“Jesus’ Teaching on the Law, Deuteronomic Concessions and Eschatological Righteousness: A Re-examination of the Saying on Divorce and Remarriage in Matthew 5:31–32,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Francisco, CA, November 20, 2011) (original) (raw)

Jesus as the "Fulfillment" of the Law and His Teaching on Divorce in Matthew

Letter & Spirit, 2014

In the Sermon on the Mount we find Matthew’s most explicit account of Jesus’s teaching about his relationship to the Law. However, as is well known, Matthew’s report of Jesus’s teaching is particularly difficult to follow. In 5:17, Jesus insists that he has not come to “abolish” the Torah. Yet the sayings that immediately follow this, the so-called “antitheses” (5:21–48), appear to do just that, i.e., they appear to nullify the Law. While some of the antitheses may be understood in terms of an intensification of the demands of the Torah (e.g., lust as adultery in 5:27–30), others are harder to explain along those lines. One particularly notable example is Jesus’ equation of divorce and remarriage with adultery (5:31–32). The Law in fact allows for divorce and remarriage (cf. Deut 24:1–4). It is difficult then to see Jesus’s teaching on this matter as merely an intensification of the Law’s requirements; Jesus is here explicitly prohibiting something the Torah clearly permits. Is there any way to explain this apparent problem? This paper proposes a solution. As many Old Testament scholars now recognize (e.g., Goldingay), Deuteronomy appears to have been understood as a kind of “lower law”, making concessions that are absent in the previous covenant legislation (e.g., profane slaughter, cf. Deut 12:15–25 with Lev 17:1–4). In fact, recently some have demonstrated that it is likely Ezekiel had precisely these types of concessions in view when he declared that God gave Israel “laws that were not good” (Ezek 20:25). Is Matthew’s Jesus aware that certain laws were seen as concessions to sinfulness? Did he therefore expect to reinstitute the stricter standards of holiness they abrogated? Here we may find an important key that helps to better explicate Jesus’ view of Torah-righteousness in Matthew 5.

The foundational statement in Matthew 5:17-20 on the continuing validity of the law

In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi, 2011

The foundational statement in Matthew 5:17-20 on the continuing validity of the law The statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20 forms a pivotal point of Matthew's teaching on the law. Yet, some scholars argue that these verses reveal a strong Jewish character, with eclectic layers of traditions that even contradict one another. Matthew is being accused of careless inclusion of this material into his text which led to an inconsistent overall teaching of the law. This article proposes that a careful reading of the different elements of the statement within its context reveals its coherence. The statement forms an inherent part of the Sermon on the Mount and the rest of the Gospel through which Matthew in a pastoral manner addresses concerns of his community regarding their righteousness.

Jesus' halakhic argumentation on the true intention of the law in Matthew 5:21-48

Verbum et Ecclesia, 2013

In the time when Matthew wrote his gospel, the interpretation of the Torah became a feature of division. Matthew frequently presented Jesus as being in debate with the Pharisees and scribes on the true intention of the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was presented as using the halakhic form of argumentation to counter false assumptions about the meaning of the Torah. Six theses about the Torah were set, followed by Jesus� antitheses. Jesus� alternative interpretations were presented as an authoritative explanation of the true, intended meaning of the Law. Matthew argued that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but bring them to fulfilment. In this argument Jesus formulated the higher level of righteousness that is required of his followers.

The nature of the law’s fulfilment in Matthew 5:17: An exegetical and theological study

In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi

The relationship between law and gospel remains something of a conundrum for biblical scholarship. Matthew 5:17, and in particular what is meant by Jesus’ having come to fulfil the law and the prophets, contributes significantly to this ongoing discussion. What precisely is meant by ‘to fulfil the law and the prophets’ is an exegetical enigma. Utilising an eclectic array of methods, including literary, historical and theological approaches, this article attempts to articulate the nature of fulfilment in Matthew 5:17. In addition to arguments made on the basis of historical-critical exegesis, including the discussion of the nature of πληρόω in Matthew’sGospel, the sense in which the law prophesies and the contribution of the so-called antitheses of 5:21–48, we argue that the biblical-theological theme of the Kingdom of God clarifies a salvation-historical reading of Matthew 5:17. When it is said that Jesus has come to fulfil the law and the prophets, an eschatological or salvation-h...

The Fulfilment of the Law According to Matthew 5:17: A Dialectical Approach

Acta Theologica, 2018

In this contribution, the five main views in understanding the fulfilment of the law in Matthew 5:17 are critiqued in terms of their inconsistency with the co-text of the Gospel. The whole of 5:17-48 is assessed in terms of the challenging relationship between the statements about fulfilment or completion of the law and the Prophets in 5:17-18 and the way in which Jesus seems to intensify obedience to law per se in 5:19-48. The interpretation of 5:19-48 is sought by considering all of Jesus’ words in the entire Gospel in terms of entry into the kingdom (5:19-20), doing the perfect will of the Father (5:48), and the way in which the law and the Prophets are fulfilled and accomplished in Christ (5:17-18). A dialectical approach is followed wherein statements concerning the retention of strict obedience to law are considered to be part of the thesis; statements that are opposed to strict obedience to law are considered to form the antithesis, and the way in which these opposites are related is considered as the new synthesis. This thesis, antithesis and synthesis form the solution to understanding fulfilment in Matthew 5:17.

(The Markan and Matthean) Jesus’ appropriation and criticism of the Torah: The question of divorce

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 2011

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus functions as a Moses figure who, in the Sermon on the Mount, gave the new law of the kingdom of God. In this article it is argued that Jesus drew his ethic from his Jewish tradition, as manifested particularly in the Pentateuch. However, although being an inspiring source, to Jesus the Pentateuch (or scripture) was not an authority that could not be challenged or criticised. This is illustrated by focusing on the question of divorce (Mk 10:2–12; Mt 5:27–32; 19:3–12). It is argued that Jesus’ use of the Pentateuch was guided by an ethic of compassion. In view of Jesus’ stance, an uncritical use of the Bible (as manifested for example in many Christian circles) ironically contradicts the Bible’s own message and nature.