rhutchin

Luke's account incorporates Matthew's account in the phrase, "...when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord...," which law would include that which God instructed Joseph to do. Luke then picks up his account when Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth. Jesus would have been 3-4 years old at this time. They then went to Jerusalem each year. Luke is not concerned with those events described by Matthew as there seems to be no need to provide more details about those events and no need for a repetitive account of those events.

kcdad

You have already stated this a couple of times and it stills get the same guffaw it got originally.

Luke does not account for anything like a trip to Egypt. (Which by the way, is not to the corner market). It doesn't include anything significant at all...

According to the Law has a specific meaning to Jews... it means according to The Torah, not according to anything else including God's talking to you (especially when Luke apparently had no idea what Matthew was writing).

rhutchin

Show me the logical argument that establishes this to be true.

Luke was not writing to Jews. Perhaps, the term has a different meaning to the audience to whom he was writing.

How do you know that Luke apparently had no idea what Matthew was writing?

show_no_mercy

Matthew:
Luke (well, Acts of the Apostles):
In Matthew, Judas returns the money he got for his betrayal and then goes off and hangs himself. In Luke (Acts), Judas buys a field with the money he got for his betrayal and then falls on rocks and seemingly explodes.

They are unaware of each others writings.

Amaleq13

The flaw in your argument appears to be the logical fallacy of equivocation. You are claiming the phrase "law of the Lord" applies to extra-Torah commands but you have offered no evidence to support this use. To my knowledge, every other example in the Bible refers specifically to what is written in the Torah.

Unless you have an example in which something God commanded which is not contained within the Torah was called the "law of the Lord", you are equivocating in defining the phrase for no other reason than to retain your conclusion.

rhutchin

OK, that's a good point. You write, "To my knowledge, every other example in the Bible refers specifically to what is written in the Torah." So, how did you arrive at that conclusion? The Bible never really tells us that the Law of the Lord is synonymous with the Torah. It refers to that "written in the law of the Lord" or to the "Book of the law of the Lord" The closest it comes to identifying the "law of the Lord" with the Torah is:

And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD by Moses. [2 Chronicles 34:14]

Was this one book of several or a complete account of the Law of the Lord? It is not clear. It is one book attributed to Moses.

The Torah is, I think, a reference to the first five books of the OT whom the Jews believed to be authored by Moses. That it contains many laws to be followed by Israel is clear. However, it also contains the account of Genesis which is an historical account of the events leading to the creation of the nation of Israel. Hardly a book of laws. But within the book called the Torah, many laws are listed. It is the "Law of the Lord" because it contains laws given to Israel by God.

What about the Proverbs? The Jew would consider Solomon to be speaking for God when he spoke the proverbs so aren't these to be obeyed by the people? If the Jew were to adhere to the law of the Lord, wouldn't he be bound to obey the proverbs also? My answer is yes. Any time God commands a nation or an individual to behave in a certain manner, that becomes the Law of the Lord.

The question, then, is what Luke had in mind when he used the phrase "they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord"? Did he have in mind just the laws found in the Torah as they relate to the new baby and purification of the mother or did he also mean to include those specific commands given to Joseph by God as recorded by Matthew. Whichever way you go, you have to make certain assumptions. Those assumptions are not specifically spelled out in the Biblical documents. So, one can go in two directions, at least, and either one can be the right direction and either one can be the wrong direction.

rhutchin

In Acts 1, the context is that of Peter talking to those assembled in the room and Peter appears to use metaphorical language to describe what Judas had done and what had happened to him. We might conclude that Peter did not know the full story of what had happened to Judas at that point in time as no one had yet sat down to write an account of the life of Jesus and would not do so for many years. This does not show that Luke who writes many years later and would have had access to Matthew's account (even if we don't know that he did) could not have been aware of Matthew's account. The reference to Peter's sermon adds nothing to the issue before us and in no way proves, supports, or implies your point.

andrewcriddle

IMO the Law of the Lord has to mean generally valid decrees (eg If your first born child is a baby boy then you must ......) I don't see how a one-off instruction by God to an individual can plausibly be what is meant.

Andrew Criddle

kcdad

According to the law of the Lord does not include a trip to Egypt to flee a nonexistent slaying of male children by Herod.

OY!

Because they can't agree on anything except what they copied from Mark.

matthijs

Apart from when they do agree, of course.

Elske.