Matthew 5:17

IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48)

Think not that I am come--that I came.

to destroy the law, or the prophets--that is, "the authority and principles of the Old Testament." (On the phrase, see Mat 7:12; Mat 22:40; Luk 16:16; Act 13:15). This general way of taking the phrase is much better than understanding "the law" and "the prophets" separately, and inquiring, as many good critics do, in what sense our Lord could be supposed to meditate the subversion of each. To the various classes of His hearers, who might view such supposed abrogation of the law and the prophets with very different feelings, our Lord's announcement would, in effect, be such as this--"Ye who tremble at the word of the Lord, fear not that I am going to sweep the foundation from under your feet: Ye restless and revolutionary spirits, hope not that I am going to head any revolutionary movement: And ye who hypocritically affect great reverence for the law and the prophets, pretend not to find anything in My teaching derogatory to God's living oracles."

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil--Not to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establish the law and the prophets--to unfold them, to embody them in living form, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and character of men, am I come.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 καταλυσαι, 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Todhunter’s 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 itself—that 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 6—Commentators 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 occasion—that 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 omitted—a comparison between the old and the new legislation—are such as would be less adapted for St. Luke’s readers than for St. Matthew’s.

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 Saviour’s 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 king’s 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 them—perhaps to most who heard them at first—the 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 these—as so often afterwards—the 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 kind—if there were to be destruction and supercession—He 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 God’s 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 us—whether 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 God’s 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 inner—though not innermost—place.

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.—God’s law is like Himself—inflexible, 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 one—a 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 shores—so with the law, if you touch any part, you disturb the whole. Again, the law is like the body—an 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 God’s 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 substantial’s 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 God’s 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 Lord’s 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 πληρῶσαι or πληροῦν 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 πληρῶσαι? 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 πληρῶσαι, then its proper opposite would have been not καταλῦσαι but, as Wendt points out, παραβαίνειν. The word καταλῦσαι 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 πληρῶσαι 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 Lord’s 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 men’s, 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 Saviour’s 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 Saviour’s 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 word—holiness. 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 Christ—“The 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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

II

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, μὴνομίσητε.—The choice of the expression, νομίζειν, in connection with the word νόμος immediately following, must not be overlooked. The verb implies: to recognize as use and custom—to 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 ἤ is never used for καί, 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 νόμος 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 στοιχεῖα, was carried out to its full ideal” (Meyer). “The expression, τοὺς προφήτας, 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 νόμος (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, καταλῦσαι,—in the sense of abrogating, a revolutionary destruction of existing institutions.

But to fulfil, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.—The expression is differently interpreted, as meaning: 1. actually to fulfil (Elsner, Wolf, Bleek, and others); 2. to complete doctrinally, = τελειῶσαι, 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 πλήρωσις 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, ἀμὴνγάρ; אָמֵן ἀληθῶς,—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 י; the tittle, κεραία, to a still smaller mark, by which similar-looking letters were distinguished, or else to the little dot inserted in the י. 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, ὅς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ.—In the Conj. Aor., indicating what may take place at some future period (the possible futurum exactum). The term used is λύσῃ, not καταλύσῃ, since, according to the Divine arrangement, none could in the old world achieve the καταλῦσαι 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 minutiæ.”—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 world—and that, both in His life and doctrine. “All that is transient—it is only a likeness, incomplete here—but reality there.”11—“Generally, 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 ἀμήν, while the Saviour, in the Gospel of John, always (in 24 passages) uses the double ἀμήν (a Hebrew epizeuxis, or emphatic repetition of the same word, comp. בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד). 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 ἀμήν, 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 Goethe’s Faust:

“Alles Vergaengliche ist nur ein Gleichnies;

Das Unzulaengliche hier wird’s Ereigness;

Das Unbegreifliche hier wird’s gethan;

Das swig Weibliche zicht uns hinan.”—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 5:17-26.

Relation Of Christ’s Mission To The Law

Here commences the main division of the discourse, in which our Lord shows the relation of his mission to the law of Moses; and asserts that, so far from proposing to relax its restraints or overthrow its authority, he came to complete it. This portion, which is not given by Luke, extends to Mat 5:48 (see Analysis in Int. to Matthew 5). The relation to what precedes, though not distinctly indicated, is sufficiently plain. Having set forth certain characteristics of the subjects of the Messianic reign (Mat 5:3-12), and their influence and responsibility (Mat 5:13-16), he now proceeds to show that the Messianic reign will in important respects be different from what was popularly expected.

Mat 5:17. Think not. (For the expression compare Mat 10:34; Mat 3:9) The Jews were very likely to think so. The introduction of Messiah’s reign was in the view of many to be a great political revolution, such as is apt to be attended by a setting aside of many institutions and laws, and a diminished regard for the restraints of morality. And it appears from later Jewish writers that some of them did in fact expect that Messiah would abrogate the law, and supported the notion by their interpretation of Jer 31:31. Many might also begin to think that Jesus cherished some such revolutionary design, from the fact that he had already (as we see from the order of Luke and Mark) called a publican to be one of his immediate followers, and eaten with publicans and sinners, (Luk 5:27-32) declared that he was introducing a new order of things, (Luk 5:36-39) and repeatedly disregarded the Jewish notions of the Sabbath. (Luk 6:1-11) These things appeared to them revolutionary, though we know they were not contrary to the real spirit and design of the Old Testament I am come, or, came, an expression frequently employed by Jesus, indicating that he had a mission, (compare Mat 9:13, Mat 10:34; 1Ti 1:15, etc.) and which naturally accords with the fact of his pre-existence; but it must not be relied on as a proof of his pre-existence, for the same expression is applied to John (see Mat 11:18 f.) To destroy. In the physical sense, the word signifies to loose, dissolve, pull to pieces (as a bridge, wall, house), and is applied to the temple in Mat 26:61 and Mat 24:2 (’throw down’), to the body regarded as a house in 1Co 5:1, and is figuratively used in Rom 14:20 and Act 5:38 f. (’come to nought’ and ’overcome’). So in Gal 2:18, Paul uses this word to describe Peter as having (so to speak) pulled down an old building as useless, and now gone to building it up again. In like manner here the image is most probably that of a building. There is no other example in N. T. of this precise use—pulling down, abrogating, a law—but it is found in 2Ma 2:22, and in the classics (Grimm). A less intensive form of the same verb is employed in Mat 5:19 (’break’), where it is contrasted with ’do,’ and refers to the practical setting aside of the law in men’s action, while here the reference is rather to the theoretical setting aside in our Lord’s teaching.

The law or the prophets. This phrase was frequently employed to denote the entire Scriptures (i. e., the O. T.), the’ law’ being the five books of Moses, and ’the prophets’ the remainder. (See, e. g., Mat 7:12, Mat 11:13, Mat 22:40; Luk 16:16; Joh 1:45; Act 13:15, Act 28:23; Rom 3:21) In Luk 24:44 it is ’the law, and the prophets, and the psalms,’ the last division probably including the other poetical books. In some other cases ’the law’ denotes the whole (see Joh 10:34, Joh 12:34, Joh 15:25; 1Co 14:21) Observe it is ’the law or the prophets.’ Not merely were the requirements of Moses to continue in force, (which some Jews regarded as more sacred than the rest of the O. T.), but also all that was taught by the other inspired writers, the prophets. No part of the existing Scriptures was to be set aside. And we know from Josephus and early Christian writers, that all Jews of our Lord’s time would understand ’the Scriptures’ or ’the law and the prophets’ as meaning a well known and well defined collection of sacred books, the same as our Old Testament.

To fulfil. The word thus rendered has been explained on Mat 1:22. It here signifies to ’make full,’ ’complete.’ Compare Mat 23:32, ’fill up the measure of your fathers’; Php 2:2, ’complete my joy’ (so in many places); Act 18:25, ’was completing his course’; Col 2:10, ’ye are complete in him’; 1Th 2:16, ’fill up their sins’; and so of completing a number, a time, etc. The idea seems to be that the law is regarded as previously incomplete, not fully developed into all the breadth and spiritual depth of its requirement; and Christ came to make it complete. The majority of expositors understand the word as denoting to fulfil by performing what the law required. (compare Mat 3:15; Rom 13:8) But does this suit the connection? (1) There is a marked contrast to ’destroy,’ which term pretty clearly refers to his teaching. (2) The instances which follow throughout the chapter to illustrate this saying, are expressly examples of his teaching and not of his action; and while that which here immediately follows relates to action, it is not his action, but that which his teachings require of others. The thought is, then, not to perform by his life, but to complete by his teaching. Luther: "He speaks of that fulfilling which is accomplished by teaching, just as by ’destroy’ he does not mean acting contrary to the law, but breaking with it by his teaching," Calvin: "The question here is of fulfilling by teaching, not by his life." And it is interpreted in substantially the same way by Meyer, Olshausen, deWette, Ewald, Tholuck, Alford, and others. The Latin, Syriac, and Gothic versions, here use words as ambiguous as the Greek; but the Coptic word distinctly means to perfect, complete. Origen, in quoting this passage on Mat 13:48, takes it to mean complete. Jerome doubts; Augustine, Theophyl., Euthym., understand it in both senses at the same time, in which they are followed by various modern writers (e. g., Gill, Plumptre), and some work out quite a number of distinct senses as included (e. g., Chrys., Bleek, Wordsw., Clark, Schaff.) But such interpretation enfeebles the Scripture.—It has been vainly attempted to bring this saying of Jesus in conflict with what Paul teaches concerning the law. The latter treats of the law not as a rule of life, but as a means of justification; and he declares, not only that the law cannot justify now that Christ is come, but that it never was able to justify, and hence the necessity for Christ’s work." The law of the Lord is perfect," said the Psalmist, i. e., free from defect or blemish, and precisely adapted to the object for which it was given; while yet for a higher and more spiritual dispensation its principles might be developed into greater completeness. This as to moral precepts, the subject of which our Lord proceeds to speak (e. g., Mat 5:31 f., and compare Mat 19:8). As to types and predictions, his teachings and work completed them by presenting the full reality to which they referred; and so, as a whole, the previous revelation was ’completed’ by the teachings of Christ and his apostles.—The idea still sometimes presented (mentioned as early as Calvin) that Jesus was a revolutionary reformer, setting aside the law of Moses as imperfect and effete, is contrary to the whole spirit of this. passage. (1) Jesus expressly states the contrary—he came not to destroy but to complete, and completing is very different from setting aside. (2) The examples which follow in this chapter are not examples of teaching contrary to the law of Moses, but of going further in the same direction. The only saying he condemns is ’and hate thine enemy’, (Mat 5:43) and this was not from the law, but a Rabbinical addition. In Mat 19:8 is only an apparent exception (see note there). Chrys: "Let us now ask those who reject the law, Is ’be not angry’ contrary to ’do not kill’? or is not the one the perfecting and filling out of the other? It is manifest that the one is a completion of the other, and is the greater for this reason. For he that is not carried away into anger, will much more abstain from murder."

Mat 5:18. For, presenting what follows as a confirmation of what precedes. Verily is in the original’amen,’ a Hebrew word signifying firm, faithful, reliable, (compare Rev 3:14) often employed in O. T. as an adverb, ’surely,’ ’truly,’ and then usually placed at the end of a sentence, either as endorsing its assertion (’so it is’), or expressing the wish that it may prove true (’so be it’). When thus used at the end of a sentence, our Eng. versions both of O. T. and N. T. retain the Hebrew word Amen, and also in a few cases where with the same meaning it precedes the sentence. (Jer 28:6 Rev 7:12, Rev 19:4, Rev 22:20) Notice particularly the responsive use in 1Co 14:16 Rev 5:14; compare Deu 27:15 ff. Our Lord frequently employs the term at the beginning of a sentence, in the literal sense of ’surely,’ ’truly,’ and in these cases Eng. versions translate it ’verily’ (i. e., truly). In John it is always doubled, but single in the other Evangelists. Two modified forms of the Hebrew word are similarly employed in Jos 7:20 Job 19:5. I say unto you, is a formula very often employed by our Lord, with or without ’verily’ (e. g., Mat 5:20, Mat 5:26, Mat 6:2, Mat 6:5, Mat 6:16, Mat 6:29, Mat 8:10-11, etc.), and serving to call attention to what follows, as being important and certainly true, somewhat as in colloquial English we say,"I tell you," "I assure you," etc. In these cases ’I’ is not separately expressed in the Greek, and consequently is not emphatic; but it is separately expressed, and therefore emphatic in Mat 5:22, Mat 5:28, Mat 5:32, Mat 5:34, Mat 5:39, Mat 5:44, where there is a contrast between his teachings and those of others.

Till heaven and earth pass away, is a proverbial expression which would popularly signify never, and is probably designed to be so understood here, the true limit of the law’s continuance being given in the other clause, till all be fulfilled. In Mat 24:35, the same idea is expressed only the more strongly by departing from the proverb—’Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’ Compare also Luk 16:17. In like manner the Midrash on Genesis (Wet.) says, "Everything has its end, heaven and earth have their end, one thing being excepted which has no end, that is the law." Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yôd), corresponding to the Eng. i. It is much smaller than the other Hebrew letters, so that it is liable to be overlooked; and besides, in many words it can be either inserted or omitted without affecting the sound or the sense, somewhat like the u in favour or honour. The Midrash on Leviticus says (Edersheim) that the led which was taken from the name Sarai was prefixed to that of Hoshea, making Jehoshua, Joshua. No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter, was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle,—in the Greek ’horn,’—denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded,[1] compare Luk 16:17. The word ’horn’ in this sense would not be understood among us, and so ’tittle’ (a very small object) was wisely used by Wyclif, and retained by all subsequent translators’. The whole expression has been aptly compared to our Eng. saying, "Not the dot of an i nor the cross of a t." We also frequently employ in the same way the Greek iota (same as iod), "Every iota of it." The Rabbis have similar expressions, but they quibble about the mere words, while our Lord refers to the meaning. In no wise, is, in the original, merely a doubled and thus strong negative, the same as in Joh 6:37. From the law. He does not add ’or from the prophets’; arid it is of the law that he proceeds to speak in Mat 5:19 f., and in the examples which follow; yet he had in Mat 5:17 equally affirmed the permanence of the prophets, and a reference to them seems to be suggested in the expression which here immediately follows. Till all be fulfilled—or, come to pass. This is not at all like the word rendered ’fulfil’ in Mat 5:17, but is the one rendered ’come to pass’ in Mat 24:6, (see on "Mat 1:22"). Not the smallest part of the law shall pass away till everything (i. e., everything it contains) shall come to pass. The things predicted in the law must all occur; the entire substance foreshadowed by any ceremony or type must have come into existence; the civil regulations for the Jewish State, after lasting while it lasts, must continue to serve as the germ and basis of much Christian legislation; the moral (ethical) precepts must be obeyed by every new generation. Not till all this has taken place, shall the least particle of the law be annulled.

[1] Thus ã is d, ø is r; á is b, ë is k.

Mat 5:19. Therefore. As all remains in undiminished force, it is a sin to violate, or to teach others to violate, one of its least commandments. Break. It is a compound of the word here used that is rendered ’destroy’ in Mat 5:17. This word signifies to ’loose,’ and as applied to our action in regard to a law, it would mean to loose the obligation of the law, viz., by acting contrary to it, which we in English call breaking the law. In Mat 5:17 it was to loose or pull down by teaching; but here the ’teach’ is expressed separately, and spoken of as corresponding (’so’) to the loosing. (Compare Joh 1:23, Joh 10:35) One of these least commandments. The Jews were much in the habit (see in Wet, etc.) of classifying the various commandments as greater and less, (Mat 22:36) sometimes comparing those which they reckoned least to the smallest letters of the alphabet. Such a distinction was natural in regard to external rites, even as John (Joh 7:37) calls the last day the ’great’ day of the Feast of Tabernacles. And although they made unwarranted and artificial distinctions even among moral duties, yet the Saviour does here clearly recognize some commandments as less important than others, while expressly declaring them to be not unimportant. So in Mat 23:23 (see note there) he declares ethical duties to be ’weightier’ than the duty of tithing herbs. And shall teach men so. It is bad to do wrong, but worse if in addition We teach others to do wrong. Called. Not only shall be such, but shall be so called, i. e. declared, recognized to be such. (Compare on Mat 5:9) Least... great, shall have the lowest place, or a high place, in Christ’s kingdom, in point of dignity and privilege. (Compare Mat 11:11, Mat 18:1, Mat 18:5)

Mat 5:20. For. This sentence gives a proof of the previous statement. You may readily see that he who transgresses one of these least commandments shall have a low place in the Messianic kingdom, for without a righteousness surpassing the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall have no place in it at all. Compare Mat 18:4. I say unto you, see on "Mat 5:18". Except. Unless (Davidson, Darby) is better in modern English. Righteousness. Not imputed, but personal righteousness, as in Mat 5:6, Mat 5:10; and it must surpass that[1] of the Scribes and Pharisees both in degree and in kind, must be a more spiritual and free, (Jas 1:25) and a more complete righteousness, as illustrated at length in the remainder of the chapter. The Jews looked upon the Scribes and Pharisees as being eminently righteous, and doubtless did not think it incumbent on ordinary people to be as good as they were; so much the more surprising must have been this declaration of Jesus. For the Scribes, see on "Mat 2:4"; for the Pharisees, see on "Mat 3:7". Some Greek Fathers and Roman Catholic writers, with Neander, Bleek, etc., hold that he means the righteousness required by the law of Moses (which law the Scribes and Pharisees kept), thus implying that the law did not require enough; but this is strained and unnatural. In no case. In the Greek simply a strong negative, as in Mat 5:18. Enter into the kingdom of heaven is a phrase often employed by our Lord (e. g., Mat 7:21, Mat 18:3, Mat 19:23; compare ’enter into life,’ Mat 18:8; ’enter into the joy of thy Lord,’ Mat 25:21), meaning to become subjects of tile Messianic reign and share its full benefits.

[1] Literally ’shall exceed the Scribes and Pharisees’, but this is evidently a condensed expression for ’exceed that of the S. and.’ (Winer, 245 [307], Butt. 168.)

Mat 5:21 ff. Our Lord now proceeds (see Anal. at the beginning of the chap.) to illustrate the general statements of Mat 5:17-20, by instancing various commandments of the law, with the interpretations which the Jewish teachers were accustomed to put on them, and declaring in every case that he enjoined a still stricter and more inward and spiritual morality, not merely in condemning the prevalent errors, but in more fully carrying out the spirit of the commandments themselves than had been done by the law. This was completing the law (Mat 5:17), giving it a deeper and more spiritual application. The revelation given through Moses and the prophets, though perfectly adapted to its objects, was in various respects rudimentary, and now God’s Son (Heb 1:2) would develop the whole into completeness. All that he teaches as to moral duties was really involved in the law, but he brought it out, so as to give a more distinct and complete exhibition of its requirements. Of the six examples thus presented, the first is the law of murder. (Mat 5:21-26.)

Ye have heard, especially when listening to the reading of the law in the synagogues, with the comments and explanations made by the teachers of former generations, which, as handed down by tradition, were there repeated in connection with the reading. (Compare Joh 12:34 Rom 2:13) That it was said by—rather to—them of old time, or the ancients. Every generation naturally regards its own as modern times, and looks back to long past generations as "the ancients." The rendering ’said by’ which Com. Ver. and some able commentators adopt (as Fritz. Olsh., Ewald, Keim), is possible according to general Greek usage, but is altogether opposed to the actual N. T. use (presented by Conant) of the terms and constructions which the original here employs; and the great mass of recent expositors hold to the other sense, ’said to.’[1] This will then naturally mean, said by Moses in giving the law (Exo 20:13 Deu 5:17) but may also include the old teachers in their interpretations; and a traditional addition being here given, it seems necessary to consider them included. Some of these traditional modifications (see another in "Mat 5:43") had come down through several centuries, and might thus be said to have been spoken to the ancients. And our Lord takes his examples from the law as in his day habitually heard and understood. The traditional addition in this case, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment, was probably designed by specifying the proper tribunal to indicate the appropriate penalty. ’The judgment’ is generally understood to mean a local Jewish court established in every important town, in accordance with the command of Deu 16:18. (2Ch 19:5) It is said by Josephus ("Ant.," 4, 8, 15, compare"War," 2, 20, 5), to have consisted of seven persons, though the Rabbins say twenty-three. It inflicted punishment, for capital crimes, by the sword.

[1] The rendering’ said by’ is not in any Eng. ver. before K. J., which here (as often) followed Beza, who gives ’by,’ and defends it at length in a note. Many commentators suppose this rendering to have originated with Beza, and Tholuck says it is first found in the Persian (Polyglott); it may therefore be well to state the rendering of the leading Old Latin copies as printed by Sabatier and Bianchini. Ab antiquis is here given in a, b, c; antiquis in d, f, ff, Ambr. In Mat 5:33, ab antiquis in a, c; antiquis in b, f, ff, g1, h, Cyp., Hil., Aug. This antiquis (which is also the reading of the Vulgate) is ambiguous like the Greek, and so is the Peshitta Syriac. The Gothic gives ’to the ancients,’ and the Coptic what is unmistakably equivalent thereto.

Mat 5:22. But I say unto you. ’I’ is here separately expressed in the Greek, and is therefore emphatic, contrasting his teachings with the law, and the traditional interpretations. The same contrast recurs in every instance. throughout the series, (Mat 5:28, Mat 5:32, Mat 5:34, Mat 5:39, Mat 5:44, and compare on Mat 5:18) He "taught them as one having authority." (Mat 7:29) That whosoever—literally, every one that—is angry with his brother. The expression is somewhat different from that of the preceding verse and the two following clauses in this verse, translated ’whosoever,’ and fixes attention upon the idea that the statement applies to every single individual. The term ’brother’ is probably drawn from the familiar Jewish usage of calling each other by that name (e. g., in Tobit), but appears to be meant in a broader sense, as applying to any fellow-man, just as in Luk 10:20, the Jewish restriction of ’neighbour’ is corrected. The fact that all men are brothers, aggravates the guilt of that anger which our Lord condemns. Without cause, is omitted by some of the oldest authorities for the text,[1] and by most of the recent critics. It was probably introduced by students and copyists from a feeling that the condemnation of anger was too sweeping. But killing too is sometimes necessary and lawful, yet the commandment does not say, Thou shalt not kill without cause. The exception is to be made, in both cases, as a matter of course. Raca is an Aramaic word, most probably signifying ’empty’ (Jerome), as if one should call another ’empty head,’ equivalent to our blockhead. Davidson and Noyes translate it ’simpleton.’ It seems to have been a common expression of contempt among the Jews, being often so used in the Talmud. Fool, is thought by many (as Meyer, Grimm) to be here used, as in Psa 14:1, and other passages of O. T., to denote a wicked man—which would make this a greater reproach than Raca. But there is no necessity for introducing that idea here; the same word occurs, in its common sense, in this discourse. (Mat 7:26) "Fool" is used as an expression of contempt in all languages, "evincing pride of intellect to be a universal passion." (Alexander.) The word rendered council, signifies here, as commonly in N. T., the great Senate and Supreme Court of the nation, which the Jews (borrowing this Greek word) called Sanhedrin (see on "Mat 26:59"); and Darby here renders it’Sanhedrim.’ Before this highest tribunal Jesus was tried. Hell-fire, literally, the Gehenna of fire. Gehenna is from two Hebrew words, Gei Hinnom, signifying ’valley of Hinnom’ or ’valley of lamentation,’. (in 2Ki 23:10, ’valley of the children—sons—of Hinnom’ or ’valley of the sons of lamentation’) This name was applied to the valley lying immediately south of Jerusalem, employed by some of the later kings for the worship of the idol Moloch. (2Ch 28:3, 2Ch 33:6 Jer 7:31) Much obscurity still hangs over the character and worship of this horrid idol. Children were burned as sacrifices to him; (Psa 106:38 Jer 7:31) but it is not certain whether they were burned alive or were first slain, the latter seeming to be implied by Eze 16:20, Eze 23:37. Some late Rabbinical writers say that Moloch was made of brass and heated from beneath, and in its outstretched arms the infant was laid and burned to death; while drums were beaten to drown its cries, lest they should excite its father’s compassion—and hence, they say, came the name Tophet (Jer 7:31-32) applied to a place in this valley, the Hebrew Toph signifying a drum. But this story was very likely derived from a similar practice among the Carthaginians, as related by some of the later Greek historians—the improbable idea of the drum being added, merely to account for the name Tophet. Yet whether performed in this way or not, the burning of children as a sacrifice to Moloch—prohibited already in Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2 ff.—was a horrid abomination; and when Josiah abolished it he determined to defile the valley of Hinnom (or lamentation) which had been its scene, by making it the receptacle of the carcasses of criminals and other filth from the city; (2Ki 23:10) and this practice continued till the time of our Lord. Kimchi, an eminent Jewish scholar of the thirteenth century, says in his Commentary on the Psalms that fire was kept constantly burning in Gehinnom to consume the filth and carcasses—a statement which accounts for the phrase ’Gehenna of fire.’ From these repulsive associations, Gehenna was very naturally employed among the Jews as a designation of the place of future torment; being so used in Mat 5:29-30, Mat 10:28, Mat 23:15, Mat 23:33 Mar 9:43, Mar 9:45 Luk 12:5 Jas 3:6; and ’Gehenna of fire’ in Mat 18:9 Mar 9:47. The idea of fire is one naturally and frequently associated with future torment (compare on Mat 25:41), and in this case may be regarded as suggested by the sacrificial fires in the worship of Moloch, if Kimchi’s statement be considered too late to be reliable. ’Cast into Gehenna,’ (Mat 5:29. etc.), was a phrase naturally suggested by the practice of casting carcasses into the valley. The Greek is here literally ’liable into the Gehenna of fire,’ i. e., liable to be cast into it. Winer, 213 [267].—Another word, Hades, which in Com. Ver. of N. T. is often translated ’hell,’ will be explained on Mat 11:23.

[1] Omitted by B., à and several cursives, and by Vulg. and Ethiopic versions, and expressly declared by several Fathers to be wanting in "the accurate copies" or in "most of the ancient copies." It is found in Old Latin, Old Syriac, and Coptic, and is therefore a very early addition, say by middle of second century. Tyndale, following Erasmus’ third ed., has no such word. Cranmer introduced it a few years later (1539). Stephens gives it in 1550.

It has commonly been supposed that our Lord designed a climax in the three punishments-death by the sword, as inflicted by ’the judgment’; death by stoning, when condemned by the Sanhedrin; and ’the Gehenna of fire.’ As to the latter, some have fancied an allusion to some peculiarly ignominious punishment inflicted in the valley of Hinnom, while others understand the punishment of hell, according to the general N. T. use of the term Gehenna. But it is quite difficult, indeed impossible, to make out any corresponding climax in the three offences, especially to show that calling a man ’fool’ is immensely worse than calling him Raca (’simpleton’), as much worse as the difference between being stoned to death and suffering eternal perdition.[1] These difficulties are avoided by "discarding the idea of a climax altogether, and explaining the three clauses as substantially equivalent, though formally dissimilar expressions of the same idea, namely, that the law of God forbids not only murder but malignant anger, and its oral manifestations." (Alexander.) Our Lord is showing that he enjoins a more inward and spiritual morality than they were accustomed to; and he says that not merely is murder a crime, deserving the severe punishment which the local tribunals were wont to inflict, but that anger is a crime, and should be punished too; (compare 1Jn 3:15) and that the use of words of contempt is an offence worthy to be punished by the highest tribunal, yea, worthy of eternal perdition. Edersh. represents the sages in the Talmud as declaring that to give an opprobrious by-name, or to put another openly to shame, was one of those things which deserved Gehenna. Of course all this supposes that the anger and the contemptuous expressions are unwarranted and involve malignant feelings. A man may be justified in being angry with another under certain circumstances, as, under certain circumstances, he may be justified in killing another. In Mar 3:5, Revised Version, Jesus is said to have looked round upon the people "with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts."; (compare Joh 2:15) and the apostles tell us to "be angry and sin not" (Eph 4:26) and to be "slow to wrath." (Jas 1:19) Yell while feelings of indignation at wrong-doing are not necessarily sinful, they are very apt to become so, and. need the most careful guarding. Especially is anger likely to become sinful if not quickly repressed; and hence the injunction,"Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Eph 4:26) Compare Aristotle: "He that is angry for what he ought, and moreover as he ought, and when and as long as he ought, is commended."—And so as to using expressions of contempt. Our Lord calls the Scribes and Pharisees ’fools’ in Mat 23:17, and uses equivalent terms in Luk 12:20, Luk 24:25, one of which is also applied by Paul to the Galatians; (Gal 3:1, Gal 3:3) and the word rendered ’vain’ in Jas 2:20 is literally ’empty,’ and exactly corresponds to Raca. Jesus even used still more opprobrious terms, ’devil,’ and ’Satan.’ (Mat 16:23 Joh 6:70) It follows that the use of such terms of reproach is not essentially and necessarily wrong, but it is very apt to spring from, or to lead to, wrong feelings, and may thus constitute a great sin; it should therefore be habitually avoided, and practised only where it is certainly deserved and would do good. On the other hand, we must remember that a man might scrupulously avoid the use of the particular terms ’simpleton’ and ’fool,’ and still be frequently violating the spirit of our Lord’s teaching.—of course if such angry expressions as these are sinful, how much more sinful is all cursing, a thing wrong in itself, and for which men sometimes plead as an excuse, that they were uncontrollably angry—that is, the very sinful words are excusable because they proceed from a very sinful feeling.

[1] Some fancy that more, ’fool,’ though a familiar Greek word, is here really a Hebrew word moreh, signifying ’rebel’ or ’stubborn.’ (See Tholuck, Alford, Stanley.) But would it not in that case have been given here in the Aramaic form, mora, like raku? And then this word is not greatly stronger than ’fool,’ and would not materially lessen the difficulty.

Mat 5:23. Having thus declared that according to his teachings, the principle of the law against murder applies to anger and insult, (compare 1Jn 3:15) he adds the injunction to become reconciled to one with whom we are at variance. This should be done at once, even if it requires the interruption of a sacrifice; (Mat 5:23) should be done while with a plaintiff on the way, before reaching the court. (Mat 5:25 f.) Notice that here, (Mat 5:23-26) the singular is used, ’thou,’ whereas the plural had been employed before, and is afterwards resumed. He thus takes an individual case, as it were singling out one person and addressing him, and thereby gives greater point to the precept, just as is sometimes done by all public speakers, especially by preachers. A similar change to the singular may be seen in Mat 5:29, Mat 5:36, Mat 5:39, and compare on Mat 6:5. Therefore if, presenting the injunction as an inference from, or result of, that which precedes. Since the prohibition just made extends not merely to outward acts, but to words and feelings of anger and contempt, it follows that one ought to seek reconciliation. Thou bring—or, art offering. This is the regular use of the term, as in Mat 5:24. Com. Ver. here follows Geneva in rendering by ’bring,’ but Tyndale, Cranmer, and Rheims, had ’offerest.’ Gift, a general term, including all kinds of offerings. The altar, viz., the altar in the inner court of the temple (see on "Mat 21:12"). And there rememberest, there, while engaged in the most solemn act of the Jewish worship. Brother, see on "Mat 5:22", Aught—or, something—against thee. The expression is no doubt purposely made general, so as to cover all cases, even the slightest; he does not say, ’is at enmity with thee,’ ’is angry with thee,’ but ’has something against thee.’ (Compare Mar 11:25) Darby, ’something,’ Davidson, ’somewhat.’ Men are more disposed to remember that they have something against their brother, than that he has something against them. The language implies that in the case supposed the person addressed is himself the offender. But the spirit of the precept applies just as well to cases in which we know we have done no wrong. Shall we merely be willing to be reconciled if we are approached, or are we not under obligation to go and ourselves attempt a reconciliation? A man must not sacrifice his dignity, neither must he neglect his duty.

Mat 5:24. Leave there. Do not merely determine that you will go and be reconciled as soon as the gift has been offered. It is comfy to resolve upon performing a disagreeable duty before long; the point is to perform it at once. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (Or it may be, ’go first, be reconciled,’ etc., as Meyer, Ewald, Bleek—the Greek being ambiguous, nut the meaning in either case substantially the same.) Alexander: "It is evident that this is not suggested as a case at all likely to occur in real life, or even as a formal rule to be observed if it shall occur, but rather it is a strong assurance that it would be right and proper thus to act, if there were no other means of accomplishing the end required." (Comp on Mat 5:29) God wished his people to show mercy, rather than to offer sacrifice. Acts of worship are very important, but even an act of worship might properly be postponed that we may re-establish friendly relations with one who has a complaint against us. It is an utter misapprehension to take this precept as indicating that there is a special propriety in seeking reconciliation before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, with the practical inference often drawn that there is no great harm in postponing reconciliation until that solemnity is approaching. For (1) the reference is to temple-worship, and the principle would apply just as truly to any other act of public or private devotion as to the Lord’s Supper. And (2) the point here is not that even though we should delay to seek reconciliation at other times, we must be certain to seek it when engaging in solemn worship; but that so great is the importance of being reconciled at once, whenever the offence is committed or is recalled, that oven if one remembers the existence of such a personal difficulty when just engaging in worship, he would do well to suspend the most solemn service in order to go immediately and be reconciled. All the more, then, is it our duty to seek reconciliation at other times. Still, it is of course natural that we should be more likely to think of the need of forgiving and being reconciled when we engage in solemn worship, and so our Lord elsewhere says,: (Mat 11:25, Rev. Ver.) ’And whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any one.’ We are not so much under greater obligation to forgive then than at other times, as more likely then to remember and realize the obligation.

Mat 5:25-26. For the connection, see on "Mat 5:23". Agree with. Literally, be well disposed to (Grimm, Davidson), which suggests that we must seek to secure good will by showing good will. Quickly, not after a while, some of these times, but quickly. Anger is wrong, and angry difficulties should be settled at once. The adversary at law, in the case here supposed, is a creditor, as shown by Mat 5:26. While thou art in the way with him, viz., on the way to the judge. According to the Roman law, the plaintiff could carry the accused with him before the judge; the defendant might settle the matter on any terms while they were on the way, but after the tribunal was reached the thing must go according to law. Lest at any time. (Perhaps, or simply ’lest,’ as Tyndale and Geneva, Noyes and Davidson.) You do not know but it will turn out as about to be described, and had better guard against such a result. Deliver thee, hand thee over. And the judge...[1] to the officer, the intermediate process of trial and conviction being omitted, as a thing naturally understood. And, in that case, thou be cast into prison, an easy change of construction (as in Luk 14:8 f., and often.) Verily I say unto thee, see on "Mat 5:18". Thou shalt by no means, or, not, the same strong negation as in Mat 5:18, Mat 5:20. Farthing represents a small Roman coin of brass, equal in value to about two-fifths of a cent, and thus double the ’mite’, (Mar 12:42) which Luke has in the other instance of our Lord’s employing this image. (Luk 12:59) The Talmud refers to a similar counsel as proverbial: "There are men that say, while thou art in the way with thy adversary, be obedient."—Most commentators understand this language of our Lord as referring allegorically to the necessity of being reconciled to God, lest he cast us into the perpetual imprisonment of perdition; while Romanists make it a proof-text for purgatory, and some Universalists for final restoration (viz., when the debt has been paid); but the whole connection (see on "Mat 5:23") seems clearly to require that we should take it in the simple, natural sense. (So Chrys., with Theophyl., and Euthym., Jerome, Zwingli, and Calvin, and even Gill, usually so given to allegorizing.) We might say that the passage affords a good illustration of the spiritual truth in question, but there is no sufficient indication that our Lord here meant to teach that truth. Certainly the duty of adjusting personal difficulties, for which specific directions are afterwards given, (Mat 18:15 ff.) is one of such immense importance that we may well be content to regard that as all the Saviour is here teaching.

[1] ’Deliver thee,’ after judge, is wanting in some of the earliest authorities, and is evidently an addition naturally made by copyists or students.

Homiletical And Practical

Mat 5:17, Mat 5:18. The Old Testament. (1) Its teachings still instructive, whether they be historical, preceptive, ceremonial, or predictive. (2) Its precepts still binding, with the necessary adaptations to a spiritual dispensation; and its moral requirements made more searching and spiritual by the N.T. Calvin: "It is of no little avail for strengthening faith in the gospel to be told that it is nothing else than a complement of the law." —The O. T. and the N. T. are necessary to each other, as parts of one whole. When men begin by disparaging the O. T., they will end with like views of the N. T. Theophyl.: "What the law sketched, Christ painted completely. The painter does not destroy the sketch, but rather fills it up." Augstine: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old Testament lies unfolded in the New." Euthym.: "While the law forbids the ends of sins, Christ forbade also the beginnings. For murder is a fruit of sin; but the root of the sin is anger. And unless the root be removed, it will some time or other bear fruit." Dykes: "To the philosophic statesman, and to the religious reformer of every generation, the best recommendation of what is new will always be that it comes, not to destroy the old, but to fulfil it; to understand its spirit, to realize its purpose, to carry forward its work, and to make every change an unfolding into higher power." Henry: "Let not the pious fear, nor the profane hope, that Christianity will destroy the law."

Mat 5:19. All should both do and teach. (1) The professed teacher must also be a doer. (2) The humblest private Christian must not be content with doing, but also teach. Chrys.: "For on this account he himself has set the doing before the teaching; to intimate that so most of all may one he able to teach."—Least commandments. (1) Moral precepts are more important than ceremonies. (Compare Mat 7:12, Mat 15:11) (2) Some ceremonies are more important than others. (3) Whatever God has commanded is important. P. Aboth: "Be attentive to a light precept as to a grave, for thou knowest not the assigned reward of precepts." (Compare Eph 6:2 f. with Deu 22:7) Henry: "It is a dangerous thing, in doctrine or practice, to disannul the least of God’s commands; either to contract their extent, or to weaken the obligation of them.’ ’—Men sometimes say, as to one point or another, ’Oh, this is a very unimportant matter, after all.’ " But is it a commandment of God’s word? Then beware how you disregard it.

Mat 5:20. The Scribes and Pharisees led externally a blameless life, corrupt as they were inwardly. We ought to cherish better principles and motives than they did, but surely we ought not to fall below them in outward conduct. Shall grateful love to our Saviour fail to make Christians as "careful to maintain good works", (Tit 3:8) as those Jews were through ostentation and self-righteousness? If content to let it be otherwise, have we reason to feel assured that we have entered into Messiah’s kingdom, that we are Christ’s people at all?—Our righteousness should include, not only outward acts, but also feelings. (See the examples which our Lord proceeds to give.)

Mat 5:21. Henry: "The law was ancient, but not antiquated."—Killing. (1) When it is lawful, and no sin. (2) When it is sinful to some extent. (3) When it is one of the greatest possible sins.—The evil of carrying concealed weapons.—Dueling.

Mat 5:22. Anger. (1) Even when justifiable and righteous, always very apt to become sinful. (2) Sometimes such in character and degree as to share the guilt of murder. (3) Contempt for others, a milder form of anger, is often highly sinful.—Talmud (Wün.): "Whenever a man is angry, if a wise man, wisdom leaves him; if a prophet, the prophetic gift leaves him."—Henry: "Anger is sinful. (1) When it is without any just provocation given; (2) When it is without any good end aimed at; (3) When it exceeds due bounds."

Mat 5:21 f. The three great departments of sin—sinful actions, sinful words, sinful feelings.—The sin of calling "bad names"; e. g., rationalist, heretic, infidel; or bigot, persecutor, proselyter, sectarian, uncharitable, illiberal; or Pharisee, hypocrite, Jesuit. In all such cases, is the epithet justly applicable, and are we applying it with a right aim and in a right spirit? Otherwise we sin. Jesus called some men fools, hypocrites, serpents, devil, Satan, when such an epithet was known to him to be deserved, and when good would come from applying it.

Mat 5:23 f. The high duty of seeking reconciliation; thinking not merely whether you have something against others, but especially when others have something against you. To seek reconciliation is a higher duty than the most solemn act of worship. Life is more important than external acts of worship, and a healthy life will make worship more acceptable and profitable. Yet he does not say, Go and be reconciled instead of offering thy gift, but then come and offer. Worship without charity, charity without worship, worship and charity; love God and thy neighbour. Griffith: "There is often as much mischief done to social harmony by a proud determination not to confess ourselves in the wrong, or not to make too easy, submissive reparation for wrong, as by the actual doing of wrong." Stier: "Be reconciled, forgive or obtain forgiveness, do at least thy best, that so nothing may be set against thy account by the great Judge." —Rom 12:18, "If it be possible, so far as in you lies, live peaceably with all men." If otherwise, let it proceed from the other side.

Mat 5:25 f. Griffith: "There is a new case here. The first requirement (Mat 5:23 f.) was, offer reparation spontaneously, before it is demanded of you. This second is, Yield reparation ungrudgingly, when it is demanded of you." —Strive to settle personal difficulties in private, without waiting for the intervention of legal processes. (1Co 6:6-8) In like manner it is best to settle difficulties without taking them before the church.—It (Mat 18:15) is melancholy to see how many personal difficulties arise among men, and even among the professed followers of Christ, and how often both sides are proud and unbending, instead of acting as he here solemnly enjoins. Christian, stop a moment and think. Is there some one with whom you are at variance? Then cease reading at this line, and prayerfully consider whether you cannot do something towards reconciliation. Make an effort, even if you have before tried in vain, an honest and earnest effort, in the fear of God; and then return to read, with a meek and gentle spirit, these words of our Saviour.

John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XLII. D. Messianic and Traditional Teaching].

XLII. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (A Mountain Plateau not far from Capernaum.) Subdivision D. RELATION OF MESSIANIC TEACHING TO \line 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 i 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 i 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 i 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]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5:17 Abolish would mean to eliminate and replace the law of Moses and the writings of the prophets (i.e., the whole Old Testament) as the revelation of God’s will. • Accomplish their purpose might mean to obey them perfectly, to complete their teaching, or to bring about the fulfillment of their prophecies (see 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23). Jesus himself is the realization of all that both the Prophets and the Law taught and expected. Now that Christ, the fulfillment, has come, the Old Testament must be understood in light of him (Luke 24:26, 44).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 5:17. Μὴ νομίσητε, 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.—ἦλθον, I have come) Our Lord, therefore, existed before He came upon earth, which is implied also in ch. Mat 8:10, by εὖρον, I have found.—καταλῦσαι, to destroy, to abrogate) To the compound verb, καταλύειν, to unloose or dissolve, is opposed πληροῦν, to fulfil; to the simple verb λύειν, to loose, combined with διδάσκειν, to teach, is opposed ποιεῖν, to do, or perform, joined with the same verb διδάσκειν: from which the relative force of the words appears; those are said of the whole law, these of the separate precepts. καταλύειν, to unloose, and λύειν, to loose, both signify to render void.[183]—τὸν νόμον ἤ τοὺς προφήτας, 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.—πληρῶσαι, 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 λύω far more fully and accurately than any English word can. καταλύω 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 δικαιοσύνη, having its root in that of the Old Testament, is its consummation). On μὴ νομίς. ὅτι ἠλθ., comp. Mat_10:34.

Ἤ] never stands for ΚΑΊ (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 νόμος 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 οἱ προφῆται, who make up its principal part; accordingly, Ὁ ΝΌΜΟς and οἱ προφῆται summarily denote the whole Old Testament revelation (comp. Luk_16:6), partly as a living divine economy, as here; partly as γραφή, as in Luk_24:27; Act_24:14; Act_28:23; Rom_3:21. Moreover, in the expression tow ΤΟῪς ΠΡΟΦΉΤΑς 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 νόμος 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 νόμος, 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 στοιχεῖα. Theophylact well illustrates the matter by the instance of a silhouette, which the painter Οὐ ΚΑΤΑΛΎΕΙ, but carries out to completion, ἀναπληροῖ.

καταλῦσαι] 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 ΝΌΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΡΓΕῖΝ, Rom_3:31; ἈΘΕΤΕῖΝ, Heb_10:28; Gal_3:15.

The ΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς 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 πληρ. as a making complete (Joh_15:11; 2Co_10:6), in opposition to καταλῦσαι, which expresses the not allowing the thing to remain. Others (Bretschneider, Fritzsche): facere quae de Messia pre-scripta sunt; others (Käuffer, B. Crusius, Bleek, Lechler, Weizsäcker, after Beza, Eisner, Vorst, Wolf, and many older interpreters): legi satisfacere, as in Rom_13:8, where, in reference to the prophets, πληρ. 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 πληρ.[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 Erfüller d. Gesetzes, 1842; J. E. Meyer, über d. Verhältn. Jesu und seiner Jünger 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 נמר, 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 thät. 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 (Köstlin, p. 55 f.), or the supposed Matthew has made to speak in so anti-Pauline a way (Gfrörer, 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; Weizsäcker 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.; Weizsäcker, p. 348 f.; see also on Rom_3:27; Gal_6:2; 1Co_9:21.

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 μὴ νομίσητε, κ.τ.λ.; 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 Gfrörer, 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 (Weizsäcker, p. 346). In this way the twice sharply emphasized destroy especially would appear altogether out of proportion.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Mat 5:17 . Μὴ νομίσητε : 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. καταλῦσαι , 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. ἢ before τ . προφ . is not = καὶ . “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. ἢ 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). πληρῶσαι : the common relation is expressed by this weighty word. Christ protests that He came not as an abrogator, but as a fulfiller . What rôle 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That the prophecies may be accomplished.

Christ came not to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but to fulfill that in deed 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 force of obedience.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 4:4. 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 plērōsai 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 9:10), 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 (Mat 5:18); "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 (Mat 5:19); 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 (Mat 15:3), 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, Psa 119:126. (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 9:15); 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 (Sa1 2:30), 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, Mat 5:20. 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 (Mat 23:2), 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law] Do not imagine that I am come to violate the law καταλυσαι, from κατα, and λυω, 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, πληρωσαι, 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, πληρωσαι, 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 גמר 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, πληρωσαι τον λογον του Θεου, to fulfil the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 traditions—lowering the standard of righteousness to the level of men’s 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 Lord’s 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.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Rom 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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 (καταλυσαι), 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 (πληρωσαι), 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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Not to destroy the law, &c. It is true, by Christ’s coming, a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices, and circumcision, were to cease; but the moral precepts were to continue, and to be complied with, even with greater perfection. (Witham) --- To fulfil. By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies, and perfecting all that was imperfect. (Challoner) --- Our Saviour speaks in this manner, to prepare the minds of the Jews for his new instructions. For although they were not very solicitous about fulfilling the law, still they were extremely jealous of any change exacted a more perfect morality. Our Lord fulfilled the law three several ways: 1. By his obedience to the prescribed rites; therefore he says, it behoveth us to fulfil all justice: and who shall accuse me of sin? 2. He observes the law, not only by his own observance of it, but likewise by enabling us to fulfil it. It was the wish of the law to make man just, but found itself too weak; Christ therefore came justifying man, and accomplished the will of the law. 3. He fulfilled the law, by reducing all the precepts of the old law to a more strict and powerful morality. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xvi.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 Saviour’s 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 Christ’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Ver. 17-Mat_6:18. Having spoken of the ideal character of his disciples (vers. 3-10), and of their need of allowing that character to appear (vers. 11-16), our Lord turns to speak of the position that they should hold towards the religion of the day, (ver. 17; Mat_6:18) of which the Law was the accepted standard.

Vers. 17-20. (1) With this aim he first states summarily and in nucleus the position that he himself holds towards the Law a statement which was the more necessary as he had already (ver. 11) claimed to be the object of his disciples" devotion.

Matthew only. Think not. Probably the tendency of his teaching was even already seen to be so different from that of the recognized authorities, that some had in consequence formed this opinion (nomizw) of him which he now repudiates, and which was near akin to the basis of the charge formulated afterwards against St. Stephen. (Act_6:14) In both cases the tendency of the new teaching (Mar_1:27) to abolish temporary forms was perceived by at least those whose powers of perception were quickened through their opposition. That I am come; Revised Version, that I came (oti hlyon). Our Lord, both here and in the next clause, lays stress on his coming as a historic fact. The primary reference is probably to his coming forth from private life. (cf. Joh_1:31) Yet in his own mind there may have been a further allusion to his coming from above. (cf. Joh_8:14; and further, Mat_10:34) To destroy. The connexion between katalusai here and lush ver. 19 (vide note) is lost in the English. The Law or the Prophets. The Phrase, the law and the prophets," is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament, (Mat_7:12Jo Mat 1:45 Rom_3:21; cf. Mat_11:13 Mat_22:40 Act_24:14) and our Lord means probably much the same here, the "or" distributing the katalusai (cf. Alford), and being used because of the negative. Such a distribution, however, though it could not have been expressed in an affirmative sentence, has for its background the consciousness of a difference in the nature of these two chief components of the Old Testament. Observe that the third part of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the (Holy) Writings of which "Psalms" (Luk_24:44) form the most characteristic portion is omitted in this summary reference to the Old Testament. The reason may be either that of the three parts it was used less than the other two as a basis for doctrine and for rule of life, or that it was practically included in the Prophets. (Act_2:30) The essential teaching of the Law may be distinguished from that of the Prophets by saying that, while the Law was the direct revelation of God"s will as law for the people"s daily life personal, social, and national the Prophets (including the historical books and the prophets proper) were rather the indirect revelation of his will for them under the fresh circumstances into which they came; this indirect revelation being seen more especially in God"s providential guidance of the nation, and in his explanation of principles of worship, as well as in occasional predictions of the future. It is to his relation to the Prophets in this connexion, as an indirect revelation of God"s will under changing circumstances (cf. Weiss) that our Lord here chiefly refers. For he is led to speak of his own relation to them from the bearing that this has on the conduct of his disciples. Many, however (e.g. Chrysostom), consider that he is thinking of his relation to them as containing predictions concerning himself. In answer to this it is not sufficient to say (Meyer, Weiss, Alford) that it was impossible that Messiah could be thought to abrogate the Prophets; for, in fact, to many Jews during his ministry (even if not at this early stage of it), and much more to Jews at the time when the evangelist recorded the words, our Lord must have seemed to contradict the predictions about himself as they were then understood. It is indeed true that the prima facie ground that existed for thinking that our Lord"s teaching was opposed, not merely to the religion of the day as dependent on the Law and the Prophets, but also to the predictions of Messiah contained in them, is enough to give a certain plausibility to this interpretation. But that is all. The absence in the context of any hint that he refers to his relation to predictions as such quite forbids our accepting it. It was probably derived solely from a misinterpretation of "fulfil" (vide infra), no regard being paid to the train of thought by which our Lord was led to speak of the subject at all. Our Lord says that he is not come to "destroy" the Prophets as exponents of the will of God. I am not come to destroy; emphasizing his statement by repetition. But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. The fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets "is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited" (Meyer). Martensen puts the matter thus: "How can he say that not a tittle shall pass from the Law, since the development of the Church shows us that the ceremonial law, that the whole Mosaic dispensation, has been annihilated by the influences proceeding from Christ? We answer: He has fulfilled the Law, whilst he has released it from the temporary forms in which its eternal validity was confined; he has unfolded its spiritual essence, its inward perfection. Not even a tittle of the ceremonial law has passed away, if we regard the Mosaic Law as a whole; for the ideas which form its basis, as the distinction between the unclean and the clean, are confirmed by Christ, and contained in the law of holiness which he teaches men" ("Christian Ethics: General," cf. ver. 18, notes, "till heaven and earth pass," "till all be fulfilled.

Vers. 17-48. The second part of the sermon: the mount of the Beatitudes and Mount Sinai: the new Law and the old.

I CHRIST THE FULFILLER OF THE LAW.

1. He came not to destroy. They must not misunderstand the purpose of his teaching. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; both speak of Christ. The commandments are as binding now upon the Christian conscience as when they were first delivered amid the thunders of Mount Sinai. "We establish the Law," says the apostle of faith. (Rom_3:31) "No Christian man is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral." The law of ceremonies and rites, indeed, is no longer binding; (Eph_2:15 Col_2:16, etc.) but even those rites and ceremonies, though no longer in force, are full of deep meaning, and convey holy teaching to the Christian, for they speak, one and all, of Christ and his righteousness.

2. He came to fulfil. He fulfilled the righteousness of the Law. He exhibited it perfectly in his own most holy life. He fulfilled the types, the ritual teaching, the predictions of the prophets in his incarnation, in all the circumstances of his earthly life, his precious death and burial, his glorious resurrection and ascension. He fulfilled the doctrine of the Law, bringing out as he did the deep spiritual meaning of its teaching. "Christ is the End of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

3. The Old Testament in its spiritual meaning is of eternal obligation. All must be fulfilled, even the minutest detail. Both Testaments come from the same God. The Christian, while he loves the New Testament with all his heart, must not depreciate the Old. The whole Word of God is holy and just and good. The teacher who is taught of God will declare to his flock the whole counsel of God. He who wilfully shuts his eyes to any part, though it may seem to him small and insignificant, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Yet he shall enter therein if he has been faithful according to his light; for he has taught the truth, though he has not had grace and wisdom to discern its mere delicate features.

II RELATIONS BETWEEN THE NEW LAW AND THE OLD.

1. The Spirit and the letter; Christ and the Pharisees. Christians who neglect part of the Law of God shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but mere formalists shall not even enter therein. The righteousness of the Pharisees was outward, mechanical; the righteousness of Christianity is inward and spiritual. It includes obedience in things outward. These are the "least commandments" which a Christian may not dare to neglect or despise. But it is far wider in its range, far deeper in its power; its influence extends over the whole of human life in all its details and circumstances. It reaches deep into the heart, into its desires, motives, thoughts. Our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. They were students of the letter. They knew the Scriptures; their knowledge was most exact and minute; but it was outward only, knowledge of the letter. That knowledge is not to be despised; it is necessary, it is most interesting; but it is not enough. We must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God to understand the spiritual meaning of his Word, to enter into it, to work it into our own heart and life. Again, the Pharisees "say and do not;" we must do. They did.certain things, but they did them mechanically; we must work in faith and love. They thought to merit heaven by their works; we must recognize our utter unworthiness, and trust only in the merits of Christ. They sought the praise of men; we must seek only the praise which cometh from God.

2. The first instance. "Thou shalt not kill.

(1) The traditional interpretation confined the application of the commandment to the actual crime of murder. The Lord shows that it extends to sinful auger. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer;" he is a murderer in heart and will. In the sight of him who searcheth the hearts, the evil thought wilfully harboured and brooded on, the wicked wish, the unjust, wrathful word, is as guilty as the wicked deed. "I say unto you;" the Lord speaks with authority. He gave the Law at first on Mount Sinai; he interprets it now on the mount of the Beatitudes. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." "Blessed are the meek.

(2) Two illustrations follow.

(a) "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." We must not bring malice and hatred into the temple of the Lord; we cannot worship aright while we cherish wrath in our heart. For he is love, and the unloving cannot serve him acceptably. He will not accept the offerings of those who live in strife. Malice and envy rob the gift of all its value. Forgiveness of injuries, sorrow for our own offences, the humble petition for pardon from any whom we may have offended, is a sacrifice well pleasing unto God. Without this the costliest gift is but a mockery, worthless and unprofitable. Then "first be reconciled to thy brother, then come and offer thy gift." St. Chrysostom well remarks, "Let even my service be interrupted (the Lord says in his condescension) that love may abide, since reconciliation to thy brother is an acceptable sacrifice.

(b) We are all on our way to the judgment; we must appear before the Judge. Therefore we must seek forgiveness from those whom we have offended, and we must forgive those who have offended us while we are on our way during the journey of life. We pray, "Forgive, as we forgive." Lex orandi lex credendi. He doth not forgive the unforgiving, the unloving. For such there remaineth the prison. And can the uttermost farthing of the great debt be ever paid? Alas] we cannot pay the smallest fraction of it. By grace we are saved, and God"s grace rests not upon the unloving; to such there is no promise of forgiveness.

3. The second instance. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The traditional interpretation confined the commandment to the evil deed; the Lord extends it to the sinful thought. The unlawful desire, consented to and kept before the mind, is equally guilty with the unclean act. Our bodies are the members of Christ; to defile them is an outrage on the most holy Saviour. We are the temples of God the Holy Ghost; to bring unclean thoughts into that most sacred presence is a fearful sin, an awful sacrilege. Then strike at the beginnings of sin, the thought, the look; strike, and spare not. Such watchfulness may imply very strict and painful self-denial. Better to deny ourselves now than to be cast out at the last; better to pluck out the right eye, to cutoff the right hand, than to be condemned at the last. "Blessed are the pure in heart.

4. The third instance. Divorce. The popular school, that of Hillel, allowed divorce "for every cause"; (Mat_19:3) the Lord allows it only "for the cause of fornication." What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.

5. The fourth instance. The law of oaths. The Jews, it seems, thought lightly of oaths which did not contain the sacred Name of God; they used such oaths constantly and heedlessly. Our Lord classes all oaths together, for all ultimately imply an appeal to God, and, like St. James, (Jam_5:12) forbids them all. But we must not so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another," and passages like Heb_6:13-17 and Heb_7:21, where God is represented as swearing by himself; or Mat_26:63, Mat_26:64, where our Lord answers the adjuration of Caiaphas; or Rev_10:6, where a mighty angel swears by him that liveth for ever and ever; or Rom_1:9 1Co_15:31 2Co_1:23 Gal_1:20; and Php_1:8, in which St. Paul uses forms of solemn asseveration, prove that our Lord"s prohibition applies only to rash, idle oaths, such as were common among the Jews ("Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay"), not to those solemn occasions when an oath is required by the magistrate or by the law.

6. The fifth instance. The law of retaliation. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." The words of the Law of Moses relate to punishments inflicted by a court of justice; the Jews probably understood them as permitting private revenge. Holy Scripture does not forbid the infliction of judicial punishment. (comp. Rom_13:4) It forbids the revengeful temper, and it forbids private revenge altogether. Our Lord says, "Resist not evil." To insist upon the literal meaning of these words would be to apply the method of the Pharisees to the interpretation of the New Testament; a literal obedience under all circumstances would destroy the very framework of society, and let loose all that is evil in human nature. But the Lord is laying down general principles. Cases will often arise in which the application of those principles must be modified by other rules of Holy Scripture. A literal obedience is possible much more frequently and to a much wider extent than our selfish hearts are willing to admit. But a literal obedience is not always possible; it would not be always right; it would "sometimes do harm rather than good. The Lord himself, the gentlest and the meekest, expostulated with those who struck him wrongfully. (Joh_18:23) Neither when he bids us, "Give to him that asketh thee," are his words to be taken literally, as commanding indiscriminate almsgiving. He himself gave not to the people who sought him at Capernaum, because they had eaten of the loaves and were filled; (Joh_6:26, Joh_6:27) St. Paul would not have us give to the idle. (2Th_3:10) We must understand our Lord"s words as interpreted by his own example and by other parts of Holy Scripture. We must forgive injuries, we must resist not evil, we must give freely; but in all these things we must be guided by the wisdom which is from above. "Blessed are the merciful.

7. The sixth instance. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," was the commandment of the Law. The Pharisees had added a false and wicked gloss, "Thou shalt hate thine enemy". (comp. Exo_23:4, 5 Pro_24:17 Pro_25:21) The Lord bids us, "Love your enemies." It is easy to love those who love us; such love is mere natural affection. Grace teaches a deeper, a more difficult lesson. The nearer we draw to God, the more we shall learn to imitate his all-embracing love. The Lord is loving unto every man. Rain and sunshine preach charity and love to all. We must learn of him. If any curse, we must bless; we must pray for those who use us despitefully. So shall we be the children of our heavenly Father, like him in our poor measure, complete in the range of our love, dear to him, loving and beloved. The commandment is difficult, but the blessing is very great. He who gave the commandment, who pronounced the blessing, can teach us to obey.

LESSONS.

1. Search the Scriptures, all of them; not only the New Testament, but also the Old.

2. Be not content with the external knowledge of the Bible; seek that inner knowledge which only the Holy Ghost can teach.

3. Be gentle and loving, be reverent in word, hallow God"s holy Name, hate all ungodly modes of speech.

4. Forgive as you hope for forgiveness; revenge belongeth unto God.

Vers. 17, 18. Christ"s treatment of the Old Testament.

Here we see the attitude of our Lord towards the Old Testament. He did not come to destroy the ancient teaching, but to fulfil it. Christ"s words show two positions a negative and a positive.

I THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS A PLACE IN THE CHRISTIAN ECONOMY. The grounds on which this is established are worthy of consideration.

1. Its origin. The Old Testament was inspired by God. It records his words spoken to Moses and the prophets. Words of God are not to be lightly set aside, however ancient they may be.

2. Its truth. Although it is only a preliminary revelation, it is not the less a real revelation. The truth it contains is partial, and represents an early stage in the development of Divine ideas among men; yet all truth has an eternal element in it which we may discover when we strip off the husk of its temporary form.

3. Its moral character. The Old Testament is a grand testimony to righteousness. We can never dispense with the Ten Commandments. The stern protests of the prophets against national sin stand good to-day as the utterances of an undying conscience.

4. Its spiritual life. It is difficult for a Christian to get beyond the devotional spirit of the Psalms. Private piety is revealed in the Old Testament so as to be the example and stimulus for all ages.

II THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REVELATION. It was defective by omission. It could not contain all truth, because when it was written the Jews were not capable of receiving all truth. Its limitations are those of an early stage of revelation. These are not reasons for condemning and repudiating the book. The child is not to be blamed because he is not a man. The adult man cannot afford to neglect the child even on his own account, for the child is a prophet from whom much may be learnt. Still, it cannot be denied that he lacks the man"s larger wisdom and more enduring strength. The law of righteousness is not sufficient for us. It cannot create goodness. Its directions are formal and external. The deeper, more spiritual righteousness can only be realized when the Law is written on the heart, and this is done, as Jeremiah predicted, only under the new covenant. (Jer_31:33)

III CHRIST FILLS UP THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT REVELATION. In this sense he fulfils it. He does not only fulfil prophecy by doing what is therein predicted, but he makes the whole revelation of God perfect by filling up the lacunae that appear in the Old Testament.

1. By leading from the letter to the spirit. The Law is not perfected till its inner meaning is discovered and its living spirit brought forth.

2. By exhibiting in life what the Old Testament reveals in word. The Law had never been perfectly kept till Christ came. Then he was absolutely faithful to it, and thus he satisfied its claims.

3. By giving men power to keep the Law. Not in the letter, which is superfluous, but in the spirit, which is essential.

4. By including the inferior older revelation in his new and most perfect revelation. The acorn disappears that the oak may be seen; but it is not destroyed, it is only developed, and its glorification is accomplished by the larger growth which abolishes its own peculiar form and structure. W.F.A.

Vers. 17-20. The veneration of Law and prophets.

The caution which Jesus Christ now addresses to his disciples was very probably owing to many things wont to be said, though not recorded, in the nature of hasty and often malevolent forecasts, of his likely tendency to innovations. How many things had been conjectured, and most vainly, respecting him "that should come "! And now that he had come, those who yielded but a hesitating and grudging assent to his Messiahship, in that very proportion were prepared to prejudice his character and work now by overdoing it, and anon by literally misrepresenting it and its genius. But even if considerations of this kind might be supposed not to have weight with Christ sufficient to dictate the present tenor of his discourse, there were deeper reasons for it, and those in harmony with the kind consideration he ever had for the thoughts which were transpiring in the minds of disciples "willing" enough, but "weak." Undoubtedly he had already just startled them with the unwonted character of "blessedness" he advocated and pronounced not of the Law, and scarcely even of the prophets. It had been the lot of both of these to deal chiefly with the sterner aspects of righteousness. And the line of illustrations he was about now most trenchantly to pursue might naturally, to surprised and superficial thought, seem very like to a superseding and a setting at nought of the venerated ancient Law and old prophets. Hence the caution. In this caution, originally addressed to these men, we find perpetual value. Notice

I THE MOST COMFORTING ASSURANCE THAT GOD"S GOVERNMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE WORLD DOES NOT CHANGE, EXCEPT BY GROWTH, BY DEVELOPMENT; OR BY THE "FILLING OUT" OF ALL THAT WHICH PERHAPS FIRST APPEARED IN SEED, OR IN EMBRYO, OR IN MERE SKETCH AND OUTLINE RESPECTIVELY.

II THE STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT TO US TO HONOUR "THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS" (AND WHATSOEVER IN MODERN DAYS CORRESPONDS MORE OR LESS FULLY WITH THEM), IN WHAT MAY SEEM SOMETIMES UTTERLY OBSCURE, OR SOMETIMES OF VERY SMALL SIGNIFICANCE. TO what marvellous issues did points in "the Law" that seemed, perhaps, merest ceremonial, superfluous ritual, develop! To what amazing issues did brief enigmatic sentences in "the prophets," which had all the sound of paradox, develop in the grand life of Jesus, in his surpassing works, and in the stupendous portents and facts of his cross, his grave, and his ascension into heaven! The "least of the commandments," whether found in one shape, in Law, or in another, in prophet, is owed our best obedience, and amply rewards it.

III THE GREAT HONOUR PLACED ON WHAT MAY PERHAPS BE THE OFFERING OF BUT HUMBLE PRACTICE, AND YET HUMBLER TEACHING. Put the same thing in other words, viz. these the honour attaching to the practice of very retired and obscure lives, the teaching of very humble lips. Doing may be said to be at any time the best part of "teaching." But the honour set on "teaching," as well as "doing," guards against such cases as that of Nicodemus. And it guards against remissness generally, and against that remissness which goes to the extent of hiding one"s light under a bushel.

IV THE METHOD, IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, OF CHRIST"S TEACHING, VIZ. BY THE DIRECTEST FORCE OF COMPARISON. The allusion to the scribes and Pharisees and their defective righteousness speaks very plainly its own meaning. We may admit that this method was not at all an unknown one with our Lord, while we may be ready to feel confident that it was not a chosen one, and was an unwelcome one. It cannot necessarily authorize our imitation of it, except under the strictest limitations. But now it was the method of that one Being who only and who always is perfectly qualified, perfectly safe to use it aright. The "righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" was not only condemnable as being one far more of letter than of spirit; it was of letter added to and miserably adulterated by their own traditions, and had nothing whatsoever of life-giving spirit in it. Nothing could so hopelessly shut out men from "the kingdom of heaven" on earth, i.e. from the Church, of which Christ was sketching the doctrine and discipline at this very time, previous to laying the firm foundations of it afterwards by his sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension. The scribes and Pharisees and all their posterity shut themselves out. They did not "enter in" themselves, and as far as possible prevented others. B.

Vers. 17-48. Sermon on the mount: 3. Exceeding righteousness.

A teacher who compels the public to look at an unfamiliar truth, the reformer who introduces a new style of goodness, will be misinterpreted just in proportion to the advance he makes upon former ideas. Our Lord renounced explicitly, and with warmth, the goodness of the Pharisees, and the cry was at once raised against him as a destroyer of the Law, a libertine, a companion or" loose people. He thus found himself called on publicly to repudiate the attitude towards the Law ascribed to him, and to explain with fulness, once for all, at the outset of his ministry, the righteousness he required and exhibited. "I am not come to destroy the Law and the prophets, but to fulfil." So far as regards his own character this explanation has long since become superfluous, but there is danger lest the very knowledge that there is full and free pardon for sin should breed in his followers a demoralizing sense of security. They need to be reminded that for them, too, Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to give it higher and richer fulfilment. The importance our Lord attached to this explanation is marked by the abundance of detail with which he illustrates it. He recognized that the mere enouncement of a principle carries little weight to the ordinary mind. He therefore carries his principle all round practical life, and shows how it touches it at every part. Note a few particulars which are liable to misapprehension. Quite recently the subject of lending money on interest has been brought before the public, and from the letter of the teaching here, the case has been made out against it. But we must distinguish between those whose necessities compel them to seek loans, and those who do so for their own commercial convenience. In the one case to require interest is a cruelty; in the other it is only a justifiable business transaction to take our share of the profit we helped others to secure. Again, our Lord"s prohibition of oaths has been taken in the letter by a large and highly respectable body of men. But it is to be borne in mind that so inveterate is the habit of falsehood among Orientals that nothing is believed unless it is attested with an oath. It is to this habit our Lord alludes. The habit of profane swearing among our uneducated classes arises mainly from a desire to give force to their conversation without sufficient knowledge of their mother tongue to make themselves intelligently emphatic. It betrays a consciousness, too, on the swearer"s part that he is not to be believed on his bare word. All exaggeration in speech brings speedy retribution, for men learn to discount what we say. Simplicity of language lies very near truth in mind and heart. It is not a mere lesson in style, but in the deepest morality, when our Lord bids us cut off superlatives, and all loud, boisterous, exaggerated expressions, assuring us that whatever more than "Yea, yea; nay, nay," we indulge in, cometh of evil. Again, the critics of Christianity are fond of pointing to those precepts which enjoin non-resistance to evil, and asking why we do not keep them. And certainly nothing is more demoralizing than to do homage to one code of morals while we are practising another. And the earnest, simple-minded man, who seeks to lay on Christ"s words the eternal foundations of character and conduct, will be apt to accept the gospel rule "crude, naked, entire as it is set down." He will see that here, if anywhere, lies the secret and power of religion, and that it is not for him to pick and choose, but to follow the example of Christ, even in that which is most peculiar and most difficult. And the man who tries thus literally to carry out its words will have the inward peace and the power among men which are the unfailing reward of integrity of heart, even though he may come to learn that there is a better way of fulfilling them; though he comes to see that even when precepts cannot be fulfilled in the letter, they may have an eminently serviceable function in pointing out the spirit we should cultivate. Our Lord himself, when smitten in a court professing to be of justice, protested against the indignity, and did not turn the other cheek. And there are cases where justice demands the punishment of the offender. What we must bear in mind is that the object of Christ"s teaching was to introduce a higher morality than that of nature, and that what he demands is the complete repression of vindictive feeling. But he only understands these sayings of our Lord who does his own best to live into their spirit. The man who does so will not find it difficult to discriminate between those cases in which literal fulfilment is demanded and those in which he is to adopt the spirit and intention of the Master. These strongly worded precepts have served to turn men"s minds strongly to the more peculiar parts of Christ"s teaching, and have brought the spirit of them home to men"s minds in a way that a prosaic code of instructions could not have done. Two characteristics of the righteousness required are prominent it is an exceeding righteousness; and it is a righteousness springing out of love. Our Lord compares the righteousness he requires with that of the best-conducted class in the community, and affirms that, so far from destroying the Law, he demands a surpassing righteousness. There are two kinds of goodness Christians must surpass the goodness of nature, and the goodness of external legal piety. The goodness of nature is often difficult to compete with. Some men seem so born as to leave grace little to do, and we feel that if the second birth make of us as much as the first birth has made of them, we should count ourselves renewed indeed. But we are not to be content with merely rivalling such men. Our Lord asks, "What do ye more? While we welcome every evidence that a germ of good is left in human nature, surviving even in some instances the stifling influence of vice, we should be at the same time prepared to show that the noblest natural character can be outdone by the least in the kingdom of heaven. With each of us remains a perpetual responsibility in this matter the responsibility of wiping out the stain on the name of Christian, and of vindicating the reality of Christ"s grace. "The regularities of constitutional goodness," the decencies that society requires, the affections which nature prompts, these are the perfections, not of God, but of the publican. The man of the world asks no reward for exercising all these. If you do no more than this, where is your exceeding righteousness? Finally, your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisee. The Pharisees had the pretty common ambition of being counted the religious men of their time. But they were not mere formalists; they were moral men, immensely zealous in their religion. What was lacking in them was a genuine root of goodness, which must at all times produce good fruit. There was wanting love. Their acts were good, but they themselves were evil. No amount of keeping a law can ever make a man good; it can only make him a Pharisee. Our Lord says, Love, and do as you please. Be yourselves good, be like your Father in heaven; "for except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven. D.

Vers. 17-20. The gospel of the Law.

The Jews of our Lord"s day expected that Messiah would dignify the Law and verify the prophets. In this they were correct, but they were utterly mistaken as to the manner in which these things were to take effect. The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, disputed the claims of Jesus to be the Christ because he reprobated the traditions of the elders, which they had strangely confounded with the Law; and because he did not establish a secular kingdom according to their misinterpretation of the prophets. Christ here vindicates himself against these errors. But

I HOW DID JESUS FULFIL THE LAW IN ITS ORDINANCES?

1. Has he not released us from these?

(1) In the letter, certainly. This is clearly the doctrine of Paul. (see Eph_2:14, 15 Col_2:14 Heb_9:10)

(2) There is an end, then, to the obligation to offer animal sacrifices, to perform Levitical lustrations, to observe the ceremonial sabbaths, to submit to circumcision.

(3) Jesus did not formally abolish these, but left them to dissolve of themselves. The synagogue became gradually converted into the Christian church. The sabbath of the seventh day became merged in that of the first. Gentiles coming into the Church led to altered views respecting circumcision, meats, and purifications. Secondary things are regulated by great principles. Luther struck at the root of all the errors of the apostasy by preaching justification by faith.

2. He has released us by fuelling them.

(1) He is the End of the Law. He stands forth as the all-comprehensive Sacrifice of the Law. As the one great High Priest. His baptism of the Spirit is the one great purification.

(2) The ordinances of the Law, though now no longer followed, are read in their fuller meaning. The face of Moses shines again in the glory of the gospel.

(3) The ordinances now fulfil the very end for which they were given. The Law was never intended to be against the promise. The perversity of men made it so. It was instituted to be a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." It serves that end better now than formerly.

II HOW DID JESUS FULFIL THE LAW IN ITS MORALS?

1. By personal obedience to its requirements.

(1) In assuming our nature he was made under the Law. (Gal_4:4) Innocent in his birth as Adam was in his creation.

(2) He fulfilled all righteousness. That even of the dispensation of John. (see Mat_3:15)

(3) He became obedient unto death. To the end of his trial. Vicariously. Therein he magnified the severity of the righteousness of the Law.

2. By vindicating it in his teaching

(1) The word rmn "to fulfil," among the rabbins, also signifies to teach. Does not Paul use the word to fulfil in the sense of to teach in Col_1:25?

(2) In his teaching Jesus vindicated the Law from the glosses of the elders. To the "jot and tittle" he maintained the integrity of the inspired Word against the traditions which would make it void. He required perfect obedience to the least commandment in order to admission into the expected "kingdom.

(3) He asserted the Law even to the motives of the heart. This was against the elders who held that the thoughts of the heart were not sinful. So Kimchi, on Psa_66:18, contradicts the very letter thus: "He will not impute it to me for sin; for God does not look upon an evil thought as sin, unless against God or religion.

(4) He declared that the evil of sin does not terminate in the act. It is entailed by transmission. It spreads by example. Who breaks the Law" teaches" others to break it. The sinner also advocates sin. He attempts to extenuate its enormity.

(5) Jesus magnified the Law by showing its universality. The interest of the Gentiles in it was nothing new. (see Gen_12:3) It was, however, for ages overlooked. Gentile believers and Jewish saints are declared to be fellow-heirs.

3. By enabling his servants to fulfil it.

(1) They are justified in his blood. Freed from the curse of the Law through his vicarious suffering.

(2) They are regenerated by his Spirit. Brought into sympathy with its holy precepts.

(3) He puts his Holy Spirit within them. By this blessed Helper they "walk in his statutes and keep his judgments, and do them". (see Eze_36:25-27)

III HOW DID JESUS FULFIL THE PROPHETS?

1. The prophets were expositions of the Law.

(1) They brought out its spirit.

(2) Their predictions were but amplifications of the Law-types. So the Law is said to prophesy with the prophets. (see Mat_11:13)

(3) Jesus is the greatest of the prophets. He not only verified by fulfilment in himself many of their predictions, but enlarged upon the rest. His promises, threatenings, miracles, and parables were all prophecies. He, more than all his predecessors, opened the spirituality of the Law.

2. Jesus vindicated the prophets from the scribes.

(1) The traditional theory of Messiah"s kingdom was that it should be ostensible and secular. The Jews, therefore, hoped not only to be delivered from the Romans, but to rule the Gentile world with a rod of iron.

(2) This theory was a libel upon the prophets. It would encourage in the Jews the bad passions of pride, resentment, and cruelty. It would bring the Gentiles under oppression inconsistent with the prophetic anticipation of universal happiness.

(3) Jesus made the kingdom spiritual and invisible; and its glory righteousness and mercy.

3. Jesus vindicated the prophets from the Pharisees.

(1) He refused their righteousness. "Pharisee separate, "not as others." Pride. They "cleansed the outside." The righteousness of the kingdom is "truth in the inward parts.

(2) He refused their beneficence. They were scrupulous in paying the tithes. They loved the praise of men. The beneficence of the kingdom seeks praise of God.

(3) He refused their piety. They went up to pray, but there was no prayer in it. "I thank thee," etc. They fasted on Mondays and Thursdays with disfigured faces. The piety of the kingdom is rational and manly.

(4) Sincerity is no substitute for truth. Many Pharisees are hypocrites. All were not so. Saul of Tarsus was sincere as a Pharisee. (see Act_23:1 Php_3:5, 6 1Ti_1:13) Error as well as wilful sin stands in need of mercy. J.A.M.

The true relations of the old and the new.

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." "As a Teacher, our Lord came to fill up what was lacking, to develop hints and germs of truth, to turn rules into principles." Phillips Brooks says, "When Jesus came into the world to establish the perfect religion, he found here an imperfect faith. How should he treat this partial, this imperfect faith, which was already on the ground? He might do either of two things. He might sweep it away, and begin entirely anew, or he might take this imperfect faith and fill it out to completeness. He might destroy or he might fulfil. With the most deliberate wisdom he chose one method and rejected the other." A distinction may be pointed out between man"s idea of the relations of the old and the new, and God"s idea.

I MAN"S OLD MAY BE REPLACED. He does not build a new house as a development of the old one; he takes the old one down and puts the new in its place. And this is illustrative of man"s methods in all his spheres of education and science and religion. Man reforms by destroying. The iconoclast begins our better days. The scientific teacher first destroys the theories of his predecessors. For man there is a constant succession of something like absolute new beginnings, because there is no guaranteed truth in mans old. (It will be seen that, though this is a large and general truth, it must be taken with some careful qualifications. We should only go so far as to say, "Man"s old may be removed and replaced.")

II GOD"S OLD MUST BE FULFILLED. It can never be destroyed, because it is a step in a series, a piece of a plan, a process in a growth. It is not only true for the time, it is true for all time, but getting expression in adaptation to a particular time. Illustrate by the fruit fulfilling the seed. The seed remains in the fruit, finding there its developed form, or its fitlfilment. Show that it is not precise to say that our Lord"s new teaching replaced Mosaism, or even absorbed Mosaism. It developed it, realized it, fulfilled it, fruited it. Christianity is the spirituality of the Mosaism liberated from the chrysalis of formal commands, and set free to show itself as the beautiful winged thing that it is. God"s new is always his glorified old. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Think not - Do not imagine, fear, hope, that I am come - Like your teachers, to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy - The moral law, but to fulfil - To establish, illustrate, and explain its highest meaning, both by my life and doctrine.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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."

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. The preceding verses were so opposed to the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees that some might assert that he was a destroyer of the law. He replies that he has not come to destroy it, but to fulfil. He does not say that he has come to perpetuate it. To fulfil. To complete its purpose. He was the end of the law. It was a “schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24), but “after faith is come we are no longer under the schoolmaster.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus begins to teach about how he has come to fulfill the Old Testament law.

the prophets

This refers to what the prophets wrote in the scriptures. (See: Metonymy)

truly I say to you

"I tell you the truth." This phrase adds emphasis to what Jesus says next.

until heaven and earth pass away

Here "heaven" and "earth" refer to the entire universe. AT: "as long as the universe lasts" (See: Merism)

not one jot or one tittle

The jot was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the tittle was a small mark that was the difference between two Hebrew letters. AT: "not even the smallest written letter or the smallest part of a letter" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

all things have been accomplished

This can be stated in active form. AT: "all things have happened" or "God causes all things to happen" (See: Active or Passive)

all things

The phrase "all things" refers to everything in the law. AT: "everything in the law" or "all that is written in the law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

law

prophet

fulfill

amen

heaven

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

17–20. The poetical form traceable throughout the Sermon on the Mount is especially observable here. οὐ καταλῦσαι and πληρῶσαι are the key-words. The γὰρ in v.18 (ἀμὴν γάρ) introduces an explanation of οὐ καταλῦσαι: the second γὰρ in v.20 (λέγω γάρ) carries out the thought of πληρῶσαι. Then note to what a height the contrasting climax rises. So far from being a κατάλυσις of the whole law, not a jot or tittle shall pass from it (Mat 5:18). So far from Christ himself destroying (καταλῦσαι) the whole law, if his followers break even (λῦσαι, a weaker word) a single one of the least of the commandments he shall be least in the Kingdom. So also in Mat 5:20, περισσεύῃ is an advance even on πληρῶσαι, which in itself is more than οὐ καταλῦσαι.

πληρῶσαι. To give the full and true meaning to the law: not to extend or develop it so much as to teach the deep underlying principles of it. Thus St Paul says, πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, Rom 13:10.

17. οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι κ.τ.λ. ‘I came not to destroy’, a divine captatio which would instantly soothe the possible fear that Christ was a καταλυτὴς τοῦ νόμου. For the word cp. Polyb. III. 2, καταλύσαντα τοὺς νόμους εἰς μοναρχίαν περιστῆσαι τὸ πολίτευμα τῶν Καρχηδονίων.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

τὸν ν. ἢ τοὺς προφ] 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: ‘Hæc præcepta sunt morum; illa sacramenta sunt promissorum: hæc 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 xix. 18, vol. viii. Much unnecessary question has been raised (see Thol. Bergpred. edn. 3, p. 132 f.) respecting the ἤ, whether or not it can have the sense of καί. It is simply the disjunctive conjunction necessary in order to apply the καταλῦσαι to each severally, which would naturally be replaced by the copulative, where an affirmative assertion respecting the same two things is made.

πληρῶσαι 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 οὐ καταλύει, ἀλλʼ ἀναπληροῖ … τοῦ νόμου γὰρ τὰ τέλη τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων κωλύοντος, ὁ χριστὸς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ἐκώλυσεν. Euthym. in loc. ἐπεὶ ὁ χριστὸς οὔτε ἐξ ἱερατικῆς φυλῆς ἐτύγχανεν ὤν, καὶ ἅπερ ἔμελλεν εἰσηγεῖσθαι προσθήκη τις ἦν, οὐ μὴν ἐλαττοῦσα ἀλλʼ ἐπιτείνουσα τὴν ἀρετήν· προειδὼς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα μέλλοντα αὐτοὺς ταράττειν, πρὶν ἢ τοὺς θαυμαστοὺς ἐκείνους ἐγγράψαι νόμους, ἐκβάλλει τὸ μέλλον αὐτῶν ὑφορμεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ. τί δὲ ἦν τὸ ὑφορμοῦν καὶ ἀντικροῦον; ἐνόμιζον αὐτὸν ταῦτα λέγοντα ἐπʼ ἀνχιρέσει τῶν παλαιῶν νομίμων ποιεῖν. ταύτην τοίνυν ἰᾶται τὴν ὑπόνοιαν. 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,—τί δοκεῖτε, ὅτι ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας; ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλʼ οὐ πληρῶσαι.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(L) 17-20. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one yōd or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all things come to pass. Whosoever therefore shall weaken one of these commandments (even) the least, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens: but whosoever shall do and teach (them), he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed (that) of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.] The meaning of the words is clear. Christ did not come to overthrow the authority of the Mosaic law, which was to be eternally binding upon the hearts and consciences of men. So long as the world lasted its authority was to be permanent. If any of His disciples taught men to disobey any of its commandments, he would be placed in an inferior position in the coming Kingdom. If he was a faithful servant of the law, and upheld its authority before men, he would receive high rank in the Kingdom.

Commentators have exhausted their ingenuity in attempts to explain away this passage, but its meaning is too clear to be misunderstood. Christ is here represented as speaking in the spirit of Alexandrine and Rabbinical Judaism.

Cf. Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 136: “(The Laws of Moses) will, it may be hoped, remain to all eternity immortal so long as sun and moon and the whole heaven and world last.” Ass. Mos 1:12 “He has created the world for the sake of His law” (reading legem for plebem. See Bousset, Rel. Jud. p. 90). 2 Es 9:37 “The law perisheth not, but abideth in its honour.” Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 277: “Our law remains immortal.” Bereshith R. x. 1 (Wünsche, 39): “Everything has its end, the heaven and the earth have their end, only one thing is excepted which has no end, and that is the law.” Shemoth R. 6 (Wünsche, 67): “Not a letter shall be abolished from the law for ever”; Midrash Koh 714 “The law shall remain in perpetuity for ever”;1 Aboth 1:2 “Upon three things is the world supported: on the Thorah,” etc. Shemoth R. 33 (Wünsche, 261): “(The law) is an everlasting inheritance for Israel. Vayyikra R. 19 (Wünsche, 123): “If all the peoples of the world came together to rend a single word from the law, they could not do it.”

The attitude to the law here described is inconsistent with the general tenor of the Sermon Vv. 21-48 are clearly intended to expain and illustrate the way in which Christ fulfilled the law. But they describe a fulfilment which consists in a penetrating insight into the true moral principles underlying the enactments of the Mosaic Code, and vv. 34, 39 directly traverse two propositions of the law. Fulfilment in this sense is something very different from the fulfilment which rests upon the idea of the permanent authority of the least commandment of the law (cf. v. 19). It seems probable, therefore, that vv. 18, 19 did not originally belong to the Sermon, but have been placed here by the editor, who has thus given to πληρῶσαι (= to bring into clear light the ture scope and meaning) a sense (viz. to reaffirm and carry out in detail) which is foreign to the general tenor of the Sermon. V. 18 finds a parallel in an artificial context in Luk 16:17. It is therefore a well-authenticated traditional utterance of Christ. Both it and v. 19 may well have been spoken by Him on different occasions, and under circumstances which made His meaning clear, as hyperbolical expressions of respect for the authority of the general tenor and purport of the law.

17. For καταλύειν of overthrowing or destroying the authority of the law, cf. 2 Mac 2:22, Mal 2:4:11, Mal 2:4 Mac 5:33, 17:9.—τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας] The reference to the prophets seems out of place. It is the law alone which is taken into consideration in the rest of the chapter. The editor has probably added ἢ τοὺς προφήτας in view of the fact that, according to Christ’s teaching elsewhere, Prophets and Law alike (i.e. the whole O.T.) found their fulfilment in Him.

πληρῶσαι] See above. The sentence finds a distorted reminiscence in the Bab. Tal. Shabb. 116b “I gospel came not to diminish the law of Moses, but to add to the law of Moses did I come.”

The verse as originally followed by v. 20 meant: “I did not come, as you might think, to overthrow the authority of the law of Moses. In its general scope and purport its authority as an expression of the divine will is permanent. I came to fulfil it by emphasising its true meaning, and as being the Messiah whom it dimly foreshadowed. So far from depreciating it, I tell you that your ‘righteousness’ must be more fundamental than the ‘righteousness’ of the scribes and Pharisees, based not upon external adherence to the letter of the law, but upon insight into the principles which underlie it.”

If Christ was from this point of view the fulfiller of the law, He was from another its “end”; cf. Rom 10:4.

As here expounded by the editor, the passage means: “I came to reaffirm the authority of the law of Moses, not to overthrow it. No particle of it shall lose its validity so long as the world lasts. Anyone who weakens the hold which the smallest commandment has over the minds of men will receive an inferior position in the coming Kingdom. He who obeys its precepts and teaches others to do so, will be ranked high in the Kingdom. For your ‘righteousness’ is to be not less, but more exacting than that of the scribes and Pharisees.”

ἦλθον] (cf. 9:13, 10:40: 11:10, 15:24) has behind it the thought of the divine sending.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.