Paul, Matthew, and the Law
What is Jesus doing with the Law?
Matthew 5:18 (NIV)
18 For truly I tell you, 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.
Romans 6:14 (NIV)
14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
I've been thinking a great deal about the Sermon on the Mount, and one of the questions that has pushed me and that I've been pushed on is understanding 5:17-20 and the dynamic of Jesus' relationship with the Law. In this post, however, I want to expand that issue and think about the relationship of Jesus to the Law in relation to Paul's treatment of the Law. And then revisit how Jesus’ six exegesis in Matthew 5:21-47 ‘work’ in relation to the Law.
My view of Paul and the Law is mostly shaped by Brian Rosner's book; that and a reading of Galatians in which I don't view gentile Christians as being guilty of breaking the Mosaic covenant-code because they were never under the Law-as-law. In that sense, I think it's wrong for gentile Christians to imagine that their sin against God is because they broke the OT Law Code given at Sinai.
Recognising that 'Law' is a really fraught term in the New Testament starts us down the road to solving this conundrum, and that's what Rosner's view does, distinguishing the Law as (i) Mosaic covenant (and legal code), (ii) prophecy, and (iii) wisdom. This allows Rosner to look at the various ways that Paul talks about the Law in different contexts and ways.
So, we are not 'under the Law' as Mosaic covenant, neither Jewish nor Gentile followers of Jesus. We (Christians) do not keep or observe the Law, but we do fulfil it. However Paul does use the Law as Wisdom.
Now we come to Matthew, and the straightforward temptation is to read 5:17-20 as Jesus declaring that the Law is binding and of continuing authority as Law. But that's not what he's actually doing or saying. Firstly Jesus speaks of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, which we've already discussed. Secondly, we need to revisit how we understand that phrase 'the Law and the Prophets'. I think it's very easy to hear that at face value, "ah, he means the first 5 books of the Bible and also the Prophetic books"; and that in itself is at least a little misleading. I would combine the way Pennington and McKnight talk about it, and sum up my position as this:
The Torah and the Prophets means the first 5 books of the Bible as extended and interpreted through the revelation through the Prophets, as the saving, covenantal relationship of God with his people Israel which Jesus now fulfils "in a salvation-historical, theological, and moral manner" [fn Scot McKnight, Sermon on the Mount, ed. Tremper Longman III and Scot McKnight, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 68.]
The Torah, this Torah, does not pass away precisely because it's fulfilled in Jesus in this way, and it's ongoing relevant for ethical life is found in the way that Jesus interprets and teaches it. Yet that form of teaching is primarily wisdom-ethical not legal. Which is in fact both what Paul is doing with the Law, and what we see Jesus doing in the rest of Matthew 5.
In all 6 of the exegesis in Matthew 5:21-47, I think the over-arching pattern of "you have heard/it was said... but I tell you" is that Jesus is showing a deeper, truer intent to the demands of the Mosaic Law that point beyond the specific instantiation of God's will for Israel at Sinai, to God's will for human beings. That's why it's binding: not because Jesus offers a new law, and not because he corrects or fixes up the old one. If this were just re-interpreting the Mosaic code, then reading this in concert with Paul I'd conclude that it was only binding on Jewish believers in Jesus. And while Jesus does commence a New Covenant, he's not doing that here and that's not the language and shape of what he actually does.
Although the details of the six exegeses differ, they all share at least this in common: Jesus reaffirms the Torah command (excepting maybe no. 5, which we'll discuss), but then shows a deeper meaning to it that speaks to a heart-righteousness. In doing so, I think Jesus is showing us 'how God wants us to live as followers of Jesus', but he's not doing it by way of 'law' as a legal category, but as I said above, within a wisdom-ethical framework. In what's left of this post, I'm going to briefly consider how each of the six exegeses do that; but I think each of these six needs a discussion by itself sometime.
Murder (v21-26). Jesus affirms the 6th commandment, but then goes further to what underlies it. He almost 'digs up' the root of murder, which is part of his inward/outward dynamic, and that you need a righteousness that isn't surface only (don't murder) but is heart-deep (deal with the root of murder, anger). I appreciate what Myles says about this in terms of "anti-murder, for it is not enough to just not-murder someone, but to undo the very conditions which eventuate in murder. In Matthew, we see that the danger of reducing a person to a category of fool, born not just in action but in anger. It is not enough to preserve the life, for preservation of a life happens in how we attend to and evaluate one another." And yet the applications/illustrations that Jesus gives are meant to be creative illustrations of how to deal with anger, especially in the community of faith. It is wisdom not law.
Adultery (v27-30). Jesus again affirms the 7th commandment, but then his extension in v28 is once more 'to the heart', and unearths the root of adultery, which is lust. Jesus' illustration (29-30) is wisdom because it's hyperbolic (as elsewhere when he uses this language), pointing us to how serious sin is and how seriously we should uproot the desire to turn others into our sexual objects.
Divorce. Here I think we see a shift, because it's not one of the Ten, but it's a concession as he says in Matt 19:8, to human sinfulness. That concession in Jesus' day has become a means of avoiding and averting both the force of the Law and its deeper purpose, which is the goodness of marriage as lifelong sexual fidelity in a union. Jesus' correction then does not overturn Moses' concession, but it does 'tighten the screws' so to speak, but once more points us to a deeper intent of the Law. Wherever we end up on divorce issues, the guiding principle is to not descend into casuistry, but to seek to uphold both the good of marriage and the good of the other.
Oaths. I think oaths is a similar issue to divorce in a few ways, and I also think it needs its own treatment. Not least because our friend Ryan will keep pestering me on it. Like many topics in the sermon, it gets brought up again later in the gospel, Matt 23:16-22 is pertinent. Deut 23:21-23 makes clear that oaths are to be kept, but oaths are also optional. Again in Jesus' day oaths were being abused to avoid and avert the force of the Law. I think Jesus again tightens something of the legal principle, and then illustrates it. But the rejection of swearing oaths goes to the heart of the issue: absolute consistency in honesty.
Non-Retaliation. The further down the list you get, the more difficult these become to tease out. I have more to say about v38-42, but in short I think the law quoted expresses the need for commensurate legal justice, and that in Jesus' day this was extended to a pervasive moral principle. I don't think Jesus overturns the legal principle, but his primary point in v39 is non-retaliation, an ethical principle. That, I would argue, has important implications for Christians in their legal affairs. But the illustrations that follow are not new laws for Christians, but creative contextual examples of responding with other-centred generous love in return for harm.
Enemy-Love. Here, once more, Jesus addresses a perversion of the Law, in that 'hate your enemy' is not part of Lev 19.18; but consistent with Jesus' entire ethic, he puts in place a new ethical and wisdom principle: love your enemies. That points us once more to the shape and purpose of the Torah, and it leaves unsettled the question of what exactly loving your enemies always and everywhere looks like. But love for enemies means love for the other generally, which is the principle that undergirds points 1-5 as well:
If you love those around you, esp. believers, then you'll resolve your anger through forgiveness and reconciliation.
If you love your spouse, you won't divorce but you'll remain faithful.
If you love other people, you also won't lust after them but treat them as image-bearers.
If you love others, you'll speak the truth to them, and keep your word even when it hurts.
If you love others, you'll seek to do what is good for them, resisting evil but not evil persons, even at great cost.
If you love others, you'll consider enemies to be people loved by God and so to be loved by you.
How you do that in any particular context is the application of this wisdom.
