Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EmpiricalGod · 10-16-2007, 11:23 PM

Here is the verses in question

Matthew 5:17-18

Quote:

"17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I was talking to someone who is a Christian, and was asking him about how this passage should be interpreted in the light of the idea that OT laws are not followed by Christians.

He linked me to this christian site that said.

Quote:

In Matthew’s record of what is commonly called, “The Sermon on the Mount,” these words of Jesus are recorded: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18).

It is frequently argued that if Jesus did not “abolish” the law, then it must still be binding. Accordingly, such components as the “Sabbath day” requirement must be operative still, along with perhaps numerous other elements of the Mosaic Law. This assumption is grounded upon a misunderstanding of the words and intent of this passage. Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.

Of special significance in this study is the word rendered “abolish.” It translates the Greek term “kataluo,” literally meaning to “loose down.” The word is found seventeen times in the New Testament. It is used, for example, of the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Acts 6:14), and of the dissolving of the human body at death (2 Corinthians 5:1). The term can carry the extended meaning of “to overthrow,” i.e., to “render vain, deprive of success.” In classical Greek, it was used in connection with institutions, laws, etc., to convey the idea of “to invalidate.”

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” The meaning is this. Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, he revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience, or else imposed a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10,13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, as it did before Christ came, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what he came “to do.” On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish what he came to accomplish, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ, and thus remains as a binding legal system for today, then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

I read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmen and he seems to imply that those verses actually show that Jesus intended the law to remain for the Christians.
But then again , we have examples of Jesus also in gospel of Matthew breaking the Sabbath etc.

So i am really interested to see whether the information stated in that site is accurate, the etymology of 'abolish' .

EmpiricalGod · 10-16-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). Consider the following points.

Note:

I don't think that this is a convincing argument, since it lies on the premise that all the scripture is indeed inspired and the canon is intertwined without contradictions.

I am rather interested if Matthew intended the Law to remain.

Gudjonsson · 10-17-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpiricalGod

I am rather interested if Matthew intended the Law to remain.

I think Matthew 23:2-3 should give you a hint

Matthew 23:2-3
(Here Jesus is speaking)
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe"

Just after Matthew 5:17-18, THERE IS VERSE 19 (you have to read stuff in context)

Matthew 5:19

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(whosoever shall (is this also in future tense in the Greek?))

Chris Weimer · 10-17-2007, 01:58 AM

Hey! I've got an idea! Let's quote mine some more! Then maybe with all these quotes taken out of context, we can discover what Matthew really thought!

Regardless of being an "apologist" or even a "Christian", Matthew did not intend his followers to follow all the Law. Ask Ben C. Smith or Rick Sumner if they wish to get into the details, as it's 4 o'clock here and I must be up in four hours. Hint - it's good to take all of Matthew into account instead of quote mining. Matthew didn't make up all of his sources, one has to separate Matthew from his sources in order to see the big picture.

Gudjonsson · 10-17-2007, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Hey! I've got an idea! Let's quote mine some more! Then maybe with all these quotes taken out of context, we can discover what Matthew really thought!
.

Look, I could have quoted the entire sermon on the mount, and you would still say I was quoting out of context. I have often read the book of Matthew from start to finish, and when I look at it in its entirety, I think Matthew thought that the law should be observed.

Bart Ehrmen thinks that at least Matthew 5:17-18 were meant to say that Jesus intended the law to remain for the Christians (As EmpiricalGod points out). Maybe I need to "separate Matthew from his sources in order to see the big picture."

I would like to cherry pick even further. At the very end of the gospel, Jesus said:

Quote:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Did he not tell them that whosoever should break one of the least commandments of the law, and teach men so, would be called least in the kingdom of heaven?. Did he not tell them to do everything that the The scribes and the Pharisees bid them to do?

Maybe you are right Mr. Weimer, but I have to disagree until you explain to me why Matthew meant something different than he wrote. (I am going to re-read the other thread, perhaps you have explained it well enough there, I do not remember that discussion very clearly)

I think Matthew was perhaps written by someone who did not agree with Paul about circumcision, but it is not something I have studied deeply, so I could very well be wrong.

Gudjonsson · 10-17-2007, 03:02 AM

As Robert Price points out

"Jewish Christians were alarmed at Paul being willing to abolish Jewish dietary and other ceremonial scruples to make it easier for Gentiles to join Christianity."

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...24&postcount=1

I was always told that Matthew was written by a "Jewish Christian".

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gudjonsson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpiricalGod

I am rather interested if Matthew intended the Law to remain.

I think Matthew 23:2-3 should give you a hint

Matthew 23:2-3
(Here Jesus is speaking)
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe"

Just after Matthew 5:17-18, THERE IS VERSE 19 (you have to read stuff in context)

Matthew 5:19

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(whosoever shall (is this also in future tense in the Greek?))

'Because I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.' Mt 5:20

How does that fit?

Gudjonsson · 10-17-2007, 04:00 AM

The problem with the Pharisees was that they did not follow the law, like they should have done. They were hypocrites. (According to Matthew)

Again Matthew 23:3

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
KJV

3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
NASB

You can read the entire chapter. You should also re-read verse 5:19, the verse that comes just before the verse you quoted - the context is that you should surpass the Pharisees in obeying the law.

The Pharisees ought to have behaved like they taught, but did not, according to Matthew 23 for example. The followers of Jesus have to obey the law better than the Pharisees.

Again, the problem with the Pharisees was that they did not obey the law - not that they obeyed it. They were hypocrites.

Jedi Mind Trick · 10-17-2007, 04:26 AM

Matthew is the gospel that the Ebionites read (Eboinites were Jewish Christians that observed the law).

Clouseau · 10-17-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gudjonsson

The problem with the Pharisees was that they did not follow the law, like they should have done. They were hypocrites.

Indeed they were, or many of them, but that isn't actually the problem, as we see in verse 21 to the end of the chapter and beyond.

'"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."' Mt 5:21-22 NIV

Jesus raised the bar, saying that the Law as perceived was inadequate, and even a good Pharisee was not good enough. The important issue is not whether Mosaic Law still applies, but how one obeys the Law of Christ.

Christ fulfilled the Law, as well as natural law that gives everyone, Jew or Gentile, a bad conscience. His righteousness, his perfection, is accounted to all who have faith in him, so those fulfill Law and law by substitution. Abraham lived well before Moses, who died before entering the Promised Land, yet Abraham was accounted righteous; so Abraham is the clue, not Moses.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2007, 01:58 AM	#4
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Hey! I've got an idea! Let's quote mine some more! Then maybe with all these quotes taken out of context, we can discover what Matthew really thought! Regardless of being an "apologist" or even a "Christian", Matthew did not intend his followers to follow all the Law. Ask Ben C. Smith or Rick Sumner if they wish to get into the details, as it's 4 o'clock here and I must be up in four hours. Hint - it's good to take all of Matthew into account instead of quote mining. Matthew didn't make up all of his sources, one has to separate Matthew from his sources in order to see the big picture.

10-17-2007, 03:02 AM	#6
Gudjonsson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Akureyri, Iceland. Posts: 104	As Robert Price points out "Jewish Christians were alarmed at Paul being willing to abolish Jewish dietary and other ceremonial scruples to make it easier for Gentiles to join Christianity." http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...24&postcount=1 I was always told that Matthew was written by a "Jewish Christian".

10-17-2007, 04:00 AM	#8
Gudjonsson Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Akureyri, Iceland. Posts: 104	The problem with the Pharisees was that they did not follow the law, like they should have done. They were hypocrites. (According to Matthew) Again Matthew 23:3 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. KJV 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. NASB You can read the entire chapter. You should also re-read verse 5:19, the verse that comes just before the verse you quoted - the context is that you should surpass the Pharisees in obeying the law. The Pharisees ought to have behaved like they taught, but did not, according to Matthew 23 for example. The followers of Jesus have to obey the law better than the Pharisees. Again, the problem with the Pharisees was that they did not obey the law - not that they obeyed it. They were hypocrites.

10-17-2007, 04:26 AM	#9
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	Matthew is the gospel that the Ebionites read (Eboinites were Jewish Christians that observed the law).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.