Matthew 5:17: Government Contract

Presented to Swift Current Corps on 30 May 2010
By Captain Michael Ramsay

I told this story at Tuesday’s Bible Study. It is one I like. There was a Sunday school teacher and her students were becoming really good at answering all the important questions. She would ask them, who died for your sins? (Jesus) Who’s birth do we celebrate on Christmas? (Jesus) Who is the only way to God the Father? (Jesus). One day she showed the kids a picture of a creature with a furry tale, buck teeth and holding a nut and she asked them what that was in the picture. All the kids seemed stumped until finally Johnny raises his hand. “Teacher. I know the answer is Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me.”

This may not be entirely different from the pre-Christian relationship to the Law, we may come back to that in a little bit but first I want to share a story that I think parallels closely the scripture that we are looking at today: Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, “do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them”

Quite a few years ago now, there had just been a provincial election where I was living and it looked like there were two separate visions for the future being offered up: one that would continue to build upon the successes of the previous administration versus one that would sell off all of the provinces’ jobs and assets to foreign countries and private interests.

I was a fairly young businessperson. I had a number of contracts with private colleges, the federal government, and different branches of the provincial government. I remember after the election, I assured my friend – who worked with the Provincial Government (if I remember correctly) – that everything would be all right. The ‘good guys’ won the election. The province wouldn’t be downsized and privatized.

Not too long after saying that I was working (on contract) at the Ministry of Education’s Learning Resources Branch when the Minister of Education came in to visit everyone, himself. It was a big deal. There were rumours that – even though his party promised otherwise – this branch was going to be closed and everyone was going to be fired; so we pressed him on this; we asked him point plank. And he assured us directly, right to our faces, to some of the regular staff who (unlike us private contractors) have been working in the same job in the same building for 25 – 30+ years, that no they weren’t going to be fired. Everyone was so happy to hear a guarantee like that from someone as important as the Minister of Education.

That night many of the old employees who were now very relieved that they voted for this guy – Esquimalt, where this branch was, was that politician’s riding – they all turned on the TV that night to hear the minister announce that they ARE going to close our office immediately – their jobs are declared ‘redundant’. The next day the grief counsellors showed up first thing in the morning and one by one the employees were called into the office, received their pieces of paper and left in tears. This can be a devastating experience for anyone – I had a number of contracts sort of like this one where I was hired after (or just before) they had closed government offices and, at least once, a person we knew was so devastated that he took his own life. This time no one died but they all felt betrayed as their time working here was complete.

Jesus said, “do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17). For the Jewish people at this time, the Law provided a security even greater than a job that one has had for their entire working life. The Law affected every aspect of the Jewish people’s lives (cf. Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). To his fellow Jews, whose relationship to the Law they saw as an indication of their very salvation, Jesus went on to explain exactly what he meant by this statement.[1] To some of the people it must have had the same sort of effect as the announcement by the Minister of Education did on my friends.

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law; however, Matthew 5:21-22, the Law says “…'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”[2]

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law; however, Matthew 5:27-28, the Law says, “…'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law; however, Matthew 5:33-37, the Law says, “…'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: …Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law; however, Matthew 5:38-39, the Law says, “…'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law; however, Matthew 5:43-44, the Law says, “…'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Interesting: the Minister of Education who came to speak to us the day before he closed down the learning resources branch probably didn’t lie to us when he told the regular employees they wouldn’t be fired: he may have said something like, “don’t think that I’ve come to fire you or your colleagues; I have not come to fire you but to declare your jobs fulfilled (redundant; everything is accomplished).”

Now to give the politician his due: he did promise that the employees wouldn’t be fired and indeed they weren’t exactly fired they were what was called ‘red-circled’. Does anyone know what it means to be red-circled? It is a union-government term. If a senior union employee’s job no longer exists due to closing a branch or something then the government is obligated to find him/her a new job and no matter what the new job is they need to continue to pay the employee the old wage. So if your higher paying job is declared redundant and the government/union puts you in a lower paying job; you still get your old higher wage for less work. An example is of this is the manager of the whole LRB warehouse: when they declared his job redundant the only job they had for him was as a stock boy at the liquor store – really – and so they had to pay him his old wage as a senior branch manager even though he was just stocking shelves. It was almost as good as a paid vacation for a while. What was that old commercial? Same great taste and only half the calories. Here it is, same great pay and only half the stress. Not a bad deal. That is what it is to be red-circled.

“Don’t think that I’ve come to fire you or your colleagues; I have not come to fire you but to declare your jobs fulfilled (redundant; everything is accomplished).”

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17) to Jewish people whose relationship to the Law they saw as an indication of their very salvation, as Jesus went on to explain this, to some of the people it must have had the same sort of effect as the announcement of the politician did on my friends.[3]

A couple of weeks ago we looked at Matthew 5:18, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”[4] We decided then that the purpose of the Law and the Prophets were accomplished, that they were finished on between the cross and the empty tomb.[5] This is important. The Law is important. It is not something that was wrong or necessarily bad and so needed to be cancelled, not at all (Cf. Leviticus 26:42-44; Deuteronomy 7:9; Judges 2:1; Matthew 5:17-20, 24:35; Luke 16:17, 27:33; Romans 3:3-4, 31, 7:1-6; John 19:30). Rather, it was good in that it pointed to Christ who would complete it. Christ did complete it so its purpose has been fulfilled (cf. Romans 3:21, 4:1-25, 7:7, 9:12; Galatians 3:6-12, 4:21-22). The Law, like a Heavenly Learning Resources Branch of God’s Ministry of Education has been declared redundant; it is no longer needed now that Christ has raised from the dead ushering in this new Kingdom.[6] But this I think raises the question for us today (Galatians 3-5, Hebrews 8). If humanity’s previous relationship to God through the Law is now fulfilled, completed, declared redundant; and we are now red-circled until Christ returns when we will work forever alongside him in the new heavens or more likely on the new earth (cf. Romans 9:30-10:4, Galatians 3-4, Hebrews 8).[7] If the old life of working under the Law is now fulfilled, what does our new red-circled life look like as we are awaiting Christ’s return?[8]

This – while at first it must have seemed a little scary for people who had lived under the law for their whole working lives – this life as a red-circled employee of the Kingdom of Heaven is really quite neat.[9]

The old position under the Law we had all of these duties that we had to perform as we waited for Christ to come and declare the Law redundant, announce that the Law was now finished.[10]

About the context of this claim: we remember it is part of a sermon of Jesus’. We remember that this sermon of Jesus’, the ‘Sermon of the Mount’ (Matthew 5-7; cf. Luke 6:17-49), begins by telling his followers how important they are to him and encourages them, he encourages us calling us blessed as we continue to follow his teaching even as we are persecuted (Matthew 5:1-11). He then warns us against falling away, comparing us to salt (Matthew 5:13); and encourages us to preserver, comparing us to light (Matthew 5:14-16). After he tells us this, maybe some of those present and certainly some of Jesus’ adversaries would question whether what Jesus was teaching was based on the Law or not (cf. Matthew 26:59-61,John 5:18; cf. also Acts 21:21);[11] so he replies to that unspoken query with our text today “do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).

He then explains what that means. In our old job under the now redundant Law we had the workplace policies and procedures, the rule and consequence of, “…'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' This is an important rule- of course. Society doesn’t work so well if God’s people are running all over the place killing each other (cf. Exodus 20:13, Numbers 35:16ff, Deuteronomy 5:17). Jesus tells us what the new policy and procedure will be after his resurrection and at least until he returns again. He says, “anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:21). This is interesting.

He is not saying that it is bad or wrong to prohibit murder here in the now fulfilled Law. He is saying that the blessed people who are part of his Kingdom of Heaven on Earth have even more. We should settle matters quickly with our adversaries and as far as our fellow Christians are concerned, we have the opportunity to be reconciled with our brothers and sisters (Matthew 5:23-26).

Jesus does not say that we are no longer free from the prohibition against adultery (Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 5:18). Far from it, he says our freedom is even greater. We should now seek to be free from all lustful thoughts and even to defend our holiness, our separateness, and try to avoid sin at all costs (Matthew 5:27-30).

He doesn’t say that women are no longer have the security and protection that they had under the Law by their husbands requirement to give them a certificate of divorce rather than just picking up and leaving one day as may have been the case before Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Cf. Malachi 2:16). Jesus says that in this red-circled, proleptic Kingdom of God, men won’t even divorce their wives (except for marital unfaithfulness; but cf. Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7) and that the women have the even extra added security that the man will not run off with the other woman because, the blessed will not even marry a divorced women. Jesus is here offering greater protection for women (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-9; cf. Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7).

And about oaths, Jesus underlines the importance and the significance in his proleptic Kingdom. He says that Yes you should keep your oaths but you know what, your word should be good enough that you don’t even need to swear by anything! Your ‘yes’ should be ‘yes’ to people and your ‘no’ should mean ‘no’ (Matthew 5:33-37; cf. Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2-3, and Deuteronomy 5:11; 6:3; 23:21-23).[12]

This is great. This is what it looks like when Christ is our King. Whereas justice was sought through a policy of an ‘eye for an eye’ (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20), Jesus comments can remind us of the truth that vengeance really does belong to the Lord (Romans 12:19). As far as we are concerned, we do not need to even worry about resisting evil people. We can feel free to love our neighbours. We can love our enemies and so much more (Matthew 22:34-40; Cf. Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43, 6:33, 7:12; Matthew 19:16-30; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-37; Romans 13:6-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8). Jesus concludes this section of his sermon by telling us that in all this, we the blessed, we the salt, we the light, we can indeed be holy as the Lord our God is holy (1 Peter 1:15, Leviticus 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7). We can – Matthew says – even be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48; cf. 2 Corinthians 13; Colossians 1:28; Hebrews 11,12).[13]

So today now that the Law has been fulfilled. Now that Jesus has been raised from the dead I invite us all to come forward and accept the security of salvation and the freedom of holiness.

Let us pray

http://www.sheepsepeak.com/
---
[1] Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993), P.50 The antitheses may be intended simply to place Jesus over against other Jewish authorities of his day but in context it is more likely that it a contrast between Jesus and the Torah itself.
[2] Douglas Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Old and New Testament. Essays in honour of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. John S. Feinberg. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988. P. 205: “I say unto you” designates something new – not a restatement – from someone in authority.
[3] Paul Walaskay, Matthew 5:17-20 in Interpretation, 56 no 4 Oct 2002, p.17: “THIS PASSAGE IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT in the New Testament. It is loaded with problems that are theological, exegetical, and practical.”
[4] Captain Michael Ramsay, “Matthew 5:18: Disappearing Act”, presented to Swift Current Corps (16 May 2010). Cited 27 May 2010. Available on-line: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/05/matthew-518-disappearing-act.html
[5] Captain Michael Ramsay, “Hebrews 8:13: The Old Covenant, New Covenant, Milkshakes, and Coming of Age”, Journal of Aggressive Christianity, issue no 64 December 2009- January 2010, p. 17. Available on-line: http://www.armybarmy.com/pdf/JAC_Issue_064.pdf
[6] Cf. M. Eugene Boring, ‘Matthew’ (NIB VIII: Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1995), 188. Jesus relocates the authority of from the Law to himself.
[7] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S. 119Among the many nuances suggested for plērōsai, ‘fulfil’, the following are the main options: (a) to accomplish, obey; (b) to bring out the full meaning; (c) to complete (‘to bring to its destined end’, Davies, p. 100), by giving the final revelation of God’s will to which the Old Testament pointed forward, and which now transcends it (cf. the double meaning of Rom. 10:4, ‘Christ is the end of the law’: he both completes and transcends it). It is doubtful if any single translation or even paraphrase can do justice to plērōsai here, but (c) points in the right direction
[8] DA Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM: Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/II. The Gospel of the Kingdom (3:1-7:29)/B. First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29), Book Version: 4.0.2 offers a few different denominational, historical interpretations on the meanings of each of these commands.
[9] R.T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S. 51: “Israel prided itself as the people to whom God had given his law; it was the focus of their life and religion. It was concern for the law which had led the scribes to develop in ever-increasing complexity the detailed rules for correct life and worship which eventually went to make up the Mishnah, and it was the meticulous observance of these rules which was the chief distinguishing mark of the ‘scribes and Pharisees’ who figure so prominently in Matthew’s Gospel.”
[10] Cf. for a good discussion of the role, function, and traditional understanding of the Law, NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), republished with English translations of German essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001).
[11] Cf. William Hendricksen, ‘Matthew’ (NTC: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 288.
[12] DA Carson. Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM: Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/II. The Gospel of the Kingdom (3:1-7:29)/B. First Discourse: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29)/3. The kingdom of heaven: its demands in relation to the OT (5:17-48)/b. Application: the antitheses (5:21-48)/(4) Oaths and truthfulness (5:33-37), Book Version: 4.0.2 :The Mosaic law forbade irreverent oaths, light use of the Lord's name, broken vows. Once Yahweh's name was invoked, the vow to which it was attached became a debt that had to be paid to the Lord.
[13] R.T. France: Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S.51: “fulfilment points not to a continued literal observance of all its regulations, but rather to a ‘greater righteousness’ (v. 20), which is explicitly set over against the legalism of the scribes and Pharisees, and which will culminate in the most radical demand imaginable: ‘You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (v. 48).”