Jedi Mind Trick

So it wasn't the same Matthew that we have?

gstafleu

So everyone agrees that when Jesus says he fulfills the law, he simply says he means to implement its requirements? How, then, does that implicate that the law will after that be abolished? If I stop for a stop sign, is that sign then taken down when I leave?

Gerard Stafleu

Storm

That's my reading as well (unless this translation turns out to be bad). He says nothing about the law being fulfilled, he says all. All being fulfilled includes the heaven and Earth passing. Until then, the law stands.

Clouseau

No; Jesus said that through Moses long before. He did not come 'all this way' just to repeat himself. Jesus 'implemented' the requirements of law, which means that Christians do likewise. He set the bar higher than Law, and through the cross gave the motivation and ability to jump that far.

Natural law is not abolished for anyone, though those 'in Christ' will not be judged by the law. Those not in Christ will be judged by natural law, which has applied since mankind 'came out of the trees' or wherever. Mosaic Law is partially subsumed (moral), partially abolished (ceremonial, civil, dietary, hygiene, sabbaths and special occasions) along with circumcision. In other words, the only law now applying to anyone is natural law that applied to Abraham and Jacob. Just imagine a Bible that stops with Jacob and starts again with the crucifixion, and you have all that is essential. The Jewish thing was always a 'distraction' that is now a blind alley for those with legalist tendencies.

Clouseau

For everyone.

seven8s

:Cheeky:

Chris Weimer

Is it emphasis? Seems to me a double condition - The Law will stand until all is fulfilled or else the heavens and the earth pass away.

Or perhaps we have an edit? Jesus said (learned about via tradition) that all of earth and heaven will pass away before the Law falls. What Matthew adds is "until all is fulfilled".

How often is ἕως used twice with the same clause?

That's the point, though - we can't place Matthew in a thoroughly Jewish community. There's too much in Matthew against that. From the genealogy until the "all nations" command, Matthew's community includes Gentiles. Might I add from Jesus' comment about the kingdom and the Centurion, the Judean part of his community is actually on the wane.

Julian

No, not the same. For one thing, we do know that it was missing the beginning, i.e. miraculous birth material. There would have been other differences, as well. However, they were probably fairly close.

Julian

Julian

I can't see an 'or else' meaning in there but I shall look at it a bit more.
13 times (depending how you count the plethora in Mt 1:17 and 18:21-22), all of them in Matthew except for two. Here they are:

Matthew 1:17 (lots), 5:18, 5:25-26, 11:23, 17:17, 18:21-22 (lots)
Mark 9:19
Luke 10:15
Rev. 6:10-11

It would seem to be a somewhat common thing, especially for Matthew. I haven't looked at these instances in detail, though.
The Jewish christians clearly preached to Gentiles back then, and they clearly emphasized the law when doing so. Matthew wouldn't advocate the abolishment of the law, the Jewish christians didn't. I also seems clear to me that Jesus didn't, either. He certainly goes on and gives examples of how important it is. If he was to fulfill it in the next few days, why talk about how important it was? If you break the least of them then you are least in heaven, but just until next Friday, then none of this matters. By the time Matthew was writing his gospel the law would have been abolished (Jesus having died and all) so why would he go on and on about something which didn't matter?

Julian

Clouseau

They emphasised that the Law no longer applied, obviously.