Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 5:17-19

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." — Matthew 5:17-19 (ASV)

Glossa Ordinaria: Having now exhorted His hearers to endure all things for the sake of righteousness, and also not to hide what they were to receive but to learn more for the sake of others so they might teach them, He now goes on to tell them what they should teach.

It is as if He had been asked, "What is this which you would not have hidden, and for which you would have all things endured? Are you about to say anything beyond what is written in the Law and the Prophets?" For this reason, He says, "Think not that I am come to subvert the Law or the Prophets."¹

Pseudo-Chrysostom: He says this for two reasons. First, so that by these words He might admonish His disciples that just as He fulfilled the Law, so they should strive to fulfill it. Secondly, because the Jews would falsely accuse them of overturning the Law, He answers this slander in advance, but in such a way that He would not be thought to have come simply to preach the Law as the Prophets had done.

Remigius of Auxerre: He asserts two things here: He denies that He came to abolish the Law, and He affirms that He came to fulfill it.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This last sentence also has a double meaning: to fulfill the Law either by adding something it did not have, or by doing what it commands.²

St. John Chrysostom: Christ, then, fulfilled the Prophets by accomplishing what was foretold in them concerning Himself. He fulfilled the Law, first, by transgressing none of its precepts, and secondly, by justifying through faith, which the Law could not do by the letter.³

St. Augustine of Hippo: And lastly, because it was hard even for those under grace to fulfill the command of the Law, "Thou shalt not lust," in this mortal life, He, having been made a Priest by the sacrifice of His flesh, obtained this pardon for us. In this, too, He fulfilled the Law: that where we could not succeed through our weakness, we might be strengthened through His perfection, for we are all members of Him as our head.⁴

For I think this is how we must understand the words "to fulfill" the Law: by adding things that either help explain the old interpretations or enable people to keep the commandments. For the Lord has shown us that even a wicked impulse of thought against a brother is to be considered a kind of murder.

The Lord also teaches us that it is better to stay near to the truth without swearing, than to come near to blasphemy with a true oath.

"But how can you, Manichaeans, not accept the Law and the Prophets, since Christ says here that He came not to abolish but to fulfill them?" To this, the heretic Faustus repliesⁱ, "Whose testimony is there that Christ said this? Matthew's."

Faustus continued, "How is it, then, that John, who was with Him on the mount, does not record this saying, but only Matthew, who did not follow Jesus until after He had come down from the mount?" To this, Augustine replies, "If no one can speak the truth about Christ except those who saw and heard Him, then no one today can speak the truth about Him.

Why, then, could Matthew not hear from John's mouth the truth that Christ had spoken, just as we, who were born so long after, can speak the truth from John's book? In the same way, we accept not only Matthew's Gospel but also those of Luke and Mark, and on no lesser authority. Furthermore, the Lord Himself could have told Matthew the things He had done before He called him.

"But speak plainly and say that you do not believe the Gospel, for those who believe nothing in the Gospel except what they want to believe, believe themselves rather than the Gospel." To this, Faustus rejoins, "We will prove that this was not written by Matthew, but by some unknown person in his name. For later he says, 'Jesus saw a man sitting at the toll-office, Matthew by name' (Matthew 9:9). Who, when writing about himself, says, 'He saw a man,' rather than, 'He saw me'?"

Augustine: Matthew does no more than John does when he says, 'Peter turning round saw that other disciple whom Jesus loved.' It is well known that this is the common practice of Scripture writers when describing their own actions.

Faustus again asked, "But what do you say to this? The very assurance that He had not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets would be the most direct way to arouse suspicion that He intended to do just that. For He had not yet done anything that could lead the Jews to think this was His objective."

This is a very weak objection, for we do not deny that to the Jews who lacked understanding, Christ might have seemed to be threatening the destruction of the Law and the Prophets.

Faustus said, "But what if the Law and the Prophets do not accept this fulfillment, according to the passage in Deuteronomy: 'These commandments I give unto thee, thou shalt keep, thou shalt not add any thing to them, nor take away'?"

Here Faustus does not understand what it means to fulfill the Law, as he supposes it must refer to adding words to it. The fulfillment of the Law is love, which the Lord has given by sending His Holy Spirit. The Law is fulfilled either when the things it commands are done, or when the things it prophesied come to pass.

Faustus argued, "But since we confess that Jesus is the author of a New Testament, what is that but a confession that He has done away with the Old?"

The Old Testament contained figures of things to come. When the realities themselves were introduced by Christ, these figures had to be taken away, so that in their very removal the Law and the Prophets might be fulfilled, in which it was written that God would give a New Testament.

Faustus concluded, "Therefore, if Christ did say this, He either said it with some other meaning, or He spoke falsely (which God forbid), or—the only other alternative—He did not say it at all. Since no one will claim that Jesus spoke falsely, He either meant something else or never said it.

For my part, I am rescued from this dilemma by the Manichaean belief, which from the beginning taught me not to believe everything that is recorded in Jesus’ name as having been spoken by Him. This is because there are many 'tares' that some nightly sower has scattered throughout nearly all of Scripture to corrupt the good seed."

St. Augustine of Hippo: Manichaeus taught an impious error: that you should accept only as much of the Gospel as does not conflict with your heresy and reject whatever does. We have learned from the Apostle that religious caution: "Whoever preaches unto you another Gospel than that we have preached, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). The Lord has also explained what the tares signify: not false things mixed with the true Scriptures, as you interpret, but people who are children of the wicked one.

Faustus challenged, "Suppose a Jew were to ask you why you do not keep the precepts of the Law and the Prophets, which Christ here declares He came not to destroy but to fulfill. You would be forced either to accept an empty superstition, to repudiate this chapter as false, or to deny that you are Christ's disciple."

Catholics are not in any difficulty because of this chapter, as if they did not observe the Law and the Prophets. For they cherish the love of God and their neighbor, "on which hang all the Law and the Prophets." They know that whatever was foreshadowed in the Law and the Prophets—whether in deeds, the celebration of sacramental rites, or forms of speech—has all been fulfilled in Christ and the Church. Therefore, we neither submit to a false superstition, nor reject the chapter, nor deny that we are Christ's disciples.

The person who says that unless Christ had destroyed the Law and the Prophets, the Mosaic rites would have continued alongside Christian ordinances, might as well also claim that unless Christ had destroyed them, He would still only be promised as one who is to be born, to suffer, and to rise again. But since He did not destroy but rather fulfilled them, His birth, passion, and resurrection are no longer promised as future events, which were signified by the sacraments of the Law. Instead, He is preached as already born, crucified, and risen, which are signified by the sacraments now celebrated by Christians.

It is clear, then, how great the error is of those who suppose that when the signs or sacraments are changed, the realities themselves are different. In fact, the very same realities that the prophetic ordinance presented as promises, the Gospel ordinance points to as completed.

Faustus proposed, "Supposing these are Christ's genuine words, we should inquire into His motive for speaking this way. Was it to soften the blind hostility of the Jews, who, upon seeing their holy things trampled underfoot by Him, would not have even given Him a hearing? Or did He really say these things to instruct us Gentiles who would believe, that we should submit to the yoke of the Law? If the latter was not His design, then the former must have been; and there was no deceit or fraud in such a purpose.

"There are three kinds of laws. The first is that of the Hebrews, which Paul calls the 'law of sin and death' (Romans 8:2). The second is that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature, saying, 'By nature the Gentiles do the deeds of the law' (Romans 2:14). The third is the law of truth, by which he means, 'The law of the Spirit of life.' There are also prophets of the Jews, who are well known; others of the Gentiles, as Paul says, 'A prophet of their own hath said' (Titus 1:12); and others of the truth, of whom Jesus speaks, 'I send unto you wise men and prophets' (Matthew 23:34).

"Now, if Jesus, in the remainder of this Sermon, had brought forward any of the Hebrew observances to show how He had fulfilled them, no one would doubt that He was speaking of the Jewish Law and Prophets. But since He only brings forward those more ancient precepts, like 'Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery,' which were proclaimed in ancient times to Enoch, Seth, and other righteous men, who does not see that He is speaking here of the Law and Prophets of truth? Whenever He has occasion to speak of anything merely Jewish, He plucks it up by the very roots, giving precepts directly to the contrary—for example, in the case of the precept, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'"

It is clear which Law and which Prophets Christ came 'not to abolish but to fulfill': it was the Law given by Moses. The distinction that Faustus draws between the precepts of the righteous men before Moses and the Mosaic Law—claiming that Christ fulfilled the one but annulled the other—is incorrect. We affirm that the Law of Moses was both well suited to its temporary purpose and was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, as will be seen in each particular case. This was not understood by those who continued in such obstinate error that they compelled the Gentiles to Judaize—I mean those heretics who were called Nazarenes.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But since all things that would happen from the very beginning of the world to the end of it were foreshadowed in the Law in type and figure, so that God might not be thought ignorant of anything that takes place, He therefore declares here that heaven and earth will not pass away until all things thus foreshadowed in the Law have their actual accomplishment.

Remigius of Auxerre: "Amen" is a Hebrew word and may be rendered in Latin as "vere," "fidenter," or "fiat"—that is, "truly," "faithfully," or "so be it." The Lord uses it either because of the hardness of heart of those who were slow to believe, or to attract more particularly the attention of those who did believe.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: From the expression "pass away" used here, we may suppose that the constituent elements of heaven and earth will not be annihilated.ⁱ

Remigius of Auxerre: Rather, they will abide in their essence but "pass away" through renewal.

St. Augustine of Hippo: By the words "one iota or one point shall not pass from the Law," we must understand a strong metaphor for completeness, drawn from the letters of writing. The iota is the smallest of the letters, made with one stroke, and a "point" refers to a small dot or mark on a letter. These words show that the Law will be fulfilled down to the very last detail.⁵

Rabanus Maurus: He fittingly mentions the Greek iota, and not the Hebrew yod, because the iota stands for the number ten in Greek, and so there is an allusion to the Decalogue, of which the Gospel is the fulfillment and perfection.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: If even an honorable man blushes to be caught in a falsehood, and a wise man does not let any word he has spoken fall empty, how could it be that the words of heaven should fall to the ground empty? For this reason, He concludes, "Whoso shall break the least of these commandments, etc." And, I suppose, the Lord goes on to answer the question Himself: Which are the least commandments? Namely, those which I am now about to speak.

St. John Chrysostom: He is not speaking of the old laws, but of those which He was now going to enact. He calls them "the least," though they were all great. For just as He so often spoke humbly of Himself, so does He now speak humbly of His precepts.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Alternatively, the precepts of Moses are easy to obey: "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery." The very greatness of the crime is a check on the desire to commit it; therefore, the reward for observance is small, while the sin of transgression is great.

But Christ's precepts, "Thou shalt not be angry" and "Thou shalt not lust," are hard to obey. Therefore, their reward is great, and their transgression is called "least." He speaks of these precepts of Christ as "the least," and those who commit these lesser sins are the least in the kingdom of God. This means that he who has been angry without sinning grievously is safe from the punishment of eternal damnation, yet he does not attain the glory that those who fulfill even these "least" commandments attain.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Or, the precepts of the Law are called "the least" in contrast to Christ's precepts, which are great. The least commandments are signified by the iota and the point. Therefore, "he who breaks them, and teaches men so"—that is, to do as he does—"shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." From this we may perhaps conclude that it is not true that no one will be there unless they are great.

Glossa Ordinaria: By "breaks," it means not doing what one understands correctly, or not understanding what one has corrupted, or destroying the perfection of Christ's additions.⁶

St. John Chrysostom: Or, when you hear the words, "least in the kingdom of heaven," you should imagine nothing less than the punishment of hell. For He often uses the word "kingdom" to refer not only to the joys of heaven, but also to the time of the resurrection and the terrifying coming of Christ.

St. Gregory the Great: Or, the kingdom of heaven is to be understood as the Church, in which a teacher who breaks a commandment is called least, because when a person's life is despised, it follows that his preaching will also be despised.⁷

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Or, He calls the passion and the cross "the least." If someone does not confess them openly but is ashamed of them, he will be least—that is, last, and as if a nobody. But to the one who confesses it, He promises the great glory of a heavenly calling.

St. Jerome: This section is closely connected with the preceding one. It is directed against the Pharisees who, despising God's commandments, set up their own traditions. It means that their teaching of the people would not benefit them if they destroyed the very least commandment in the Law.

We may also take it in another sense. The learning of a teacher, if joined with even a small sin, causes him to lose the highest place. Nor does it benefit anyone to teach righteousness if he destroys it by his life. Perfect bliss is for the one who fulfills in deed what he teaches in word.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively, "he who breaks the least of these commandments"—that is, of the Law of Moses—"and teaches men so, shall be called the least." But he who "shall do (these least), and so teach," will not indeed be considered great, yet not as insignificant as the one who breaks them. To be great, he ought to do and to teach the things which Christ now teaches.

1. ord.
2. Serm. in Mont., i, 8
3. Hom. 16
4. cont. Faust., 19, 7. et seq.
5. Serm. in Mont. i, 8
6. ord.
7. Hom. in Ev., 12, 1