Appendix A: Hebrew and Greek Word Study

This appendix collects the key Greek terms from Matthew 5—7 that bear on the central interpretive question: Is the Sermon on the Mount for believers today to follow? Each entry is designed as a standalone reference: you can read the full appendix for depth or consult a single section as needed. The goal is not to drive you to a conclusion but to equip you to read the Greek text more precisely than any English translation allows.

The method: for each term, we examine the root meaning, the full semantic range, how it is used elsewhere in Matthew and the New Testament, how it is translated across versions, and what it contributes to the central question of the Sermon’s applicability.

Fulfil, Complete, Bring to Full Expression --- plēroō (Strong’s G4137)

Greek: πληρόω Root meaning: From πλήρης (plērēs, “full”). To make full, to fill up, to bring to completion. The root image is a vessel being filled to the brim --- nothing lacking, nothing empty. Semantic range: To fill; to fill up; to make full; to complete; to accomplish; to carry out; to bring to full expression; to fulfill (prophecy); to satisfy (a requirement); to bring to its intended goal.

This is the single most important word in the entire Sermon on the Mount debate. Everything turns on what Jesus means when he says he came not to destroy the law “but to fulfil.”

The pivotal verse

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” --- Matthew 5:17 (KJV)

The Greek: Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.

The infinitive πληρῶσαι (aorist active) is set in direct contrast with καταλῦσαι (“to destroy, tear down”). Whatever “fulfil” means, it is the opposite of “destroy.” But the opposite of destroying something can mean many different things: preserving it, completing it, deepening it, or bringing it to its intended destination. The entire debate hangs on which of these senses Jesus intends.

BDAG definition

BDAG (3rd ed., p. 828—829) gives four main senses:

“To make full, fill (full)” --- the literal sense: to fill a container or space (Matt 13:48, filling a net; Matt 23:32, “fill ye up the measure of your fathers”)
“To complete a period of time, fulfill” --- Mark 1:15, “the time is fulfilled”
“To bring to completion, fulfill” --- of prophecies, promises, divine purposes. BDAG specifically notes Matthew’s prophetic fulfillment formula under this heading.
“To bring to a designed end” --- of the law, obligations, or duties (Rom 13:8, “he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law”)

For Matthew 5:17, BDAG classifies the usage under sense 3 (“bring to completion that which was promised or expected”) but notes the complexity: “The mng. in Mt 5:17 is much disputed.”

Matthew’s fulfillment formula

Matthew uses πληρόω in a distinctive formula that appears repeatedly throughout the Gospel:

Matt 1:22: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet”
Matt 2:15: “…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son”
Matt 2:17: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet”
Matt 2:23: “…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets”
Matt 4:14: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet”
Matt 8:17: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet”
Matt 12:17: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet”
Matt 13:35: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet”
Matt 21:4: “All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet”
Matt 26:54: “But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled (πληρωθῶσιν), that thus it must be?”
Matt 26:56: “But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled”

The pattern is unmistakable: Matthew uses πληρόω overwhelmingly in the sense of prophetic fulfillment --- Scripture finding its intended realization in the events of Jesus’s life. This is the dominant Matthean usage.

The three major readings of Matt 5:17

Reading 1 --- Prophetic fulfillment: Jesus fulfills the law and prophets in the same way he fulfills Isaiah 7:14 or Hosea 11:1 --- they pointed forward to him, and he is the reality to which they pointed. On this reading, the law was a shadow; Christ is the substance. The law’s purpose is achieved and its demands are satisfied in Christ. This reading tends to support the view that the Mosaic law’s direct authority has been superseded --- not destroyed, but completed.

Reading 2 --- Bring to full expression: Jesus does not abolish the law but deepens it, extending it from external compliance to internal reality. “You have heard that it was said… but I say unto you” is the fulfillment: taking the law beyond the letter to the spirit. On this reading, the Sermon is the fulfilled law --- the law brought to its deepest and fullest meaning. Believers follow the Sermon because it is the law in its mature, Christ-interpreted form.

Reading 3 --- Obey and validate: Jesus came to obey the law perfectly, thereby validating its authority. He did not set it aside; he kept it. On this reading, “fulfil” means something like “uphold by doing.” This reading tends to support the view that the law continues in full force and the Sermon teaches believers how to keep it.

Usage in Paul

Paul uses πληρόω less than Matthew but in revealing ways:

Romans 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” The law’s righteous requirement is fulfilled in believers through the Spirit --- not by external law-keeping but by Spirit-empowered living.
Romans 13:8: “For he that loveth another hath fulfilled (πεπλήρωκεν) the law.” Love is the fulfillment of the law.
Galatians 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Again, love as the fulfillment.

Paul’s usage aligns most naturally with Reading 2: the law finds its full expression in the love that the Spirit produces. The law is not destroyed; it is completed in a life of love.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:17

Translation	Rendering of πληρῶσαι	Notes
KJV	”to fulfil”	Classic rendering; ambiguous enough to sustain all three readings
ESV	”to fulfill them”	Adds “them” (not in Greek); same ambiguity
NASB	”to fulfill”	Same as KJV
LSB	”to fulfill”	Same
NIV	”to fulfill them”	Adds “them”; same as ESV

All major translations render πληρῶσαι as “fulfill” --- which preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. No English translation resolves the debate, because the debate is about what “fulfill” means in this context, not about how to translate the word.

Significance for the study: πληρόω is the hinge on which the entire Sermon on the Mount applicability question turns. If “fulfil” means prophetic completion (Reading 1), the law’s direct regulatory authority may have reached its terminus in Christ, and the Sermon describes the new reality that has replaced it. If “fulfil” means “bring to full expression” (Reading 2), the Sermon is the law in its deepest form, and believers are called to live by it as the Spirit enables. If “fulfil” means “obey and uphold” (Reading 3), the law continues in full force and the Sermon is Jesus’s authoritative interpretation of it. The word itself does not settle the question --- it opens the interpretive space that the rest of the study must navigate.

Perfect, Complete, Mature --- teleios (Strong’s G5046)

Greek: τέλειος Root meaning: From τέλος (telos, G5056), “end, goal, completion.” Something that has reached its telos --- its designed endpoint. Semantic range: Perfect; complete; lacking nothing; mature; full-grown; adult; fully developed; entire; whole.

The pivotal verse

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” --- Matthew 5:48 (KJV)

The Greek: Ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν.

The form τέλειοι is nominative plural --- addressing the audience directly. The construction Ἔσεσθε (“you shall be”) is future indicative, which can function as either a prediction (“you will be”) or a command (“be!”). Most interpreters read it as an imperative, but the future tense is worth noting: it may carry the nuance of “you are to become” or even “you will become” --- a promise blended with a command.

BDAG definition

BDAG (3rd ed., p. 995—996) gives two main senses:

“Pert. to meeting the highest standard, perfect” --- of persons and things that meet the ideal
“Pert. to being mature, full-grown, mature, adult” --- of persons reaching developmental completion

For Matthew 5:48, BDAG classifies the use under sense 1 but notes the parallel with Luke 6:36.

The Lukan parallel: merciful, not perfect

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” --- Luke 6:36 (KJV)

The Greek: Γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν.

Luke uses οἰκτίρμονες (oiktirmones, “merciful, compassionate”) where Matthew uses τέλειοι. This is one of the most illuminating parallels in the Gospels. If Matthew and Luke are recording the same saying (or closely related teachings), then Luke interprets “perfect” as “merciful.” This suggests that τέλειος here does not mean “sinlessly flawless” but rather “complete in love” --- specifically, in the kind of indiscriminate mercy that characterizes God.

The context in Matthew confirms this. The immediately preceding verses (Matt 5:43—47) concern loving enemies --- extending love beyond those who reciprocate it. “Be ye therefore perfect” functions as the conclusion of that argument: be complete in your love, as God is complete in his --- he “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:45). The “perfection” in view is completeness of love, not absence of sin.

The Hebrew background: tamim

The LXX uses τέλειος to translate the Hebrew תָּמִים (tamim) in key passages:

Genesis 6:9: “Noah was a just man and perfect (תָּמִים / τέλειος) in his generations.” Noah was not sinless (Gen 9:21); he was “whole, complete, blameless” in his relationship with God.
Genesis 17:1: “Walk before me, and be thou perfect (תָּמִים / ἄμεμπτος [amemptos, ‘blameless’]).” God’s command to Abraham --- walk in wholehearted devotion. (Note: the LXX renders tamim as ἄμεμπτος here rather than τέλειος, showing the semantic overlap between “blameless” and “complete” in the Hebrew.)
Deuteronomy 18:13: “Thou shalt be perfect (תָּמִים / τέλειος) with the LORD thy God.” Wholehearted loyalty, not sinless perfection.

In every OT case, tamim means “whole, complete, undivided in devotion” --- not “morally flawless.” A tamim person is single-hearted toward God, not a person who never sins.

The three major readings of Matt 5:48

Reading 1 --- Sinless perfection: Jesus commands moral perfection identical to God’s. Since no one can achieve this, the command drives the hearer to despair of self-righteousness and to dependence on Christ’s righteousness (the Lutheran “second use of the law”). On this reading, the command is real but functions as a mirror that exposes human inability.

Reading 2 --- Completeness of love: “Perfect” means “complete, whole” --- specifically, complete in the indiscriminate love just described (5:43—47). Luke’s parallel confirms this: “merciful” interprets “perfect.” The command is genuinely livable through the Spirit, though never perfectly in this life. It describes the direction, not the arrival.

Reading 3 --- Mature wholeness: τέλειος carries its “maturity” sense: grow up into the full measure of what God intends. Be mature, not childish, in your love. This is similar to Reading 2 but emphasizes the developmental trajectory.

Usage elsewhere in the NT

1 Corinthians 2:6: “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect (τελείοις)” --- the mature, not the sinless.
Philippians 3:15: “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect (τέλειοι), be thus minded” --- Paul calls himself “perfect” in 3:15 while denying he has “attained” in 3:12. The word can describe present maturity while acknowledging incomplete sanctification.
James 1:4: “That ye may be perfect (τέλειοι) and entire (ὁλόκληροι), wanting nothing.” Paired with “entire, lacking nothing” --- completeness, not sinlessness.
James 3:2: “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect (τέλειος) man.” Complete self-mastery.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:48

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”Be ye therefore perfect"	"Perfect” carries sinless overtones in English that the Greek may not intend
ESV	”You therefore must be perfect”	Same; “must” strengthens the imperative force
NASB	”Therefore you shall be perfect”	Future indicative preserved; slightly softer
LSB	”Therefore you shall be perfect”	Same as NASB
NIV	”Be perfect, therefore”	Imperative

No major translation attempts “complete” or “mature” here, despite the strong lexical evidence for those senses. The English word “perfect” carries connotations of flawlessness that the Greek word does not necessarily carry.

Significance for the study: If τέλειος means “sinlessly perfect” in 5:48, then the Sermon sets an impossible standard --- and its function may be to humble rather than to instruct. If it means “complete in love” or “mature,” then the command is genuinely livable (though never fully achieved in this life) and the Sermon functions as a genuine ethical guide for believers. The Lukan parallel and the OT background of tamim both favor the “completeness” reading, but the “impossible ideal” reading has a long theological pedigree. The interpreter must decide whether the Sermon’s commands are designed to be obeyed or to expose the impossibility of obedience.

Blessed, Divinely Favored --- makarios (Strong’s G3107)

Greek: μακάριος Root meaning: The etymology is debated. Possibly from μάκαρ (makar), an ancient Greek word for “blessed” used of the gods and the blessed dead. In classical Greek, μακάριος described the state of the gods and of the deceased who had entered the realm of the blessed --- a happiness beyond ordinary human experience. Semantic range: Blessed; happy; fortunate; to be envied; divinely favored; in the right place before God.

The Beatitudes

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” --- Matthew 5:3 (KJV)

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” --- Matthew 5:4 (KJV)

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” --- Matthew 5:5 (KJV)

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” --- Matthew 5:6 (KJV)

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” --- Matthew 5:7 (KJV)

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” --- Matthew 5:8 (KJV)

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” --- Matthew 5:9 (KJV)

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” --- Matthew 5:10 (KJV)

Not “happy”

Modern readers often hear “blessed” as a vaguely spiritual synonym for “happy.” This is misleading. μακάριος does not describe an emotional state. It describes an objective status before God: the person who is μακάριος is in the right position, regardless of how they feel about it. A mourner who is μακάριος is not “happy about mourning” --- they are in a position that God regards as favored, because comfort is coming to them.

The Amplified Bible’s expansion captures this well: “Blessed [spiritually prosperous, happy, to be admired].” But even this risks the “happy” misunderstanding. The core sense is closer to “divinely favored” or “to be congratulated” --- not for their subjective experience, but for their objective standing.

The Hebrew background: ashre

The LXX uses μακάριος to translate the Hebrew אַשְׁרֵי (ashre), a word that appears frequently in the Psalms and Wisdom literature:

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” --- Psalm 1:1 (KJV)

“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” --- Psalm 32:1 (KJV)

“Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.” --- Psalm 40:4 (KJV)

Ashre is a plural construct form --- literally “the blessednesses of” --- describing a state of being rightly aligned with God. It is never used of God himself (unlike barukh, “blessed” in the sense of “praised”). Ashre is exclusively for human beings who are in the right place before God. The Beatitudes stand squarely in this OT wisdom tradition.

Descriptive or prescriptive?

The interpretive question for the Beatitudes is whether they are descriptive (“this is what blessed people look like --- poor in spirit, mourning, meek”) or prescriptive (“become poor in spirit, mourn, be meek, and you will be blessed”).

The descriptive reading: Jesus is announcing the eschatological reversal. The poor, the mourning, the meek --- these are the ones God is now favoring. The Beatitudes are declarations, not commands. They describe the kingdom’s citizens, not the entrance requirements.

The prescriptive reading: Jesus is calling his hearers to cultivate these qualities. Poverty of spirit, mourning over sin, meekness --- these are virtues to pursue. The Beatitudes function as ethical exhortation.

The blended reading: Most interpreters find elements of both. The Beatitudes describe kingdom citizens and call hearers to become such people. They are both announcement and invitation.

Usage elsewhere in Matthew

Matt 11:6: “And blessed (μακάριος) is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Blessing as a response to accepting Jesus.
Matt 13:16: “But blessed (μακάριοι) are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.” The disciples’ privilege.
Matt 16:17: “Blessed (μακάριος) art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.” Peter’s confession --- blessedness comes from divine revelation.
Matt 24:46: “Blessed (μακάριος) is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” Future-oriented blessedness tied to faithful action.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:3

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”Blessed”	Traditional; reverent; retains the divine-favor dimension
ESV	”Blessed”	Same
NASB	”Blessed”	Same
LSB	”Blessed”	Same
NIV	”Blessed”	Same; footnote offers “happy” as alternative

All major translations agree on “blessed.” The uniformity conceals the distance between the English word and the Greek concept --- English “blessed” often sounds passive and sentimental, while μακάριος is a robust declaration of divine favor.

Significance for the study: If μακάριος is purely descriptive, the Beatitudes are not commands but announcements --- and the question of whether the Sermon is “for today” shifts from “must we obey these?” to “do we recognize ourselves in these?” If prescriptive, the Beatitudes are the Sermon’s opening imperatives and the question of applicability is direct. If blended, the Beatitudes simultaneously describe the community Jesus is forming and invite hearers to enter it --- and applicability is a present reality for all who follow Christ.

Kingdom of Heaven --- basileia tōn ouranōn

Greek: βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν Root meaning: βασιλεία (basileia) from βασιλεύς (basileus, “king”) --- the reign, rule, dominion, or realm of a king. οὐρανῶν (ouranōn) --- genitive plural of οὐρανός, “heaven.” The phrase means “the reign/realm of the heavens.” Semantic range: Kingdom; reign; rule; dominion; realm. βασιλεία can refer to the act of ruling (dynamic sense: “the reign of God”) or to the domain ruled (spatial sense: “the realm of God”).

Matthew’s distinctive phrase

“Kingdom of heaven” (βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) appears 32 times in Matthew and nowhere else in the New Testament. Mark and Luke consistently use “kingdom of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). Matthew himself uses “kingdom of God” five times (Matt 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43, 6:33 in some manuscripts), demonstrating that he treats the two phrases as interchangeable.

This equivalence is confirmed by parallel passages:

Matthew	Mark/Luke Parallel
”kingdom of heaven” (Matt 4:17)	“kingdom of God” (Mark 1:15)
“kingdom of heaven” (Matt 13:11)	“kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10)
“kingdom of heaven” (Matt 13:31)	“kingdom of God” (Mark 4:30; Luke 13:18)
“kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14)	“kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16)

Why “heaven” instead of “God”?

The standard explanation, widely accepted by scholars across the theological spectrum, is that Matthew uses “heaven” as a Jewish circumlocution for “God.” First-century Judaism increasingly avoided pronouncing or writing the divine name out of reverence. Rabbinic literature uses הַשָּׁמַיִם (hashamayim, “the heavens”) as a substitute for God in many phrases. Matthew, writing for a Jewish audience, preserves this convention. Mark and Luke, writing for broader audiences, translate the idiom into the more universally understandable “kingdom of God.”

The dispensationalist alternative

Some dispensationalist interpreters (associated especially with Lewis Sperry Chafer and early Scofield Reference Bible notes) argue that “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” are not identical:

Kingdom of heaven = the Davidic messianic kingdom, offered to Israel, rejected, and postponed to the millennial age. The Sermon on the Mount describes life in this future kingdom.
Kingdom of God = the broader, universal, spiritual reign of God over all creation.

On this reading, the Sermon on the Mount is primarily for the future millennial kingdom, not the present church age. This is the basis for the dispensationalist argument that the Sermon is not directly applicable to believers today.

The mainstream response (held by most evangelical, Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars): The synoptic parallels demonstrate that Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” and Mark/Luke use “kingdom of God” for the same sayings in the same contexts. The distinction is stylistic, not theological. Furthermore, Matthew himself uses “kingdom of God” interchangeably, making a sharp distinction between the two phrases untenable within his own Gospel.

Present, future, or both?

The kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount has both present and future dimensions:

Present reality:

Matt 4:17: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (ἤγγικεν).” The perfect tense of ἐγγίζω (“to draw near”) suggests the kingdom has already drawn near and remains near.
Matt 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is (ἐστιν --- present tense) the kingdom of heaven.”
Matt 5:10: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Bookending the Beatitudes with present-tense kingdom possession.
Matt 12:28: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you (ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς).”

Future reality:

Matt 6:10: “Thy kingdom come (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου).” If the kingdom were fully present, there would be no need to pray for its coming.
Matt 5:19—20: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments… shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Suggests a future reckoning.
Matt 7:21: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Future entry by judgment.

The “already/not yet” consensus: Most interpreters across traditions agree that the kingdom has been inaugurated in Jesus’s ministry but not yet consummated. The Sermon describes life in a kingdom that is genuinely present but not yet fully realized. This “already/not yet” framework allows the Sermon to be both a description of present kingdom life and a vision of future kingdom fullness.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:3

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”kingdom of heaven”	Literal; preserves the Matthean idiom
ESV	”kingdom of heaven”	Same
NASB	”kingdom of heaven”	Same
LSB	”kingdom of heaven”	Same
NIV	”kingdom of heaven”	Same

All translations preserve the distinctive Matthean phrase without interpreting it as “kingdom of God.”

Significance for the study: If “kingdom of heaven” refers to a future millennial kingdom distinct from the present church age, the Sermon may not be directly applicable to believers today. If it is a Jewish circumlocution for “kingdom of God” and that kingdom is already-but-not-yet present, the Sermon describes the ethics of a kingdom that believers inhabit now. The synoptic evidence strongly favors the latter reading, but the dispensationalist interpretation has shaped millions of readers and deserves a fair hearing.

Righteousness --- dikaiosynē (Strong’s G1343)

Greek: δικαιοσύνη Root meaning: From δίκαιος (dikaios, “just, righteous”), itself from δίκη (dikē, “justice, right, custom”). The noun names the quality or state of being righteous --- right standing, right conduct, or both. Semantic range: Righteousness; justice; uprightness; right conduct; right standing before God; conformity to the divine standard; the state of being in right relationship with God and neighbor.

The Sermon’s key term

δικαιοσύνη appears five times in the Sermon on the Mount, making it one of the Sermon’s structural pillars:

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness (δικαιοσύνην): for they shall be filled.” --- Matthew 5:6 (KJV)

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνης) sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” --- Matthew 5:10 (KJV)

“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” --- Matthew 5:20 (KJV)

(The Greek states the noun once: ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων --- literally “unless your righteousness abounds more than [that] of the scribes.” The KJV’s second “righteousness” is supplied by the translators to complete the elliptical comparison.)

“Take heed that ye do not your alms (δικαιοσύνην) before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.” --- Matthew 6:1 (KJV)

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness (δικαιοσύνην); and all these things shall be added unto you.” --- Matthew 6:33 (KJV)

The critical question: forensic or ethical?

The central debate is whether δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon is forensic (right standing before God, credited to the believer through faith) or ethical (right living, the actual conduct of a person who does what is right).

The forensic reading (associated with Lutheran and some Reformed interpretation): When Jesus says “except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,” he means that no human righteousness is sufficient. The Pharisees were the most righteous people in Israel by any external measure --- if their righteousness is not enough, then no one’s is. The Sermon drives the hearer to Christ’s imputed righteousness, which alone “exceeds” all human effort. On this reading, the Sermon functions as law that exposes sin and points to grace.

The ethical reading (associated with Anabaptist, Catholic, Orthodox, and many evangelical interpreters): The Sermon calls for genuine lived righteousness --- not just a declared status but actual right conduct. The Pharisees’ righteousness was external and hypocritical (Matt 23); the exceeding righteousness is one that goes deeper, from the heart. This is not impossible righteousness but Spirit-empowered righteousness, described in the “you have heard… but I say” antitheses (5:21—48). On this reading, the Sermon is a genuine ethical guide.

The blended reading: The Sermon addresses both dimensions. The forensic and the ethical are not mutually exclusive in Matthew’s theology. A right standing before God (forensic) produces right living (ethical), and right living is evidence of right standing. Matt 5:20 calls for a righteousness that is qualitatively different from the Pharisees’ --- deeper, more genuine, rooted in the heart --- which is both a matter of standing and conduct.

BDAG definition

BDAG (3rd ed., p. 247—248) gives three main senses:

“The quality of being upright, uprightness” --- the character quality of doing what is right
“The quality of being correct, correctness” --- conformity to an established standard
“A deed or act that meets the standard, righteous deed” --- specific actions that embody righteousness (this is the sense in Matt 6:1, where many manuscripts read δικαιοσύνην instead of ἐλεημοσύνην for “alms”)

For Matthew 5:6 and 6:33, BDAG classifies the usage under sense 1 --- the quality of uprightness that God desires and produces.

Matt 6:1: righteousness or alms?

A textual variant affects the interpretation of Matt 6:1. Some manuscripts read δικαιοσύνην (“righteousness”), while others read ἐλεημοσύνην (“alms, charitable giving”). The NA28/UBS5 critical text reads δικαιοσύνην, and this is now widely accepted as original. On this reading, 6:1 functions as a heading for the three practices that follow: almsgiving (6:2—4), prayer (6:5—15), and fasting (6:16—18) are all expressions of “righteousness” --- right living before God. The point is that these acts must be done for God, not for human applause.

Usage in Matthew outside the Sermon

Matt 3:15: “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness (δικαιοσύνην).” Jesus’s baptism is an act of “fulfilling righteousness” --- connecting πληρόω and δικαιοσύνη. Here righteousness is something that is enacted, not merely declared.
Matt 21:32: “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness (δικαιοσύνης).” John’s ministry embodied right conduct.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:20

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”except your righteousness shall exceed"	"Righteousness” preserves the ambiguity
ESV	”unless your righteousness exceeds”	Same
NASB	”unless your righteousness surpasses"	"Surpasses” slightly intensifies
LSB	”unless your righteousness surpasses”	Same as NASB
NIV	”unless your righteousness surpasses”	Same

Significance for the study: If δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon is primarily forensic, then the Sermon functions as an expositor of human inability that drives hearers to Christ’s imputed righteousness. The Sermon’s commands are real but their primary purpose is to show that no one can keep them. If δικαιοσύνη is primarily ethical, the Sermon calls for genuine right living that is deeper than external law-keeping --- and is genuinely possible through the Spirit. Most interpreters today recognize both dimensions, but the emphasis one places on forensic vs. ethical righteousness decisively shapes whether one reads the Sermon as a livable ethic or an impossible ideal.

Destroy, Tear Down, Abolish --- katalyō (Strong’s G2647)

Greek: καταλύω Root meaning: From κατά (kata, “down”) + λύω (lyō, “to loose, untie, dissolve”). The compound means to “loose down” --- to tear apart, to demolish, to dissolve the structure of something. Semantic range: To throw down; to tear down; to demolish (a building); to destroy; to abolish; to annul; to invalidate; to overthrow; to put down at an inn (in a specialized sense: to unyoke, unload, i.e. to lodge).

The pivotal verse

“Think not that I am come to destroy (καταλῦσαι) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy (καταλῦσαι), but to fulfil.” --- Matthew 5:17 (KJV)

Jesus denies that he has come to καταλῦσαι the law. Whatever “fulfil” means (see πληρόω above), it is explicitly contrasted with this word. The opposite of πληρόω in this verse is καταλύω.

BDAG definition

BDAG (3rd ed., p. 521) gives three main senses:

“To cause the ruin/destruction of something, destroy, demolish” --- of buildings (Matt 26:61, “I am able to destroy the temple of God”; Matt 27:40, “Thou that destroyest the temple”; Mark 14:58; Acts 6:14) or institutions
“To put an end to the validity of something, abolish, annul, make invalid” --- of laws, regulations, or authoritative structures (Matt 5:17; Gal 2:18; 2 Macc 2:22, 4:11)
“To find a place to stay, find lodging” --- a specialized meaning from the root sense of “unyoking” (Luke 9:12, 19:7)

For Matthew 5:17, BDAG classifies the usage under sense 2: “to abolish, annul, make invalid.”

What Jesus did NOT come to do

The force of Jesus’s denial is important. He anticipated the charge: “Do not think (Μὴ νομίσητε) that I came to abolish the law.” This is a preemptive rebuttal. Jesus knows that his teaching --- which will shortly include the radical antitheses of 5:21—48 (“You have heard that it was said… but I say unto you”) --- might sound like he is overthrowing the law. He forestalls this interpretation. Whatever the antitheses are, they are not the demolition of the law.

Usage elsewhere in the NT

Matt 24:2: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down (καταλυθήσεται).” The destruction of the temple --- literal demolition.
Matt 26:61: “This fellow said, I am able to destroy (καταλῦσαι) the temple of God.” The charge against Jesus at his trial.
Acts 5:38—39: “If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought (καταλυθήσεται): but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow (καταλῦσαι) it.” Gamaliel’s counsel: what God establishes cannot be torn down.
Galatians 2:18: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed (κατέλυσα), I make myself a transgressor.” Paul’s argument about returning to the law after being freed from it.

The katalyō/plēroō pair

The contrast between these two words frames the entire Sermon. To καταλύω is to dismantle something --- to tear apart its structure, to render it null and void, to treat it as having no authority. To πληρόω is to bring something to its intended fullness. The law is not being torn down; it is being brought to completion. But what “completion” looks like remains the debated question.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:17

Translation	Rendering of καταλῦσαι	Notes
KJV	”to destroy”	Strong; implies demolition
ESV	”to abolish”	Legal language; implies annulment
NASB	”to abolish”	Same as ESV
LSB	”to abolish”	Same
NIV	”to abolish”	Same

The KJV’s “destroy” preserves the physical demolition metaphor (cf. the temple in Matt 26:61). Modern translations prefer “abolish,” which emphasizes the legal/institutional sense. Both are within the word’s semantic range. “Abolish” arguably fits better in a context about law and prophets; “destroy” preserves the visceral force.

Significance for the study: Jesus’s denial is not ambiguous: he did not come to tear down the law. Every interpretive position must honor this. The dispensationalist who says the Sermon is not for today must explain how this is not effectively treating the Sermon as abolished. The progressive dispensationalist or covenant theologian who says the Mosaic law is fulfilled in Christ must explain how fulfillment differs from abolition. The Anabaptist who takes the Sermon at face value finds the strongest ground in this verse. The debate is not about whether the law was destroyed --- Jesus says it was not --- but about what it means that it was “fulfilled” instead.

Law of Christ --- nomos tou Christou (Galatians 6:2)

Greek: νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 6:2); ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (1 Cor 9:21) Root meaning: νόμος (nomos) from νέμω (“to deal out, distribute”) --- that which is distributed, assigned, allotted; hence: law, custom, principle, norm. τοῦ Χριστοῦ: genitive --- “of Christ,” indicating origin, possession, or characterization. Semantic range: Law; principle; norm; rule; regulation; custom. The genitive “of Christ” can mean: the law that comes from Christ, the law that belongs to Christ, or the law that Christ embodies.

The key passages

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil (ἀναπληρώσετε) the law of Christ (τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ).” --- Galatians 6:2 (KJV)

“To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” --- 1 Corinthians 9:21 (KJV)

The phrase “under the law to Christ” renders Paul’s ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (see the analysis below).

Note the word choice in Galatians 6:2: ἀναπληρώσετε --- a compound of πληρόω (“fulfil”), the same root as in Matthew 5:17. Paul says bearing one another’s burdens “fulfils” the law of Christ. The verbal echo with the Sermon is striking.

What is the “law of Christ”?

Paul does not define the phrase explicitly, and interpreters disagree:

View 1 --- The Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’s ethical teaching: The “law of Christ” is the body of ethical instruction that Jesus gave, including (and perhaps especially) the Sermon on the Mount. Bearing one another’s burdens fulfills this law because it embodies the Sermon’s ethic of radical love. On this view, the Sermon is directly applicable because it is the law under which Christians live.

View 2 --- The love command: The “law of Christ” is reducible to the command to love one another (John 13:34; Gal 5:14: “all the law is fulfilled in one word… Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”). The Sermon is one expression of this love ethic but is not itself the “law of Christ” in a technical sense. The Christian’s obligation is to love, and the Sermon illustrates what love looks like.

View 3 --- The principle of Christ-shaped living: The “law of Christ” is not a legal code at all but a principle: live as Christ lived. This encompasses his teaching, his example, his cross, and his resurrection life. The Sermon contributes to this pattern but does not exhaust it.

1 Corinthians 9:21: “under the law to Christ”

Paul’s construction ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (“in-lawed to Christ” or “under Christ’s law”) is unique. He carefully distinguishes three categories:

Those “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον) --- Torah-observant Jews
Those “without law” (ἄνομοι) --- Gentiles with no Torah obligation
Himself: “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ” --- a new category

Paul is not lawless (not ἄνομος θεοῦ) but he is not under the Mosaic Torah either. He is ἔννομος Χριστοῦ --- “in-lawed to Christ.” This implies a genuine normative framework that is neither the Mosaic code nor lawlessness. Whether this framework includes the Sermon on the Mount is the question.

Translation comparison: Galatians 6:2

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”the law of Christ”	Ambiguous genitive preserved
ESV	”the law of Christ”	Same
NASB	”the law of Christ”	Same
LSB	”the law of Christ”	Same
NIV	”the law of Christ”	Same

Significance for the study: The concept of the “law of Christ” is crucial for any position that holds the Sermon on the Mount to be authoritative for believers. If Paul recognizes a genuine normative framework associated with Christ (“the law of Christ”), and if that framework includes the Sermon’s ethical teaching, then the Sermon is binding not as Mosaic law but as Christ’s own instruction. The connection is strengthened by Paul’s use of ἀναπληρόω (“fulfil”) in Galatians 6:2 --- the same verb root Jesus uses in Matthew 5:17. Whether this linguistic echo is deliberate or coincidental, it suggests that “fulfilling” the law of Christ through love is continuous with what Jesus meant by “fulfilling” the law and prophets.

Commandment --- entolē (Strong’s G1785)

Greek: ἐντολή Root meaning: From ἐντέλλομαι (entellomai, “to command, to charge, to give orders”). The noun names the thing commanded: a commandment, charge, order, injunction. Semantic range: Commandment; order; charge; injunction; precept; mandate. Can refer to divine commandments (the Decalogue, specific Torah laws), Jesus’s instructions, or general authoritative orders.

The Sermon’s use

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments (ἐντολῶν), and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” --- Matthew 5:19 (KJV)

The question is urgent: what are “these commandments”? Does ἐντολῶν refer to (a) the Mosaic commandments Jesus has just said he did not come to destroy, or (b) the commandments Jesus is about to give in the Sermon?

Reading (a): “These commandments” are the Torah’s commands. Jesus has just affirmed the law (5:17—18); now he warns against minimizing any of its requirements. This supports the view that the Mosaic law remains in full force.

Reading (b): “These commandments” are Jesus’s own teaching --- the antitheses and instructions that follow in 5:21—7:27. “These” (τούτων) points forward to what Jesus is about to say, not backward to the Mosaic code. The Sermon itself constitutes the “commandments” in question.

Reading (c) --- Both: Jesus is affirming the law as he is about to interpret it. The commandments are the Torah as filtered through Jesus’s authoritative teaching. They are neither the bare Mosaic text nor wholly new commands, but the law brought to its Christ-interpreted fullness.

Matt 22:36—40: The greatest commandment

“Master, which is the great commandment (ἐντολὴ μεγάλη) in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment (ἐντολή). And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments (ἐντολαῖς) hang all the law and the prophets.” --- Matthew 22:36—40 (KJV)

Jesus identifies the love commands as the organizing principle of “all the law and the prophets” --- the same phrase from 5:17. The Sermon’s emphasis on radical love (5:43—48), generosity (6:1—4), and the Golden Rule (7:12: “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”) aligns precisely with this principle.

Matt 28:20: The Great Commission

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded (ἐνετειλάμην) you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” --- Matthew 28:20 (KJV)

The verb ἐνετειλάμην is the aorist of ἐντέλλομαι --- the verbal root behind ἐντολή. Jesus commands the apostles to teach all nations to observe everything he has commanded. If the Sermon on the Mount is part of what Jesus “commanded,” then by the Great Commission’s logic, it is to be taught to all disciples in all nations until the end of the age. This is a powerful argument for the Sermon’s universal applicability --- it would be difficult to exclude the Sermon’s teaching from “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Usage elsewhere in the NT

John 13:34: “A new commandment (ἐντολὴν καινήν) I give unto you, That ye love one another.” Jesus issues his own ἐντολή --- a new commandment of his own authority, distinct from but continuous with the Mosaic commands.
1 John 2:3—4: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments (ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ). He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments (ἐντολάς), is a liar.” Keeping Christ’s commandments is the evidence of genuine faith.
1 John 3:23: “And this is his commandment (ἐντολή), That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another.” Christ’s commandment encompasses both faith and love.

Translation comparison: Matthew 5:19

Translation	Rendering	Notes
KJV	”these least commandments"	"These” could point forward or backward
ESV	”one of the least of these commandments”	Same ambiguity
NASB	”one of the least of these commandments”	Same
LSB	”one of the least of these commandments”	Same
NIV	”one of the least of these commands"	"Commands” slightly less formal

Significance for the study: The ἐντολή word group links the Sermon directly to the Great Commission (Matt 28:20). If the Sermon contains genuine “commandments” of Jesus --- and Matt 5:19 uses exactly this word --- then the Great Commission’s charge to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded” logically includes the Sermon’s teaching. Any interpretation that removes the Sermon from the church’s ethical obligation must explain what “all things” means if it does not include the most extensive block of ethical teaching in the Gospel of Matthew.

Summary

The word study reveals that the key terms of the Sermon on the Mount are both linguistically precise and theologically loaded. Seven findings stand out:

1. πληρόω (“fulfil”) is the hinge of the debate. Matthew’s dominant usage is prophetic fulfillment --- Scripture finding its realization in Christ. But the word also means “bring to full expression” and “complete.” The three major readings of Matt 5:17 (prophetic completion, deepening to full expression, obedient validation) correspond to the three major positions on the Sermon’s applicability. The word does not settle the debate; it frames it.

2. τέλειος (“perfect”) does not necessarily mean “sinless.” The OT background (tamim), the Lukan parallel (“merciful”), and the immediate context (love of enemies) all point toward “completeness of love” rather than “moral flawlessness.” If 5:48 is an achievable call to wholehearted love rather than an impossible demand for sinlessness, the Sermon is a livable ethic, not merely a mirror for exposing sin.

3. μακάριος (“blessed”) declares divine favor, not subjective happiness. The Beatitudes stand in the OT ashre tradition: announcements of God’s favor on those in the right position. Whether descriptive, prescriptive, or both, they address the present --- not a future dispensation.

4. βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (“kingdom of heaven”) is Matthew’s Jewish circumlocution for “kingdom of God.” The synoptic parallels confirm the equivalence. The kingdom is both present (“theirs is the kingdom,” 5:3, 10) and future (“thy kingdom come,” 6:10). The “already/not yet” framework places the Sermon’s ethics in the present inaugurated kingdom, not a postponed millennial age.

5. δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) in the Sermon has a strong ethical dimension. The forensic reading (right standing before God) is legitimate but must account for the fact that Matthew consistently uses the word in contexts of lived conduct (3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32). The Sermon calls for a righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees’ --- which in context means a righteousness that goes deeper into the heart, not one that merely surpasses external compliance.

6. The καταλύω/πληρόω contrast is explicit. Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Every interpretation must honor this denial. The question is not whether the law is destroyed but what it means that it is fulfilled.

7. The ἐντολή chain connects the Sermon to the Great Commission. Matt 5:19 calls the Sermon’s teachings “commandments.” Matt 28:20 commands the apostles to teach all nations to observe “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The verbal root is the same. Paul’s “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) and his self-description as ἔννομος Χριστοῦ (“in-lawed to Christ,” 1 Cor 9:21) suggest that the early church recognized a normative ethical framework rooted in Christ’s teaching --- a framework that plausibly includes the Sermon.

Together, these findings do not mandate a single conclusion. They do, however, create a substantial cumulative case that the Sermon on the Mount was intended as a genuine ethical instruction for the community of Jesus’s followers --- not a code restricted to a future dispensation, and not merely a mirror to expose human failure. Whether that instruction is understood as “the fulfilled law brought to full expression,” “the charter of the inaugurated kingdom,” or “the ethical core of the new covenant” depends on broader theological commitments that word studies alone cannot adjudicate. But the vocabulary itself, examined with care, leans toward applicability rather than postponement.

Bibliography

Source	Details
BDAG	Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Liddell-Scott (LSJ)	Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon Press, 1996.
Thayer	Thayer, Joseph. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Baker, 1977.
TDNT	Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Eerdmans, 1964—1976.
BDB	Brown, Driver, Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Clarendon Press, 1907.
LXX	Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935.
NA28	Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.
Strong’s	Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Abingdon, 1890.