Matthew 5:17

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" (Luke 24:44). "The Law and the Prophets" was evidently the most common way Jews referred to the Old Testament in Jesus’ day (cf. Matthew 7:12; Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; Acts 28:23; Romans 3:21). Jesus’ introduced the subject of Scripture interpretation in this verse with this phrase. In Matthew 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 Matthew 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 Matthew 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. Matthew 2:15). This does not mean He taught that the Mosaic Law remained in force for His disciples. He taught that it did not (Mark 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: Matthew 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.]