Matthew 5:17-20

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW (Matthew 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

a.

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

b.

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

c.

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?

d.

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?

e.

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?

f.

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?

g.

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

h.

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?

i.

In Matthew 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? (Matthew 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 God's kingdom!

NOTES

I. THE OBLIGATION TO THE OLD

Matthew 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?

1.

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. Isaiah 28:15; Amos 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 God's 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.

2.

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 God's 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!

3.

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. (Romans 3:20; Romans 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 (Romans 3:31; James 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 (Romans 10:3-4). The unrelenting, unforgiving Law will stand up at the judgment to condemn all who do not believe Him. (Romans 2:12). (See below on Matthew 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. Acts 8:30-35) Just how did Jesus fulfil the Jewish Scriptures?

1.

Jesus fulfilled the Law's 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, (Matthew 3:15; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26-28; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 8:46)

2.

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

3.

Jesus fulfilled the Law's righteous sentence by receiving in his own body the execution of the death penalty (1 Peter 2:24; Galatians 3:13).

4.

Jesus fulfilled the Law's 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. Luke 4:21; Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-47; 2 Peter 1:19) Some of its predictions find fulfilment in the Church; others in all that Christ will yet do until the consummation of God's plans at the end of time. (Acts 3:20-21)

5.

His standard of righteousness requires of His disciples all that was really essential in the Mosaic code (Matthew 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. :

6.

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

7.

He constantly corrected the Pharisaic concepts and corruptions of the Law and misunderstandings of the prophets, which nullified the force of God's will (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:1-14; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 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.

8.

Consequently, He viewed as of no consequence the human regulations added by tradition, He cared nothing about the ritual handwashings (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:1-5) or the traditional definitions of what constituted work on the sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2; Matthew 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 Matthew 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 God's commands are not addressed to all the race. While it is true that all of God's 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, Isaiah 1:11-20; Isaiah 33:14-16; Isaiah 51:1-9; Isaiah 52:11; Isaiah 55; Isaiah 57:1-2; Isaiah 58; Isaiah 59; Isaiah 64; Isaiah 66:1-5; Jeremiah 7:1-7; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 10:12; Joel 2:12-14; Amos 5:10-15; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:8; Habakkuk 2:4; Zechariah 7:9-12.

Moses-' Law was already directed to men's hearts! (Deuteronomy 4:8; Deuteronomy 4:29; Deuteronomy 5:29; Deuteronomy 32:46; Psalms 37:31; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 119:11; Psalms 119:172; Psalms 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

Matthew 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?

a.

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

b.

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

2.

Till all things be accomplished, i.e., until God's purpose for giving them had been fulfilled, Since God's 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, God's judgment against sinners who reject Jesus will be upheld by God's unchanging Law, for the vindication of God-s 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 God's 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! (1 Corinthians 1:30) look at all Jesus did! (Romans 3:21-26; Romans 5:1-11; Romans 7:4; Romans 9:1-11; Romans 9:32; Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:24-47; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:3-14; Ephesians 3:8-12; Colossians 1:12-23; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 2:10)

During His ministry, Jesus hinted at the complete abrogation of the Law (See Mark 7:19 in contrast with Leviticus 11; John 4:21 contrasted with Deuteronomy 12:1-32). But after He had accomplished all things that were written in the Law and prophets that required fulfilment (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-48; Acts 3:18; Acts 3:22-26; Acts 13:17-40; Acts 26:22), Jesus, whose very Spirit inspired their writings (1 Peter 1:10-11; 1 Peter 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: Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:10; Acts 15:28; Romans 3:19-23; Romans 6:7; Romans 6:14; Romans 7:4; Romans 7:6; Romans 8:1-4; Romans 10:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:1-14; Galatians 2:16-21; Galatians 3:10-11; Galatians 3:21; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 5:1-4; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:14-15; Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 7:12; Hebrews 7:18-19; Hebrews 8:1-12; Hebrews 9:15-17; Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 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 Christian's 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?

1.

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

a.

The Law preserved law and order for a time until God-s 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. 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Galatians 3:19; Galatians 3:23-25; Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:33; Jer. 34:40)

b.

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

c.

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

2.

In the function it continues to carry out:

a.

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. (Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7-14; Galatians 3:10; James 2:10)

b.

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

c.

The Law, not having been abrogated for those who reject Jesus-' cross, provides the standard of condemnation. (Romans 12:15; Galatians 5:3-4; James 2:8-13; Acts 13:39)

III. OBEDIENCE IS OBVIOUSLY OBLIGATORY

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break. Therefore announces the first practical application of the principle that God's Law and prophets must have complete fulfilment, Matthew 5:17-18. Break (luen) has about the same breadth of meaning as kataluein, destroy of Matthew 5:17 (Arndt-Gingrich, 485). However, Jesus refers not so much to that open disobedience or unblushing defiance of God's government as to all the compromising and shrewd evasion of the force of God's 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 God-s 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?

1.

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 Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 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.

2.

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. (Matthew 23:23; cf. Matthew 9:13; Matthew 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. Matthew 9:13; Matthew 22:34-40)

3.

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. (James 2:8-11) By this fact all are damned as sinners and must be saved by God's 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 Father's face, but that kingdom a b u t which Jesus has already taught much in Galilee (Matthew 4:17; Matthew 4:23) and would yet explain more clearly (Matthew 11:11-14; Matthew 13:1-52; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 16:28) which found its immediate and practical application in the Church. Jesus-' expression regards two viewpoints:

1.

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. Luke 16:27-31; John 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.

2.

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. (Matthew 28:20; Acts 20:20; Acts 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. 1 Timothy 1:5-6; 1 Timothy 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. 1 Timothy 4:6-7; 1 Timothy 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. (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 4:9)

IV. THE ORDER TO OUTSTRIP THE OFFICIAL ORTHODOXY

Matthew 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. One's attitude toward God's 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:

1.

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

2.

Only Jesus fulfilled the Law's demands, thereby providing God's gracious opportunity for men to be declared righteous on the basis of faith in Him. (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 3:24-26; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:10; Ephesians 2:8-9)

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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. (Romans 3:19-20; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:7-24; Romans 10:1-4; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 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 God's 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, (Matthew 5:17-18) or the very perfection of God Himself (Matthew 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. Matthew 22:35 with Mark 12:28; Luke 11:52-53). They were the rabbis, the cream of Jewish scholarship in that period. (Cf. Matthew 2:4; Matthew 7:29; Matthew 9:3; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 15:1; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:10; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 23:2 ff; Mark 12:35; Mark 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. Matthew 9:11; Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:1-45; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 16:1-12; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 21:33-45; Luke 12:1; Luke 15:2; Luke 16:14; Luke 20:45-47) From these we see their:

1.

Ostentatious piety and frequent hypocrisy.

2.

Punctilious regard for ceremonial law.

3.

Frequent, monstrous neglect of moral law.

4.

Consequent harshness in judging others.

5.

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

6.

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

7.

Miserable failure in attaining the righteousness which God expects in those who would enter His kingdom (Romans 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 God's 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 one's 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:

1.

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 (Matthew 8:10-12; Matthew 11:7-15; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 13:16; Matthew 13:51-52; Matthew 15:21-28; Matthew 16:13-19; Matthew 19:13-15), deeper understanding of the nature of real righteousness (Matthew 12:28-34), and love stronger than fear (Mark 15:43-45; Luke 7:36-50; John 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. (Psalms 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.

2.

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 Christ-s righteousness clear to the top and be considered perfectly righteous from the very beginning of our new life in Christ! (Romans 8:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 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? (Matthew 5:21-48)

A. TO CORRECT POPULAR FALSE INTERPREI-'ATIONS 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 (Matthew 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 Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:31; Matthew 5:33; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 Matthew 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 Matthew 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:

1.

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. John 7:22):

a.

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

b.

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

c.

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

d.

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

e.

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

3.

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. (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:3-8; Matthew 13:14; Matthew 15:4 [Mark 7:10], Matthew 15:7; Matthew 19:4-5; Matthew 19:18-19; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 21:16; Matthew 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 Genesis 50:7; Exodus 3:16; Exodus 3:18; Exodus 4:29 etc. Joshua 24:31; for Rishonim, see Deuteronomy 19:14; Leviticus 26:45.

4.

Then it is said that the illustrations (Matthew 5:21-48) are indications as to how Christian righteousness supersedes the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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. Matthew 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

1.

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.

2.

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?

3.

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

4.

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?

5.

What are those things that must be accomplished?

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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