RevJP wrote:ipu wrote:Clearly "fulfillment" is not the "satisifaction of debt or purpose" as you say, but is the "obediance to" which is what Henry says, and what I have been saying.
It is not so clear as you would suggest. Henry says that part of the fulfillment was Christ's perfect obedience to it (which leads to the discussion of the law and obedience, when in fact the pharasee's wanted to stone Him for breaking the law - how could that be if He obeyed perfectly? There is more to it than following the rules), he continues with the rest of what that fulfilment includes - that part which you have thusfar failed to acknowledge or consider.
If I follow your logic, because the Pharisees claimed Jesus did not obey the law perfectly, then Jesus could not have followed the law perfectly, or that somehow the Pharisees threat to stone Jesus means Jesus claim to perfectly following the law means something different than what it says? Arguments between Jesus and the Pharisees and the claims made by the Pharisees in those arguments are not part of MAT 5. They do not tell me what is meant by MAT 5, and they do not prove that MAT 5 says something different than what MAT 5 says. This is another diversion of this debate! Henry explains what Jesus meant in the exact same way I understand what Jesus meant in MAT 5, and you claim it isn't so clear. You certainly have not made any persuasive argument that Henry or I are mistaken by bringing up the argument between the Pharisees and Jesus.
He satisfied its requirements, and He did so on our behalf because we are incapable of doing so. THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW has been fulfilled.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law.
Clearly there is a purpose to the law, that purpose was fulfilled by Christ - do you agree?
No, I do not agree. If this is as you suggest, then you have identified a scriptural contradiction with MAT 5. However, I think you misunderstand the message of ROM 13 by putting a chain around the word fulfillment in MAT 5 and the word fulfillment in ROM 13. They are not the same usage, or if they are, then they contradict each other. Even if this use of "fulfillment of the law" is related to Jesus' fulfillment of the law in MAT 5, even ROM 13 does not say love is satisfactory to fulfillment of all law, only necessary to fulfillment of law in general. It is a summary of the purpose of the law, but not a claim that love releases anyone from Jesus admonition to follow all of the law, even the least important law. It is an additional law, not a replacement of all the rest of the law. It like saying a summary of all the traffic laws is be safe. That doesn't mean that safely running a stop sign when no other traffic is near is not still in violation of traffic law. It means that above all, after following all traffic laws, you must also drive safely.
Where does Henry mention the PURPOSE OF THE LAW in any sense that you use it? Could it be that you are misrepresenting the meaning of MAT 5? I think you clearly are.
... do you really believe that one portion of scripture can be taken by itself, understood by itself and stand alone, without the entirety of scripture?
Yes and no. An entire chapter of scripture has self contained meaning which can be understood. There may be holes and background and history and other relevancy's which are important to it's overall meaning, but a chapter with a clear message can deliver that message taken by itself. Genesis can easily stand alone. Exodus stands alone pretty well. Matthew has much interplay with other chapters, but it also has its own messages which stand on their own. This sermon we are discussing is clearly one that stands on its own words, for the most part. It is easier to understand knowing what led up to it, and knowing the background of the listeners, but that background understanding is not being questioned here, and does not change the message under debate.
The direct commandments of God say nothing about what to eat and not to eat. If you choose to specify 'direct commandments of God' then you must by definition be referring to the commandments given to Moses on Sinai, although I believe you are attempting to throw the levitical laws in that mix as well - they are different.
Are you suggesting this is not a direct commandment of God?
Leviticus chapter 11 wrote:11:1And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
11:8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
Looks to me like God commanding you not to eat pork or rabbit or hot dogs (coney?!!!). It even says why you must not eat them. (I assume there is an even deeper purpose for not eating unclean things, too.)
We are rehashing old ground here. Jesus is referring to all laws in the Pentateuch. Leviticus is in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch are the law books. This is not a ceremonial law (even though Jesus does not make an exception for even ceremonial law in MAT 5). This is part of the same body of law which include the 10 commandments, even the admonition against homosexuality which Christians so love to refer to. Henry makes it clear, too, that Jesus is referring to all of the OT laws in MAT 5.
Take a look at Romans 13 again, there is no mention of eating pork, making animal sacrifices, or any of the other levitical laws. The reference is clearly concerning the commandments of God, as is Matthew 5.
I don't see the big "Ten" repeated in ROM 13, either. There are over 200 commandments of God in the OT. Jesus is referring to all of them. Even the examples given in MAT 5 are not all part of the big Ten.
The truth lies in purpose, righteousness, salvation, and love. All of these are interconnected with the laws of God and the Levitical laws, blind obedience means nothing and serves nothing and once again I will repeat: Our God is a God of purpose and design. He is not arbitrary and does not command blind obedience to rules which serve no purpose.
It is so wonderful of you to declare God's laws are arbitrary and serve no purpose. After all, God says not to eat pork, and you say it serves no purpose not to eat port other than blind obediance. I'm sure God appreciates you speaking for him on this matter. I am sure he also appreciates you ignoring the message in MAT 5 with these ludicrous rationalizations. Make no mistake, you are declaring that you do not need to follow God's laws because they serve no purpose other than the purpose fulfilled by Jesus, even though Jesus also says you need to follow God's law, just as he followed them. You keep asking "What purpose?" Ask God that question, not me. God and Jesus clearly say what the law is and that you must follow it. You claim there is no purpose to do so.
The words of MAT 5 are clear. You posted words of Henry that explain clearly what those words mean. I agree with Henry. You choose to ignore that message and the explanation of Henry even when you say you agree with Henry. You make "fulfill" mean something which is illogical and unsupportable by rational argument and in contradiction of what Henry says it means. You define categories of law and then assume that when Jesus clearly refers to all of the laws that he only refers to the ones in the categories you want him to be referring to. When the message of Henry is quite clear, you say it is not so clear.
The bottom line to your arguments seem to be: MAT 5 obviously must mean something other than what its words say (because a direct and clear understanding of MAT 5 leads to contradiction in scripture). You go to great metal gymnastics in order to twist meanings of words to make them appear to fit with the contradictions, only to avoid the truth. There are contradictions. Perhaps they are only translation errors, or solely the result of evil men, but there are contradictions, and you will go to any extent to disallow that possibility. Your blind faith of inerrancy in the Bible seems to make you incapable of rationally arguing any potential of error.
You seem to be arguing as much with Henry as with me, and you are the one who offered Henry as support for your own arguments. I am sorry, but I do not feel you are debating honestly with me (or yourself!), and are simply not open to consideration of the evidence I bring to this debate. I suspect you feel the same about me, and that would be an impasse between us. Please try to convince me otherwise, but please do not continue to reassert these same irrational arguments which keep us going in circles.
-- Alan
