“But I [Jesus] say to you...until everything is fulfilled.”

 

When a man is humbled by the law, and brought to the knowledge of himself, then follows true repentance (for true repentance begins at the fear and judgment of God), and he sees himself to be so great a sinner that he can find no means how he may be delivered from his sin by his own strength, endeavor, and works.(Romans 3:19; 7:14; 11:32; Galatians 3:22 ) Martin Luther

Elliot Ritzema, 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Reformation, Pastorum Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).

 A very significant event prior to the Sermon on the Mount is recorded in Matt 4:12–17: Jesus hears that John the Baptist has been thrown into prison; he goes as a light shining in dark lands; and he begins to preach that the kingdom of heaven is near. The significance of John’s imprisonment can hardly be overestimated. Matthew. 3 portrays John as an OT prophet, yet John himself tells us that one greater than he is about to come (Mat.3:11–12).

 Matthew immediately identifies Jesus, through the account of his baptism, as the one who is greater than John (Mat.3:13–17). The sequence in Matt. 4 is striking: John, the OT prophet, is arrested and his ministry ends, and only at that point does Jesus begin his own ministry. Something very important has ended and something even more important has begun.

 John is the last of the OT prophets (Mat.11:13–14), and when he passes from the scene an eschatologically new era commences. 

This text, Mt 11:12-14, is best understood as meaning that the generality of men pressed against or resisted the kingdom of God, which accords well with (Lk 7:30. Mt 23:13. Jn 1:11; 12:37. Ro 11:8, 11), 12. (Jerome H. Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: 1162.)

Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.” Matthew 2:14–15

Jesus has already been set forth as the true Israel to which actual Israel was pointing and as such God’s Son (see on Matt.2:15); now the heavenly witness confirms the link. And a voice from the heavens said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17

If this interpretation of Matthew 2:15 is correct, it follows that for Matthew Jesus himself is the locus of true Israel. This does not necessarily mean that God has no further purpose for racial Israel; but it does mean that the position of God’s people in the Messianic Age is determined by reference to Jesus, not race.

 The verb “to fulfill” has broader significance than mere one-to-one prediction. Not only in Matthew but elsewhere in the NT, the history and laws of the OT are perceived to have prophetic significance (cf. Matt.5:17–20). The Epistle to the Hebrews argues that the laws regarding the tabernacle and the sacrificial system were from the beginning designed to point toward the only Sacrifice that could really remove sin and the only Priest who could serve once and for all as the effective Mediator between God and man.

 Likewise Paul insists that the Messiah sums up his people in himself. When David was anointed king, the tribes acknowledged him as their bone and flesh (2 Sam 5:1), i.e., David as anointed king summed up Israel, with the result that his sin brought disaster on the people (2 Sam. 12, 24). Just as Israel is God’s son, so the promised Davidic Son is also Son of God 2 Sam. 7:13–14. “Fulfillment” must be understood against the background of these interlocking themes and their typological connections.

 It follows, therefore, that the NT writers do not think they are reading back into the OT things that are not already there germinally. 

D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 92,93,109.

 The phrase “all Israel” looks to be an omnibus expression covering all types of believers: 

elect Israelites from the beginning; responsive Gentiles who hear the message from Paul’s lips;

 and (when the Gentiles’ full tally is complete) the “Israel-of-the-future” who in faith will embrace the messianic salvation. Paul concludes, with an Old Testament citation to buttress his eschatological hope, “So in this way all Israel will be saved … God has consigned all men (Jews and Gentiles alike in Adam, Rom 1:18–3:20; 5:12–14) to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Jews and Gentiles alike in the new Man, Jesus Christ). Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, vol. 40, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1986), 270. 

 Thus, as the kingdom of heaven is something strikingly new, so the Sermon on the Mount, the ethic of this kingdom, proclaims a way of life that is eschatologically new. It is different from the way of life under Moses, though in a manner that accomplishes rather than thwarts God’s larger purposes in giving the law and the prophets.  

 Westerholm goes through the antitheses one by one and notes:

 that the things prescribed in the law are foundational and necessary for human society, but Jesus’ commands transcend them in ways that human legislation could not accomplish.

David VanDrunen, “Bearing Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38–42,” Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 324,326,327.

The Sermon on the Mount has a very clear construction. Its theme is stated in Matthew 5:20: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” The customary interpretation tends to equate the scribes and Pharisees here. But in fact they are two quite different groups.

 The scribes are the theological teachers who have had some years of education. The Pharisees, on the other hand, are not theologians, but rather groups of pious laymen from every part of the community—traders, craftsperson's, professionals; only their leaders were theologians. According to Josephus, there were six thousand Pharisees in Palestine in the first century C.E.

Having noted the difference between the scribes and the Pharisees, we can see that Matthew 5:20 speaks of three kinds of righteousness, and this corresponds exactly to the construction of the Sermon on the Mount: it deals consecutively with the righteousness of the theologians, of the pious laymen, and of the disciples of Jesus. After the introduction (Matt. 5:3–19) and the thematic sentence (Matt.5:20), the first part of the Sermon deals with the controversy concerning the interpretation of scripture between Jesus and the theologians (the six great antitheses in Matt. 5:21–48).

 As the second part, there follows his controversy with the righteousness of the Pharisees, for almsgiving, the keeping of the three hours of prayer, and representative fasting on behalf of Israel are characteristics of these pious groups of laymen (Matt.6:1–18). The concluding section (Matt.6:19–7:27) develops the new righteousness of the disciples of Jesus. The theme of this three-part didache is therefore the way of life of Christians as distinct from that of their Jewish contemporaries. 

K. C. Hanson, “Editor’s Foreword,” in Jesus and the Message of the New Testament, ed. K. C. Hanson, Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 29.

Before proceeding with the interpretation of the Law, the fulfilment of which would enable men to bring forth ‘good works’ and qualify them for membership in the Kingdom, our Lord explains to the disciples, in words probably suggested by Dt. 4:2, that, notwithstanding His new program for them as a distinctive community and His seeming opposition to traditional piety, He does not come as a new Legislator, but, like Moses, the ‘first redeemer’ (Dt. 1:5, where the Hebrew word translated ‘declare’ means ‘to make clear’), as an Interpreter of the old revelation.

 He has not come to ‘annul’ the divine Will expressed in the Law and the Prophets, but to bring out the full divine purpose contained in them.

 The scribes and Pharisees, in spite of their eagerness to keep the letter of Dt. 12:32, casuistically either ‘loosened,’ i.e. evaded, certain commandments, or added innumerable laws of their own. 

P. P. Levertoff, “Special Introduction,” in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture: Including the Apocrypha, ed. Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, vol. 3 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942), 138–139.

It is worthy of observation, that the word fulfil, among the rabbis, signifies not only to fulfil, but also to teach... And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle’s words, Col. 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, πληρωσαι τον λογον του Θεου, to fulfil the word of God, i. e. to teach the doctrine of God. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, New Edition, vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation, 2014), 69.)

As we know from Exod. 19:16 fire was a prominent feature of the theophany in the description of the giving of the Torah. According to b. Megillah 31a the first chapter of Ezekiel was the reading from the prophets for this particular festival.

 Indeed, reference to tongues of fire is often found in rabbinic legends about the exposition of the Torah.

 (Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 368.)

  When he preached, he did not teach as the scribes, but as one having authority; so that his hearers were astonished at his doctrine. He did not reveal the mind and will of God in the style of the prophets, as, “Thus saith the Lord;” but in such a style as this, “I say unto you,” “Verily, verily, I say unto you.”

He delivered his doctrines, not only as the doctrines of God the Father, but as his own doctrines. He gave forth commands, not (as the prophets were wont to do) as God’s commands, but as his own. He spoke in such a style as this, “This is my commandment,” John 15:12. (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 576.)

This ἐγώ, “But I [Jesus] say to you.” used in pronouncements with authority, is also to be found in the words of command in the healing stories (Mark 9:25 ἐγὼ ἐπιτάσσω σοι; cf. Mark 2:11 par. σοὶ λέγω), in the sending out of the messengers (as in Matt. 10:16 ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς), Cf. also Luke 10:19 and in words of encouragement (like Luke 22:32: ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σοῦ). 

This ἐγώ is associated with ἀμήν- “Truly (ἀμήν, amēn), I say to you.”  and thus, claims to speak with divine authority; it lays claim to the twofold royal ἐξουσία-authority; power of God, amnesty and legislation.

 It requires devotion beyond all other ties, in complete exclusiveness. Even father and mother are not excepted (Matt. 10:37 par. Luke 14:26). It claims that in its actions the basileia-Kingdom is at work (Luke 11:20 par. Matt. 12:28) and that deliverance at the last judgment will be decided by a man’s public acknowledgment of its authority (Matt.10:32ff. par.).

 It takes the place of the Torah: in contemporary Judaism, it was said, ‘The person who hears the words of the Torah and does good works builds on firm ground’; here we have, ‘The person who hears my words’ (Matt. 7:24–27 par.). The emphatic ἐγώ indicates that the person who uses it is God’s representative.

‘Whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me’ (Mark 9:37, often repeated: Matt. 10:40; Luke 9:48, cf. 10:16; John 12:44; 13:20). In the three parables of the lost things (Luke. 15), the parable of the generous employer (Matt. 20:1–15) and the parable of the two men at prayer (Luke 18:9–14), Jesus justifies his conduct by that of God; he acts so to speak as God’s representative.

 At the same time, however, his subordination to God’s will is preserved (Mark 14:36 par.). This emphatic ἐγώ permeates the whole tradition of the sayings of Jesus and cannot be eliminated by literary-critical methods. It is without parallel in the world of Jesus. (Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1971), 253,254.)

Five specific prophecies had been fulfilled in the birth narrative (Matt. 1–2) (See Matt. 1:22–23 (Isa. 7:14); Matt. 2:5–6 (Mic. 5:2); Matt. 2:15 (Hos. 11:1); Matt. 2:17–18 (Jer. 31:15); Matt. 2:23 (Judg. 13:5; Isa. 11:1). and in first chapter of the Sermon on the Mount... 

Jesus will teach his disciple how they might fulfil the Law of Moses (and I refer here to the so-called antitheses) and so give evidence of a righteousness that ‘exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees’ (Matt.5:20).

 The Law (ὁ νόμος), like the Prophets (οἱ προφῆται), is to be fulfilled. Matthew 5:17–48 expands on this conviction by providing five examples of how Jesus’ interpretation of the Law—in contrast to the deficient understanding and practice of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt.5:20)—fulfilled the Law. 

The discontinuity between Jesus and the teachers of the synagogue is due to the law’s fulfilment, not its abandonment.

 There is no question that Jesus transgressed the oral law; but the written law, understood in the light of the whole of Scripture, he fulfilled. The relationship of Jesus’ coming to the law and to the prophets is a watershed issue for the interpretation of Matthew and for biblical theology. 

The contrasting terms “abolish” and “accomplish their purpose” (lit. “fulfill”) set the agenda for a general statement Mat.5:17–20 that is expanded in the six so-called “antitheses” In NT studies, the six contrasts between Moses’ and Jesus’ teaching presented in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:21–48.

 Each antithesis is introduced by the formula, “You have heard that it was said,” followed by the antithetical response, “But I [Jesus] say to you.” that take up the rest of the chapter. The mention of the law and the prophets here and in the summary statement of Mat. 7:12 is an inclusio, which brings the main body of the Sermon full circle. The metaphorical use of “abolish” (lit. “destroy”) may be illustrated by its literal use in (Mat. 24:2; 26:61; 27:40.)

 The meaning of “accomplish” (lit. “fulfill”) must be examined in light of its frequent usage in OT introductory formulas: (Mat.1:22; 2:15; 17, 23) (Mat. 4:14; 8:17; 12:17)  (Mat.13:35; 21:4)  (Mat. 26:54,56, 27:9.) Other significant uses are Mat.3:15 and Mat.23:32.

 Jesus does not contradict or abrogate the law and the prophets, but neither does he merely reaffirm them. He fulfills them or brings them to their divinely intended goal because they point to him.

 David Turner and Darrell L. Bock, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), 85.(antitheses Arthur G. Patzia and Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 12.) 

  Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy them but to fulfill them. Amen I tell you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest letter, or even part of a letter, will in any way pass away from the Law until everything is fulfilled. Mt 5:17–18. EHV 

Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen. (Mt 5:17–18 CEB)

But if this saying is intended simply to assert the permanence of the law, why is a second “until” clause added?

Until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest letter, or even part of a letter, will in any way pass away from the Law until everything is fulfilled.

I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened. (Or before all that it stands for is achieved.) Mt 5:18. NEB 

 Some interpreters assert that the second “until” clause merely repeats the sense of the first and speaks of the (unimaginable) end of the world, but in that case why is the thought repeated before and after the main clause, and why is it expressed in terms of something “happening” (ginomai) when the point of the first clause was to propose something which could not happen (heaven and earth passing away)?

 “Everything happening” is rather the language of eschatological fulfillment (as in the similar saying of Mat.24:34), and if we were right to understand the “fulfilling” of the law and the prophets in terms of a future situation to which the law pointed forward, this clause could be saying that the smallest details of the law would be valid only until the time of fulfillment arrived.

The jots and tittles are there to be fulfilled, not discarded, and that is what Jesus has come to do. They are not lost, but taken up into the eschatological events to which they pointed forward.

The second “until” then, is not speaking of the time of their abandonment but of their intended goal. The double “until” is admittedly awkward, but we might paraphrase the whole saying as follows:

 “The law, down to its smallest details, is as permanent as heaven and earth and will never lose its significance; on the contrary, all that it points forward to will in fact become a reality.” Now that that reality has arrived in Jesus, the jots and tittles will be seen in a new light, but they still cannot be discarded.

(Keener, 178, attributes to J. P. Meier and to my 1985 commentary the view that “Jesus’ death and resurrection is the ‘goal of the world,’ thus allowing the law to be set aside as fulfilled,” and rightly complains that such a view “violates the whole thrust of the passage.” Meier must speak for himself, but I neither stated nor implied that fulfillment involves “setting aside,” which would indeed directly contradict Mat.5:17.  My comment was that “The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended.” 

To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded.

 It will be the function of Mat.5:21–47 to illustrate how they may function in this new situation in which they serve not as simple rules of conduct but as pointers to a “greater righteousness” which Jesus has brought into being and which supersedes the old type of law-keeping. cp. Heb. 7:12

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 185,186.

The best interpretation of these difficult verses says that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets in that they point to him, and he is their fulfillment. 

The antithesis is not between “abolish” and “keep” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” “For Matthew, then, it is not the question of Jesus’ relation to the law that is in doubt but rather its relation to him!” (Robert Banks). Therefore we give plēroō (“fulfill”) exactly the same meaning as in the formula quotations, which in the prologue (Matt. 1–2) have already laid great stress on the prophetic nature of the OT and the way it points to Jesus. Even OT events have this prophetic significance (Matt.2:15). A little later Jesus insists that “all the Prophets and the Law prophesied” (Matt.11:13). 

Here Jesus presents himself as the eschatological goal of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance.

D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 143–144.

It is written (Mat. 5:17): Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. Commenting on these words, Chrysostom says: He fulfilled the Law, … in one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable to do.

I answer that, Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the precepts of the Law...  And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly,

 that by obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. 

Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: God sent His Son … made under the Law that He might redeem them who were under the Law.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, vol. 9 (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), 569.

As the sun, as soon as it is risen, begins to shine; so Christ, as soon as he came into his public ministry, began to enlighten the world with his doctrine. As the law was given at mount Sinai, so Christ delivered his evangelical doctrine, (full of blessings, and not curses,) to a multitude on a mountain, Matt. 5–7. 

 ‘The gospel is the explanation and fulfilment of the law, and the Church is the place where the law comes true’. Melito, Hom. 34:

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004).

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Mat. 5:20.

is obviously meant to be taken ironically. The ‘righteousness’ of the scribes and Pharisees was pre-eminently external and without moral dynamic. It could be practiced without much spiritual or moral effort. For the connection between ‘righteousness’ and entering ‘the Kingdom of heaven’ cf. (Dt. 9:4, 5, 6 and Isa. 60:21). 

P. P. Levertoff, “Special Introduction,” in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture: Including the Apocrypha, ed. Charles Gore, Henry Leighton Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume, vol. 3 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942), 139.

Again, addressed to the Apostles as teachers. The union of doing and teaching is essential. It was the grave sin of the Pharisees that they taught without doing. See Mat. 23:2,3. This explains the for of next verse. (A. Carr, The Gospel according to St Matthew, with Maps Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 58.)

Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:19

pursuing the statement of Matt. 5:19  (cf. ‘therefore’) insists that this re-born Law will be enforced with no less rigor. The Christian disciple is perforce always a teacher by his example, Matt. 5:13–16: neglect even of the minutiae will be noticed and will do damage.

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled under foot. “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. People do not light a lamp and put it under the bushel basket; rather, they put it on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. Matt. 5:13–16

 The new order is to be distinguished by the perfection of its inward spirit, Matt. 5:21–48, but it will not dispense with external works. By its exacting standards the careless disciple will be accounted less than his more scrupulous brother.

 The ‘kingdom’ in this and the following verse would appear to be the new kingdom of Christ on earth in which the Law and the Prophets find their goal and their deepest sense. Matt. 5:20. Membership of this kingdom imperatively demands a sanctity more generous than that of the leading exponents of the Mosaic Law because its ideals are higher and its spirit more profound.

A. Jones, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Matthew,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 861.

The victory of the kingdom of God should be visible in your lives, rooted and grounded in the kingdom of God. “But who can accomplish this? We are poor-spirited, wavering people, driven to and fro.” The disciples asked this question of Jesus. His answer to the objection is found in Matthew 5:14. This saying was uttered at a time when the disciples referred to their inability, their weakness. Then Jesus answered: “A city built on a hill cannot be hid.” Gerhard von Rad has shown us, in a fine study, that this is not an ordinary city but the eschatological city of God. Its light, says Jesus, shines in the world. You belong to it. 

In the eschatological city of God there is no need for convulsive efforts; its light shines of itself. 

Thus the Sermon on the Mount is not law but gospel. For this is indeed the difference between law and gospel: The law leaves people to rely on their own strength and challenges them to do their utmost. The gospel, on the other hand, brings people before the gift of God and challenges them to make the inexpressible gift of God the basis for their lives. These are two different worlds. In order to make the difference clear, one should avoid the terms “Christian ethic,” “Christian morality,” and “Christian morals” in New Testament theology, because these secular expressions are inadequate and liable to misunderstanding. Instead of these, one should speak of “lived faith.” Then it is clearly stated that the gift of God precedes God’s demands.

K. C. Hanson, “Editor’s Foreword,” in Jesus and the Message of the New Testament, ed. K. C. Hanson, Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 35.

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled under foot. “You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. People do not light a lamp and put it under the bushel basket; rather, they put it on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. Matt. 5:13–16

When the disciples are exhorted to let their light shine before men that these may see their good works and glorify the Father in heaven, this thought is expressed in terms of fatherhood, but the conception of glory involved is closely allied to that of kingship.

In the Lord’s Prayer the petition “Thy kingdom come” naturally leads on to the petition “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth,” so that the fulfilment of the will of God is obviously regarded as one of the principal forms in which his kingship is realized.

 Its consummate expression this principle finds in the commandment: “Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Matt. 5:48. 

The sayings just quoted affirm not merely that the norm of righteousness is to be found in God, they likewise imply that the aim of righteousness, the final cause of obedience, lies in God. 

Righteousness is to be sought from the pure desire of satisfying him, who is the supreme end of all moral existence.

Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, ed. John H. Kerr, Second Edition, Revised (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), 105–106.

Otherwise, the precepts of Moses are easy to obey; Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery. The very greatness of the crime is a check upon the desire of committing it; therefore the reward of observance is small, the sin of transgression great.

 But Christ’s precepts, Thou shalt not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, are hard to obey, and therefore in their reward they are great, in their transgression, ‘least.’

 It is thus He speaks of these precepts of Christ, such as Thou shall not be angry, Thou shalt not lust, as ‘the least;’ and they who commit these lesser sins, are the least in the kingdom of God; that is, he who has been angry and not sinned grievously is secure from the punishment of eternal damnation; yet he does not attain that glory which they attain who fulfil even these least. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM 

 It is a mistake to interpret the perisseuein (the “surpassing” of Pharisaic righteousness) in terms of a quantitatively larger fulfillment of the law’s demands than that which the scribes and Pharisees achieve.(This despite Oepke’s contention that “perisseuein in Mt. 5:20 is a quantitative rather than a qualitative term” (TDNT, 4: 621n.88).

 Windisch was at least on the right track when he commented that “The righteousness which opens the kingdom is here won through repentance, which the Baptist proclaimed Mat.21:32. cf. Mat.3:1–2”  He would have been even more on target had he referred to the proclamation of Jesus as well as that of John, for Jesus demanded repentance not only in the light of the coming of the kingdom of God in the future but also in the face of the new thing that God was doing in the present—repentance that entailed a radical commitment “in the fulness of surrender to God’s will.”

 It was this kind of repentance and faith to which Jesus pointed when speaking about receiving the kingdom of God as a child, for it is only when the kingdom is approached in this fashion that the required obedience—of a sort of the scribes and Pharisees did not know Matt. 23:3 —becomes possible.

 To respond wholeheartedly to the message of Jesus is to know that “eschatological superabundance” which issues in a righteousness acceptable to God and entrance into the kingdom of God in the last day. 

G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; The Paternoster Press, 1986), 178.

Jesus was teaching something that was not yet completely possible for people to follow. It is good to say, “People should move from external obedience to an obedience motivated by the law written upon the heart.”

 But this is an impossibility until the heart is transformed and the very person of God himself, along with his righteous character as expressed in the law, comes to abide in one’s heart. What Jesus taught would become a reality in the lives of God’s people after his death sealed the new covenant and made possible the promised internal transformation. (Stuart K. Weber, Matthew, vol. 1, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 63–64.) 

It is not legal righteousness, the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), but the righteousness of the Kingdom, God’s righteousness (Matthew 6:33).

 The contrast is most clearly and sharply expressed in Romans 10:3 and Philippians 3:9, for instance, where man’s righteousness and God’s are represented as mutually exclusive, and the latter alone is able to form the basis of the religious relationship. (Philip S. Watson, Let God Be God!: An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000)

‘But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you’. Matt. 6:33: Seeking righteousness recalls the beatitude of Mt. 5:6. Coupling the quest for righteousness to the kingdom brings the preaching of Jesus and Matthew’s interests together. 

To seek righteousness is also to seek the kingdom. This pithy admonition sums up the essence of Jesus’ message, especially as it is heard in Matthew’s Gospel, in which emphasis is placed on righteousness (as seen, for example, in Mt. 5:6, 10). God’s ‘righteousness’ has been defined in the antitheses in Mt. 5:21–48.  

Craig A. Evans, “Fulfilling the Law and Seeking Righteousness in Matthew and in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel and Early Christianity: Studies in Memory of Graham N. Stanton, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner et al., vol. 435, Library of New Testament Studies (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011),103,106,107

Because righteousness is a matter of immediate, personal concern between the soul and God, it can rest on nothing else than the divinely revealed commandments, and no human tradition can bind the conscience: 

“Every plant which the heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up,” Matt. 15:13.

 Finally, what alone can impart value in the sight of God to any act of obedience is the sincerity of the heart from which it proceeds. Righteousness must be fruit, the organic product of the life and character, exponential of what is within,  (Matt. 7:16, 20; 21:43).

All this was the result of bringing men face to face with God as the righteous Lawgiver and King, personally cognizant of every man’s conduct. In view of it, it is hardly necessary to observe that our Lord also represents God as the supreme Judge of the moral life.

 To be righteous is strictly speaking equivalent to being justified of God. 

Jesus, who derived so many evangelical ideas from the last-mentioned source, may have had these prophecies in mind, when in the Sermon on the Mount he spoke of such as hunger and thirst after righteousness, Isa. 55:1. 

At any rate the other beatitudes show that the state of mind here described is a receptive rather than a productive one.

 The hungering and thirsting stand on a line with the poor and the meek, they are conscious of not possessing the desired good in themselves and look to God for supplying it.

 When they are satisfied, this is due not to their own effort but to an act of God.

 The same thought is indirectly expressed in the “seeking” of righteousness commanded in Matt. 6:33. In the parable of the Pharisee and publican the term “justification” is applied to an acceptance of man by God not based on self-righteous works, but on penitence and trust in the divine mercy.

It would be historically unwarranted to read into these utterances the whole doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. It was impossible for Jesus to develop this doctrine with any degree of explicitness, because it was to be based on his own atoning death, which still lay in the future.

Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, ed. John H. Kerr, Second Edition, Revised (New York: American Tract Society, 1903), 110–116.

 For he himself is our peace, who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of the partition, the enmity, in his flesh, invalidating the law of commandments in ordinances, in order that he might create the two in himself into one new man, thus making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, killing the enmity in himself. Or “by it” (referring to the cross) Eph 2:14–16. LEB 

 The Mosaic Law gave the Jews a privileged status and separated them from gentiles. 

Jesus abolished this Law by fulfilling it once for all on the cross, Col. 2:14ff.

 This New Man is the prototype of the new humanity that God re-created (2 Cor. 5:17) in the person of Christ, the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), after the sinfully corrupt race of the first Adam had died in the crucifixion (Rom. 5:12ff ; 8:3) 1 Cor. 15:21). This New Adam has been created in ‘the goodness and holiness of the truth’, Eph.4:24, and he is unique because in him the boundaries between any one group and the rest of the human race all disappear, Gal. 3:27ff; Col. 3:10ff. 

Henry Wansbrough, ed., The New Jerusalem Bible (New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday, 1990), 1935.

For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 174.

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope Jn. 9:28; Rom. 2:17. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me Gen. 3:15; Lk. 24:27; Acts 26:22. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” Jn. 5:45–47

  the final condemnation will come from Moses himself—again ironic, since Moses is the very one the Jewish authorities have trusted in (placed your hope) John 5:45. This is again ironic if it is occurring at Pentecost, which at this time was being celebrated as the occasion of the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

 There is evidence that some Jews of the 1st century looked on Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment. This would mean the statement Moses, in whom you have placed your hope should be taken literally and relates directly to Jesus’ statements about the final judgment in John 5:28–29. (Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019)

In other words, in Matt. 5:17, Jesus is claiming to be the eschatological messenger of God, the promised prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18), Cf. John 6:14; 7:40 who brings the final revelation and therefore demands absolute obedience.

 In fact, this claim of Jesus that he brings the concluding revelation is to be found throughout his sayings. It is expressed particularly clearly in the antithetic pattern of Matt. 5:21–48. This pattern belongs to the bedrock of the tradition, since it involves a conflict with the Torah, something unheard of in the atmosphere of the period.

 Jesus proclaims that the divine will in the basileia-Kingdom stands above the divine will as expressed in the time of the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).

Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1971), 84–85.

For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by the Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people. Rom. 2:28–29 NLT

 On circumcision is of the heart see (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6 Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:9.) The NET Bible  

For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. Ro 8:3 LEB

In the message of Christ, we thus have the power of God which is the power of salvation. The power of God in the Gospel consists in the fact that it mediates salvation, that by the Gospel God delivers man from the power of darkness and translates him into the kingdom of His dear Son.

 The δύναμις θεοῦ-power of God, which is the Gospel, is not an empty word. It is grounded in the divine act of deliverance in the Christ event, which overcomes the rule of Satan, and which works itself out in the continued, factual deliverance accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel The power of salvation.

 The fact of Christ answers afresh the question of the power of salvation. the disciples ask Jesus in Mt. 19:26, thus raising the question of the ability and power to effect deliverance. The answer given by Jesus is the familiar reference to the omnipotence of God:

 The answer contains a double insight: first, that no power to save or to deliver is given to man, nor is it possible for man to attain such a power; and second, that such a power is grounded in the omnipotence of God alone and must proceed from this. This insight is shared by the NT generally.

  Paul speaks of the impossibility in Rom.8:7. In these words there is the sharpest possible criticism of the saving power of Jewish belief, i.e., the saving power of the Torah. But Paul goes further. Adopting the Jewish expression for the Torah, he adds the criticism: 1 Cor. 15:56.

 By the Torah and its power, the indefinite state of sin is actualized as transgression of the Law, and the dominion of death is established as the wages of sin. For this reason, Paul calls it the impossible the law Rom. 8:3 LEB that it does not overcome sin and death.

 The Torah has no power of life, and therefore no salvation proceeds from it: Gal.3:21.

 Heb. finds a similar impotence in the Jewish cultus. Even sacrifice has no power to effect salvation. Heb. speaks of sacrifices Heb.10:11, and states: For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins Heb.10:4.

In relation to the achievement of salvation it is said of sacrifices: In fact, the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the actual realization of those things Heb.10:1 EHV.  The general verdict of Jn. is: (Joh.3:3; 3:5).

 There is needed a new creation of man’s existence by God. This new creation, which consists in faith in Christ, is wholly the affair of God: (Joh.6:44, 6:65).

 Jesus discloses the reason for man’s impotence: (Joh.8:43ff.).The superiority of demonic and satanic power is the basis of man’s inability to save himself.

 Only God has the power to save, and he puts forth his power in Jesus (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18).

 This power is not that of mystical initiation or of a mere direction to salvation; it is the power of the word of the cross.

 It grants salvation by liberating us from the power of darkness and putting us in the kingdom of God’s dear Son. It is grounded in the saving act of the Christ event, i.e., in God’s mighty work in history. (Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 190.)

Walter Grundmann,  in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 308–309.

The verb “receive” in 2 Pet. 1:1 emphasizes the graciousness of God’s gift of faith, and the tenses of the verbs in 2 Pet. 1:3–4 emphasize Peter’s belief that the Christian life grows up from something that has been completed (“has granted”). In both verses, the verbs are in the perfect tense, which in Greek carries the specific connotation of a completed action that has a continuing result.

 It is a finished fact that God has granted all things for life (2 Pet. 1:3), and Christians are now to diligently nourish what has been given. God’s action is prior to and foundational for the Christian’s life and godliness, so that Peter teaches, against all Greek ethics, that “glorious” or “virtuous” life is only possible by grace.

 Peter, as well as Paul, condemns Homer’s heroes and Aristotle’s self-made man.

Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 29–31. 

But—a Jew will protest—why does the law oppose rather than confirm and sanction the promise? Is not the Torah itself the document of the promise? At this point, Paul divorces what the Jew conjoins. And Paul does so because Christ is the key to Scripture: Christ ratifies the promise by removing the law from the scene 

Although the relation of the law to Scripture is complicated in Paul, it demonstrates a new departure for a specifically Christian hermeneutic of Scripture. Despite the fact that Scripture in all its parts is the inspired, authoritative document of God’s revelation to Israel, Paul makes its authority subject to Christ as the hermeneutical key to Scripture: 2 Cor. 3:15–17.

 “To this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” 

 Christ is the canon within the canon, so that Paul, in certain contexts, makes distinctions within Scripture between the letter and the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6, 7; Rom. 2:29[?]), between the law and Scripture (Gal. 3:21, 22), and between the promise and the law (Gal. 3:15–21).

 He can even quote Scripture against Scripture when he contrasts the works of the law to faith-righteousness (Rom. 10:5–9; Gal. 3:11–12). (J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), 251–252.)

In sharp contrast to Rom.7:7–24 but in elucidation of Rom.7:25, Rom. 8:2–4 characterize the new life of the Christian as grounded in the act of salvation and standing in the sphere of the Spirit, in which the will of God is actually fulfilled as it could not be under the rule of the law.

  This does not mean that the law as such is restored by the Spirit or—an even greater error—that it is replaced by a Christian variation on natural law.

 It concerns the circumstances described in Rom.2:26ff.  Exposition deriving from Western and Gentile-Christian tradition does not usually make it clear that for the apostle the moral and ceremonial law in the Torah of Moses forms an indissoluble unity (Enslin, Ethics, 85).

 Only when one reduces this to a moral law can one postulate its ongoing validity in the church and adduce as proof of this the sayings of Jesus, Gal. 6:2, and exhortation in general. To do this, however, is to understand not only the law but the Spirit, too, otherwise than Paul does. Rom.8:5–8 are not a digression. A predominantly negative basis is offered for Rom.8:4.

What is done by bearers of the Spirit after the change of aeons was not yet possible for the flesh.

 Here one sees yet again that Paul does not oppose law and Spirit abstractly. Since powers are at issue, what both of them involve can be appropriately defined through their relation to the one ruled by them.

In Paul’s theology change of existence always takes place as a change of lordship, thus with the relation to another lord, and is nothing other than entry into a new relation. A person’s reality is decided by what lord he has.

 As this applies to becoming a Christian and to the resurrection, so here it applies to the event of the fall that continues universally.

 The servant becomes like his master and shows this by his behavior. For Paul no man is ever really without a master or on his own. He who evades the Creator runs into his Judge.

Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, First edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 41,42,43.

In Galatians 6:8, Paul contrasts the reward of the fleshly man (“corruption”) with the reward of the spiritual man (“eternal life”), and Peter describes the pseudo-prophets as slaves of corruption. They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves of sin and corruption. For you are a slave to whatever controls you. (2 Pet. 2:19 NLT) 

Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 33. 

 The anthropology of the apostle has a verifying function, as was clear already in Rom.7. Rom.8:9–11 correspond to Rom 8:5–8. The Spirit effects eschatological life in righteousness and simultaneously gives assurance of bodily resurrection, which is anticipated in the new obedience made possible by him.

 He is the power of the new creation of the end-time and as such links the present of faith to the future consummation. He does this by claiming bodily existence for God. 

The law of the Spirit is nothing other than the Spirit himself in his ruling function in the sphere of Christ. He creates life and separates not only from sin and death but also from their instrument, the irreparably perverted law of Moses.

In this regard Paul agrees with the enthusiasts. God’s will is learned only through the Spirit. An essential part of Christian freedom is that it does not stand under a new law and that its obedience is oriented in the last resort, not to the Torah, but solely to the Kyrios. 

 The anacolouthon sharpens the “by grace alone” and presents the paradox of Rom.5:15ff.; 1 Cor. 1:21, according to which God begins where the earthly reaches its end. The ὁ θεός of Rom.8:3c, which is put first for emphasis, shows that there can be no bridge from the one to the other.

 With the Christ event eschatological action brings another reality in which the Spirit does not simply make possible a better or an original understanding of the law but replaces it. 

If God representatively on the cross judged and condemned sin in the fleshly sphere, the Spirit is for the apostle the power which sets us under the cross and under the judgment executed there.

 In so doing he rescues us from our autonomy and illusions and manifests the Crucified as the end of our own possibilities and the beginning of the wonderful divine possibilities by which we shall henceforth live the life of grace.

 He does not do this by continuing the religiosity and morality which are demanded by the letter, and which are possible even in the old aeon. He does it by fashioning a new creature under the sign of the fulfilment of the divine will.

Only the Spirit gives freedom from the powers of sin and death. Since the Torah has been perverted by the flesh it cannot enable us to fulfil God’s will, without which that freedom does not exist.

 As he releases us from the dominion of the powers, the Spirit evokes the new obedience and thus establishes the rights of the divine will which had been originally manifested in the law. The Christological interpolation, however, stands in the way of the natural assumption that the Spirit is simply the law correctly understood by illumination and restored to its original meaning, and thus the principle of Christian life and morality.

 The Spirit is the supernatural power of grace which is based on the act of salvation and constantly directs us to it. God alone fulfils what he demands.

 He does it paradoxically on the cross with the sending of his Son as a sin-offering, and therefore apart from and even in opposition to our cooperation If this interpretation is correct, the motif of the justification of the ungodly, as in Rom.4:17ff., is taken up in and maintained by that of the fashioning of a new creature.

 There can be no talk of mystical relations, which is usually associated with the common but obscure and dangerous idea that union with Christ is the true work of the Spirit. 

The Spirit points us back to the cross of Christ as the place of salvation.

 He thus continually actualizes justification, sets us unceasingly in the sphere of power of the Crucified, and is the earthly presence of the exalted Lord. If the motif of union is to be used at all, it must be precisely understood as incorporation into the lordship of the Crucified.

Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, First edition (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 215,219. 

How infinitely does the glorious Gospel of God transcend the impoverished thoughts and schemes of men!

 How immeasurably superior is that “everlasting righteousness” which Christ has brought in (Dan. 9:24) from that miserable thing which multitudes are seeking to produce by their own efforts.

 Greater far is the difference between the shining light of the midday sun and the blackness of the darkest night, than between that “best robe” (Luke 15:22) which Christ has wrought out for each of His people and that wretched covering which zealous religionists are attempting to weave out of the filthy rags of their own righteousness

that wretched covering which zealous religionists are attempting to weave out of the filthy rags of their own righteousness

It is not that the justified soul is now left to himself, so that he is certain of getting to Heaven no matter how he conducts himself—the fatal error of Antinomians. No Indeed. God also imparts to him the blessed Holy Spirit, who works within him the desire to serve, please, and glorify the One who has been so gracious to Him.

 “The love of Christ constraints us … that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:14, 15). They now “delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22), and though the flesh, the world, and the Devil oppose every step of the way, occasioning many a sad fall—which is repented of, confessed, and forsaken—

nevertheless the Spirit renews them day by day (2 Cor. 4:16) and leads them in the paths of righteousness for Christ’s name’s sake.

    “Let worldly minds the world pursue,

      It has no charms for me;

      I once admired its trifles too,

      But grace has set me free.”

Arthur Walkington Pink, The Doctrine of Justification (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005).

“Unless we understand our task as ministers of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, in the midst of the great debate around us today, we cannot effectively make the Christ of God to be seen to be different from the false Christs of modern theology.

 The Christ of Scripture, the Christ Paul preached, was an offense to the Greeks-this Christ condemned them as sinners and demanded their repentance. Our Christ-the Christ of Paul, if he is proclaimed truly-will similarly be an offense to modern, sophisticated, twentieth century man; but thanks be to God-to some he will be a savor of life unto life, the very power of God unto salvation to those who by grace believe.” (Eric D. Bristley, A Guide to the Writings of Cornelius Van Til 1895–1987., Electronic ed. (Olive Tree Communications: Chicago, 1995).)

 Like Jesus, Paul teaches that the kingdom of God is both present (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13; 4:11) and future. It presents its saving power through the Spirit (1 Cor. 4:20 cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20). It will be “inherited” not by natural, sinful people (1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:21) but only by the righteous or those who are worthy of the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5; Gal. 5:21; cf. Mt. 5:20, 10) or by those who have been made God’s children and are so privileged to call God abba (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:6–7; cf. Mk. 10:15 par.).

 Paul’s emphasis on divine grace corresponds to Jesus’ emphasis on the kingdom’s transcendental and grace character exhibited in his language of the kingdom “coming,” and on God’s “giving” it and people’s “receiving” or “inheriting” it. It is also seen in Jesus’ parables of the kingdom (Mt. 20:1–16; Lk. 7:36–50; 15:11–32; 18:9–14; Mk. 1:40–45).

 Jesus’ summary of the Law in terms of the double commandments of love for God and for one’s neighbor, his critique of the contemporary Jewish understanding of the Law, and his disregard for the laws of the Sabbath, fasting, purity, table-fellowship, etc., find their close correspondence in Paul’s teaching on the Law and his criticism of the “works of the Law” as the means of justification.

 Jesus’ blessing the poor and helping the outcasts—the “sinners” according to the Law—who respond to his kingdom preaching is not only continuous with Paul’s outreach to the Gentiles but also with his doctrine of the “justification of the ungodly” sola gratia

Paul’s soteriology, owe an explanation as to why Paul replaced the language of kingdom chiefly with the language of justification. Certainly the reason must be seen against the background of “righteousness” being a central concern of the Jews,

 whether they were trying to earn salvation or remain in a saving covenant relationship with God by keeping the Law... 

Further, it is connected also with his own conversion from a zeal for Law-righteousness to receiving God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:13–16; Phil. 3:4–11).

 From that experience, Paul saw clearly God’s saving act in Jesus Christ as God’s righteousness, and he realized also that righteousness/justification was the best category for bringing out the grace character of salvation over against the Jewish conception of Law-righteousness-salvation.

Seyoon Kim, “Jesus, Sayings Of,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 483–484.

“When a man dies with Christ, he dies to all the social groupings of the old age and is raised as a member of the body of Christ …, incorporated into the new fellowship and the new family..., For Minear, body of Christ, new family, Israel, and new man are not expressions of distinct ecclesiology's but complementary images for the same reality.

 Further, the church is as exposed to the assaults of Satan as were Jesus and his first disciples. Indeed, “all the sins of the world: ambition and apathy, greed and hate, caste prejudice and adultery—yes, the whole repertoire of the devil’s lusts” are found in it.

 “Therefore, the Church finds its solidarity in the need for forgiveness, not in the achievement of a stated level of righteousness.… Any judgment of the tares [alluding to Matt 13:24–30] that proceeds from self-righteousness simply conceals the sins of the judges”.

 Still, each member “becomes a bearer of historical destiny,” just as Christ’s church is a “corporate bearer of historical destiny, with a mission for the whole world”.

 Important, then, is not what century we live in but whether we live in the old age or the new, for the battles and the issues are the same; 

“apart from faith, [we] belong to the same old age as did the unbelievers [in the first century]”.  

Leander E. Keck, “Foreword,” in Images of the Church in the New Testament, ed. C. Clifton Black, John T. Carroll, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), xxiv–xxv.

When the thing comes about of which the sketch was a type,

that which was to be, of which the type bore the likeness,

then the type is destroyed, it has become useless,

it yields up the image to what is truly real.

What was once valuable becomes worthless

when what is of true value appears.

To each then is its own time:

the type has its own time,

the material has its own time,

the reality has its own time.

So the type was valuable in advance of the reality

and the illustration was wonderful before its elucidation.

So the people were valuable before the Church arose,

and the law was wonderful before the illumination of the gospel.

But when the Church arose and the gospel came to be,

the type, depleted, gave up meaning to the truth:

and the law, fulfilled, gave up meaning to the gospel.

In the same way that the type is depleted,

conceding the image to what is intrinsically real,

and the analogy is brought to completion through the elucidation of interpretation,

so the law is fulfilled by the elucidation of the gospel,

and the people is depleted by the arising of the Church,

and the model is dissolved by the appearance of the Lord.

And today those things of value are worthless,

since the things of true worth have been revealed.

Melito of Sardis, On Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and Other Material Related to the Quartodecimans: Translation, ed. John Behr, trans. Alistair C. Stewart, Second edition, vol. 55, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016), 60–62.