Explanation:

Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. Rather, he came to fulfill them. We know that the Jews of Jesus' day referred to the Old Testament as the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12; Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45).⁷ Thus, it is likely that when Jesus refers to the Law or the Prophets he means the Old Testament.

Counterargument:

While it might be that the Law and the Prophets sometimes refers to the Old Testament, this may not be Jesus’ meaning here. In fact, the Old Testament comprises various writings and teachings including the law, which represents one body of work, and the prophets, which represent another.⁸ Also, notice that Jesus uses a disjunctive (or) rather than a conjunctive (and) when he says he did not come to abolish but to fulfill. In other words, Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. We know that the law was of utmost importance to the Jews, so likely Jesus has in mind the legal contributions of the prophets.⁹ Finally, the following verses, John 1:45, leave little doubt that Jesus has various aspects of the law in mind, and not Scripture as a whole. For Jesus follows up his statement that he came not to abolish the law or the prophets by stating that not one iota of the law will pass away (Matthew 5:18). He also explains that whoever relaxes one of the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). These verses strongly imply that Jesus has the law in mind, and not the Scriptures as a whole.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that Jesus makes reference to the law, we should qualify what he means by law or prophets in light of Matthew 5:17 – 7:12. What we notice is that this section forms an inclusio, which ends with Jesus explaining that the law and prophets are summarized in the principle: whatever you wish men to do to you, do so to them.¹⁰ This is important because it shows that Jesus’ sermon is not only an extrapolation of the Mosaic law, but also the teachings contained in the prophets. Together, the Law and the Prophets are Scripture, and Jesus came not to abolish Scripture—how could he? Scripture foreshadows and predicts his coming. Rather, Jesus fulfills Scripture. So we see that Jesus speaks in broad terms in Matthew 5:17, in that he fulfills Scripture. He then in Matthew 5:21 – 7:11 speaks about the content of Scripture as captured by the Law and the Prophets, in terms of what it means to live rightly before God, before concluding with a general principle in Matthew 7:12.

Explanation:

We have argued that when Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets he refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. So what does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the Old Testament? Here we can look at other occasions when Matthew says that Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures to help us. Specifically, when we look back at Matthew 1:22 we find out that the virgin birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah. Then in Matthew 2:15 we find that when Jesus and his family are forced into Egypt and later return, this fulfills the prophet Hosea. Further, in Matthew 2:17 we read that when Herod kills the male infants in Israel, the prophecy of Jeremiah is fulfilled. The point here is that when Matthew uses the verb to fulfill, he uses it to show how the Old Testament predicted and foreshadowed the coming of Christ, and that Christ fulfills these predictions and foreshadowings by his life and ministry.

Counterargument:

We have to consider the meaning of the verb to fulfill based on the context. For example, when we look back to Matthew 3:15 Jesus says to John the Baptist that John must baptize Jesus in order to fulfill all righteousness. The meaning here is action. John must act the right way in order for righteousness to be fulfilled. Further, the immediate context also suggests that Jesus has action in mind. For example, in Matthew 5:16 Jesus teaches to let one’s light shine so that one’s good works will be displayed to the glory of God. Further, in Matthew 5:20 Jesus explains that one’s righteousness must exceed the Pharisees’.¹¹ These instances imply that Jesus has right action in mind when he says that he fulfills the the Law and the Prophets. Jesus does not abolish the law, but rather he completes/fulfills the law by upholding it perfectly.¹²

Finally, we know that it was common for ancient sources to use the phrase fulfill the law to refer to obedience to the law (see Interpretation 2, argument 2).

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that while it is the case that the Law and the Prophets is sometimes a phrase that means Scripture, it can also refer to the content of Jewish teaching. Where would the Jewish people go for instruction? The Law and the Prophets. That the Law and the Prophets is used to refer to both Scripture in general and the content of Jewish teaching makes it difficult to decide which referent Jesus has in mind when he uses it in Matthew 5:17. The immediate literary context, specifically Matthew 5:18–19, seem to suggest that Jesus has instructions in mind, and not Scripture as a whole. Still, this might only be because we are removed from the original audience. For the Jews, the laws and the prophets were the Scriptures, and they might have understood clearly that Jesus referred to the Scriptures.

Explanation:

To understand what Jesus meant when he said that he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, we must continue reading. When we do, we find two important clues that suggest Jesus has the Mosaic law in mind, and he fulfills it in the sense that he lives according to it and explains it more fully.

In Matthew 5:18–19 Jesus explains that not one iota or dot will pass away from the law until all is accomplished. He then explains that one should not relax even the least of the commandments (Matt 5:19). These phrases help us understand that when Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law or prophets, he has in mind the commandments, which entail the Mosaic law.

So Jesus did not come to abolish the Mosaic law; rather, he came to fulfill it. But how? To determine this, we can look at two places. First, if we go back to Matthew 3:15 we find Jesus explaining to John the Baptist that when John baptizes Jesus, they fulfill all righteousness. This implies that fulfillment has to do with obedience.¹⁷ Further, when we read Matthew 5:21–48, we find Jesus interpreting the law of Moses with a depth of insight previously not understood by the Jews.¹⁸ For example, in Matthew 5:21 Jesus explains that the men of old were told not to kill, or they would be liable to judgment. Then Jesus sheds new light on this command by explaining that anyone who hates his brother is liable to judgment. He goes on to expound on several laws, each time stating the law as the Jews understood it before offering new depth of insight.

Thus, we can see that Jesus came not to abolish the law or the prophets. Rather, he came to fulfill the law by living according to it in obedience, and by teaching what the law requires with greater insight.

Counterargument:

It is possible that Jesus has the Mosaic law in mind, but there is reason to think he is referring to Scripture more broadly. The reason for this is his inclusion of the prophets. To be sure, Jesus in Matthew 5:18–20 quickly draws our attention to what sounds like the Mosaic law, but the Mosaic law is not expounded on by the prophets. So how do we resolve this apparent dilemma?

The dilemma is solved if Jesus is speaking broadly in Matthew 5:17 and more specifically in what follows. The Law and the Prophets were Scripture for the Jews, and of course one of the most important aspects of the Scriptures was that they contain the requirements of God. The requirements of God are explicit in some places, especially the Mosaic law, and implicit in others, including the prophets. Still, the Old Testament canon explains what it takes to be in a relationship with God. Now Jesus is about to explain more carefully what it takes to act rightly before God, and he will do so by commenting on aspects of the law that are captured in Scripture. Still, while it might sound to his audience that Jesus’ teachings undercut the law as captured in Scripture, Jesus is clear that he came not to abolish the Scriptures but to fulfill them.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument does not undercut argument 1 but only helps to refine. The counterargument shows that rather than state that Jesus has the Mosaic law in mind, we could state that he has in mind the law in general, as captured by the Law and the Prophets. This subtle refinement keeps Matthew’s intent in focus. Jesus is not saying that he came to fulfill the Scriptures in Matthew 5:17 (although he did come to fulfill the Scriptures); rather, he came to live obediently according to all that is taught in the Law and the Prophets. While it is easy for us to connect obedience with the law, later in Matthew, Jesus does refer to the teaching of the prophets. For example, in Matthew 12:7 he says that if the Pharisees understood what I desire mercy, not sacrifice meant, they would not have condemned the innocent.¹⁹

Explanation:

In various Greek and Hellenistic texts, the term fulfill is used in conjunction with the law in the sense that one fulfills the law through practice and obedience.²⁰ For example, Herodotus is an ancient Greek historian who lived during the fifth century BC. When he explains an exploitative and barbaric practice of the Babylonians, he uses the phrase fulfill the law to suggest that certain women were unable to fulfill the law (the law here refers to a despicable religious requirement that is sexual in nature).²¹ In another passage Herodotus talks about an ancient practice where no maiden was allowed to marry until she killed a man of the enemy. He explains that some maidens died before they ever married because they were not able to fulfill the law.²²

Further, we have other New Testament passages, including Romans 8:4 and Galatians 5:14, where Paul connects the law with the verb to fulfill.²³ Thus, when ancient authors refer to fulfilling the law, they mean something like obedience to the law.

Counterargument:

These examples are not enough to show that fulfilling the laws means obedience to the law. First, the examples from Herodotus show that these women were unable to complete the requirement. A closer reading of the original text from Herodotus shows that the women were unable to fulfill the law not by choice but because the circumstances required for the law to be fulfilled simply did not arise. In the second example, it is not as though the woman were disobedient by not fulfilling the law; it is just that they were unable to complete the requirements that would allow them to marry.

We can make the same case for the texts from Romans and Galatians. First, the text in Romans says that God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin, in order that the righteousness requirement of the law might be fulfilled in believers. The point here is not that because Jesus died on the cross, we are able to fulfill the law by obeying it. Rather, the point is that Jesus’ death on the cross means that the requirements of righteousness are completed/fulfilled in us, through faith in Christ. In order words, we cannot be obedient to the law, so instead, the law is fulfilled in us because of Christ’s obedience.

Finally, Galatians 5:12 is not about a person fulfilling the law, but a summary of the law. Thus, the term to fulfill in this instance is not relevant to Matthew 5:17.

Explanation:

Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfill them. We can make sense of what Jesus means by this by considering the contrast he set up.²⁴ Jesus is about to explain aspects of the law and expand on them with new depth of insight. Before he does this, he explains to his audience that his purpose is not to abolish the Law and the Prophets. In other words, Jesus knew that the Jews used the Law and the Prophets as the basis for their lives. Jesus explains that his teachings are not inconsistent with the law or the prophets. Rather, Jesus himself will fulfill the law by living obediently according to it and teaching it more fully.

Counterargument:

Jesus’ point is not that his teaching might abolish the law. Rather, he knows that the Jews oriented their lives according to the Scriptures, also known as the Law and the Prophets. He wants them to understand that he did not come to overturn their Scriptures; rather, the Scriptures anticipate a Messiah, and Jesus fulfills that anticipation.

Response to counterargument:

While it is the case that Jesus fulfills the anticipation of the Messiah, this is not likely his meaning in Matthew 5:17. This is because he immediately follows up his statement with the fact that not one iota or dot will fall from the law until all is accomplished. In other words, Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Therefore, not one iota or dot will fall from the law until all is accomplished.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it might be too narrow. The Old Testament Scriptures do point to Jesus and Jesus does fulfill them. Later in Matthew’s Gospel, when Jesus is arrested, he reiterates that all must take place in order for the Scriptures to be fulfilled (Matthew 26:54, Matthew 26:56). We find something similar in Luke where after the resurrection Jesus explains to his disciples that he had already told them that everything written about him in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Thus, the broader teaching of the Gospels suggests that Jesus has more than obedience to the law in mind when he states that he fulfills the Law and the Prophets.