TEXT: Matthew 5:17-20

SUBJECT: Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount #4: Christ and the Old Testament.

We come this evening to the fourth paragraph in our Lord's great sermon. And the most difficult. In Him--we know--"are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge". We pray He will give us both. We'll need plenty.

The subject is the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Old Testament. He introduces it in v.17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

"I came not to destroy". To "destroy" literally means "to tear down". He promises to not abolish the Law or to render the Prophets inoperative. Did He? He did not. Four times in the previous chapter He affirmed the sanctity of Scripture with the formula, "It is written". A bit later, He made His position even more clear, "Scripture cannot be broken". Among His last words were quotes from the Old Testament, Psalm 22:1, Psalm 31:5. Never was a man more Biblical than He. Why shouldn't He be? It was He who inspired the Scriptures. The prophets--Peter tells us--testified by "the Spirit of Christ". Thus, whatever He did with the Old Testament, He didn't "destroy" it.

"I did not come to destroy but to fulfill". What does this mean? Greg Bahnsen has argued that the word means "to confirm". But this makes no sense for one obvious reason: The Word of God needs no confirmation! Moreover, nobody in His audience thought it did! Thus, it cannot mean "confirm".

Walter Chantry (in a sermon I heard) interpreted the word to mean "enable". He said: "If we allow Jesus to speak for Himself, the meaning of `fulfill' is plain. In v.18 everything will be accomplished. All will happen or be done. And when in particular this fulfillment is in the realm of commandment and morality (v.19), it means the actual practice, teaching and not breaking of the ethical requirements. The Law and the prophets will be substantiated in Christ's kingdom by being done!" Chantry's argument is better than Bahnsen's but fails on this one point: it proves too much. The Lord does not say, "I came to fulfill the moral precepts contained in the Old Testament". He said "I came...to fulfill the Law and the Prophets". But is He empowering His people to keep all of the Law? Are you offering sacrifices? Are you keeping the feasts? Are you circumcising your sons on the eighth day? Maybe not. Ought you?

James Montgomery Boice offers a third take on the word. He writes, "...there is only one sense in which we can say that Jesus fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled the Law by dying on the cross and thereby satisfying forever the demands of the Law against those who would believe on Him". Is Boice right? What He says is true (pretty much). But it doesn't fit the context. Nowhere in the Sermon does the Lord speak of Himself as dying for sinners. He's not exercising His priestly office; He's speaking as "the prophet who was to come into the world".

A better way of understanding "fulfill" is this: "to complete, to fill up to overflowing". A memory device may be helpful: to fulfill is to fill full. This--I'm convinced--is what the Lord means when He said, "I came not to destroy the Law or prophets, but to fill them to overflowing".

Let me support my argument with a cross-reference, some Biblical theology, and a quick look at the context.

In sum: The Lord Jesus is not the destroyer of the Old Testament, but its consummation. "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me".

In the second place, the Lord speaks of the unity and the duration of the Old Testament, v.18: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled".

"...One jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law..." "Jots" and "tittles" are the Hebrew equivalent of "dotted i's" and "crossed t's". Not one of them will be abolished. What does this mean? The Lord Jesus thought of the Law of God as a cohesive unit. And with good reason: that's how it is written. One example must do, Leviticus 19:18-19. Under the Old Covenant, the man who hated his neighbor was no worse that the man who wore a polyester shirt or bred his poodle with a Chihuahua! The Law of God stands and falls together.

Thomas Aquinas wasn't happy with this, and so, he put his brilliant mind to work and came up with three laws: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. The Ceremonial Laws are cancelled with the coming of Christ. The Civil Laws are inoperative because there is no longer a covenant nation. The Moral Laws, however, are eterally valid. The Reformers, Puritans, and most Evangelicals have followed Thomas. But the Lord won't allow it! "One jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law." Not one!

How long will the Law remain binding? Two termini are given: "heaven and earth pass away" and "all is fulfilled". The Law remains intact until these two events occur. Has all been "fulfilled"? Yes. When? In the coming of Christ, "I did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it". But what about the other half of the equation? Must we wait till the Second Coming before we can dispense with the sacrificial system? Of course not. But why not? Here's why: Heaven and earth have passed away. How? In the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. How do I know that? Because the Bible says so. In Matthew 24:29-31, the Lord describes the destruction of Israel's capital in terms of an apocalyptic catastrophe. How do I know that this is the destruction of Jerusalem to which He is referring? Because He says so, 24:1-3. Furthermore, much of it doesn't make sense if the meaning is otherwise, see, e.g., vv.15-20. Finally, there are many Biblical precedents to support the case. Isaiah 13, Ezekiel 32, and many others.

In short: the Law and Prophets remain in force until the work of Christ is completed. It began with His death and came to a close with the destruction of Jerusalem about 40 years later.

What does this mean to us? The Law and prophets are no longer binding on God's people under the New Covenant. Are they inspired? Yes. Are they true? Yes. Are they profitable? Yes. But they are not binding!

Does this mean that we're now free to murder, commit adultery, lie, and so forth? Read vv.21ff., and you'll see. The Old Covenant passes away to make room for a New--and Better--Covenant!

It's Lawgiver is Christ. And His Word we'd better take seriously. As seriously as Moses'. And more, Hebrews 2:1-3.

This brings us to v.19: "Whoever therefore, breaks one of these least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

What are "these commandments"? The ones that follow. The commandments of Christ. We can't, for example, be satisifed with not committing adultery--we must strive to rid ourselves of illicit desire. Not killing someone isn't good enough; we mustn't even call him names! In short: "If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed". Or, Matthew 28:18-20.

The Lord wants us to be Christ-centered in our ethics and in our teaching. God save us the Law-centered behavior and ministries that so plague the people of God--especially the Calvinists.

"These commandments" of Christ are then contrasted with the words of mere men, v.20: "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven".

The "righteousness" is not imputed--but practiced. We must live godly lives if we hope to "enter the kingdom". Hebrews 12:14. And godly lives are preoccupied with Christ.

Let me sum up the theology of this passage:

A practical remark:

"This is My Beloved Son

in Whom I am well pleased.

Hear Him!"

"Speak Lord, for your servants hear".