great light as of the very hope of heaven. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but rather grievous; nevertheless afterwards it worketh the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them that are exercised thereby. We have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin, and our strength has not been utterly crushed in the great warfare. Behold, thou hast purposes of mercy towards us in all these struggles, fears, contests, and subtle temptations. Thou art training us, by a wondrous education, to be like thyself in all pureness and grace. Thou hast chastened us sore, but thou hast not left us utterly in the hands of the tormentor. We are cast down but not destroyed, we are persecuted but not forsaken; thou dost save us with an infinite salvation, and no man can pluck us out of our Father’s hand. Undertake for us in all our way, set before us to eat and to drink what thou wilt, grant unto us rest or unrest, send upon us the great storm or the benediction of light; only in the end make us true and good, fit for thy society, and qualified for thy service.

We have to bless thee in long, sweet hymns for thy loving kindness and thy tender mercy: having begun to sing thy praise, our hearts would sing themselves away in grateful song, for thy mercies are without number and thy loving kindness cannot be measured. Through the dark gate of our fear thou sendest angels of light and deliverance; through our sickness thou dost bring healing of the soul; when we are far away in the wilderness where is no sanctuary, thou dost gather us into a house not made with hands, and thou givest unto us songs amongst the rocks.

We put ourselves into thine hands for the few days we have to live how few! Our days are as a post, speeding on its urgent way; our life is like a weaver’s shuttle, flying to and fro, too quickly for the eye to follow it; we are consumed before the moth, and we are digging our own grave every day. Do thou undertake for us in all things, granting us sanctification of every trouble, deliverance out of every perplexity, and where we expect to die may we by thy grace begin to sing.

Work within us all the miracles of thy grace, Thou Holy One. We have read of thy curing of those that were diseased and raising up of those that were dead, and our poor ignorance has been startled into impious wondering as we have beheld the marvels of thy power. Help us now to realise in our own hearts the infinitely grander miracles of thy grace. Wash us with blood, cleanse us by the wondrous sacrifice of thy Son oar one and only Saviour, recover our hearts of their leprosy, and touch our blind eyes that we may see with the vision of the soul. Recover us from all alienation, from all bitter hostility, from all insubordination of heart; bring us one and all, with unanimous and joyous consent, to sit at thy feet, and to know no will but thine.

Pity our littleness, and let our infirmities become sacred unto thee as opportunities for the exercise of thy gracious power. Thou knowest what anger there is yet in our hearts, what pride, what ambition, what self-sufficiency, and what cunning secret trust there is; that after all the key of the kingdom may fall into our hands and be used according to our desire. Lord, cleanse our hearts of these evil spirits, and leave none of them behind, but reign thyself in the chambers thou hast purified.

We think of all for whom wo ought to pray, for the sick, for the sons and daughters of pain, long, wearying, intolerable pain God pity them, and speak some gospel too sacred and tender for our rough lips. Be thine own minister, Holy Ghost, and speak to the hearts of all who suffer. We think of the poor and the perplexed, the friendless, the wandering, the homeless; we think of the stranger within our gates who is here to join our song and come to join our supplications for all the mercies of heaven upon this wondrous life. The Lord’s gospel be multiplied unto them all, and the Lord’s grace be upon every heart lifted up in true and simple desire for better life.

Regard the land in which we live, give wisdom unto our counsellors and direction to those who lead our affairs. With the plentiful spirit of thy grace do thou bless and enrich our Sovereign the Queen, continue long her reign, and as her days are many may her blessings be even more. The Lord cause prosperity to return to our trade and commerce, and establish confidence in all our honourable relations with the various empires and nationalities of the earth. The Lord give unto us as individuals, as families, congregations, churches, and a nation what we most need from heaven; bind us one and all with new oaths of loyalty to love and serve the Cross when we are tempted to put baser devices on our banner may we hear the voice of the tempter, and know it to be the voice of the devil. Amen.

Mat 5:17-20 .

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.

“Think not.” There is a possibility of having false notions about Christ. Closely observe that the subject may be right, and that our idea concerning it may be wrong. It is not enough to be attached to a good cause, we must worthily represent that cause to those who are looking on or listening. You say, for example, that you believe in Christ, but in having said so you have given me no clear notion of what you really do believe. I must ask you some questions, such as Who was Christ? What do you believe about him? and why do you believe? The name is excellent, but what is your precise idea about the meaning and influence of that name? So, at the very opening of his ministry, Jesus Christ had to recognise the possibility of mistaken notions concerning himself. We are not at liberty to say that if a thing be true it will so shine upon the mind as to commend its truth to us and to bear down all prejudice and all misconception. Even Jesus Christ himself was not understood by his contemporaries, his disciples, or the friends of his own house. First of all, therefore, he has to do a negative work, he has to call man to the right mental mood and attitude, he has to awaken that latest, and fastest of all sleepers Attention. He will not be rushed upon, he will not be seized by the extemporaneous genius of mankind, he will not be treated as a feather that any fingers can catch in the wind. There must be thought, consideration right thought, close consideration; for only as the result of patient and devout reflection, inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost, do we come to have clear, complete, right conceptions of Jesus Christ.

“Think not.” That was a legal phrase, it was used by the lawyers and by the interpreters of the law. Literally it means “Do not get into the habit of thinking,” or, “Do not become accustomed to think that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets.” He was warning his disciples, and through them all Christian ages, against a mental habit. What is there so difficult to eradicate as unintelligent prejudice? You think, and think, and think, until, by the very processes of your own mind, you come to the conclusion that what you have thought must be true. Christ warns us against intellectual prejudices; mental habits that start from a wrong base, live and grow up into formidable proportions and strength. Christian attention should always be young, Christian attention should always be impressible, Christian attention should stand a long way from old and hoary prejudice; Christian attention should always be ready to take on the phase of the moment, and to hear the note of the passing tune.

“Think not that I am come to destroy.” Gentle one, thou didst not come to destroy, thy name is Saviour. And yet he did come to destroy. “For this purpose was I manifested, that I might destroy” there he takes up the word, takes it up as thunder might take it “the works of the devil.” But no work of God would he destroy; the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. The Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. Think not that I am come to destroy the law that is, to make a dead letter of it, to treat it as a mistake, to say “Now we will utterly ignore all the ancient law and take a new point of departure, and begin again upon a new foundation.” I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. What does that mean? To fulfil that is what the noonday does to the dawn. The dawn is cold, gray, struggling, the noon is the culmination of its purpose and interest. The noon is not something different from the dawn, the noon is the dawn completed. When the first gray light fell upon the dewy hills, it said, “I mean to be noon, noon is in me, and I will climb the zenith and stand right above the world and flood it with infinite splendour and beauty.” The summer fulfils the spring; there is no schism amongst the seasons: the spring comes and does its little elementary and initial work, plants its little crocusses and does all it can for the outside world, does it quietly, sweetly, fragrantly, with wondrous grace and love, then the summer comes and does in infinite grandeur what the spring could only begin. It fulfils the spring.

Manhood fulfils childhood. You say the child is father of the man. I need no better illustration. The law prefigured and anticipated the gospel; statutes, precepts, and commandments began that marvellous process which culminates in principle, grace, truth, inspiration, the divinely recreated and ruled intuitions, which sees a root by the penetration of vision which the literal schoolmaster could never give.

You are merchantmen and traders tell me how is a promissory note fulfilled. Show it to me: I will fulfil it thus: I tear it into little pieces and throw it into the dust. Have I fulfilled the note? You instantly tell me that I have not fulfilled, I have destroyed. Then show me another and I will fulfil it thus: By thrusting it into the very midst of the fire and letting it go up in flame. Have I fulfilled it? You tell me instantly that I have done in this case as in the former; I have not fulfilled, I have destroyed. Then pass the promissory note at the date of its maturity into the hands of the man who signed it, and he pays you the money pound by pound to the last demand, and, having got the money into your hand, what has been done with the promissory note? It has been destroyed by fulfilment, and that is the only destruction possible to any law that is right.

The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. I prefer another way of stating that. The modern Greek would not understand that expression if he read it in the original tongue. “What is the meaning of that expression?” I have myself said to a modern Greek; and he said, “You have not caught the idea at all in your English.” “Then what is the idea?” “Why,” said he, “it is this, Not the law was our schoolmaster, but the law was our nurse, or guardian, or care-taker, to bring us to our schoolmaster, Christ.” We know what that means by daily illustration in our own English life. You send your little child in the care of some one to school. The maid takes the little creature and says, “Come, and I will take you to school,” and away they go together to the place of instruction. Now, the law was our care-taker, our companion, to take us to our schoolmaster, Christ; Christ keeps a school, Christ calls those who go to his school his disciples, his scholars; Christ says,” Learn of me.” Christ is the teacher of the world. The law took us hand in hand to Christ. The law is one there is no change in the divine education of the world. We are not to suppose that Christ was an afterthought in the divine mind, or that his coming marked a sudden departure from sacred precedents. All that went before him pointed to him. Every man said, “Not I, but there cometh one after me.”

The Bible from the very beginning says, “I am going to be a gospel.” If the spire of your church is rightly built it will say to the artistic observer on its very first course of stones, “I am going to be a pinnacle.” There will be a set in the very first line of stones which the artistic eye can see, which, being interpreted, is Pinnacle, sharp, finger-like, pointing to the sky. It does not begin to be a spire a long way up, but from the very first, if it has been conceived by a true architect; it begins to be a spire when its very first stone is laid in the depth of the earth. So with this Bible-building. I did not know what it was going to be, but I saw that it was going to be something other than it was in itself just at the particular moment of my observation. Now that I go back upon it with more learning and with a keener power of observation, I see that from the very first verse this Book meant to be a benediction, to have set upon its uppermost points these words, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.” So the law is not broken into unrelated parts, it is from the beginning meant to be a complete and final cosmos.

What wonder then, if Jesus Christ should continue to say, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” In the seventeenth verse you have the word “fulfil,” in the eighteenth verse you have the word “fulfilled,” and yet they are not the same word as they were originally written. In the eighteenth verse the word fulfilled means accomplished, a purpose turned into a reality, a seed fully grown into a great tree, to which nothing could be added in proportion or in beauty.

“One jot or one tittle.” Why, then, is there nothing superfluous in the law? There is nothing insignificant in all the works of God. Pluck me a grass-blade, and let me see what I can do with it. How many veins has it which could be done without? How much blood circulates through all this veinous system? How much less might have done? Can you mend it? Can you sharpen its point? Can you accelerate its circulation? Can you pluck out of it one tiny fibre that the little thing could have done without? Take care how you touch it, for it is God’s handiwork.

“One jot.” One yod , a little thing that is not a letter in itself, so much as the adjunct or the helper of some other letter a yot , a silent thing. The name of the wife of Abraham was turned from Sarai to Sarah, and it was the yod that did it: it was that little, silent, insignificant adjunct that turned her into Princess. God is careful of His yod , or yot , or jot , He does not dot his i for nothing, nor cross his t merely for decoration: there is blood in the act. Take care; touch not the Lord’s anointed, and do His prophets no harm. The destruction of the law by literalists and meddlers, by mere outside observers and worshippers, such as the Scribes and Pharisees, begins by interfering with the jot and tittle. Who would take a large sharp knife and begin all at once in shocking and impious vulgarity to scratch out the whole law? And yet many a man who would shrink from that coarse blasphemy begins with finer insruments to interfere with the vod , the dot, the tittle. He says, “Nobody will miss that.” We do things little by little, insidiously, that we never could do by thunder-like assaults.

All character seems to go down by interfering with the yod , the dot, the jot, the tittle, the iota, the subscript, the accent, the breathing-point. Who jumps right off the temple top into pits of darkness at one grand leap? A man begins by giving up the morning service, by going to church occasionally, by dropping little customs, as he calls them, and comparatively insignificant habits. What is he doing? He has begun a work, the end of which is destruction, ruin, death. It is to me no wonder, therefore, that Jesus Christ should depose and degrade into an inferior position whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so. Observe how these words go, in what perfect and suggestive rhythm they fall upon the ear break and teach. And in the second member of the sentence observe how the same rhythm is preserved do and teach. Work begins in the individual relation to the law; when I have broken a commandment I long to get companionship, to bring others into the same condemnation: having broken it, to justify the breach, to show that it was better broken than not, and on the ruins of my own character set up as the seducer of other men.

Then do and teach. Who can teach if he does not first do? If he be a mere hireling the whole words would have been committed to memory and would trip off his reluctant lips without music or force. My teacher must at least try to do what he says. If he fail I will not despise him, if his efforts be sincere. I know that human infirmity will mar men, and diabolic temptation will do its utmost to despoil and pervert the purpose of his heart, but his will shall count as his deed.

Many of us are so anxious to enter into the metaphysics of Christian doctrine that we refrain from doing the little that we understand. Let me speak for a moment to this little child. Little child, lying in your cot, you must walk as soon as you have learned to do so. You will learn to do so by lying just where you are, and by looking at the ceiling of your nursery twelve hours every day. You must think about walking, analyse it, ask what locomotion really means, and where the word came from, get clear definitions, and don’t you stir from your feathery cot till you have had a complete analysis of the whole method of locomotion. Hear me? Yes.

What would you think of me as a teacher of walking? I say rather, “Little dear, I am going to lift you out of this, and you are going to walk from this chair to that, eighteen inches apart, and I am going to stretch my arms almost around you all the time, till you get over the ground. Now go.” The eighteen inches have been passed, and I feel as if a crisis in that child’s existence had also passed. But it is the right way; there is no other way.

Wouldst thou be a sober man, set the glass down there, and turn your back upon it and go in the other direction. Who was it some shrewd old teacher, certainly who said to a man who, intending a certain branch* of learning, said that he was going to seek out a private tutor, that he might learn this branch of which he was ignorant, whereupon the old man said: “Engage a tutor? Tut, tut, take a pupil.” Do you thus learn. What was the name of that great Cambridge professor of geology? was it Sedgwick? He came to put in a claim for the chair at Cambridge, and those who were in authority said, “Do you understand geology?” “No,” said he, “I do not; but I understand enough to enable me to keep ahead of the young men who come here to learn it, and I will engage to always keep ahead of them.” He was appointed, and how he did keep ahead of them history will never fail to tell. If you want to understand a subject, deliver a lecture upon it. The people will never know. They will applaud you and pass a vote of thanks, and all the time you will be saying, “Oh, if they only knew how little I know about this, they would never have had me here, and certainly they would not have proposed this vote of thanks.” If you want to oppose the Government of the country, whatever that Government may be, write a five-hundred page essay upon the whole scheme of English Government. Do it with a bold hand, and you will be surprised when you come out of the process how much you have really taught yourself.

Well, what is true with modifications on all those lines of analogy, is pre-eminently, and may I not say infinitely, true of this kingdom of heaven. We learn by doing, we become preachers by being practisers, they that do the will shall know the doctrine. The Lord reveals himself to his industrious servants.” It is when we are persevering on the right road, scrubbing and drudging at oftentimes unwelcome duties, that God’s angel stands up before us and flings upon our faith a sudden and gracious light. Blessed is that servant who is faithful, he shall have cities in heaven to rule.

Jesus then came to fulfil the law. There was a moral law, the meaning of which was obedience. He became obedient, even unto the death of the cross: he had no will but God’s “Not my will but thine be done.” There was the fulfilment of the moral law. There was a sacrificial law, the slaying of animals and outpouring of blood and offering of gifts. This man was both the Priest and the Victim. He built the altar and slew himself upon it with priestly hands. Thus he fulfilled the sacrificial law. There was a national law, a theocracy, a gathering together of the people, a federating of tribes and sections, a grand nationalistic idea. How did he fulfil that? By founding his Church. Upon this rock I build my Church. Empires mean, when rightly translated, Churches; Politics is a word which means, held up to its highest point, Morality; Nationality, too often debased into a geographical term, causing many distractions and controversial definitions, really means, when fructified, the Church, the Redeemed Church, the Theocracy, the God-Government. The kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and his Father, having fulfilled the law as a tree fulfils the acorn, and God shall be all in all.

We are in the line of this education, we are helping on this glorious ministry. Would God I could arouse every sleeper and inflame with Heaven’s fire every reluctant heart to take this upward progress. Teach no other notion of advancement, move with Moses, the minstrels, the prophets, the Christ be in that succession, and if thou hast not ten cities to rule, thou shalt have five, or one, or some share in the final and everlasting dominion.

Behold, I set before you the door, wide open, of a grand opportunity. Seize it, and be thankful and glad with the joy of rapture.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Ver. 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law ] As the Pharisees slandered him only to bring him into hatred with the people; and as to this day they maliciously traduce him in their writings. Rabbi Maimonides, in his Mishna, hath a whole chapter concerning the punishment of the false prophet, that teacheth that he came to destroy the law. Calumniare audacter: aliquid saltem adhaerebit, said Machiavel. A depraver, saith Plato, is mus nominis; a devil, saith Paul, 2Ti 3:3 . It is the property of defamations to leave a kind of lower estimation, many times, even where they are not believed.

I am not come to destroy ] Gr. to loose, dissolve, or untie the law ( ), as those rebels, Psa 2:3 , sought to do, but with ill success. For it tieth and hampereth men with an Aut faciendum, aut patiendum, either you must have the direction of the law, or the correction; either do it, or die for it. Thus the “law is a schoolmaster,” Gal 3:24 , and such a one as that which Livy and Florus speak of in Italy, that brought forth his scholars to Hannibal, who had he not been more merciful than otherwise, they had all perished. The comfort is, that it is a schoolmaster to Christ, who became bond to the law to redeem us that were under the law, from the rigour, bondage, irritation, and condemnation thereof. So that the use that now we have of it is only to be as Paul’s sister’s son, to show us our danger, and to send us to the chief Captain of our salvation, who came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.

But to fulfil it ] To complete and accomplish it ( ), for he fulfilled all righteousness, and finished the work that was given him to do, Joh 17:4 . A new commandment also gave be unto us, that we love one another; which love is the complement of the law and the supplement of the gospel. Besides, “Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth,” and commandeth us no more than he causeth us to do, Rom 10:4 ; Eze 18:31 ; yea, he doth all his works in us, and for us, saith the Church, Isa 26:12 . Thus Christ still fulfils the law in his people; into whose hearts he putteth a disposition answerable to the outward law in all things, as in the wax is the same impression that was upon the seal. This is called the “law of the mind,” Rom 7:25 , and answereth the law of God without, as lead answers the mould, as tally answereth tally, as indenture indenture, Heb 8:8-10 cf. 2Co 3:2-3 Rom 6:17 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

17 48. ] The SECOND PART OF THE SERMON, in which our Lord sets forth His relation, as a lawgiver, to the law of Moses, especially as currently interpreted according to the letter only .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

17. ] Observe how our Lord, through the whole sermon, sets forth Himself, in his proceeding forth from God, as the true .

. ] It is a question whether our Lord includes the prophecies , properly so called, in His meaning here. I think not: for no person professing himself to be the Messiah would be thought to contradict the prophecies , but to fulfil them . Neither, it appears, does He here allude to the sacrificial and typical parts of the law, but to the moral parts of both the law and the prophets; which indeed he proceeds to cite and particularize. If however we prefer to include both ceremonial and moral in this assertion, we may understand it in its more general sense, as applying, beyond the instances here given, to His typical fulfilment of the law, which could not as yet be unfolded. Thus Augustine: ‘Hc prcepta sunt morum; illa sacramenta sunt promissorum: hc implentur per adjuvantem gratiam, illa per redditam veritatem, utraque per Christum, et illam semper gratiam donantem, nunc etiam revelantem, et hanc veritatem tunc promittentem, nunc exhibentem.’ Contra Faust [43] xix. 18, vol. viii. Much unnecessary question has been raised (see Thol. Bergpred. edn. 3, p. 132 f.) respecting the , whether or not it can have the sense of . It is simply the disjunctive conjunction necessary in order to apply the to each severally, which would naturally be replaced by the copulative , where an affirmative assertion respecting the same two things is made.

[43] Faustus the Manichee, cited by Aug.

implies more than the mere fulfilling: see reff., where the word has the sense of filling out or expanding; i.e. here, giving a deeper and holier sense to fulfilling in the spirit , which is nobler than the letter. Theophylact compares the ancient law to a sketch , which the painter , , . Euthym [44] in loc. , , , , . ; . . Chrysost. Hom. xvi. 1, p. 203. See a history of the exegesis of the word in Thol. edn. 3, p. 135. The gnostic Marcion characteristically enough maintained that the Judaizing Christians had altered this verse, and that it originally stood, , ; , .

[44] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:17-20 . Jesus defines His position . At the period of the Teaching on the Hill Jesus felt constrained to define His ethical and religious position all round, with reference to the O. T. as the recognised authority, and also to contemporary presentations of righteousness. The disciples had already heard Him teach in the synagogues (Mat 4:23 ) in a manner that at once arrested attention and led hearers to recognise in Him a new type of teacher (Mar 1:27 ), entirely different from the scribes (Mar 1:22 ). The sentences before us contain just such a statement of the Teacher’s attitude as the previously awakened surprise of His audiences would lead us to expect. There is no reason to doubt their substantial authenticity though they may not reproduce the precise words of the speaker; no ground for the suggestion of Holtzmann (H. C.) that so decided a position either for or against the law was not likely to be taken up in Christ’s time, and that we must find in these vv. and anti-Pauline programme of the Judaists. At a first glance the various statements may appear inconsistent with each other. And assuming their genuineness, they might easily be misunderstood, and give rise to disputes in the apostolic age, or be taken hold of in rival interests. The words of great epoch-making men generally have this fate. Though apparently contradictory they might all proceed from the many-sided mind of Jesus, and be so reported by the genial Galilean publican in his Logia . The best guide to the meaning of the momentous declaration they contain is acquaintance with the general drift of Christ’s teaching ( vide Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu , ii., 330). Verbal exegesis will not do much for us. We must bring to the words sympathetic insight into the whole significance of Christ’s ministry. Yet the passage by itself, well weighed, is more luminous than at first it may seem.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 5:17 . : These words betray a consciousness that there was that in His teaching and bearing which might create such an impression, and are a protest against taking a surface impression for the truth. , to abrogate, to set aside in the exercise of legislative authority. What freedom of mind is implied in the bare suggestion of this as a possibility! To the ordinary religious Jew the mere conception would appear a profanity. A greater than the O. T., than Moses and the prophets, is here. But the Greater is full of reverence for the institutions and sacred books of His people. He is not come to disannul either the law or the prophets. before . . is not = . “Law” and “Prophets” are not taken here as one idea = the O. T. Scriptures, as law, prophets and psalms seem to be in Luk 24:44 , but as distinct parts, with reference to which different attitudes might conceivably be taken up. implies that the attitude actually taken up is the same towards both. The prophets are not to be conceived of as coming under the category of law (Weiss), but as retaining their distinctive character as revealers of God’s nature and providence. Christ’s attitude towards them in that capacity is the same as that towards the law, though the Sermon contains no illustrations under that head. “The idea of God and of salvation which Jesus taught bore the same relations to the O. T. revelation as His doctrine of righteousness to the O. T. law” (Wendt, Die L. J. , ii., 344). : the common relation is expressed by this weighty word. Christ protests that He came not as an abrogator, but as a fulfiller . What rle does He thereby claim? Such as belongs to one whose attitude is at once free and reverential. He fulfils by realising in theory and practice an ideal to which O. T. institutions and revelations point, but which they do not adequately express. Therefore, in fulfilling He necessarily abrogates in effect, while repudiating the spirit of a destroyer. He brings in a law of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realises prophetic ideals, while setting aside the crude details of their conception of the Messianic time.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 5:17-19

17″Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18For 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. 19Whoever 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.”

Mat 5:17 “Do not think” This is a negative aorist active subjunctive which was a grammatical construction that meant “do not ever start!”

“that I came to abolish the Law” The context of Mat 5:17-20 is a statement affirming the inspiration and eternality of the Old Covenant. Jesus acted in a sense as the second Moses, the new Law-giver. Jesus Himself was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is a person, not a set of required rules. The two covenants are radically different, not in purpose but in the means of accomplishing that purpose. The thrust here is not on the inability of the Old Covenant to make man right with God as in Galatians 3, but rather on the rabbis’incomplete and improper interpretation of the biblical texts by means of their Socratic or dialectical method of interpretation.

Jesus, in effect, expanded the scope of the Law from overt actions to mental thoughts. This takes the difficulty of true righteousness through the Old Covenant to a level of utter impossibility (cf. Gal 3:10; Gal 3:21-22). This impossibility will be met by Christ Himself and given back to the repentant/believing faith community through imputed righteousness or justification by faith (cf. Rom 4:6; Rom 10:4). Mankind’s religious life is a result of a relationship with God, not a means to that relationship.

“the Law or the Prophets” This was an idiom referring to two of the three divisions of the Hebrew Canon: Law, Prophets, and Writings. It was a way of designating the entire Old Testament. It also showed that Jesus’ understanding of Scripture was closer to the theology of the Pharisees than of the Sadducees, who only accepted the Torah, or Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) as authoritative.

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV”but to fulfill”

TEV”but to make their teachings come true”

NJB”to complete”

This was a common term (plero) which was used in several senses. In this context it meant to consummate or to come to a designated completion (cf. Rom 10:4). The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled and surpassed by the New Covenant. This is the main truth of the book of Hebrews and Galatians 3!

Mat 5:18 “truly” This is literally “Amen.” See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN

“heaven and earth” In the OT these two permanent entities were used as the two required witnesses to confirm YHWH’s statements (cf. Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15). They are aspects of our world that will remain as long as this age remains. This statement was like an oath from YHWH.

NASB”not the smallest letter or stroke”

NKJV”one jot or one tittle”

NRSV”not one letter, not one stroke of a letter”

TEV”not a letter, not a dot”

NJB”not one dot, not one little stroke”

This referred to

1. the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, yodh, paralleled in the smallest letter in Greek alphabet, iota

2. the ornamental additions to squared Hebrew script, similar to serifs in modern calligraphy

3. a small stroke that distinguishes between two similar Hebrew letters

The point is that the OT is significant in all its parts; even its most seemingly insignificant parts were from God. Yet the OT was completely fulfilled in the person, work, and teachings of Christ.

NASB”shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”

NKJV”will by no means pass. . .till all is fulfilled”

NRSV”will pass. . .until all is accomplished”

TEV”will not be done away with-not until the end of all things”

NJB”is to disappear. . .until all its purpose is achieved”

The first term usually referred to destroying something by pulling it down, like a wall. The second term was used in Mat 1:22 to fulfill, as in accomplishing its declared function. Although this term had several other meanings in other parts of the NT, here it speaks of the OT finding its completion in Christ. Jesus’ teachings are like the new wine that cannot be contained in the old wine skins (cf. Mat 9:16-17).

This fulfillment referred to Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, second coming, judgment, and eternal reign, which are, in some sense, incipient in the Old Testament. The OT points to Christ and His work. The Apostles interpreted it in a typological or Christological sense!

Mat 5:19 This verse is not a threat directed toward modern interpreters and teachers, but a rejection of Pharisaic traditional legalism, spiritual arrogance, and sectarian dogmatism. Jesus Himself clearly set aside the Oral Tradition (Talmud), but also parts of the written Law! Two examples would be (1) the concept of divorce in Deu 24:1-4 rejected in Mat 5:31-32 (cf. Mar 7:15; Mar 7:19-23) and (2) the food laws of Leviticus 11 rejected in Mar 7:15-23.

The use of “least” and “greatest” may be evidence for some type of gradation within the Kingdom (cf. Mat 20:20-28; Luk 12:47-48; 1Co 3:10-15).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Think not, &c. = Deem not for a moment. A very necessary warning against making this mount another Sinai, and promulgating the laws of the kingdom proclaimed in and from Mat 4:17.

I am come = I have come. Implying former existence. Compare Mat 8:10.

destroy = pull down, as in Mat 26:61.

the law. The first of fifteen references to the Law by Christ (Mat 5:17, Mat 5:18; Mat 7:12; Mat 11:13; Mat 12:5; Mat 22:40; Mat 23:23. Luk 10:26; Luk 16:6, Luk 16:17; Luk 24:44. Joh 7:19, Joh 7:19, Joh 7:23; Joh 8:17; Joh 10:34; Joh 15:25), five of these coupled with “Moses”.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

17-48.] The SECOND PART OF THE SERMON, in which our Lord sets forth His relation, as a lawgiver, to the law of Moses, especially as currently interpreted according to the letter only.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:17. Think not that I am came to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

The life, work, and words of Christ are not an emendation of the Old Testament, or an abrogation of it. It stands fast and firm, fulfilled, carried to perfection, filled to the full in Christ.

Mat 5:18-19. 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.

It is vain to teach the commandments without first doing them. The doing must always precede the teaching. If a mans example cannot be safely followed, it will be unsafe to trust his words.

Mat 5:20. 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.

The scribes and Pharisees were supposed to be righteous beyond all others. Nay, saith Christ; you must go beyond them. They were, after all, superficial, flimsy, pretentious, unreal in their righteousness; and we must have a far nobler character than they ever attained, or we shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

This is a proof that Christ did not come to abolish the law, or to abate its demands in any degree whatsoever.

Mat 5:22. But I say unto you,

Oh, what divine dignity there is in this majestic Person. He claims authority to speak, even though he should contradict all the Rabbis and all the learned men that went before him: I say unto you,

Mat 5:22. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Christ here shows us that the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, deals with anger, with angry words, with words of cursing, with words of derision, for all these are killing things, hurting and wounding things, and the passion of anger is forbidden under the command, Thou shalt not kill. Men have not thought so, but it really is so, for he who is angry with his brother is a murderer; there is the spirit, the essence of that which leads to murder in the passion which breeds malice and revenge. The law is spiritual; it touches the emotions, the thoughts, the desires, as well as the words and actions of men. If I desire ill for a man, I have within me that which would desire his death; and what is that, after all, but murder in the heart? How strict is this law, and yet how just and right!

Mat 5:23-24. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

It is said that, in Hindustan, there is a complete divorce of religion from morality, so that a man may be supposed to be eminently religious even while living in the utmost filthiness and vice; but it must never be so among us. We must never imagine that God can accept an offering from us while we harbor any enmity in our hearts. Perhaps, after reading this passage, you say, If I had anything against my brother, I would go to him at once, and seek to be reconciled to him. That would be quite right; but you must go further than that, for Christ says, If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee. It is much more easy to go to the man who has wronged you than to the one whom you have wronged. Yet the second is evidently the clearer duty, and should be attended to at once: neither can we expect the Lord to attend to us unless we attend to this duty.

Mat 5:25-26. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

There is nothing like ending disputes at once, before the rancor grows, and your adversary becomes determined to push you to extremes. Oh, for more of that spirit of yielding! You know how people say, If you tread on a worm: it will turn; but, brethren, a worm is not an example for a Christian, even if the poor wounded creature does turn toward you in its agony. If you turn, turn to kiss the hand that smites you, and to do good to them that evil entreat you.

Mat 5:27-28. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So that the unholy desire, the lascivious glance, everything that approximates towards licentiousness, is here condemned; and Christ is proved to be not the Abrogator of the law, but the Confirmer of it. See how he shows that the commandment is exceedingly broad, wide as the canopy of heaven, all-embracing. How sternly it condemns us all, and how well it becomes us to fall down at the feet of the God of infinite mercy, and seek his forgiveness.

Tis mercy mercy we implore,

We would thy pity move;

Thy grace is an exhaustless store,

And thou thyself art Love.

Mat 5:29-30. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Give up the dearest, choicest, and apparently most needful thing, if it leads you into sin. The same rule that bids you avoid sin, bids you also avoid all that leads to sin. If adultery be forbidden, so also is that glance with which the sin usually begins. We are to turn away our eyes from beholding that which leads towards sin, and we are not to touch or taste that which would readily lead us into iniquity. Oh, that we had sufficient decision of character to make short work of everything which tends towards evil! Many persons, when their right eye offends them, put a green shade over it; and when their right hand offends them, they tie it up in a sling. But that is not obeying the command of Christ. He charges you to get rid of everything that would lead you wrong; make a clean sweep of it. You are wrong enough at your best, so do not permit anything to appertain to you, which would lead you still further astray,

Mat 5:31-32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,

Which is a sufficient and justifiable reason for divorce,

Mat 5:32. Causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced

That is to say, who is divorced without sufficient cause,

Mat 5:32. Committeth adultery.

Among the Jews, divorce was the easiest thing in the world. A man might, in a fit, utter words which would divorce his wife. The Saviour abolished that evil once for all, and made divorce a crime, as it always is saving for the cause of fornication.

Mat 5:33-34. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all:-

Christ thus abolishes the whole system of swearing, as it ought to be abolished in every place; and he goes on to show that he did not mean merely unclean, false oaths, or oaths taken as some men take them blasphemously, but every form and kind of oath, for he says, Swear not at all

Mat 5:34-37. Neither by heaven; for it is Gods throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

If words mean anything, this command of Christ is an utter abolishment of oaths taken before magistrates as well as everywhere else. I can make nothing else out of it; indeed, it must mean that, because Christ contrasts his teaching with that of former ages: It hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all. A man who cannot be believed upon his word certainly cannot be believed upon his oath; and, usually, when a man tells a lie, the next thing he does is to swear to it. When Peter denied his Master, the next thing he did was to curse and to swear, because he thought it likely that they would not imagine that he was a follower of Christ if he did curse and swear; so he gave that as a pretty clear proof that he had not been with Christ, and was not one of his disciples. Alas, that we should need anything beside Yea, yea, and Nay, nay!

Mat 5:38-43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. There are many who do the second of those two things, but not the first.

Mat 5:44-45. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

God constantly does that which many people regard almost as a crime, namely, doing good to the undeserving. It is the very genius of Christianity to help those who are utterly unworthy, to be kind and generous even to those who are pretty certain to repay us with ingratitude and malice.

Mat 5:46-48. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Stretch towards the highest conceivable standard, and be not satisfied till you reach it.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Mat 5:17. , Do not think) An elliptical mode of speech by Metonomy of the Consequent.[182] Do not think, fear, hope, that I am a teacher like those teachers to whom you have been accustomed, and that I, like them, shall set aside the law. He who thinks the former, thinks also the latter.-, I have come) Our Lord, therefore, existed before He came upon earth, which is implied also in ch. Mat 8:10, by , I have found.-, to destroy, to abrogate) To the compound verb, , to unloose or dissolve, is opposed , to fulfil; to the simple verb , to loose, combined with , to teach, is opposed , to do, or perform, joined with the same verb : from which the relative force of the words appears; those are said of the whole law, these of the separate precepts. , to unloose, and , to loose, both signify to render void.[183]- , the law or the prophets) Many of the Jews esteemed the prophets less than the law. They are joined also in ch. Mat 7:12.-, to fulfil) By My deeds and words, to effect that all things should be fulfilled which the law requires. See the conclusion of the next verse.[184] The Rabbins acknowledge that it is a sign of the Messiah to fulfil the whole law.

[182] The consequent-that I, like them, shall set aside the law: the antecedent-that I am a teacher like those to whom you are accustomed.-(I. B.)

[183] The Latin verb solvo, which is used in this passage, represents the Greek far more fully and accurately than any English word can. is also more adequately rendered by dissolvo than by any English word.-(I. B.)

[184] He was not the founder of a new law; but, by His own obedience, Himself fulfilled the law, and showed how it should be fulfilled by His disciples.-Vers. Germ.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 5:17-20

6. JESUS’ RELATION TO THE LAW OF MOSES

Mat 5:17-20

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets.-Jesus had been proclaiming a new kingdom of God, and had laid down some of its laws and principles; the Jewish nation had been ordained of God; its laws were given by him. Jesus now explains his relation to the law of the Jewish nation; he is to explain the relation of this new kingdom with its laws and principles to the old kingdom and its laws. The Pharisees had already (Mar 2:24; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18) accused Jesus of disregarding the law of Moses. Jesus answers their accusation in attitude if not in words to him for what he was doing and teaching. He did not come “to destroy”; here the word “destroy” means “to loosen down, to dissolve, undo”; he did not come to abrogate or set aside the law and the prophets. “The law or the prophets” here not merely means the Pentateuch or the prophets as listed in the Old Testament scriptures, but all for which the law and the prophets stood. The law included the ritualistic, civil, and moral codes of Israel, while the prophets included the prediction and commands which were given through the prophets.

I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.-“To destroy” is put in contrast with “to fulfil.” Jesus, instead of destroying the law, fulfilled it; instead of setting aside the prophets, he fulfilled their predictions. He fulfilled the law theoretically by unfolding its deep spiritual significance; he fulfilled it practically in his holy life;ceremonially, he fulfilled it by becoming the antitype of all its types and shadows. “Not to destroy, but to fulfil” is a general principle which clearly describes Jesus’ attitude toward the law. The Jews were to see in Jesus the end of the law. Jesus came to fulfill all of the types of the law and all the unfulfilled predictions of the prophets; Jesus and his kingdom, with all that pertains to them, constitute the object and fulfillment of all the prophets.

18 Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.-Here Jesus declares again his attitude toward the law and the prophets. “Till heaven and earth pass away” is another way of saying that “the law or the prophets” shall not pass away until all are fulfilled in the minutest detail. The law shall last till the new order of things is brought into force; the prophets shall stand until their predictions become history. “Jot” is for the Hebrew letter “jod,” which is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. “Tittle” is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. The Jews were familiar with the expression used by Jesus. Everything else may change, but the word of God expressed by either “the law” or “the prophets” must stand until it has accomplished that which God intended. All shall stand “till all things be accomplished.” Some make a distinction between “fulfilled” and “accomplished”; they are not the same words in the original. Jesus meant to say that the law should remain in full force until it shall have accomplished that which God intended it to accomplish. The law seems to have had a twofold termination, a negative and a positive; negatively, it terminated with the old Jewish nation; positively, it is realized in the new and spiritual kingdom, which Jesus inaugurated.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments.-The Greek word here for “break” is generally translated “loose” and carries with it the idea of freeing from restraints, as in Mar 1:7; Luk 13:15; Luk 19:30-31; Joh 11:44; the idea seems to be that anyone who should loosen the authority or obligation of even the “least commandments” should be condemned; not the one who would abrogate or destroy the commandment, but the one who should violate it by loosening its obligations on anyone. The one who should do this should be called “least in the kingdom of heaven.” The man who would break what he considered one of the least commandments of God under one dispensation would be proportionately disobedient under another dispensation, and hence would sustain the wrong attitude toward the authority of God. “Least” may refer to the same as “one jot or one tittle” in verse eighteen; it means that no one has authority to violate in the minutest detail any of the commands of God.

But whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.-Jesus here puts doing before teaching; this is the proper order; these are the two great things one can do; he can keep all of God’s commandments and teach others to keep them, or he can disobey them himself and encourage others to disobey them. To relax the obligation of law either by precept or example is not the way to attain eminence in piety ourselves, or to promote it in others. It is bad to do wrong, but it is worse if in addition we teach others to do wrong. The one who breaks the commandment of God will be held in contempt by all the loyal subjects of the kingdom of God, but one who obeys the commandments of God shall be held in honor by the ones who are loyal subjects of his kingdom.

[The one who breaks one of the commandments of God is out of harmony with God. Harmony with God is heaven , discord with God is hell. The world was once in harmony with God; it was an outer court of heaven-the home of peace and joy-in which God dwelt and walked in the cool of the day as the companion of man, and in which man was immortal. The devil turned man from obedience to God, breathed into the world the spirit of discord and strife, changed the world into an antechamber of hell, and it became a charnel house of death and ruin. This was brought about by man’s breaking the commandments of God.]

[If one sets aside or rejects one of the least commandments of God, and so teaches men, he will be rejected as the least and most unworthy of those in the kingdom, as such will be cast out into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth; but he who shall do and teach all these commandments shall be great in the kingdom of heaven. This breaking of the commandment seems to be willful, since connected with it was the teaching of others to set aside the law. It means the same that James meant when he said, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.” (Jas 2:10.) Our fidelity to God is tested as easily in literal things as in great ones; rather, nothing is little where God’s authority is at stake.]

20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.-Here Jesus puts his authority to the fore and declares that the righteousness of the citizens of his kingdom must exceed even the righteousness that is claimed by the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were the leaders and teachers of the Pharisaic sect; they were an order known as “scribes,” or writers or teachers of the law, who devoted themselves to the study of the law, and became the recognized authorities in all matters connected with the law. The righteousness of “the scribes and Pharisees” was in general artificial, outward, and unreal; they professed to be exceedingly righteous, but were hypocrites. Jesus does not mean to say that they were as righteous as they professed to be; he knew them to be hypocrites.

The disciples of Jesus are to get a high conception of the righteousness that Jesus required of his disciples; their righteousness must “exceed” the professed righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The righteousness of the disciples of Jesus must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, because theirs was outward, but the disciples must have spiritual righteousness; it must grow out of love to God and to man and not be a mere boasted self-righteousness; it must be a true moral righteousness and not a ceremonial one.

Ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.-In no sense or by no means can they enter “the kingdom of heaven,” if their righteousness does not exceed the professed righteousness of those who had great repute for their sanctity. They are not excluded arbitrarily, but by the very nature of the kingdom and the principles on which it is conducted. The righteousness of the Pharisees, if extended to every person in the world, would not bring the blessings of God upon all or constitute the kingdom of heaven on earth; the righteousness of Jesus is the standard of righteousness for all who enter the kingdom of heaven.

[The fault with the righteousness of the Pharisees was: it was formal, and not from the heart; it consisted in external acts to be seen of men. The Pharisees made long, formal prayers, but would devour widows’ houses. The righteousness of Christians must be greater than theirs, in that it must be genuine, from the heart, and must be in secret as well as public.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

New Heart Righteousness

Mat 5:17-26

Our Lords mission was not to destroy but to construct. As noon fulfils dawn, and summer, spring; as manhood fulfils childhood and the perfect picture, the rude sketch, so does Jesus gather up, realize and make possible the highest ideals ever inspired in human hearts or written by Gods Spirit on the page of inspiration.

Under the terms, the law and the prophets, our Lord includes the entire range of the Old Testament. See Luk 24:44; Act 13:15. Nothing could exceed our Lords reverence for the oracles of God. He repeatedly refers to them as of divine authority. His words and teachings are the endorsement of the venerable Scriptures which had nourished His people, preparing them for His further instruction. See Rom 3:31; Rom 8:4.

The local magistrates court had the power of life and death, which was inflicted by beheading; the Sanhedrin executed by stoning; the outrageous criminal was cast out to Gehenna, Mat 5:22. In Christs kingdom unwarranted anger is equivalent to the first, contempt to the second, and vehement passion to the third. To allow hate to smolder is a capital offence.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Our King honours his Father’s Law

He took care to revise and reform the laws of men; but the law of God he established and confirmed.

Mat 5:17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, hut to fulfil.

The Old Testament stands in all its parts, both as to “the law and the prophets,,” The Lord Jesus knew nothing of “destructive criticism.” He establishes in its deepest sense all that is written in Holy Scripture, and puts a new fulness into it. This ho says before he proceeds to make remarks upon the sayings of men of old time. He is himself the fulfilment and substance of the types, and prophecies, and commands of the law.

Mat 5:18. 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.

Not a syllable is to become effete. Even to the smallest letters, the dot of every “i”, and the crossing of every “t”, the law will outlast the creation. The Old Testament is as sacredly guarded as the New. “The Word of the Lord endureth for ever.” Modern critics have set themselves an impossible task in their endeavour to get rid of the inspiration of the whole sacred volume, or of this book, or that chapter, or that verse; for the whole shall come forth of their furnace as silver purified seven times.

Mat 5:19. 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.

Our King has not come to abrogate the law, but to confirm and reassert it. His commands are eternal; and if any of the teachers of it should through error break his law, and teach that its least command is nullified, they will lose rank, and subside into the lowest place. The peerage of his kingdom is ordered according to obedience. Not birth, knowledge, or success will make a man great; but humble and precise obedience, both in word and in deed. “Whosoever shall do and teach,” he is the man who “shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’17 Hence the Lord Jesus does not set up a milder law, nor will he allow any one of his servants to presume to do so. Our King fulfils the ancient law, and his Spirit works in us to will and to do of God’s good pleasure as set forth in the immutable statutes of righteousness.

Lord, make me of this thy kingdom a right loyal subject, and may I both “do and teach “according to thy Word! Whether I am little or great on earth, make me great in obedience to thee.

Mat 5:20. 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.

We cannot even “enter the kingdom “and begin to be the Lord’s, without going beyond the foremost of the world’s religionists. Believers are not to be worse in conduct, but far better than the most precise legalists. In heart, and even in act, we are to be superior to the law-writers, and the law-boasters. The kingdom is not for rebels, but for the exactly obedient. It not only requires of us holiness, reverence, integrity, and purity, but it works all these in our hearts and lives. The gospel does not give us outward liberty to sin because of the superior excellence of a supposed inner sanctity; but the rather it produces outward sanctity through working in our inmost soul a glorious freedom in the law of the Lord.

What a king we have in Jesus! What manner of persons ought we to be who avow ourselves to be in his holy kingdom! How conservative ought we to be of our Father’s revealed will! How determined to allow no trifling with the law and the prophets!

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

I am not come to destroy

Christ’s relation to the law of Moses may be thus summarized:

(1) He was made under the law Gal 4:4.

(2) He lived in perfect obedience to the law Joh 8:46; Mat 17:5; 1Pe 2:21-23.

(3) he was a minister of the law to the Jews, clearing it from rabbinical sophistries, enforcing it in all its pitiless severity upon those who professed to obey it (e.g.) Luk 10:25-37 but confirming the promises made to the fathers under the Mosaic Covenant Rom 15:8.

(4) He fulfilled the types of the law by His holy life and sacrificial death Heb 9:11-26.

(5) He bore, vicariously, the curse of the law that the Abrahamic Covenant might avail all who believe Gal 3:13; Gal 3:14.

(6) He brought out by His redemption all who believe from the place of servants under the law into the place of sons Gal 4:1-7.

(7) He mediated by His blood the New Covenant of assurance and grace in which all believers stand Rom 5:2; Heb 8:6-13 so establishing the “law of Christ” Gal 6:2 with its precepts of higher exaltation made possible by the indwelling Spirit.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

A Conservative Reformer

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.Mat 5:17.

Christ, the new Prophet and Teacher, has gone up upon the Mount and is about to speak to the people. He is sitting down to preach. The villages will be empty soon, for the news has gone abroad and great excitement has seized the people. What new thing will He tell them? What daring message is this Revolutionary about to give them? They throng the slopes; they hang upon His words; there is the silence of a great expectation upon the multitude. And Christ begins to preach. What is His subject? What is He saying?

Not a syllable about what they called religion, law, and Sabbath, and temple worship, and fasts; simply the Beatitudes, the inner virtues of the heart, the duty to show light. He moves the conscience of the people by bringing them straight into the presence of their Father. He recalls them to the consciousness of God, whom they are forgetting. His words move them as nothing had ever moved them before. They feel for an instant the pressure and the nearness of God Himself. At such a moment, in presence of a higher religion, what to them were law, and ceremonial, and priest? The murmur goes round that old things have passed away; it is a new world; away with remnants of exploded superstition and bygone forms of worship! It is to meet this inarticulate thought that Christ stops and says, Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. There is to be entire continuity with the past.

With absolute decisiveness He states the purpose of His coming. He knows the meaning of His own work, which so few of us do, and it is safe to take His own account of what He intends, as we so seldom do. His opening declaration is singularly composed of blended humility and majesty. Its humility lies in His placing Himself, as it were, in line with previous messengers, and representing Himself as carrying on the sequence of Divine revelation. It would not have been humble for anybody but Him to say that, but it was so for Him. Its majesty lies in His claim to fulfil all former utterances from God.

My love of, and trust in, our Lord, after I had seen Him in a vision, began to grow, for my converse with Him was so continual. I saw that, though He was God, He was man also; that He is not surprised at the frailties of men, that He understands our miserable nature, liable to fall continually, because of the first sin, for the reparation of which He had come. I could speak to Him as to a friend, though He is my Lord. O my Lord! O my King! who can describe Thy Majesty? It is impossible not to see that Thou art Thyself the great Ruler of all, that the beholding of Thy Majesty fills men with awe. But I am filled with greater awe, O my Lord, when I consider Thy humility, and the love Thou hast for such as I am. We can converse and speak with Thee about everything whenever we will; and when we lose our first fear and awe at the vision of Thy Majesty, we have a greater dread of offending Thee,not arising out of the fear of punishment, O my Lord, for that is as nothing in comparison with the loss of Thee!1 [Note: The Life of St. Teresa of Jesus (trans. by D. Lewis), 367.]

Christ the Revolutionary

After the multitude had heard those wonderful teachings contained in the Beatitudes, most of which were new and startling, one might well suppose that the question uppermost in every heart would be, Are those laws and institutions which have lasted for two thousand years now to undergo complete changeare they to be superseded by those precepts which we have now just heard propounded by this Great Teacher, who seems to be the Founder of an entirely new law; for what Jewish Rabbi ever gave utterance to such precepts as the proclaiming of blessedness to the poor in spirit, the meek, the humble, the mourning, the persecuted? In the text the Saviour corrects this view.

1. Think not, He says, that I came to destroy. It is noticeable at once that Christ uses a word for destroy which seems to be merely an echo of some confused popular sayings about the Messiah. It is indeed not easy to state clearly what is meant by destroying a law or a set of laws, still less easy to say what would be the meaning of destroying the prophets. Laws may no doubt be repealed, but it is not conceivable that any clearheaded man anticipated that the Messiah would repeal the Ten Commandments, or was going to forbid the Old Testament to be read. Strictly speaking, this is the only rational sense which attaches itself to the words. It is probable that Christ was here merely putting on one side a rough popular description of the rle which He was supposed to be going to play.

It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by fulfilling the law. He does not mean taking the written law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what He condemns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means rather, starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to completeness; working out the spirit of it; getting at the comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of that letter. These the Messiah sets forth as the essence of the revelation made by God through the Law and the Prophets. Through them He has revealed His will, and it is impossible that His Son should attempt to pull down or undo this revelation of the Fathers will, or that His will, in the smallest particular, should fail of fulfilment. It is not the Law or the Prophets that Jesus proposes to abolish, but the traditional misinterpretations of these authorities. To destroy these misinterpretations is to open the way for the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets; and He thus substituted free development of spiritual character for servile obedience to oppressive rules.1 [Note: A. Plummer.]

2. To destroythat is the creed of the revolutionary. In the French Revolution, Robespierre and his confederates went so far as to obliterate the septennial division of time, insisting that the week should consist of ten rather than seven days. New names were affixed to the days, to the streets, and to the officials of the State. But it was not thus that Christ inaugurated His work. He answered the thoughts of His age, saying, Think not that I came to destroy. Every jot and tittle of the ancient code was dear to Him. Jesus was no iconoclast.

3. For there is nothing to be gained by destruction. There are men who think that the best means of heralding the new dawn is to fling a bomb into a crowd of harmless people. There are those who believe, with Bakunin, that the only way to regenerate society is to wipe it out by utter destruction, on the supposition that a new and better order will surely be evolved out of chaos. It never has been so, and it never can be so. Such methods can only delay the advance of progress. You can, indeed, cast out devils by Beelzebub. You cannot keep them out; only angels can do that. His kingdom shall not stand; for by fulfilment, not by destruction, the old passes into the new.

Carlyle could not reverence Voltaire, but he could not hate him. How could he hate a man who had fought manfully against injustice in high places, and had himself many a time in private done kind and generous actions? To Carlyle, Voltaire was no apostle charged with any divine message of positive truth. Even in his crusade against what he believed to be false, Voltaire was not animated with a high and noble indignation. He was simply an instrument of destruction, enjoying his work with the pleasure of some mocking imp, yet preparing the way for the tremendous conflagration which was impending. In the earlier part of his career Carlyle sympathized with and expected more from the distinctive functions of revolution than he was able to do after longer experience. I thought, he once said to me, that it was the abolition of rubbish. I find it has been only the kindling of a dunghill. The dry straw on the outside burns off; but the huge damp rotting mass remains where it was.1 [Note: J. A. Froude, Thomas Carlyle, 17951835, ii. 54.]

Think not (comp. Mat 3:9, Mat 10:34) that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. Such an expression implies that Christ knew that there was danger of the Jews thinking so, and possibly that some had actually said this of Him. The Pharisees would be sure to say it. He disregarded the oral tradition, which they held to be equal in authority to the written Law; and He interpreted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they did, according to the rigid letter. Above all, He spoke as if He Himself were an authority, independent of the Law. Even some of His own followers may have been perplexed, and have thought that He proposed to supersede the Law. They might suppose that it was the purpose of His mission simply to break down restraints, to lift from mens shoulders the duties which they felt as burdens. The law was full of commandments; the Prophets were full of rebukes and warnings. Might not the mild new Rabbi be welcomed as one come to break down the Law and the Prophets, and so lead the way to less exacting ways of life? This is the delusion which our Lord set Himself to crush. The gospel of the Kingdom was not a gospel of indulgence (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 15). He was not a fanatical revolutionary, but a Divine Restorer and Reformer.1 [Note: A. Plummer.]

Christ the Conserver

If Christ is not to destroy the law and the prophets, what then is He to do with this old faith of the Jews? How is He to treat this partial, this imperfect, faith which is already on the ground? He may do either of two things. He may destroy or He may preserve. With the most deliberate wisdom He chooses one method and rejects the other. To the conservative, Christ comes with reassurance.

1. Nothing of the old that is valuable or strong shall be lost. Examine the new, and we shall find the old at the heart of it. Study the channel where the new current is running and we shall find the water of the old channel there. That is a very suggestive fact; it appears everywhere. Study the real forward movement of thought and we shall find it true. There will always be petty disturbances, offshoots here and there which have no reference to the real advance of thought; they may cut loose from the old truth, but they are short-lived and passing. In the main movements, down the main stream, the old is never lost.

An American missionary in Japan, Dr. S. L. Gulick, writes thus: The Christian preacher should constantly take the ground that every good teaching in the native faith is a gift of God the Father of all men, and is a preparation for the coming of His fuller revelation in Jesus Christ. We should show our real and deep respect for the heathen religions; we should take off our hats at their shrines, as we expect them to do in our churches. We should ever insist that Christianity does not come to destroy anything that is good or true in the native faiths, but rather to stimulate, to strengthen, and fulfil itto give it life and real energy. The trouble with the native religions is not that they possess no truth, but that the truth they have is so mixed up with folly and superstition that it is lost; it has no powerno life-giving energy.1 [Note: World Missionary Conference, 1910: Report of Commission IV., 95.]

2. Nothing is to be remittedno rule of purity, no necessity of righteousness. How can it be, when we are brought, by entering this Kingdom, nearer to God, who must be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity? No slackening of the spiritual code is possible, is conceivable. To suppose this is to mistake all the meaning of mercy, all the purpose of pardon. Let no one make such a disastrous blunder. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

Think not that I will dispense with any of the rules of morality, prescribed by Moses, and explained by the prophets, is Blairs rendering of this verse. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil (both the law and the prophets): To fulfil, that is, to render full obedience to those great commandments (see Mat 5:19) which it is the pre-eminent aim of the Scriptures to inculcate and enforce. Jesus came to render this full obedience in His own person, and also to secure that it should be rendered increasingly, and ever increasingly, in the persons of His disciples, the subjects of His Kingdom. It is this latter idea that was prominently in His mind on the present occasion, as is evident from the 19th and 20th verses. He came, not to introduce licence and licentiousness into His Kingdom, but to establish holiness. Some expositors suppose that the word fulfil means to supplement or perfect; and they imagine that Christ is here referring to His legislative authority. But such an interpretation of the term is at variance with Mat 5:18-19, and with its use in kindred passages, such as Rom 13:8, Gal 5:14. Theophylact, among other interpretations, says that Christ fulfilled the law as a painter fills up the sketch of his picture. But it is a different full-filling that is referred to. When commandments are addressed to us, they present, as it were, empty vessels of duty, which our obedience is to fill full.2 [Note: J. Morison.]

3. The Old Testament is not as it were the scaffolding necessary for the erection of the Christian Church, needing to be taken down in order that the full symmetry and beauty of the building may be seen, and only to be had recourse to from time to time when repairs are needed. It is an integral part of the structure. Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone. How could it be otherwise? we ask with reverence. It was God who spoke through the prophets, it is God who speaks in a Son. Every Divine word must be of eternal import. Gods truth does not vary; there is no mutability of purpose in the eternal present of the Divine mind.

The Old Testament leads us up to Christ, and Christ takes it and puts it back into our hands as a completed whole. He bids us study it as fulfilled in him, and put ourselves to school with every part of it. The old lesson-book is not to be thrown away or kept as an archological curiosity; it is to be re-studied in this fresh light of further knowledge.

The of the law and the prophets is their fulfilment by the re-establishment of their absolute meaning, so that now nothing more is wanting to what they ought to be in accordance with the Divine ideas which lie at the foundation of their commands. It is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited. Luther well says: Christ is speaking of the fulfilment, and so deals with doctrines, in like manner as He calls destroying a not acting with works against the law, but a breaking off from the law with the doctrine. The fulfilling is showing the right kernel and understanding, that they may learn what the law is and desires to have. The Apostle Paul worked quite in the sense of our passage; his writings are full of the fulfilment of the law in the sense in which Christ means it; and his doctrine of its abrogation refers only to its validity for justification to the exclusion of faith. Paul did not advance beyond this declaration, but he applied his right understanding boldly and freely, and in so doing the breaking up of the old form by the new spirit could not but necessarily begin, as Jesus Himself clearly recognized (cf. Mat 9:16; Joh 4:21; Joh 4:23 f.) and set forth to those who believed in His own person and His completed righteousness. But even in this self-representation of Christ the new principle is not severed from the Old Testament piety, but is the highest fulfilment of the latter, its anti-typical consummation, its realized ideal. Christianity itself is in so far a law.1 [Note: H. A. W. Meyer.]

III

Christ the Fulfiller

Continuity with the old is part of Christs teaching. He came to conserve. But He came to do more than thatinfinitely more than that. He came also to fulfil. To fulfil. Do we not often limit the idea of fulfilment to what are called the typical and prophetic parts of the Old Testament, and regard the fulfilment as just the counterpart of the type or prediction, as the reality of which only the reflection had hitherto been visible? But fulfilment is far more than this. It is the completion of what was before imperfect; it is the realization of what was shadowy; it is the development of what was rudimentary; it is the union and reconciliation of what was isolated and disconnected; it is the full growth from the antecedent germ.

1. Christ fulfilled the law.The law () is not to be restricted here to the Decalogue; it is to be taken in its more extended signification as denoting the entire law. The moral law was an expression of the mind of God, of Gods moral naturea revelation, or rather expansion, of the law of nature which He originally wrote in the heart of man. Sin blinded men to such an extent that it was necessary to have the law promulgated; hence God wrote it on two tables of stone. And it stood as a public warning against sin, and as a standard of moral duty. It disclosed wants that it was incapable of satisfying, it aggravated the evil it could not heal; and, compelling men to see their own weakness, it taught them to look forward to One who would be capable of fulfilling all its demands. This is the fulfilling of which Christ speaks, the completion of that which for two thousand years had been imperfect and ineffectual. Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets, says Bishop Wordsworth, by obedience, by accomplishment of types, ceremonies, rites, and prophecies, and by explaining, spiritualizing, elevating, enlarging, and perfecting the moral law, by writing it on the heart, and by giving grace to obey it, as well as an example of obedience by taking away its curse; and by the doctrine of free justification by faith in Himself, which the law prefigured and anticipated, but could not give.

Let us look shortly at three main ways in which Christ fulfilled the law.

(1) Christ fulfilled the law by meeting its requirements.From first to last the life of our Lord was the fulfilment, in spirit and letter, of the ancient ritual. As a son of the law, He obeyed the initial rite of Judaism on the eighth day after birth, and there was no item of the law, even to the dots of the is or the crossing of the ts, which He omitted or slurred. He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. What could be only partially true of His Apostle was literally true of the Lord: as touching the righteousness which is of the law, He was found blameless. Our Lord fulfilled the ceremonial law and fulfilled the moral law, since He was Jesus Christ the Righteous. He honoured the law by His obedience even to death, atoning for its breach and violation by mankind, and giving, through His unknown sufferings an answer to its just dues and demands, such as could not have been afforded though the whole race had been mulcted to the uttermost farthing of penal consequences. His fulfilment, therefore, was not for Himself alone, but as the second Adam, the representative man, and for us all.

(2) Christ fulfilled the law by spiritualizing it.Were we to enter a room in the early morning where a company were sitting or drowsing, with sickly hue, by the dull glimmer of candles, which never had given a sufficient light, and were now guttering, neglected, and burning down to the socket, we would not think we were destroying the light by flinging open the casement, and letting in the clear sunshine upon them. We would, on the contrary, feel that by this process alone could they get the full light which they needed. Now, much in the same way the Lord Jesus came into the world, and found there, as it were, the old seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle still burning, though dim and low, for it was not well trimmed in those neglectful years; found there the old law of Moses, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, still recognized, though a good deal obscured by traditions; and what He did was to purify and spiritualize the law. He opened upon it the windows of His spirit, illumining its every part, showing its perfection and comprehensiveness. Other teachers had taken the law, the law as it stood, and had so dealt with it as to present it in all its bareness and outwardness, its narrowness and burdensomeness; Jesus Christ took the same law, the law as it stood, but He so dealt with it as to present it in all its fulness and inwardness, its breadth and goodness.

(3) Christ fulfilled the law by generalizing it.He broke down all class distinctions in morality. Heathenism divided mankind into two classes, the learned and the ignorant, and between these two it erected a high partition wall. These distinctions, though discountenanced in Jewish law, were admitted in Jewish practice. This people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Christ boldly demolished the wall of partition built high and broad between the cultured and the illiterate. He entered the granary of Divine truth, took out the golden grain, and scattered it broadcast on the face of the common earth. The truths of the favoured few He made the common property of the uncultured many. He alone of all His contemporaries or predecessors perceived the intrinsic worth and vast possibilities of the human soul.

Christ also broke down all national distinctions in morality. The intense nationalism of the Jews in the time of the Saviour is proverbial; they surrounded sea and land to make one proselyte. Instead of trying to make Judaism commensurate with the world, they tried to make the world commensurate with Judaism. However, Jewish morality here, as in every other instance, was superior to contemporaneous pagan morality. Notwithstanding its intense nationalism, Judaism always inculcated kindness to strangers. The stranger within thy gatesthe recurrence of that phrase in the Mosaic ethics lifts them above all other ancient ethics whatever. What Moses only began, Jesus Christ beautifully perfected. He made morality absolutely human. It is no longer Greek under obligation to Greek, but man under obligation to man. What the Greek poet only momentarily conceived, Jesus Christ has converted into a powerful element in modern civilizationI also am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me.

Jesus felt Himself called of God to a lot within the chosen people, because He was Himself the culmination of the revelation made to them in the past. As that revelation had been through a special nation, so it had to complete itself there. That He Himself lived within the limits of Judaism was not a confession that He was merely the crown of a national or racial faith, but rather the vindication of the older religion as an inherent part of a world-revelation. It was not the lowering of His message to the particularism of the Jewish religion, but the elevation of the latter into a universal significance first fully revealed in Him. The problem which Jesus had to solve was not the destruction of Judaism, but its consummation, the liberation of its spiritual content from the restrictions of its form. That He should have indicated the supersession of Jewish privilege is not at all unlikely; but manifestly this could not be His usual or characteristic tone, if He were to implant in Jewish minds the germs of His wider faith. He had largely to put Himself in their place, and work through the forms of their thought. Primarily, therefore, His universalism had to be implicit. He did not so much give them new religious terms as fill the old terms with a new meaning and reference. Hence it was only after He had at least partly accomplished this in the case of a chosen circle of followers, and attached them unalterably to Himself, that He spoke openly and frequently of the larger issues of His gospel, and the ingathering of the nations. Jesus saw that if He were to conserve the eternal element in the Jewish religion, He must work within its lines. He broke, indeed, with the existing authorities, but only because He maintained that they misrepresented it. The principle on which He acted, as regards both the teaching of His ministry and the subsequent development of His Church, was to sow germinal truths which could come to maturity only through the reaction of individual thought, and the enlarging of experience. Therefore, while He did not leave the disciples wholly without plain announcements of the universality of His mission, He did not so emphasize this as to impair their confidence in the unity and continuity of the old and the new faiths.1 [Note: D. W. Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience, 418.]

2. Christ fulfilled the prophets.We are familiar with the idea of the fulfilment of prophecy, though that idea is often unduly limited. Prophecy is not inverted history: it was not a reflection beforehand by which men could foreknow what was to come: it was but as the seed out of which plant and flower and fruit were to be developed. Prophecy kept mens eyes fixed upon the future; it created a sense of need, it stirred deep and earnest longings; it stimulated hope. And then the fulfilment gathered into one unimagined reality all the various lines of thought and longing and hope, in a completeness far transcending all anticipation. The fulfilment could not have been conjectured from the prophecy, but it answers to it, and shows the working of the one Divine purpose, unhasting, unresting, to its final goal of mans redemption.

The prophets great teachings were all centred round the figure of the Deliverer of the future. There were three things concerning the person and work of this Messiah upon which they laid special emphasis.

(1) The Messiah was to be humble in the circumstances of His life.His birthplace, His lowly outward condition, His having no visible grandeur to attract the worlds eye, had all been noted by the pen of inspiration. If He had been born in any other place than Bethlehem, if He had appeared as a rich Prince instead of being the son of a poor family, there would have been reason to say that the words of Scripture were against Him; for it was prophesied regarding Him, Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Christian religion beginneth not at the highest, as other religions do, but at the lowest. It will have us to climb up by Jacobs ladder, whereupon God Himself leaneth, whose feet touch the very earth, hard by the head of Jacob. Run straight to the manger, and embrace this Infant, the Virgins little babe, in thine arms; and behold Him as He was born, nursed, grew up, was conversant amongst men; teaching; dying; rising again; ascending up above all the heavens, and having power over all things. This sight and contemplation will keep thee in the right way, that thou mayest follow whither Christ hath gone.1 [Note: Luther, Commentary on the Galatians, 102.]

(2) But the Messiah was to be great in His person.He was to be of high origin, though He was to take up a lowly position on earth. It was said of Him by one of the prophets, His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. These words intimated that He who was afterwards to appear in human nature for the deliverance of His people had lived from the beginning, from eternity. The prophet Isaiah had also said with reference to Him, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Jews took great offence, we read, because Jesus, being a man, called Himself the Son of God. But did not the Scriptures, which they professed to follow, speak of the Messiah as both God and man? If He had claimed less He would not have been the Deliverer promised to their fathers. And were the actions of Jesus inconsistent with His high claim? When He gave sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf, and speech to the dumb, and life to the dead by a word, did He not show that He indeed was what the prophet Isaiah had said the Messiah at His coming should be, The Mighty God?1 [Note: G. S. Smith, Victory Over Sin and Death, 21.]

(3) He was also to accomplish a matchless work.He was to bruise the head of the serpent; or, as this first announcement is explained again and again in the prophecies which follow, and particularly in the prophecies of Daniel, He was to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. He was to take away the sins of men which separated them from God, to put an end to the commission of sin, and to bring in the reign of righteousness for ever. He was in consequence called by the prophets in other places the Lord our righteousness. Jesus declared when He was upon the earth that this was to be the great purpose of His mission. The Son of man, He said, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. He came to take away all burdens and all troubles by taking away sin, which is the cause of them all. Come unto me, He said, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And with reference to all that come unto Him, He says, I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.

In St. Paul, Christ is the Deliverer from sins in the past; He is the Defender against sins in the future. Gods love in Christ is emphatically that which delivers the wretched man, beaten in all his endeavours to free himself from the body of this death of sin: it is that which has done through Christ what the law could not do, enabled the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in His redeemed. Over St. Pauls mind there ever seems to be resting the shadow of the memory of the past; he remembers how wrong he once went, what a terrible mistake he made. And he remembers how, not by any reflection, not by any study of his own, but by the direct influence of Christ Himself, he first learned how fearfully wrong he was. Hence throughout his life there is present to him a sense of his own weakness. Yet while these thoughts sometimes come across him, and make him more eagerly watchful over all that he does, nothing can shake his firm persuasion that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord. To him Christ is emphatically the power which wipes out the past, and which upholds the soul, the power which alone can preserve us blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose strength is made perfect in our weakness, who shall one day change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.1 [Note: Archbishop Temple.]

A Conservative Reformer

Literature

Bellars (W.), Our Inheritance, 128.

Campbell (L.), The Christian Ideal, 236.

Chadwick (W. E.), SocialRelationships, 91.

Dawson (G.), Three Books of God, 58.

Drummond (R. J.), Faiths Certainties, 41.

Holland (H. S.), Pleas and Claims, 292.

Jones (J. C.), Studies in the Gospel accrding to Matthew, 111.

Lyttelton (E.), Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 125.

McAfee (C. B.), Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, 55.

Maclaren (A.), Expositions: St. Matthew i.viii., 199.

Matheson (G.), Rests by the River, 147.

Matheson (G.), Thoughts for Lifes Journey, 51.

Matthew (J.), The Law of Jehovah, 205.

Meyer (F. B.), The Directory of the Devout Life, 47.

Morison (J.), A Practical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 67.

Owen (J. W.), Some Australian Sermons, 88.

Peabody (F. G.), Mornings in the College Chapel, i. 41.

Plummer (A.), An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 74.

Shuttleworth (H. C.), in Lombard Street in Lent, 199.

Smith (W. C.), The Sermon on the Mount, 52.

Southouse (A. J.), Men of the Beatitudes, 23.

Tait (A.), The Charter of Christianity, 129.

Thorne (H.), Notable Sayings of the Great Teacher, 54.

Watson (J.), The Inspiration of Our Faith, 147.

Wilson (J. M.), in The Anglican Pulpit of To-Day, 356.

British Weekly Pulpit, iii. 468 (A. F. Kirkpatrick).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

to destroy the law: Luk 16:17, Joh 8:5, Act 6:13, Act 18:13, Act 21:28, Rom 3:31, Rom 10:4, Gal 3:17-24

but: Mat 3:15, Psa 40:6-8, Isa 42:21, Rom 8:4, Gal 4:4, Gal 4:5, Col 2:16, Col 2:17, Heb 10:3-12

Reciprocal: Mal 4:4 – the law Mat 1:22 – that Mat 8:4 – show Mat 11:13 – General Mat 15:4 – God Mar 7:13 – the word Mar 10:19 – knowest Rom 2:27 – if it fulfil 1Co 9:21 – not Gal 3:21 – the law Gal 3:24 – the law

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5:17

Jesus lived and completed his work on earth while the law of Moses was in force. He taught that men should respect and obey that law, yet he gave many instructions that were not specifically set forth in that system. That was because he was getting ready to bring into the world another system of laws that were to be different from the old. This opened the way for the critics to charge him with being opposed to the law of Moses. In answer to such erroneous notions he used the difference between destroying and fulfilling. He was not in the world for the first but for the second. The Old Testament writings had predicted that a son of David was to come into the world and give it a new religious law. Because of such predictions, the very things Jesus taught of a different character constituted a fulfilling of the law.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[Think not that I am come to destroy the law, etc.] I. It was the opinion of the nation concerning the Messias, that he would bring in a new law, but not at all to the prejudice or damage of Moses and the prophets: but that he would advance the Mosaic law to the very highest pitch, and would fulfil those things that were foretold by the prophets, and that according to the letter, even to the greatest pomp.

II. The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, snatch an occasion of cavilling against Christ; and readily objected that he was not the true Messias, because he abolished the doctrines of the traditions which they obtruded upon the people for Moses and the prophets.

III. He meets with this prejudice here and so onwards by many arguments, as namely, 1. That he abolished not the law when he abolished traditions; for therefore he came that he might fulfil the law. 2. That he asserts, that “not one iota shall perish from the law.” 3. That he brought in an observation of the law much more pure and excellent than the Pharisaical observation of it was: which he confirms even to the end of the chapter, explaining the law according to its genuine and spiritual sense.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:17. Think not. See above. The great Teacher addresses Himself to the thoughts of the audience before Him.

I came. This implies that He had a special mission; not as yet a direct avowal that He was the Messiah.

To destroy, to undo, or do away with. Christs mission not negative and destructive, but positive and constructive; Christianity is neither revolution nor restoration, but a new creation, which, however, conserves and perfects all that is good in the old.

The law or the prophets. The whole spiritual development of the Old Testament is meant. This Christ came to fulfil, to make perfect as doctrine and to exhibit perfectly in life. So that we need not limit law to the ceremonial law, or prophets to the Messianic predictions. Christ fulfils the law: (1) theoretically, by unfolding its deep spiritual significance, as in this sermon; (2) practically, in his holy life, a perfect pattern for imitation; (3) by realizing the types and shadows of the ceremonial law; (4) by redeeming us through His expiatory death from the penalty and curse of the broken law; (5) by enabling us, through His Holy Spirit, to fulfil the law in gratitude to Him and in living union with Him.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our Saviour here informs his followers, That he had no design to abrogate any part of the moral law, or to loose mankind from the least measure of their duty either towards God or man, but that he came to fulfil it:

1. By yielding a personal obedience to it.

2. By giving a fuller and stricter interpretation of it, than the Pharisess were wont to give; for they taught, that the law did only reach to the outward man, and restrain outward actions.

As if Christ had said, “Though I preach a more special doctrine than is contained even in the letter of the moral law, yet think not that I am come to destroy and dissolve the obligation of that law, for I came to fulfil the types and predictions of the prophets, and to give you the full sense and spiritual import of the moral law.”

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 5:17. Think not that I am come to destroy To abrogate, annul, or repeal, (which seems to be the meaning of the word , here,) the law or the prophets As your teachers do. It is manifest from the following discourse, that our Lord principally spake of the moral law, several of the precepts of which he afterward explains and vindicates from the corrupt glosses of the scribes and Pharisees. For, as to the ceremonial law, though he also came to fulfil it, as the great antitype in whom all the types of it had their accomplishment; yet he came to abrogate and repeal it, blotting out and nailing to his cross the hand-writing of ordinances, as the apostle speaks, Col 2:14. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil He fulfilled in himself all those predictions of the prophets which had been uttered Concerning the Messiah, and he explained, illustrated, and established the moral law, in its highest meaning, both by his life and doctrine; and by his merits and Spirit he provided, and still provides, for its being effectually fulfilled in and by his followers. Our Lord has taught us, that all the law and the prophets are comprehended in these two precepts, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c., and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Mat 22:40. St. Paul also informs us, that he who loves his neighbour as himself, hath fulfilled the law, Rom 13:8; and Gal 5:14, that all the law is fulfilled in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; this love of our neighbour being only found in those who first love God, and being closely connected with, and indeed never separated from, the love of God. Now our Lord was manifested in the flesh, and made a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, that he might give us such a demonstration of his love, and the love of the Father to us and all mankind, as might produce in us those returns of love to God and man, which God should be pleased to accept as the fulfilling of the law. Therefore we read, Rom 8:4, That God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

XLII.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

(A Mountain Plateau not far from Capernaum.)

Subdivision D.

RELATION OF MESSIANIC TEACHING TO

OLD TESTAMENT AND TRADITIONAL TEACHING.

aMATT. V. 17-48; cLUKE VI. 27-30, 32-36.

a17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [This verse constitutes a preface to the section of the sermon which follows it. It is intended to prevent a misconstruction of what he was about to say. Destroy is here used in antithesis, not with perpetuate, but with fulfill. To destroy the law would be more than to abrogate it, for it was both a system of statutes designed for the ends of government, and a system of types foreshadowing the kingdom of Christ. To destroy it, therefore, would be both to abrogate its statutes [235] and prevent the fulfillment of its types. The former, Jesus eventually did; the latter, he did not. As regards the prophets, the only way to destroy them would be to prevent the fulfillment of the predictions contained in them. Instead of coming to destroy either the law or the prophets, Jesus came to fulfill all the types of the former, and (eventually) all the unfulfilled predictions of the latter. He fulfills them partly in his own person, and partly by his administration of the affairs of his kingdom. The latter part of the process is still going on, and will be until the end of the world.] 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all things be accomplished. [The jot or yod answering to our letter i was the smallest of the Hebrew letters. The tittle was a little stroke of the pen, by which alone some of the Hebrew letters were distinguished from others like them. To put it in English, we distinguish the letter c from the letter e by the tittle inside of the latter. This passage not only teaches that the law was to remain in full force until fulfilled, but it shows the precise accuracy with which the law was given by God.] 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [Disobedience is a habit, and it is not easily laid aside. Hence he that is unfaithful in that which is little will also be unfaithful in that which is great. So also those who were disobedient and reckless under the Jewish dispensation would be inclined to act in like manner in the new, or Christian, dispensation: hence the warning. Not only shall God call such least, but men also shall eventually do likewise. Those who by a false system of interpretation, or an undue regard for the traditions of men, enervate or annul the obligations of Christ’s laws or ordinances, and teach others to do the same, shall be held in low esteem or contempt by the church or kingdom of God as fast as it comes to a knowledge [236] of the truth. Greatness in the kingdom of heaven is measured by conscientiousness in reference to its least commandments. Small Christians obey the great commandments, but only the large are careful about the least.] 20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. [Since the scribes and Pharisees were models of righteousness in their own sight and in that of the people, Jesus here laid down a very high ideal. Though one may now enter the kingdom of heaven having of himself far less righteousness than that of the Pharisees, yet he must attain righteousness superior to theirs, or he can not abide in the kingdom. A large portion of the sermon from this point on is a development of the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven in contrast with old dispensation righteousness and Pharisaic interpretation of it. The laws of Moses regulated civil conduct, and being state laws, they could only have regard to overt acts. But the laws of the kingdom of Christ are given to the individual, and regulate his inner spiritual condition, and the very initial motives of conduct; in it the spirit-feelings are all acts– 1Jo 3:15.] 21 Ye have heard [ Exo 20:13, Deu 5:17. The common people, for the most part, knew the law only by its public reading, and hence the exposition of the scribes which accompanied the readings shared in their estimation the very authority of Scripture itself.] that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger [shall be liable to] of the judgment; 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [an expression of contempt frequently used in rabbinical writings, but of uncertain derivation, so that it may mean “empty head” or “spit out;” i. e., heretic], shall be in danger of the council: and whosoever shall say, Thou fool [“‘Thou impious wretch;’ folly and impiety being equivalent with the Hebrews”–Bloomfield], shall be in [237] danger of hell fire. [We have here three degrees of criminality or offence as to the sin of anger: 1. Silent rage; 2. Railing speech; 3. Bitter reproach ( Psa 14:1). With these are associated respectively three different degrees of punishment. The law of Moses provided for the appointment of judges ( Deu 16:18), and Josephus informs us that in each city there were seven judges appointed (Ant. iv. 8, 14). This tribunal was known as the judgment, and by it the case of the manslayer was determined. Compare Num 35:15, Num 35:24, Num 35:25, Jos 20:4. And in determining his case this court might certify it for decision to the Sanhedrin, or they might themselves confine the man in of the cities of refuge, or order him to be stoned to death. The second punishment would be the result of a trial before the Sanhedrin or council. This chief court of the Jews sat at Jerusalem ( Deu 17:8-13), and common men stood in great awe of it. The third punishment passes beyond the pale of human jurisdiction. It is the final punishment–being cast into hell. The Scripture word for hell is derived from the name of a place in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, called the valley of Hinnom. It was a deep, narrow valley, lying southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek word Gehenna (which we translate hell) is first found applied to it in the Septuagint translation of Jos 18:16. (For the history of the valley, see the following passages of Scripture: Jos 15:8, 2Ch 28:3, 2Ch 33:6, Jer 7:31, Jer 19:1-5, 2Ki 23:1-14, 2Ch 34:4, 2Ch 34:5.) The only fire certainly known to have been kindled there was the fire in which children were sacrificed to the god Moloch. This worship was entirely destroyed by King Josiah, who polluted the entire valley so as to make it an unfit place even for heathen worship. Some commentators endeavor to make this third punishment a temporal one, and assert that fires were kept burning in the valley of Hinnom, and that as an extreme punishment the bodies of criminals were cast into those fires. But there is not the slightest authentic evidence that any fire was kept burning there; nor is there any evidence at all that casting a criminal into the [238] fire was ever employed by the Jews as a punishment. It was the fire of idolatrous worship in the offering of human sacrifice which had given the valley its bad name. This caused it to be associated in the mind of the Jews with sin and suffering, and led to the application of its name, in the Greek form of it, to the place of final and eternal punishment. When the conception of such a place as hell was formed, it was necessary to give it a name, and there was no word in the Jewish language more appropriate for the purpose than the name of this hideous valley. It is often used in the New Testament, and always denotes the place of final punishment ( Mat 10:28, Mat 18:9, Mat 23:33, Mar 9:43). We should note that while sin has stages, God takes note of it from its very first germination in the heart, and that a man’s soul is imperiled long before his feelings bear their fruitage of violence and murder.] 23 If therefore [having forbidden anger, Jesus now proceeds to lay down the course for reconciliation] thou art offering thy gift at the altar [that which was popularly esteemed the very highest act of worship], and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, 24; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. [Reconciliation takes precedence of all other duties, even of offerings made to God. A very important teaching in these days, when men, by corrupt practices, by extortionate combinations, and by grinding the face of the poor, accumulate millions of dollars and then attempt to placate God by bestowing a little of their pocket change upon colleges and missionary societies. God hears and heeds the voice of the unreconciled brethren, and the gift is bestowed upon the altar in vain. The offering of unclean hands is an abomination. The lesson teaches us to be reconciled with all who bear grudges against us, and says nothing as to whether their reasons are sufficient or insufficient, just or unjust. “It is enough to say, I have naught against him, and so justify myself”–Stier.] 25 Agree with thine adversary [opponent in a lawsuit] [239] quickly, while thou art with him in the way [on the road to the judge]; lest haply thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer [one answering somewhat to our sheriff], and thou be cast into prison. [“In this brief allegory one is supposed to have an adversary at law who has just cause against him, and who will certainly gain a verdict when the case comes into court. The plaintiff himself used to apprehend the defendant” (Bengel). The defendant is, therefore, advised to agree with this adversary while the two are alone on the way to the judge, and thus prevent a trial. Jesus still has in mind the preceding case of one who has given offence to his brother. Every such one is going to the final judgment, and will there be condemned unless he now becomes reconciled to his brother.] 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing. [This is the text on which the Roman Catholic Church has built its doctrine of purgatory, and one of those on which the Universalists build theirs of final restoration. But neither “prison” nor “till” necessarily point to ultimate deliverance. Compare 2Pe 2:4, Jud 1:6. The allusion here is of course to imprisonment for debt. In such a case the debtor was held until the debt was paid, either by himself or some friend. If it were not paid at all, he remained in prison until he died. In the case which this is made to represent, the offender would have let pass all opportunity to make reparation and no friend can make it for him; therefore, the last farthing will never be paid, and he must remain a prisoner forever. So far, therefore, from being a picture of hope, it is one which sets forth the inexorable rigor of divine justice against the hardened and impenitent sinner. It is intended to teach that men can not pay their debts to God, and therefore they had better obtain his forgiveness through faith during these days of grace. It exposes the vain hope of those who think that God will only lightly exact his debts. God knows only complete forgiveness or complete exaction. This is an action founded upon the perfection of his nature. The Greek word [240] translated “farthing,” is derived from the Latin “quadrans,” which equals the fourth part of a Roman As, a small copper or bronze coin which had become common in Palestine. The farthing was worth about one-fifth part of a cent.] 27 Ye have heard that it was said [ Exo 20:14, Deu 5:18], Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Here, as in reference to murder, Jesus legislates against the thought which lies back of the act. He cuts off sin at its lowest root. The essence of all vice is intention. Those who indulge in unchaste imaginations, desires and intentions are guilty before God– 2Pe 2:14.] 29 And if thy right eye [the organ of reception] causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee [these words indicate decision and determination, and suggest the conduct of a surgeon, who, to protect the rest of the body, unflinchingly severs the gangrened members]: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand [the instrument of outward action] causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell. [Jesus here emphasizes the earnestness with which men should seek a sinless life. To this the whole Scripture constrains us by the terrors of hell, and encourages us by the joys of heaven. The right eye and hand and foot were regarded as the most precious ( Zec 11:17, Exo 29:20), but it is better to lose the dearest thing in life than to lose one’s self. To be deprived of all earthly advantage than to be cast into hell. Of course the Saviour does not mean that we should apply this precept literally, since bodily mutilation will not cure sin which resides in the will and not in the organ of sense or action. A literal exaction of the demands of this precept would turn the church into a hospital. We should blind ourselves by taking care not to look with evil eyes; we should [241] maim ourselves by absolutely refusing to go to forbidden resorts, etc. “‘Mortify’ ( Col 3:5) is a similar expression”–Bengel.] 31 It is said also [ Deu 24:1, Deu 24:3], Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress [the mere fact of divorce did not make her an adulteress, but it brought her into a state of disgrace from which she invariably sought to free herself by contracting another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation drove her made her an adulteress]: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. [The law of divorce will be found at Deu 24:1-4. Jesus explains that this law was given by Moses on account of the hardness of the people’s heart; i. e., to prevent greater evils ( Mat 19:8). The law permitted the husband to put away the wife when he found “some unseemly thing in her.” But Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry again without committing adultery ( Mat 19:9). Such is Jesus’ modification of the Old Testament law, and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth. It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty part could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong. For further light on the subject, see Rom 7:1-3, 1Co 7:10-16, 1Co 7:39. It is much to be regretted that in many Protestant countries the civil authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority of Christ can take advantage of such legislation.] 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform [242] unto the Lord thine oaths [ Lev 19:12, Num 30:2, Deu 23:21]: 34 but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is the throne of God; 35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. [ Psa 48:2.] 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one. [It will be seen from the quotation given by Jesus that the law permitted oaths made unto the Lord. It was not the intention of Jesus to repeal this law. But the Jews, looking upon this law, construed it as giving them exemption from the binding effect of all other oaths. According to the their construction no oath was binding in which the sacred name of God did not directly occur. They therefore coined many other oaths to suit their purposes, which would add weight to their statements or promises, which, however, would not leave them guilty of being forsworn if they spoke untruthfully. But Jesus showed that all oaths were ultimately referable to God, and that those who made them would be forsworn if they did not keep them. To prevent this evil practice of loose swearing Jesus lays down the prohibition, “Swear not at all;” but the universality of this prohibition is distributed by the specifications of these four forms of oaths, and is, therefore, most strictly interpreted as including only such oaths. Jesus surely did not intend to abolish now, in advance of the general abrogation of the law, those statutes of Moses which allowed, and in some instances required, the administration of an oath. See Exo 22:11, Num 5:19. What we style the judicial oaths of the law of Moses then were not included in the prohibition. This conclusion is also reached when we interpret the prohibition in the light of authoritative examples; for we find that God swore by himself ( Gen 22:16, Gen 22:17, Heb 6:13, Heb 7:21). Jesus answered under oath before the Sanhedrin ( Mat 26:63), and Paul also made oath to the Corinthian church ( 2Co 1:23). See also Rom 1:9, Gal 1:20, Phi 1:8, 1Co 15:31, Rev 10:5, Rev 10:6. We conclude, then, that judicial oaths, and oaths taken in the name of God on occasions of solemn religious importance, are not included in the prohibition. But as these are the only exceptions found in Scriptures, we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden. Looking at the details of the paragraph, we find that oaths by heaven and by the earth, by Jerusalem and by the head, are utterly meaningless save as they have reference to God. “Swearing is a sin whereunto neither profit incites, nor pleasure allures, nor necessity compels, nor inclination of nature persuades”–Quarles.] 38 Ye have heard that it was said [ Exo 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deu 19:21], An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil [The lex talionis, or law of like for like, was the best possible rule in a rude state of society, its object being not to sacrifice the second eye, but to save both, by causing a man when in a passion to realize that every injury which he inflicted upon his adversary he would in the end inflict upon himself. From this rule the scribes drew the false inference that revenge was proper, and that a man was entitled to exercise it. Thus a law intended to prevent revenge was so perverted that it was used as a warrant for it. This command which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon, does not demand of us absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We are to submit to evil for principle’s sake and to accomplish spiritual victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so far encourage crime as to become a sin. As in the case of the precept about swearing just above, Jesus distributes the universal prohibition by the specification of certain examples, which in this case are three in number]: but [244] whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [This first example is taken from the realm of physical violence. The example given, a slap in the face, has been regarded as a gross insult in all ages, but it is not an assault which imperils life. We find this precept illustrated by the conduct of the Master himself. He did not literally turn the other cheek to be smitten, but he breathed forth a mild and gentle reproof where he might have avenged himself by the sudden death of his adversary ( Joh 18:22, Joh 18:23). The example of Paul also is given, but it is not so perfect as that of the Master ( Act 23:2-5). Self-preservation is a law of God giving rights which, under most circumstances, a Christian can claim. He may resist the robber, the assassin and all men of that ilk, and may protect his person and his possessions against the assaults of the violent and lawless ( Act 16:35-39). But when the honor of Christ and the salvation of man demands it, he should observe this commandment even unto the very letter.] 40 And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. [This second case is one of judicial injustice, and teaches that the most annoying exactions are to be endured without revenge. The coat was the inner garment, and the cloak was the outer or more costly one. The creditor was not allowed to retain it over night, even when it was given to him as a pledge from the poor, because it was used for a bed-covering ( Exo 22:26, Exo 22:27). The idea therefore is, “Be ready to give up even that which by law can not be taken” (Mansel). This case, as the one just above, is also an instance of petty persecution, and shows that the command does not forbid a righteous appeal to the law in cases where large and important interests are involved.] 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile [the Roman mile; it was 142 yards short of the English mile], go with him two. [This third instance is a case of governmental oppression. It supposes a man to be impressed by government officials to go a mile. The custom alluded to is said to have originated with Cyrus, king of Persia, and it [245] empowered a government courier to impress both men and horses to help him forward. For an example of governmental impress, see Luk 23:26. The exercise of this power by the Romans was exceedingly distasteful to Jews, and this circumstance gave a special pertinency to the Saviour’s mention of it. (See Herodotus viii. 98; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, 7; Jos. Ant. xiii. 2, 3.) The command, “Go with him two,” requires a cheerful compliance with the demands of a tyrannical government–a doubling of the hardship or duty required rather than a resistance to the demand. But here again the oppression is not an insupportable one. A man might go two miles and yet not lose his whole day’s labor. The Saviour chooses these lesser evils because they bring out more distinctly the motives of conduct. If we resist the smaller evils of life, we thereby manifest a spirit of pride seeking revenge; but when the larger evils come upon us, they waken other motives. A man may strive for self-protection when life is threatened without any spirit of revenge. He may appeal to the law to protect his property without any bitterness toward the one who seeks to wrest it from him, and he may set himself against the oppression of his government from the loftiest motives of patriotism. If revenge slumbers in our breast, little injuries will waken it as quickly as big ones.] 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. [Jesus here turns from the negative to the positive side of life. Our conduct, instead of being selfish and revengeful, should be generous and liberal. A benevolent disposition casts out revenge as light does darkness. No lending was provided for by the law of Moses except for benevolent purposes, for no interest was allowed, and all debts were canceled every seventh year. The giving and lending referred to, then, are limited to cases of real want, and the amount given or loaned is to be regulated accordingly. Giving or lending to the encouragement of vice or indolence can not, of course, be here included. Good actions are marred if they bear evil fruit.] 43 Ye have heard that it was said [ Lev 19:18], [246] Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 44 but I say unto you, cthat hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you 28 bless them that curse you [ 1Co 4:12], aand pray for them that persecute you; cthat despitefully use you. [The law commanding love will be found at Lev 19:18, while the sentiment “hate thy enemy” is not found in the law as a precept. But the Jews were forbidden by law to make peace with the Canaanites ( Exo 34:11-16, Deu 7:2, Deu 23:6), and the bloody wars which were waged by God’s own command inevitably taught them to hate them. This was the feeling of their most pious men ( 1Ch 20:3, 2Ki 13:19), and it found utterance even in their devotional hymns; e. g., Psa 137:8, Psa 137:9, Psa 139:21, Psa 139:22. It is a true representation of the law, therefore, in its practical working, that it taught hatred of one’s enemies. This is one of the defects of the Jewish dispensation, which, like the privilege of divorce at will, was to endure but for a time. To love an enemy has appeared to many persons impossible, because they understand the word “love” as here expressing the same feeling in all respects which are entertained toward a friend or a near kinsman. But love has many shades and degrees. The exact phase of it which is here enjoined is best understood in the light of examples. The parable of the good Samaritan is given by Jesus for the express purpose of exemplifying it ( Luk 10:35-37); his own example in praying on the cross for those who crucified him serves the same purpose, as does also the prayer of Stephen made in imitation of it ( Luk 23:34, Act 7:60). The feeling which enables us to deal with an enemy after the manner of the Samaritan, or Jesus, or Stephen, is the love for our enemies which is here enjoined. It is by no means an impossible feeling. Prayer, too, can always express it, for as Hooker says, “Prayer is that which we always have in our power to bestow, and they never in theirs to refuse.”] a45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on [247] the just and the unjust. [Jesus here gives two reasons why we should obey this precept: 1. That we may be like God; 2. That we may be unlike publicans and sinners. Of course right action towards our enemies does not make us sons of God, but it proves us such by showing our resemblance to him. We are made children of God by regeneration. God, in his daily conduct toward the children of this earth, does not carry his discrimination to any great length. Needful blessings are bestowed lavishly upon all.] c29 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. [The teaching of this passage has been explained above. It is repeated because of its difference in verbiage, and because its position here illustrates the spirit of the verses which precede it.] a46 For {c32 And} if ye love them that love you, what thank {areward} have ye? do not even the publicans the same? cfor even sinners love those that love them. 33 And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do the same? [The Roman publican proper was a wealthy man of the knightly order, who purchased from the state the privilege of collecting the taxes, but the publicans mentioned in the Scripture were their servants–the men who actually collected the taxes, and the official name for them was portitores. These latter were sometimes freedmen or slaves, and sometimes natives of the province in which the tax was collected. The fact that the Jews were a conquered people, paying tax to a foreign power, made the tax itself odious, and hence the men through whom it was extorted from them were equally odious. These men were regarded in the double aspect of oppressors and traitors. The odium thus attached to the office prevented men who had any regard for the good opinion of their countrymen from accepting it, and left it in the hands of those who had no self-respect and no reputation. Jesus teaches that our religion is [248] worth little if it begets in us no higher love than that which is shown by natural, worldly men. “Christianity is more than humanity”–M. Henry.] 34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do them good [ Exo 23:4, Pro 24:17, Rom 12:17, Rom 12:19-21], and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. [“To make our neighbor purchase, in any way, the assistance which we give him is to profit by his misery; and, by laying him under obligations which we expect him in some way or other to discharge, we increase his wretchedness under the pretense of relieving him”–Clarke.] a47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? [The Jews despised the Gentiles, so that they did not usually salute them. This was especially true of the Pharisees. The morality, therefore, of this sect proved to be, in this respect, no better than that of the heathen. Salutation has always been an important feature in Eastern social life. The salutation, with all its accompaniments, recognized the one saluted as a friend.] c36 Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful. a48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Luke emphasizes the particular characteristic of God’s perfection which Jesus has been discussing; namely, mercy; but Matthew records the broader assertion which bids us resemble God’s perfections in all their fullness and universality. God is our model. Everything short of that is short of what we ought to be. God can not be satisfied with that which is imperfect. This requirement keeps us in mind of our infirmities, and keeps us at work. Like Paul, we must be ever striving ( Phi 3:12). Our standard is not the perfection of great and heroic men, but of the infinite Creator himself.] [249]

[FFG 235-249]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Mat 5:17 to Mat 6:18. Righteousness, Legal and Real.After laying down the principle that the Law is not destroyed or annulled, but developed and transcended (Mat 5:17-20), Jesus applies it to (a) the teaching of the Scribes (Mat 5:21-48), (b) the life of the Pharisees (Mat 6:1-18).

Mat 5:17-20. On the attitude of Jesus towards the OT see pp. 663, 666f., also MNeile in Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 216ff.; Kent, Life and Teachings of Jesus, pp. 126f.

Mat 5:17. Jesus was never accused of destroying the moral teaching of the prophets, and here He deals only with the Law. He declares that His mission is to preserve it by revealing its depth of meaning, by carrying it forward into that which it had been designed to bring aboutthe Kingdom of God.

Mat 5:18 f. seems misplaced; Mat 5:19 may be a later gloss, no commandments have been mentioned; Mat 5:20 continues the thought of Mat 5:17.

Mat 5:18. jot: Gr. iota, Heb. yod, the smallest letter in the alphabet.tittle: the stroke above an abbreviated word. The Gr. is horn, and perhaps denotes the projecting tip whose presence or absence changes a Heb. letter and may make a great difference in a word.till all things be accomplished repeats the thought of till heaven and earth, i.e. the present age, pass away. Many Jewish sayings speak of the perpetuity of the Law.

Mat 5:19. The Jews recognised that the Mat 6:13 commandments in the Law were not equally important; some were heavy, others light. Nor would the Kingdom of Heaven bring equality to all its members (cf. Mat 5:11 f.* supra, Mat 18:1-4).

Mat 5:20 continues Mat 5:17.scribes: a comparatively small body of men who (a) expounded the Law, (b) developed it, (c) administered it as assessors in courts of justice.Pharisees: the whole body of orthodox pietists who lived the separated life (cf. pp. 624, 666f.). Many of the later Rabbis were, like the one in Mar 12:28-34, very worthy men, but this does not prove that Rabbinism generally was beyond reproach. It was not only Jesus who arraigned it. Cf. Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Charles, Introd. xi.).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 17

The law and the prophets; the religious system revealed in the books of the Old Testament.–But to fulfil. The Savior fulfilled the law of Moses, in respect to its moral requirements, by bringing out clearly to view, and strongly enforcing, their spiritual meaning and intents; and, in respect to its ceremonial provisions, by accomplishing, in his own person, the great reality which these rites and ceremonies were intended to prefigure. Thus, by his instructions and example on the one hand, and by his sufferings and death on the other, all was fulfilled.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

5:17 {3} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but {g} to fulfil.

(3) Christ did not come to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but indeed to fulfil that which was shadowed by the figures of the Law, by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law: and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to engrave in our hearts the power for obedience.

(g) That the prophecies may be accomplished.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Righteousness and the Scriptures 5:17-48

In His discussion of righteousness (character and conduct that conforms to the will of God), Jesus went back to the revelation of God’s will, namely, God’s Word, the Old Testament.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus’ view of the Old Testament 5:17-20

It was natural for Jesus to explain His view of the Old Testament since He would shortly proceed to interpret it to His hearers.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Some of the Jews may have already concluded that Jesus was a radical who was discarding the teachings of the Old Testament, their law. Many others would begin to do so soon. Jesus prepared them for the incongruity between His teaching and their leaders’ interpretations of the law by explaining His relationship to the Old Testament.

"It seems likely that here Jesus is dealing with the charge of being antinomian since his controversies suggested an approach to the law that was different from traditional thinking. His reply shows that he seeks a standard that looks at the law from an internal, not an external, perspective." [Note: Bock, Jesus according . . ., p. 131.]

The terms "the Law" and "the Prophets" refer to two of the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible, the third being "the Psalms" (Luk 24:44). "The Law and the Prophets" was evidently the most common way Jews referred to the Old Testament in Jesus’ day (cf. Mat 7:12; Mat 11:13; Mat 22:40; Luk 16:16; Joh 1:45; Act 13:15; Act 28:23; Rom 3:21). Jesus’ introduced the subject of Scripture interpretation in this verse with this phrase. In Mat 7:12 He concluded the subject with the same phrase. Thus the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" forms another inclusio within the body of the Sermon on the Mount and identifies the main subject that it encloses.

Much debate has centered on what Jesus meant when He said He came to fulfill the Old Testament. [Note: See John A. Martin, "Christ, the Fulfillment of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount," in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, pp. 248-63.] The first question is, Was Jesus referring to Himself when He said, "I came . . . to fulfill," or was he referring to His teaching? Did He fulfill the law or did His teaching fulfill it? Since the contrast is "to abolish" the law, it seems probable that Jesus meant His teaching fulfilled the law. He did not intend that what He taught the people would replace the teaching of the Old Testament but fulfill (Gr. pleroo) or establish it completely. Of course, Jesus did fulfill Old Testament prophecy about Messiah, but that does not appear to be the primary subject in view here. The issue seems to be His teaching.

Some interpreters conclude Jesus meant that He came to fulfill (keep) the moral law (the Ten Commandments) but that He abolished Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws. [Note: E.g., Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, pp. 103-5; Eugene H. Merrill, "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, p. 22; and David Wenham, "Jesus and the Law: an Exegesis on Mat 5:17-20," Themelios 4:3 (April 1979):92-26.] However there is no basis for this distinction in this text or in any other New Testament text. Others believe that He meant He came to fill out its meaning, to expound its full significance that until then remained obscure. [Note: E.g., Lenski, p. 199-201.] This view rests on an unusual meaning of pleroo, and it seems inconsistent with Jesus’ comment about the jot and tittle in Mat 5:18. Still others believe Jesus meant that He came to extend the demands of the Old Testament law to new lengths. [Note: E.g., Wolfgang Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums, pp. 174-79.] This interpretation is improbable because the extension of law does not involve its abolition. Another view is that Jesus meant that He was introducing what the Law pointed toward, either by direct prediction or by typology. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 182.]

Probably Jesus meant that He came to establish the Old Testament fully, to add His authoritative approval to it. This view harmonizes with Matthew’s use of pleroo elsewhere (cf. Mat 2:15). This does not mean He taught that the Mosaic Law remained in force for His disciples. He taught that it did not (Mar 7:19). [Note: See Hal Harless, "The Cessation of the Mosaic Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:639 (July-September 2003):349-66.] Rather here Jesus authenticated the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God. [Note: Cf. Stephen Westerholm, "The Law in the Sermon on the Mount: Mat 5:17-48," Criswell Theological Review 6:1 (Fall 1992):43-56.] He wanted His hearers to understand that what He taught them in no way contradicted Old Testament revelation.

"He disregarded the oral tradition, which they [the Pharisees] held to be equal in authority to the written Law; and He interpreted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a way of His own. Above all, He spoke as if He Himself were an authority, independent of the Law." [Note: Plummer, p. 75.]

There is good evidence that the Jewish leaders regarded the traditional laws as, not just of equal authority with the Old Testament, but of greater authority. [Note: Edersheim, 1:97-98.]

"It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by ’fulfilling (plerosai) the Law.’ He does not mean taking the written Law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what he condemns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means rather starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to completeness; working out the spirit of it; getting at the comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of the letter. These Messiah sets forth as the essence of the revelation made by God through the Law and Prophets." [Note: Plummer, p. 76.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

3. The importance of true righteousness 5:17-7:12

Jesus had just been speaking about the importance of His disciples demonstrating their righteousness publicly with their good works (Mat 5:16). Now He dealt with the more fundamental question of what true righteousness is. This was important to clarify since the religious leaders of His day misinterpreted righteousness and good works.

"The kinds of good deeds that enable light to be seen as light are now to be elaborated in the course of the sermon that follows. They are shown to be nothing other than the faithful living out of the commandments, the righteousness of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus." [Note: Hagner, p. 102.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles