UnTIL HeAVeN AND EARTH PASS AwAY

(Matthew 5:17-20)

Hal Harless

Director

Calvary Chapel Bible College East Dallas

Garland, Texas

 

I. Introduction

 

The Talmud recounts an interesting incident involving Rabbi Gamaliel II (fl. c. AD 80)[1]:

            Imma Shalom, R[abbi] Eliezer's wife, was R[abbi] Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher lived in his vicinity, and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes. They wished to expose him, so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, 'I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father's estate.' 'Divide,' ordered he. Said he [Rabbi Gamaliel] to him, 'It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' [He replied], 'Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded and another book given, wherein it is written, 'A son and a daughter inherit equally.' The next day . . . Said he [Rabbi Gamaliel] to them, 'Look at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to add to the Law of Moses, and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son.'[2]

Strangely, some Christians would agree with Rabbi Gamaliel. Louis Berkhof asserts that

it is equally contrary to Scripture to say . . . that the law does not apply in the New Testament dispensation. Jesus taught the permanent validity of the law, Matt. 5:17-19 . . .

It is pure Antinomianism to maintain that Christ kept the law as a rule of life for His people, so that they need not worry about this any more. The law lays claim, and justly so, on the entire life of man in all its aspects, including his relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ . . . The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements . . .

 The Reformed do full justice to the second use of the law [as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ] . . . but they devote even more attention to the law in connection with the doctrine of sanctification. They stand strong in the conviction that believers are still under the law as a rule of life and gratitude (emphasis mine).[3]

Donald Bloesch sees the ethic of love as insufficient for Christian living and states that "Reformed theology takes strong exception to grounding ethics simply in the spirit of love" (emphasis mine).[4] Thus, some Christians see the Mosaic law as still in effect and in some sense binding on believers. On the other hand, many NT Scriptures, such as Rom 7:1-6; 10:4; 2 Cor 3:7-11; Gal 3:19-4:7; Eph 2:14-16; Col 2:13-14; Heb 7:11-18; 8:7-13, teach that the Mosaic law has ended.[5] Since it is certain that Paul and Jesus are not at odds, we must seek a harmonization.

II. Some Preliminary Issues

A. What is the Law?

If we are to avoid the fallacy of equivocation, the first issue that we must examine is the meaning of Law. The Law is not synonymous with God's eternal ethical absolutes. To be sure, the Law is a reflection of God's moral absolutes. However, God's moral absolutes existed before Moses and will remain forever. For example, it has always been wrong to murder. This was true long before Exod 20:13 and is true forever. To understand the Law we must look to its covenantal basis.

 

B. The Covenantal Basis for the Law

 

John Hartley observes that the Hebrew tôrâ ("law") "specifically is the stipulations of the covenant."[6]  Since all covenants have stipulations, we should not assume that the Mosaic covenant contained the only tôrâ ‚ in the OT. Indeed, this is not the case. Parental instructions (Prov 1:8; 3:1; 4:2; 6:20; 7:2; 13:14; 31:26) and the stipulations of other covenants (Jer 31:33) are also called tôrâ. However, in the case of Matt 5:17-20, the Law that Jesus speaks of surely refers primarily to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant.

The divine covenants are of two main types: suzerainty covenants and grant covenants.[7] Suzerainty covenants are oaths taken by a vassal at the insistence of a superior. The vassal swears to perform the stipulations and invites self-imprecatory curses for non-performance. The vassal also expects blessings for the performance of his obligations. However, grant covenants obligate the superior to bestow some benefit on the recipient. Therefore, although gratitude and good behavior are expected, the grant is unconditional in nature. The Abrahamic, Davidic, Land, and new covenants are grant covenants and, therefore, gracious. The Mosaic covenant is in the form of a suzerainty covenant.[8] As such, it is inherently performance oriented and non-gracious.

 

C. The Beneficiaries of the Mosaic Covenant

 

God made the Mosaic covenant with the same people that He "brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (Exod 20:2).[9] Moses set the law before Israel alone (Deut 4:44-45; 5:1-2). The Mosaic covenant distinguished Israel from the nations "for what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him? Or what great nation is there that has statues and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?" (Deut 4:7-8). The Apostle Paul considered the "covenants and the giving of the Law" to be the possession of the Jewish people (Rom 9:4). Thus, God gave the Mosaic covenant to Israel and it belonged to her alone.

 

D. The Unity of the Law

 

            The law of Moses consists of six hundred and thirteen commandments. Rabbi Simlai (fl. c. 3^rd century AD) teaches that

six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, corresponding to the number of solar days [in the year], and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts, corresponding to the number of the members of man's body.[10]

Scholars have often divided the Law into ritual, moral, and legal commandments. However, Paul writes that "every man who receives circumcision . . . is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Gal 5:3). James states that "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (Jas 2:10). E. P. Sanders comments that

modern scholars often try to divide the law into "ritual" and "ethical" categories, but this is an anachronistic and usually misleading division . . .

First-century Jews did not see a difference between the commandment not to eat holy food when ritually impure and the requirement to pay part of the tithes to the poor--except for the difference in penalty. The same God gave both commandments, and loyalty to him required obedience of them equally.[11]

Therefore, in our understanding of Matt 5:17-20 it would be a mistake to interpret Jesus' words as referring to only a part of the law of Moses.

 

III. Matthew 5:17-20

A. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill . . .

 

            Jesus cautions, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill" (Matt 5:17). The phrase "do not think" (mē nomisēte) is, as Daniel Wallace notes, "the use of the subjunctive in a prohibition . . . It is used to forbid the occurrence of an action."[12] The Greek word "that" (hoti) is declarative.  Wallace comments that "this summarizes the views of Jesus' opponents. The supposed direct discourse would have been, 'He [Jesus] has come to destroy the law.'"[13] 

The word "abolish" (kataluō) is defined as having "the basic sense put down, loosen, . . . figuratively, as invalidating an institution, such as law or sacrifice do away with, annul, abolish"[14]). Craig Keener explains that "Jewish teachers said that one 'abolished' the law by disobeying it (cf. Deut 27:26), because one thereby rejected its authority. Such highhanded rebellion against the law--as opposed to particular sins--warranted social and spiritual expulsion from the Jewish community."[15] We find several examples of this sort of terminology in the Talmud. The direct object is either the "Law" (tôrâ)[16]; a "commandment" (mitsvāh)[17]; or unstated, but understood as "commandment."[18]  The Talmud uses "abolish" (Aramaic b^etêl) in opposition to "establish" (qûm[19]). 

In contrast, Jesus asserts that He has not come to "abolish the Law or the Prophets" (Matt 5:17). The mention of these two major divisions of the OT indicates that Jesus is speaking of more than just obeying the commandments. David Lowery comments that "although the law and the prophets specifically refer to two of the three major sections in the OT (the third part being wisdom literature), it is probable that the whole of the OT Scriptures is intended by this phrase (cf. John 1:45; Rom. 3:21)."[20] No doubt, the phrase "the Law or the Prophets" is a synecdoche for the entire OT including the Writings. A close parallel reads, "Fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets" (Matt 26:56, emphasis mine). Jesus says, "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John" (Matt 11:13 cf. Luke 16:16, emphasis mine). Again, Jesus states that "all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44, emphasis mine). In this verse, we have all three divisions of the Hebrew Bible mentioned: the Law (tôrâ), the Prophets (N^ebî'îm), and Psalms as a synecdoche for all of the Writings (K^etubbot)--the entire Tanak. Phillip tells Nathanael that Jesus of Nazareth is He "of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote" (John 1:45, emphasis mine). Jesus is the Messiah predicted by the entire OT. Jesus says, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me" (John 5:39). Adolf Schlatter observes:

Since Scripture gave the expectation of the Christ to him and to the entire community, the messianic idea could not effect any break with Scripture. Then Jesus would have destroyed the foundation that bore him. By sending the Christ God confirmed Scripture, and Jesus, by beginning the work of the Promised One, submitted to it in complete readiness to obedience.[21]

Jesus could not abolish the Hebrew Scriptures without destroying the basis for His own claims.

The word "but" (alla) is a contrastive conjunction.[22] Instead of abolishing the Law and the Prophets, Jesus asserts that He has come to "fulfill" (plēroō) them. The word "fulfill" (plēroō ) could mean one of three different things in this context: (1) perform, (2) bring out the full meaning of something, or (3) to complete.[23]

The Rabbis do speak of fulfillment in the sense of performance. The Talmud states, "Then will the Holy One, blessed be He, say: 'Heaven and Earth can bear witness that Israel has fulfilled the entire Torah.'"[24] Of course, in His sinless life Jesus has also "fulfilled all righteousness" (Matt 3:15). However, if Jesus is saying that He has come to perform the Law, then we must wonder what it would mean to perform the prophets. Arnold Fruchtenbaum comments that

Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of Moses did not end with the coming of the Messiah, or by His life, but by His death. As long as He was alive, He was under the Mosaic Law and had to fulfill and obey every commandment applicable to Him. The statement of Matthew 5:17-19 . . . was made while He was living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Law of Moses in every manner that Moses commanded and not in the way that the rabbis had reinterpreted it. Even while He was living, He already implied the doing away of the law. Once example is Mark 7:19: This he said making all meats clean. Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away? Again, all Covenant Theologians must admit that great parts of the law no longer apply in the manner prescribed by Moses. Have they been done away with or not? To constantly claim that the Law of Moses is still in effect and/or that it is the same as the Law of Christ, while ignoring the details of that same law, is inconsistent and a theological fallacy.[25]

After the destruction of the temple, even the Jews were forced to abandon the sacrificial law, as it states in Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah:

This bears out what the Scripture says, To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice (Prov. XXI, 3). Scripture does not say, As much as sacrifice, but 'More than sacrifice'. How? Sacrifices were operative only so long as the Temple stood, but righteousness and justice held good during the time when the Temple stood and also hold good now when the Temple is no longer (emphasis mine).[26]

Most Christians would abolish the dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and circumcision.  Many would restrict the meaning of the law to the Ten Commandments, but even there, they would change the Sabbath day. Thus, out of six hundred and thirteen commandments, they would retain only nine or a mere 1.47%. Taken as a statement that the law of Moses remains in force, Matt 5:17 proves too much. In fact, those that are most zealous for the law have abandoned a lot of jots and tittles along the way.

            In a sense, Jesus does fill up or extend the meaning of the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21-47). With His repeated, "You have heard . . . but I say," Jesus probed beyond outward obedience to the Law and examined the hearts of men.  Chrysostom (AD 347-407) writes that "His sayings were no repeal of the former, but a drawing out and filling up of them."[27] However, it remains hard in this context to see how He fulfills the prophets in that way.  Moreover, Matthew does not normally use "fulfill" (plēroō) in this manner.

The key is that Christ fulfills both the law and the prophets. This points toward prophetic fulfillment. Matthew consistently uses plēroō ("make full . . . fulfill"[28]) of prophetic fulfillment. In the sixteen instances of plēroō in Matthew's gospel, he uses it of some form of prophetic fulfillment thirteen times.[29] Of the remaining three instances only one refers to righteousness works (Matt 3:15). The other two refer to filling a fish net (Matt 13:48) and the full measure of the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:32). Reinier Schippers concludes that plēroō ("fulfill") is "virtually a technical term used in connection with the fulfillment of scripture and also a designation of the fulfillment of time in an eschatological sense."[30] Jesus did not abolish the Hebrew Scriptures. He fulfilled all that they contained about Him.

This usage of plēroō ("fulfill") is found in the LXX as well.[31] Normally, in this context plēroō ("fulfill") is used to translate the Hebrew mâlê' ("be full, fill"[32]). The Aramaic translations of the OT normally render mâlê' with the Aramaic cognate m^elâ' ("filled"[33]). Schippers notes that

the Qumran writings mainly use the Heb. mâlê'  to denote the completion of a period of time (cf. 1QS 7:20, 22) and also in the pregnant eschatological sense, that all existence and events are fulfilled according to a firm plan that is already fixed by God (1QS 3:16; cf. 1QM 17:9).[34]

Interestingly, mâlê' ("filled") is the verb chosen by the Aramaic Peshitta translation to translate plēroō ("fulfill") in Matt 5:17.  Both Josephus and Philo use plēroō in a related sense for "to complete."[35]  Chrysostom explains that "the prophets He fulfilled, inasmuch as He confirmed by His actions all that had been said concerning Him; wherefore also the evangelist used to say in each case, 'That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.'"[36] Jesus is saying that He came to fulfill what was prophesied of Him in the Hebrew Scriptures.

B. Until heaven and earth pass away . . .

 

            Jesus solemnly states, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). The smallest letter in Hebrew is the yôd ("jot" KJV), which is similar in appearance to our apostrophe. A small stroke ("tittle" KJV) is often all that differentiates between two similar Hebrew letters, e.g. rêš and dālet.[37] Keener notes that

later rabbis told the story that when God changed Sarai's name to Sarah, the yod that was removed complained to God for generations till he reinserted it, this time in Joshua's name. Jewish teachers used illustrations like this to make the point that the law was sacred and one could not regard any part as too small to be worth keeping.[38]

Indeed, Jesus' entire argument in Matthew 22:41-46 hinges on the little Hebrew letter yôd in Ps 110:1 that translates into "my."[39] The phrase "not . . . shall pass" (ou mē parelthē) is an emphatic negation. Wallace notes that "emphatic negation is indicated by ou mē plus the aorist subjunctive . . . This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek . . . ou mē rules out even the idea as being a possibility . . ."[40] Jesus is saying emphatically that there is no possibility of the Scriptures passing away while two conditions hold true.[41]

Two clauses, introduced by heōs an ("until . . . while"[42]) followed by the aorist subjunctive, define when this passing away of the smallest part of the Law could occur. There are two ways to understand heōs an with the aorist subjunctive. The first denotes "that the commencement of an event is dependent on circumstances."[43] The angel tells Joseph to remain in Egypt "until I tell you (heōs an eipō soi)" (Matt 2:13). The second denotes contemporaneous time and means "as long as, while."[44] An example of this usage would be Jesus instructing the disciples to "sit here while I pray (heōs proseuchōmai)" (Mark 14:32 ESV, NET, NIV, NKJV, NRSV).[45] Appian (c. AD 90-160) also uses heōs an as equivalent to "as long as."[46] This would mean that the OT Scriptures will remain while heaven and earth have not yet passed away. To put it another way, the preservation of the OT Scriptures is as certain as the continuance of heaven and earth.

It is highly significant that Christ mentions heaven and earth. In renewing the Mosaic covenant, Moses called "heaven and earth to witness against" Israel (Deut 4:26). Again, when ratifying the Land covenant, Moses states, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today" (Deut 30:19). Jeremiah says, "Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Jer 33:25-26).  The Hittite treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru (c. 1350 BC), in addition to a long list of witnessing deities, records that "heaven and earth . . . shall be witnesses to this treaty [and] to the oath."[47] Thus, we see that "heaven and earth" is not merely a merism for "everything." Heaven and earth are the witnesses to the Mosaic covenant. 

Contemporary Jewish literature bears testimony to this usage. One of the Qumran scrolls has Moses say, "Explain thoroughly everything that I [demand] of them and [call as witnesses against] them Heaven and [Earth, for] what I command [them] will not be to their liking, or to their descendants' liking, [all] the days that they [live on the] land."[48] The Midrash Leviticus Rabbah states that "[Elijah says]: I call heaven and earth to witness."[49] The Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah asks, "'Why unto the heavens and the earth?' Because they are the witnesses of Israel, for it is written, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day (Deut. IV, 26) . . ."[50] The Rabbis even called heaven and earth to witness to strengthen their individual assertions.[51]

The rabbinical sources also equate the passing away of heaven and earth to the annulling of the covenant. The Midrash Exodus Rabbah states

that had you not accepted My law, I would have reduced the world to its original chaotic and waste condition, as it is said, If My covenant be not with thee day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth (Jer. XXXIII, 25) . . . If thou annulest the covenant, then wilt thou cause Me to reduce heaven and earth to their original chaotic and waste condition.[52]

and

[This was the subject of a discussion between] Hezekiah b[en] Rabbi and R[abbi] Joshua b[en] Levi.  Hezekiah said that Moses spoke thus: 'Hadst Thou sworn to their ancestors by heaven and earth, then Thou wouldst do right in destroying their descendants, for just as heaven and earth will one day cease to be, so will the oath made by them pass away; but, Lord of the Universe, didst Thou not swear BY THINE OWN SELF unto their ancestors that Thou wouldst not destroy their ancestors?[53]

Jesus is speaking in well-understood contemporary terms. In a similar saying, Jesus says that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail" (Luke 16:17, cp. Matt 24:35). Here, as in Matt 5:18, He is speaking of the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures not the eternal validity of the law of Moses as a rule of life.

 

C. Until all is accomplished . . .

 

            The second "until" (heōs an) should be understood to denote the commencement of an event that is dependent on circumstances.  Jesus indicates that even the smallest part of the law could not pass away "until all is accomplished (heōs an panta genētai)" (Matt 5:18). Why, if Jesus wished to teach the eternal validity of the law of Moses, would He say "until all is accomplished" and not simply "forever"? However, if He is referring to prophetic fulfillment of all the OT Scriptures, it makes perfect sense. D. A. Carson comments:

Thus the first "until" clause focuses strictly on the duration of OT authority but the second returns to considering its nature; it reveals God's redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their "accomplishment," in Jesus and the eschatological kingdom he is now introducing and will one day consummate.[54]

Jesus says that "the Law and the Prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached" (Luke 16:16-17). Christ clearly saw His first coming as a watershed event that brought about a dispensational change. The post-Resurrection Christ tells His disciples that "these are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44). We should note that the "all things" in this context is clearly "all things" prophesied concerning Christ's first coming. There is a similar passage in Luke 21:32-33 where "all things" concerns Christ's second coming.  The completed work of Christ saw the end of the Mosaic covenant's authority, not because it had been destroyed, but because its purpose had been fulfilled.[55]

 

D. The least of these commandments . . .

 

            Jesus teaches that "whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19).[56] It is worth noting that the one "called least in the kingdom of heaven" is still in the kingdom of heaven.[57] One's relationship to the commandments is not determinative of one's eternal salvation, but of one's standing in the kingdom. Therefore, Matt 5:19 is referring to eternal rewards.[58] When Jesus said this, the Mosaic covenant was still in force and eternal rewards were determined by one's relationship to the law of Moses. However, with the cessation of the Mosaic covenant, now obedience to the law of Christ determines one's rewards. Fruchtenbaum notes that

Covenant Theologians who cite this passage are seldom consistent with it. It is obvious that Jesus was speaking of the Law of Moses. Yet no Covenant Theologian accepts his own thesis since he must believe in the doing away in some form of many of the commandments of the Law of Moses, if not most . . . Regardless of what semantics may be used to describe this change ("supersede," "brought to greater fulfillment," "bringing out its true meaning," et al.), it is clear that a great many of the 613 commandments no longer apply as they are written. If by the Law of Moses Covenant Theologians mean only the moral commandments, then their citation of Matthew 5:17-18 does not prove this since verse 19 adds these least commandments, which includes more than merely the moral commandments and the emphasis is on the entire law, all 613 commandments . . .[59]

Christ is indicating that He holds the entire OT Scriptures in the highest regard. He is teaching the verbal plenary inspiration of the OT Scriptures, their preservation, and total fulfillment. He teaches that our position in the kingdom will depend on our reaction to God's revealed will.[60] At the time of the Sermon on the Mount, that rule of life was the law of Moses. It is now the law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21). The new commandment of the new covenant is love (John 13:34; 1 John 2:7-10). Our lives will be measured against that standard.

 

E. Righteousness surpassing Scribes and Pharisees

 

            Jesus states that "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). This saying must have thoroughly shocked His hearers, since the Scribes and Pharisees were renowned as righteous. Chrysostom comments that "by 'Scribes and Pharisees' here, He meant not merely the lawless, but well-doers."[61] We could seek to find some way in which our morality might be superior to the Scribes and Pharisees. However, that would surely miss the point, since Matt 5:48 indicates that God's standard is perfection. The natural reaction to Jesus' statement would be, "Then who can be saved?" (Matt 19:25). The solution to the dilemma is that God "made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).