in favour of human tradition, He lays down the principle that nothing which passes into a man from without can defile him, but only what comes out of the heart (Mark vii. 15 ff.). But this principle mass of the Old

virtually invalidated the whole Testament legislation, which had reference to defilement through external influences and conditions. And by appealing to the Divine command given at creation in regard to marriage, He established His deliverance in regard to the Mosaic precept concerning the putting away of a wife, declaring that it was only given on account of the hardness of men's heart, and was not in accordance with God's own will in respect to marriage (Mark x. 2 ff.). In addition to all these utterances, which indicate a divergence between the kind of righteousness which He taught and that of the Old Testament revelation, we have also the fact that He cannot have overlooked the difference between the benefits of the kingdom of God as He proclaimed them and the hopes of the future which were conveyed by the prophetic writings. And, in emphasising the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises through His ministry, He must have been conscious of a very important difference, from an external point of view, between those promises and this fulfilment; nor did He by any means hold out the prospect to His disciples that the Old Testament would find even in the future a realisation that would be literally exact in all particulars.

How can we reconcile this clear expression of conscious freedom towards the Old Testament revelation in the Holy Scripture, and this open divergence of

His teaching from the contents of Scripture, with the fact that Jesus at the same time appeals to the authority of the Old Testament revelation, and has made the neglect of it a reproach to His opponents? This has at first the appearance of inconsistency or arbitrariness on the part of Jesus, as if, in spite of reserving for Himself freedom of divergence from the Old Testament revelation, He yet appealed to its authority, where it was convenient for Him, or where He could argue e concessis with others. We must inquire how this apparent inconsistency was reconciled in His consciousness, and wherein He found the inner right, in spite of His own open divergence from the Old Testament revelation, to claim its Divine authority as testimony for Himself.

2. Jesus Himself has given a compendious general declaration in regard to His relation to the Old Testament revelation, in that saying in the Sermon on the Mount whereby He makes the transition from the introductory beatitudes to the special exposition of the theme of His discourse: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. v. 17). This saying is followed by the emphatic assertion that, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle should not pass from the law without fulfilment (ver. 18f.). Thereupon He declares that the righteousness of those who enter the kingdom of heaven must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (ver. 20); and then He shows, by several examples, how the commandments laid down by Him for the members of the kingdom of God are other and

greater than those given to "them of old time" (ver. 21 ff.). We must endeavour to understand the first saying (ver. 17) so as to find in it the groundwork of the sayings which follow, and the solution of their apparent contradictions.

The main question is, how the idea of "fulfilling (npov) is here to be interpreted. The idea, which in its etymological sense is applicable to the filling of a hollow vessel to repletion, denotes, in its secondary application, to declarations first of all, and usually their fulfilment through a corresponding practical realisation. In other words, it signifies, in reference to sayings which express a hope or promise, a fulfilment by the actual accomplishment of the object, or condition of things, hoped for or promised (e.g. Luke iv. 21, etc.); and, in reference to sayings which imply a wish or command, it denotes their fulfilment through the practical realisation of the wish, or carrying out of the command (e.g. Rom. viii. 4; xiii. 8). Can such a fulfilment by practical realisation be meant in our passage, where Anpour is spoken of in connection with the law and the prophets? We may first consider the fulfilment which Jesus was conscious of accomplishing for the Old Testament promises, inasmuch as He knew that He was the promised Messiah, and that the kingdom of God, announced and established by Him, was the realisation of the prophetic hope of Israel. If we considered the passage in question apart from its connection, this explanation would certainly appear the simplest and readiest, since the "law and the prophets" can quite well be taken together as witnesses

to the Old Testament hopes and promises (cf. Matt. xi. 13). But the connection of our passage tells decidedly against this interpretation. For throughout the remaining portions of this discourse, the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises, which Jesus Himself indicated, and which He effected by His teaching and ministry, is not treated. The discourse is occupied thenceforth only with the true righteousness whereby men must fulfil the will of God, and with the relation in which the commands of Jesus, in regard to this righteousness, stand towards the legal ordinances hitherto enjoined, and to the methods of righteousness hitherto recognised.

The subsequent portion of the discourse appears to favour the other signification, viz. that the "fulfilment" of the "law and the prophets," referred to in our passage, means the fulfilment of the Old Testament revelation of law through the complete practical performance of the revealed will of God. “Law and prophets" can certainly be taken together as expressing the vehicle of the Old Testament revelation of the will of God (cf. Matt. vii. 12; Luke xvi. 29, 31), in so far as the Mosaic revelation of law was expanded and expounded by the prophets. And since, in the words which immediately follow, it is just the necessity of the complete and exact practical fulfilment of the law by the members of the kingdom of God which is emphasised by Jesus (vers. 18-20), it seems to be a thought quite suited to the connection, that Jesus should make that declaration as to the law and the prophets the introduction to His teaching of the highest practical

righteousness. He Himself had come for the purpose of bringing about the complete practical fulfilment of the Old Testament revelation of the will of God.' But weighty considerations present themselves against this explanation. If in ver. 17 the practical fulfilment of the Old Testament law is meant, we must also afterwards, in vers. 18 and 19, understand the law, whose indefeasible authority and strictest observance Jesus teaches and commands, as the Old Testament law in its historically existing elements. But could Jesus so unreservedly say that the historically existing elements of the Old Testament revelation of law remained of inviolable authority for Himself and His disciples? Could He mean that His disciples must perfectly fulfil the law in that sense, or that He had Himself come for the purpose of fulfilling it in that sense? Would not His words, if used in this sense, stand in evident contradiction to His consciousness, elsewhere so frequently and plainly expressed, of His own and His disciples' freedom in regard to the whole domain of the ceremonial legislation prescribed in the Old Testament? Would they not especially stand in irremediable antagonism to the further utterances of Jesus which immediately follow in this very discourse, where He opposes to the commands of the Old Testament law His own higher precepts, which do not merely carry forward and expand, but which directly abrogate, at least in part, those earlier commands? (Matt. v. 38 ff.). If in ver. 17 we are to understand the idea of the "fulfilment'

1 Cf. B. Weiss, Matthäusevangelium, p. 148.

"