We stated in Chapter Six that a clear understanding of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 through 7) is essential for a biblical discussion of continuity and discontinuity. We pointed out that these chapters have generated disagreement, especially over the meaning of the words abolish and fulfill. Moreover, the passage itself appears inconsistent. Matthew 5:17-20 seems to support the idea of continuity of the Mosaic law; while the six “but I say unto you” statements (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38 and 43) stress discontinuity between Jesus’ words and those of Moses (including but not limited to some of the Ten Commandments).

In this chapter, we will examine Matthew 5:17-20 to see if these verses support the theological claim of continuity or of discontinuity, specifically with regard to the Ten Commandments. It seems self-evident that the passage indicates some kind of continuity between the Law, the Prophets, and Jesus. What is not clear is that the Ten Commandments, as a separate and distinct entity, are part of what continues and function within that continuity. Does the Decalogue come into the New Covenant unchanged? Some argue that “I have not come to abolish the law” cannot possibly mean anything else. The unstated assumption behind this claim is that the law in verse 18b refers to the Decalogue. Others argue that the Ten Commandments are the covenant document given to Israel at Sinai and that to equate them with the law in this passage is to make an unwarranted associative leap. The disagreement at this point lies in understanding what constitutes the law. To settle this point, we must consider what Jesus actually said and what he did not say, and we must consider his words in their context.

“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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:17-20, NIV)

Our Lord’s statement of introduction, “do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets,” implies authority—in this case, the authority to do with the Law and/or the Prophets as he chooses. He can keep them or abolish them, change them or leave them as they are; it is his right. This authority establishes Jesus as the new lawgiver and prophet who replaces Moses, just as Moses had predicted (Deut. 18:15). Matthew’s introduction explicitly designates Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is both the expected Messiah and the expected prophet and as such, he alone can make such a statement. He alone could claim authority over the Law and Prophets. Some of his listeners must have wondered, “Who does he think he is? He is talking about having the authority to mess with God’s holy law!” Jesus’ response would have been, “I am the Messiah. I am the true and final lawgiver of whom Moses spoke. I am the Son of God. My Father has given me all power and authority. I speak with the full authority of my Father.” Jesus claimed to have authority over the law; but what would have constituted the law for him and his audience?

Jesus’ Jewish audience would have understood the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets to refer to their Scriptures—what we refer to as the Old Testament Scriptures. The identity of the Law and the Prophets, then, is the Hebrew Scripture. Covenant Theology would agree with this claim, but only after they have given the Decalogue a special status and excised it out of the Pentateuch. Is this what Jesus is teaching in this passage? Would he or his audience have defined the law that he came to fulfill as everything in the Hebrew sacred writings except the Decalogue?

Jesus nowhere in this passage mentions or refers to the Ten Commandments. He does not indicate, explicitly or implicitly, that the Law and the Prophets to which he refers excludes the Ten Commandments. We find no support in this passage for the claim that the Ten Commandments are something distinct from the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Therefore, the verses cannot be used as support for either continuity or discontinuity of the Ten Commandments, except as those commandments are a part of the Old Testament Scriptures. This point is vital. Jesus, by announcing his authority, demonstrates his attitude and relationship to the Old Testament Scriptures. It was most appropriate that when the new king announced his new kingdom, he would state the relationship of that new kingdom to the old one. We must log into our minds that Jesus did not say, “Do not think that I have come to destroy the Ten Commandments,” but rather, “Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.” John MacArthur explains:

Because Matthew does not qualify the use of law, we are safe to say that it was God’s whole law—the commandments, statues and judgments; the moral, the judicial, and ceremonial—that Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill. It was also the other Old Testament teachings based on the law, and all their types, patterns, symbols, and pictures that he came to fulfill. Jesus Christ came to accomplish every aspect and every dimension of the divinely authored Word (cf. Luke 24:44).^[1]

The Law and the Prophets represents what we now call the Old Testament, the only written Scriptures at the time Jesus preached (See Matt. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23). It is therefore about the Old Testament that Jesus speaks in Matt. 5:17-20.^[2] The writers of both the Old and New Testament Scriptures often used the phrase “the Law and/or the Prophets” when they referred to the Hebrew Scriptures. When they did so, they used Law to refer to the Pentateuch or the five books that Moses wrote. None of the biblical writers used the phrase the Law and the Prophets to mean the Ten Commandments and the Prophets. Here are a few samples:

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (NIV)

Matthew uses Law and Prophets as a synonym for Scripture. To say that this attitude (do unto others) sums up the Law and the Prophets is the same as saying “this attitude summarizes the entire (Old Testament) Scripture.”

Luke 16:16-17 The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (NIV)

Luke also uses the Law and the Prophets to refer to Scripture. He is telling his audience that prior to John, the prophets proclaimed all of the Hebrew Scripture. With the coming of John, the prophetic focus narrowed to just the proclamation of the kingdom. This new focus, however, does not nullify the rest of the Hebrew Scripture. The nature of Scripture is such that it endures, or continues.

We find no evidence in the Sermon on the Mount, or indeed in any of the Gospel accounts, that either Jesus or his audiences viewed the Ten Commandments as distinct from the rest of their Scriptures. The point that Jesus makes in the Sermon on the Mount about continuity is that all of the Hebrew Scripture persists—it continues as Scripture. He has not come to abolish any of Israel’s sacred writings. He is affirming the unity and continuity of the Scriptures. I repeat: these texts support the idea of the continuity of the Old Testament Scriptures, but they do not support the idea of the continuity of the Ten Commandments as a separate entity from those Scriptures. We have no biblical reason to conceive of the continuity of the Ten Commandments, or tables of the covenant, except as they are part of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The identity of the Law, as Jesus uses the term as part of the pair Law and/or Prophets, is the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Scripture. The Prophets refers to the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. The coming of Messiah fulfilled all of the Old Testament Scriptures, and thus the message changed from the Law and the Prophets, or from the Old Testament promises of a coming Messiah, to their fulfillment in Christ. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus affirms he must fulfill all of the law. This law is not the Ten Commandments; it is either the Pentateuch or the whole Old Testament.

Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, comments on the meaning of Christ’s fulfillment of the Law and/or Prophets:

“…Christ makes clear that He is not contradicting the law, but neither is He preserving it unchanged. He comes ‘to fulfill’ it, i.e., He will bring the law to its intended goal…Fulfillment of Scripture…refers to the bringing to fruition of its complete meaning. Here Jesus views His role as that of fulfilling all of the Old Testament. This claim has massive hermeneutical implications and challenges for both classical Reformed and Dispensational perspectives. It is inadequate to say either that none of the Old Testament applies unless it is explicitly reaffirmed in the New or that all of the Old Testament applies unless it is revoked in the New. Rather, all of the Old Testament remains normative and relevant for Jesus’ followers (II Tim. 3:16), but none of it can be rightly interpreted until one understands how it is fulfilled in Christ. Every Old Testament text must be viewed in the light of Jesus’ person and ministry and the changes introduced by the new covenant He inaugurated.^[3]

Because Jesus fulfilled those Scriptures, they do not carry the same authority over the Christian and the church that they did over the theocratic nation of Israel.

Matthew is not the only gospel author to focus on the theme of fulfillment. Luke, in the parallel passage, uses the same phrases and ideas to make the same point—in order for the kingdom of God to come; every jot and tittle in the Old Testament Scriptures must be fulfilled.

Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (NIV)

Matthew refers to the Law and the Prophets; Luke uses a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scripture; both authors indicate the comprehensive nature of fulfillment. The phrase “the law of Moses” in Luke’s text cannot be referring to the Ten Commandments, since nine of those commandments contain neither prophetic nor typological references to Messiah. Without question, it refers to the Pentateuch. Luke is here presenting the Hebrew Scripture as primarily about Messiah. We would do well to follow Luke’s lead and emphasize the Old Testament Scriptures as a “him” book. It is a book about Christ. The Old Testament covers the history of Israel, but it is not a history book: the history it includes is that which is salient to the coming Messiah. The Old Testament contains many laws, but it is not a law book: the laws function to prepare the way for Messiah. The Hebrew Scripture is a book about Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth is that long-awaited anointed one.

Someone has likened the outline of the Bible to that of a three-act play. It has one story line—the story about our Lord Jesus Christ. The first act in the play covers Genesis to Malachi. The theme of this act is “Behold, someone is coming.” The first actor on the stage sets the theme for the first act: “the Seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpent’s head,” Genesis 3:15. The second act of the play runs from the gospel of Matthew through the gospel of John. The theme of that act is “Behold, someone is here.” Again, the opening testimony establishes the theme for the act: “Behold the Lamb of God,” John 1:29. The third act of the play runs from Acts through Revelation, and the theme is “Behold, someone is coming again.” The first scene of this third act opens with the disciples watching our Lord ascend through the clouds while they listen to an angelic announcement: “This same Jesus shall come again in like manner,” Acts 1:11. That message goes all the way through the Scriptures from Acts to the next to the last verse in the Bible, where John, banned for his faith, cries out, “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

Luke, who views the Hebrew Scriptures as all about Messiah, helps us (in 24:44) understand what the word fulfill means in Matthew 5:17. Since the passages are parallel, the definitions must be parallel, too. The Old Testament Scriptures in their entirety, including the Decalogue, are prophetic. This does not mean that every verse is a prophecy of Messiah or that every event and character is a type of Christ; rather, it means that the Hebrew Scriptures, in general, as a comprehensive body of sacred writings, testify about some aspect of the person and work of Christ. Matthew, in chapter 11 (v. 13) is explicit: “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” The entire Old Testament prophesied, in some way, about the coming Messiah. When Messiah came, he fulfilled all of those Scriptures. In a sense then, the prophetic work of the Hebrew Scripture is over—done away with. A message of hope has no more work to do when what was hoped for has come. The redeemer of whom those Scriptures prophesied came and fulfilled every jot and tittle of what the Law and the Prophets prophesied. The Law and the Prophets testified about a righteousness (a just-ness) that was not obtained by the law:

Rom. 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)

In Matthew 5:20, Jesus insisted on the need for a righteousness that exceeded that of the Pharisees. Paul, in Romans 3:21 and 22, explains that the good news of salvation through Messiah demonstrates that very righteousness. Both the Law and the Prophets testified that this superior righteousness was coming. The New Testament Scriptures declare that it came through the person and work of Christ. The uniform message of the entire Old Testament Scripture was that this righteousness was coming. The saints living under the law in that dispensation had a sure hope in the Messiah of coming deliverance from both sin and the law. Most of them did not live long enough to see the fulfillment of the things they hoped for, but their faith was vindicated, and every promise God made was fulfilled in the redeeming work of Christ (Heb. 11:37-40). That is what the word accomplished connotes in Matthew 5:18:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV)

We have already established that the word law in verse 17 does not refer exclusively to the Ten Commandments. There is no reason to make the word law mean anything in verse 18 that it does not mean in verse 17 (where law is a division of the Hebrew Scripture) unless we take it to mean the entire Old Testament. Sometimes, biblical writers and audiences did understand the word law in its more comprehensive sense, and that may be the sense carried by verse 18, which does not repeat the second half of the referential pair (the Prophets). The phrase, “teachers of the law” (verse 20), likely defines law as it is used in verse 18. The teachers of the law did not restrict their study or teaching to only the Ten Commandments; they taught from and about the entire Hebrew Scripture. To narrow the sense of “the teachers of the law” to “the teachers of the Ten Commandments” is to restrict the meaning of law in a way foreign to its common and expected use. If Jesus had intended his audience to understand law in a nonstandard way, he would have had to provide them with some indication that he was departing from their shared understanding of the term. Jesus’ use of the words accomplish and the law, in Matthew 5:18, indicates that he saw himself as fulfilling everything in the Hebrew Scripture, or, to put it negatively, that he would not leave a single thing prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures unfulfilled. He is not restricting his fulfillment of the law to just the precepts in the Ten Commandments. John 19:28 supports this claim by using the term Scripture to define the scope of what Jesus fulfilled:

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, “I thirst.” (KJV)

On the cross, our Lord mentally surveyed the Old Testament Scriptures and found one prophetic text about his death that was unfulfilled. He fulfilled it by saying, “I thirst.” This is the sense of the word fulfill as Matthew uses it in verse 17. Again, John MacArthur has caught the meaning and explained it well:

The Old Testament is complete; it is all God intended it to be. It is a wondrous, perfect, and complete picture of the coming King and His kingdom, and Jesus the King came to fulfill it in every detail. Five times in the New Testament we are told of Jesus claiming to be the theme of the Old Testament: here; in Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; and in Hebrews 10:7.^[4]

MacArthur then lists some different meanings possibly conveyed by the word fulfill in verse 17 and explains why the connotation of being completely or embody fits best:

But most importantly, as the Spirit surely intends to emphasize here, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament by being its fulfillment. He did not simply teach it fully, and exemplify it fully—He was it fully. He did not come simply to teach righteousness and to model righteousness; He came as divine righteousness. What He said and what He did reflected who He is.^[5]

We have emphasized that when we read the Sermon on the Mount, we cannot restrict the law that Jesus came “not to destroy” to mean only the Ten Commandments, as though Jesus can fulfill and thus annul all of the other law in the Hebrew Scripture, but the Decalogue remains inviolate. It is equally important to recognize that the comprehensive nature of the law—all of the Hebrew Scripture—means that Jesus’ fulfillment included the Decalogue. The fulfillment of the Sabbath commandment in the atoning work of Christ is a clear, even though much disputed, illustration of fulfillment. This illustration works particularly well because it demonstrates both continuity and discontinuity. It shows promise and fulfillment. The seventh-day Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of the Old Covenant (Ex. 31:12-18). When the Old Covenant was fulfilled and rescinded, the sign of the covenant also was done away with. Yet the sign carries a typological significance that remains even when the function of the sign ends. The Sabbath rest was a type of the redemptive rest we have in Christ. The Sabbath was a shadow, and our rest in Christ is the spiritual reality that fulfills the type. John MacArthur explains:

Sabbath observance was at the heart of the Jewish legalistic system, and when Jesus violated the traditions as to how that day should be honored, He struck a raw nerve.^[6]

…But that law [Sabbath commandment] is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is non-moral and purely ceremonial; and it was unique to the Old Covenant and to Israel. The other nine commandments, on the other hand, pertain to moral and spiritual absolutes and are repeated and expanded upon many places in the New Testament. But Sabbath observance is never recommended to Christians, much less given as a command in the New Testament.

When Jesus began His ministry, the Old Covenant was still in effect and all its requirements were binding on Jews, the special people of that covenant. Jesus observed every demand and met every condition of Scripture, because it was His own Word, which He came to fulfill and not destroy (Matt. 5:17).

Because the Lord of the Sabbath had come, the shadow of His Sabbath rest was no longer needed or valid. The New Testament does not require Sabbath observance, but rather allows freedom as to whether or not any day is honored above others…. The Lord’s Day is not the “Christian Sabbath,” as it was considered to be for many centuries and still is in some groups today.^[7]

MacArthur explains that Jesus, although he does not require seventh-day Sabbath observance, nevertheless did not destroy the Sabbath commandment. He fulfilled it, and thus its typological function is over. Its observance is transformed into ceasing from works-righteousness and resting instead in Christ’s righteousness. As MacArthur correctly states, the Sabbath “is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is non-moral and purely ceremonial; and it was unique to the Old Covenant and to Israel.” Any attempt to make the seventh-day Sabbath an eternal moral law is to misunderstand the Sabbath and to miss one of the clearest pictures of the gospel in the Old Testament Scriptures.^[8]

It is not my intention to provide an exhaustive exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20, but simply to show in what ways we can legitimately use the passage as support for the concepts of continuity and discontinuity. On the side of continuity, we find that Jesus regarded the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures as a continuing, vital part of the inspired revelation of God. As such, when understood and interpreted by the New Testament Scriptures, the Old Testament Scriptures are part of a Christian’s rule of life today. On the side of discontinuity, we find that Jesus’ fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures meant that the Old Covenant was rescinded and the New Covenant was inaugurated. The old kingdom gave way to the new kingdom.

I fear that some people who claim to be the only true soldiers guarding Solomon’s bed have confused the Old Covenant with the Old Testament Scriptures. We have made this point repeatedly throughout this series of studies, but it bears restating: The Old Covenant, and everything it established, has indeed passed away—there is complete discontinuity. The Old Covenant, in its entirety, has been replaced by a new and better covenant. However, the Old Testament Scriptures, thirty-nine books of our Bible, remain as Scripture—there is total continuity. They continue in nature and essence as the same thing they have always been and always will be, namely, part of the inspired Word of God. As such, those books are profitable for revealing God’s will for his New Covenant people. We correctly interpret those books when we filter our understanding of them through the New Testament Scriptures, but this filtering in no way destroys or nullifies them as Scripture. We merely give Christ and his Word the preeminence they deserve.^[9]

The author of Hebrews, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus continuing to bring Jesus’ words to his people, emphasizes that Moses remains in the house (Heb. 4:1-6) but his status and function radically changes. He is now subject to the Son who is the builder of the house. That house is the church. Jesus does not exclude Moses from the church, but Jesus does not set Moses up as lord over the conscience of New Covenant believers in the church. Jesus reserves that authority for himself. Moses no longer fills the role of a lawgiver, but he still functions as a teacher. The curriculum has been revised and all the course material has been filtered through the lens of the new kingdom. Our Lord and his apostles screened and interpreted all of the lessons taught by Moses, but this does not mean they saw themselves as enemies of Moses. If, however, a theological system places Moses as lawgiver and gives him a sword to enforce his law, then that theological system has made Moses an enemy of both the gospel and the Christian.

The point about continuity and discontinuity that we need to bring away from the Sermon on the Mount in general, and Matthew 5:17-20 in particular, is that Moses remains (continuity), but only as he is filtered through the New Covenant. Our Lord claims superiority to Moses, but also that his own teaching and lawgiving brings Moses’ teaching to its anticipated fulfillment. Jesus did not contradict or destroy the Law and the Prophets—the Old Testament Scriptures. He did, however, fulfill them and thus change their status and function (discontinuity). The portion of Moses’ teaching that we label the Decalogue receives the same treatment that the rest of the Hebrew Scripture receives: completion in Messiah. The quotation we used earlier from Craig Blomberg stated it well.

Christ makes clear that He is not contradicting the law, but neither is He preserving it unchanged. He comes ‘to fulfill’ it, i.e., He will bring the law to its intended goal…Fulfillment of Scripture…refers to the bringing to fruition of its complete meaning. Here Jesus views His role as that of fulfilling all of the Old Testament.

The New Testament Scriptures uniformly teach that Christ fulfills, and thus replaces, all the offices established by the Old Covenant. He is our great Prophet (Acts 3:22-26), our only High Priest (Heb 7:24-28), and our eternal King (Rev 17:14). We now have the answer to the question with which this study opened: “How are we who live in the era after the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascent of Jesus the Messiah to understand God’s revelation that preceded him?” We are to understand it as pointing to Messiah and as fulfilled by him.

---