Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 01-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Okay, this is my second passage that I would like to put up for discussion.

Matthew 5:17-18 reads:

Quote:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

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 be fulfilled.

Per my last thread, I've taken exception to the usage of such an awkward word as 'come'. I also would like to focus on the word "fulfill". Apologetics for this scripture usually imply that this means that the law is somehow completed, typically in the sense that its utility is no longer in existence or of material usage.

Can we discuss what the Greek word for "fulfill" would translate originally into, and what does it mean?

Chris Weimer · 01-03-2006, 11:34 PM

Yes! Relevance! Believe it or not, the word for "fulfil" in the KJV is actually two different words in Greek. The first word is πλη�?ωσαι - infinitive aorist active (to fulfill, to make full). The second word is γενηται - subjunctive aorist middle 3rd person singular (to become, to happen).

Here's a selection from the paper I'm working on that addresses it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copyright (c) Chris Weimer 2004-2005

Another superficially Jewish characteristic is Matthew’s Jesus strong conviction of the Law in its entirety being upheld. Some would assume that this is evidence, above anything else, for Matthew’s “community�? retaining all aspects of Judaism along with Christianity. However, Matthew makes it clear that it is not Torah-abiding circumcised practitioners which he is discussing. All of Jesus’ statements about upholding the Law are qualified by Christian interpretation of what the Law actually means. In verse 18 of chapter five, Jesus claims that “one iota nor one marking may not pass away from the law until all becomes,�? and in the preceding verse he claims that “I came not to destroy [the Law] but to fulfill.�? However, the key to these verses lies in the significance of Jesus coming to “fulfill�? as opposed to, what is traditionally Jewish, reinforcing the Law. This is exemplified later by the condemnations Jesus pronounces against the Pharisees for following the littlest details in the Law but ignoring the wider scopes of “judgment, mercy, and faith.�?

In short, I would actually agree with the apologetic claim that Matthew does not enforce the Torah.

Soul Invictus · 01-04-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yes! Relevance! Believe it or not, the word for "fulfil" in the KJV is actually two different words in Greek. The first word is πλη�?ωσαι - infinitive aorist active (to fulfill, to make full). The second word is γενηται - subjunctive aorist middle 3rd person singular (to become, to happen).

Are you saying that Greek has two words to describe our one word of fulfill? What are the differences in meaning or usage, if any, between the two Greek words for fulfill? Also, which Greek word for fulfill is used in that passage?

Quote:

In short, I would actually agree with the apologetic claim that Matthew does not enforce the Torah.

The common English connotation for the word "fulfill" is the implication of completeness and finality, so our understanding of this verse would imply that "the Law" would cease in its application. Is the Greek concept parallel to ours in meaning, and is this the intended meaning meant to be conveyed in that passage?

Dean Anderson · 01-04-2006, 11:00 AM

here is a previous thread on the subject.

Unfortunately, it's not that useful - but it is quite amusing...

enemigo · 01-04-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Are you saying that Greek has two words to describe our one word of fulfill? What are the differences in meaning or usage, if any, between the two Greek words for fulfill? Also, which Greek word for fulfill is used in that passage?

He is saying that in Mt 5:17 the Greek word for "fulfill" (pleroo) is a different word than the Greek word for "fulfilled" (ginomai) in Mt 5:18.

Chris Weimer · 01-04-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

Are you saying that Greek has two words to describe our one word of fulfill? What are the differences in meaning or usage, if any, between the two Greek words for fulfill? Also, which Greek word for fulfill is used in that passage?

Yes. Enemigo has it right.

Quote:

The common English connotation for the word "fulfill" is the implication of completeness and finality, so our understanding of this verse would imply that "the Law" would cease in its application. Is the Greek concept parallel to ours in meaning, and is this the intended meaning meant to be conveyed in that passage?

The word in and of itself wouldn't necessarily have this concept, but it fits in perfectly with Matthew's overall theme.

Soul Invictus · 01-04-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enemigo

He is saying that in Mt 5:17 the Greek word for "fulfill" (pleroo) is a different word than the Greek word for "fulfilled" (ginomai) in Mt 5:18.

What are the differences in meaning or usage between the two Greek words for fulfill?

Soul Invictus · 01-04-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The word in and of itself wouldn't necessarily have this concept, but it fits in perfectly with Matthew's overall theme.

What is the scholarly opinion on Matthew's overall theme? My goal is to compare the apologetic for "fulfilling" the law, and now it seems I must broaden the scope of the discussion to understanding Matthew's theme. Any comments are appreciated.

Chris Weimer · 01-04-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

What are the differences in meaning or usage between the two Greek words for fulfill?

The first is to make complete, the second is to become. See how I translated them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soul Invictus

What is the scholarly opinion on Matthew's overall theme? My goal is to compare the apologetic for "fulfilling" the law, and now it seems I must broaden the scope of the discussion to understanding Matthew's theme. Any comments are appreciated.

There is no consensus on Matthew. However, recently, more and more have been favoring a more Jewish Matthew. I don't think that's accurate at all.

countjulian · 01-04-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

There is no consensus on Matthew. However, recently, more and more have been favoring a more Jewish Matthew. I don't think that's accurate at all.

If Matthew was jewish, somebody else must have been writing the blood libel verse, and a bunch of other stuff.

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

01-04-2006, 11:00 AM	#4
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	here is a previous thread on the subject. Unfortunately, it's not that useful - but it is quite amusing...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.