24 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
ee
Divine ideal within Himself, and needed no ex- ternal criterion.
So that there seems no room for a difference of opinion as to what Jesus meant by saying that He came to ‘fulfil’ the Law and the Prophets. He could not have meant that He would secure the literal accomplishment of everything hoped for and promised in the OT, as though the OT simply presented a programme which it was His mission to carry out. Nor could He have meant that He would secure the complete, literal observance and performance of all that is commanded in the Law and the Prophets. He neither did nor attempted to do the one thing or the other. If His Jewish hearers might at first understand Him to promise that in ‘fulfilling’ the Law and the Prophets He would reaffirm their authority, and render and secure absolute obedience thereto, He yet ex- plicitly and emphatically provided against such a misconstruction of His words by what He immedi- ately adds in vv.!§-, Jesus could only have meant that He came to ‘ fulfil’ the Law and the Prophets by first perfecting them and then accomplishing them.*
In accordance with this view of Jesus’ thought in Mt 517 must be interpreted His words in Mt 518.19, The former, v.18, seems to say: I affirm most emphatically that to the end of time + the OT Law, and every portion of that Law, shall remain and shall be actually and completely realized. The latter, v.19, seems to say : The minute observance and inculeation of this OT Law, in every statute and in every detail, is literally and strictly re- quired of every member of the Kingdom of Heaven.t Now
* This is now the generally accepted interpretation. Tholuck, Bergrede®, pp. 124, 126 [Eng. tr. pp. 125, 127] : ‘So Christ has come to perfect, to fill up with religious knowledge and life, all that in the OT revelation existed only in outline. . . . That the ful- filling was merely an external supplementing or improvement of the Law cannot be admitted’ (see Tholuck’s entire discussion of Mt 517, pp. 113-131 [Eng. tr. pp. 115-131]). Bruce, Eapositor’s Greek Testament, i, 104: ‘He brings in a law of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes the pro- phetic ideals while setting aside the crude details of their conception of the Messianic time.’ B. Weiss, Meyer-Komm. a. d. Mattevgm. p.102: ‘He comes not at all to undo or to abro- gate ; his mission is a positive one, to provide a new [revelation of the will of God], in which he will bring to perfection all God’s revelations and plans of salvation.’ Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1885: ‘Thus he says that no essential difference exists between the OT revelation and his message of the Kingdom, but that there is a close continuity between them; true religion, presented as an ideal in the OT, is now realized, and the Gospel is the fulfilment of the OT prophecy.’ Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 338 f.: ‘He would say that he recognizes in the Law and the Prophets a true revelation of the will of God, and consequently he does not feel called upon to annul its value for others. But at the same time he would affirm that he could not leave just as it stood the presentation given by the Law and the Prophets of this earlier revelation of God’s will, and that he would not ex- plain and confirm that revelation in the detailed manner of the scribal teaching ; but that instead he would perfect that revela- tion, so that the OT presentation of the will of God would find its ideal expression’ (see Wendt’s entire discussion, pp. 333-351). Similarly also Luther, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Achelis, Bacon, and many others, H. Holtzmann, Com. wi. d. Synoptiker, p. 104, says, concerning Mt 517: ‘It is open to question whether during the public life of Jesus so radical an interpretation of His mission could have been formulated, either in the positive sense (cf. Ro 104) or in the negative sense.’
+ The phrase tas dy xapéa0n 6 obpavic xo) 4 ym does nob define a terminus ad quem, but means ‘for ever,’ in the sense that He has no pronouncement to make as to a time when the Law shall benolonger valid. So Luther, Calvin, Meyer, Tholuck, Ibbeken, Bruce, B, Weiss; a contrary opinion by Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 84, and Lechler, SK 1854. The former view is supported also by the parallel saying in Lk 1617 elwordrepoy d€ Eoriy roy ovpavoy nal ray yay wapendeiy } TOU vouou perav zépaiay receiv (on this passage and its relation to Mt 518 see esp. Feine, Jahrb. Ff. Protest. Theol. 1885, pp. 31-35). B. Weiss, Meyer-Komu. ti, d. Mattevgm. p. 104, says that in the phrase ‘till heaven and earth pass away’ Jesus ‘does not indicate a point after which the Law shall no longer be in existence, but [this] is only a popular ex- pression (cf. Job 1412) for the permanent authority of the Law. Since Jesus is speaking of what shall take place in the present world-era, he states that the Law can never passaway. But ofa continuation of the Law beyond the last world-catastrophe, as referred to in Mt 2435, nothing is here said.’ The second phrase ews ay xévre yévnros is parallel to the ws av moepérly 6 odpocvos ze} % 7%, and in meaning can only be synonymous with it.