Did Jesus destroy the Law?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Did Jesus destroy the Law?

Post #1

Post by ipu »

Jesus, in MATTHEW 5:17-18 wrote: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.

1) This says Jesus came to fulfil the OT law in its entirety.

2) Christians claim this means Jesus came to complete the law and replace it with a new convenent so that we are no longer bound by that OT covenent. If we are not still under the Old Testament law, then why did Jesus say we still are. Why did he demand quite emphatically that all people, for as long as the earth continues to exists, must fulfil every commandment in the Old Testament in every detail, EXACTLY as they are written?

The word fulfill is often interpreted as meaning to complete the law, but to complete the law such that it does not need to be followed any more (as in, that covenent is no longer binding) just does not make sense here. Mat 5:18 are not the words of someone intending to put an end to the necessity of following God's laws when, or soon after, they were spoken, since in that case "till Heaven and earth pass" would make no sense.

I suggest that fulfill meaning to follow, as in fulfilling the terms of a contract, is the unmistakable meaning Jesus is using. He reinforces that meaning by demonstrating in his own life that the entirety of the law can be followed. He not only is claimed to have led a perfect life (including following all of the OT covenent of the Jews, which includes himself), but seems to be extending that covenent here, not replacing it. In following verses, Jesus talks about people's behavior in the future and tell them that not fulfilling even the least important of the laws of the Torah would cause one to be ranked lowest in the kingdom of heaven. It would make no sense for Jesus to complete the law such that it was not necessary for anyone from then on to follow the law, and then for Jesus to go on and say every bit of the law must be followed by all, lest they be low on the totem pole in heaven.

Therefore, I propose that Mat 5:17-18 demonstrates a fundamental contradiction in modern Christian theology.

-- Alan

ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Post #91

Post by ipu »

youngborean wrote:
but I am arguing that MAT 5 is not talking about the new things Jesus does, it is confirming the old things God already did.
But if someone were to follow the law completely this would be a new thing.
You are taking the "new things" out of context now. YOU CLAIMED: "From your position there he is really claiming that there is nothing new to his coming." I was showing that the new things that Jesus brought, specifically the new covenant, is not the issue of MAT 5. That he said anything whatsoever that was not a complete repetition of what someone else said prior is something new. So, of course, MAT 5 is something new, but your context was much bigger than that. That Jesus was the first every to completely follow all of Gods OT law, may be assumed for this discussion, and it may also be assume that being the first makes it something new, but that was not your point, and not my point, and not the context. MAT 5 is Jesus confirming the continuation of the OT law, unchanged, for all time. It is not new law. MAT 5 is not a new covenant; that is elsewhere.
I did not say replace, I said fufill. This is exactly what Matt 5 says.

Complete does not mean terminate to me. Jesus to me fufills the requirement for attonement. God never expected man to be able to keep the commandments as you suggest. Attonement was needed then, it is now. The bonus of the new covenant is clear. Faith in Jesus gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, just a Jeremiah 31 states. So the spirit of God causes the law to be written in the Heart. People are no longer bound by the letter, but by the Spirit on their heart. The law still stays in this, it is useful for teaching. But as a covenant that brings death it has no power over the believer. Another way of putting it, the law is only complete for those that accept Jesus and recieve the spirit. Otherwise, what would be the reason for writing the law on the hearts as Jeremiah 31 states?
Atonement was needed in the OT law, and was provided with Yom Kippur. Atonement is still needed, but supposedly is now provided by faith in Jesus. That does not change the law. That does not "complete" the law. That is an issue of change in how one receives atonement. MAT 5 say people are still bound by the letter, the punctuation, even the dots on the "i" of the law. That is what it says. It does not address salvation or power over the believer, either at the time of Jesus, nor at the time of Moses.

The whole idea of "fulfill" meaning "complete" is a cop out. Even the word "complete" is ambiguous. It, to, can mean "follow" or "end". You keep using the word "complete" yet say you do not mean "terminate" or "end". Either Jesus fulfilling the law means a) he brought it to an end, or it means b) he satisfied the requirements set by the law. If (a) is the case, as you say, then that is the equivalent of terminating the law, putting an end to its relevance or applicability, which is synonymous with destroying it. He clearly says he did not come to destroy it, so saying the word fulfill in context means complete as in bringing a conclusion to it is ludicrous. Concluding the law is putting an end to the law which is destroying the law.
You have claimed a particular translation that could have 2 options. Complete or do. Your choice contradicts the Character and teachings of Jesus in other parts of the same book, mine doesn't.
Yes, my "do" contradicts other teachings. Your "complete" contradicts MAT 5 itself. QED...

-- Alan

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #92

Post by RevJP »

I'm growing more and more confused.

Ipu, you are continually claiming a contradiction with Matthew 5, and for a while I had forgotten your original claims. I had begun to think you were claiming a contradiction between scriptures, not a contradiction between doctrine and scripture.

Let us see; does Matthew 5 contradict other scripture? No, and we agree on that I assume, and we have endorsed the idea that this was NOT the contradiction your original post was speaking about, correct?

So then, what contradiction are we talking about? You claimed there is a contradiction between what Matthew 5 says and what modern Christianity teaches, and then, in support of your assertions of a contradiction, you have refused to consider doctrine and spiritual concepts found in other parts of scripture. Basically you have said that doctrine contradicts scripture, but doctrine and other scriptures save the specific passage I am talking about are irrelevant to the discussion...

Please, correct me if I am wrong on this though, I would not like to mischaracterize your position.

ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Post #93

Post by ipu »

RevJP wrote:I'm growing more and more confused.

Ipu, you are continually claiming a contradiction with Matthew 5, and for a while I had forgotten your original claims. I had begun to think you were claiming a contradiction between scriptures, not a contradiction between doctrine and scripture.

Let us see; does Matthew 5 contradict other scripture? No, and we agree on that I assume, and we have endorsed the idea that this was NOT the contradiction your original post was speaking about, correct?
Yes, it does contradict other scripture, but I haven't identified any specific scripture because I do not think that is the most important contradiction about MAT 5.
So then, what contradiction are we talking about? You claimed there is a contradiction between what Matthew 5 says and what modern Christianity teaches, and then, in support of your assertions of a contradiction, you have refused to consider doctrine and spiritual concepts found in other parts of scripture. Basically you have said that doctrine contradicts scripture, but doctrine and other scriptures save the specific passage I am talking about are irrelevant to the discussion...
I will gladly consider doctrine and scripture in this discussion under relevant conditions. Any doctrine or scripture which says MAT 5 means something different than what it says is indicating a doctrinal or scriptural contradiction. It sure would help this discussion if the participants could come to terms with what MAT 5 means before we move on to other doctrines or scriptures to discern whether they support or contradict (or are irrelevant to) MAT 5.

I have tried to focus on first getting a mutual understanding of the meaning of MAT 5, particularly verses 17 and 18, but certainly allowing for any context within the entire chapter of those verses as being relevant to understanding exactly what those verses say/mean/imply. It is absolutely unacceptable to suggest that these verses and the entire chapter have no meaning in and of themselves, such that they cannot be understood without the benefit of other chapters which are not even referenced by MAT 5 nor discuss the same issues that are discussed in MAT 5.

We may need to turn to OT scripture to ascertain what is meant by "law" in MAT 5, and we may need to turn to other scriptures to provide support for terms like heaven as used in MAT 5, etc. However, MAT 5 is adamant about following the law, and discussions about why the law is important do not enhance our understanding of what MAT 5 says (that fulfilling the law is important, period). Thinking nuances regarding why God gave the law, or why Jesus gave a new covenant, or how an understanding of the spirit of the law may change our understanding of what the law says may be a good discussion, but it does not help us understand the message of MAT 5 as far as I can see. Once we agree on what MAT 5 is saying, then we may want to explore the ramifications of applying the words of MAT 5 to these other scriptures or vise versa.

If we are talking about issues not relevant to MAT 5, then I will dismiss it as being a diversion to this discussion. MAT 5 addresses following the OT law, but does not directly talk about consequences of not following the law, except to mention that even the most minor transgressions of the law will lower one's standing in Heaven. MAT 5 likewise does not discuss the reasons one is required to follow the law, nor the expectation of God as to how well the law will be followed. The fact that there are listed punishments, and stories of the punishment being applied acknowledges that the law is not always followed, even in cases where it applies. How many more times will I be asked the absurdity of having a law that is impossible to perfectly follow always? That is a different issue from the fact that God gave the law to Moses, and Jesus said it still applies.

To answer your question regarding what I think is the big contradiction around MAT 5, it is simply that Christians in general do not think most of the OT laws apply to them, when MAT 5 says all of the laws most certainly do apply. If you can identify scripture which says some law no longer applies, then we have a scriptural contradiction with MAT 5. If, for example, you say there is no need to keep Kosher dietary laws (for what ever doctrinal reason), then we have a doctrinal contradiction with MAT 5. I do not see how an objective reading of MAT 5 provides for any out here, except for a time after all law has been perfectly followed (which is an obvious absurdity; a literary tool used to show the lack of any out!).

-- Alan

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #94

Post by RevJP »

Okay, let us first look at the two verses in question once more. I have provided a comparison of translations/interpretations:
Mat 5:17

(ASV) Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

(BBE) Let there be no thought that I have come to put an end to the law or the prophets. I have not come for destruction, but to make complete.

(ESV) "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.

(HCSB) "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

(KJV+) Think3543 not3361 that3754 I am come2064 to destroy2647 the3588 law,3551 or2228 the3588 prophets:4396 I am not3756 come2064 to destroy,2647 but235 to fulfill.4137

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

(MSG) "Don't suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures--either God's Law or the Prophets. I'm not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama.

(YLT) `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets--I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;
Mat 5:18

(ASV) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

(BBE) Truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth come to an end, not the smallest letter or part of a letter will in any way be taken from the law, till all things are done.

(ESV) For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

(HCSB) For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

(KJV+) For1063 verily281 I say3004 unto you,5213 Till2193 heaven3772 and2532 earth1093 pass,3928 one1520 jot2503 or2228 one3391 tittle2762 shall in no wise3364 pass3928 from575 the3588 law,3551 till2193 all3956 be fulfilled.1096

(KJVA) 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.

(MSG) God's Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working.

(YLT) for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.
Now, you say: Yes, it does contradict other scripture, but I haven't identified any specific scripture because I do not think that is the most important contradiction about MAT 5.

I would challenge you to prove this assertion, but merely as an aside, because I agree that this is not truly the issue you are discussing. While I posit that there is no contradiction in scripture I understand this:

it is simply that Christians in general do not think most of the OT laws apply to them, when MAT 5 says all of the laws most certainly do apply

is truly the crux of your argument. Not contradiction in scripture, or contradiction in doctrine vs. scripture, but simply a contradiction in what you assert Christians in general think and Matthew 5:17-18.

In light of this clarification of what you have been arguing, I have to view your claims to consider doctrine and scripture in this discussion under relevant conditions, as no more than lip service.

What constitutes relevant conditions? Further more, you must verify what you believe "God's Law" is, as the scripture in question clearly states that it is God's Law which will not pass away. Finally you must identify what is meant by 'fulfill' or 'complete'.

Scripture doesn't say until someone adheres to God's law completely, or lives a life without violating God's law, it says "until all is accomplished", so there is another element which must be defined.

'Most Christians think', that the law of God (the 10 commandments of the OT and the two commandments of Christ in the NT), are covenant laws. Contractural laws which while requiring obedience also contain a purpose for their existence, an ultimate purpose for thier inception. What 'most Christians think' is that Christ fulfilled that purpose, that He completed the ultimate design for the inception of the laws by His life, death, and resurrection.

What then is the purpose? Righteousness. In other words: Salvation and eternal life with God as originally planned by Him in the creation of man. Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who has faith. However, this is one of the ideas which you said was irrelevant.

Many christians, most I would think, also believe the two commandments of Christ have redefined the laws of God, not that they have replaced them, but by their concept have encompassed those laws and all other concepts of Godly living.

Now there are some excellent commentaries by Matthew Henry, and others regarding the law, it's purpose, and it's fulfilment in Christ. I hesitated to provide them here for the sake of brevity, but would be happy to post them if you do not have access to them of your own.

ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Post #95

Post by ipu »

RevJP wrote:Okay, let us first look at the two verses in question once more. I have provided a comparison of translations/interpretations:
Nice collection of translations. Thanks! Allow me to refer to key phrases from this collection to make some general points.

In [MSG] is "Don't suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures...," which seems a bit broad of interpretation of what the rest just call the law, but it does reinforce the idea that it is the entirety of commandments/laws/codes given by God and the prophets through out the OT, and not just the Ten Commandments plus the Big Two of the NT. While I think most of the scriptural contradictions between MAT 5 and other scripture has to do with laws other than these 12, there is still plenty of contradiction in the ways Christians generally follow these 12. I'm not sure this is a good time to start in on this right now. We will need to get to it, as we likely disagree with each other on the issue of such contradictions.

The next comment is about the "I came not to destroy, but to fulfill" phrase, which [BBE] says "to make complete." To make laws complete is to add to them, not remove any. Most in this debate have suggested that this fulfill means to complete as in satisfy all reason for following the law once and for all, such that we no longer are required to follow all of the OT law since Jesus did it for us. I do not fully agree with the [BBE] translation, as I believe this phrase means that Jesus was saying that He Himself completely obeyed all of the OT law. Perhaps I am wrong here, and [BBE] is more true to the intent. I agree this is a very debatable point. What is important to me is that this phrase does not say or imply that Jesus did something such that the requirements of the OT law no longer need to be followed. (Such direction may given elsewhere in the NT.) I think this point is important so that we do not contradict the meaning/intent of the immediately preceding phrase "I came not to destroy."

Next is the phrase at the end of verse 18, "till all be fulfilled." [ASV] says "till all things be accomplished." [BBE] says "till all things are done." [ESV] says "until all is accomplished." [HCSB] says "until all things are accomplished." [MSG] say "Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working." Each of these translations disagree with those who have claimed God's Law is satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice and is therefore are no longer "working" laws for believers. MAT 5 simply does not say/suggest/imply that the law of the OT stops being relevant for believers because of the ultimate blood sacrifice of Jesus. This is the main point I have been trying to make so far in this debate. The often heard claim that the laws of God are completed by Jesus contradict the idea that they are completed after all things are completed. Jesus died, but that was not the end of all things. The laws of the OT are still in full force according to MAT 5.
ipu wrote:it is simply that Christians in general do not think most of the OT laws apply to them, when MAT 5 says all of the laws most certainly do apply
is truly the crux of your argument. Not contradiction in scripture, or contradiction in doctrine vs. scripture, but simply a contradiction in what you assert Christians in general think and Matthew 5:17-18.

In light of this clarification of what you have been arguing, I have to view your claims to consider doctrine and scripture in this discussion under relevant conditions, as no more than lip service.
Not completely true. I do think there is scriptural and doctrinal contradiction, but that it is easier to clearly see and discuss the behavioral contradictions. I would like to discuss all of these contradictions. I believe it is easiest to see the contradiction in behavior. I also expect the contradictory behavior will be justified by scriptural and doctrinal references. That is, by me focusing on the behavior, I expect the Christian participants of this debate to identify for themselves the scriptural and doctrinal contradictions that exist with MAT 5.

I completely fail to understand your point about me giving "no more than lip service." Please be more clear in what you are claiming.
What constitutes relevant conditions? Further more, you must verify what you believe "God's Law" is, as the scripture in question clearly states that it is God's Law which will not pass away. Finally you must identify what is meant by 'fulfill' or 'complete'.

Scripture doesn't say until someone adheres to God's law completely, or lives a life without violating God's law, it says "until all is accomplished", so there is another element which must be defined.

'Most Christians think', that the law of God (the 10 commandments of the OT and the two commandments of Christ in the NT), are covenant laws. Contractural laws which while requiring obedience also contain a purpose for their existence, an ultimate purpose for thier inception. What 'most Christians think' is that Christ fulfilled that purpose, that He completed the ultimate design for the inception of the laws by His life, death, and resurrection.
I have used the various translations you provided to strengthen my arguments regarding the extent of what is meant by law, what is meant by fulfill, and what is meant by all being accomplished in MAT 5. Hopefully these points were adequately covered above. With regards to the purpose for the existence of the Contractual laws and whether Jesus satisfied those laws is another issue. I think all of the laws/covenants/commandments/etc. of the OT are clearly within the scope of "law" as used in MAT 5, and therefore, all are still "alive and working," as translated by [MSG]. Even if I concede that Jesus fulfilled the purpose of some of those laws, that is a claim made outside the context of MAT 5, and fulfilling the purpose of a law does not then make the law dead and no longer working.

If there was an OT law that said something analogous to "for the purpose of safety, the speed limit is 35 MPH, until roads are improved and cars become safer at higher speeds," and Jesus waved his hands to widen the roads and fill the pot holes, and made cars faster and safer, then what you claim about Jesus completing the purpose of the law (now making it unnecessary for people to limit their speed to 35 MPH) would make sense. Can you provide an example of OT law which require obedience and contains a purpose for existence for which is provided by that law a means for its own fulfillment? Will you grant that any OT law which does not state a purpose for its own existence and conditions for its termination of obedience requirements is not therefore fulfilled by Jesus in the way you claim in the parts of your quote I underlined above? Can you explain how the Kosher dietary laws might be so satisfied (or do you think they need to be followed)?
What then is the purpose? Righteousness. In other words: Salvation and eternal life with God as originally planned by Him in the creation of man. Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who has faith. However, this is one of the ideas which you said was irrelevant.
I do not think ROM 10 is irrelevant to this debate, but is is confusing to understanding the meaning of MAT 5. If MAT 5 was about the purpose of the law, then this would be directly relevant. However, the meaning of MAT 5 is the unchanged continuation of the law, says nothing about the purpose of the law. You first need to establish a meaningful connection between MAT 5 and the purpose of the law as used in ROM 10 before ROM 10 is relevant.
Now there are some excellent commentaries by Matthew Henry, and others regarding the law, it's purpose, and it's fulfilment in Christ. I hesitated to provide them here for the sake of brevity, but would be happy to post them if you do not have access to them of your own.
To the extent Henry et al might be relevant to this debate, please provide quotes.

I think we are getting very close to clarity on what MAT 5 means. There are still issues regarding the extent of "law" as you seem to think it refers to the big 12, even though later verses of MAT 5 use examples of law that are not part of those 12. There are some lingering issues regarding what fulfill means, but I think we are closing in on agreement, or at least clarity of understanding of each others position. Your providing additional translations was very helpful here. Thank you.

-- Alan

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #96

Post by RevJP »

Sorry I didn't respond earlier...

I see I made an error in assuming some things. I provided a comparison of scripture for reference, scriptures which have been mistaken as translations, when in fact they are a compilation of translations and paraphrases. I had assumed you were versed in scripture and recognized the difference, if I assumed incorrectly I apologize.

A translation is the conversion of one language to another, with emphasis on accurrate depiction of specific meaning, word for word or phrase for phrase.

A paraphrase is a restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. It is important to recognize the difference if one is to engage in word studies and proof texts.

Just for grins and giggles, here is what Henry has to say:
Mat 5:17-20 -
Those to whom Christ preached, and for whose use he gave these instructions to his disciples, were such as in their religion had an eye, 1. To the scriptures of the Old Testament as their rule, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the right: 2. To the scribes and the Pharisees as their example, and therein Christ here shows them they were in the wrong; for,
I. The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets. The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.
1. He protests against the thought of cancelling and weakening the Old Testament; Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. (1.) “Let not the pious Jews, who have an affection for the law and the prophets, fear that I come to destroy them.” Let them be not prejudiced against Christ and his doctrine, from a jealousy that this kingdom he came to set up, would derogate from the honour of the scriptures, which they had embraced as coming from God, and of which they had experienced the power and purity; no, let them be satisfied that Christ has no ill design upon the law and the prophets. “Let not the profane Jews, who have a disaffection to the law and the prophets, and are weary of that yoke, hope that I am come to destroy them.” Let not carnal libertines imagine that the Messiah is come to discharge them from the obligation of divine precepts and yet to secure to them divine promises, to make the happy and yet to give them leave to live as they list. Christ commands nothing now which was forbidden either by the law of nature or the moral law, nor forbids any thing which those laws had enjoined; it is a great mistake to think he does, and he here takes care to rectify the mistake; I am not come to destroy. The Saviour of souls is the destroyer of nothing but the works of the devil, of nothing that comes from God, much less of those excellent dictates which we have from Moses and the prophets. No, he came to fulfil them. That is, [1.] To obey the commands of the law, for he was made under the law, Gal_4:4. He in all respects yielded obedience to the law, honoured his parents, sanctified the sabbath, prayed, gave alms, and did that which never any one else did, obeyed perfectly, and never broke the law in any thing. [2.] To make good the promises of the law, and the predictions of the prophets, which did all bear witness to him. The covenant of grace is, for substance, the same now that it was then, and Christ the Mediator of it. [3.] To answer the types of the law; thus (as bishop Tillotson expresses it), he did not make void, but make good, the ceremonial law, and manifested himself to be the Substance of all those shadows. [4.] To fill up the defects of it, and so to complete and perfect it. Thus the word plērōsai properly signifies. If we consider the law as a vessel that had some water in it before, he did not come to pour out the water, but to fill the vessel up to the brim; or, as a picture that is first rough-drawn, displays some outlines only of the piece intended, which are afterwards filled up; so Christ made an improvement of the law and the prophets by his additions and explications. [5.] To carry on the same design; the Christian institutes are so far from thwarting and contradicting that which was the main design of the Jewish religion, that they promote it to the highest degree. The gospel is the time of reformation (Heb_9:10), not the repeal of the law, but the amendment of it, and, consequently, its establishment.
2. He asserts the perpetuity of it; that not only he designed not the abrogation of it, but that it never should be abrogated (Mat_5:18); “Verily I say unto you, I, the Amen, the faithful Witness, solemnly declare it, that till heaven and earth pass, when time shall be no more, and the unchangeable state of recompences shall supersede all laws, one jot, or one tittle, the least and most minute circumstance, shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled;” for what is it that God is doing in all the operations both of providence and grace, but fulfilling the scripture? Heaven and earth shall come together, and all the fulness thereof be wrapped up in ruin and confusion, rather than any word of God shall fall to the ground, or be in vain. The word of the Lord endures for ever, both that of the law, and that of the gospel. Observe, The care of God concerning his law extends itself even to those things that seem to be of least account in it, the iotas and the tittles; for whatever belongs to God, and bears his stamp, be it ever so little, shall be preserved. The laws of men are conscious to themselves of so much imperfection, that they allow it for a maxim, Apices juris non sunt jura - The extreme points of the law are not the law, but God will stand by and maintain every iota and every tittle of his law.
3. He gives it in charge to his disciples, carefully to preserve the law, and shows them the danger of the neglect and contempt of it (Mat_5:19); Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments of the law of Moses, much more any of the greater, as the Pharisees did, who neglected the weightier matters of the law, and shall teach men so as they did, who made void the commandment of God with their traditions (Mat_15:3), he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Though the Pharisees be cried up for such teachers as should be, they shall not be employed as teachers in Christ's kingdom; but whosoever shall do and teach them, as Christ's disciples would, and thereby prove themselves better friends to the Old Testament than the Pharisees were, they, though despised by men, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note, (1.) Among the commands of God there are some less than others; none absolutely little, but comparatively so. The Jews reckon the least of the commandments of the law to be that of the bird's nest (Deu_22:6, Deu_22:7); yet even that had a significance and an intention very great and considerable. (2.) It is a dangerous thing, in doctrine or practice, to disannul the least of God's commands; to break them, that is, to go about either to contract the extent, or weaken the obligation of them; whoever does so, will find it is at his peril. Thus to vacate any of the ten commandments, is too bold a stroke for the jealous God to pass by. it is something more than transgressing the law, it is making void the law, Psa_119:126. (3.) That the further such corruptions as they spread, the worse they are. It is impudence enough to break the command, but is a greater degree of it to teach men so. This plainly refers to those who at this time sat in Moses' seat, and by their comments corrupted and perverted the text. Opinions that tend to the destruction of serious godliness and the vitals of religion, by corrupt glosses on the scripture, are bad when they are held, but worse when they are propagated and taught, as the word of God. He that does so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, in the kingdom of glory; he shall never come thither, but be eternally excluded; or, rather, in the kingdom of the gospel-church. He is so far from deserving the dignity of a teacher in it, that he shall not so much as be accounted a member of it. The prophet that teaches these lies shall be the tail in that kingdom (Isa_9:15); when truth shall appear in its own evidence, such corrupt teachers, though cried up as the Pharisees, shall be of no account with the wise and good. Nothing makes ministers more contemptible and base than corrupting the law, Mal_2:8, Mal_2:11. Those who extenuate and encourage sin, and discountenance and put contempt upon strictness in religion and serious devotion, are the dregs of the church. But, on the other hand, Those are truly honourable, and of great account in the church of Christ, who lay out themselves by their life and doctrine to promote the purity and strictness of practical religion; who both do and teach that which is good; for those who do not as they teach, pull down with one hand what they build up with the other, and give themselves the lie, and tempt men to think that all religion is a delusion; but those who speak from experience, who live up to what they preach, are truly great; they honour God, and God will honour them (1Sa_2:30), and hereafter they shall shine as the stars in the kingdom of our Father.
II. The righteousness which Christ came to establish by this rule, must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, Mat_5:20. This was strange doctrine to those who looked upon the scribes and Pharisees as having arrived at the highest pitch of religion. The scribes were the most noted teachers of the law, and the Pharisees the most celebrated professors of it, and they both sat in Moses' chair (Mat_23:2), and had such a reputation among the people, that they were looked upon as super-conformable to the law, and people did not think themselves obliged to be as good as they; it was therefore a great surprise to them, to hear that they must be better than they, or they should not go to heaven; and therefore Christ here avers it with solemnity; I say unto you, It is so. The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to Christ and his doctrine, and were great oppressors; and yet it must be owned, that there was something commendable in them. They were much in fasting and prayer, and giving of alms; they were punctual in observing the ceremonial appointments, and made it their business to teach others; they had such an interest in the people that they ought, if but two men went to heaven, one would be a Pharisee; and yet our Lord Jesus here tells his disciples, that the religion he came to establish, did not only exclude the badness, but excel the goodness, of the scribes and Pharisees. We must do more than they, and better than they, or we shall come short of heaven. They were partial in the law, and laid most stress upon the ritual part of it; but we must be universal, and not think it enough to give the priest his tithe, but must give God our hearts. They minded only the outside, but we must make conscience of inside godliness. They aimed at the praise and applause of men, but we must aim at acceptance with God: they were proud of what they did in religion, and trusted to it as a righteousness; but we, when we have done all, must deny ourselves, and say, We are unprofitable servants, and trust only to the righteousness of Christ; and thus we may go beyond the scribes and Pharisees.

ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Post #97

Post by ipu »

RevJP wrote:I see I made an error in assuming some things. I provided a comparison of scripture for reference, scriptures which have been mistaken as translations, when in fact they are a compilation of translations and paraphrases. I had assumed you were versed in scripture and recognized the difference, if I assumed incorrectly I apologize.
As far as I know, all English versions of scripture are a translation of a compilation of the various books which comprise scripture, none of which originated in English. If it is not translation, it is not scripture! Beyond that, I still do not understand what you are trying to say.
A translation is the conversion of one language to another, with emphasis on accurrate depiction of specific meaning, word for word or phrase for phrase.

A paraphrase is a restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. It is important to recognize the difference if one is to engage in word studies and proof texts.
I agree. However, there can be a blurry line of distinction between translation and paraphrase. Any time there is any difference of vocabulary or grammar (non-perfect equivalence), then there is the likelihood that an optimal translation is also a concise paraphrase. Where the number "three" may have a perfect translation to another language, a phrase, for example, "heart of the matter" may not. The non-perfect translation may be indistinguishable from a paraphrasing.
Just for grins and giggles, here is what Henry has to say: ...
Why grins and giggles? I think the quote from Henry is nearly 100% in agreement with every attempt I have made here to describe what I think is meant by the translated words of MAT 5:17-20!

Do you agree with Henry's expression of MAT 5? Do you agree that I am nearly in total agreement with Henry? Please identify anything I have said about the meaning of MAT 5 that you think is not in basic agreement with what Henry says.

Have we reached a major milestone here, that we agree on the meaning of MAT 5 and can now move on to discuss comparison of other scripture, doctrine, and practice which I claim contradicts MAT 5, and that we can now compare these other things to a nailed-down, well-identified target?

-- Alan

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #98

Post by RevJP »

As far as I know, all English versions of scripture are a translation of a compilation of the various books which comprise scripture, none of which originated in English. If it is not translation, it is not scripture! Beyond that, I still do not understand what you are trying to say.
Then you are incorrect. All versions of scripture are not translations.

The Message (MSG), the Bible in Basic English (BBE), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), as examples, are paraphrases, not translations.

True translations would include the ASV - American Standard Version, the NASB - The New American Standard Bible, the NIV - New International Version, KJV the King James Version, the YLT - Young's Literal Translation and others.
can now move on to discuss comparison of other scripture, doctrine, and practice which I claim contradicts MAT 5, and that we can now compare these other things to a nailed-down, well-identified target?
Let's.

I am most interested in what you claim contradicts scripture. You have already asserted that you are prepared to assert contradictions in doctrine and behavior,
Not completely true. I do think there is scriptural and doctrinal contradiction, but that it is easier to clearly see and discuss the behavioral contradictions. I would like to discuss all of these contradictions. I believe it is easiest to see the contradiction in behavior. I also expect the contradictory behavior will be justified by scriptural and doctrinal references. That is, by me focusing on the behavior, I expect the Christian participants of this debate to identify for themselves the scriptural and doctrinal contradictions that exist with MAT 5.
but that really is irrelevant to the true issue - what has God given us that is contradictory as opposed to what man has given us that is contradictory to God's gift?

ipu
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Tempe, AZ

Post #99

Post by ipu »

RevJP wrote:
ipu wrote:can now move on to discuss comparison of other scripture, doctrine, and practice which I claim contradicts MAT 5, and that we can now compare these other things to a nailed-down, well-identified target?
Let's.
Let's backup up just a bit, first.
ipu wrote:Do you agree with Henry's expression of MAT 5? Do you agree that I am nearly in total agreement with Henry? Please identify anything I have said about the meaning of MAT 5 that you think is not in basic agreement with what Henry says.

Have we reached a major milestone here, that we agree on the meaning of MAT 5 and can now move on to discuss comparison of other scripture, doctrine, and practice which I claim contradicts MAT 5, and that we can now compare these other things to a nailed-down, well-identified target?
Answering these questions would help a lot for us to move on as you ask. I do not intend to start discussing another issue to compare with MAT 5 only to have you come back and say I do not understand what MAT 5 says and means. You provided a reference with clear explanation of MAT 5 that I agree with. Do you agree with it too, or was that just for my amusement?

-- Alan

User avatar
RevJP
Scholar
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:55 am
Location: CA
Contact:

Post #100

Post by RevJP »

Oh I agree with it. I'm just not sure you understand the full implications of what you claim you agree with, or that you fully understand what Matthew Henry is really saying about Matthew 5:17-20.. However, that will not be apparent one way or the other until the dots are connected throughout the rest of scripture.

Post Reply