Old Testament (I. Christ As Fulfilment Of)
Old Testament (I. Christ As Fulfilment Of) [1]
Old Testament ( I. Christ as fulfilment of).† [Note: On the Ot of Jesus see following article.]
1. The ideals of life found in the Ot by Jesus. —Jesus’ conception of the life of the Ot is that of the life which is proper to the children of God (Matthew 5-7). It is the normal relation of fellowship between God and His children, obedience to God and to His messengers ( Matthew 7:24). The life for which the prophets laboured, that which they represented as the ideal, was adopted by Him as the ideal, and their labours were continued by Him. He claimed no less an authority to carry on the development of the ideal than the greatest of the prophets had exercised. As the prophet taught ( Isaiah 50:10) that those loyal to Jehovah should obey His representative, so did Jesus when He combined such sayings as ‘He that doeth the will of my Father’ ( Matthew 7:21), and ‘He that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them’ ( Matthew 7:24, Luke 6:45-49).
The Ot ideal of religious life was the earlier stage of a religious development which He came to continue. It needed no essential change to become that which He wished to establish. It was characterized by an imperative demand for a righteousness which consisted in a thoroughgoing obedience to God, and this was just what Jesus demanded and exemplified. Moreover, while Jesus taught that the ideal of life was to be found in the Ot, He was far from teaching that all that was in the Ot contributed to this ideal. When He had occasion, He expressly taught that even the lawgiver, Moses, permitted practices which belonged to a lower plane of living than that of the principles contained in the Ot. There was so much in the human heart that was hostile to these principles, that for a time a standard of life lower than these ideals was permitted ( Matthew 19:8).
Jesus, like the prophets, was certain that the religious life for which He laboured was to become a universal religion. His claim of permanence for His utterances ( Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) was also a claim that His teachings had the changeless quality of the word of God under the Old Covenant ( Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:10-11; cf. Isaiah 51:6), and of God’s law under the New ( Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17). Words uttered by Him when the Greeks sought to see Him ( John 12:32), were an assumption to Himself personally of the universal significance for human history which the prophets ( Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:14) had claimed for the religion of Jehovah. This claim to a unique place in human history and identification of Himself with those lofty utterances of the Ot, show that in the mind of Jesus the religious life of the Ot had a unique place among the religions of the world. This is equally seen in His declaration to the Samaritan woman ( John 4:22), ‘Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know: for salvation is of the Jews.’
Jesus addressed His hearers constantly as having the true religion, as nominally recognizing the true and living God, and as needing to do no more than live up to their own religion. He saw in the Ot a universal ideal of society, and the principles for a programme of its establishment. The ideal society was one in which the lost should have been saved; into which the called and chosen should have been gathered; in which the repentant should have found pardon, the distressed and scattered should have found comfort; the members of which should love God supremely, and each other as themselves, and should be humble, meek, and pure in heart. During the progress of the establishment of this society, those who belonged to it would be called upon to be merciful, to hunger and thirst after righteousness to be peacemakers, to endure persecution for righteousness’ sake patiently, to love enemies, to devote themselves to God without pretence and with singleness of mind; and yet to live lives of radiant goodness, to bring forth an abundant fruitage of beneficence for the sake of Jesus and in His name, to observe the duties which grow out of the natural relations of life, to lose their lives for His sake and the gospel’s, to seek first this ideal society arid God’s righteousness, to go to Jesus and take His yoke upon themselves, and look upon a life of lowliest ministry as the life of highest honour.
In these conceptions Jesus was developing the Ot ideal, as will be seen later. An important element in developing the ideal was a maturing of the conception of God. Since Jesus was an ‘Ot saint’ (A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament , 520), the Ot God was His God. Moses had been able to add new elements of meaning to Israel’s conception of God in connexion with the name ‘Jehovah.’ Jesus made a further advance by using the Ot word ‘Father’ as applied to God, making it the dominant name in His own thought, and reading into this dominant conception of Fatherhood all the Ot elements of the thought of God. Jesus so enlarged the conception of God that He practically gave a new revelation as the basis of the new development of religious life which He was promoting. This enlargement came in part from replacing the name ‘Jehovah’ by the name ‘Father,’ partly by the assumption on His part of a unique Sonship into which none of His disciples might enter ( Matthew 11:27), partly by the new place given to the Spirit which was no more than adumbrated in the Ot.
In these views Jesus was at variance with many of the people among whom He lived. The Jews at large were incapable of understanding them. For Pharisees and Sadducees the Ot was a finality. It was a full and complete law incapable of further development. It was to be accomplished, fulfilled, simply by obedience to its letter. Prophecy was formal and literal, and their interpretations were often puerile. The Apocryphal literature shows how far short they fell of the ideals of the ancient prophets in spite of their ethical zeal. There was attachment to noble ethical ideals, and desire to attain them, and yet blindness to the real nature of these ideals. There was a lack of insight into the nature of their own religion, and an incapacity to live anywhere except on the surface of things.
2. Jesus and the Law. —Jesus found in the Ot not only the ideal of a life, but also commandments, moral and ritual, by which this ideal was to be realized. It is certain that He regarded the Ot as supremely authoritative for the conduct of life. He so accepted it and used it. He emphasized it as giving an authoritative revelation or the mind and will of God. He met temptation ( Matthew 4:4; Matthew 4:7; Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:4; Luke 4:12; Luke 4:8) with precepts for life ( Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 6:16; Deuteronomy 6:13), which exactly fitted the emergency. He also referred to the Ten Commandments as specific directions for conduct ( Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10 a; Matthew 19:18-19 a, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20). He treated the Ot as giving authoritative legislation when ( Matthew 22:37; Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:29-31, Luke 10:28) He quoted or approved other commands found in the Law ( Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18; Leviticus 19:34) as chief rules for life. His practice is not the only indication of His mind. He made a definite declaration of principles, and gave abundant illustration of what He meant by it. The Sermon on the Mount is luminous on this point: Matthew 5:17 f. ‘Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil’; cf. Luke 16:17.
His words to John the Baptist ( Matthew 3:15 ‘Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness’) show that His conception of fulfilment included His own personal performance of any and every duty which was incumbent upon Him according to the Law, so that nothing should be wanting to His full performance of every human duty. In other utterances, as John 4:34; John 5:36; John 17:4, His use of τελέω shows that His idea of fulfilment meant the completion of the tasks laid upon Him to accomplish. It should be borne in mind that He considered, and even claimed, that His conduct and will were in perfect harmony with the will of God ( Matthew 7:21; Matthew 12:50, Mark 3:35, Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42, John 5:30; John 6:38; John 8:46). This is a real and important mode of His fulfilment of the Law. If He did no more, it would be small help to those who were to preach the gospel. He did it because He was able to do far more, He was able to complete the Law as a law, i.e. to bring it to its perfection as a law. See, further, artt. Law and Law of God.
One wishes to find a olear utterance of the mind of Jesus respecting the imprecatory Psalms. Perhaps it is to be found in Matthew 5:44. If the basis of the current Jewish morality respecting revenge found support, as some think, in Psalms 41:11, (10) (‘But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon me, and raise me up, that I may requite them’) and the imprecatory Psalms, then we find the mind of Jesus in respect of those Psalms an expression of feelings which belong to the individual relations in life. Hate, divorce, and revenge are contrary to the principles of the society which Jesus came to establish, and they have no place in His ideal Kingdom.
The Ot often had an ideal in solution, as it were, which in the mind of Jesus was precipitated into crystals of perfect and imperishable form. An illustration is the inchoate ideal of Job 31:29 ‘If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him’; cf. Proverbs 24:17 ‘Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be glad when he is overthrown’; Proverbs 24:29 ‘Say not, I will do so to him as he has done to me, I will render to the man according to his work’; Proverbs 20:22 ‘Say not thou, I will recompense evil; wait on the Lord, and he will save thee’; Proverbs 25:21 ‘If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink’; Exodus 23:4-5 ‘If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him’; 1 Samuel 24:4-8 the example of David in sparing the life of Saul when he had him in his power; also the similar instance of Elisha in sparing the Syrians ( 2 Kings 6:22); Psalms 7:5 b (4b) ‘Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary.’ These were expressions of an ideal as yet unformed; passing through the mind of Jesus, they appear in the form, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you’ ( Matthew 5:44), or more completely in Luke 6:27 b, Luke 6:28 ‘Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ And they are exemplified in His prayer on the cross, Luke 23:34 ‘Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do’ (on this verse see Westcott-Hort, Gr. Test. ii. pp. 67, 68).
The ideal of true life found in the Ot was fellowship with God. The necessary condition of such a life was perfect obedience to the law of love. Jesus found these principles in the literature of the Ot, and their authority came from the Spirit, who moulded the life of which the Ot was a growth.
3. Jesus and prophecy. —The recorded utterances of Jesus seem to indicate that He laid as real stress on the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Ot as He did upon the fulfilment of the Law. This was a necessary consequence of the conviction that the ideal was to be realized. In Law and Prophets alike Jesus found declarations of the Divine purposes in human history, and intimations of the programme of the accomplishment of this purpose. In respect to the latter He expressed a firm confidence that the will of God as declared in the Law should be accomplished. In the Law and the Prophets He found intimations of Himself, of His experiences, and of the relation of these experiences to the establishment of the Kingdom. ‘Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life’ ( John 5:39). Were the intimations which Jesus found in the Prophets detailed and exact predictions which He was to fulfil? How did He look at the Ot in relation to His own life? Did the Messianic conceptions of Jesus come chiefly from predictions which He found in the Ot? Early in His ministry ( Luke 4:21), after reading from Isaiah 61:1-2 He said, ‘To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears.’ He continued, and the contents of His speech are described (Lukr 4:22a), ‘And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth.’ What these words of grace may have been is left to our conjecture. They may have been like the answer sent to John the Baptist at another time, which seems to show that Jesus regarded the work He was doing in preaching good news to the poor, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, as the fulfilment of the utterance of the prophet in this passage. But also the fact that He Himself was doing this work was seen by Jesus as a fulfilment of that prophecy. It is only reasonable to interpret the words of Jesus as affirming that He regarded Himself ‘personally as included within the scope of the passage. Again, ‘For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment’ ( Luke 22:37). ‘That which concerneth me’ probably means that which in the Divine counsel concerned Him, whether written or unwritten. The words quoted by Him from Isaiah 53:12 were a part of the Divine counsel, according to the thought of Jesus. He says in effect: This utterance includes me within its scope and finds its culmination and perfect realization in my experience. The same may be said of the following, ‘But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me’ ( John 13:18); ‘But this Cometh to pass that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause’ ( John 15:25), i.e. ‘the words of the Ot find their completion in my experience.’
All the most important utterances of Jesus concerning fulfilment of Ot prophecy found in His work or experience were attached to no specific Scripture passage, and furthermore we are unable to find a specific Ot utterance as the basis. This is a very significant fact, and deserves more careful attention than was needed in the case of the passages just mentioned; cf. Matthew 26:54 ‘How then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?’; Matthew 26:56 ‘But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled’; less fully in Mark 14:49 ‘But this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled’; Luke 18:31 ‘And he took unto him twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of Man.’ Most important of all are Luke 24:26-27; Luke 24:44-47 ‘Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.… And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures, and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’ In these passages Jesus taught plainly that the Ot testified that His death and resurrection were necessary antecedents to the preaching of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. In other words, according to Jesus, the Ot clearly showed that His death and resurrection were a necessity in the Divine economy. The exact nature of this necessity has not been preserved in the record of the teachings of Jesus. We may say that in harmony with Scripture we should regard this necessity as not due to any arbitrariness on God’s part, or to any necessity of a mechanical conformity to the utterances in the Ot. Rather, in the nature of things, it was due to the hardness of the human heart, which necessitated such experiences on the part of a Saviour in order to overcome its hardness.
It is quite significant that no one passage is quoted or mentioned in the reports of the teaching of Jesus given by Him after His resurrection. Yet He taught His disciples explicitly that His sufferings, death, and resurrection were necessary in order to fulfil the Ot. Further, the disciples, after they understood the Scriptures, also saw the necessity of the death and resurrection. For the most part, the early utterances of the Apostles, as recorded in the Book of Acts, show the same reticence respecting specific Ot passages which Jesus had shown.
We must believe that in its general tenor the Apostles taught what they had learned of Jesus. Is it not possible that the speech of Stephen before the Sanhedrin gives us very nearly the character of the teaching of Jesus? This is an argument from broad historical analogies and principles rather than a use of particular passages. In support of this suggestion we may turn to the utterances of Jesus, before His crucifixion, respecting His sufferings. See art. Announcements of Death.
The only passages of the Ot which Jesus is recorded as having quoted in any relation to His sufferings are Psalms 35:19; Psalms 41:9 (Hebrew 10) Psalms 69:4 (Hebrews 5), Isaiah 53:12, and Zechariah 13:7. Did Jesus see specific predictions in these passages?
Before attempting to answer this question, it will be well to note what He said respecting the suffering of others than Himself which was due to their religious activities. He affirmed that in the past the world had been bitterly hostile towards those who worked for the doing of God’s will on earth. In Matthew 5:11 f., Luke 11:47-49, and similar passages, Jesus called to mind the fact that God’s messengers to His people had encountered bitter hostility throughout the past. In passages like Matthew 10:17; Matthew 10:22; Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 23:29-31; Matthew 23:34; Matthew 23:37, Mark 10:30, Luke 12:49-53; Luke 13:34, John 15:18-25; John 17:14-15. He showed that such hostility is inevitable in the progress of His Kingdom. The spirit and methods of the world in the midst of which His Kingdom must develop are wholly alien to those of the Kingdom, therefore Jesus must meet hostility, and so must His disciples. The work of Jesus in the establishment of the Kingdom was conditioned by a long historical development which had already been centuries in progress when He came.
A long-continued historical movement, however complex, tending toward one goal has a substantial unity of character in all stages of its development. The various attitudes assumed by men towards the great features of such a movement are substantially the same from generation to generation, from age to age. Human beings persistently manifest their attitude in modes that are practically identical. Hence arise the oft-noted historical parallels. The fact that at one stage of a movement persons may act as persons do at another stage is the essential element of a historical parallel. In a long-continued development of a specific character nearly identical situations will often be repeated, and nearly identical experiences will often occur.
More noteworthy than mere historical parallels is the substantial identity of moral attitude and conduct seen in the persons whose experiences constitute the historical parallels. These facts can be verified from the political life of all peoples which has been recorded and transmitted to us. Nay, even movements separated widely in time and place, and not in the direct lines of historical development, give striking instances of historical parallels, and substantial identity of human character and conduct. This is notably exemplified in the entire history of the attempt to establish an ideal society, from Moses until the present day. Every attempt of men to establish the coming perfect society had some likeness to the labours which were to follow it. Every person, therefore, who shared in the earlier parts of the work in some respect foreshadowed those who should come later, including Him who should complete it. The earlier is the type of the later. So the persons in the earlier stages were typical of those in the later stages. So also were the Institutions which were auxiliary to the labours of these persons, or instrumental in their hands, typical of elements involved in the final accomplishment of the work to which they contributed. The later experiences are more complex than the earlier ones. For this reason we may say that the earlier ones foreshadowed the later, but we do not say that the earlier ones show with anything like exactness what the later ones were to be. Nevertheless, there is so much of likeness that similar language may often be used respecting them both. The names or descriptions of the earlier may, in a measure, fit the later. It was thus that Jesus properly gave the name Elijah to John the Baptist ( Matthew 17:10-13), and appropriated for him the utterance in Malachi 4:5 (Heb. 3:23), as He had done more explicitly ( Matthew 11:10-14) in the use of Malachi 3:1.
It is a most noteworthy fact that men who would gain power over others to secure their, transformation of character, must gain that power by self-denial and suffering. This was the philosophy of history given by Deutero-Isaiah. It was recognized by Stephen in his address before the Sanhedrin. Is it likely that Jesus had any less insight into the meaning of the history of His race, and the nature of the work which He had to do, than the prophet of the Exile? The teachings of Jesus show that He saw that the ideal state of society could come only by means of a contest with human selfishness and victory over it. The conflict presents essentially the same aspects in all stages of its progress. A successful issue of any long struggle is the consummation of all the previous stages of that struggle. Any complete realization of an ideal sought in the past is the consummation of that ideal. Also any conflict or experience securing the consummation of the ideal is equally the consummation of those seemingly fruitless conflicts and sufferings in the previous stages of the striving after the ideal. The history of redemption is organic. All the earlier stages typify the later ones.
Among other things, two facts have come to clear recognition at some stage in this discussion. One is that Jesus knew that the society which He was labouring to establish, the Kingdom of God, was certain to be established, and that both the chief place in the establishment of it and the supreme place in it after its establishment belonged to Him. The other fact is that Jesus recognized the inevitable and deeply rooted antagonism which He and His society must encounter and overcome, and that the way of suffering was the only path by which He could reach the goal of success. The conviction of the certainty of the establishment of the Kingdom of God must accordingly carry with it the conviction that all the conflicts and sufferings necessary to the establishment of this Kingdom were equally certain. Without doubt, Jesus saw in the Ot Scriptures those experiences narrated and depicted which were necessary as the conditions of accomplishing the work which belonged to the establishment of the Kingdom of God. He claimed that He was establishing the Kingdom, that the foremost place in it belonged to Him, and that the position of men in the Kingdom was determined by relation to Himself. Accordingly He, the pre-eminent agent in the establishment of the Kingdom, in order to accomplish the purpose for which He was labouring, must accept into His experience all the trial and conflict which could befall any person engaged in the same work. Ot prophecy, therefore, as a programme of the establishment of the Kingdom, depicted the experiences and labours of God’s servants, which were an unavoidable part of their work in achieving the results which they sought. The Synoptics record the sense of Jesus that sufferings prophesied in connexion with the establishment of the Kingdom were necessary (δεῖ, Matthew 16:21 et al. ). He saw that the goal was certain to be reached, and that the Ot representation of the toils, sufferings, and experiences necessary for the accomplishment of the labour which He was to perform concerned Him more fully than they concerned any one else, because the chief place in the Kingdom was His. So all the partial successes and the unsuccessful attempts in past generations to establish the ideal society were prophetic of what must come before the goal should be reached.
We must believe that this typical nature of the Ot records and prophecy was that which Jesus had in His mind when He applied the Ot prophecies to Himself. This is a principle, and the use which Jesus made of the Ot in ethical and spiritual matters was so prevalently that of principle, that it is most natural to regard the use of prophecy as that of principle. Like the Semitic mode of presenting principles by concrete examples, so was His use of the Ot Scriptures by definite illustrations and allusions to individuals. The instances noted above of the use of Isaiah 53:12, Zechariah 13:7, Psalms 41:9 (Hebrew 10) Psalms 35:19; Psalms 69:4 (Hebrews 5), may all without violence be interpreted as concrete illustrations of principles, instead of being regarded as citations of specific predictions of His individual experience. Jesus saw in Himself the fulfilment of all that belonged to the life of conflict which must be met by any of the members of the Kingdom of blessing, and of all that belonged to the work of deliverance of the people from those habits of life which enslaved them, and which might render them liable to re-enslavement after having once experienced some release.
The view thus derived from the broad consideration of the teaching of Jesus is supported by the various words conveying the idea of fulfilment in respect to the Ot utterances and their relation to the experiences of Jesus (τληρόω, Matthew 26:54; Matthew 26:56, Mark 14:49, Luke 4:21; Luke 24:44, John 13:18; John 15:25; John 17:12; ἀναιτηριω, Matthew 13:14; πίμπληαι Luke 21:22; τέλος, Luke 22:37; τελεω, Luke 18:31; Luke 22:37, John 19:30). The study of these passages gives the idea of the completion of the incomplete, the culmination of a process, as was the case in the use of the first of the above words when applied to the Law. e.g. Matthew 13:14; the generation of Jesus exemplified in their conduct, more fully than any previous generation could have done, that wilful blindness, that spiritual insusceptibility described in Isaiah 6:9-10. Thus in the experience of Jesus He thought that nothing was to be lacking of the element of differing which was the indispensable condition of His entering into the fulness of power needed by the Messiah. Since He was the One who should perfect the work for which so many before Him had toiled and suffered, He must gain His power by the same method as they, for the very nature of things made this a necessity, and His experience must fulfil theirs by taking up into it every variety known by them, and fill out to complete realization every type of suffering by which one must enter into power. He needed greater power than others, hence He must suffer much more than they.
It is to be noted that the large and broad conception of prophecy which is evident in the words of Jesus is not equally evident in the writings of the Evangelists. Mark and Luke make little use of prophecy, and present no variation from the method of Jesus. Matthew and John had much more use for Ot prophecy. As Orientals, they also would naturally follow the example of Jesus in the use of the common method of teaching by illustration. Those passages which in the mouth of Jesus would be of illustrative value were often stated by the Evangelists so as to seem the fulfilments of strict predictions. The following are passages of this sort: Matthew 1:22-23; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:17-18; Matthew 2:23; Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:17-21; Matthew 21:4-5; Matthew 27:9-10, John 2:17; John 12:14-16; John 19:24; John 19:36-37. See, further, art. Prophecy.
Literature.—Beyschlag, Nt Theol. , English translation bk. i. chs. i.–v.; Stevens, Nt Theol. 1904, pp. 17–28, Edinburgh; B. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. of Nt , English translation 1888–1889, vol. i. § 24; Nösgen, Gesch. der Nt offenbarung , erster Band, ‘Gesch. Jesu Christi,’ 1891; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus , vol. i. p. 173 to vol. ii. p. 48; Tholuck, Die Bergrede Christi 5, 1872 [English translation from 4th German ed., Edinburgh, 1860, pp. 115–144]; Votaw, art. ‘Sermon on the Mount’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Ext. Vol. pp. 22–25; see also the Comm. on Matthew 5:17-18; Baur, Nt Theol. 46–60; Kähler, Jesus und das At [Note: T Altes Testament.] , 1896; Lechler, Sk [Note: K Studien und Kritiken.] , 1854, p. 787 ff., ‘Das Alte Testament in den Reden Jesu’; Macfarland, Jesus and the Prophets , 1905; R. Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Law , 1886; S. Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the Nt , 1905, pp. 57–133; Meinhold, Jesus und das At [Note: T Altes Testament.] , 1896; Osiander, ‘Die Stellung Jesu zum Gesetz’ in Sk [Note: K Studien und Kritiken.] , 1890, p. 103 ff.; Peters, ‘Christ’s Treatment of the Ot’ in Jbl [Note: Bl Journal of Biblical Literature.] , 1896, vol. xv. pp. 87–105; P. Ewald, ‘Zu Matthew 5:17-19’ in Zkwl [Note: Kwl Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchl Leben.] , 1886, pp. 499–518; of. also Orelli, ib. 1884, pp. 283–291.
