Spooh's 4 Thought

Above or Below the Law?

NIV: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

NASB: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”

MESSAGE: “Don’t suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures-either God’s Law or the Prophets. I’m not here to demolish but to complete.
Matthew 5:17

The Question:

The question brought to the minds of many when reading this text is: Did Jesus place himself above the Jewish law? To answer this question I will firstly briefly attempt an exegesis of the passage by identifying both erroneous interpretations of the verse and then by suggesting a preferable approach to reading 5:17. The exegesis will also interact with a bit of historical theology regarding the relationship of law to gospel. Through this I hope to answer the question.

Exegesis:

Firstly, what the passage is not saying:
A commonly taught view concerning this passage is that by using the word ‘fulfill’ Jesus is saying that he has lived out all the requirements of the law and the prophets perfectly. In this way the passage reads rather similarly to Romans 8:4 which informs us that the righteous requirements of the law were fully met in Christ. However although this reading is consistent with the broader theology of Paul and the rest of the New Testament, it is not likely that it is the meaning of this passage. D A Carson, in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, comments that such a reading does not “appear to be taught here. The language of verse 18 seems tighter than that.” Added to this criticism is the fact that this reading fails to take into account the inclusive term found in verse 17, ‘the law and the prophets’, a correct understanding of this term shall be explained shortly.

A second erroneous way to read this passage, which is extremely common in Reformed circles or often associated with Covenant Theology, is to read the term ‘law’ in Matthew 5:17 as referring only to the ceremonial or sacrificial aspects of the Mosaic law. This view sees the 316 commandments of the Mosaic law as being divided into three categories, ceremonial, civil and moral. It is argued that Christ is here proclaiming his fulfillment of the ceremonial law by going to the cross, hence all the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law fall away. This view also further argues, although not directly connected with this text, that the civil requirements of the law also fall away since they applied to the nation of Israel which was a theocracy, which the Lord has since seen fit to discontinue post cross.
So by not abolishing the law but fulfilling the ceremonial requirements, and due to the fact that the civil requirements have fallen away, one is left with a reading that upholds the continuity of the moral laws contained within the 613 Mosaic laws. Well known scholar Walter Kaiser argues this view in the Book ‘5 Views on Law and Gospel.’

To highlight the pitfalls of this view, I quote Wayne Strickland from the same book as he responds to Kaiser’s essay:
‘…Kaiser argues that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial part of the law in his death on the cross, so that the ceremonial provisions of the law do not remain in force. Yet Christ fulfilled all the Mosaic law, not simply the ceremonial provisions. This is Christ’s own testimony in Matthew 5:17. That Christ had in mind the entire Mosaic law is confirmed by the correction of abuses immediately following this statement of fulfillment (vv. 21-48). For instance, he corrects abuses dealing with fasting, a regulation that is not part of the so-called moral law.’ Douglas Moo, also in the same book, and Carson in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount both hold similar criticisms of the approach championed by Kaiser.

The other problem with this view is the artificial and extra-biblical classification of the Mosaic law into a three-way division. This division is found nowhere in biblical literature or in early rabbinic literature. According to Carson it is not even found in the writings of the early church fathers. The origin of this division which has become known as the ‘tripartite division of the law’ can be traced to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, the great Roman Catholic Scholar. His division was later adopted by Calvin and thus incorporated into the general Reformed tradition. Notable exceptions came in the form of Luther, the Anabaptists and John Knox who all challenged the unnatural division.

In modern times the view has been greatly challenged by the likes of Don Carson, Douglas Moo, David Peterson, Craig Blomberg and Gordon Wenham on an academic level, and by the likes of John Piper, David Jackman and Phillip Jensen on a pastoral level.

Wenham goes so far as to label the tripartite division as ‘arbitrary and artificial’ and another writer, David Dorsey makes the point that the categorizing of certain selected laws as “moral” is in his view ‘methodologically questionable’ – since all of the 613 laws have some sort of moral implication.

So to read this tripartite division into Matthew 5:17 is likewise questionable and this is backed up by verse 18 which suggests that the law being spoken about here is definitely all of the law and not just the moral law.

What is the passage saying?

The key to understanding the passage is a correct understanding of the term ‘the law and the prophets’, through correctly understanding this term one will be able to discern the meaning of ‘abolish’ and ‘fulfill’. Carson and Blomberg both point out that this is an inclusive term used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures – and this is echoed in numerous other commentaries – strangely enough those who propagate the tripartite view would normally agree with this understanding of the term when found in other parts of the Bible but in Matthew 5 they all tend to change their tune, perhaps because their theological system overrides their exegesis?

If this reading of the term is correct then in what way can Jesus say he is a fulfillment of the law and prophets? Well Matthew 11:12f tell us that all the prophets and the law have prophesied the coming of the kingdom up until John the Baptist. So we see that the law can function in a prophetic role – the law prophesies. And it is in this sense that commentators like Moo, Hagner and Carson see Christ fulfilling the law – he is the prophetic end of the law. So this passage directs us to see Jesus, his life and teaching, by virtue of his own proclamation, as the prophetic fulfillment of the whole law, and in fact the entire Old Testament. In this sense his teaching is not that different here from his words to his disciples in Luke 24:44, ‘everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’

So to our question then:

Is Jesus placing himself above the Jewish law? The answer I think, is yes, in that he is the fulfillment of that Jewish law and that it cannot be interpreted and applied clearly without us viewing it through the life, work and teaching of Jesus. For example, think in terms of a progression on a building site. When building a bridge we lay pillars upon which the bridge can be supported. When only the pillars are in place, we can investigate them, study them and make conclusions and deductions about them and yet as true as those deductions might be they are not the whole story.

When the bridge is built upon the pillars we can now see the pillars completely and their role in the whole structure, the pillars don’t disappear and although our original deductions might require some adjustment we can now rightly understand their role in the whole construction.

It is the same with the law. Jesus proclaims himself as the completion of the construction and so we must view the foundations of the construction in light of the completed work. And so in that sense Jesus places himself above the Jewish law.

Now this will have all sorts of applicatory ramifications for doctrine and church – and that is really the extended debate around this issue, that a book like the ‘5 Views on Law and Gospel’, and also the ongoing debate of Covenant Theology versus New Covenant Theology begins to tackle, but those issues are complex and beyond the scope of this paper.


Further Reading:
Carson, D. A. 1998. Sermon on the Mount. Paternoster Press. Carlisle.
Strickland. W(ed.). 1996. 5 Views on Law and Gospel. Zondervan. Grand Rapids
Blomberg. C. 1992. Matthew – NAC. Broadman Publishers. Nashville.
Jackman. D & Philip. W. 2003. Teaching Matthew. Christian Focus Publications. London.
Dorsey. D. A. 1991. The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise. JETS vol. 34 no. 3

posted by Stephen Murray @ 5:27 PM