I am not come to destroy
Christ's relation to the law of Moses may be thus summarized:
(1) He was made under the law Galatians 4:4 .
(2) He lived in perfect obedience to the law John 8:46 ; Matthew 17:5 ; 1 Peter 2:21-23 .
(3) he was a minister of the law to the Jews, clearing it from rabbinical sophistries, enforcing it in all its pitiless severity upon those who professed to obey it (e.g.) Luke 10:25-37 but confirming the promises made to the fathers under the Mosaic Covenant Romans 15:8 .
(4) He fulfilled the types of the law by His holy life and sacrificial death Hebrews 9:11-26 .
(5) He bore, vicariously, the curse of the law that the Abrahamic Covenant might avail all who believe Galatians 3:13 ; Galatians 3:14 .
(6) He brought out by His redemption all who believe from the place of servants under the law into the place of sons Galatians 4:1-7 .
(7) He mediated by His blood the New Covenant of assurance and grace in which all believers stand Romans 5:2 ; Hebrews 8:6-13 so establishing the "law of Christ" Galatians 6:2 with its precepts of higher exaltation made possible by the indwelling Spirit.
Verse Meaning
Jesus had just been speaking about the importance of His disciples demonstrating their righteousness publicly with their good works ( Matthew 5:16). Now He dealt with the more fundamental question of what true righteousness is. This was important to clarify since the religious leaders of His day misinterpreted righteousness and good works.
"The kinds of good deeds that enable light to be seen as light are now to be elaborated in the course of the sermon that follows. They are shown to be nothing other than the faithful living out of the commandments, the righteousness of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus." [1]Some of the Jews may have already concluded that Jesus was a radical who was discarding the teachings of the Old Testament, their law. Many others would begin to do so soon. Jesus prepared them for the incongruity between His teaching and their leaders" interpretations of the law by explaining His relationship to the Old Testament. [source][source][source]
"It seems likely that here Jesus is dealing with the charge of being antinomian since his controversies suggested an approach to the law that was different from traditional thinking. His reply shows that he seeks a standard that looks at the law from an internal, not an external, perspective." [1][source]
The terms "the Law" and "the Prophets" refer to two of the three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible, the third being "the Psalm" ( Luke 24:44). "The Law and the Prophets" was evidently the most common way Jews referred to the Old Testament in Jesus" day (cf. Matthew 7:12; Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; Acts 28:23; Romans 3:21). Jesus" introduced the subject of Scripture interpretation in this verse with this phrase. In Matthew 7:12 He concluded the subject with the same phrase. Thus the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" forms another inclusio within the body of the Sermon on the Mount and identifies the main subject that it encloses. [source][source][source]
Much debate has centered on what Jesus meant when He said He came to fulfill the Old Testament. [2] The first question Isaiah , Was Jesus referring to Himself when He said, "I came ... to fulfill," or was he referring to His teaching? Did He fulfill the law or did His teaching fulfill it? Since the contrast is "to abolish" the law, it seems probable that Jesus meant His teaching fulfilled the law. He did not intend that what He taught the people would replace the teaching of the Old Testament but fulfill (Gr. pleroo) or establish it completely. Of course, Jesus did fulfill Old Testament prophecy about Messiah, but that does not appear to be the primary subject in view here. The issue seems to be His teaching. [source][source][source]
Some interpreters conclude Jesus meant that He came to fulfill (keep) the moral law (the Ten Commandments) but that He abolished Israel"s civil and ceremonial laws. [3] However there is no basis for this distinction in this text or in any other New Testament text. Others believe that He meant He came to fill out its meaning, to expound its full significance that until then remained obscure. [4] This view rests on an unusual meaning of pleroo, and it seems inconsistent with Jesus" comment about the jot and tittle in Matthew 5:18. Still others believe Jesus meant that He came to extend the demands of the Old Testament law to new lengths. [5] This interpretation is improbable because the extension of law does not involve its abolition. Another view is that Jesus meant that He was introducing what the Law pointed toward, either by direct prediction or by typology. [6][source]
Probably Jesus meant that He came to establish the Old Testament fully, to add His authoritative approval to it. This view harmonizes with Matthew"s use of pleroo elsewhere (cf. Matthew 2:15). This does not mean He taught that the Mosaic Law remained in force for His disciples. He taught that it did not ( Mark 7:19). [7] Rather here Jesus authenticated the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God. [8] He wanted His hearers to understand that what He taught them in no way contradicted Old Testament revelation. [source][source][source]
"He disregarded the oral tradition, which they [9] held to be equal in authority to the written Law; and He interpreted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a way of His own. Above all, He spoke as if He Himself were an authority, independent of the Law." [10][source]
There is good evidence that the Jewish leaders regarded the traditional laws as, not just of equal authority with the Old Testament, but of greater authority. [11][source]
"It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by "fulfilling (plerosai) the Law." He does not mean taking the written Law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what he condemns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means rather starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to completeness; working out the spirit of it; getting at the comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of the letter. These Messiah sets forth as the essence of the revelation made by God through the Law and Prophets." [12][source]
Context Summary
Matthew 5:17-26 - New Heart Righteousness
Our Lord's mission was not to destroy but to construct. As noon fulfils dawn, and summer, spring; as manhood fulfils childhood and the perfect picture, the rude sketch, so does Jesus gather up, realize and make possible the highest ideals ever inspired in human hearts or written by God's Spirit on the page of inspiration.
Under the terms, "the law and the prophets," our Lord includes the entire range of the Old Testament. See Luke 24:44; Acts 13:15. Nothing could exceed our Lord's reverence for the oracles of God. He repeatedly refers to them as of divine authority. His words and teachings are the endorsement of the venerable Scriptures which had nourished His people, preparing them for His further instruction. See Romans 3:31; Romans 8:4.
The local magistrates' court had the power of life and death, which was inflicted by beheading; the Sanhedrin executed by stoning; the outrageous criminal was cast out to Gehenna, Matthew 5:22. In Christ's kingdom unwarranted anger is equivalent to the first, contempt to the second, and vehement passion to the third. To allow hate to smolder is a capital offence. [source]
Chapter Summary: Matthew 5
1Jesus' sermon on the mount: 3The Beattitudes; 13the salt of the earth; 14the light of the world 17He came to fulfill the law 21What it is to kill; 27to commit adultery; 33to swear 38He exhorts to forgive wrong, 43to love our enemies; 48and to labor after perfection
Greek Commentary for Matthew 5:17
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil [ουκ ηλτον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι] The verb “destroy” means to “loosen down” as of a house or tent (2 Corinthians 5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. “He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold” (McNeile). [source]
To destroy [καταλῦσαι] Lit., to loosen down, dissolve; Wyc., undo. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 5:17
Matthew 7:12That men should do unto you [ινα ποιωσιν μν οι αντρωποι] Luke (Luke 6:31) puts the Golden Rule parallel with Matthew 5:42. The negative form is in Tobit 4:15. It was used by Hillel, Philo, Isocrates, Confucius. “The Golden Rule is the distilled essence of that ‹fulfilment‘ (Matthew 5:17) which is taught in the sermon” (McNeile). Jesus puts it in positive form. [source]
Luke 9:12Lodge [καταλύσωσιν] Peculiar to Luke. Primarily the verb means to break up or dissolve. Hence often in New Testament to destroy (Matthew 5:17; Mark 13:2). Intransitively, to take up one's quarters; lodge; either because the harness of the travellers' horses is loosed, or because the fastenings of their garments are untied. The kindred word κατάλυμα , a guest-chamber, occurs, Mark 14:14; or inn, Luke 2:7. [source]
Luke 5:17He [αυτος] Luke sometimes has ην διδασκων autos in the nominative as unemphatic “he” as here, not “he himself.”Was teaching (ησαν κατημενοι ēn didaskōn). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom.Were sitting by Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no “by” in the Greek.Doctors of the law (ιεροδιδασκαλος nomodidaskaloi). A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come).Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem Edersheim (Jewish Social Life) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use “every village.” But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that John 4:1-4 shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in Matthew 23. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life.The power of the Lord was with him to heal (Κυριου dunamis Kuriou ēn eis to iāsthai auton). So the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: “Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus).” Here δυναμεις Kuriou refers to Jehovah.Dunamis (dynamite) is one of the common words for “miracles” What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion. [source]
Luke 5:17Were sitting by [νομοδιδασκαλοι] Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no “by” in the Greek.Doctors of the law (ιεροδιδασκαλος nomodidaskaloi). A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come).Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem Edersheim (Jewish Social Life) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use “every village.” But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that John 4:1-4 shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in Matthew 23. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life.The power of the Lord was with him to heal (Κυριου dunamis Kuriou ēn eis to iāsthai auton). So the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: “Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus).” Here δυναμεις Kuriou refers to Jehovah.Dunamis (dynamite) is one of the common words for “miracles” What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion. [source]
Luke 5:17Doctors of the law [ιεροδιδασκαλος] A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come). [source]
Luke 9:55But he turned [στραπεις δε] Second aorist passive participle of στρεπω strephō common verb, to turn round. Dramatic act. Some ancient MSS. have here: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of This sounds like Christ and may be a genuine saying though not a part of Luke‘s Gospel. A smaller number of MSS. add also: For the Son of Man came not to destroy men‘s lives, but to save them (ο γαρ υιος του αντρωπου ουκ ηλτεν πσυχας αντρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι Ho gar huios tou anthrōpou ouk ēlthen psuchas anthrōpōn apolesai alla sōsai), a saying reminding us of Matthew 5:17; Luke 19:10. Certain it is that here Jesus rebuked the bitterness of James and John toward Samaritans as he had already chided John for his narrowness towards a fellow-worker in the kingdom. [source]
Romans 10:4The end of the law [τέλος νόμου] First in the sentence as the emphatic point of thought. Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Galatians 3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Matthew 5:17. 3. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith. Compare Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:2-14. [source]
Parse: Verb, Aorist Subjunctive Active, 2nd Person Plural
Root: νομίζω
Sense: to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage.
Greek Commentary for Matthew 5:17
The verb “destroy” means to “loosen down” as of a house or tent (2 Corinthians 5:1). Fulfil is to fill full. This Jesus did to the ceremonial law which pointed to him and the moral law he kept. “He came to fill the law, to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold” (McNeile). [source]
Lit., to loosen down, dissolve; Wyc., undo. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 5:17
Luke (Luke 6:31) puts the Golden Rule parallel with Matthew 5:42. The negative form is in Tobit 4:15. It was used by Hillel, Philo, Isocrates, Confucius. “The Golden Rule is the distilled essence of that ‹fulfilment‘ (Matthew 5:17) which is taught in the sermon” (McNeile). Jesus puts it in positive form. [source]
Peculiar to Luke. Primarily the verb means to break up or dissolve. Hence often in New Testament to destroy (Matthew 5:17; Mark 13:2). Intransitively, to take up one's quarters; lodge; either because the harness of the travellers' horses is loosed, or because the fastenings of their garments are untied. The kindred word κατάλυμα , a guest-chamber, occurs, Mark 14:14; or inn, Luke 2:7. [source]
Luke sometimes has ην διδασκων autos in the nominative as unemphatic “he” as here, not “he himself.”Was teaching (ησαν κατημενοι ēn didaskōn). Periphrastic imperfect again like our English idiom.Were sitting by Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no “by” in the Greek.Doctors of the law (ιεροδιδασκαλος nomodidaskaloi). A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come).Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem Edersheim (Jewish Social Life) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use “every village.” But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that John 4:1-4 shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in Matthew 23. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life.The power of the Lord was with him to heal (Κυριου dunamis Kuriou ēn eis to iāsthai auton). So the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: “Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus).” Here δυναμεις Kuriou refers to Jehovah.Dunamis (dynamite) is one of the common words for “miracles” What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion. [source]
Periphrastic imperfect again. There is no “by” in the Greek.Doctors of the law (ιεροδιδασκαλος nomodidaskaloi). A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come).Out of every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem Edersheim (Jewish Social Life) observes that the Jews distinguished Jerusalem as a separate district in Judea. Plummer considers it hyperbole in Luke to use “every village.” But one must recall that Jesus had already made one tour of Galilee which stirred the Pharisees and rabbis to active opposition. Judea had already been aroused and Jerusalem was the headquarters of the definite campaign now organized against Jesus. One must bear in mind that John 4:1-4 shows that Jesus had already left Jerusalem and Judea because of the jealousy of the Pharisees. They are here on purpose to find fault and to make charges against Jesus. One must not forget that there were many kinds of Pharisees and that not all of them were as bad as these legalistic and punctilious hypocrites who deserved the indictment and exposure of Christ in Matthew 23. Paul himself is a specimen of the finer type of Pharisee which, however, developed into the persecuting fanatic till Jesus changed his whole life.The power of the Lord was with him to heal (Κυριου dunamis Kuriou ēn eis to iāsthai auton). So the best texts. It is neat Greek, but awkward English: “Then was the power of the Lord for the healing as to him (Jesus).” Here δυναμεις Kuriou refers to Jehovah.Dunamis (dynamite) is one of the common words for “miracles” What Luke means is that Jesus had the power of the Lord God to heal with. He does not mean that this power was intermittent. He simply calls attention to its presence with Jesus on this occasion. [source]
A compound word formed after analogy of γραμματεις hierodidaskalos but not found outside of the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, one of the very few words apparently N.T. in usage. It appears here and Acts 5:34; 1 Timothy 1:7. It is not likely that Luke and Paul made the word, but they simply used the term already in current use to describe teachers and interpreters of the law. Our word “doctor” is Latin for “teacher.” These “teachers of the law” are called elsewhere in the Gospels “scribes” (νομικος grammateis) as in Matthew and Mark (See note on Matthew 5:20; Matthew 23:34) and Luke 5:21; Luke 19:47; Luke 21:1; Luke 22:2. Luke also employs νομος nomikos (one skilled in the law, οι γραμματεις και οι Παρισαιοι nomos) as in Luke 10:25. One thinks of our LL.D. (Doctors of Civil and Canon Law), for both were combined in Jewish law. They were usually Pharisees (mentioned here for the first time in Luke) for which see note on Matthew 3:7, note on Matthew 5:20. Luke will often speak of the Pharisees hereafter. Not all the “Pharisees” were “teachers of the law” so that both terms often occur together as in Luke 5:21 where Luke has separate articles (οι ησαν εληλυτοτες hoi grammateis kai hoi Pharisaioi), distinguishing between them, though one article may occur as in Matthew 5:20 or no article as here in Matthew 5:17. Luke alone mentions the presence here of these Pharisees and doctors of the law “which were come” (εκ πασης κωμης της Γαλιλαιας και Ιουδαιας και Ιερουσαλημ hoi ēsan elēluthotes periphrastic past perfect active, had come). [source]
Second aorist passive participle of στρεπω strephō common verb, to turn round. Dramatic act. Some ancient MSS. have here: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of This sounds like Christ and may be a genuine saying though not a part of Luke‘s Gospel. A smaller number of MSS. add also: For the Son of Man came not to destroy men‘s lives, but to save them (ο γαρ υιος του αντρωπου ουκ ηλτεν πσυχας αντρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι Ho gar huios tou anthrōpou ouk ēlthen psuchas anthrōpōn apolesai alla sōsai), a saying reminding us of Matthew 5:17; Luke 19:10. Certain it is that here Jesus rebuked the bitterness of James and John toward Samaritans as he had already chided John for his narrowness towards a fellow-worker in the kingdom. [source]
First in the sentence as the emphatic point of thought. Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Galatians 3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Matthew 5:17. 3. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith. Compare Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:2-14. [source]
Christ put a stop to the law as a means of salvation (Romans 6:14; Romans 9:31; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14) as in Luke 16:16. Christ is the goal or aim of the law (Galatians 3:24). Christ is the fulfilment of the law (Matthew 5:17; Romans 13:10; 1 Timothy 1:5). But here (Denney) Paul‘s main idea is that Christ ended the law as a method of salvation for “every one that believeth” whether Jew or Gentile. Christ wrote finis on law as a means of grace. [source]