Sermon Tone Analysis

This radical approach to discipleship goes far beyond the best righteousness that the scribes and Pharisees could envisage (5:20); its goal is nothing less than sharing the perfection of God himself (5:48).

These verses may be conveniently divided into three main sections:

5:17–20 Fulfilling the law: general principles

5:21–47 Fulfilling the law: six examples

5:48 Fulfilling the law: summary (to be reinforced later by a further summary of the law and the prophets in 7:12).

In Matthew’s gospel the verb plēroō, “fulfill,” plays a prominent role, most notably in its ten occurrences in the formula-quotations (see on 1:22 and above pp.

11–14) where it denotes the coming into being of that to which Scripture pointed forward (whether by direct prediction or understood typologically).

The same sense appears in 26:54, 56 where Jesus’ suffering is seen as “fulfilling the Scriptures,” and in 13:14 where a compound form of the same verb (anaplēroō) again speaks of an OT prophecy coming true in contemporary experience.

In 3:15 to “fulfill all righteousness” appears to denote the action which will bring about God’s redemptive purpose through Jesus (see discussion there).

Apart from a single non-metaphorical use (of “filling up” a net, 13:48), its only other use in Matthew is in 23:32 of the hostile actions of the scribes and Pharisees “filling up the measure” of their ancestors, where again the sense of reaching a destined conclusion seems to be dominant.

In the light of Matthew’s use of this verb elsewhere, and the evident importance it has for his understanding of the relation between the authoritative words of the OT and their contemporary outworking, the sense here is not likely to be concerned either with Jesus’ actions in relation to the law or even his teaching about it, but rather the way in which he “fulfills” the pattern laid down in the law and the prophets.

It is important to note that this verse does not speak of Jesus “fulfilling the law,” but rather of his “fulfilling the law and the prophets.”

His fulfilling of the prophets is amply illustrated in the formula-quotations: his life and ministry has brought that to which they pointed forward.

Is it possible to understand his fulfilling of the law in the same light?

There is an intriguing little saying of Jesus recorded in 11:13 which throws light on this issue.

In speaking of the pivotal role of John the Baptist as the point at which the time of fulfillment has dawned, Jesus is recorded as commenting that “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”

The law is thus linked with the prophets as looking forward to a time of fulfillment which has now arrived.

The Torah, then, is not God’s last word to his people, but is in a sense provisional, looking forward to a time of fulfillment through the Messiah.

In the light of that concept, and of the general sense of “fulfill” in Matthew, we might then paraphrase Jesus’ words here as follows: “Far from wanting to set aside the law and the prophets, it is my role to bring into being that to which they have pointed forward, to carry them on into a new era of fulfillment.”

On this understanding the authority of the law and the prophets is not abolished.

They remain the authoritative word of God.

But their role will no longer be the same, now that what they pointed forward to has come, and it will be for Jesus’ followers to discern in the light of his teaching and practice what is now the right way to apply those texts in the new situation which his coming has created.

From now on it will be the authoritative teaching of Jesus which must govern his disciples’ understanding and practical application of the law.

Verses 21–48 will go on to show how this interpretation can no longer be merely at the level of the literal observance of regulations, but must operate at the deeper and more challenging level of discerning the will of God which underlies the legal rulings of the Torah.

If in the process it may appear that certain elements of the law are in fact for all practical purposes “abolished,” this will be attributable not to the loss of their status as the word of God but to their changed role in the era of fulfillment, in which it is Jesus, the fulfiller, rather than the law which pointed forward to him, who is the ultimate authority.

(V 19) The issue is thus again not primarily obedience to the commandments, but undermining their authority by teaching that they can now be ignored.

The translation “breaks” in NRSV, NIV (but not TNIV) or “disobeys” in GNB thus misses the essential point, which is not so much about behavior as about teaching.

Behavior is not excluded, of course, and the converse statement in the second half of the verse includes the “doing” of the commandments as well as teaching, but it is teaching the value of the commandments which is the true converse of setting them aside.

(v 20) Those who are to belong to God’s new realm must move beyond literal observance of rules, however good and scriptural, to a new consciousness of what it means to please God, one which penetrates beneath the surface level of rules to be obeyed to a more radical openness to knowing and doing the underlying will of “your Father in heaven.”

J. P. Meier describes Jesus’ demand as “a radical interiorization, a total obedience to God, a complete self-giving to neighbor, that carries the ethical thrust of the Law to its God-willed conclusion, even when this means in some cases abrogating the letter of the Law.”

Only those who thus “go far beyond the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” will be true subjects of God’s kingdom.

Those who can do no more than simply keep the rules, however conscientiously, haven’t even started as far as the kingdom of heaven is concerned.

To enter the kingdom of heaven does not mean to go to a place called heaven (though the eternal life of heaven will be its expected outcome, see on 18:8–9), but to come under God’s rule, to become one of those who recognize his kingship and live by its standards, to be God’s true people.

“Do not suppose that I came to undermine the authority of the OT scriptures, and in particular the law of Moses.

I did not come to set them aside but to bring into reality that to which they pointed forward.

I tell you truly: the law, down to its smallest details, is as permanent as heaven and earth and will never lose its significance; on the contrary, all that it points forward to will in fact become a reality (and is now doing so in my ministry).

So anyone who treats even the most insignificant of the commandments of the law as of no value and teaches other people to belittle them is an unworthy representative of the new régime, while anyone who takes them seriously in word and deed will be a true member of God’s kingdom.

But do not imagine that simply keeping all those rules will bring salvation.

For I tell you truly: it is only those whose righteousness of life goes far beyond the old policy of literal rule-keeping which the scribes and Pharisees represent who will prove to be God’s true people in this era of fulfillment.”

(V 19-20) Matthew 5:19–20 (EBC Mt–Lk): But what are “these commandments”?

It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus’ teachings (so Banks, Jesus, pp.

221–23), even though the verb cognate to “commands” (entolōn) is used of Jesus’ teachings in 28:20 (entellomai); for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus’ words, and the context argues against it.

Restriction to the Ten Commandments (TDNT, 2:548) is usually alien to the concerns of the context.

Nor can we say “these commandments” refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos (“this,” pl.

“these”) never points forward.

It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT Scriptures.

The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus’ coming but fulfilled.

Therefore the commandments of these Scriptures—even the least of them (on distinctions in the law, see on 22:36; 23:23)—must be practiced.

But the nature of the practicing has already been affected by vv.

17–18.

The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; so it is properly obeyed by conforming to his word.

As it points to him, so he, in fulfilling it, establishes what continuity it has, the true direction to which it points and the way it is to be obeyed.

Thus ranking in the kingdom turns on the degree of conformity to Jesus’ teaching as that teaching fulfills OT revelation.

His teaching, toward which the OT pointed, must be obeyed.

20 And that teaching, far from being more lenient, is nothing less than perfection (see on 5:48).

The Pharisees and teachers of the law (see on 2:4; 3:7; and Introduction, section 11.f) were among the most punctilious in the land.

Jesus’ criticism is “not that they were not good, but that they were not good enough” (Hill, Matthew).

While their multiplicity of regulations could engender a “good” society, it domesticated the law and lost the radical demand for absolute holiness demanded by the Scriptures.

What Jesus demanded is the righteousness to which the law truly points, exemplified in the antitheses that follow (vv.

21–48).

Contrary to Flender (pp.

45f.), v. 3 (poverty of spirit) and v. 20 (demand for radical righteousness) do not stand opposite each other in flat contradiction.

Verse 20 does not establish how the righteousness is to be gained, developed, or empowered; it simply lays out the demand.

Messiah will develop a people who will be called “oaks of righteousness … for the display of [Yahweh’s] splendor” (Isa 61:3).

The verb “surpasses” suggests that the new righteousness outstrips the old both qualitatively and quantitatively (Bonnard) (see on 25:31–46).

Anything less does not enter the kingdom.

Many Jewish maxims warn against anger (examples in Bonnard), but this is not just another maxim.

Here Jesus offers not just advice but insists that the sixth commandment points prophetically to the kingdom’s condemnation of hate.

Jesus’ anger, expressed in diverse circumstances (21:12–19; 23:17; Mark 3:1–5), is no personal inconsistency.

1. Jesus is a preacher who gets down to essentials on every point he makes.

Thus for a clear understanding of his thought on a particular issue, one must examine the balance of his teaching.

Compare, for instance, 6:2–4 with Luke 18:1–8.

Similarly, to learn all Jesus says about anger, it is necessary to integrate this passage with others such as Mt 21:12–13 without absolutizing any one text.

2. When suffering, Jesus is proverbial for his gentleness and forbearance (Luke 23:34; 1 Peter 2:23).

But if he comes as Suffering Servant, he comes equally as Judge and King.

His anger erupts not out of personal pique but out of outrage at injustice, sin, unbelief, and exploitation of others.

Unfortunately his followers are more likely to be angered at personal affronts (cf.

Carson, Sermon on the Mount, pp.

41f.).

Jesus goes far beyond its outward observance (which can be observed and judged) to the thoughts and attitudes which underlie the action, whether they are carried into effect or not.

In the third and fourth examples (divorce and swearing) Jesus declares that the actions which the OT law presupposes and for which it provides regulation should never have occurred in the first place; where the law recognized and attempted to mitigate human failure to maintain the standard of life God requires (marital fidelity and truthfulness), Jesus goes to the root of the issue and challenges the initial actions themselves.

In the fifth example (retributive punishment) an OT judicial ruling is stated to be inapplicable to personal ethics, to which it was presumably being applied by Jesus’ contemporaries as a justification for retaliatory action; in its place Jesus declares a principle of non-resistance which leaves no room for the calculation of proportionate retribution.

In the sixth example Jesus extends the principle of love far beyond the explicit purview of the OT law and in direct contradiction of what was presumably a contemporary “corollary” from the love of neighbors, the hatred of non-neighbors.

If there is a common pattern to these varied examples of “going beyond” both the OT law and the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, it might be characterized in a number of ways.

(1) It promotes an “inward” concern with motive and attitude above the “outward” focus on the visible and quantifiable observance of regulations.

(2) It goes behind specific rules to look for the more far-reaching principles which should govern the conduct of the people of God.

(3) It is concerned not so much with the negative goal of the avoidance of specific sin but with the far more demanding positive goal of discovering and following what is really the will of God for his people.

(4) It substitutes for what is in principle a 100% achievable righteousness (the avoidance of breaking a definable set of regulations) a totally open-ended ideal (being “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”) which will always remain beyond the grasp of the most committed disciple.

Such a radically searching reading of the will of God in the light of the OT law establishes a righteousness of the kingdom of heaven which is in a different league altogether from the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees—and of any other religious traditions which understand the will of God in terms of the punctilious observance of rules.