Tuesday, June 22, 2021

NEW RELEASE: THE OLD IN THE NEW BY MICHAEL J. VLACH

I am excited to announce the release of my new book, The Old in the New: Understanding How the New Testament Authors Quoted the Old Testament. The book is published by Kress Biblical Resources with an imprint from The Master’s Seminary. I have been working on this book since 2011. It was formed through years of teaching a Th.M. seminar at The Master’s Seminary called, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament.”

Trying to understand NT quotations of the OT is a huge topic for any one person but I have tried my best to address most NT uses of the OT in this book. This includes the “harder” cases like Matthew 2:15’s use of Hosea 11:1, and Paul’s use of “seed” in Galatians 3:16. In his endorsement of this book, Walter Kaiser states, “He [Vlach] has also taken up a wide sample of most, if not all, of the passages usually raised on this subject and has given a reasonable solution in Scripture text after Scripture text—in a succinct, but credible manner. I cannot endorse Vlach’s work too highly, for I found that he had hit the nail on the head in case after case.” 

I also address the various ways the NT authors quoted and used the OT. In addition, I also evaluate the seven different approaches to this topic. And I lay out the perspective that I think is accurate.

This topic is very complex but it is understandable. In the end I argue that the NT authors quoted and used the OT in an overwhelmingly contextual way. The quotations of the OT are consistent with the inspired authorial intents of the OT authors. To grasp this, one must know when the NT authors are quoting the OT concerning meaning, and when they are quoting the OT concerning significance or implication.

This book also takes a minority view that the NT authors were not reinterpreting, transforming, or transcending the meaning of the OT. I hold that there is great continuity (not discontinuity) between the message and storyline of the OT and that found in the NT. To understand how the NT authors quote the OT, one must also understand the concepts of (1) Messianic hope; (2) corporate representation; and (3) divinely intended correspondences.

No one person can fully master the topic of NT use of the OT before Jesus comes again, but I hope this book makes a helpful contribution. This book can be read straight through or as a reference for when one encounters a particular use of the OT in the NT.

For more information and how to purchase this book, click here

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Interview on Eschatology


Below is an interview I did on eschatology with Pastor George Lawson of Baltimore Bible Church on May 31, 2020. Topics discussed include Dispensationalism, Millennium, the Kingdom, the Rapture, and other issues. 

Click on the link below


(To "follow" this site go to the right and scroll down)


Monday, June 1, 2020

3 Models of Heaven in the Early Church

by Michael J. Vlach

Lately, I have been reading a book called A History of Heaven by Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang. I am fascinated with their 22-page chapter, "Irenaeus and Augustine on our Heavenly Bodies." 

The authors compare the eschatology views of Irenaeus, the early Augustine, and the later Augustine.  Irenaeus represents the early church's premillennialism. Augustine represents the later amillennial view. You can see the stark contrast between these two men. Also helpful is the distinction between earlier and later Augustine. The early Augustine held very much to a Spiritual Vision Model approach, while the later Augustine was slightly less so. I have charted out some of the differences in the perspectives. Hope you find this helpful. See below:


3 Models of Heaven in Early Church

Irenaeus
Early Augustine
Later Augustine
Main theme: Glorified Material World
Main theme: The Ascetic Promise—A Heaven for Souls
Main theme: The Ecclesiastical Promise: Physical Beauty Eternalized
Reliance on kingdom view coming from John the Apostle and Polycarp
Heavy reliance on Neoplatonism worldview
Views largely the same as the early Augustine with some modifications as mentioned below
Historical Situation: Persecution and martyrdom were main issues facing Christians of Irenaeus’s day; showed your allegiance to Christ via suffering and martyrdom
Historical Situation: Christianity is an accepted part of society; show spirituality by fleeing society and its comforts and delights
Historical Situation: Mostly same as early Augustine but Augustine became more comfortable interacting with society
Hermeneutic: Prophecies about earthly kingdom and physical blessings should be taken literally and not allegorized
Hermeneutic: a mix of literal and allegorical interpretation; don’t take Revelation literally
Hermeneutic: Mostly same as early Augustine
Heaven will be on a renewed, restored earth
Heaven has nothing to do with earth; only a spiritual realm
A renewed, restored earth will occur after Jesus’ return
Earth and material things viewed positively and will be restored in the future
Earth and material things viewed negatively and will not exist in the future heaven
Softening of dualism between physical and spiritual matters
Physical bodies viewed positively now and will exist in the future

Physical bodies viewed negatively and will not exist in the future (came close to denying bodily resurrection)
Physical bodies not viewed as negatively with later Augustine, and will exist and be beautiful in Heaven; yet must obey the will of the spirit
Food, culture, and society are often good and can be enjoyed now and in Jesus’ messianic kingdom

Food, culture, and society hinder the pursuit of God; ascetic ideal should be sought; those matters do not exist in Heaven; no social interactions
Seeing God is primary but some eating and drinking will occur, but not out of necessity; societal interactions will occur
Civilized urban life in the present can be good, is not all bad
Urban life in the present is corrupt and bad; escape it
A somewhat softening from the early Augustine; some appreciation of civilized life
Jesus’ kingdom is compensation for lost life and production in this world
Heaven is a glad escape from the present world
Mostly early Augustine
Those loyal to Jesus will regain life on earth in the future world
Those loyal to Jesus will be rewarded with a heavenly escape from the world
Mostly early Augustine
The physical body will be a major part of Jesus’ kingdom; Believers will do much with their bodies
The human body is not part of Heaven
More place for physical,  resurrected body; physical eyes will be part of seeing God
3 main eras: 1. Present era; 2. Kingdom of Messiah (millennium); 3. Kingdom of the Father (Eternal State)
2 main eras: 1. The present era is Jesus’ kingdom. 2. Then eternal state
Same as early Augustine
Not much discussion of what the Kingdom of the Father will be like after Jesus’ messianic, millennial kingdom
This is the era of Jesus’ kingdom; spiritual Heaven is the eternal state
Same as early Augustine but Augustine open to a renewed earth
Marriage, family, childbearing occur in Jesus’ kingdom (future millennium)
No marriage, family, childbearing in eternal Heaven
Same as early Augustine but some recognition of previous relationships could occur
Distinctions in genders exist in the future
No distinctions in gender
Distinctions in gender will exist in the future; gender body parts will exist, but are beautiful and lust will not occur

Sunday, May 31, 2020

A Post about Future Blog Posts

Hello stranger! This blog post is mostly about what I hope to be doing with future blog posts. If you follow me on this site at all you know that my posts are very few and far between. This is mostly because I try to provide high-quality information. 

But the effort and time needed to do that is a lot. Plus I have been involved with several writing projects. Once I'm focused on a book or chapter I feel like I need to stay with it until it's done. Sometimes when I get ready to make a blog post, I think to myself, "But you could be spending this time getting your book completed." That is why I rarely do posts on this site. My energies have been directed elsewhere.

But the two book projects I have been working on are nearly finished (I’'ll give more info on these later). So I’m planning on doing more posts. These probably will be shorter and more informal, and not always as deeply researched and footnoted as some others have been. 

In short, I hope to put out more information on what I’m thinking about and writing about. Some of these might be in the genre of a tweet on Twitter, but a little longer.

Anyway, this post is the first step to getting back to writing on this site more. 

Thanks for reading!

Mike

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Six Views on New Covenant Fulfillment


By Michael J. Vlach
(@mikevlach)

Below is a listing of six views on New Covenant fulfillment of which I am aware. This is simply a listing and is not a refutation or defense of any of these views. Also, my emphasis is not on the adherents of each view, although I make some general statements concerning which theological camps hold to each view. For the curious, I hold to View 6.  Here are the views:

1.    The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the future with national Israel; the church has no relationship to the New Covenant (some classical dispensationalists)

2.    There are two New Covenants—one with Israel and another for the church (some traditional dispensationalists including John Walvoord)

3.    The New Covenant is completely fulfilled with the church; there is no future fulfillment with national Israel (Covenant Theology and some non-dispensational systems)

4.    The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the spiritual blessings of the covenant are applied to the church today (some traditional and revised dispensationalists)

5.    The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the church is an added referent to the New Covenant promises so there is a sense in which the New Covenant is being fulfilled with the church. The New Covenant has two referents—Israel and the church (some revised dispensationalists; Paul Feinberg)

6.    Since the New Covenant was given to Israel for the purpose of also blessing Gentiles there is literal fulfillment of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant to all believing Jews and Gentiles in this present age, while the physical/national promises await fulfillment with Jesus’ second coming when national Israel is incorporated into the New Covenant (some revised and most progressive dispensationalists)

Thursday, July 25, 2019

How Jesus Used the Old Testament in Matthew 5:21-48

By Michael J. Vlach


With Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus quoted the OT seven times. Six of these involve an OT command from the Law of Moses followed by the statement “But I say to you. . . . .” A seventh concerns a statement that Jerusalem is “the city of the great King,” a reference to Psalm 48:2 in Matthew 5:35. This latter example, from Psalm 48:2, is a contextual affirmation of the significance of Jerusalem. Our attention, though, focuses on the other six uses of the OT. These reveal how Jesus viewed himself in relation to the Law of Moses. These six uses of the OT by Jesus are:

You have heard . . . “‘You shall not commit murderand ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ . . . But I say to you . . . .” (Matt. 5:21-22; quotation of Exodus 20:13).

You have heard that it was said, “‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you. . . .” (Matt. 5:27-28; quotation of Exodus 20:14).

“It was said, “‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; but I say to you. . . .” (Matt. 5:31-32; quotation of Deut. 24:1).

Again, you have heard . . . “‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you. . . .” (Matt. 5:33-34; allusion to Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21).

You have heard that it was said, “‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you. . . .” (Matt. 5:38-39; quotation of Exod. 21:24).

You have heard that it was said, “‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you. . . .” (Matt. 5:43-44; quotation of Lev. 19:18).

Noticeable is the recurring formula, “You have heard” or “It was said,” followed by “But I say to you.” This repetition indicates these six uses of the OT are joined in a broader argument. These six uses must be studied individually and collectively.

How is Jesus using these OT texts from the Law of Moses? Before commenting on this question, note that the meaning of Matthew 5:21-48 is heavily debated, as is the section immediately preceding it—Matthew 5:17-20. These two sections have ramifications for how Jesus viewed the Law of Moses and whether the Mosaic Law is binding on Christians today. A full discussion of these issues and the debates over them go way beyond our purposes here. But it is necessary to briefly state the main positions concerning what Jesus is doing in Matthew 5:21-48.

One view is that Jesus corrected distortions that the Jewish religious leaders allegedly made to the Law of Moses. So Jesus is removing rabbinic-tradition clutter from the Law of Moses so the Law can be correctly understood and followed. If this is accurate, Jesus is not really “quoting” Mosaic commands but stating rabbinic traditions of the Law so that He can correct them. Charles Quarles seems to affirm this position when he writes: “The formula [“But I say to you”] contrasts Jesus’s interpretation of the Scriptures with popular rabbinic interpretations” (Matthew, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, 55).

Another position is that Jesus actually quotes Mosaic Law instructions to contrast these with His new instruction for the new era He brings. With this view, Jesus is the better Moses and King who offers New Covenant instruction that supersedes the instruction of the Mosaic era.

A third and mediating view is that Jesus maintains continuity with the Law of Moses as a rule of life for today, but He also makes some modifications to the Law, perhaps internalizing and individualizing the Mosaic commands. Allegedly, a merger of the Law of Moses and Law of Christ is happening. What Jesus says has ramifications for the New Covenant and Law of Christ but this involves the Mosaic Covenant, too, in some aspects. Turner seems to affirm a version of this third perspective when he writes, “On the one hand, Jesus does not contradict the law, but on the other hand, he does not preserve it unchanged.” (Matthew, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 167).

In short, the issue here is whether Jesus is exegeting and confirming the Mosaic Law as a rule of life or whether He is giving New Covenant instruction that is not the same as the Mosaic Law. Or is the truth somewhere in between? Which view one holds often affects how the six quotations in Matthew 5:21-48 should be understood. If the first view above is correct then Jesus confirms the Law of Moses by removing false Jewish understandings of the Law. If the second view is correct, Jesus is quoting actual Mosaic Law commands to contrast them with His new instruction as the better Moses and Messiah. The third view takes a middle-ground approach. If correct this seems to blend Mosaic and New Covenant instructions in a hybrid manner.

We think the second view is accurate. All six statements by Jesus can be linked with specific Mosaic instruction. And while Jesus mentions the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 5:20, He does not appear to be addressing the issue of rabbinic interpretations in His sermon. Thus, the simplest and best view is that Jesus is simply quoting and paraphrasing Mosaic Law instruction. In sum, Jesus quoted the Mosaic Law six times in Matthew 5:21-48, not simply to explain the Mosaic Law or to correct misunderstandings of this Law, but to contrast Mosaic Law instruction with His New Covenant requirements. In fact, all of Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) is new instruction from the King. He offers at least 46 explicit commands in this section. Note Jesus’ emphasis on His words at the end of the Sermon:

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them. . . . (Matt. 7:24).

Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them. . . . (Matt. 7:26).

for He was teaching them as one having authority. . . . (Matt. 7:29) (emphases mine).

The stress with these statements is on Jesus’ words, not those of Moses.

With Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus declared that He did not come to abolish the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. “the Law or the Prophets”). He came to “fulfill” them. Matthew 5:18 reveals that fulfillment means that everything in the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) must come to pass. And one of these predictions was that there would be a coming New Covenant that would supersede the previous Mosaic Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31-32 predicted this:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord (emphases mine).

So fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets includes the prediction that the New Covenant would replace the older Mosaic Covenant.

This does not mean Jesus’ New Covenant instruction is contrary to what Moses said. While God’s moral standards existed before the Mosaic Law was given in Exodus 20, the Mosaic Law represented God’s moral standards for the era between Moses and Jesus. And we should expect continuity of God’s moral standards across human history. This is true for both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. But a new era arrived in Jesus and with it a New Covenant and it requirements. Just as Jesus’ superior priesthood has superseded the Aaronic priesthood (see Hebrews 7-8), so too Jesus and the New Covenant supersede Moses and the Law of Moses. In sum, with Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus is the ultimate Prophet and Lawgiver who now declares a transition from Moses and the Mosaic Covenant to Himself and the New Covenant. An epochal transition has occurred (see 2 Cor. 3:6-11). This development was not unforeseen. Moses himself predicted a coming Prophet to whom the people would listen (see Deut. 18:15, 18), and that prophet arrived with Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).

Important with Matthew 5:21-48 are the six transitions from “You have heard it said” to “But I say to you.” The “but” (de) is adversative and indicates a contrast. The “I say” (egō legō) highlights the authority of Jesus. To paraphrase, “Moses said . . . but I say to you . . . .” This is more than Jesus explaining Moses, He is emphasizing His authority. A transition occurs from the Mosaic era to the New Covenant era in Jesus (see John 1:17). Jesus presented Himself as the New Covenant lawgiver who contrasted His new and authoritative teaching with that of the Mosaic instruction. Jesus is not saying the previous Mosaic Covenant was wrong (see Rom. 7:12), any more than the old Aaronic priesthood was wrong. But the Mosaic Covenant and its particulars were shadows (see Heb. 10:2) that now give way to the superior New Covenant. This transition is similar to the message of Hebrews 8:13: “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first [Mosaic] obsolete.” With Galatians 4 Paul said the Law was a “tutor” to that leads us to Christ, but now that Christ has come the tutor is no longer needed (see Gal. 3:24-25).

What does this mean for our purposes? Jesus’ six quotations from the Mosaic Law are contextual and offered for the point of contrast for the new era in Jesus. There are no explanations of the Mosaic commands mentioned because Jesus takes them at face value to springboard to His new requirements. There certainly are no hidden meanings or reinterpretations being offered. Jesus is saying, “Moses said this, but now I’m telling you what I expect.”

This understanding is bolstered by the fact that Jesus’ six “But I say to you” statements sometimes reveal differing requirements and consequences than Moses spoke of. Jesus quoted Exodus 20:13 in Matthew 5:21 to show that whoever committed murder during the Mosaic era would be liable to a judicial court. But with the new era Jesus brings, hatred is considered murder, and the consequences of hatred can lead to being sent to the “fiery hell” (5:22). While the Mosaic law was also concerned heart issues such as coveting (e.g. coveting in Exodus 20:17), Jesus goes beyond the physical act of murder to addressing hatred. He also points out even more severe eternal consequences for hatred—namely eternal fiery judgment. 

Next, in Matthew 5:27 Jesus quoted Exodus 20:14 concerning avoiding adultery and stated that lust for a woman is adultery of the heart (Matt. 5:28). Jesus then declared that radical removal of tempting influences is necessary to avoid adultery of the heart which can lead to hell (Matt. 5:29-30). As the greater Moses and Messiah, Jesus requires purity of heart for His followers with implications for eternity.

With Matthew 5:31, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 24:1, a part of the Mosaic Law that allowed for divorce. But with Matthew 5:32 Jesus declared that divorce should never happen except for sexual immorality. The Mosaic Law temporarily allowed for divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (see Matt. 19:8), but Jesus reestablished the principle from creation that God made man and woman to be joined for life (see Matt. 19:3-9). So now with Jesus’ new instruction, no divorces were allowed, except for sexual immorality. The temporary allowance for divorce under the Mosaic era is removed.

In Matthew 5:33 Jesus alluded to Leviticus 19:12 and Deuteronomy 23:21. Under the Mosaic Law oaths to the Lord were allowed. But in the New Covenant era oaths are not be made at all. Instead, the good word of a Jesus follower makes oaths unnecessary (Matt. 5:34-37). This too is a change from conditions under Moses.

With Matthew 5:38, Jesus stated that the Mosaic law command concerning retaliation in Exodus 21:24 should not be the emphasis for His followers as they serve Him. Instead of seeking retaliation, the followers of Jesus should show radical kindness to those who afflict them (see Matt. 5:39-42) in the cause of Jesus. This is not a statement that governments cannot seek justice for wrongs done, but in the cause of Jesus' work, the emphasis is not on seeking retributive justice.

Lastly, with 5:43-48: Jesus called for loving both friends and enemies. The command to love your neighbor is an obvious reference to Leviticus 19:18, although the words “as yourself” are missing. The following command in Matthew 5:43b to “hate your enemy” is more difficult to understand. Since there is no explicit command to hate your enemy in the Mosaic Law some think Jesus is correcting misguided Jewish oral tradition here. Allegedly, Jesus corrects a misunderstanding of the Mosaic Law by removing the addition of hating enemies. A better understanding, though, is that Jesus paraphrased Mosaic instructions concerning enemies of Israel. Deuteronomy 23:3-6 forbade entrance to the assembly for Ammonites and Moabites since they denied food and water to Israel when Israel came out of Egypt. Likewise, Deuteronomy 25:17-19 commanded harsh treatment of the Amalekites for how they mistreated Israel after the exodus from Egypt. According to the Law of Moses, Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites were to be treated as enemies for a time. While acknowledging that Jesus could be correcting Jewish oral tradition, Blomberg notes, “it is equally possible that Jesus is summarizing in the second clause of his ‘quotation’ a very natural inference that could be drawn from the original meaning of various OT passages (e.g. Deut. 23:3-6; 25:17-19 . . .)” (“Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 27). In short, Jesus’ reference to not hating enemies probably refers to the Mosaic commands concerning Israel’s enemies.

When the six OT quotations in Matthew 5:21-48 are examined properly, we see that Jesus does more than explain or exegete Mosaic instruction; He offers commands for the new era He brings. Jesus authoritatively states what He expects from His followers. Thus, in Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus quoted the OT contextually in order to make a contrast. He does not change the meaning or reinterpret the Mosaic commands. He quoted these to emphasize His role as New Covenant Lawgiver.

Friday, July 5, 2019

The Meaning of Matthew 5:17-19, Part 5: What Did Jesus Mean by “These Commandments”?

By Michael J. Vlach
@mikevlach

This entry is Part 5 concerning what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17-19. My focus here specifically is on what Jesus meant by “these commandments” in Matthew 5:19. This verse reads:

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus makes two key points here. First, anyone who “annuls one of the least of these commandments” will be called “least in the kingdom of heaven.” Second, whoever “keeps and teaches” the “least of these commandments” will be called great in the kingdom. Since Jesus’ message involves one’s status in the kingdom of God, getting “these commandments” right is important.

The word for “annuls” comes from luō which often means “loose,” “set free,” “dissolve,” or “destroy.” In this context, “annuls” probably means to “to do away with.” If one does away with “the least of these commandments” they can expect a lower position in the kingdom.

The word for “keeps” is poieō. Of the 581 uses of poieō in the New Testament the dominant meaning is related to “does” or “doing.” There are also a variety of nuances of this term based on context. Since this term is paired against “annuls” the meaning here is probably that of “establishes” or “does”. Thus, the one who is great in the kingdom is one who “establishes” or “does” “these commandments.”

But what are “these commandments” Jesus refers to? The word for “commandments” is entolē, which can be translated as “command,” “commandment,” “order,” “instruction,” or “precept.” This term in 5:19 differs from Jesus’ two uses of nomos (“Law”) in Matthew 5:17-18. This shift from nomos to entolē may or may not be significant. Is Jesus using entolē as a synonym for nomos or is He using entolē to contrast His teachings with “the Law”? Context will determine which understanding is more accurate.

There are three options for understanding “these commandments” in Matthew 5:19. First, “these commandments” could refer specifically to the commands of the Mosaic Law. This view, which is held by many, is based on the belief that Jesus’ second use of “Law” in Matthew 5:18 refers specifically to the commands of the Mosaic Law. Thus, keeping “the least of these commandments” means keeping all of the Mosaic Law commands.

Second, another view is that “these commandments” refers to the Old Testament as a whole, including its principles and prophecies. If Jesus is referring back to verse 18, this view is possible. If “Law” in 5:18 referred to the Old Testament as a whole, then “keeping” and “teaching” “these commandments” could refer to keeping and teaching the instructions, principles, and predictions of the Old Testament.

One thing to note about Views 1 and 2 above is that they both assert that “these commandments” in 5:19 point back to the “Law” of 5:18. The third view discussed below is different in that it anticipates what Jesus will say starting in 5:21 through chapter 7.

A third view is that “these commandments” refers to Jesus’ instructions in the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5-7, particularly what He says from 5:21 through chapter 7 where many commands are given. The Sermon of Matthew 5-7 is full of commands from Jesus and perhaps that is what Jesus refers to. Particularly significant is Jesus’ statements at the end of the Sermon concerning “these words of Mine” and the “authority” He possesses:

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt. 7:24).

“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (Matt. 7:26).

When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matt. 7:28-29).

This third option asserts that “these commandments” of 5:19 is the same as “these words of Mine” in 7:24, 26, which encompass the entire sermon of Jesus. If this view is accurate, Jesus is not pointing back to the “Law or the Prophets” of 5:17-18 in 5:19, but He is emphasizing His own authoritative commands in Matthew 5-7, particularly beginning at 5:21. Starting with 5:21 Jesus offers many commands and instructions. Thus, “these commandments” in 5:19 could refer to Jesus’ New covenant instruction as the Messiah. This view is consistent with the idea that Jesus is not “explaining” Moses, but is offering His authoritative New covenant instruction for the new era in Him.

These three views can be summarized as follows with the arrows meaning “refers to”:
The Law (Mosaic Law)      These commandments
The Law or the Prophets (Old Testament)   These commandments
These commandments Jesus’ commandments in Matthew 5-7

So which of the three views mentioned above is most accurate? The first view concerning keeping Mosaic Law commandments is unlikely since Jesus’ use of “Law” in 5:18 is most likely shorthand for “the Law or the Prophets” mentioned in 5:17, which refers to the Old Testament as a whole, not just the Mosaic Law. Mosaic covenant instruction is too narrow in this context. Plus, with Jesus’ six “But I say to you” statements in 5:21-48, Jesus seems to be asserting His superior instruction as the Messiah. In addition, there are major theological problems with asserting that all commands of the Mosaic Law must be kept after Jesus’ first coming. If Jesus is referring specifically to the Mosaic Law, this seems to be an affirmation that all 613 commands of the Mosaic Law, including all the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, must be kept by His followers. This idea seems to be refuted by much teaching in the New Testament (see 2 Cor. 3:6-11; Hebrews 8-10).

The best answer lies with either View 2 or View 3. Concerning View 2, the near context of “these commandments” in 5:19 with “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17-18 shows Jesus could be referring back to the Old Testament as a whole. This view is possible.

View 3 is also very possible. If one looks at the Sermon as a whole, Jesus is giving His authoritative instruction for His followers. He does not seem to be pointing back to Moses; instead, He is asserting His authority, which clearly is noted in Matthew 5:21-48 and 7:24, 26. So, “the least of these commandments” could point forward to what follows starting in 5:21 through chapter 7. If accurate, this understanding would be similar to Jesus’ statement in John 14:15: “If you love Me you will keep my commandments [entolē].”

If this third view is correct, then Jesus’ message in Matthew 5:17-19 is that He is the King and greater Moses (see Deut. 18:15-18) who is giving new instruction for His followers. But in contrast to the claim of His enemies, this new instruction is not contrary to what the Old Testament taught. A person cannot rightly claim that he is following the Hebrew scriptures while also rejecting Jesus and His teachings since Jesus and His words are in perfect harmony with the Law and the Prophets. Every single thing the Old Testament taught must come to pass, including the reality that the Messiah would bring a better New covenant (see Jeremiah 30-33).  

In the end, it is a close call between Views 2 and 3. I give preference to View 3 and its assertion that “these commandments” refers to Jesus’ instructions in the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5-7. I believe this because Jesus emphasizes His authority in 5:21-48 and the sermon ends with an emphasis on Jesus’ words (see Matt. 7:24, 26).