Soul Invictus

Several points I want to cover before I forget them.

Per the original Greek writing, the verse would translate into English similarly as
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to make the law complete.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is become."

1) Does "I am come" = or ~ "I have come"?
2) How is the law complete? Initially I would think that it is due to revision such as by the deletion of laws that have been abolished, but the second verse states that no parts of the law shall pass. Is the completion of the law be attributed to the addition of laws that currently aren't enforced?
3) What does the phrase "all is become" mean?

After first glance, I might agree. Are you aware if it is characteristic of Jewish jurisprudence to always mandate a strict adherence to the law? I ask because we commonly see in practice that the littlest details of the law that may exist are not enforced, and this is usually due to practicality purposes because of a societal view that a considerable portion of the laws that are 'on the books' are viewed as obsolete and that it might be socially imprudent, or irresponsible, to enforce such laws. Couldn't this have been the case with Jesus?

Chris Weimer

You should use the translations I posted instead.

Not quite. Matthew uses the aorist here - simply "I came".

Not quite either. The OT was left incomplete - they needed a new covenant to replace the old one. Jesus was remarking on the idea of the law, namely "faith, mercy, and judgement." At least this is what Matthew was replying.

"All becomes" = "everything transpires" = Jesus is done with his mission on earth. I suppose since Matthew was aware of Mark's apocalypse, that it would extend to Jesus' return in the clouds. Or it could mean that dying upon the cross invalidated the OT and replaced it with the Gospel.

Today, orthodox Judaism stresses a lot of the dietary laws still. The current situation would mandate that some laws (such as laws about stoning adulterers etc...) cannot be adhered to. It's likely instead that the Pharisees are caricatures instead of real characters.

Jesus spoke against ritual purity as well such as the washing of hands and against observing the sabbath. Doesn't sound very Jewish to me.

Julian

That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Here is Jesus going on and on about how important the law is, how nothing shall be changed in it, how it is great, fabulous, blah blah bitty-blah...

...

until a few weeks from now when you can forget the whole thing!

:huh:

Why the whole speech about the importance of the law when it isn't important at all in a little while? And what about the whole heaven and earth mention?

Julian

Chris Weimer

Julian - the Law is important. But think, it's the Law that's important, not the laws. Washing hands before eating isn't near as important as helping out the poor.

Julian

But it sounds like Jesus is making the argument that every bit of it is important, washing hands and washing feeding the poor.

Chris Weimer

Sure it can sound like it, but how would Matthew be received if he said that only some parts are ok and some parts aren't. He implies that the entire Law is important, but the Law isn't the many laws. There's a logical fallacy associated with this...

Soul Invictus

I'm confused. What is the entire Law, but the collection of laws?

Chris Weimer

"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. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

That is the "Law".

Julian

This is reminiscent of the famous Hillel anecdote where a man wants Hillel to teach him the Torah while he stands on one leg. Hillel agrees to do this and when the student is on one leg Hillel says, "Love your neighbor as yourself, that is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary, now go learn it."

I am paraphrasing from memory here, but I wonder if Hillel or Jesus would consider the rest of the law void, as most christians do today, or simply of lesser importance or merely related. Either way, I have no idea how to interpret Jesus' words here, they simply make no sense that I can see. Are there any important variant readings maybe?

Julian

Soul Invictus

Somehow I got derailed so let me get back on track. What constituted the old covenant? Importantly, what made the old covenant incomplete, which required a new covenant to replace it? Since this is a Christian theme, I'm curious if there are Bible verses to support the apologetic or if it's just a common set of assumptions.