Content uploaded by Honor Sewapo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Honor Sewapo on Mar 31, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Jesus’ Fulfilment of the Law in Matthew 5:17: A
Panacea for Breaking the Law in Africa
by
Honore Sewakpo, PhD
honorsewapo@gmail.com
Department of Religious Studies,
Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
This paper examines Matthew 5:17 in the Bible with a view to establishing its contribution to
eradicate breaking the law in Africa. Using Ralph’s grammatico-historical approach, it also
reveals that Jesus fulfilled the law in his own life through teaching and selfless service. Hence, it
recommends that holistic obedience to the law in the life, teaching and selfless service of
individuals could eradicate breaking the law in Africa as enshrined in Matthew 5:17.
Introduction
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας·
Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets;
οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
The above passage reflects how Jesus’ constant manner of speaking in regard to the Jewish
religion and Scriptures shows the reverence in which he held them. The Old Testament
represents the first steps in a great course of revelation and redemption which reaches its
consummation in Christ himself. There were imperfections in the Jewish religion which were
incidental to its character and purpose. It was in its very nature provisional and preparatory, and
was adapted to an early and rude stage of human development (Matthew 5: 38, 39; 19:8; Mark
7:15; 12:33).1 Similarly, the image projected in Africa since the early seventies has been one of
strife, mismanagement, cruel leadership and self-serving elites.2
108
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
In addition, philosophical issues have become burdened with political and emotional issues
giving rise to inconsistencies which have made progress towards a greater respect for the rule of
law difficult and embarrassing. The questions arising from the above submission are in what
ways did Jesus fulfil the Law and the prophets? And how could Jesus fulfil the Law in Matthew
serve as a catalyst to addressing breaking the Law in Africa? The most important passage, in its
bearing on these problems, is Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς
προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. “Think not that I have come to abolish
the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).
Driver3 attests to Moses as the leader under whom Israel was delivered from the Egyptian
bondage, led through the wilderness, and received a revelation. The formulation of many
customs and institutions from which the later national system was developed came through him,
so that Israel as a people owed its existence to Moses, a unique personality of supreme
importance in the Old Testament. It is hardly contestable that the laws which came to guide the
lives of Israel are attributed to Moses. For instance, the commandment, ordinances and statutes
contained in the Law books (Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers) were given directly
to Moses by Yahweh. Many of the laws and institutions of the Pentateuch originated with Moses
or at least received his sanction. On this Peterson4 notes that we must look upon Moses as Israel
looked upon him, that is, the original Law maker to whom all laws are ascribed. Through the
Law Moses established a firm relationship in the wilderness of Kadesh between the Israelites and
Yahweh, thereby becoming the originator of the Torah in Israel. Obedience to these laws was to
be the distinguishing mark of the Israelites from other nations. These laws covered all aspects of
life, regulating relationships and dealing with both personal and economic matters. They laid
down guidelines for the way Israel would relate to other nations; they regulated the cult and its
sacrifices through which their sins could be forgiven. Sometimes the Israelites obeyed these laws
carefully and experienced God’s blessings in their national life. At other times they disregarded
God’s laws and brought sanctions upon themselves; they were overrun by other nations and
eventually suffered exile. It must not be misconstrued that Mosaic Law in all its detail is a human
production, applicable to a particular people in a rude age, though it contains some moral
precepts universally accepted. After the coming of Jesus Christ, obedience to the Mosaic Law
was no longer the distinguishing mark of the people of God. They were now distinguished by
their faith in Jesus Christ and participation in his spirit. The Law continued to have an educative
role for them, but it was no longer the regulatory norm under which they lived.5
Kidder and Hodge affirm that the moral teaching of Christianity does not differ, in the
main, from the moral teachings of philosophy. Unbelievers accept them, not as the result of
revelation or the offspring of religion, but as the best deductions of human experience and
thought. They are apart entirely from matters of doctrinal belief or religious worship, and just as
good coming from Zoroaster as from Solomon, from Buddha as from Jesus, from Socrates as
from Paul, from Shakespeare as from Augustine.6
109
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Humans, therefore, are essentially moral beings since “the law written on humans’ hearts” and
“the light of nature” renders humans moral agents, capable of doing right in many relations and
responsible in all known relations, irrespective of any supernatural revelation whatsoever.
For Meyer7 the ritual of the Torah seems to have left New Testament thought free to entertain the
property and expediency of its entire omission. But it must be born in mind that the early
Christian church was modelled after the Jewish synagogue rather than the Jewish temple. As far
as the ritual of the synagogue is contained, in the Torah may not the latter be regarded as
fundamental to Christian worship? The New Testament is not anti-nomistic in the sense of being
opposed to any vital principle of the Law. Paul’s apparent anti-nomianism is only on the surface.
Christ came not to abolish but intensify and supplement Old Testament ethics and religion.
Religion in Africa, as elsewhere, is a fact of life, a fait accompli. Neither persecution nor death
can prevail against it. Religion has, indeed, long been recognised as one of those inalienable
rights of man. Religious liberty is today accepted as “a normative principle for almost all nations
and, conversely, the denial of religious liberty is viewed virtually everywhere as morally and
legally invalid.”8 Law in Africa is that left over from colonial days, plus ethnic or customary law,
plus the new law (Constitutions and statutes) made since independence of those nations.9 Law in
Africa bears the imprint of the nationalism which expresses the continent’s universal feeling at
the moment.
Prevalent approaches to Matthew 5:17
The passage, Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I
have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17), has long been considered of
fundamental importance for an understanding of Jesus’ attitude to the Law through four main
approaches in recent scholarship. These are (i) historic-critical, (ii) form-critical, (iii) redaction-
critical and (iv) textual-critical approaches. (i) In the first stage of historic-critical enquiry it was
almost unanimously accepted as an authentic utterance of Jesus; (ii) however, with the arrival of
form-critical methodology, it was, for the most part, relegated to a conservative Jewish-Christian
milieu; (iii) since the advent of redaction-critical analysis more emphasis has been placed on the
role of Matthew in reworking the tradition; (iv) nevertheless, where investigation of Matthew’s
genuineness has been undertaken, Matthew 5:17 generally continues to be viewed as a creation
of the later Church rather than as an original utterance of Jesus though this has been less true of
Matthew 5:17 than of succeeding verses. For the purpose of this study, Ralph Martin’s
grammatico-historical approach to biblical exegesis was used to elicit information from the
selected biblical text. In this approach, an inquiry is made into what the words (Greek grammata)
meant to the original recipients of the passage under study.
110
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Since the original autographs of biblical texts are no longer available, the scholar should make
use of the ‘best’ translation. Ralph is of the opinion that the best translation is the one that is
close to the original manuscript after it has been subjected to thorough textual criticism.10The
fulfilment of the Law and the prophets by Jesus Christ is a great historic process, the adequate
understanding of which requires a careful study of the text, Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. “Think
not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to
fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).
Exegesis
Stevens11 maintains that the passage, Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς
προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι “Think not that I have come to abolish the
law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17), must
be read in the light of the explanations and application which follow it. Jesus proceeds to say that
ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου “not an iota, not a dot will pass from
the law,” a statement which, if read by itself, would seem to indicate the perpetual validity of the
whole Old Testament system, ritual, sacrifice, and all. But to the statement in question Jesus
immediately adds: ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται “until all is accomplished”. He does not, therefore,
say that no part of this system shall ever pass away (as it has done, and that, too, in consequence
of his own teaching), but only that no part of it shall escape the process of fulfilment; that it shall
not pass away till, having served its providential purpose, it is fulfilled in the gospel.
Matthew 5:17 has no parallel in other synoptic gospels. The opening words μὴ νομίσητε “do
not think” are employed as a rhetorical device to strengthen the positive aspect of the following
statement: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι “I have come not to abolish them but to
fulfil them.” When Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil
them (Matthew 5:17), Votaw12 affirms that Jesus meant a literal and complete performance of all
their commands; and he continued, ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν
ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ
τῶν οὐρανῶν “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men
so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). He considered that it was his
duty to obey the Mosaic statutes in their current interpretation. Jesus, like the common people
among whom he lived and worked, gave less heed to the minutia of the pharisaic restrictions
concerning ceremonial cleanness, fasting, and Sabbath observance, but nonetheless he counted
himself a true and faithful.
111
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
France13 avers that Jesus came on earth owing to the prophecies about him to fulfil the spirit of
the Law, in that way he places the Law alongside the prophets as finding fulfilment in him
(Matthew 11:13; Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24). The fulfilment of the Law does not mean its
abolition; it remains wholly authoritative and demands the fullest respect of the disciple
(Matthew 5:18-10) because to fulfil is to bring about that to which Scripture pointed, and that is
what Jesus has now done. Ridderbos14 understands the statement, οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ
πληρῶσαι “I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” When Jesus said that he came
not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17b), to mean that Jesus
‘maintained and interpreted in its radical sense’ the Law and the prophets.
The presence of ἦλθον “I came” may be redactional and that a similar motive may lie behind its
insertion. This is true of Foulkes, while commenting on the statement οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι
ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι “I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them”, states that people accused
Jesus of trying to abolish the Law, especially because of the things that he did on the Sabbath.15
But he came to ‘fulfil’, and that meant: (i) Giving the Law its fullest meaning, realising the
purpose that God intended for it. (ii) Making everything in the Law to be important. It is easy for
people to be very strict about keeping some parts of the Law but to neglect other parts. It is easy
also to be very legalistic about details of the Law and at the same time to neglect what it really
means. Conversely, Jesus did not honour those who taught others to break the Law, or to find
ways of not having to keep it. Rather he honoured those who truly obeyed it and taught others to
do so. (iii) Practising a standard of righteousness that was very different from that of the scribes
and Pharisees. He was concerned with the spirit and purpose of the Law and not just the letter of
it. To Jesus penitent sinners are the ones who find true righteousness, not those who think they
have earned a place in the right with God by what they have done (Luke 18:9-14).16
Matthew employs καταλῦσαι, which is the infinitive aorist active of the verb καταλύω,
denoting “dissolve, destroy, annul and rest.” καταλύω is a compound verb, that is, κατά
meaning “down from, through, against, by, during and according to” and λύω having the basic
meaning “loosen, dissolve.” The verb καταλύω has a range of meanings in the New Testament,
namely (i) destroy (Mark 14:58; 15:29; Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14; Romans 14:20;
Galatians 2:18), (ii) throw down (Mark 13:2; Matthew 24:2; Luke 21:6), (iii) annul (Matthew
5:17; 2 Maccabees 2:22), (iv) demolish (2 Corinthians 5:1), and (v) rest (Luke 9:12; 19:7). In the
context of Matthew 5:17 the term καταλύω portrays Jesus as one who does not annul the Law
through partial modification, but rather fulfils it.17
Besides, πληρῶσαι is the infinitive aorist active of the verb πληρόω which denotes “fill
completely, fulfil, bring to completion and realise.” πληρόω is a causative verb from the stem of
πλήρης and means basically “fill or make full in a purely spatial sense and then metaphorically.”
112
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
While the spatial meaning is relatively infrequent in the New Testament (Matthew 13:48; Acts
2:2), πληρόω acquires its real theological importance in metaphorical usage (Matthew 3:15;
5:17; Mark 1:15; John 7:8; 15:11; 16:24; Acts 2:2; 7:30; 13:52; Ephesians 4:10; 1 John 1:4; 2
John 12). In the context of Matthew 5:17, πληρόω is a redactional code word meaning “to
establish the Law (and the Prophets who expound the Law) through teaching,” and it also later
refers to modification of the Law through teaching. Far beyond this, Jesus realises righteousness
not only by teaching but also through action (Jesus’ own life and selfless service). All of which
discloses the Matthean conjunction of Christology and ethics.18
However, if it may be right to insist that Matthew’s concern is with Jesus’ general attitude to the
Old Testament Law and in particular to ethical standards19, then this is not in conflict with the
views of Mark or the author of Hebrews, neither of whom can properly be accused of destroying
the Law and the prophets or the moral standards of the Old Testament.
The view that Jesus practised and preached a full literal obedience to the Jewish Law, as taught in
his day by the scribes, cannot be derived from the gospels, and cannot be held except by a denial
of their abundant and indisputable testimony. In Matthew 5: 21-48, Mark 1:1-23 and in many
similar passages, Jesus assumes a position of superiority to the Law; he passes judgment upon its
statutes; he points out its defects and shortcomings; he counts himself free and frees others from
a full literal obedience to its commands. He lives and he teaches humans to live, in accordance
with great religious and moral principles. These principles underlay, and in a good measure were
embodied in, the codifications of the Jewish Law; but in his thought humans should not be
enslaved to a legal system, however good—they should rather be free persons doing the will of
God out of deliberate choice and with intelligent judgment, guided by mind and conscience
instead of by a legal code. He did not re-enact the Ten Commandments, or give statutory
injunctions of any kind. This freedom from the Jewish Law, of which Paul also made much, was
one of the essential features of Jesus’ gospel.20 Mark and the writer to the Hebrews are
concerned with the ritual and the ceremonial law, which they believe is fulfilled in Christ and in
the new covenant in such a way that Christ’s followers need no longer observe it. Banks seems to
avoid the distinction by insisting that the whole of the Law and the prophets are fulfilled in and
superseded by Christ. Banks also avows that Christ is the fulfilment of the Old Testament (the
Law and the prophets), and he has certainly superseded the Law in the sense that our relationship
to God is now through Christ, not through the Law. But Christ has not fulfilled and superseded
the Law in the sense that all the Old Testament Law ceases to be binding on a Christian.21 While
the Old Testament represented the Law, it stood for authoritative institutions; the New Testament
embodied the spirit of freedom of faith and love, and it put the inner life of the individual above
the authority of tradition and law.22 In this sense Delitzsch says, “Without the New Testament,
the Old Testament would be a labyrinth without a clue, a syllogism without a conclusion, a riddle
without a solution, a torso without a head, moon without a sun, since Christ is the proper
interpretation of the Old Testament.”23
113
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Breaking the Law in Africa
Like the Jews having the Law but breaking it repeatedly owing to their outward principle in
relation to the Law, the story is not different in the continent of Africa. Breaking the Law in
Africa has become the order of the day among its citizenry. The legislatures make self-serving,
greedy and democracy-killing law in their interest rather than in national interest.24 It is probable
that in any society that is worthy of being called sane and humane, the set of goals of Moses for
the patriarchal communities should be a standard. The Law of Moses formed the basis for
running a just society. But since African countries are often referred to as secular states, they are
run by constitutions. While the Law of Moses was given by Yahweh, those of African countries
are merely written up through human endeavour. It is probable, therefore, for humans to easily
break the laws which they believe have been written by their peers. Given the resources available
to legislators, not a few Nigerians believe that the federal legislators have frustrated the people
who now find it difficult to repose confidence in them; their moves are viewed with suspicion.
Pat Utomi, a political economist, summed up the rot in the Nigerian National Assembly as
institutionalised corruption.25 Corruption26, which is passively defined as a technical flaw in
governance, is the most neglected human rights violation of our time. It fuels injustice, inequality
and depravation, and is a major catalyst for migration and terrorism. In Africa, the social and
political consequences of corruption rob nations of resources and potential, and drive inequality,
resentment and radicalisation. This corruption discourages donors and destroys investor
confidence, strangling development, progress and prosperity. It provides fertile ground for
radicalisation and some extremist organisations such as Boko Haram in Nigeria; Al-Itihaad Al-
Islamiya in Somalia; Al-Shabab in Somalia and Kenya; Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar
Dine and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in Mali; Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda and
Central African Republic; Ansar-Al-Sharia in Tunisia and Libya, etc.
Africa south of the Sahara is a fertile breeding ground for the recruitment of terrorists, a potential
terrorist hideout, and a secured location for the acquisition of illegal arms as well as privileged
territory for obscure financial transactions linked to terrorist activities. The most efficient ways
to respond to this phenomenon are to be found within the respect of the rule of law and the legal
framework set forth in international human rights treaties. The most worrying violations include
arbitrary detentions, torture, violations of the right of life and of the right to a fair trial by an
impartial and independent tribunal, violations of the right to freedom of expression and to private
life and property, or refoulement of asylum seekers and expulsion of migrants suspected of
taking part in terrorist activities to countries where they may face torture or cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment.27 In addition, the poverty in Africa is a factor that exerts extreme pressure
to achieve quick economic and social progress regardless of or in derogation of democratic
processes.28
114
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
There are some government officials committing grave violations of human rights without any
fear of being held accountable by their domestic justice systems in part because of the weakness
of those systems or their willingness to prosecute and bring these criminals to justice. An
example of this includes the cases of Mr Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of Liberia;
Mr Omar al-Bashir, former President of Sudan; and Mr Uhuru Kenyatta, former President of
Kenya.29 Lamenting over how a few highly placed people in government broke the Law in
Nigeria through contract splitting, inflation of contract sums and other forms of financial
irregularities uncovered in many federal ministries, departments and parastatals, Agbaegbu says,
“it was not unexpected. The audit report showed that virtually all MDAs of the federal
government bureaucracy, inclusive of the State House, Office of the Secretary to the Federal
Government, Head of Service, Supreme Court, National Institute for Policy and Strategic
Studies, the Armed Forces, Police and the Nigerian Customs were found to have contravened the
civil service rules, financial regulations and due process procedures in spending government
funds through contract awards.”30 Farida Waziri, Chairman of the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission, lost her job based on allegations of unethical conduct and procedural
blunders in her prosecution of the anti-corruption war in Nigeria.31 In addition, people in Africa
break the law through their activities of human trafficking and smuggling, minimum wage
violation, war crimes, crimes of aggression, genocide, and crimes against humanity; all these
happened within the continent. Thus, African members of the legislature and judiciary, the elites
and the masses, political and religious leaders, adults and youths break the Law repeatedly; yet,
the quest for fulfilling the Law is a major concern of African society.
Alarmed and chastened by these trends, every African is yearning for sane and humane society
wherein the content and the spirit of the Law are obeyed as well as the rule of law is wholly and
impartially practised to the letter. In this sense, an exemplary leader, Jesus Christ, has fulfilled
the Law and the prophets. Taking a cue from his life, teaching and selfless service to God and
humanity would inspire others to obey the Law and enable African people to live meaningful and
fulfilled lives.
The Law and its fulfilment in Jesus Christ
Jesus fulfilled the Law in His own Life:
Stevens32 asserts that the character of Jesus was the realisation of the ideal which the Law
contemplated. He was a perfectly righteous person, and it was righteousness which the Law
demanded and aimed to secure. But it is not merely or mainly the personal fulfilment of the
Law’s ideal to which Jesus refers in saying that he came to fulfil the Law.
115
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Jesus fulfilled the Law in His Teaching:
Meyer33 maintains that the New Testament doctrine of sin and Righteousness is based upon the
ethical principles underlying and expressed in the Law. Here again the modifications made by
Christ and His apostles become apparent. Whereas the Torah impresses ordinary readers with the
thought that righteousness is obedience to the written law, the New Testament lays stress upon
the righteous condition of heart and will and mind. It is true that the Mosaic system does not
forget the demand of a right frame of mind, yet at its best it must be said to be productive of legal
sincerity rather than vital spirituality. And indeed it can be clearly shown that both sin and
righteousness are made a much more personal and subjective matter in the Sermon on the Mount
than in the Law of Sinai. The apostolic method of emphasising precept was profoundly ethico–
religious, while disregarding regulations strictly national and ritualistic made legal demands for
righteousness applicable and commendable to Gentiles as well as Jews.
Meyer34 says it is never to the Law as such that Jesus Christ takes exception. Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι
ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν· ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ
παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν
τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ
βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· ὃς δ᾽ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ
βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I
have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth
pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then
relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19). Against the mechanical and external observance of the mere letter
of the Law—which led to pride, self- satisfaction, formalism, casuistry, lack of spirituality and
selfishness—Christ’s denunciations were vigorously hurled. Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ
περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ
εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).
Externalism was our Lord’s point of attack upon the religious rigorist of his day. He established
the principle of inwardness in opposition to pharisaic outwardness in the observance of the Law.
But that principle was not alien to the Mosaic system, which developed a Rabbi Hillel as well as
a Rabbi Shammai.
116
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Christ’s teaching elevated the standard of morality and religion. He supplemented the legal idea
of justice and wrath on the part of the divine Lawgiver by revealing to sinful humanity the just
and loving fatherhood of God. Over against the Old Testament injunction, ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι
ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν “You shall be holy; for I the LORD your God am holy”
(Leviticus 19:2), Jesus places the words, ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ
οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν. “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”
(Matthew 5:48). Inasmuch as legal precepts are indispensable to proper conduct, Christ allows
them to remain. But he endeavours to secure obedience to them by a love of the deeper principles
of the Law and a love of the Lawgiver himself. Hence, Paul and Peter, John and James were
apostles of Christ, and differentiated as their modes of treatment regards the Law as its
foundation, while towering above it as its culmination.
Stevens35 affirms that Jesus fulfilled the Law in his teaching by setting forth therein the absolute
truths of religion and the universal principles of goodness. While the righteousness of the scribes
and the Pharisees consisted in the punctilious observance of the bare letter of the Law, quite to
the neglect of its spirit; Jesus shows the difference between such external, superficial
righteousness and that which corresponds to the Law’s true ideal. This point may be best
illustrated from the context of Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις· οὐ φονεύσεις· “You
have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill” (Matthew 5:21a). It is
commonly supposed that to refrain from the actual, overt act of murder is to keep that
commandment, but Jesus means the person that only truly keeps it who refrains from anger and
hate. In the sight of God, hate is the essence of murder. Jesus thus finds the seat of all goodness,
and of all sin in the heart, that is, in the sphere of the motives and the desires. Likewise, Jesus
declares that the essence of adultery is in the lustful desire and the impure look. Consequently,
Jesus makes righteousness an inward and moral affair. Furthermore, oaths taken in God’s name
were regarded as more sacred and binding than those not so taken, and thus an easy way was
opened for disregarding the real sacredness of vows and promises. Jesus strikes at the root of all
these hollow and dishonest distinctions, and discountenances altogether the use of oaths in
apparent confirmation of one’s word. While the Jews made the commandment of truthfulness an
instrument of untruthfulness, Jesus insists upon a truthful heart which makes one’s “word as
good as the person’s bond.” In addition, Jesus objects to the maxim of the Old Testament, which
says, ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος χεῖρα ἀντὶ χειρός πόδα ἀντὶ ποδός
κατάκαυμα ἀντὶ κατακαύματος τραῦμα ἀντὶ τραύματος μώλωπα ἀντὶ μώλωπος “eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe.” (Exodus 21:24-25). This is because it was a law of retaliation which magistrates were to
apply under certain restrictions in the punishment of crimes; it was popularly applied to justify
personal and private revenge. The Jews had further perverted the true and natural sense of the
statement, γαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου “You shall love your
neighbour and hate your enemy.”
117
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Conversely, Jesus sets forth the ideal import of the commandment and illustrates and enforces
the duty which it enjoins by showing that the love of God, which is the type of all true love, is
not niggardly, but large and generous. This suggests that humans, especially African people are
to be complete in love, which includes being generous, helpful and forgiving as the heavenly
Father. All of these explain how Jesus penetrated in his teaching to the inner meaning of the Old
Testament precepts and exhibited their true ideal requirements, as against the superficial
application of them which regarded them as relating to outward action only. Thus, Jesus fulfilled
the Law in his teaching, both by rescuing its true import from the perversions and exaggerations
to which the scribes had subjected it, and also by recognising the ethical imperfections in the
Law itself and by replacing them by absolute principles of truth and right which are universally
applicable.
Jesus fulfilled the Law in His selfless service:
All that is of permanent value and validity for religion in the Old Testament is conserved in JFL
through his selfless service. The nature of the Gospel and the history and teaching which the
New Testament records ascertain the process of fulfilment. Jesus’ own life, innocent sufferings
and vicarious death on the cross explain the true and ideal meaning of sacrifice. Besides, he
fulfils the prophets by realising their highest ideals of religion no less than by accomplishing
their predictions, thereby fulfilling the Jewish history and having the development of revealed
religion culminated in him. For instance, Isaiah 53:4 records οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει
καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται “Our sickness he bore and our pains he carried them,” which is
rendered with sufficient exactness in Matthew 8:17b, αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ
τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν. “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.” In this passage, the
prophet means to represent the servant of Yahweh, of whom he is speaking, as suffering
vicariously for the nation, enduring sorrows produced by the national sin, and through this
suffering eventually conquering peace and purity for his people. The picture is clear enough; a
righteous person involved in suffering through no fault of his own, but by virtue of his close
relations to a sinful community, suffers from mind and other inflictions put on him by his
enemies. Far beyond the Old Testament’s perception of the suffering Messiah, Jesus is
represented as taking into his own body and bearing the diseases which he expelled from the
bodies of others, procuring pardon and peace for men, thereby fulfilling the prediction of prophet
Isaiah.36
In sum, the perennial questions are in what ways did Jesus fulfil the Law and the prophets? On
the one hand, by obeying the Law fully, that is, Jesus showed that the Law must be followed not
only in outward action, but also in inward attitude. Paradoxically, the scribes and the Pharisees
followed the Law outwardly, but not in their hearts and in so doing broke the Law. On the other
hand, by fulfilling the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament, that is, the vicarious death
of Jesus on the cross at Calvary, Christ offered himself as the final sacrifice for sin, and no other
sacrifice is needed.
118
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Through his death all who believe in him will escape punishment and receive salvation. Jesus
fulfilled all these, as the prophets prophesied that Jesus would die for humans’ sins. He would
take the punishment for their sins (Isaiah 53:5-6). Christ would make his life a guilt offering37
(Leviticus 5:14-16; Isaiah 53:10). In this way, all the prophecies about the Messiah, the Saviour,
were fulfilled in his own life.38
Conclusion
This paper reveals how Matthew 5:17 attempts to draw out some of the theological implications,
and practical consequences, of the attitude Jesus adopts. This leads him to emphasise the
prophetic, and so provisional, function of the Mosaic legislation and to underline its realisation
and fulfilment in Christ’s ministry; to highlight the authoritative character of Jesus’ utterances
and to indicate the polemical ramifications of his position for contemporary Jewish approaches
to the Law; to stress the need for obedience to Jesus’ teachings and to find an adequate ethical
terminology to describe the character or the conduct which Jesus demands. It, therefore, becomes
apparent that it is not so much Jesus’ stance towards the Law that Matthew is concerned, but the
concern to depict it; it is how the Law stands with and to him, as the one who brings it to
fulfilment and to whom all attention must now be directed. For Matthew then, it is not the
question of Jesus’ relation to the Law that is in doubt, but rather its relation to him! This
grammatico-historical analysis has sought to show that such a way of posing the issue stems
from the authentic words of Jesus which Matthew’s account enshrines.
Despite the recent giant step in the right direction in promulgating rule of law in Africa, there is a
need for further efforts by African people and nations to take additional proactive and practical
measures for an optimum effectiveness of the Law. Africa could well tip the balance of power in
the world toward freedom and away from slavery, if the spirit and content of the Law is obeyed
and people begin to live under the rule of law as Jesus fulfilled the Law in his own life, teaching
and selfless service to God and humanity. Consequently, Jesus’ principle of inwardness in
relation to the Law is central to the message of this work, hence, a recommended posture.
119
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Notes
1. G. B. Stevens. May, 1895. The Teaching of Jesus V. His Attitude toward the Old
Testament. The Biblical World, Vol. 5, No.5:360-362.
2. W. Weinsten. 1980. Human Rights in Africa: A Long Awaited Voice. Current History,
Vol. 80:97.
3. S. R. Driver. 1906. ‘Law’ (In the Old Testament). A Dictionary of the Bible, III. J.
Hastings and T. & T. Clark. Eds. Edinburgh, pp. 64-73.
4. J. Peterson. 1954. Israel: Its Life and Culture, I & II. London. OUP, p. 18.
5. C. G. Kruse. 2000. Law. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. T. D. Alexander and B. S.
Rosner. Eds. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 629-636.
6. F. A. Kidder and A. A. Hodge. December, 1883. Morality and Religion. The North
American Review, Vol. 137, No, 325: 612.
7. F. W. C. Meyer. September, 1891. The Relation of the New Testament to the Mosaic
System. The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 13, No. 3: 145.
8. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (Section 3) of 10 December, 1948.
9. C. S. Rhyne. July, 1961. Law in Africa: A Report on the Lagos Conference. American
Bar Association Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7: 686.
10. P. M. Ralph. 1997. Approaches to the New Testament Exegesis. New Testament
interpretation: essays on principles and methods. Howard Marshall I. Ed. Great Britain:
Paternoster Press, pp. 220-251
11. G. B. Stevens. May, 1895. The Teaching of Jesus V. His Attitude toward the Old
Testament. The Biblical World, Vol. 5, No.5: 362.
12. C. W. Votaw. August, 1905. The Modern Jewish View of Jesus. The Biblical World, Vol.
26, No. 2: 107.
13. R. T. France. Matthew. 2007. New Bible Commentary. D. A. Carson, R. T. France and G.
J. Wenham, Eds. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, p.912.
14. H. Ridderbos. 1975. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 285.
15. One the one hand, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees who thought his disciples broke the Law
by plucking some heads of grain and ate them for being hungry on the Sabbath but
judged his disciples guiltless. On the other hand, Jesus healed a woman who had been
crippled by a spirit on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-13; Luke 13:10-17). In these activities,
Jesus drew the attention of his then audience to himself as the Lord of the Sabbath,
thereby fulfilling the Law of the Sabbath.
16. F. Foulkes. 2001. A Guide to St. Matthew’s Gospel. Great Britain: SPCK, pp. 42-43.
17. H. Hϋbner. 2000. καταλύω. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2. H. Balz
and G. Schneider. Eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 264.
18. H. Hϋbner. 1994. πληρόω. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3. H. Balz
and G. Schneider. Eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 108-110.
19. 1 J. D. G. Dunn. 1977. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. London: SCM, p. 247.
20. C. W. Votaw. August, 1905. The Modern Jewish View of Jesus. The Biblical World, Vol.
26, No. 2: 114.
120
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
21. D. Wenham. Jesus and the law: an exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20: 95.
22. J. D. Stoops. October, 1916. Ideals and Institutions—New Testament and Old.
International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 1: 87.
23. F. Delitzsch. November, 1886. Must we follow the New Testament Interpretation of the
Old Testament Texts? The Old Testament Student, Vol. 6, No. 3: 77.
24. D. Abimboye. December, 2010. Dirty Land Deals. Newswatch, Vol. 52, No. 25:15.
25. D. Abimboye. July, 2010. A Nation’s Unbearable Burden. Newswatch, Vol. 52, No. 2:20.
26. T. Fashola. Corruption in Africa Violates Human Rights? Why do we Tolerate it?
Accessed 21 September, 2017. from https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2016/sep/16/corruption-africa-violates-human-rights-fuels-radicalism-why-
do-we-tolerate-it.
27. November, 2007. Human Rights Violation in Sub-Saharan African Countries in the
Name of Counter-Terrorism: A High Risks Situation. Accessed 21 September, 2017 from
https://www.fidh.org/en/region/Africa/Human-rights-Violations-in-Sub.
28. C. S. Rhyne. July, 1961. Law in Africa: A Report on the Lagos Conference. American
Bar Association Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7: 687.
29. M. Ambrozio. October, 2014. The African Union’s Role in Obstructing Justice at the
ICC. Accessed 21 September, 2017 from https://law.utah.edu/the-african-unions-role-in-
obstructing-justice-at-the-icc/.
30. T. Agbaegbu. February, 2012. Fraud Unlimited. Newswatch, Vol. 55, No. 5:10.
31. C. Ajaero and A. Phillips. December, 2011. The Fall of Anti-Corruption Czar.
Newswatch, Vol. 54, No. 23:24.
32. G. B. Stevens. May, 1895. The Teaching of Jesus V. His Attitude toward the Old
Testament. The Biblical World, Vol. 5, No.5:362-363.
33. F. W. C. Meyer. September, 1891. The Relation of the New Testament to the Mosaic
System. The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 13, No. 3: 144.
34. F. W. C. Meyer. September, 1891. The Relation of the New Testament to the Mosaic
System. The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 13, No. 3: 146.
35. G. B. Stevens. May, 1895. The Teaching of Jesus V. His Attitude toward the Old
Testament. The Biblical World, Vol. 5, No.5:363-365.
36. C. H. Toy. December, 1888. The New Testament as Interpreter of the Old Testament. The
Old Testament Student, Vol. 8, No. 4: 126.
37. That Christ would make his life a guilt offering denotes he would lay down his life for us
in order to take away our guilt.
38. T. Hale. 2007. The Applied New Testament Commentary. Great Britain: David C. Cook,
p. 153.
121
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
References
Abimboye, D. July, 2010. A Nation’s Unbearable Burden. Newswatch, Vol. 52, No. 2: 12-20.
______. December, 2010. Dirty Land Deals. Newswatch, Vol. 52, No. 25:12-18.
Agbaegbu,T. February, 2012. Fraud Unlimited. Newswatch, Vol. 55, No. 5: 10-14.
Ajaero, C. and Phillips, A. December, 2011. The Fall of Anti-Corruption Czar. Newswatch,
Vol. 54, No. 23: 24-26.
Ambrozio, M. October, 2014. The African Union’s Role in Obstructing Justice at the ICC.
Accessed 21 September, 2017 from https://law.utah.edu/the-african-unions-role-in-
obstructing-justice-at-the-icc/.
Delitzsch, F. November, 1886. Must we follow the New Testament Interpretation of the Old
Testament Texts? The Old Testament Student, Vol. 6, No. 3: 77-78.
Driver, S. R. 1906. ‘Law’ (In the Old Testament). A Dictionary of the Bible, III. J. Hastings
and T. & T. Clark. Eds. Edinburgh, pp. 64-73.
Dunn, J. D. G. 1977. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. London: SCM.
Fashola, T. Corruption in Africa Violates Human Rights? Why do we Tolerate it? Accessed
21 September, 2017. from
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/sep/16/corruption-africa-
violates-human-rights-fuels-radicalism-why-do-we-tolerate-it.
Foulkes, F. 2001. A Guide to St. Matthew’s Gospel. Great Britain: SPCK.
France, R. T. Matthew. 2007. New Bible Commentary. D. A. Carson, R. T. France and G. J.
Wenham, Eds. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, pp. 904-945.
Hale, T. 2007. The Applied New Testament Commentary. Great Britain: David C. Cook.
Hϋbner, H. 1994. πληρόω. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3. H. Balz and
G. Schneider. Eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 108-110.
______. 2000. καταλύω. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2. H. Balz and
G. Schneider. Eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 264.
Kidder, F. A. and Hodge, A. A. December, 1883. Morality and Religion. The North American
Review, Vol. 137, No, 325: 610-622.
122
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018
Kruse, C. G. 2000. Law. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. T. D. Alexander and B. S.
Rosner. Eds. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press. pp. 629-636.
Meyer, F. W. C. September, 1891. The Relation of the New Testament to the Mosaic System.
The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 13, No. 3: 143-146.
November, 2007. Human Rights Violation in Sub-Saharan African Countries in the Name of
Counter-Terrorism: A High Risks Situation. Accessed 21 September, 2017 from
https://www.fidh.org/en/region/Africa/Human-rights-Violations-in-Sub.
Peterson, J. 1954. Israel: Its Life and Culture, I & II. London. OUP.
Ralph, P. M. 1997. Approaches to the New Testament Exegesis. New Testament
Interpretation: essays on principles and methods. Howard Marshall I. Ed. Great Britain:
Paternoster Press, pp. 220-251.
Rhyne, C. S. July, 1961. Law in Africa: A Report on the Lagos Conference. American Bar
Association Journal, Vol. 47, No. 7: 685-688.
Ridderbos, H. 1975. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Stevens, G. B. May, 1895. The Teaching of Jesus V. His Attitude toward the Old Testament.
The Biblical World, Vol. 5, No.5:360-370.
Stoops. J. D. October, 1916. Ideals and Institutions—New Testament and Old. International
Journal of Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 1: 82-90.
Toy, C. H. December, 1888. The New Testament as Interpreter of the Old Testament. The
Old Testament Student, Vol. 8, No. 4: 124-133.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (Section 3) of 10 December, 1948.
Votaw, C. W. August, 1905. The Modern Jewish View of Jesus. The Biblical World, Vol. 26,
No. 2: 101-119.
Weinsten, W. March, 1980. Human Rights in Africa: A Long Awaited Voice. Current
History, Vol.78, No. 455: 97-132.
Wenham, D. April, 1979. Jesus and the law: an exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20. Themelios,
Vol. 3: 92-96.
123
Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.12, no.5, November 2018