Amaleq13

You aren't actually saying anything different from me here.

The meaning the author intended appears to be clear from the surrounding story and all other uses of the phrase in the Bible. You believe it means something other than that but you have nothing even remotely strong enough to suggest the reader should ignore the obvious meaning.

Nothing that followed this declaration is evidence. You are still confusing your ability to imagine a "couda-been" scenario with evidence. :banghead:

It is difficult for me to believe that you genuinely don't understand the difference between actual evidence and your speculative imaginings.

There is no "Jewish mindset" being imposed. My support for a plain reading of the phrase comes primarily from the surrounding text and, secondarily, from every other use of the phrase in the Bible.

This is just you reiterating your conclusion without anything to support it.

Your faith is strong but it is clearly all you have to support your conclusion.

Ben C Smith

Hi, rhutchin.

I am not sure I understand what you think the law of the Lord refers to in Luke 2.39:

When they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord....

Luke 2.22-24 is what sets up this reference:

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord — as it is written in the law of the Lord: Every firstborn male that opens up the womb shall be called holy to the Lord — and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the law of the Lord: A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.

The quotes are from Exodus 13.2 and Leviticus 12.8.

If you do not think that Luke 2.39 is saying that Mary and Joseph actually went through with observing the purification period and offering the doves, why not? (Is it not obvious that this is what Luke is saying? Maybe I am misreading you.)

Thanks.

Ben.

Amaleq13

He is claiming that this is not all that is being referenced by the phrase. He wants to include God's dream warning to go to Egypt from Mt 2:12 so that he can deny that Luke describes them returning directly to Nazareth after the trip to Jerusalem.

Casper

But Luke wrote Luke, and this Acts guy came later on. Just like that guy whose parents named him Romans came afterwards.

duh!

rhutchin

We note that the citations by Luke are the only three instances of the phrase, "Law of the Lord," being used in the NT (except for one use of Law of God in Romans). In the first two instances, Luke writes, "As it is written in the law of the Lord..." and "...which is said in the law of the Lord,..." He makes clear here that he refers to that which is written and that which can be read and the obvious reference is to the written laws contained in the Torah which, as you note, can easily be read in that document.

In the last reference, Luke writes, "...all things according to the law of the Lord,..." He does not write, "...all things written in the law of the Lord,..." or "...all things said in the law of the Lord,..." Had he done so, we would not be having this discussion as his intent would have been clear.

Luke was a companion of Paul and may have written Paul's letters for him. Regardless, he certainly would have listened to the many sermons by Paul and even participated in discussions with Paul and others. In the other letters in the NT, we never find a reference to the "Law of the Lord." The reference is always to the "law." So, thirty years after the death of Christ, Christians are referring to the "law" but not the "Law of the Lord." It is in this atmosphere that Luke writes his gospel. Elsewhere in his gospel, Luke quotes Jesus as referring to the law, even the law and the prophets, and never the Law of the Lord. We have Jesus effecting a change in the way in which people, Christians and especially Jews, are to think of the laws given to Moses that is seen in Paul's sermons and letters thirty years later.

So, is in possible that the term, "law," began to be used by the Christian community as synonymous with the OT law and the term, "Law of the Lord," took on a different meaning which if used within the Christian community would not have been recognized by those outside and especially the Jews? Given that Christians were being persecuted by the Jews, I think that they would have easily proclaimed that they kept the "Law of the Lord," where the Jew would think of the OT law but other Christians would think of a broader law encompassing all that Jesus taught and all that God had revealed to others (Joseph, Paul, the apostles) in the 1st century.

This is speculative, but the 1st century was an unique time and it seems possible to me that Christians would develope their own language to communicate with each other and avoid objection by the Jews.

rhutchin

I like that. I will have to remember it.

Doug Shaver

I see no need to comment further.

Amaleq13

Would you then be compelled to admit that the stories do not agree?

I think you would just look for another imaginary gap into which you could import your preference.

And to what do you imagine these Christians were referring with "law"? It is clearly the same collection.

Yes, an atmosphere in which "the law", in the context it is given throughout the Bible, and "the law of the Lord" quite clearly refer to the same thing.

This vague assertion certainly notwithstanding, you continue to have no evidence that anyone who contributed to the Bible ever considered or referred to post-Moses commands given by God as "the law" or "the law of the Lord".

There is no basis whatsoever for your effort except your imagination and prior held beliefs.

See? This is just more unsubstantiated speculation on your part. That isn't evidence and it isn't an argument. Even if one were to accept your imagining to be "possible", do you really not understand that this doesn't do anything to suggest it is even likely, let alone true?

If only you had evidence to suggest your thoughts had a basis in reality...

Anyone reading the passage without preconceptions would recognize that is clearly the context the author gives to the phrase "law of the Lord". Only your preconceptions compel you to interpret it otherwise.

And unsubstantiated! Don't forget that part.

Ben C Smith

Yes, and they all come within scant verses of each other. The third reference is almost certainly referring back to the first two. In Luke 2.22-24 Mary and Joseph are said to be intending to fulfill the legal commandments on purity and childbirth. In Luke 2.39 they are said to have done so. Simple and obvious.

The phrase in accordance with the law of the Lord in Luke 2.39 is functionally equivalent to the phrase in accordance with the law of Moses in Luke 2.22.

Ben.

rhutchin

To repeat, except that Luke appears to purposely change the language. In the first two instances, he writes, "as it is written," and "which is said in." The last instance, he says, "all things according to." I think it is significant that Luke does not say, "all things written in," or "said in." The Jew would certainly understand this exactly the way you do. Would the Christian also understand it this way? Or, after 30 years, had the Christian culture redefined certain terms so that they could speak openly in front of the Jews without fear of persecution. Thus, the term, "Law of the Lord," could easily have expanded in meaning for the Christian requiring Luke to qualify the first two instances of his use of this term so that people would know he meant the law given to Moses.

I think the Jew would say this. I don't think the Christian necessarily think this. They would identify "Lord" with Christ and not in the more limited OT view of God as held by the Jew.