Matthew 5:17-20

Post by **_thrombomodulin** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:04 pm

Steve,

I have listened to your tape on Matthew 5:17-20 (Life of Christ, Vol 3, Tape 4b/5a). I would like to ask some questions about these verses which are very similar to those which Sean had asked about long ago on this thread http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=161.

Your understanding of these verses seems to be the following, please correct me if I've misunderstood.

[V17] "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

First, the law is fulfilled in two ways:
1) The ceremonial law was the Jews "acting out" the things Messiah would be. Jesus fulfilled this by doing what was predicted.
2) The moral (righteous) part of the law is fulfilled when we obey the greatest command of the law (Romans 8:13, Romans 8:4, Gal 5:14).

[V18] states that "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

You understand Verse 18 to relate as follows:
1) The "until all is accomplished" clause applies to fulfillment #1.
2) The "until heaven and earth pass away" clause applies to fulfillment #2.

When does the event "all is accomplished", relating to the ceremonial law, occur? Jesus death was predicted in the law through things such as the passover feast. Yet, Jesus annuls the dietary laws in Mark 7:19 before he died. According to what is said here, Jesus could not have annulled the law before he fulfilled it. This could be resolved in perhaps one of the following ways. What do you think the best solution is?

(1) Perhaps the time is really when Jesus death (or maybe resurrection) occurred. Thus in Mark 7:19 Jesus was giving instructions that really should not have been followed until after his death. This would seem peculiar, because in no place did Jesus ever give a teaching and then proceed to instruct that his followers should delay obeying it until his death.
(2) Perhaps the time is really a moment that remains yet future to ourselves. If so, then it must be the wrong interpretation of Mark 7:19 to conclude that Jesus was really nullifying dietary laws. Likewise it would follow that it is the wrong interpretation to understand that Jesus broke the Sabbath Laws. Maybe then it is the case that the entire old covenant law remains in effect. Christ fulfilled the law, and since we are "in Christ" maybe we keep the law just by being in Christ. So in effect, we keep the law (in Christ) without really keeping the law (ourselves) and thus are accounted righteous before God.
(3) Perhaps the event does not relate to specific moment in time with universal application to all people everywhere. If this is the case, then under what conditions and at what time would the law remain binding to different people?

[V19] "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Based on the context of the immediately preceding verses, the phrase "the least/greatest of these commandments" appears to be a reference to the old covenant law. Was then Jesus only giving instructions here that would be relevant for a very short period of time? If the old covenant law was so soon to pass away, and if this verse refers to old covenant law does it hold any direct relevance to us today?

Thanks and God Bless,
Peter

Post by **_Sean** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:15 am

Wow, that's interesting to go back and read my old questions.

Having thought about it a lot I'd like to take a guess at how Jesus could allow eating all foods before his death/resurrection. If we see the law and prophets speaking of and foreshadowing Jesus, it's possible that once the kingdom of God was announced and people were pressing into it at the preaching of Jesus then all things at that point became subjected to the King Himself. Jesus didn't have to die to become King, He was born King. This seems to be why Jesus could say He was exempt from the temple tax, even though (I believe) it was commanded in the law. Jesus wasn't breaking the law by declaring all food clean, he was explaining the purpose of the shadow that the law was (by saying that its not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him what what come out of it).

Just as when Jesus responded to the accusation that it's unlawful to harvest on the Sabbath. Jesus responded that the priest do it and it's ok because they serve at the altar. Jesus then said that He's greater than the temple. Even before his death.

In Hebrews it says the law made nothing perfect and was weak and unprofitable. It seems that the whole tabernacle ritual was just a life like acting out of a heavenly reality, since what Moses made was a copy of something heavenly and not the realities themselves. Just like when our children play and act out as adults in play, we still teach them to "act right" but when they grow up we hope they will put off childish acting and be righteous from the heart, motivated inwardly and not motivated by the rituals they were taught as children.

So I would say that the law is still in effect but is overshadowed by the "substance" it pointed to (Christ). So the law still points to something deeper, even though we don't know what all of it is. An example is: 1 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

So while the law is not changed or passed away in the sense of it being eliminated, it is more the reality that it points to something other than what's on the surface. Just as Jesus pointed out that it's not murder, it's the desire to murder that is the issue. Paul also said the law is for law breakers. The law isn't something you "keep" as outward merely. You either transgress it or you don't. But you "keep" it by having a pure heart that doesn't desire to transgress the law. Which seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 8.

I have to stop now before I ramble on and make even less sense.

Post by **_Homer** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:43 pm

Sean & Peter,

Perhaps the answer is to be found in Luke 16:16:

16 “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it."

Did the law suddenly end at the cross or was there a "transition period", beginning with the teaching of Jesus? I believe the phrase "the law and the prophets" was a term for the Old Testament.

Post by **_kaufmannphillips** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:56 am

Hello, gentlemen,

Did the law suddenly end at the cross or was there a "transition period", beginning with the teaching of Jesus?

For what it is worth, we may note that in the book of Acts: (1) some time after the crucifixion, Peter still objects on the rooftop in Joppa that he has never eaten unclean food; and (2) the "Jerusalem council" determines that Gentiles do not need to follow the entire law.

Peter's example may not be telling, as he may have maintained kashrut out of other motives besides faithfulness to the law. But the second example may be more significant: if the law were done away with, then why the necessity to clarify that Gentiles were not beholden to its strictures? Should not the council have declared that nobody was beholden to the law?

Shlamaa,
Emmet

Post by **_JC** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:06 am

Emmet, I'd like to touch on the points raised below:

if the law were done away with, then why the necessity to clarify that Gentiles were not beholden to its strictures? Should not the council have declared that nobody was beholden to the law?

Here are some verses I consider relevant:

1Cor 9:20:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Acts 15:19-21
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

From these passages we learn that Paul wanted to remove any offense from his message so he acted as a Jew under the law, only to later explain (to those same Jews) that he wasn't bound by it. Likewise, at the Jerusalem Council, James instructs the Gentiles not to practice certain offensive acts because Moses has been preached everywhere and people were aware of the law. My view on this, and I could be wrong, is that Paul and James simply wanted to remove unnecessary offense to the Jews since they already viewed Gentiles are "unclean." This sort of thing probably wasn't ideal, but it may have been necessary at such a time in church history.

Post by **_thrombomodulin** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:00 pm

Sean,

Thanks for replying, I'd like to ask some questions about the answer:

So I would say that the law is still in effect but is overshadowed by the "substance" it pointed to (Christ).

I'm not sure I understand in which way you mean this sentence. It's clear that the old testament law is symbolic of a "substance" which is realized in the NT law of Christ. When you speak of overshadowing, are you saying that the old testament laws (the symbols) are "still in effect", or are not "still in effect"?

Jesus wasn't breaking the law by declaring all food clean, he was explaining the purpose of the shadow that the law was (by saying that its not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him what what come out of it).

I agree that the OT law serves a purpose of being a shadow of what is to come. Nevertheless, it seems that Jesus does indeed nullify the dietary law. For example, consider the example of a person who eats pork. Before the announcement this action is a sin, but afterward it is no longer a sin to eat pork. Thus, the OT law has been nullified, even though a corresponding NT law has been put into effect.

Peter

Post by **_thrombomodulin** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:01 pm

Homer,

Thanks for pointing out that verse, I had not thought of this relating this verse to Matthew 5:18. At present, I don't yet see how this verse can be reconciled with Matthew 5:18. If on the basis of Luke 16:16 the premise is accepted that the law ended with John, then it has to be the case that according to Matthew 5:18 that "all was accomplished". The OT passover law symbolizes Christ death, but this was not accomplished until several years after John.

A transition period perhap might be part of a solution, but it seems difficult because Jesus does use time-specific language. Namely, the words "not the least stroke...Until" express an order of events. Since Jesus spoke these words after John, should we conclude that Jesus was speaking of a event that would take place at a time after he spoke those words?

Peter

Post by **_Sean** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:50 am

thrombomodulin wrote:
I'm not sure I understand in which way you mean this sentence. It's clear that the old testament law is symbolic of a "substance" which is realized in the NT law of Christ. When you speak of overshadowing, are you saying that the old testament laws (the symbols) are "still in effect", or are not "still in effect"?

I would say, both.

What I mean is this. Paul said:

Galatians 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

If you walk in the Spirit, you are not under the law. If you fall into temptation of the flesh, you are a lawbreaker. The law, in one sense, is there to inform you when you have transgressed it (Rom 7:7).

In my opinion, the other parts of the law (I don't know how much of it though) continue on but in a spiritual application, like this one:

1 Cor 9:8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

Paul doesn't negate this portion of the law. Rather, he finds another application for it.

thrombomodulin wrote: I agree that the OT law serves a purpose of being a shadow of what is to come. Nevertheless, it seems that Jesus does indeed nullify the dietary law. For example, consider the example of a person who eats pork. Before the announcement this action is a sin, but afterward it is no longer a sin to eat pork. Thus, the OT law has been nullified, even though a corresponding NT law has been put into effect.

Peter

I'm not sure how to understand this action of Jesus. He said:

Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Then Jesus turns around and declares all food clean. According to the law this would be incorrect. Unless there was "covenant overlap" where Jesus was teaching on these issues but they weren't understood until after the resurrection. Kind of like Psalm 40:6

Another option is that since Jesus is the King, He can change the law. Just as Hebrews 7:12 says it was changed.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:38 am

Jesus likened the OT law to "old wineskins" which are no longer useful for holding new wine. New wine has to be in new wineskins which are flexible and breath and can receive the new wine which is Jesus's commands. The old wineskins still exist, they are not destroyed but their usefiulness has passed. The old wineskins were a picture of the new wineskins , but it's time to use the new.

Post by **_Steve** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:40 am

I resonate with many of the observations given above. One reason that I have not answered Peter's original question sooner is that, frankly, I have always found the wording of Matthew 5:17-18 to be difficult, and am not at all sure that I can give an authoritative answer.

In this passage, it is the presence of two "duration clauses" modifying the same statement that creates difficulty. As it is worded, one's first impression would be:

A) That "all things" being "fulfilled" occurs at the same time as "heaven and earth" passing away;

B) That, as long as any part of the law remains unfulfilled, not one jot or tittle of the law will "pass."

This would appear to lead to one of three alternative conclusions (each of which presents its own difficulties):

A) Either every jot and tittle of the law has been fulfilled, and thus has passed away [raising questions about the meaning of "till heaven and earth pass away"]; or

B) The law has not yet been fulfilled, and thus every jot and tittle of the remain intact and binding [raising questions about the continuing requirement, for example, of making pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and offering animal sacrifices]; or

C) One aspect of the law has been fulfilled and passed away [referring either the ceremonial, or the external aspect], but another aspect [the moral, or inward aspect] remains valid forever [awkward, in terms of the phraseology of the passage].

Among the possible (though not altogether satisfying) solutions to this dilemma, one might conclude, either:

1) that "heaven and earth" passing away is a hebraism for the passing of the Old Covenant (as seems to be the case in Isaiah 65, and possibly Revelation 21). Similarly, "all" being "fulfilled" could be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (which Jesus said would be the fulfillment of "all things that are written" Luke 21:22). This means that the two duration clauses in the sentence do indeed speak of the same event, and that all the law passed away with the introduction of the New Covenant, and the sweeping away of the Old Covenant.

The coming of the New Covenant, rendered the Old Covenant "obsolete" (Heb.8:13), though the external trappings of the Old still held an appeal to the Jewish believers (for whom such things were a cherished and integral part of their cultural upbringing), and were therefore tolerated in the Jewish church until the temple was destroyed; or

2) that "the law and the prophets were until John; since then, the kingdom of God has been preached [in place of the law and the prophets]." Again, the outward forms of the law (e.g., the sacrificial system, Sabbath observance, dietary restrictions) ceased to be binding, not specifically at the cross, but at the close of John's ministry, when the King appeared and began calling disciples to Himself. To those who followed Him, the keeping of the forms of the law was only obligatory to the extent that He required it of them, because He was "one greater than the temple" and preempted its claims upon His followers. The enigmatic statement of Matthew 5:17-18, might then mean that the law's outward forms continue to be valid until the temple's destruction ("all being fulfilled" cf., Luke 21:22), except in the case of those who follow Jesus, for whom all things are already fulfilled in Him; or

3) As I suggest in my lectures, the ceremonial laws and the moral laws are not fulfilled in the same manner, nor at the same time. The ceremonial laws are fulfilled in Christ, especially by His crucifixion, whereas the moral laws are fulfilled continuously in the behavior of those who walk in the Spirit, and who exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Matt.7:12/Rom.8:4; 13:8-10/ Gal.5:14). If this is correct, then the words "till all be fulfilled" may mean, "till each is fulfilled in its proper manner and time," rather than speaking of one particular historical moment when it all comes to fulfillment. It is just possible that the expression, "till heaven and earth pass away" merely means something like, "What I am about to say is an eternal, non-violable truth." I admit that this is not the most natural way to understand this phrase in Matthew. However, the same expression seems to carry some such meaning when found in similar phrases elsewhere, e.g.,

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away." (Mark 13:31)

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 16:17) [This verse could even be Luke's version of Matthew's rendering presently under consideration].

I do agree that Matthew 5:19 speaks of the Old Testament commandments, and that Jesus is speaking to His disciples, not of the obligations that will accrue to them after Pentecost, but of their present worship under the temple system, which still had some validity until Jesus died.

If one would ask why Jesus would waste His breath giving instructions that would be valid only for a couple of years longer, I would say that the disciples had to live those couple of years observing the temple system in the manner that pleased God, and not as the hypocrites (cf., Matthew 5:21 through 6:18).

Even though Jesus was soon to bring an end to the whole temple system, its proper observance was a present concern for all who wished to live godly ande worship properly under its economy, and Jesus gave His Jewish followers examples of the right and wrong ways of worshiping God by appeal to the right and wrong observance of temple Judaism (cf., Matt.5:23-24; 12:3-5; 17:24-27/Luke 21:1-4).

Without seeking to minimize the difficulties presented by the actual wording of Matthew 5:17-20, I might simply give my best shot at a paraphrase of the passage as follows:

If my teachings and practices seem radically opposed to the law and the prophets, then I need to clarify that I am not opposed to the Mosaic order, nor raising questions about its validity. I am not rebelling against, nor seeking to overthrow, the law and the prophets. Actually, what I am doing is the very thing that these scriptures have anticipated all along. The law and the prophets themselves have predicted an eventual end to their own tenure--a time of their fulfillment. I am here to inaugurate that fulfillment. Until that fulfillment is complete, each detail of the law retains its validity, and you must not think yourselves at liberty to neglect what God has commanded until He has brought about the fulfillent of all. I have called you into the kingdom, but if you wish to be great in this kingdom, you must be scrupulously obedient and loyal to God's commandments (and, unlike the scribes and the Pharisees, you must obey, not externally merely, but from the heart, out of love for God and your neighbor). Such obedience is what the kingdom is about. Let me give six examples...

Jesus said these things with a better economy of words, but I think this is what He was communicating.