Glass of water and O.T. Law analogy

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response!

It seemed to me that by quoting Matthew 5:18, you were accreting that Christ viewed the law differently than Christians.

I have little doubt that Jesus viewed the Law differently than most Christians. Jesus, after all, was a Jew, and one who had intimate experience of the richness of the Law in his own life.

But as regards our passage: to some extent, your translation clouds the matter. The words rendered "fulfill" in vv. 17 and 18 are actually different words in Greek.

The term in v. 17 is pleroo, which means to fill up, and "fulfill" is not a poor choice for translation in this instance. This does leave, however, the question of how to construe the statement that Jesus has come to fulfill the law and the prophets. Many would see this as indicating that Jesus has come to complete and do away with the law and the prophets. However, one might as easily construe the statement to indicate that Jesus has come to fulfill what the law and the prophets expected of him - without doing away with either.

The term in v. 18 is not pleroo, but ginomai, which means to come into being/come to happen. This phrase, then, parallels the first dependent clause in v. 18: until heaven and earth pass // until all things have come into being or have come to happen. It may be argued that heaven and earth have not yet passed, and that there are yet things remaining to happen.

As regards the "requirements" of the church, it may be worth noting that v. 19 speaks of honor in the kingdom of heaven, and not excommunication.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

Many would see this as indicating that Jesus has come to complete and do away with the law and the prophets. However, one might as easily construe the statement to indicate that Jesus has come to fulfill what the law and the prophets expected of him - without doing away with either.

There are plenty of passages from the new testament that go to prove that Jesus was going to do away with the old covenant and establish a new one. Matthew 5:17-18 indicates that before this could be done He would need to fulfill the law and all that was prophesied about Him.

Here are a few verses from Matthew and Mark that go to prove the point that Jesus was going to remove the old covenant.

Matthew 21:19,
And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.

Matthew 24:1-2,
24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.
24:2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Matthew 21:43,
"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it

Mark 12:1-10
12:1 Then He began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a place for the wine vat and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
12:2 Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that he might receive some of the fruit of the vineyard from the vinedressers.
12:3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.
12:4 Again he sent them another servant, and at him they threw stones, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated.
12:5 And again he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some.
12:6 Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last, saying, 'They will respect my son.'
12:7 But those vinedressers said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'
12:8 So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard.
12:9 Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others.
12:10 Have you not even read this Scripture: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.



I used Matthew 5:17-18 because you first used it to prove a point, in which I believe proves my point, that Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets not only for himself, but for all. If Jesus came only to fulfill what the law and prophets expected of Him and not for all, as Christians believe, than what could Jesus have meant by this statement from Matthew 26?

Matthew 26:26-28
26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response .

There are plenty of passages from the new testament that go to prove that Jesus was going to do away with the old covenant and establish a new one.

I'll buy the second part, but it is not given that the institution of a new covenant does away with a pre-existing one. The Sinaitic covenant did not do away with the Abrahamic covenant, for example.

Here are a few verses from Matthew and Mark that go to prove the point that Jesus was going to remove the old covenant.

Let me address your examples:

Matthew 21:19, And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.

The meaning of this pericope is not explicated in the text. As such, the fig tree may be understood as indicative of fruitless individuals, without a more sweeping application.

Matthew 24:1-2, 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 24:2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

This forecasts the destruction of the Temple. Such is not necessarily indicative of the viability of the covenant. This was not the first time a temple had been destroyed. And, in point of fact, the covenant does not require a temple.

Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it

This may apply to the foundation of a new covenant, but it does not explicate doing away with the previous covenant. When the text says "the kingdom of God will be taken from you," Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the elders in this context, and not necessarily to the whole of Israel.

So likewise your citation from Mark 12.

I used Matthew 5:17-18 because you first used it to prove a point, in which I believe proves my point, that Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets not only for himself, but for all. If Jesus came only to fulfill what the law and prophets expected of Him and not for all, as Christians believe, than what could Jesus have meant by this statement from Matthew 26?

Matthew 26:26-28
26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This text explicates neither how nor to what extent the blood contributes to the remission of sins. Neither does this text explicate that the new covenant sunsets any previous covenant.

In this passage, the blood is literally "poured out" in Greek, so it is not necessary to conceive of it as "shed." It is arguable that the blood Jesus is referring to is "the blood of grapes" mentioned in Genesis 49:11, a messianic passage. Indeed, such is a preferable understanding, since as it attentuates the disharmony between the imagery of the eucharist and the prohibition against eating blood, which is first given to Noah and applied in the New Testament even to Gentiles.

In light of the imagery in Genesis 49:11, this "blood of the covenant" (which neither Matthew nor Mark claim to be Jesus' own) carries a connotation of cleansing. As such, the blood which marks the committed covenantal relationship also symbolizes that such relationship will cleanse the participant - therein the removal of sins.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmett,

As you said you will define legalism differently and you are entitled to do so. The same with me I will define legalism the way Paidion defines it.

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

Let me address your examples:

Quote:
Matthew 21:19, And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.


The meaning of this pericope is not explicated in the text. As such, the fig tree may be understood as indicative of fruitless individuals, without a more sweeping application.


Quote:
Matthew 24:1-2, 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 24:2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


This forecasts the destruction of the Temple. Such is not necessarily indicative of the viability of the covenant. This was not the first time a temple had been destroyed. And, in point of fact, the covenant does not require a temple.


Quote:
Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it


This may apply to the foundation of a new covenant, but it does not explicate doing away with the previous covenant. When the text says "the kingdom of God will be taken from you," Jesus is speaking to the chief priests and the elders in this context, and not necessarily to the whole of Israel.

It seems to me that in all of your explanations you seem to admit that the Christian understanding of these passages is a possibility, though you chose to see them differently. Am I right?

Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your reply.

It seems to me that in all of your explanations you seem to admit that the Christian understanding of these passages is a possibility, though you chose to see them differently. Am I right?

At the outset, I would cavil at the assumption that the diction of "the Christian understanding" [emphasis mine]. Christian interpretation of these passages is not necessarily limited to a single vein. Messianic Jewish writers, for example, may be inclined to understand such passages differently than their Gentile brethren. Beyond this, critical Christian scholars would not necessarily attribute all of these passages to the historical Jesus.

To address the examples again:

(1) in the case of the fig tree, it seems unlikely from context that the fig tree is metaphorical for the "old covenant" in a direct sense. It might be taken as metaphorical for the sanctuary-system as a whole, or for the nation of Israel as a whole, which could then have secondary repercussions on one's perspective toward the covenant. The first possibility would encounter some difficulty in light of the Torah's view of the sacrificial cult as "for ever" [e.g., Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 6:22]. Likewise, the Torah's view of other aspects of the covenant as lasting "for ever" hedge against the utter removal of the "old covenant" [e.g., Exodus 12:14-17, Leviticus 16:29, 23:41, Numbers 19:10; also, if you will, Deuteronomy 29:29]. If one is going to propose that the pericope is an authentic representation of Jesus and of the will of God, then one might expect that such a harsh statement as "Let no fruit grow on you ever again" would not apply to the "old covenant," seeing as its faithful practice manifestly leads to fruits of honesty, chastity, love, honor, etc.;

(2) in the case of the temple destruction, there is no inherent connection between this and a removal of the "old covenant." Thus, any such Christian understanding to that effect would be eisegetical;

(3) in the subsequent two cases, there is no conclusive indication about the abiding relevance of the "old covenant." Thus, any Christian understanding involving the "old covenant" would be eisegetical;

(4) in the case of the eucharist, a more traditional Christian understanding is possible, and yet the institution of a new covenant is not directly indicative of the status of an older covenant, and so any Christian understanding concerning the removal of the "old covenant" would be eisegetical in this circumstance, too.


The primary issue with your examples is that none of them explicitly deal with the issue of the "old covenant." As such, they fall short of proving the point that the "old covenant" has been done away with.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

The primary issue with your examples is that none of them explicitly deal with the issue of the "old covenant." As such, they fall short of proving the point that the "old covenant" has been done away with.

In light of history, I think it is fair to say that the old covenant has been done away with. The temple was destroyed as Jesus prophesied, Israel was scattered among all the nations and to this day have not reclaimed the land that was promised under the old covenant. The promises under the old covenant were dependent on Israel’s obedience; it was not an unconditional promise.

Can you show evidence that the old covenant is in force today, and practiced?

Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your reply.

In light of history, I think it is fair to say that the old covenant has been done away with. The temple was destroyed as Jesus prophesied, Israel was scattered among all the nations and to this day have not reclaimed the land that was promised under the old covenant.

Ah, so we move from appealing to scripture to appealing to history .

As mentioned above, the temple is not necessary to the performance of the covenant, so its destruction is not a definitive piece of evidence.

As for the diaspora and the claiming of land (and the destruction of the temple, if you continue to favor that argument), all of these factors came into place post-586 BCE. After the Babylonians devastated Jerusalem, many of the people were displaced, and a sizable Jewish diaspora has existed ever since. (Most of the Jews and their descendants never returned from Mesopotamia, remaining there until centuries after the time of Jesus). Never after 586 BCE was the land fully independent from external rule (though there was some effective autonomy under the Hasmoneans). The temple also lay in ruins for a full lifetime. Yet most would not hold that these circumstances resulted in the sunsetting of the covenant. Elsewise it would not have been Jesus who did away with the covenant, but Nebuchadnezzar.

The promises under the old covenant were dependent on Israel’s obedience; it was not an unconditional promise.

This does not bear any conclusive significance when it comes to the ongoing value or applicability of the covenant. Does not the Christian covenant with God depend upon the faithfulness of the human participant?

Can you show evidence that the old covenant is in force today...?

I can forward you an e-mail from God where he bills me each month in sheep or doves for my sins.

But the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to countermand the precedent. Where is the proof that the covenant - marked generation after generation in the blood of its inheritors - has been dismissed?

...and practiced?

Surely you are not totally unaware of practicing Jews, even living so far from Brooklyn?


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello Emmet,

Ah, so we move from appealing to scripture to appealing to history .

Why not appeal to history? How else should we look to see if a prophecy has been fulfilled?

As mentioned above, the temple is not necessary to the performance of the covenant, so its destruction is not a definitive piece of evidence.

Of course you have said this many times, but I don't see how it can be entirely truthful in light of scripture. Much of Exodus, and Leviticus teach that a tabernacle should be built in order to offer up sacrifices. Such sacrifices would include the Burnt Offering, Grain Offering, Sin Offering, Fellowship Offering, and Guilt Offering. An Aaronic Priest would need to be present to perform these rituals.

Though the Temple itself was not a requirement for the Old Covenant, it can hardly be argued that the Temple did not represent something that is a requirement for the Old Covenant, and when the temple was destroyed it was not replace nor was in prophesied to be replace (outside of the church).

As for the diaspora and the claiming of land (and the destruction of the temple, if you continue to favor that argument), all of these factors came into place post-586 BCE. After the Babylonians devastated Jerusalem, many of the people were displaced, and a sizable Jewish diaspora has existed ever since. (Most of the Jews and their descendants never returned from Mesopotamia, remaining there until centuries after the time of Jesus). Never after 586 BCE was the land fully independent from external rule (though there was some effective autonomy under the Hasmoneans). The temple also lay in ruins for a full lifetime. Yet most would not hold that these circumstances resulted in the sunsetting of the covenant. Elsewise it would not have been Jesus who did away with the covenant, but Nebuchadnezzar.

We know that just prior to the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, God spoke through Jeremiah the Prophet and said that He would regather Israel, and once again they would be a nation.

Jeremiah
30:1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
30:2 "Thus speaks the Lord God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you.
30:3 For behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,' says the Lord. 'And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.' "

No such promise accompanied the prophecy against Jerusalem that was fulfilled in 70AD.

Does not the Christian covenant with God depend upon the faithfulness of the human participant?

Yes it does. However, Christians don't need a temple, or tabernacle with animal sacrifices, and an Aaronic priesthood in order to be obedient.

I can forward you an e-mail from God where he bills me each month in sheep or doves for my sins.

I look forward to it.

Surely you are not totally unaware of practicing Jews, even living so far from Brooklyn?

What do they practice?

Robin

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your reply.

Quote:
Ah, so we move from appealing to scripture to appealing to history .

Why not appeal to history? How else should we look to see if a prophecy has been fulfilled?

Having failed to prove that such prophecy exists in the first place, one is hard put to prove its fulfillment in history.

Quote:
As mentioned above, the temple is not necessary to the performance of the covenant, so its destruction is not a definitive piece of evidence.

Of course you have said this many times, but I don't see how it can be entirely truthful in light of scripture. ... Though the Temple itself was not a requirement for the Old Covenant....

So you cannot see how my statement is "entirely truthful," yet you concede that the temple is not necessary to the "old" covenant.

The temple is to be distinguished from the sacrificial cultus. The sacrificial cultus is part of the Law, but there is no need whatsoever for it to be carried out in a temple. Indeed, one could argue that the temple wound up constraining the genius of the Law, as it effectively terminated the mobility of the sanctuary.

Though the Temple itself was not a requirement for the Old Covenant, it can hardly be argued that the Temple did not represent something that is a requirement for the Old Covenant, and when the temple was destroyed it was not replace nor was in prophesied to be replace (outside of the church).

The temple did represent a requirement of the Law. So did each high priest in his generation. But when a high priest died, it did not follow that the entire apparatus was done away with. Or shall we consider the Ark of the Covenant (an actually essential piece and an intergenerational symbol)? This artifact disappeared long before the time of Jesus, and yet few would suggest that its absence abrogated the covenant. If such were the case, then there would have been no active covenant for Jesus to fulfill, or to (putatively) do away with.

The temple was an expression of the Law, but it was an expression that was tainted with the political and economic misdeeds of its patrons and its dependents. It is perhaps a blessing that it was removed as a stumbling block to the people. But specific judgment upon it need not be construed as a general abortion of the covenant it represented.

We know that just prior to the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, God spoke through Jeremiah the Prophet and said that He would regather Israel, and once again they would be a nation.

"We" do not know this. I am not so sure about Jeremiah.

When exactly has Israel been brought back from captivity, to possess the land? They are called, after all, the "Ten Lost Tribes."

No such promise accompanied the prophecy against Jerusalem that was fulfilled in 70AD.

Not so surprising, in light of the early Christian expectation that the end of this world was imminent.

However, Christians don't need a temple, or tabernacle with animal sacrifices, and an Aaronic priesthood in order to be obedient.

Jews do not need a temple (have I mentioned that before?). What they do need, they either have (an Aaronic priesthood, whose bloodline has been marked for thousands of years) or can have (a tabernacle, which can easily enough be constructed by the willing).

Yet you might persist on this point. Very well - Jesus would have needed the Ark of the Covenant for the covenant to be fully realized in his lifetime. Did Jesus' lack of this component prevent his obedience? Did its absence invalidate the entirety of the covenant?

When Christians seek to cavil at such things, they demonstrate that they are true legalists, concerned more with the letter of the Law than the spirit it is intended to serve. When filled with that spirit, the Law remains alive and vital despite having sustained injury in one component or another.

Quote:
Surely you are not totally unaware of practicing Jews, even living so far from Brooklyn?

What do they practice?

A little piano, a little penmanship, a mess of free-throws, and the Torah. Of course, some of their practice has suffered under the weight of centuries of traditional thought (a circumstance which Christianity so clearly has managed to avoid). But I still have hope that they'll grow past the technique of "Air Shmuely"....

Shalom,
Emmet