Matthew 5:17-19 "I Came Not To Destroy The Law…" The prevailing theme of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:17-19, is respect for divine law. He addressed an audience who, all of their lives, had manifested in some form subservience to the Law of Moses. The Law was rooted deep in their ancestry and the history of their nation. It helped to identify them as a people who belonged to God (Deut 5:1-21) and distinguished them from the nations who did not have The Law (cf. Rom. 2:13-14). The end ("telos," final result of a process) of law itself is pronouncing man righteous (Rom 10:4), if man keeps law perfectly but additional purposes are assigned to the law of Moses -- to make sin exceedingly sinful and to restrain transgression (Rom 7:13; Gal 3:19). The law was likened to a schoolmaster, to keep them under control, in order to bring them to Christ (Gal 3:23-24). In the first century, the law had been greatly perverted by prevailing interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees who perpetuated the traditions of the fathers. Under the guise of strict law keeping, there was clear evidence of their disrespect for heaven's authority. Jesus said to Jewish disciples, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets…" (Mt 5:17a). Jesus was not a rebel - he was not leading an insurrection against the law that governed the Jews. "Think not" is an aorist imperative and as such is an absolute prohibition against entertaining the thought. However, to prohibit such is to imply an anticipated possibility. There are usually reasons for what people say and Jesus had a reason here for making that observation. We are left with drawing a conclusion based upon the revealed events in Jesus' life and teachings to explain this emphatic interdiction. Before Jesus began to deliver his "Sermon on the Mount" to his disciples in Matthew 5-7, he had already declared himself to be the Messiah (Lk 4:16-21), claimed to be equal with God (Lk 5:17-26) and violated the Pharisees' traditional concept of Sabbath keeping (Jno 5:1-47). This put him in an adversarial position with the religious leaders who charged him with "breaking" (destroying) the law. And, it could also have caused the people to see him as one who came to destroy the law, since, in their minds, there would be little distinction between the law and the interpretations of the law by the Scribes and Pharisees. Therefore, for Jesus to take issue with them could naturally be interpreted as an attack on the law. However, I think it is the "Sermon on the Mount" that, more than anything else, anticipated a response from the people that he might have come to destroy the law and the prophets. His address here is to a friendly audience, not a hostile one. His constant contrast is between "ye have it heard it said," and "I say unto you" - from their perspective, they would naturally interpret that as taking issue with the law itself. The sequence of his statements in vv. 17-19, first anticipate a wrong response, then explain what he truly came to do in conjunction with upholding respect for divine law. He understands how they could respond to what he is going to say. "To destroy" (katalusai) is the intensified form of "luo" which means to dissolve, sever, break or demolish; hence, means "to destroy utterly, to overthrow completely," (Vine's pp. 304-305). "Katalusai" is found in Matthew 24:2, in Jesus' prediction of the temple's destruction that not one stone would be left on another. "The law and the prophets" was a common way of referring to the whole Law of Moses, including "the writings" as well. Note Mt. 7:12; Lk. 24:44-46; John 1:45; Rom. 3:21; 11:13; 22:40 and Acts 24:14. In Acts 2:30, Peter referred to David as a "prophet" but the specific prophecy which he used is from Psalms 16:10. By an antithesis Jesus sets "destroy" over against "fulfill" (plarao) - "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." An antithesis presents balanced contrasts so that by understanding what he meant by "destroy," we will have a clearer perception of what he meant by "fulfill." In the other antithesis Jesus used in v. 19, he makes a transition from his own actions in v. 17, to the actions of others. In this statement "break" and "do" serve as an antithesis. "Break" is translated from the Greek word "lusa" and is the same root word of which we find the intensified form in "katalusai" (destroy) in v. 17. If "break" and "do" serve as opposites in reference to man's response to and respect for law, then that seems to help in explicating the contrast between "destroy" (break utterly) and "fulfill" (accomplish completely) in Jesus' affirmation about himself. In interpreting this context, there are four different positions taken to explain Jesus' stated purpose of "fulfilling" the law - with some obvious overlapping between them. First, "fulfill" is explained as "making full;" that is, The Teacher taught the true meaning of law as it seeks to reach the heart where violation of law reflects disrespect for the Lawgiver. Second, "fulfill" is construed as Jesus' personal, perfect obedience to law - he fulfilled every demand of law. Third, "fulfill" is given the sense of Jesus' fulfillment of prophesies found in the law and prophets - Jesus, himself, used "fulfil" (plarao) in that sense in Lk. 24:44. And, fourth, it is affirmed that "fulfil" refers to the final result of the process of law. The Greek word "telos" has that significance with reference to law (Rom. 10:4) and with reference to the end (telos) of our faith (1 Pet 1:9) Jesus' personal reference to himself - "…I came not to destroy but to fulfill…" - necessarily addresses his personal actions first. However, his behavior and teaching are inseparable. He surely taught them the true principles of law that address the heart but he, necessarily, had to accomplish everything the law required of him. The result of his perfect observance of law accomplished the "end (telos) of the law," because he met the requirements of law (Rom 10:4). In this way he also fulfilled that design of law. And, to those who trust him as Savior, he is the means of their being righteous in the sight of law by forgiveness (Rom 4:6-8) but "telos" is not the word Jesus used in this context. Then, in the verse 18, he uses a different word than "plarao" ("fulfill") in v. 17. He says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" - the Greek word here is "genatai". "Genatai" means literally "come to pass," which reinforces the reference to prophecies. "Fulfilled" here clearly reaches into the distant future to the final end of earth and heaven itself. To a Jewish audience that was "under the law of Moses," Jesus could require no less than obedience to the "least commandment" and give strong warnings to anyone who would teach or do otherwise (v. 19). It is generally at this point that commentators struggle with explaining how what Jesus taught does not conflict with the removal of what they call the "ceremonial law" - how, at the same time that he taught men respect for the most insignificant law, there would be the removal of law. Most all commentators recognize that parts of the Law of Moses that related to sacrifices, cleansings from fleshly contamination, celebrating Jewish feast days, circumcising male children, etc., are no longer binding as law. The explanations presented recognize that Jesus kept such laws but that they are no longer required in his kingdom rule. They affirm that, though those laws are no longer applicable as laws to Kingdom citizens, they have not been destroyed - they have been preserved in scripture for our learning. And, while some sacrifices like the annual atonement may have been a prefiguring of the one supreme sacrifice of Christ, sacrifices for cleansing for a woman who delivered a child or for removing fleshly contamination will not fit that pattern. Again, while the Passover had some representative features of the coming Lamb of God, other feast days, like the feast of harvest, have no corresponding figure in the New Covenant. If interpreters of this context can explain how God no longer binds that which they call "ceremonial law" without breaking or destroying those laws, then it should be no problem to understand how Christ could also remove the whole law system of Moses but not destroy it. If the law of Moses was "added because of transgression" (Gal 3:19) and its addition did not change the character of God nor bind more than what was consistent with his nature before Mt. Sinai, then it could have been just as easily removed as a system of law without necessitating that man is freed from law government of his actions. Therefore, to remove the law does not mean that man was free from law, nor does it demean the law. Some kind of law existed before Mt. Sinai. If man had law requirements before Mt. Sinai or at any point in time before God gave "the Law of Moses" to Israel, then the adding of Moses' law did not, in any way, diminish God's authority or speak despairingly of previous law requirements. And, if its addition did not mean that man had been free from law requirements before it was given, neither would its removal mean that man would free from law control when the covenant sacrifice ratified a new covenant (note Heb 9:15-20; Col 2:14-17; Eph 2:11-22) While it is true that man is responsible to God's law, because he is related to God as The Creator, it is also true that in order for man to know what The Creator requires of him, The Creator must have revealed Himself in some way. Whether or not man accepts accountability to his Creator, God still holds him accountability for law violation - man can deny accountability but he will not successfully escape it. In the absence of revelation, man is left to subjective speculation about law requirements. Jesus did not address a Gentile audience here but that does not mean that they were not under law to God. Though they were not a part of the system of the Law of Moses, they were still under law to God else they could not justifiably be charged with sin (Rom. 2:14-15; 3:23). Man will never keep law perfectly -- he will always sin and be condemned by law - hence, the need for a system of justification by forgiveness. That understanding does not speak disparagingly of law but recognizes the limitations of law by itself. So, while it is true that man can never be justified by any system of perfect law keeping, the specific application of justification by law in the first century among the Jews and converted Gentiles was to the law of Moses. And, in our time, with all the historical background of the OT, a part of which contains the law of Moses to Israel (Deut 5:1-17), and with the completed revelation of the new covenant, we are able to see law from the beginning and, specifically, recognize law that relates to the kingdom of Christ in the new covenant. Furthermore, we may correctly affirm that the old covenant law is not bound on us by the mediator of a new covenant. Alford, when drawing conclusions about Jesus' statements in vv. 17-19, put it well: "That no deduction can be drawn from these words binding the Jewish law, or any part of it, as such upon Christians," (p. 44). Jesus is teaching respect for law and forbidding these Jewish disciples from any contemplation that his teachings or actions would break divine law. Had Jesus broken any requirement of heaven found in the Law and the prophets, he could not have been the Messiah and sin would have rendered him an imperfect sacrifice. In explaining how God's laws address the heart, he necessarily takes issue with the superficial concept of law obedience and, specifically, denounces the traditional and perverted interpretation of the law by the religious leaders. And, any disciple that treated a law of Moses with disrespect, whether setting it aside by tradition or by superficial observance, would be unfit for his kingdom (Mt 5:20). - Jim R. Everett

	Created on May 25, 2002		Page last updated