Perhaps you’ve heard about Jesus’ disagreement with the Old Testament. The people of Israel had received a set of laws through Moses, but Jesus trumped them in his Sermon on the Mount. An extreme version of this view might say that Jesus disregarded the Old Testament law and put a new law in its place. A softer view might say that Jesus took the outwardly focused OT laws and added to them an inward dimension, focused on the heart. But perhaps we should take a closer look.
My goal in this post is not to develop a comprehensive theology of Old and New Testaments, nor to explain what our thinking should be on the OT law. My aim is more focused. I want to look at just one passage that some might use to claim that Jesus either set aside, or in some way added to, the law of Moses.
Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.
The Pertinent Formula
I’m referring to Jesus’ repeated formula: “You have heard that it was said…But I say to you…” (Matt 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). Seems clear enough, right? You have heard what Moses said—you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, and so on—but I have something new and/or different to say. Moses was great, but I am greater. The old has become obsolete and is ready to disappear; the new has come. The law of liberty. The law of love. The law of Christ.
ajshain (2011), Creative Commons
The Immediate Context
But look at where Jesus just came from. Remember that the Sermon on the Mount was a sermon. It was all spoken at once. In fact, what Matthew has recorded to us could be spoken out loud in about 10 minutes, and it’s highly unlikely that such large crowds would have gathered on a mountain for only a 10-minute speech. So Matthew has likely condensed and summarized all that Jesus actually spoke that day. But the point remains: Don’t break it into tiny pieces. Read the sermon as a unit.
And right before Jesus launches into his sixfold “but I say to you” formula, he makes the following introductory comments:
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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20)
Jesus could not be more clear about the fact that he did not come to abolish the Law. Certainly, we can debate what exactly it means that he came to “fulfill” it. But there is no question that Jesus did not come to abolish it (Matt 5:17). Heaven and earth will pass away before the tiniest stroke of the Law passes away (Matt 5:18). And Jesus has no goodwill toward anyone who would relax “one of the least of these commandments” or teach others to relax them. The great ones in his kingdom are those who do the Law, and who teach others to do it (Matt 5:19). And to even enter Jesus’ kingdom, we must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 5:20).
Interesting. Note all the contrasts lined up in a row:
- Jesus came not to abolish the Law :: Jesus came to fulfill the Law
- Heaven and earth will not pass away :: The Law will be accomplished
- Anyone who relaxes even a single command, and teaches others to do so, is least :: Anyone who does the commands, and teaches others to do them, is great
- Scribes and Pharisees [presumably, by the sentence’s logic] will not enter the kingdom :: Those more righteous than scribes and Pharisees will enter the kingdom
So Jesus contrasts his purpose (fulfill) with what is not his purpose (abolish). And he contrasts right use of the law (do) with wrong use of the law (relax). And he contrasts those who get into the kingdom (more righteous than scribes) with those who don’t (scribes).
And then… He works through 6 more contrasts, 6 case studies, having to do with the Law. “You have heard that it was said…. But I say to you….” The context therefore suggests that the 6 contrasts of verses 21-48 are following on the theme of verses 17-20. In other words, they are contrasting those who abolish or relax the commands with those who do them and teach them.
The Quotations (OT Context)
But that doesn’t make sense of the fact that Jesus actually quotes the Old Testament laws! The thing he is negating is the Old Testament text. The OT Law. “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” and so on.
But there is more here than meets the eye.
- For the first two (murder and adultery – Matt 5:21, 27), Jesus quotes Exodus, and then he goes on to talk about heart-intentions. But I’ve written before (e.g. here and here) about how the law in Exodus was always about heart-intentions. This is nothing new.
- The third quote (on divorce – Matt 5:31) is from Deut 24, which permits divorce only on the ground of “indecency” (i.e., sexual immorality). Jesus is not disagreeing with Moses but simply reiterating what Moses said.
- The fourth quote (on swearing – Matt 5:33) is drawn from Lev 19:12, Num 30:2, and Deut 23:21. But none of those passages say anything about swearing “by heaven” or “by the earth” or “by Jerusalem”or “by your head” (Matt 5:34-36).
- The fifth quote can be found all throughout the books of Moses (Matt 5:38), but never in support of vengeance. In fact, this stipulation exists to prevent personal vengeance and to limit what sanctions civil courts may impose.
- The sixth quote…is no OT quote at all (Matt 5:43). It has a ring of truth (“You shall love your neighbor”). But you can spend all day looking up “and you shall hate your enemy” and you will not find it.
This sixth “quote” is the linchpin that alerts us to something significant. Jesus is not quoting the Old Testament laws to correct them in some way. He is quoting what these people have heard their teachers say about the Old Testament laws.
He is quoting those who have, in fact, relaxed the commands. Those who teach others to do the same. Those who abolish what God has required of them. Those whose righteousness is like the scribes and Pharisees…. Actually, we have much reason to believe he is quoting the scribes and Pharisees themselves.
Matthew’s Broader Context
Chapter 5 is not the first place in Matthew where Jesus quotes the Old Testament. Look at how Jesus chooses to refer to the Old Testament itself:
- “It is written” (Matt 4:4)
- “Again it is written” (Matt 4:7)
- “For it is written” (Matt 4:10)
Later in the book, he will incredulously ask the scribes and Pharisees “Have you not/never read…?” (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31). He will command them to go and learn what the Scripture says (Matt 9:13, 12:7). He will accuse them of setting aside (relaxing) the word of God for the sake of their oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6). He will curse them for not entering the kingdom (Matt 23:13) and for missing the point of the law (Matt 23:23-24).
My point: When Jesus refers to the Old Testament, it is the written word. When he mentions what “you have heard that it was said,” he is talking about the Pharisees’ oral traditions.
Conclusion
In Matthew 5, Jesus is not setting aside the Old Testament law in favor of a new teaching. He is upholding the full standards of the law, as intended by God. He identifies those who obey the law and adhere carefully to the written word according to its original intention, and he contrasts them with those who relax the commands, who abolish them, to hold to their own accumulated teachings about the law.
Context matters.
Hello brother,
What is Jesus referring to in Matthew 5: 17 when he says “the Law or the Prophets”? Is he referring to something like “The Ten Commandments or the Prophets”? I think “the Law or the Prophets” is referring to the entire Old Testament. Likewise in verse 18, I think “Law” here is shorthand for what he said in the previous verse, and still means “The Old Testament”. What’s your reading?
Also when he talks about people relaxing “one of the least of these commandments” is he referring to the least of the Old Testament commandments (eg the prohibition to eat pork) or is he referring to his own commandments which he is about to explain?
Would appreciate your thoughts!
Thank you,
Adiel
Thanks for writing, Adiel. I would agree with your understand of “the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew seems to be using it to describe all of the OT.
As for your second question, what do you think makes most sense from the context?
Sorry for the slow response, Peter.
If “the least of these commands” is referring to the least of Old Testament commands then it seems to me that this would implicate Paul as least in the kingdom of God, no? If we can agree that in Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus is referring to the entire Old Testament and not just the Ten Commandments, then the question is, does Jesus, upon his institution of the New Covenant, set aside the least of Old Testament commands? If we are ton consider God’s prohibition to eat pork an example of the least of Old Testament commands, are the greatest Christians those who do and teach others to keep this command?
You raise good questions, Adiel, which get into the larger theology of the Christian’s relationship to the OT law. As I wrote above, this post is not attempting to answer every question regarding the theology of law or covenant. This post is simply examining one passage.
In response to your questions, I would simply want to consider whether Paul is “setting aside” the commandments the way Jesus prohibits in Matthew 5. Could it not be the case that Paul is instead tracing out the implications of what it meant that Jesus “fulfills” the commandments? Remember, Jesus doesn’t say “I came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to preserve the commandments forever.” He says, “I came not to abolish…but to fulfill.”
All of this was happening before the cross. They were still under the OT system until Jesus died and rose again!
Also, brother, I’m not sure Deuteronomy 24’s teaching on divorce primarily has sexual immorality in view. If a woman was caught in adultery in the Old Covenant the command wasn’t for her to be given a certificate of divorce allowing her to re-marry, but for her to be put to death. It seems to me that the main sin being condemned in Deuteronomy 24 is not divorce per se but the defilement of getting back together with your ex-wife after she has re-married. In my opinion it is clear that Jesus is censuring divorce in a way that Deuteronomy 24 doesn’t. It seems to me like he is indeed setting Deuteronomy 24 aside and holding his people to a higher standard. Would love your thoughts on all of this.
Again, good thoughts. I agree that full-out adultery could be punishable by death under the Mosaic code. And I agree that the *main* issue in Deut 24 is not sexual immorality but remarriage to a previously divorced spouse (who married someone else in the meantime).
But adultery is not the only possible “indecency” that could warrant a divorce according to Deut 24:1. All kinds of other sexual immorality could be included. And execution is a maximum sentence, not a mandatory one (see Matt 1:19). And finally, in Matthew 5, Jesus is not focusing on remarriage. He’s seeking to undermine the Pharisaical (extra-biblical) tradition of no-fault divorce. He’s trying to cut out the rotten core that has defiled the entire system of thinking about marriage relationships. To do this, he doesn’t need to set Deut 24 aside; he needs to remind them of what it actually says (that it doesn’t support their traditions).
Great article, this clarifies alot. I will be studying this out more.
I doubt that Jesus was implying that the scribes and Pharisees will not qualify for the Kingdom of God (And it is the Kingdom of God he speaks of, not his kingdom). I don’t see anything in the text that suggests that Jesus was teaching a new “higher” morality for ages hence (like ours). He was speaking to his people–the Jews. I think the reason he raised the stakes (changing allowing divorce to disallowing it, etc.) was because he believed, as an apocalyptic Jew, like John the Baptist) that the end of days of evil was at hand and that just being good was not good enough. Or might not be good enough. The Pharisees might gain entry into the Kingdom but if you want to up your chances, you must be even better than the Pharisees. I don’t think he ever intended a new covenant or religion. I think he would have been appalled at Paul’s teachings.
I just came across to this post, and as I was reading it, and just when it was getting interesting, I went like, “wait a minute, you jumped to your conclusion and disregarded the point you were making?
You made the point that the 6 quotes are actually from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), and that Jesus is negating them, but that in reality he is adding nothing new (1&2), not disagreeing (3), misrepresenting (4), reinterpreting (5), inventing/adding (6).
Then you dropped these good conclusions, big picture, for something insignificant, “your assumption”. You assumed as factual that Jesus is addressing what the teachers are teaching (who is to know what was being said on the streets and or synagogues). Well, the fact is that you stated and quoted matt 5:18 as proof that Jesus is about to address the Law.
Yes, Jesus is about to address the law, but he is not himself changing or relaxing the law! He is condemning those who would do so themselves. And we can, in fact, know what was being said in streets and synagogues, regarding six very specific case studies: “You have heard that it was said…” This formula does not refer to the written scripture but to the oral traditions of the scribes and Pharisees.
Again, He started by saying, “You have heard that it was said ‘to the people of long ago’”, meaning their ancestors, the prophets. Therefore, there is only one thing you can infer from that and that is that he is referring to the Law, to the commandments; NOT to what was being said or preached at that moment in time. Therefore, is the law he is addressing, is the prophets he is addressing. It is the law which he is about to disagree with.
Now, I don’t think he was changing anything in the law, I mean substantially; because as you correctly were pointing out, he is not disagreeing with any of these six cases, rather he is misquoting them, misrepresenting them. The quote in case number 6 particularly, was plagiarized from Leviticus 19:18 and he twisted it, he added, “and hate your enemy”.
Also, let us be honest here, case number 2, “Adultery”, his new mandate, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust…” Are we to believe that all of us have our two eyes in place and our two hands in place because we have absolutely complied with this mandate? Or have we heared of anybody who has ripped out at least one eye out of his face, or cut off one of his hands solely to comply with this new mandate because he failed not to look?
This is my take, Jesus takes the law, spin it, and comes out with innovations “but I say to you…”, but in reality there is nothing new there, and if there is anything, is something that makes little sense. However, if anyone has followed Jesus’ new mandates, and has not relaxed them, may have already exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
So what about pork? Can we eat pork or not?
The purpose of the law was to lead them to truth. The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead us to the truth.
The truth is Jesus.
Israel needed kindergartner rules, so God met them where they were at.
Jesus has given us the full revelation of God in relational context. In the new covenant we are like high school teenagers who are capable of embracing relationship, but are still awkward.
Why has God (F,S,S) been so long suffering with us in this process? I don’t know? Maybe because we need the process as a part of God’s sovereign design for our union with God? Why did God design it that way? I don’t know? I think the answer may be in the nature of the Relationship of F,S,S (God)?
This was a very thoughtful approach to scripture. But I see that a few of the latter replies pick up on something that you started and lost along the way. Jesus is the master of the law having come to be the mediator of it in the words of Paul. In our zeal for the law and truth we lose sight of what is sacred. Jesus is addressing that in the beatitudes. Mourning, hunger, humility, meekness, these things are sacred. Life is sacred, we are sacred.
In an audience of interpreters of the law Jesus was asked the very question you aim to answer. In his own defense Jesus answered
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
He leaves this answer repeatedly in his commands to his disciples. How shall we fulfill the law ? Love one another. How shall we know the way? I have shown you. Love one another. Not a reduction but a reminder That when it is too complicated in our minds to comprehend the things of God remember the words of Jesus.
So yes 6 is not in the OT. Because it was the purpose of Jesus to reveal it in the NT and by those words “love your neighbor” shall we know a man who knows how to keep what the law requires. He will not kill , nor will he harbor anger, he will not commit adultery nor will he harbor lust, he will not Blasmpheme or lie because he has known the love of God.
What I believe you aim to show is that the law is sacred and that in forgetting all scripture works together we lose sight of its importance. Indeed, we should keep context and be careful in making a pointed point else we make Jesus out to be a liar. Don’t forget that Many times Jesus repeated the words love your neighbor. Many times did he say his words were not his but his fathers. And many times were people in awe In his new and radical teachings “for he spoke as one with authority”. For this he was slain, not for repeating Hearsay or false teachings. All of this context must be considered worthy of your conclusion and inclusion as you search scripture. Peace be with you brother.
Jesus is God in human form who fulfilled the promises in the Old Testament of a Savior coming to save humanity from their sins. Jesus fulfilled that promise on the cross by sacrificing Himself as the perfect and unblemished Lamb of God, in the place of humans because there was not one human who was without sin who could justify this requirement. There is only one person, Jesus, who could fulfill the requirement of offering the perfect sacrifice of Himself (as God) and offering His (perfect) human nature because our human nature sins. It was a perfect two-fold sacrifice. Jesus cleansed human nature because He remained sinless and as the only sinless “person” He fulfilled all the requirements of a Savior. As God and human, Jesus freely gave Himself to accomplish salvation for all humanity. You don’t have to argue or worry over what the Old Testament Law or the Pharisees said. Jesus summed it all up in these two commandments: Love God with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. Accept Jesus as your Savior who out of Love for all mankind, atoned for all humanity’s sins: past, present and future; and seek and accept His loving mercy and forgiveness. It’s that simple.
1st mistake right out of the gate: you assumed that the phrase “you heard it said” meant it was from moses. Well how could 1st century rome have heard moses speak?
Yeshua is criticizing what the pharisees were teaching about mosaic law, not what moses said. The everyday jew didn’t own scriptures. They went to the synogouge and heard what the pharisees taught.
Absolutely correct that this is the common first mistake. As I conclude in the post: “Jesus is not quoting the Old Testament laws to correct them in some way. He is quoting what these people have heard their teachers say about the Old Testament laws.
“He is quoting those who have, in fact, relaxed the commands. Those who teach others to do the same. Those who abolish what God has required of them. Those whose righteousness is like the scribes and Pharisees…. Actually, we have much reason to believe he is quoting the scribes and Pharisees themselves.”
Is what Jesus quoted from the ot actually written in the OT?
Gete confusing when verses in new testament about law like this https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=ESV
There is something very important missing from this context as well. Jesus said he was not here to abolish the law but fulfill, yes. However he was setting up the kingdom way in that passage, not a new way, but the way the kingdom has always been. He knew they were legalistic Jews so he threw the first line in to make sure he got their attention. That’s why the word “therefore” is so important in scripture. The greek is in the past tense! So Jesus was saying “I’ve already fulfilled the law in myself being sinless, not it’s time to move on to the truth.” This is why so many Christians claim Jesus as savior but not Lord. They always have the OT law to choose over Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. He finishes with the “narrow road” which has nothing to do with salvation but the kingdom way, and only a few find it, because it goes against our American worldview.
Why does Jesus say ‘you heard that it was said…’ if in fact it was His Father who spoke those very words? Or maybe it was Jesus Himself Who spoke them, as He and the Father are one.
So why not instead say something like: ‘I (or My father) once told you ‘…..’ but now the time has come to dig a bit deeper than that’?
My contention is that “You have heard that it was said” refers not to the word of God but to the Pharisaic traditions surrounding it.
Is what Jesus quoted from the ot actually written in the OT? In leviticus 24 19-21, this eye for an eye verse that he quoted is actually written
Yes, the OT speaks about “an eye for an eye” in a number of places. But when Jesus quotes the OT, he says “it is written” not “you have heard.” And his last quote (“and hate your enemies”) is not in the OT at all.