Matthew 5.13-20

Most of my posts on this website consist of a literary structure with very little, if anything, in terms of commentary or explanation. This is not one of those posts. No, I haven’t forgotten the byline of this website (“The more words, the more vanity” from Eccl. 6:11). Yet, nowhere else will we find a better example of Christ’s words and wisdom than here in the Sermon on the Mount. Not only so, but Christ’s message here relates significantly to our perspective on what we read elsewhere in the New Testament. While I will completely understand if this post may not be everyone’s cup of tea, I do hope someone may find something worthwhile here. Glory to Jesus Christ!

Matthew's Structure and the Sermon on the Mount

I have posted a draft outline of Matthew’s Gospel and so, ultimately, I will refer the reader to that post. However, briefly note that Matthew’s Gospel alternates between narrative and discourse sections, with the Sermon on the Mount (5:1-7:29) positioned within the second narrative section (4:18-25 and continued in 8:1-9:38). Both narrative portions mention Jesus teaching, preaching the gospel of the kingdom & healing – and it’s possible this block of text forms a chiasm. In any case, this narrative-discourse framework helps underscore the placement of the Sermon within the Gospel of Matthew’s overall structure. For example, just as the Sermon begins with “blessings” (Beatitudes) followed by the Sermon on the Mount (focusing on kingdom behaviors), the other side of the body of the Gospel concludes with “curses” (the Woes in Matthew 23) followed by the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 (focusing on eschatological aspects of the kingdom). That latter parallel is the only other place “gospel of the kingdom” is mentioned in Matthew (24:14). Also, most will not need any reminder that the blessings and curses mirror the similar concepts of covenantal sanctions, which are central to Old Testament covenantal structures in relation to the covenantal stipulations.

Lastly, there is also an inclusio of “the Law and the prophets” (5:17 and 7:12) that may help define the body of the Sermon on the Mount. Its occurrence emphasizes the continuity between Jesus’ teaching and prior revelation. This phrase reappears in Matthew 22:40. This location is just prior to the last (two-part) sections mentioned above. While this occurrence is therefore not within the parallel section, there is a phenomenon in Scripture where linguistic markers are sometimes placed in penultimate locations. As such it is likely a, “get ready” signal to mark off the approaching last section (see my study on Exodus 1-15 and the use of the “believed” in a penultimate context here).

The Relation of this Pericope with the Beatitudes (5:13-16)

In a previous post (found here), I began to explore the idea of a chiastic relationship between the Beatitudes and the Sermon. Matthew 5:13-20 introduces the first of eight sections in the Sermon on the Mount, corresponding in reverse order to the eight Beatitudes. That explains why this pericope is titled the same as the last section of the Beatitudes (“Heavenly Reward for Righteousness”). It is due to its continuation of the theme of righteousness introduced in 5:10-12 (regarding persecution). Both sections emphasize eschatological rewards and the relationship between righteousness and divine reward or retribution.

While JM Gibbs divided this pericope into two parts (5:13-16 and 5:17-20), I propose that 5:3-20 forms a single chiastic unit. As I have tried to show in the outline, every (ABBA) term in this passage relates to righteousness. In the beatitudes, there is a fairly even distribution between actions and consequences, cause and effect, such that each beatitude speaks of a reward for what Jesus’ followers will have endured in life. Due to the chiastic design of 5:13-20, the distribution of cause and effect is segregated in the structure such that the “effect” (consequences) are located at the beginning and the end (i.e., in the parallel “A” terms). Thus, if the “purpose" of works of righteousness in 5:13-16 is thwarted, the consequences for such persons will analogous to what happens with worthless salt (that will be “thrown out” of the kingdom in the eschatological future). In 5:20 (the last “A” term), the lack of righteousness is what will prevent entrance into the kingdom of heaven in the first place.

Before going further, we should recall (from my 2014 post regarding Matthew 3:1- 4:17 and Jesus’ baptism - found here), that, while in St. Paul, righteousness is a covenant status, often in the gospels, “righteousness” was commonly regarded as something practiced (i.e., visible and tangible works of righteousness arising from allegiance/faithfulness to the covenant). Jesus connects this righteousness with the imagery of salt and light (5:13-16), emphasizing its purpose—to be a tangible reflection of covenantal faithfulness, drawing others to worship and glorify God (5:16). This concept aligns with the role of Israel described in Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 as a “light to the nations” and a guide to the blind (as in Romans 2:17-20).

Fulfilling (the Righteousness of) the Law and the prophets (5:17-19)

In Matthew 5:17b, Jesus says he came to “fulfill” (by ellipsis) “the Law and the prophets.” Note that we supply “and” rather than “or” as stated in 5:17a. The term “fulfill” (Greek: πληρόω) literally means - to make full, fill (full). It is used literally in Matthew 13:47-49 and Matthew 23:23-33. However, the figurative extension of the literal meaning is where we should focus. When extended in this manner, the word conveys the idea of “completion” whether of prophecy, or some activity, or a period of time (or else the summation of the meaning/significance of something, e.g., in Gal. 5:14). If interested, see the attached “Usage of the word Fulfill in Matthew” where each fulfillment usage in Matthew is cited along with the Old Testament reference.

Further, Jesus (and Matthew) likely intended his audience to understand his coming as fulfilling the righteousness of the Law and the prophets. The near context of “righteousness” (explicit in the “A” terms of the structure) as well as the overall New Testament context favors this idea. Our first clue to this effect came already in the Matthew 3:1-4:17 passage (mentioned above) where Jesus says, “Thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (3:15). Although Israel had not been faithful to God and had failed in its covenantal responsibilities, Jesus, as God’s true Son and Servant, was, in his baptism, identifying himself with Israel and indeed all mankind, in their need for forgiveness and redemption. Thus, even then, Jesus fully understood he had come to die in order to bring about the everlasting righteousness of the kingdom per Daniel 9:24-27 (see this link). This interpretation is in line with other parallels between Jesus’ baptism and the passion narrative (as may be viewed in the previously mentioned “Matthew – Outline” post).

In 5:17-19, Jesus distinguishes his role in fulfilling (the righteousness of) the Law from that of his followers’ role in practicing this same righteousness. Negating the commandments, even partially, constitutes a grave violation with serious consequences (5:19-20). Their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, and so this means that true righteousness is based on covenantal faithfulness to God (from the heart) rather than mere legalism.

The Prophet like Moses

At this time at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, there was likely a convergence of various messianic expectations. This would have included speculation regarding the seventieth week of Daniel 9:24-27 and the Deuteronomic expectations of a “prophet like Moses” as found in Deut. 18:9-22. In that passage, the nations dispossessed by Israel had been guided by omens and divinations. In fact, such abominations were one main reason those nations were dispossessed by Israel and destroyed (Deut. 18:12, 14). Yet, in the context of Deuteronomy, Moses was about to die. Without Moses as the mouthpiece of God, Israel might themselves resort to such evil devices. Therefore, God promised to raise up a prophet like Moses for the people to receive leadership and guidance from the Lord.

This fruition of this promise need not merely be presupposed in our context, because Matthew likely alludes to this concept in Matthew 5:2, in his introduction to the sermon. Matthew purposely makes the otherwise strange remark that Jesus, “opened his mouth and taught them.” In my opinion, this is an allusion to Deut. 18:18 which reads, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren, and I will put my word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all I command him.” Jesus also probably made a veiled reference to this idea at the end of Matthew 5:11 (“on account of me”). That phrase and term in the structure is there to signify him as a righteous person. Yet, based on what follows, it is even more likely referring to him as a righteous prophet (like Moses). Jesus’ listeners would have realized that the Christ, the righteous prophet like Moses has now been raised up on the scene of Israel’s history. Jesus was the ultimate prophetic revealer of God’s will. (Side note: thus, we should not be surprised how the Lord’s prophetic revelation becomes evident in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.)

Yet, why would anyone even think that Jesus, the prophet like Moses, would even consider invalidating the Law and the prophets? Supposing that some popular misunderstanding existed about this expectation would go a long way to explain the otherwise unexpected idea Jesus introduces (regarding invalidating the Law and the prophets). From their perspective (based on Deut. 18) Jesus’ followers, might have thought that, since the prophet had come, their nation would finally have recourse to the promised and ultimate prophetic voice who would reveal the will of God for the nation. Therefore, there would be no further need of the Law and the prophets. However, Jesus made no such disjunction between the standards of the coming kingdom and those of the nation under Moses. Instead, Jesus confirmed the continuity of the commandments from past revelation with that of the coming kingdom regime. From our own perspective, we understand in hindsight there would never be a reason to abolish the righteous requirements of the Law because the same Lord God who reigned over the theocracy and inspired Moses, the author of the Torah, was one and the same ruler over the coming kingdom.

Note: By fine tuning the reference in Matthew 5 to “the righteousness of” the Law, I am not implying or suggesting that other aspects of the Law or the Old Testament are irrelevant for the church today. As Romans 3:2 affirms, the Scriptures of Israel are “the oracles of God,” and they remain our Scriptures, revealing God’s righteous standards. Indeed, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). While the Law’s explicit purpose was to define and promote righteousness, it could never, on its own, fulfill the promise of life. This was not due to any flaw in the Law itself, for “the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). Rather, it was because of the weakness of human flesh (Romans 8:3).

Paul teaches that the Law served a dual purpose: it revealed sin, exposing humanity’s need for redemption, and it acted as a guardian, restraining evil until the coming of Christ. However, the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and his offspring—particularly the blessing for all nations—required the power of the Holy Spirit, promised in the New Covenant, to bring about true righteousness. The Law pointed forward to this reality, but it could not accomplish it alone. Only through the Spirit’s transformative work in the New Covenant can the righteousness demanded by the Law be fully realized in the lives of believers.

Structural Observations and Thematic Connections

The outline shows there are several overlapping structures that exhibit both ABBA and ABAB type parallelism at the same time. The overall structure in 5:17-19 is ABAB (here in the outline depicted in lowercase) – and we know this because there is no verbal or thematic repetition in the very last term that can be associated with the first “a” term. The ABAB parallelism in 5:17-19 highlights the distinction between Christ’s role in fulfilling (the righteousness of) the Law and his followers’ role in observing/practicing it. For example, in Matthew 5:19, where we might expect a similar repetition of “fulfill” in the parallelism, Jesus speaks instead of doing the commandments (rather than fulfilling them).

Since Jesus affirmed the continuity of the righteousness of the Law, the loosening of the commandments in 5:19 constituted a direct violation of the covenant. However, note that the infraction is not solely negating the Law, but rather, it is two-fold: negating the Law’s validity and teaching that viewpoint. This seems to be the type of violation committed by a leader/teacher. It would be a grievous infraction since such a one would not only cause harm to themselves, but also spread spiritual harm to others. In 5:20, the Lord actually names the Scribes and Pharisees as potential targets of this warning. Jesus regarded this as such a serious violation that negating even the tiniest part of the Law would be enough to reduce the guilty party’s standing in the kingdom to the lowest possible rank. I am not certain if Jesus may be teaching something akin to being “saved, but only as through fire” (1Cor. 3:15) or more likely (in light of Matthew 5:20) if this lowest status is really no different from no status at all. St. John Chrysostom opts for the latter (harsher) viewpoint on this passage. To use an illustration, in mathematics, it is said that division by zero is undefined. Yet it is possible to see the behavior of the function “around” 0. (Points can be chosen close to 0; for instance, x equal to 0.001, 0.0001, and 0.00001.) As x becomes smaller and approaches 0, the function values become larger. In fact, as x approaches 0, the function approaches infinity. Although “approaching zero” in terms of existence in the kingdom may be interesting to consider, the reality should be avoided at all costs.

Christ’s Resurrection as the Fulfillment of the Law

Regarding what it means for Jesus to fulfill the Law and the prophets, I would recommend reviewing the church fathers, such as St Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. For example, St. John Chrysostom initially explains one sense, but then adds and explains three more senses. So, I will briefly list them, numbered this way: 0) Jesus confirmed by his actions all that had been written about him; 1) He obeyed all the commandments; 2) He granted the same ability to us - as in Rom 8:3-4; 3) He delivered his own higher law.

I approach this question a bit differently – beginning with the near context but also exploring other gospel contexts. In the near context, the structural parallelism in 5:17-18 (as shown in the outline) points to the idea that “until all things happen/come to pass” is ultimately what Jesus was referring to by him fulfilling the Law and the prophets. Recall, we previously brought up the passage in Deuteronomy 18 regarding the promise of a prophet like Moses. That passage goes on to instruct Israel on identifying a true prophet. In order to verify a true prophet, God instructed Israel, “Whatever word a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing the Lord has not spoken; the prophet spoke that word impiously; you shall not spare him” (Deut. 18:22). I propose that, in this passage, Jesus not only fully grasped his messianic role, but he also submitted to the required Scriptural test of the prophet like Moses. In fact, he solemnly testified (“truly I am saying to you” 5:18a) that “all things should happen” (i.e., “come to pass” 5:18b).

So then, what is the referent of “all (things)”? Matthew 5:18a indicates the Law’s validity “until heaven and earth pass away” and “until all should happen.” This is a future reference from Jesus’ perspective in the first half of AD 30. However, I will make the case that Jesus is referring to the culmination and fulfillment of God's entire redemptive plan as achieved through Jesus’ cross and resurrection. This conclusion is supported in the church fathers and, I submit, is intended to be the ultimate demonstration that Jesus is the Prophet like Moses. Therefore, it should also become clear that we, the hearers/readers of Matthew’s gospel - we in the church, who have come after Christ’s death and resurrection - are the ones destined to be able to see and believe that Christ has passed the Deuteronomic test!

Note: Since I am locating the fulfillment in the resurrection of Christ, I will therefore refer to this as an “eschatological” fulfillment. This is based on St. Paul’s teaching that Jesus’ resurrection was “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Cor. 15:20), and again in 1Cor. 15:23, “But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”

Analysis of Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17

To support an eschatological reference to Christ’s resurrection as the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets, I want to examine a “parallel” passage in Luke 16:17. Although Luke 16:17 is not traditionally considered a formal parallel to Matthew 5:18 in Gospel harmonies, it reflects a similar thematic comparison between the enduring nature of the Law and the cosmic order:

Matthew 5:18:

“…until heaven and earth should pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter should pass away from the Law until all should happen.”

Luke 16:17:

“But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to fall.”

Both verses compare the vastness of the cosmos with the permanence of the details of the Law, emphasizing its enduring authority.

While Luke 16:17 uses two infinitives παρέρχομαι (to pass away) and πίπτω (to fall), Matthew 5:18 employs two verbs in the subjunctive: παρέρχομαι and γίνομαι (to become, to come into being). These grammatical differences underscore a shared focus: the Law remains unbroken until its fulfillment in Christ.

However, Luke 16:17 is just the first of two parallels, the second of which is where I want to make my main point. Luke 16:17 appears within a broader narrative context (Luke 16:13-31), which includes two parallel pericopes: the rebuke of Pharisees (16:14-17) and the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31). Both pericopes share the exact same, very specific, outline in common:

A. Prizing Money and Outward Things While Ignoring the Heart

1. Earthly Injustice/Man’s Unjust Judgment – Only the Appearance of Righteousness
2. Heavenly Justice/God’s Righteous Judgment – God Sees the Heart

B. Privileged with Revelation Yet Ignoring God’s Word

1. Fruitless Attempts to Enter the Kingdom (Apart from Repentance)
2. The Importance of the Scriptures

(For more on Luke 16:13-31, cf., this post).

In Luke 16:27-31, Abraham’s response to the rich man’s plea for Lazarus to warn his brothers highlights the necessity of heeding Moses and the prophets for repentance. Luke 16:31 is important to my point. Abraham tells the rich man, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

This eschatological reference is likely a reference to Jesus upcoming passion and resurrection (not the resuscitation of Lazarus, which is peculiar to John’s Gospel). Jesus’ earlier prediction of his resurrection (Luke 9:22) and subsequent teachings about its necessity (Luke 18:31-33) help make the case for this as a reference to Jesus’ resurrection. (Note, especially the relevance how the second reference is introduced, “And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished” (Luke 18:31). To summarize, this context in Luke illuminates Jesus’ message in Matthew 5:18: the Law serves as a revelation leading to repentance, ultimately fulfilled in Christ’s resurrection—the ultimate “warning” and “fulfillment.”

We are therefore completely justified in understanding Jesus’ reference to fulfillment in Matthew 5:17 as to his own resurrection from the dead, since he links it with the future reference in his explanation in 5:18, “until whenever all thingsshould happen.” Scripturally, the resurrection is associated with Christ’s ascension and exaltation as Lord in relation to his church and his kingdom. So, this perspective complements Jesus’ stating that the Law will be valid “until whenever heaven and earth should pass away.”

Note: we should not understand “until” in 5:18 as if that is the point when the righteous requirement of the Law will somehow become invalid. Rather, the righteous requirement of the Law will be valid up through that point in time. Since Orthodox Christians are often called upon to defend the “ever-virgin” Mary tradition and explain Matthew 1:25 (where Joseph “knew her not until she had given birth to a son”), at least they will be familiar with the linguistic range of this preposition and that, while the majority of uses express upper limit, there is also a contemporaneous usage such that "until" does not necessarily indicate a change after the event.

The Continuity Between Jesus & Paul and Jesus’ Critique of the Scribes & Pharisees (5:20)

Jesus’ critique of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 5:20 highlights their superficial adherence to righteousness and their neglect of the Law’s more profound demands, such as justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23). They focused on external observances—like meticulously tithing mint while exploiting the vulnerable—and prioritized human traditions over God’s commandments. In contrast, Jesus calls for a deeper, transformative righteousness that surpasses theirs, one rooted in inward renewal and obedience to God’s will from the heart.

Although the discontinuity between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in Matthew 5:20 is evident, some readers may wonder if there may be some theological discontinuity between the perspectives of Jesus and Paul regarding the Mosaic Law. For example, we might wonder how Jesus’ emphasis on the commandments and doing righteousness aligns with Paul’s assertion that “a person is not justified by works of the Law” and that “by works of the Law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). Does Paul’s teaching undermine the Law or even, in some way, abolish the Law? This tension may appear significant at first. However, upon closer examination, much of the apparent discontinuity disappears. This is especially so once we recognize the distinction between “works of the Law” and “good works.” The phrase, “Works of the Law” referred to Jewish identity markers, such as circumcision and dietary laws, that functioned to distinguished Jews from Gentiles within the covenant community. In Galatians, the controversial issue was the Judaizer’s insistence that Gentile converts should dealt with as proselytes (becoming Jews) in order to become Christians. For example, the Judaizers may have insisted on circumcision for Gentile converts based on Exodus 12:48, “But if a resident alien (proselyte) should draw near to you to keep the Pascha to the Lord, you shall circumcise every male of his, and then he shall draw near to keep it, and he shall be like a native of the land. No uncircumcised person shall eat of it.” Yet, in Galatians, St. Paul argues that Gentile Christians need not become Jews in order to be justified—i.e., to attain right standing covenant status of before God in the Christian community. In contrast to such identity markers, “good works” were acts of righteousness that flowed from the covenant faithfulness of true religion. St. Paul says there is no law against such things (Galatians 5:23), especially since we know that love fulfills the Law (Romans 13:8) and we were created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph 2:10). While the “good works” righteousness Jesus spoke of were regarded as perfectly compatible with the Pauline gospel, the Judaizers requirement of “works of the Law” such as circumcision for Paul’s Gentile coverts was regarded by Paul as a perversion and a denial of the gospel.

Paul’s argument in Galatians 2 emphasizes that right standing in the covenant community comes not via Jewishness, but instead through “the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” This phrase is an encapsulation referring to Jesus’ covenantal faithfulness (i.e., in his redemptive death and resurrection). Christ’s death was an expiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness for our sins (Rom 3:25). Yet, Christ was raised “for the sake of” our right standing (Romans 4:25). For St. Paul, those who have been baptized into Christ have died with Christ and been raised with Christ.

So, when Paul writes in Galatians 2:16, “We believed into Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by the faithfulness of Christ,” he is referring to the believer’s baptismal entrance into this new covenant status in Christ. This status of right standing was not only attained based on Christ’s redemptive faithfulness (for us), it is also maintained through his faithfulness (Galatians 3:26 translated properly “You are all Sons of God through the faithfulness in Christ Jesus” rather than the subtly obfuscated “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith” in English translations such as the ESV). In Romans, St. Paul explains how Christ’s faithfulness in his death and resurrection continues our salvation and theosis in that we are now dead to sin and alive to God in Christ (Romans 6:11). Paul uses his own spiritual journey in Galatians to extrapolate based on his death with Christ (to sin) as also marking his death with Christ to the Law. “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ…” (Gal. 2:19-20a). From the biblical-theological context, we understand St. Paul intended this as a qualified reference to the relation (now broken through death) that Paul had with the Mosaic Covenant (epitomized in the Law as a means to righteousness/right standing). Through baptism we are not simply alive to God in Christ, but we have been given the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). We have been clothed with Christ - and thus adopted into the status of “Sons” in the family of God (Galatians 3:26-28, Romans 8:12-15).

Through our participation in Christ, we share in this new covenant status of right standing that St. Paul characterizes as “this grace which we stand” (Rom 5:2). Paul’s letter to the Romans further explains that this gift of grace is not simply something static. Rather, since we are in communion with the Triune God, it is a dynamic power, that enables believers to live and walk in synergistic cooperation with the indwelling Spirit. This is how grace reigns, as Romans 5:21 says, “through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This is how the righteousness required by the Law is now, “fulfilled…” (same word as in Matthew 5)…in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). This verse highlights two key truths: first, the Law reveals God’s righteous standard, and second, the indwelling Spirit empowers believers to live in alignment with that standard. As we synergistically cooperate with God’s grace within us, we are enabled to fulfill the Law’s righteous requirements as we are led by the Spirit. Per Romans 2:13, it is the “doers of the law” who will be justified in the future judgment.

While Jesus affirmed the Law’s validity and continuity, he also fulfilled its ultimate purpose through his life, death, and resurrection. Romans 10:4 states, “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Thus, Christ himself was the end goal of the Law. He, himself, is where we were heading all along because he brought righteousness and eternal life through the Spirit to redeemed humanity. He did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it, bringing righteousness and eternal life through the Spirit.

Paul summarizes his perspective on the Law in 1Corinthians 9:20-21: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the Law I became as one under the Law (though not being myself under the Law) that I might win those under the Law. To those outside the Law I became as one outside the Law (not being outside the Law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the Law.” This “law of Christ” is synonymous with “the law of the Spirit of life” in Romans 8:2, which liberates believers from “the law of sin and death.”

Paul’s teaching aligns with Jesus’ message: the Law reveals God’s righteous standard, but its demands can only be fulfilled through the transformative power of the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).

Ultimately, Jesus’ faithfulness is the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal expectations. His death and resurrection inaugurated the kingdom of God, ushering in a new era of Spirit-empowered righteousness. Through the Spirit, believers are renewed and transformed into the image of Christ, reflecting God’s glory to the world (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18).

* Note: The meaning of the πίστις word group in the New Testament has been hotly debated. While many Protestants lean heavily on translating the word mostly as “faith / believe,” others (many in the New Perspective on Paul and some in Orthodox Christianity) often or always translate the word as “faithfulness” in the sense of loyalty, fidelity, allegiance (though not in the sense of “obedience” that might imply merit and run counter to free grace). The best case for the meaning as “faith/believe” underscores it as a believing “trust” in the promises of God (not simply mental assent). If there is a range of meaning to the word, then the particular meaning depends on the usage in context. Nevertheless, faith and faithfulness may be hard to distinguish in practice. This is because loyal faithfulness to God must first arise from believing trust in God.

Conclusion

Jesus’ concern about both the fulfillment and the doing of the righteousness of the Law are also reflected in St. Paul’s epistles. The Law’s righteous requirement is not nullified but fulfilled in Christ, who empowers believers through the Spirit to live in obedience and produce good works. This holistic understanding bridges any perceived disconnect between the teachings of Jesus and Paul, affirming the unity of their message about faith/faithfulness, righteousness, and the ultimate fulfillment of the Law in Christ.

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a (repentant) sinner…(dead to sin and alive to God)."