The Law According to Matthew
An Examination of the Apostle Matthew's view of the Mosaic Law
"Don't think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17, CSB)
Many Christians in academia and in the pews are concerned about what to do with the Mosaic Law. A litany of questions arise: Are Christians under the Ten Commandments? Should we divide the Law into its ceremonial, civic, and moral components? How should the Mosaic Law influence our secular governance? I do not aim to address all of these issues in this post, but I do want to highlight an often neglected answer to the heart of these issues - namely, a letter written to a Jewish audience about Jesus.
The Gospel of Matthew handles the Law of Moses with a unique but nonetheless canonically consistent vantage point when compared with the rest of the biblical witness. The Apostle Matthew develops a running theme in God's Word that Jesus is the culmination of redemption. Therefore, Christ abrogates the imperatival force of the Mosaic Law by fulfilling it. This is exemplified by how highly Matthew regards the Law; because, Christ is exalted by the acclamation of what He has surpassed, not its depreciation. This does not mean that the Law is of no profit to the believer. But rather that Jesus reserves all rights of interpretation of the Law to Himself as its Fulfillment, and all future interpretations must likewise adopt His hermeneutic.
The Gospel of Matthew handles the Law of Moses with a unique but nonetheless canonically consistent vantage point when compared with the rest of the biblical witness. The Apostle Matthew develops a running theme in God's Word that Jesus is the culmination of redemption. Therefore, Christ abrogates the imperatival force of the Mosaic Law by fulfilling it. This is exemplified by how highly Matthew regards the Law; because, Christ is exalted by the acclamation of what He has surpassed, not its depreciation. This does not mean that the Law is of no profit to the believer. But rather that Jesus reserves all rights of interpretation of the Law to Himself as its Fulfillment, and all future interpretations must likewise adopt His hermeneutic.
Jesus Refused to Mix Old Skins with New Wine
"No one patches an old garment with unshrunk cloth, because the patch pulls away from the garment and makes the tear worse. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matthew 9:16-17, CSB)
One teaching in the Gospel of Matthew suggests that parties to the New Covenant need a nuanced view of their relationship to the Mosaic Law. Jesus describes life in the covenant and the covenant members in terms of a cloth and a patch respectively as well as a wineskin and wine.
We know that Jewish tradition is in view given that the section begins with a debate about fasting. But you might ask, "what does this have to do with the Law of Moses?" Whether or not Moses commanded fasting is largely a linguistic debate among scholars, but fasting was frequently a logical outworking of a people who lived under God's rule. 1 As such, fasting is the appropriate response of people who lived under the former covenant, but Jesus' arrival as the bridegroom, or Emmanuel, makes the former ways of life obsolete. Christian fasting, which commences only after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, is an inaugurated but not consummated reality, whereas Jewish fasting longed for a Messianic and redemptive fulfillment that has now come (9:15).
I discern that v.16 and v.17 are essentially addressing the same thing as the Lord transitions his argument from the lesser to the greater. Jesus says that the former way of life under the law is incapable to be used with the new covenant members in any way, shape, or form. It is important to notice the absolutist framework that the parable suggests. Each covenant law (cloth/wineskin) is compatible only with its corresponding covenant members (patch/wine). If Jesus had some view to incorporate Mosaic legal requirements in the New Covenant, this would have been his opportunity for a caveat, but his logic remains in absolute terms.
Some interpreters have concluded from this passage that Jesus' reference to "both" being "preserved" in v.17 suggests that the Mosaic Covenant and its corresponding covenant people are also being preserved. Carson suggests that "both" is clearly grammatically connected with the new wine and fresh wineskins. 2 Consequently, Jesus is concerned to preserve both His teaching and His disciples as a cohesive unit. Herein, we have the beginnings of what Paul will later call "the Law of Christ." So, if Christ envisions his disciples as incompatible with the Mosaic Law, that sounds like a bold claim, I doubt that I have convinced any skeptic as of yet. Therefore, let's look at some examples of Jesus applying this hermeneutic.
We know that Jewish tradition is in view given that the section begins with a debate about fasting. But you might ask, "what does this have to do with the Law of Moses?" Whether or not Moses commanded fasting is largely a linguistic debate among scholars, but fasting was frequently a logical outworking of a people who lived under God's rule. 1 As such, fasting is the appropriate response of people who lived under the former covenant, but Jesus' arrival as the bridegroom, or Emmanuel, makes the former ways of life obsolete. Christian fasting, which commences only after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, is an inaugurated but not consummated reality, whereas Jewish fasting longed for a Messianic and redemptive fulfillment that has now come (9:15).
I discern that v.16 and v.17 are essentially addressing the same thing as the Lord transitions his argument from the lesser to the greater. Jesus says that the former way of life under the law is incapable to be used with the new covenant members in any way, shape, or form. It is important to notice the absolutist framework that the parable suggests. Each covenant law (cloth/wineskin) is compatible only with its corresponding covenant members (patch/wine). If Jesus had some view to incorporate Mosaic legal requirements in the New Covenant, this would have been his opportunity for a caveat, but his logic remains in absolute terms.
Some interpreters have concluded from this passage that Jesus' reference to "both" being "preserved" in v.17 suggests that the Mosaic Covenant and its corresponding covenant people are also being preserved. Carson suggests that "both" is clearly grammatically connected with the new wine and fresh wineskins. 2 Consequently, Jesus is concerned to preserve both His teaching and His disciples as a cohesive unit. Herein, we have the beginnings of what Paul will later call "the Law of Christ." So, if Christ envisions his disciples as incompatible with the Mosaic Law, that sounds like a bold claim, I doubt that I have convinced any skeptic as of yet. Therefore, let's look at some examples of Jesus applying this hermeneutic.
Examples
"Don't you realize that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is eliminated? But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this defiles a person. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, slander." (Matthew 15:17-19, CSB)
Jesus' discourse on food laws (15:17-20) stands out as an instance where Jesus abrogates God's previous command in Leviticus 11.
The food laws clearly did not, in and of themselves, defile Israelites, since Jesus points out that food is rendered inert by the stomach. God's concern, therefore, was to make his people visibly distinct from the rest of the world, and this distinction was a well-known fact in both the Roman world and preceding empires (Daniel 1). When we consider Christianity's outward focus toward the nations, it makes sense that Christ would render this dietary restriction as obsolete (28:19-20). The people of God, at this point in redemptive history, are now made distinct by their abstention from moral evil.
The food laws clearly did not, in and of themselves, defile Israelites, since Jesus points out that food is rendered inert by the stomach. God's concern, therefore, was to make his people visibly distinct from the rest of the world, and this distinction was a well-known fact in both the Roman world and preceding empires (Daniel 1). When we consider Christianity's outward focus toward the nations, it makes sense that Christ would render this dietary restriction as obsolete (28:19-20). The people of God, at this point in redemptive history, are now made distinct by their abstention from moral evil.
When he went into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings collect tariffs or taxes? From their sons or from strangers?"
"From strangers," he said.
"Then the sons are free," Jesus told him. "But, so we won't offend them, go to the sea, cast in a fishhook, and take the first fish that you catch. When you open its mouth you'll find a coin. Take it and give it to them for me and you."" (Matthew 17:24-27, CSB)
"From strangers," he said.
"Then the sons are free," Jesus told him. "But, so we won't offend them, go to the sea, cast in a fishhook, and take the first fish that you catch. When you open its mouth you'll find a coin. Take it and give it to them for me and you."" (Matthew 17:24-27, CSB)
The Temple tax was instituted in Exodus 30:13 and is likewise abrogated by the New Covenant. Jesus' opinion on the matter is brought out by an inquiry of one of his disciples. Jesus' private instruction to his disciples is primarily of interest for New Covenant believers.
Jesus, as Immanuel and therefore superior to the Temple, was completely prepared by God and required no upkeep. Focus is henceforth withdrawn from the Temple and placed squarely upon Jesus. Jesus' interest in paying the tax is finally to avoid offering any offense to cultural Judaism. New Testament readers will notice that the concern not to offend the Jews resurfaces in Luke's account of the letter to the Gentiles after the Jerusalem Council. Schreiner comments on Acts 15:29, "The latter requirements were included to facilitate fellowship between Christian Jews and Gentiles." 3 This law saw to the upkeep of the place of God's presence until Jesus' arrival obviated its purpose; now, Jesus is the presence of God (Matthew 1:23).
Jesus, as Immanuel and therefore superior to the Temple, was completely prepared by God and required no upkeep. Focus is henceforth withdrawn from the Temple and placed squarely upon Jesus. Jesus' interest in paying the tax is finally to avoid offering any offense to cultural Judaism. New Testament readers will notice that the concern not to offend the Jews resurfaces in Luke's account of the letter to the Gentiles after the Jerusalem Council. Schreiner comments on Acts 15:29, "The latter requirements were included to facilitate fellowship between Christian Jews and Gentiles." 3 This law saw to the upkeep of the place of God's presence until Jesus' arrival obviated its purpose; now, Jesus is the presence of God (Matthew 1:23).
"If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, he may write her a divorce certificate, hand it to her, and send her away from his house." (Deuteronomy 24:1, CSB)
Peter Gentry insists that the Mosaic Covenant, "will provide, under the direct rule of God, a model of God's rule over human life, which is the divine aim for the entire world." 4 That must however be balanced with the mixed nature of the Mosaic Covenant which established a nation state under theocratic rule with regenerate and unregenerate persons. Unlike Jeramiah's promises for the New Covenant, a neighbor would frequently turn to his neighbor (fellow covenant member) and say, "Know the Lord!" 5 So, how would God show his just rule in the midst of this mixed priestly nation in regard to divorce? This is what Moses writes:
Some might be surprised that Moses permitted male members of the covenant community to divorce on account of "something indecent" in their wives. Attempts of some scholars to restrict this to mere adultery should be rejected since remarriage is in view in this text and adultery was a capital crime in Israel (Leviticus 20:10). 6 Nonetheless, we do see a reflection of God's goodness in this text. If there were no definite certificates of divorce, the likelihood of widespread unintentional adultery skyrockets. Recorded certificates of divorce are a necessary concession in a mixed community that is more or less exhibited in our secular laws. However, Jesus' take on divorce in the New Covenant community shows an even more profound application of God's character.
Some might be surprised that Moses permitted male members of the covenant community to divorce on account of "something indecent" in their wives. Attempts of some scholars to restrict this to mere adultery should be rejected since remarriage is in view in this text and adultery was a capital crime in Israel (Leviticus 20:10). 6 Nonetheless, we do see a reflection of God's goodness in this text. If there were no definite certificates of divorce, the likelihood of widespread unintentional adultery skyrockets. Recorded certificates of divorce are a necessary concession in a mixed community that is more or less exhibited in our secular laws. However, Jesus' take on divorce in the New Covenant community shows an even more profound application of God's character.
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."" (Matthew 19:7-9, CSB)
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."" (Matthew 19:7-9, CSB)
Jesus willfully contradicts the letter of the teaching of Moses, but He also provides a truly profound reason for his abrogation of God's prior allowance in v. 8. The hardness of the heart is a theme that is carried throughout the Bible, and the prophet Jeremiah's promise of the New Covenant insisted that the New Covenant would be unlike the former; God would remove hard hearts of stone and give soft hearts with his law imprinted upon them. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate for Jesus to allow willful divorce among a New Covenant community without the grounds for said divorce being grounds for removal from the covenant community as well. The former law would simply not fit with the nature of this new community which lacks the hardness of the heart that made Deuteronomy 24:1 a natural application of God's unchanging nature. New Covenant believers are held to a much higher standard since they are made holy by the Spirit of the Lord.
The Law is Abrogated
These instances show that Matthew sometimes envisions a complete abrogation of Old Covenant commands. The "wine skin hermeneutic" gives the interpreter of the Law license to refer to Christ first. Therefore, the discontinuous nature of the Old Testament law is ultimately a result of the fulfillment of its unified purpose: "to reveal human sin so that it will be clear that there is no hope in human beings. The law puts us to death so that life is sought only in Christ and him crucified." 7 For those who are outside of Christ, this is a foundational wounding which Christ remedies. However, for the people who are under His New Covenant, Christ sat atop a new Mount Sinai and issued a new Law for His new people.
So, if we must judge the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant from wineskins and cloths alone, then New Covenant believers have no need of the Old Covenant nor its testimony, the Old Testament. Instead, we should eject the Old Testament from our Bibles after our conversion, but surely that can't be right, can it?
So, if we must judge the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant from wineskins and cloths alone, then New Covenant believers have no need of the Old Covenant nor its testimony, the Old Testament. Instead, we should eject the Old Testament from our Bibles after our conversion, but surely that can't be right, can it?
Jesus Recalibrates the Law
"Then he said to them, "Therefore every expert in the law who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his treasure what is new and old." (Matthew 13:52, NET) 8
We will see now that the parable of the scribe serves as a careful qualification of the parable of the wineskins. Jesus declares that whenever a person with extensive knowledge of the Law repents and becomes His disciple, he inherits two kinds of treasure.
Jesus intends that those who have repented and believed in his name stand to profit substantially from a right interpretation and application of the Mosaic Law. Many experts of the Law did become Jesus' disciples and a rather famous one wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Just like Matthew, Paul was speaking in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, and Jason Meyer, reflecting on Paul, writes,
"I propose that one should begin with Christ and not with the individual Mosaic commands. The coming of Christ has caused a paradigm shift that calls for recalibrating all former commands in the light of His centrality. This approach recognizes that the law of Moses in its entirety has come to an end in the sense that the believer does not start by asking, "What did the law teach?" The believer begins at the point where his Christian life began: Christ. The believer found new life in Christ and so now comes to Christ to find out how to live out his new life." 9
If what Meyer writes is true, we should be able to find Jesus doing this "recalibration" during his earthly ministry. However, Matthew does not pull any punches regarding the Law since he obviously intends an apologetic of the New Covenant toward Jews. 10
Jesus intends that those who have repented and believed in his name stand to profit substantially from a right interpretation and application of the Mosaic Law. Many experts of the Law did become Jesus' disciples and a rather famous one wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Just like Matthew, Paul was speaking in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, and Jason Meyer, reflecting on Paul, writes,
"I propose that one should begin with Christ and not with the individual Mosaic commands. The coming of Christ has caused a paradigm shift that calls for recalibrating all former commands in the light of His centrality. This approach recognizes that the law of Moses in its entirety has come to an end in the sense that the believer does not start by asking, "What did the law teach?" The believer begins at the point where his Christian life began: Christ. The believer found new life in Christ and so now comes to Christ to find out how to live out his new life." 9
If what Meyer writes is true, we should be able to find Jesus doing this "recalibration" during his earthly ministry. However, Matthew does not pull any punches regarding the Law since he obviously intends an apologetic of the New Covenant toward Jews. 10
Examples
"Then the tempter approached him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
He answered, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written:
He will give his angels orders concerning you, and they will support you with their hands so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."
Jesus told him, "It is also written: Do not test the Lord your God."
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, "I will give you all these things if you will fall down and worship me."
Then Jesus told him, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him."" (Matthew 4:3-10, CSB)
He answered, "It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."
Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written:
He will give his angels orders concerning you, and they will support you with their hands so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."
Jesus told him, "It is also written: Do not test the Lord your God."
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, "I will give you all these things if you will fall down and worship me."
Then Jesus told him, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him."" (Matthew 4:3-10, CSB)
Matthew's Gospel, like the other Synoptics, includes the temptation of the Lord Jesus.
Jesus responds to each of Satan's temptations with the Mosaic Law from Deuteronomy 6-8 which is best understood as the central focal point of the whole Old Testament. 11 We must conclude that the Law is indeed "profitable for rebuking" since Jesus rebukes the Accuser himself with it. When faced with evils and temptations of this world, Jesus has no qualms in appealing to the inspired word of God and nor should we. Fundamentally, what is happening here? Satan is tempting Jesus to behave as Israel did in the book of Numbers during its journey through the wilderness. However, Jesus is a faithful Israel and a True Adam who heeds the Word of the Lord and trusts in Him.
"You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5:21-22, CSB)
The Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7) also contains a series of teachings referred to as Antitheses. Each group is phrased "you have heard it said… but I say to you…" Every Antithesis is a wise exposition of a principle derived from a command of the Mosaic Law. Consequently, one should not view each Antithesis as a new command but rather a faithful interpretation of the meaning of a command of the Mosaic Law. Contrary to some who claim that Jesus applied the Law to heart for the first time in redemptive history, Schreiner points out that Jesus is primarily concerned with correcting false interpretations of the Mosaic Law present in His day. 12 Since Jesus knows that the immutable God was faithfully revealed in the Old Testament, it makes a natural reference point for him to correct errors of his own day. Jesus is the Faithful Scribe who corrects the faithless Pharisees.
The Law Teaches
Both cases indicate that Jesus was more than willing to use the Law. Jesus, by no means, thought that the Law was bad or unprofitable. Instead, He appreciated that God had created the Old Covenant community through this Law, and He would not permit it to be perverted. Furthermore, Jesus upheld the Law's teaching on fundamental principles throughout His antithetical arguments.
This is because the Law was written by an immutable God whose righteousness never changes. Therefore, Christians should reject Marcionist attempts to abandon or "unhitch" ourselves from the Old Testament. Like Marcion of the second century, such attempts ultimately charge that there is mutability in God Himself or that Christians and Old Testament saints worship different gods. Instead, recognizing it is the covenant community that has changed and not God, we should echo the words of the Psalmist:
This is because the Law was written by an immutable God whose righteousness never changes. Therefore, Christians should reject Marcionist attempts to abandon or "unhitch" ourselves from the Old Testament. Like Marcion of the second century, such attempts ultimately charge that there is mutability in God Himself or that Christians and Old Testament saints worship different gods. Instead, recognizing it is the covenant community that has changed and not God, we should echo the words of the Psalmist:
"How I love your instruction!
It is my meditation all day long.
Your commands make me wiser than my enemies,
for they are always with me.
I have more insight than all my teachers
because your decrees are my meditation.
I understand more than the elders
because I obey your precepts.
I have kept my feet from every evil path
to follow your word.
I have not turned from your judgments,
for you yourself have instructed me."
It is my meditation all day long.
Your commands make me wiser than my enemies,
for they are always with me.
I have more insight than all my teachers
because your decrees are my meditation.
I understand more than the elders
because I obey your precepts.
I have kept my feet from every evil path
to follow your word.
I have not turned from your judgments,
for you yourself have instructed me."
Psalm 119:97-102
CSB
The Law Applied
This article has aimed to help New Covenant believers to better use the Law of Moses. Christians understand that we have an unchanging God who always reflects his perfect nature in the commands that He gives to His children. Therefore, we do have an impetus to consider the nature of God and His will revealed in the books of Moses. Simultaneously, we stand at a unique point in redemptive history; namely, we live on the other side of the arrival of the Messiah in an inaugurated but not yet consummated Kingdom. On account of this, Jesus is the filter through which every moral imperative must come.
When Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it," (5:17) Matthew ultimately intends that the fulfillment of the law is not only something Jesus does, but it is also something that Jesus is. The entirely abrogated Mosaic Law is now applied through the sieve of Christ's Person and Work. Whatever thereafter remains with Christ is completed in Him, and whatever passes through Christ, by His instruction or that of His inspired New Testament authors, is binding for members of the New Covenant.
One might compare this to the distinction between the regulative and normative principles of worship. Traditional covenant theology argues for a standing authority for all the Law of Moses that has not been specifically abrogated in the New Testament. However, I have argued here that the imperatival nature of Law of Moses has found its terminus in Jesus, so we should only apply it insofar as its individual injunctions have been specifically repeated in the New Testament.
While systematic theology must continue to discuss the nature of continuity and discontinuity in the covenants, that is not Matthew's primary concern. Instead, Matthew unceasingly drives his readers to see the wondrous fulfillment of all of God's Word that is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Righteous Messiah and Sovereign Lord.
When Jesus says, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it," (5:17) Matthew ultimately intends that the fulfillment of the law is not only something Jesus does, but it is also something that Jesus is. The entirely abrogated Mosaic Law is now applied through the sieve of Christ's Person and Work. Whatever thereafter remains with Christ is completed in Him, and whatever passes through Christ, by His instruction or that of His inspired New Testament authors, is binding for members of the New Covenant.
One might compare this to the distinction between the regulative and normative principles of worship. Traditional covenant theology argues for a standing authority for all the Law of Moses that has not been specifically abrogated in the New Testament. However, I have argued here that the imperatival nature of Law of Moses has found its terminus in Jesus, so we should only apply it insofar as its individual injunctions have been specifically repeated in the New Testament.
While systematic theology must continue to discuss the nature of continuity and discontinuity in the covenants, that is not Matthew's primary concern. Instead, Matthew unceasingly drives his readers to see the wondrous fulfillment of all of God's Word that is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, our Righteous Messiah and Sovereign Lord.
More On This
These are some recommended resources if you want to dive deeper into the Christian's relationship to the Law of Moses.
Go to amazon to purchase Tom Schreiner's take on the nature of Biblical Law.
Jason C. Meyer's magisterial work on New Covenant Theology's view of the Law.
Endnotes
1
The central debate about the Torah's injunction in this matter is around the phrase, "וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם" which the CSB translates as "you shall practice self-denial." Secondary Jewish literature often interpreted this as fasting, and a summary of this and other issues concerning a Jewish version of fasting can be found here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/why-jews-fast It is notable how the phrase, "denied ourselves" (CSB) is paralleled with the verb "fasted" in Isaiah 58:3, and appears to be a case of synonymous parallelism.
What is not debated, however, is that the people who were under the Mosaic Law frequently saw fasting as a natural outworking of their relationship to God. The above article's citation of Jud 20:26, 1 Sam 7:5, Ezr 8:21, Isa 58:3, etc.
What is not debated, however, is that the people who were under the Mosaic Law frequently saw fasting as a natural outworking of their relationship to God. The above article's citation of Jud 20:26, 1 Sam 7:5, Ezr 8:21, Isa 58:3, etc.
2
Carson, D. A. The Expositors Bible Commentary: With the New International Version: Matthew: Chapters 1 through 12. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985. Location 9035.
3
Schreiner, Thomas R. Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, Mish.: Baker Academic, 2010. p. 638.
4
Gentry, Peter John, and Stephen Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. p. 324.
5
I'm referencing Jeremiah 31:31-34 where the Lord promises, ""[...] I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord.[...]" (NIV)
6
Merrill, E. H. Deuteronomy (Bd. 4). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 1994.
On Deu. 24:1, he also admits that most scholars do not adopt his position. Namely, he asserts that the teaching of Jesus in Mat 19 is identical to the teaching of Moses in Deu 24.
On Deu. 24:1, he also admits that most scholars do not adopt his position. Namely, he asserts that the teaching of Jesus in Mat 19 is identical to the teaching of Moses in Deu 24.
7
Schreiner, Thomas R. 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010. p. 84.
8
Original reads, "scribe" rather than "expert of the law," but I discern that the NET translators are right to emphasize the ability of these persons as the thrust of Jesus' argument. The more dynamic translation, "expert of the law" merely serves to make this more accessible to modern readers who are less familiar with the proficiency of first century scribes.
9
Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2009. p. 238.
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
10
Carson, D. A. The Expositors Bible Commentary: With the New International Version: Matthew: Chapters 1 through 12. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985. Loc. 2353.
11
Gentry, Peter John, and Stephen Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. p. 364-365.
12
Schreiner, Thomas R. Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, Mish.: Baker Academic, 2010. p. 629.
I dabble in Facebook and Twitter, so feel free to friend/follow me. Also, please email me. If I get a lot of good responses, I might do a "Letters to the Editor" post.
matthew.wilson.short@gmail.com
