"Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law" by Greg Welty

Carson’s Exposition of Mt 5:17-48

v. 17: is ‘fulfill’ / ‘pleroo’ confirmatory or eschatological?

Its eschatological sense

In Mt 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill [pleroo]."
Carson argues that we must take the pleroo of v. 17 in an eschatological sense of the law and the prophets ‘prophetically foreshadowing’ and ‘pointing to’ Christ, rather than in a confirmatory sense of Jesus confirming / validating / establishing the law. Carson argues from both Septuagint (LXX) and Matthean usage.
With respect to the LXX, Carson rejects the meaning of pleroo as ‘establish’ or ‘confirm,’ because "the LXX never uses pleroo (‘fulfill’) to render qum or cognates (which prefer histanai or bebaioun [‘establish’ or ‘confirm’])." Rather, "the verb pleroo renders male and means ‘to fulfill.’"
With respect to Matthean usage, Carson notes the ‘formula quotations’ throughout the gospel of Matthew, wherein an OT text is cited, and is then said to be ‘fulfilled’ (pleroo) in the NT.

Carson lists sixteen Matthean references to ‘fulfillment’ in his "Introduction 11.b Prophecy and fulfillment." And in each case it is clear that an OT prediction or event is not ‘confirmed’ or ‘validated’ or ‘established’ by its NT fulfilment, but rather that the OT prediction or event prophetically foreshadows and points to its NT fulfilment. There is an explicitly eschatological sense to the Matthean usage of pleroo throughout his gospel, and it would appear to be extreme special pleading to make Mt 5:17 the sole exception to this rule.
Thus Carson concludes with respect to v. 17: "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… Therefore we give pleroo (‘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 (see on 2:15). A little later Jesus insists that ‘all the Prophets and the Law prophesied’ (11:13). The manner of the prophetic foreshadowing varies. The Exodus, Matthew argues (2:15), foreshadows the calling out of Egypt of God’s ‘son.’"
To summarise: what one is led to believe by this comparison, then, is that even as we learn from Mt 2:15 that Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled by the child Jesus residing in Egypt, so we learn from Mt 5:17 that the Law and the Prophets as a whole are fulfilled in Jesus, for they prophesied about and pointed to him.¹

I am persuaded by Carson’s analysis at this point (as well as the similar analysis of Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses). The most plausible view is to take the pleroo in Mt 5:17 in an eschatological sense, rather than the confirmatory sense (famously championed by Greg Bahnsen, among others). In v. 17, Jesus fulfils the law and the prophets, not because he came to confirm, establish, or validate the law, but because the law finds its completion and realisation in him. That is, the entirety of the law and the prophets points to him and prophetically foreshadows him.
Even with respect to the law, this can be beautifully demonstrated in a number of ways. Jesus fulfils a sacrificial ordinance by becoming a sacrifice once for all. Jesus fulfils special-revelational temporal penology (as opposed to common-grace penology) by suffering capital punishment. Jesus fulfils the Mosaic law of divorce by standing as the wronged partner, divorcing that partner, refraining from insisting on the penal maximum for that partner, and eventually achieving reconciliation with that partner despite her indecency. We could multiply examples. Truly it is the law and not just the prophets which prophesy Christ, and are therefore eschatologically (as well as literally) fulfilled in Christ.

Its relevance to the antitheses

Carson’s position

However, Carson goes further than simply affirming an eschatological sense to the pleroo of v. 17. He goes on to argue that this eschatological sense has direct relevance for interpreting the antitheses of vv. 21-48.2 What is the connection which Carson makes? Immediately after defending his eschatological interpretation of the pleroo in v. 17 (cited above), Carson asserts that, "In the light of the antitheses (vv. 21-48), the passage before us insists that just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching."
Careful readers will note that we have here an analogy of sorts ("just as… so…"), and in fact Carson’s distinctive approach to the antitheses rests upon this analogy. Jesus came to fulfil the law and the prophets. How did Jesus fulfil OT prophecies? Carson says, "by his person and actions." And how did Jesus fulfil OT law? Carson says, "by his teaching." Both types of ‘fulfilment’ are allegedly in view in v. 17, according to Carson, and the meaning of pleroo must be recognised as extending to both. Thus, we have two sets of eschatological terminii. On the one hand, OT prophecies prophetically foreshadowed and pointed to the person and actions of Jesus, and on the other hand, OT laws prophetically foreshadowed and pointed to the teaching of Jesus. Prophecies point to persons and actions, while laws point to teachings. Thus, when we come to the antitheses, we are being shown how laws pleroo laws, how OT laws point to Jesus’ ethical teaching. Thus at the very least, the content of the OT law Jesus treats in vv. 21-48 is different from the content of Jesus’ ethical teaching, for according to Carson, Jesus is "showing the direction in which it points."
What are we to make of this analogy, that just as prophecies eschatologically point to persons and actions, so OT laws eschatologically point to NT laws? Well, with respect to the analogy’s first half (prophecies point to persons and actions), no doubt Jesus did fulfil OT prophecies by his person and actions, as Mt 2:15 and countless other passages in Matthew and elsewhere bear out. For those prophecies pointed to him, by predicting and picturing the details of his life and ministry. And no doubt even some laws pointed to persons and actions, for as Carson points out, "many cultic regulations of the OT" did point "to Jesus and are now obsolete," as the writer to the Hebrews tells us. For those cultic regulations typified and pictured the Lamb of God who was to come.
But do we have grounds to extend these cases (abundantly testified throughout the NT) to the case of laws pointing to teachings? This is precisely what Carson has done, and it is this inference which must be scrutinised. Now, perhaps in the abstract this extension of the meaning of pleroo could be construed as plausible. I suppose it is theoretically possible for one set of moral teachings to prophetically foreshadow and point to another set of moral teachings. But can this interpretation be sustained in the face of the concrete facts of the case with respect to vv. 21-48? I don’t see how. For Carson’s contention that OT laws prophetically foreshadow and point to Jesus’ ethical teaching goes contrary to every other usage of pleroo in the NT (including Matthew’s), is implausible given the specific content of the antitheses, and is implausible even on its own terms. I shall now argue each of these points in turn.

Reasons to reject Carson’s position

Carson’s view goes contrary to every other usage of pleroo in the NT (including Matthew’s)

Carson’s hypothesis is that the meaning of pleroo in v. 17 should be extended in such a way that its eschatological terminum can embrace ethical teaching, as well as predictions, persons and events. Thus, on this hypothesis laws can pleroo laws (even as predictions and events can pleroo persons and their work). In particular, OT laws can prophetically foreshadow and point to Jesus’ ethical teaching.
Since Carson has derived his basic meaning of pleroo from its consistent Matthean use as a marker of eschatological fulfilment, surely we would expect to find some Matthean use of pleroo in which what is ‘pointed to’ is ethical teaching. Surely there would be some usage of this term in which laws pleroo laws. But as a matter of fact, Matthew never uses the word in this sense (apart, of course, from the present possibility of Mt 5:17). Instead, over and over Matthew tells us that OT predictions and events prophetically foreshadow and are fulfilled in Jesus’ life and ministry.
Thus, Isaiah’s prediction of the virgin birth is fulfilled by the birth of Jesus (1:22). Hosea’s statement of God’s call to Israel is fulfilled by Jesus’ residence in Egypt (2:15). Jeremiah’s description of Rachel weeping for her children is fulfilled in Herod’s slaughter of innocents (2:17). The prophet’s prediction that the Messiah shall be called a Nazarene is fulfilled by Jesus’ residence in Nazareth (2:23). Isaiah’s statement that the Galileans would see a great light is fulfilled by Jesus’ residence in Capernaum (4:14). Isaiah’s prediction that the Messiah would bear his people’s sicknesses is fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the multitudes (8:17). Isaiah’s prediction that the Messiah would not quarrel or cry out is fulfilled in the meekness and humility of Jesus’ healing ministry (12:17). The psalmist’s statement that he will speak in parables is fulfilled in Jesus’ own pedagogical methods (13:35). Zechariah’s prediction that Zion’s king would come to his people on a donkey is fulfilled in Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem upon a donkey (21:4). The Scriptures are fulfilled that Jesus would be betrayed to his enemies (26:54, 56). Zechariah’s and Jeremiah’s prediction that Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, which would be used to buy the potter’s field, is fulfilled in the chief priests’ reception and use of Judas’ money (27:9). Since this list is exhaustive of the eschatological pleroo in Matthew, it’s obvious that there is not a single Matthean usage of pleroo to the effect that OT ethical teaching prophetically foreshadows Jesus’ ethical teaching. Indeed, there’s no Matthean usage to the effect that anything in the OT prophetically foreshadows any ethical teaching. Why then did Carson say that "we give pleroo (‘fulfill’) exactly the same meaning as in the [Matthean] formula quotations," when it is perfectly obvious that he does no such thing?³
In addition, there’s not a single usage to this effect in the rest of the NT either. In fact, the only NT usage of pleroo with ethical teaching as a terminum – again, apart from the present possibility of Mt 5:17 – is Ro 8:4. And yet there it is clear that the law in question doesn't have prophetic force, much less prophetic force with respect to another law, but is simply descriptive of that ethical standard which God intends to be fulfilled (literally, not eschatologically) in the daily walk of the Christian as he is empowered by the Spirit. (Something similar is going on in Ro 13:8 and Ga 5:14.)
Thus, it appears that Carson’s proposed meaning for pleroo in Mt 5:17, vital to his subsequent interpretation of the antitheses, is without parallel to any other usage of pleroo in the NT (including Matthew’s)! Exegetically, the notion that laws pleroo laws appears to be a total innovation on Carson’s part, for the very concept is foreign to the NT. If, with respect to Carson’s argument for the basic eschatological sense of pleroo, "the lack of background for pleroo (‘fulfill’) as far as it applies to Scripture requires cautious induction from the NT evidence," then surely Carson should have been equally cautious with respect to his extension of that eschatological meaning to include ethical teaching, given the total lack of Scriptural evidence supporting that extension! Indeed, I reject Carson’s extension of the meaning of pleroo for the same reason I accept Carson’s argument for the basic eschatological meaning of pleroo: the quality and amount of the NT evidence.
I would submit that Carson’s own book, Exegetical Fallacies, seems to document this kind of mistake as "appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings" (EF 37). Sometimes instances of this fallacy "spring from the desire to make a certain interpretation work out, and the interpreter forsakes evenhandedness. In some instances an intrinsically unlikely or ill-attested meaning receives detailed defense and may even become entrenched in the church" (EF 38). Carson notes that C. E. B. Cranfield fell into this fallacy with his idiosyncratic understanding of nomos as legalism: "the fact remains that the primary defense of that position is not rigorous linguistic evidence but the adoption of a certain structure of relationships between the Old Testament and the New" (EF 38).

Carson’s view is implausible given the specific content of the antitheses

But it is not only the case that Carson’s proposal appears arbitrary and contrived. Things get much worse, when we actually try to apply Carson’s proposal to the pericope it was meant to unify: the antitheses themselves. If, according to Carson, what Jesus is primarily doing in the antitheses is showing how OT law prophetically foreshadows and points to his own teaching, then on this hypothesis we would expect that the first half of each antithesis would be a reference to Mosaic law, rather than to Pharisaic tradition, for obviously the latter cannot ‘prophetically point to’ Jesus’ ethical teaching. Only the Scriptures are the prophetic word of God. Thus, to the extent that the first half of any antithesis is not a reference to Mosaic law (but instead a reference to a distortion or misunderstanding of it), to that extent Carson’s hypothesis fails. And, in addition, to the extent that the second half of each antithesis is not really an addition to Mosaic law (but a restatement of principles already present in the OT), to that extent the hypothesis fails as well. When I come to ‘the interpretation of the antitheses’ below, I will repeatedly show that the actual comparison in the antitheses is between Pharisaic distortion of Mosaic law, and Jesus’ ethical teaching. To the extent that this is the case, to that extent Carson’s hypothesis fails, and that twice over, for any antithesis you pick.
But what if it appears that at least one or two of my interpretations of the antitheses looks ‘strained,’ so that it just looks more plausible to see the contrast in those cases as being between OT law and Jesus’ teaching? What if, for the sake of argument, we take a ‘mixed’ view of the antitheses, and say that, for some of the antitheses, the first half may very well be a reference to Mosaic law, and for other antitheses, the first half is a reference to Pharisaic distortion? But this only makes matters worse. For Carson thinks his extension of the eschatological meaning of pleroo to Jesus’ ethical teachings should be taken seriously precisely because it gives ‘unity’ to the interpretation of the antitheses: "a unifying approach to the antitheses is possible in the light of our exegesis of vv. 17-20." But if we take a mixed view of the antitheses, then no unity is produced, for Jesus is only showing how OT law points to his own teachings, in some of the antitheses. And what Jesus is doing in the other antitheses (those referring to Pharisaic distortion of OT law) is left unexplained. Indeed it cannot be explained on Carson’s hypothesis, for Pharisaic traditions could not prophesy or foreshadow Jesus’ teachings. Thus Carson’s view is implausible, even if it cannot be maintained that all of the antitheses begin with reference to Pharisaic distortion of OT law.

Carson’s view is implausible even on its own terms

But things get even worse. What if we were to concede the interpretation of each and every one of the antitheses to Carson’s theory? What if, for the sake of argument, we went so far as to concede that in each antithesis, its first half is a reference to OT law, rather than a reference to a Pharisaic distortion of OT law? And the second half of each antithesis is (obviously) a reference to the teaching of Jesus himself. Though I very much doubt that this is the true statement of the situation (see my evaluation of Carson’s handling of the antitheses below), nevertheless it must surely be admitted that conceding everything to Carson concerning the identity of both halves of the antitheses is the most favourable situation to be had for his interpretation of the pleroo in v. 17. For we now have throughout the antitheses a sustained one-to-one contrast between OT law and Jesus’ teaching. Surely, this is the perfect environment in which one could recognise, again and again, that OT law prophetically foreshadows and points to Jesus’ ethical teaching. Isn’t it? Wouldn’t that be the most plausible interpretation of the antitheses?
But the surprising (and in my mind, devastating) fact of the matter is that, even if we give Carson this enormous free ride, and concede to him all of the aforementioned favourable conditions, his view is still wholly implausible! For how could OT moral imperatives ‘prophetically foreshadow’ Jesus’ ethical teaching? It is easy to see from the Gospels how OT predictions and events can point to Jesus’ person and ministry, for those predictions and events described and pictured Jesus’ person and ministry. And it is easy to see from the book of Hebrews how OT cultic regulations can point to Jesus’ person and ministry, for those cultic regulations described and pictured Jesus’ person and ministry. But how do the OT laws allegedly referenced in the first half of the antitheses point to the Messiah’s ethical teaching referenced in the second half of the antitheses? For example, how do liberal OT divorce laws prophetically point to Jesus’ stricter laws? And how do OT commands to swear oaths prophetically point to Jesus’ abolition of all oaths, etc.? Does this even make sense? Nay, could it make sense? I haven’t the foggiest idea what it means. Since the ethical content is distinctively different in each antithesis (that’s the whole point of it being an antithesis after all), it is hard to understand how an ethical principle can describe or picture a different ethical principle! Perhaps this is why the rest of the word of God – apart from the present possibility of Mt 5:21-48 – affords us no examples of the kind of fulfilment which Carson wishes to see in Mt 5:21-48. It appears that Carson has ‘extended’ the meaning of pleroo in Mt 5:17 in a direction that doesn’t even make sense on its own terms, and in a direction that finds no confirmation whatsoever in the rest of the word of God. It is a conceptual innovation on Carson’s part that, upon closer analysis, renders the antitheses unintelligible.
Re-examination of the Matthean usage of pleroo reveals yet another aspect of the conceptual innovation I have just noted. It is not merely the case that, in Matthew’s usage, ethical teaching is never the eschatological terminum of pleroo. It is also the case that, in Matthew’s usage of pleroo, what accomplishes the fulfilment precisely fulfils that which gets fulfilled. Review again the texts above. A prediction of a literal virgin birth is fulfilled by a literal virgin birth. Indeed, OT references to literal virgin births, countries, cities, sicknesses, silence, parables, donkeys, betrayal, and thirty silver pieces, are fulfilled (pleroo) in connection with literal virgin births, countries, cities, sicknesses, silence, parables, donkeys, betrayal, and thirty silver pieces. Of course, the precise form of words may not be the same in every case. But surely the pattern of the precision of these fulfilments cannot be missed. There is no thought that that which gets fulfilled is being contrasted with its fulfilment, or extended, or changed. In the context of the rest of Matthew, ‘fulfilled’ seems to merely designate the direction of the arrow of time, and little else: OT predictions and events pointed to their NT counterparts, but this implies no difference between the prediction and its fulfilment. But in the context of Mt 5:17-48, Carson repeatedly uses pleroo as a reference to extension, change, contrast. Yet there’s little reason to think that Matthew’s use of pleroo carries any connotation at all of a contrast between the content of what is fulfilled and the content of what fulfils it! Thus, the more Carson relies upon the pleroo of v. 17 to demonstrate a contrast between the OT law and that to which the law points, to that extent it appears he is departing from the Matthean usage of pleroo. This is yet another reason why I think he has simply embraced a conceptual innovation that is without parallel in the rest of Matthew.

Conclusion

I do not want to overstate the case against Carson’s application of the eschatological pleroo of v. 17 to the antitheses of vv. 21-48, and make it appear that there is absolutely no evidence for his view of OT law pointing to NT ethical teaching. For when he introduces his crucial analogy, Carson states that: "In the light of the antitheses (vv. 21-48), the passage before us insists that just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching" (emphasis mine). In other words, the only evidence Carson actually cites to support this extension of the Matthean usage of pleroo, is the fact that in the antitheses, Jesus seems to be setting forth teaching of some kind. I think we should agree that this is indeed a fact; Jesus is, at the very least, setting forth his teachings in the antitheses. But is that sufficient grounds to invent what appears to be a wholly novel usage of pleroo, novel to both Matthew and to the rest of the NT? And does one want to embrace on those grounds a view that appears utterly irreconcilable with what is going on in the antitheses? In the end, Carson’s mere observation that Jesus presents his own teachings in the antitheses comes nowhere near to constituting the kind of argument required in order to extend the pleroo of v. 17 to include ethical teachings as an eschatological terminum. Especially if that extension is rendered wholly implausible given my three points above.⁴
In conclusion, then, we should simply reject Carson’s extension of the pleroo of v. 17 to include ethical teachings as an eschatological terminum. Such a hypothesis is a conceptual innovation with respect to the usage of pleroo in the rest of Matthew and the NT, and unnecessarily imposes a whole host of absurdities upon the text of vv. 21-48. I am surprised that Carson made this move, given his warning that a proper assessment of the meaning of pleroo "requires cautious induction from the NT evidence." For while Carson’s argument for the basic eschatological sense of pleroo in v. 17 was a well-argued induction from NT evidence, his argument for the extension of that eschatological pleroo to include ethical teachings is disappointingly thin, and indeed appears wholly incautious given the evidence I have presented above.

Its relevance to the abiding authority of OT law

In rounding off his exposition of v. 17, Carson makes a number of confusing applications of his view of the pleroo of v. 17, which I want to briefly consider. First, he says that, "As in Luke 16:16-17, Jesus is not announcing the termination of the OT's relevance and authority (else Luke 16:17 would be incomprehensible), but that ‘the period during which men were related to God under its terms ceased with John’ (Moo, ‘Jesus,’ p. 1); and the nature of its valid continuity is established only with reference to Jesus and the kingdom."

It’s hard (for me at least) to know what Carson thinks here. On the one hand he assures us that "Jesus is not announcing the termination of the OT's relevance and authority." But on the other hand he says (following Moo) that "the period during which men were related to God under its terms ceased with John." I find it difficult to understand how the authority can continue when men are no longer "under its terms." How does it possess authority apart from the continuing relevance of at least some of its terms? Isn’t being under something’s terms precisely what we mean by being under its authority?
But more importantly, I don’t know what Carson intends by his statement that, with respect to the OT, "the nature of its valid continuity is established only with reference to Jesus and the kingdom." Does this mean that if Jesus does not happen to comment upon an OT text, that "the nature of its valid continuity" cannot be "established"? For example, are we to assume that all OT law is abolished, except for that law repeated by Jesus in the New? One wonders, on this hypothesis, about the normative status of a whole host of OT principles which are not repeated in the NT, such as the responsibility to physically discipline one’s children (Pr 13:24). Has this been abolished? More broadly, have all those Proverbs been abolished which have failed to be repeated or interpreted by either Jesus or his apostles? In fact, do not Jesus’ apostles seem to propose the opposite position? Namely, that we must have good exegetical grounds for believing that a command has not continued? After all, why would Paul say that all Scripture (in context, the Old Testament Scripture) "is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Ti 3:16), if in reality the only Scripture which is applicable to the moral life of the congregation (for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) is the New Testament? Paul’s terms are normative terms. They speak of the authority of the OT over the life of a Christian. If Paul says all the Old Testament Scriptures are profitable for reproof and correction of one’s life, can we then say that all OT laws are totally done away as far as authority over one’s life (except for those specifically commented upon by Jesus and his apostles)? If Paul says that "all Scripture" is inspired, and is profitable for Christian moral instruction, can we then say that only the New Testament is profitable for Christian moral instruction? Again, this cannot be right. I don’t mean to lay all this baggage at Carson’s feet. But when someone says, in a context that is explicitly about the abolition or destruction of OT revelation (Mt 5:17), that the nature of the OT’s valid continuity is established only with reference to Jesus and the kingdom, these sorts of inferences immediately loom on the horizon. Perhaps some of Carson’s readers have actually gone on to make these kinds of inferences.
I repeat all these concerns with respect to Carson’s later comment on the "christological implications" of vv. 17-20: "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." My problem with this statement isn’t so much with what it says, as with what it doesn’t say. I don’t know what I am supposed to infer from the fact that Jesus is the "sole authoritative interpreter" of the OT, and "the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance." Does this mean (as I asked above) that if Jesus does not happen to comment upon an OT text, that therefore that text is not authoritative for us, because "its valid continuity" is only found in Jesus, "the sole authoritative interpreter" of the OT?

Second, Carson says that, "If the antitheses (vv. 21-48) are understood in the light of this interpretation of vv. 17-20, then Jesus is not primarily engaged there in extending, annulling, or intensifying OT law, but in showing the direction in which it points, on the basis of his own authority (to which, again, the OT points). This may work out in any particular case to have the same practical effect as ‘intensifying’ the law or ‘annulling’ some element; but the reasons for that conclusion are quite different."

I find it telling that Carson makes reference to "this interpretation of vv. 17-20," for the only verse he has exegeted at this point is v. 17! This supports my contention (to be defended later) that Carson minimises the relevance of v. 20 in his understanding of the antitheses. For v. 17 appears to carry the whole weight, even though it is v. 20 which actually introduces the antitheses, and sets up an antithesis between two ethical standards.
In addition, Carson claims that Jesus is "primarily engaged" in vv. 21-48 with "showing the direction in which it [OT law] points, on the basis of his own authority." But isn’t it just obvious that in the antitheses, what Jesus is primarily doing is annulling some standard or other? This is the whole reason why we call this section the antitheses, because of its repeated language of "You have heard that it was said… But I say unto you…"? How could Carson possibly interpret this language as primarily "showing the direction in which" various laws "point," rather than the straightforward annulling of a moral standard recognisable by both speaker and audience? On the traditionally Reformed interpretation, Jesus is annulling Pharisaic distortions of the OT law. Now, one can disagree that it is really Pharisaic distortions which are being annulled, but surely what is primarily going on, in each antithesis, is the annulling of some standard or other. This is another instance, I think, in which Carson allows his idiosyncratic interpretation of v. 17 to overshadow the obvious import of v. 20. In order to discover what is primarily going on in the antitheses, Carson simply reads into the antitheses the language of fulfilment.
Finally, Carson argues that this primary activity of Jesus in the antitheses, of "showing the direction in which it [OT law] points," has secondary consequences: "This may work out in any particular case to have the same practical effect as ‘intensifying’ the law or ‘annulling’ some element." Obviously then, Carson does see annulling going on in the antitheses, although (as argued above) I don’t think this is a mere secondary activity in the antitheses. But the important point is that, given Carson’s interpretation of pleroo in v. 17, these manifold consequences of ‘fulfillment’ seem totally arbitrary. What is the rationale for sometimes annulling, sometimes intensifying, those OT laws that are eschatologically prophetic of Christ’s teaching? By way of contrast, the traditional Reformed view – that Jesus is consistently annulling Pharisaic traditions throughout the antitheses – makes sense. Since he is here to confirm or establish OT law (v. 17), he wants to sharply distinguish the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees from the righteousness of the kingdom (v. 20). Thus, in the case of each and every antithesis Jesus presents, he is consistently challenging Pharisaic distortions and misinterpretations of OT law. On the Reformed view, a single cause (Pharisaic distortion) explains a single effect (Jesus’ repudiation of such a distortion). Whereas on Carson’s view, a single cause (the eschatological fulfilment of the OT law by Jesus’ teaching) somehow explains contrary effects (annulling OT law, or intensifying OT law). How can this rationale be anything but arbitrary?

The consequences for vv. 18-20

v. 18

The text reads, "18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
On this text Carson says things which are very helpful and edifying, such as that "Jesus here upholds the authority of the OT Scriptures right down to the ‘least stroke of a pen.’ His is the highest possible view of the OT." And Carson’s focus, in light of v. 17, that the entirety of OT revelation is eschatologically fulfilled in Christ, is also helpful.
However, the reader can get a sense that Carson’s treatment of continuing OT authority is excessively reductionistic. Carson says that "the nature" of the OT’s "validity and continuity…has been set forth in v. 17," and that the nature of OT authority is that "it reveals God’s redemptive purposes and points to their fulfillment, their ‘accomplishment,’ in Jesus and the eschatological kingdom he is now introducing and will one day consummate." One wonders at these repeated claims: does Carson want to reduce the nature of OT authority to its eschatological, prophetical foreshadowing role? And if so, what argument is given for this? It is one thing to say that one way the OT is authoritative for the NT believer is that it authoritatively depicts the person and work of the Messiah who was to come. It is quite another thing to say that the only way the OT is thus authoritative, is via its prophetic role of foreshadowing Christ and his distinctive ethical teaching.

v. 19

The text reads, "19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The reference of "these commandments"

On this text, Carson inquires after the reference of ‘these commandments.’ Whose commandments are we talking about? Carson says that, "It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus’ teachings… for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus’ words, and the context argues against it." Similarly, "restriction to the Ten Commandments (TDNT, 2:548) is usually alien to the concerns of the context." Finally, we cannot "say ‘these commandments’ refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos (‘this,’ pl. ‘these’) never points forward."
So if the reference is not to Jesus’ teachings, nor the Ten Commandments, nor the antitheses of vv. 21-48, what is the reference? Carson tells us: "It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT Scriptures. The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus’ coming but fulfilled."

The nature of their practising

Carson then comments on what he means by his statement that the Law and the Prophets are ‘fulfilled’ by Jesus’ coming: "Therefore the commandments of these Scriptures — even the least of them (on distinctions in the law, see on 22:36; 23:23) — must be practiced. But the nature of the practicing has already been affected by vv. 17-18. The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; so it is properly obeyed by conforming to his word. As it points to him, so he, in fulfilling it, establishes what continuity it has, the true direction to which it points and the way it is to be obeyed. Thus ranking in the kingdom turns on the degree of conformity to Jesus’ teaching as that teaching fulfills OT revelation. His teaching, toward which the OT pointed, must be obeyed."
To summarise, Carson’s understanding of v. 19 seems to be the following. Jesus says that the greatest in the kingdom of heaven are those who practice and teach (even the least of) the commandments of the OT. But since (according to Carson’s interpretation of vv. 17-18) OT imperatival law is prophetic of Christ’s teaching and therefore fulfilled in Christ’s teaching, all of these OT commandments are "properly obeyed by conforming to his [Christ’s] word." So what initially appeared to be a call to obey even the least commandments of the OT, is in reality a call to restrict oneself to the word of Christ in the NT. The OT law "is properly obeyed," not by practising and teaching that OT law, but "by conforming to" Jesus’ word.

Carson’s dramatic shift

I simply note the dramatic shift that has taken place in the reference of "these commandments." Carson started his exposition of v. 19 by emphasising that the reference of "these commandments" was to the OT Scriptures, and not merely to Jesus’ teaching, and he argued this on the basis of perfectly sensible grammatical and contextual data (Matthew’s use of the noun, the concerns of the context, Matthew’s use of houtos). But then, on the basis of his interpretation of v. 17, Carson completely shifts this reference to Jesus’ teachings: "Thus ranking in the kingdom turns on the degree of conformity to Jesus’ teaching as that teaching fulfills OT revelation. His teaching, toward which the OT pointed, must be obeyed."
In other words, Carson overturns his initial grammatical and contextual argumentation on the basis of the interpretation of a word (pleroo) that doesn’t even appear in the verse which is being expounded! Even though "it is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus’ teachings… for the noun [‘commandments’] in Matthew never refers to Jesus’ words, and the context argues against it," Carson nevertheless does just that, and assures us that the teaching of v. 19 is that we must conform to Jesus’ words! It is clear, I think, that Carson is in the grip of a thesis. If the theory is that OT laws must pleroo Christ’s laws, then OT laws must be distinguished from Christ’s laws, since the former only ‘point to’ the latter, and are not identical to them. And so even if grammatical and contextual factors require the reference of "these commandments" to be to the OT Scriptures, we must nevertheless make the reference be to Christ’s laws instead. I find this implausible in the extreme. Carson correctly notes, with reference to "these commandments," that "in Matthew houtos (‘this,’ pl. ‘these’) never points forward." But surely then there is only one direction left in which to find the reference of this demonstrative pronoun: backwards, to the previous verse, and its explicit reference to the OT. How strange then is Carson’s interpretation: Christ sternly and explicitly warns against breaking the commandments of the OT, and Carson takes it as a warning against breaking Christ’s own ethical teachings. He must make this move, because he has reduced the ethical authority of the OT to that which gets ‘taken up’ into Christ’s explicit teachings. But he makes this move against all conceivable rules of exegesis.

v. 20

Mt 5:20 "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
On the basis of this verse, Carson laments that the Pharisees "domesticated the law and lost the radical demand for absolute holiness demanded by the Scriptures." But since, for Carson, the righteousness of kingdom inhabitants is defined by Jesus’ ethical teachings – and not by the OT laws which eschatologically point to such teaching – why would Jesus’ concern here be with the Pharisees’ failure to conform to the OT Scriptures? Isn’t the contrast supposed to be between Pharisaic righteousness and the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven, rather than between Pharisaic righteousness and that of the OT? One wonders as well about Carson’s reference to "the radical demand for absolute holiness" demanded by the OT Scriptures. Isn’t it rather, on Carson’s theory, the righteousness demanded by the kingdom of heaven (i.e. Jesus’ teachings) which forms the radical demand for absolute holiness? Surely the OT can’t compete here; it can only ‘point to’ Jesus’ teaching.
I propose that the reason why v. 20 appears to be an anomaly with respect to Carson’s theory, is because he has let v. 17 overshadow v. 20 in his interpretation of the antitheses. Indeed, in his exposition of v. 20, Carson seems to minimise the relevance of v. 20 to the interpretation of the antitheses which immediately follow. This is unfortunate, because v. 20 gives a single, unifying theme to vv. 21-48: it is the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees which is being exposed as fraudulent and in need of correction, not the OT. As Murray puts it, Jesus sets up "a complete contrast between the righteousness which the kingdom of heaven requires and that exemplified in the scribes and Pharisees" (POC 157). And it is this principle of v. 20 that particularly "needs to be borne in mind in the interpretation of the sustained contrast between rabbinic and pharisaic perversion, on the one hand, and the righteousness characteristic of the kingdom of heaven, on the other" (POC 157). And yet, in his comments upon v. 20, Carson has little to say about this vital connection between v. 20 and the six antitheses it introduces.

The interpretation of the antitheses (vv. 21-48)

Introduction

What is Jesus doing in the antitheses?

Of particular importance in this section is to see whether Carson’s proposal – that what Jesus is primarily doing in the antitheses is showing how laws pleroo laws – actually unifies the interpretation of the antitheses. It is important to remember that according to Carson’s interpretation of v. 17, the OT laws referenced in vv. 21-48 are supposed to have a ‘prophetic’ nature. It is precisely because they ‘prophetically foreshadow’ and ‘point to’ Christ, that they are fulfilled in Christ, and are therefore either extended, annulled, or intensified by Christ, the "sole authoritative interpreter" of the OT.
Crucial then to vv. 21-48 is the notion that the ethical standard which Jesus is revising is the ethical standard of the OT, for only OT scripture can be properly prophetic, and therefore point to Christ. Thus, to the extent that the ethical standard which Jesus is revising is not the ethical standard of the OT, to that extent Carson’s whole understanding of pleroo is undermined. Carson cannot maintain that the key to interpreting vv. 21-48 is the ‘prophetic’ meaning of pleroo in v. 17, if that meaning of pleroo commits him to claims about vv. 21-48 that are flatly indefensible.
It will be my contention below that this is just what has happened, for it can be shown that the ethical standard which Jesus is revising in vv. 21-48 is not the OT law which ‘points’ to him. Rather, it is the ethical standard of the scribes and the Pharisees, which was a distortion and misrepresentation of the ethical standard of the OT. This is to be expected, as this is precisely the contrast in ethical standards which is made in v. 20, the verse which introduces the six antitheses. We proceed now to Carson’s introductory material on the antitheses.

Is Carson consistent in his approach to the antitheses?

Carson states: "Daube rightly points out that the first part of Matthew's formulas means something like ‘you have understood’ or ‘you have literally understood.’ That is Jesus is not criticizing the OT but the understanding of the OT many of his hearers adopted. This is especially true of vv. 22, 43, where part of what was ‘heard’ certainly does not come from the OT."

Thus, Carson understands by Jesus’ antithetical refrain ("You have heard that it was said… But I say unto you…") that "Jesus is not criticizing the OT but the understanding of the OT many of his hearers adopted." I find this remarkable, because this understanding is clearly contradicted by Carson’s specific interpretation of some of the antitheses in which that refrain is used. For Carson holds that Jesus is criticising the OT. Indeed, Jesus goes so far as to "revoke at least the letter of the law"! (See below.) Once again, Carson simply cannot have it both ways.
As a matter of fact, as Murray points out, "If Jesus were contrasting his own teaching and the law of the Old Testament, then the formula ‘Ye heard that it was said’ would refer to the Old Testament Scripture. But Jesus elsewhere does not use such a formula when he refers to the Old Testament. He uses, rather, such a formula as ‘it is written’" (POC 158).

Carson claims that "a unifying approach to the antitheses is possible in the light of our exegesis of vv. 17-20." What is this unifying approach? Well, says Carson, "in every case Jesus contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law with the true direction in which the law points, according to his own authority as the law’s ‘fulfiller’ (in the sense established in v. 17). He makes no attempt to fence in the law (contra Przvbylski, pp. 80-87) but declares unambiguously the true direction to which it points. Thus if certain antitheses revoke at least the letter of the law (and they do: cf. Meier, Law, pp. 125ff.), they do so, not because they are thereby affirming the law’s true spirit, but because Jesus insists that his teaching on these matters is the direction in which the laws actually point."

Once again Carson is trying to have it both ways. He says concerning the antitheses that "in every case Jesus contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law" with something else. But he also says (and will defend later) that "certain antitheses revoke at least the letter of the law," because Jesus’ "teaching on these matters is the direction in which the laws actually point" (emphasis mine). The reader is left wondering whether Jesus is correcting the people’s misunderstanding of the law, or rather the letter of the law itself. Since Carson says both, it is evident that his approach is not unifying, but simply contradictory.

Carson continues: "Likewise Jesus’ "you have heard ... but I say" is not quite analogous to corresponding rabbinic formulas; Jesus is not simply a proto-rabbi (contra Daube, Sigal). The Sermon on the Mount is not set in a context of scholarly dispute over halakic details but in a context of messianic and eschatological fulfillment. Jesus’ authority bursts the borders of the relatively "narrow context of legal interpretation and innovation which the rabbis circumscribed for themselves" (Banks, Jesus, p. 85). It is for this reason that the crowds were amazed at his authority (7:28-29)."

Carson seems to think that a mere ‘context of legal interpretation’ is too narrow to explain the amazement of Jesus’ hearers at his authority. Rather, the appropriate explanatory context of such amazement is one of "messianic and eschatological fulfillment." But surely we must avoid all thought that, on the hypothesis that Jesus is merely correcting the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees, in doing so Jesus somehow fails to exercise his divine authority. It is not a diminishing of Jesus’ authority to confirm OT law in its breadth and depth! In correcting erroneous rabbinical traditions, Jesus is not himself a mere rabbi, for the simple fact that his interpretation (unlike those endlessly offered by the rabbis in their disputes with each other) is the correct and authoritative one.
One only needs to ask: when God through the prophets rebuked the people for their vain traditions (Is 29:13; cf Mt 15:3, 7-9), was God failing to exercise his own divine authority? Was God himself, by his very activity of defending his law from legalistic addition and perversion, reduced to a mere rabbi? Of course not. So why think that the recognition of Jesus’ authority on the part of his hearers (7:28-29) requires that Jesus must be doing something more than challenging the vain traditions of men?
And it is most likely that Jesus’ hearers were amazed at his authority because he, unlike the rabbis, cited absolutely no rabbinic precedent or opinion in his challenges to Pharisaic tradition. Jesus’ procedure radically set him apart from those interpreters of the law to whom the people were accustomed. Jesus was correcting vain interpretations on his own authority (and not by appeal to extracanonical tradition), but this is entirely compatible with the fact that Jesus was correcting vain interpretations (rather than correcting the OT law itself).

We proceed now to an examination of Carson’s interpretation of the antitheses themselves.

First antithesis: Vilifying anger and reconciliation (5:21-26)

The text reads: "21 " You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22 "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 "leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny."
Carson says that in this antithesis, "Jesus insists — the ‘I’ is emphatic in each of the six antitheses — that the law really points to his own teaching: the root of murder is anger, and anger is murderous in principle (v. 22). One has not conformed to the better righteousness of the kingdom simply by refraining from homicide."
A number of criticisms present themselves. First, it is characteristic of Carson’s treatment of each of these antitheses to read his understanding of pleroo (from v. 17) into the text of the antithesis itself. When Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said… but I say unto you…," Carson takes this as a claim that "the law really points to his own teaching." But one searches each antithesis in vain for anything remotely resembling this claim. If Jesus is actually claiming that in each case the law in question "points to his own teaching," why didn’t he simply say so? He doesn’t. Rather, he simply refers to an ethical teaching which was familiar to both speaker and hearers, and explicitly contrasts that teaching with his own. The additional claim, that the law "points to his own teaching," is repeatedly read into the text by Carson himself.
Second, according to Carson, Jesus here insists that the law really points to his own teaching.

But is Jesus’ citation in the first half of the antitheses a citation from the law? To be sure, "you shall not murder" is a citation from Ex 20:13. But where is it said that "whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment"? Carson references Dt 16:18 and 2Ch 19:5, but neither of those texts makes any reference to murder, much less to judgment for murder. We shall have to look elsewhere for the source of the first half of the antithesis.
I regard the most plausible interpretation to be Murray’s: "It is probable that the sixth commandment was quoted by the Rabbis and then interpreted in the way Jesus indicates by his quotation. The important consideration is that the Rabbis interpreted the commandment, at least its penal sanction, in these terms, ‘whosoever shall kill shall be liable to the judgment’… In view of the fact that Jesus in his own interpretation and application lays the emphasis upon the inward feeling and upon the words of abusive contempt, we are forced to conclude that the addition supplied in the rabbinic tradition had the intent and effect of saying, ‘Only he who commits the overt act of murder shall be liable to the judgment’. That is to say, rabbinical tradition had concentrated attention both in thought and instruction upon the external act, with the effect, if not also the intent, of restricting the prohibition of murder to the overt act. It is this externalism that Jesus proceeds to correct; he focuses attention upon the emotions of the heart and the words of the lips. ‘But I say to you’: in contrast with such a cabined and restricted conception of the sixth commandment, and in elucidation of its true and full intent, he teaches that the sixth commandment condemns the murder of heart and lips as well as the overt act of lawless killing" (POC 159-160).

Third, according to Carson "the [OT] law really points to his own teaching: the root of murder is anger, and anger is murderous in principle." In fact, as Carson says later, here Jesus "insists that the sixth commandment points prophetically to the kingdom's condemnation of hate." We see a reference here to "the better righteousness of the kingdom."

Carson seems to think that the contrast in this first antithesis is the following: there is ‘the law’ and then there is ‘his [Jesus’] own teaching,’ and the fact of the matter is that "the law really points to his own teaching." Indeed, it "points prophetically to the kingdom's condemnation of hate." But surely this is an erroneous contrast. For why think that condemnation of hate is distinctive to Jesus’ kingdom inaugurated in the NT? We have the clear command of Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart." We have Pr 29:10 "The bloodthirsty hate the blameless, But the upright seek his well-being." Indeed, condemnation of hate is a prominent theme the OT Scriptures (cf. Pr 26:24-26, 29:22, 15:18, 16:32, 19:11; Ecc 7:9). Carson says that, "many Jewish maxims warn against anger (examples in Bonnard), but this is not just another maxim." No doubt. But why doesn’t Carson consider the relevance of the many OT warnings against anger and hate? The false antithesis between OT law and Jesus’ teaching could have been avoided.
These data strongly suggest that the real contrast here is between the Pharisaic restriction of divine judgement to the mere act of murder, and Jesus’ recognition that divine judgement properly extends to inward hate and anger. But since the latter is an ethical norm abundantly testified throughout the OT, the point of the antithesis cannot be that "the law points to his teaching." For ‘the law,’ at this point, is identical to Jesus’ teaching! Unfortunately, Carson’s insistence that his prophetic understanding of pleroo in v. 17 must control the interpretation of vv. 21-48 leads him to impose a contrast here between OT law and Jesus’ teaching that simply does not exist.

Second antithesis: Adultery and purity (5:27-30)

The text reads: "27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."
Concerning this second antithesis, Carson says, "Jesus insisted that the seventh commandment points in another direction — toward purity that refuses to lust (v. 28). The tenth commandment had already explicitly made the point; and gyne here more likely means ‘woman’ than ‘wife.’ ‘To interpret the law on the side of stringency is not to annul the Law, but to change it in accordance with its own intention’ (Davies, Setting, p. 102; cf. Job 31:1; Prov 6:25; 2 Peter 2:14)."
Carson acknowledges that the OT appears to already teach what Jesus insists on here. The 10^th Commandment forbids, among other things, the coveting of your neighbour’s wife. Surely this is a prohibition of the very heart adultery forbidden by Jesus in Mt 5:28. Similarly, the book of Proverbs contains much counsel to young men, that they should not lust after or desire the adulterous woman. In Pr 5:20, he is warned that he should not "be enraptured by an immoral woman." In Pr 6:25 (as Carson points out), he is commanded: "Do not lust after her beauty in your heart, Nor let her allure you with her eyelids." And in Pr 7:25, the son is specifically counselled: "Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways." Surely these are prohibitions of the very heart adultery forbidden by Jesus in Mt 5:28.
Given all this, isn’t it reasonable to think that Jesus is bringing out an application of the 7^th Commandment which had always been intended by God, but which the scribes and Pharisees neglected to make known to the people (Murray, POC 55-56)? For God himself had already made this application known to the people in the OT; there is nothing new here. So why does Carson insist that Jesus is changing the law, "in accordance with its own intention"? Why contrast at this point Jesus’ moral teaching with the moral teaching of the OT? Rather, we should recognise the genuinely unifying parallel between these first two antitheses: "What Jesus is doing here in reference to sex purity is precisely what he had done earlier in this discourse in reference to the sanctity of life (Matthew 5:22). He is showing that violation of these sanctities is registered first of all in the most rudimentary inclinations and emotions" (Murray, POC 56).
The other main difficulties with Carson’s theory now reappear:

The 7^th Commandment is supposed to have "its own intention," namely, that a more "stringent" interpretation must be adopted. Presumably this is the ‘prophetic nature of imperatival law’ that is revealed in 5:17. But it is difficult to see how the 7^th Commandment itself ‘prophetically foreshadows’ or ‘points to’ Jesus’ allegedly more stringent teaching. What does this mean? How is a liberal law ‘eschatologically fulfilled’ in a stricter law? Carson is shut up to this interpretation, because of his understanding of pleroo in 5:17, but the interpretation itself, in its concrete application to this second antithesis, remains inscrutable.
Also, Carson earlier told us in his introduction to the antitheses that "in every case Jesus contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law with the true direction in which the law points," and that "Jesus is not criticizing the OT but the understanding of the OT many of his hearers adopted." But now in his exposition of this particular antithesis, we are not told that the people misunderstood the law, but that Jesus changed the law in the direction of stringency!⁵

Third antithesis: Divorce and remarriage (5:31-32)

The text reads: "31 " Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."
Carson’s treatment

Carson says that, "The OT passage to which Jesus refers (v. 31) is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, whose thrust is that if a man divorces his wife because of ‘something indecent’ (not further defined) in her, he must give her a certificate of divorce, and if she then becomes another man's wife and is divorced again, the first man cannot remarry her. This double restriction — the certificate and the prohibition of remarriage — discouraged hasty divorces. Here Jesus does not go into the force of ‘something indecent.’ Instead he insists that the law was pointing to the sanctity of marriage." A little earlier Carson says, "these two verses are innately antithetical."
It is difficult to know what to make of this interpretation, in light of Carson’s theory from the pleroo of v. 17. According to Carson, Jesus is here showing how laws pleroo laws, that is, how "the law was pointing to the sanctity of marriage." But did not the OT law itself enshrine the sanctity of marriage? Indeed, Carson himself notes that, in the Dt 24:1-4 legislation, its "double restriction — the certificate and the prohibition of remarriage — discouraged hasty divorces" (emphasis mine). Thus, Jesus’ teaching on the sanctity of marriage is not something that ‘fulfils’ the OT law. For all we know from Carson’s exposition, it is essentially identical to its demands. Once again, Carson’s master thesis from v. 17 fails to find any concrete application in the specific antitheses it was designed to enlighten. The following discussion will bear this out.

Is ‘uncleanness’ equivalent to porneia?

Carson notes that there are "numerous points for exegetical dispute," including