Matt 5.17-20. Not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law

These people honor me with their honor.

---

Matthew 5.17-20

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks 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.

Hagner, page 109-110

The ethical teaching of Jesus the Messiah, the one who in his person brings the fulfillment that indicates the kingdom’s presence, is nothing other than the true meaning of the Torah. As the Messiah, Jesus has come to bring both the law and the prophets to their intended fulfillment. Jesus’ view of the law as valid until the end of time means that the fulfillment he brings is in true continuity with the past, a fulfillment toward which the law and prophets pointed. God’s purposes have a unity; yet a new stage in his purposes has been reached. Jesus alone and not the Pharisees can interpret the Torah finally and authoritatively. This is the explanation of the radical-sounding teaching of Jesus that cuts through the casuistry and mystification of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus’ commitment to the whole law is no less serious than theirs, but he alone is in a position to penetrate to the intended meaning of the Torah.

Hagner is way off. To make this all about Jesus and his confrontation with the Pharisees is a terrible misreading of the text. Jesus is not saying he has come to bring the law and the prophets to their intended fulfillment. Jesus is not saying that he alone can interpret the Torah. Jesus is not saying that he alone can penetrate to the intended meaning of the Torah.

Jesus is talking to the crowds. He is saying to them: if you think I have come to lighten the load, you’re wrong. Every jot, every tittle, stands until the end of time. He warns them, sternly, that whoever breaks even the smallest commandment, or teaches others that the law doesn’t matter, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Possibly the charge is first against the religious leaders, for those who already thought they would be at the bottom would not be shocked by being told they would still be at the bottom. So when Jesus says “they will be called least” it is probably directed to whose who expected to be at the top, and Jesus says no: you will not.

It is not just a matter of Jesus establishing himself as the one who says how things will be from now on; it is also a sober warning that no one slips into the kingdom just because they are descended from someone, rich, religious, or powerful. The Kingdom of God is God’s, not theirs, and he brings in only those he wants to be in his kingdom.

page 110

In this connection, it is absolutely important to note that the understanding of the Torah and the attainment of the righteousness of the law are thus vitally linked with the presence of the kingdom. Where the kingdom has come, there exists the possibility of the realization of the righteousness of the law.

Hagner seems to be concerned that we understand “righteousness of the law” correctly, probably because of Paul’s remark in Gal 2.21 that if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. We don’t have to be quite so precise. It is possible (likely) that Jesus is here using “righteousness” in the same sense that he uses elsewhere:

Matt 9.13 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.

Matt 13.16 Many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see.

Matt 23.29 You build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.

John 2.25 There was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout.

John 15.7 There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance.

John 23.50 There was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan.

No one (I hope) thinks that Jesus was saying that these righteous people were Adam-and-Eve-pre-Fall blameless. It is a designation, not a legal standing. It’s possible to use “righteousness” and “law” in the same sentence without being anti-Christian.

The problem here is, why is Hagner even concerned about it? Jesus makes no connection between righteousness and the law here. Obliquely, yes we could say that the scribes and Pharisees would connect their righteousness to the observance of the law, and that therefore when Christ tells the crowds their righteousness must be even greater, one could insinuate that this righteousness would also be through the law, but we know that is not what Jesus is saying, and he doesn’t say it, so why is Hagner concerned that we don’t?

Are we saying there are no modern-day Christian Pharisees? Are we saying that Christ automatically takes us away from this: that if we’re a Christian it is impossible to take on Phariseeism? If not, then how can being a Christian give us Christ’s righteousness and put us beyond the righteousness of the Pharisees? If Christ’s righteousness is all we need, then modren-day Pharisees are more righteous than olden-day Pharisees?

Impossible. They were the people of God; we are the people of God. If they could do it, we can do it too. (Paul tells us tie and again to not repeat their sins. He could not have warned us if it were not possible--and if it were not already happening.) Christ is not the higher righteousness. The higher righteousness is doing what the Pharisees didn’t. The higher righteousness is doing it rather than talking about it.

if you love me you will do what I say.

Why do I even talk to you?

If you were Abraham’s children you would do what Abraham did.

page 110

Thus Jesus’ language about the “jot and tittle” and the “least of these commandments” is justified only in connection with his final and authoritative exposition of the meaning of the law. If he is what the law and the prophets point to, then his exposition of the law is absolutely true, and it is as though his teaching satisfies every minute aspect of the law that so worried the Pharisees. Thus, Jesus is using the language of the Pharisees in these verses. And the language is justified in one sense because Jesus as the infallible expounder of the truth of the Torah has indeed outdone the Pharisees. The depth and truth of his understanding of the law is such that it comprehends the totality—and thus in effect the minutest aspects—of the Torah.

Jesus is not defending himself against a change of being unlawful, nor is saying he is concerned about every minute aspect of the law, nor is he saying he is making this statement because he is worried that the Pharisees have a point, and he certainly is not saying he is doing a better job of it than they are. How silly. He is speaking to the crowds. He is not defending himself.

They are on the wrong path: a path that leads to rejection and destruction. Outdoing them is the furthest thing from his mind.

Why does Hagner make such a misplaced remark? How does he not see something desperately wrong with the Pharisees path?

Jesus makes a point of saying he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets because it is all of God. The law, the prophets, and he are all the same thing: the accomplishing of God’s purposes on earth through his people. The nation had strayed so far from this core truth that Jesus now needs to bring them back, before they fall of the edge. God will not continue forever with a people who resist his leading. If they won’t be led, then he will find a people who will do what he says. The religious leaders have no concern for the work of God: they only pour over the words looking for the smallest things to stress and obey, because the small things are easy and it gives the appearance of devotion.

The way you surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is by doing it. They didn’t do it, and had no intention of doing it. They studied it and talked about it and explained it and rewrote it... everything but doing it.

And now Hagner does the same thing and so he follows them in their delusion. To see nothing inherently wrong with what the religious leaders were saying and say that Christ is outdoing them is astonishing. There are two very different, poles-apart paths. The people are already on the wrong one. Jesus is telling them they can leave the path of the scribes and Pharisees without abandoning the law and the prophets and the Scriptures, and come over to his path, and his very different (not correcting or satisfying or outdoing what the Pharisees were saying, but naming it as dangerous and wrong) teaching would not lead them astray, but would take them to the true, complete, and saving truth.

page 110

Only an interpretation of the present pericope such as this is compatible with the bearing of Jesus toward the law throughout the Gospel. These words do not contradict what is said elsewhere in the Gospel nor do they involve a misunderstanding of the ministry of Jesus. Although they unmistakably reflect the idiom of the Pharisees, and to that extent may be misleading if taken literally, they make a valid point concerning Jesus and his attitude toward the law.

page 110

The words may not have been adequately understood at their first hearing, but in retrospect, given the whole sweep of events recorded in the Gospels, their meaning would have become clear to the early Church. The evangelist is of course delighted to seize these sayings and incorporate them into this discourse on the righteousness of the kingdom. His Jewish-Christian readers needed to know—especially in the light of repeated counter-claims—that the pattern for righteousness taught by Jesus reflects the true meaning of the Torah, and thus that the Torah in its entirety is preserved in and through the ethical teaching of the Church.

This is disappointing. In the very passage of Scripture that should cause us to pause and look at our teachings and direction, Hagner slips into religiosity with a surprising, unnecessary, and unsupportable statement of assurance that “the Torah in its entirety is preserved in and through the ethical teaching of the Church”. Why? Yes, the Church later would be charged with the responsibility of going into the world to preach the Gospel, but who (truly!) thinks that by doing so it has preserved “the entirety” of the Torah? He offers no explanation or argument, just the a priori belief that if the Church is supposed to do it, it is being done. Incredible. The dull, myopic, parochial religiosity that confidently declares that Christians are right because they are Christians. The Protestant church can make no complaint against papal infallibility when it claims de facto infallibility for itself.

There is no reason for Hagner to say such a thing. The text doesn’t demand it, and in fact would more properly be used to warn against such an attitude, for the thing that lulled the people of God in Jesus’ day into this sense of complacency is the problem with us today as well. We accept the teachings of our experts with virtually no thought, evaluation or critique. We accept the doctrine of our denomination and the instruction of our preachers and teachers with the detached assurance that they know what they’re talking about and would never lead us astray. But here, at a point where the words of Christ should awaken us to a possible problem, Hagner tells us to go back to sleep.

The teaching of the Church has nothing to do with these words of Christ, except as a warning. Only to the extent our teachers teach Christ, without compromise or dilution, does the Church have any credibility or authority.