Matthew 5:17

Matthew 5:17
Matthew 5:17
← Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
Book	Gospel of Matthew
Christian Bible part	New Testament

Matthew 5:17 is the 17th verse of

Prophets

.

Content

The original

Westcott and Hort

, reads:

μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον καταλυσαι τον νομον η τους

προφητας ουκ ηλθον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or

the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The World English Bible translates the passage as:

"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the

prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill."

For a collection of other versions see BibleGateway Matthew 5:17.

Jesus and Mosaic law

This verse is central to the

Mosaic law. Issues include the traditional understanding of the Sabbath in Matthew 12:8, divorce laws in Matthew 5:31, and dietary prohibitions in Matthew 15:11

.

The

Herod's Temple as prescribed by the Mosaic Law, even after the resurrection. According to this view, anyone accepting his gift of salvation would not only avoid consequences of failing to live up to the law, but is no longer expected to do any works of the law for any spiritual reason (See also Hyperdispensationalism).^[2]^[3]

The opposite of antinomianism is the idea that the entire

Christian views on the old covenant

.

Early Christians

This issue was a central one to the

Jewish Christians, that the author of Matthew is widely believed to have been a part of, as the Jewish Christians would have accused the Pauline Christians of abandoning Jewish doctrine, for example the Council of Jerusalem and Acts of the Apostles 21:21

:

"They have been told about

NRSV

Some scholars also believe that

Biblical Canon.^[4]

The main controversy over this verse is over the word "fulfill." What exactly does fulfilling the laws entail? A wide number of reading of the word pleroo, fulfil, have been advanced. Among them are: establish, confirm, validate, complete, bring into actuality by doing, set forth in their true meaning, accomplish, and obey. These varying definitions and the textual uncertainty over the status of the law have led to a number of understandings of the relationship between Mosaic law and the New Testament.

In the early church there were a number of factions that felt the coming of Jesus had brought about a rejection of the Old Testament, these included the followers of

Apostles in his Against Heresies 3.12.12:^[5]

"...being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles."

St Augustine

Another important writer who rejected any break between Jesus and Moses was St. Augustine who outlines his view in his Reply to Faustus, a Manichaeist. Augustine outlined six different ways in which Jesus fulfilled the law:

Jesus personally obeyed the law
He fulfilled the messianic predictions
He empowered his people to obey it
He brought out its true meaning
He explained the true meaning behind the rituals and ceremonies
He gave additional commands that furthered the intentions of the Law.

Other writers

The most important of these arguments was the sixth, that Jesus expanded the law but did not

Anabaptists

took the opposite view and felt the Jesus had greatly reformed the Law and felt that Old Testament precepts could only be justified if they had been reaffirmed by Jesus.

Cafeteria Christianity

).

Commentary from the Church Fathers

Glossa Ordinaria: Having now exhorted His hearers to undergo all things for righteousness’ sake, and also not to hide what they should receive, but to learn more for others’ sake, that they may teach others, He now goes on to tell them what they should teach, as though He had been asked, ‘What is this which you would not have hid, and for which you would have all things endured? Are you about to speak any thing beyond what is written in the Law and the Prophets;’ hence it is He says, Think not that I am come to subvert the Law or the Prophets.^[7]

Pseudo-Chrysostom: And that for two reasons. First, that by these words He might admonish His disciples, that as He fulfilled the Law, so they should strive to fulfil it. Secondly, because the Jews would falsely accuse them as subverting the Law, therefore he answers the calumny beforehand, but in such a manner as that He should not be thought to come simply to preach the Law as the Prophets had done.^[7]

Saint Remigius: He here asserts two things; He denies that He was come to subvert the Law, and affirms that He was come to fulfil it.^[7]

Augustine: In this last sentence again there is a double sense; to fulfil the Law, either by adding something which it had not, or by doing what it commands.^[7]

Chrysostom: Christ then fulfilled the Prophets by accomplishing what was therein foretold concerning Himself—and the Law, first, by transgressing none of its precepts; secondly, by justifying by faith, which the Law could not do by the letter.^[7]

Augustine: And lastly, because even for them who were under grace, it was hard in this mortal life to fulfil that of the Law, Thou shalt not lust, He being made a Priest by the sacrifice of His flesh, obtained for us this indulgence, even in this fulfilling the Law, that where through our infirmity we could not, we should be strengthened through His perfection, of whom as our head we all are members. For so I think must be taken these words, to fulfil the Law, by adding to it, that is, such things as either contribute to the explanation of the old glosses, or to enable to keep them. For the Lord has showed us that even a wicked motion of the thoughts to the wrong of a brother is to be accounted a kind of murder. The Lord also teaches us, that it is better to keep near to the truth without swearing, than with a true oath to come near to blasphemy.^[7]

References

^ Allison, D., Matthew in Barton, J. and Muddiman, J. (2001), The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 852
^ http://bethanyipc.org.sg/bwsj/bwsjJ319.htm^{[permanent dead link]}
^ Fortner, Don. "The Faith of Christ and Our Faith in Christ". Archived from the original on 2005-12-26. Retrieved 6 June 2023.
^ France, R.T. The Gospel According to Matthew: an Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.
^ "ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org.
^ Chrysostom, John "Homilies on Matthew: Homily VI". circa fourth century.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Catena Aurea: commentary on the four Gospels; collected out of the works of the Fathers. Oxford: Parker, 1874. Thomas Aquinas". Oxford, Parker. 1874. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.