Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | Yitzhak | 12248 | ||
I believe that Jesus was saying that the Law (Mosaic Law) will remain in effect, for nonbelievers, until the very last person who is going to be saved, is saved. When viewed this way there is no conflict between this verse (and the next verse) and what Paul says in Romans. | ||||||
2 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | Makarios | 12323 | ||
Dear Yitzhak, Yes, the Law remains to condemn the world of sin, but praise the Lord that we are no longer under the Law! (Romans 8:2) "Do not think that I came to destroy: Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ charge that He was nullifying the law. The law was both temporary (see Gal. 3:19; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 7:12) and eternal (see 5:18; Rom. 3:31; 8:4). The word fulfill means “to fill out, expand, or complete.” It does not mean to bring to an end. Jesus fulfills the law in several ways: (1) He obeyed it perfectly and taught its correct meaning (vv. 19, 20); (2) He will one day fulfill all of the Old Testament types and prophecies; and (3) He provides a way of salvation that meets all the requirements of the law (Rom. 3:21, 31). one jot or one tittle will by no means pass: This statement of Jesus provides us with one of the strongest affirmations in the Bible of the inerrancy of Scripture. It is absolutely trustworthy. 'tittle' (Gk. 'keraia') (5:18; Luke 16:17) G2762: In Hebrew, sometimes the smallest stroke or mark distinguished a letter from a similar one. Matthew uses the Greek word that literally means “horn,” or one hook of a letter, to refer to this stroke. The rabbis had defended the importance of retaining even the slightest stroke and the smallest letter— 'yodh' in Hebrew and 'iota' in Greek—in the Law of Moses. Jesus made it clear that He heartily concurred with the rabbis’ respect for the Law. Not even the smallest dot over an “i” would disappear until the Law was fulfilled." (The Nelson NKJV Study Bible) --Nolan |
||||||
3 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137495 | ||
This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." In other words, if I were to do an essay for a Jewish professor on a passage of scripture he might respond to my essay by saying, "Marvin, you must re-write this paper. You are abolishing the scripture." "How," I might ask. "Because," he would reply, "If we do what your essay says, we would be disobeying God. Now go and fulfill this scripture. (by rewriting your essay is a way that would help people obey God.)" Jesus "spoke as one with authority" and "not as their Torah teachers (teacher's of the law)." Matthew 7:29 (said at the end of the sermon.) In other words, Jesus was giving new interpretation, and he says at the beginning that "I do not misinterpret (abolish), but rather I interpret correctly (fulfill)." The next verse days, “… until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the [Torah] ….” This verse alone contradicts many teachings about the abolish/fulfill statement before it. You can check the accuracy of this Jewish language used in the first century by contacting your local rabbi, or doing the study into original sources. |
||||||
4 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | srbaegon | 137504 | ||
Hello MJH, And I believe if you check with the author, you would see he was a Jew writing in Greek and would have known which word was proper to use. Therefore, abolish means abolish, and fulfill means fulfill. Steve |
||||||
5 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137627 | ||
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not Greek . . . but before we get into that statement; thanks for the reply. Honestly, I did not expect a reply, and to have one so soon was a real joy. Nothing excites me more than studying scripture, and the greatest moments are when I learn something new, or learn that I was wrong about something. That being said, let me explain why my original post was both correct, and that Hebrew, not Greek, was the predominate language in Jesus time and therefore any interpretation of Jesus words must be seen in the Hebrew language (and idioms), the 1st century Hebrew culture, and the 1st century interpretations of the Tanak and Torah (the Old Testament). Many scholars who study the 1st century languages now believe that Hebrew was the common language for both the Rabbis and the common people. (Josephus says so; only Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were found in Temple Mount excavations – no Aramaic; the Mishnah and other rabbinic works are in Hebrew; and the grand daddy of them all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Hebrew, including commoner scrolls.) Also, every single early church father who mentions language, says that Matthew was written in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome (the most learned in the Hebrew Language and who translated the Vulgate) even says that the Hebrew original of Matthew was “still preserved in the library at Caesarea.” Then there are the evidences in the Greek text itself, but that might get too winded for our discussion here at this time. Regardless of what language Matthew wrote in; however, he was quoting Jesus, who certainly spoke in Hebrew, particularly on this occasion being in the Galilee, and speaking to his disciples (not just the 12 closest). Hebrew is full of Idioms of which this particular text is only one. To make my point, allow me to stray over to Matthew 6:22-23. Jesus talks about a “good eye.” “If your eye is good, your whole body if full of light…” What does this mean? In Greek, it means virtually nothing. In English, it means virtually nothing. But in Hebrew is means a lot. This is a Hebrew idiom not unlike an English idiom, “The cat’s got his tongue.” We know this means, “He can’t talk.” But in any other language it is crazy talk. Here the Hebrew idiom is: Good Eye -is- Generous; Bad Eye -is- Miserly. Now re-read that passage in context. It does make sense now. Back to our present passage: Jesus was either answering a direct attack, or an assumed attack, or answering an attack He knew would be forthcoming, on His interpretations of scripture. When you understand the Hebrew idiom as I stated in my first post, this whole passage in context makes sense and also fits perfectly into the rest of the scriptures. Jesus’ very next words are: “not so much as a ‘yod’ or a tittle will pass away from the [Torah]”. (yod being the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle being the smallest mark made on the Yod.) There is not much more I can say concerning this since your reply did not give an alternate interpretation. I have addressed the language issue and I think gave a good refutation as to why Hebrew is the key to understanding this and many of Jesus teachings. I truly look forward to a further discussion should you also desire this. A good book on this whole subject is, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective” by David Bivin, and Roy Blizzard Jr. ISBN: 1-56043-550-X |
||||||
6 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 137629 | ||
NT given in GREEK, not Hebrew 'Some of the errors in the HRM [Hebrew Roots Movement], or ANY, for that matter, who classify themselves Messianic Jews today are: '1. They call for Christians to recognize extra-biblical Jewish books, which are supposed to give fuller understanding of the Greek New Testament. In fact some go so far as to proclaim the Hebrew Scriptures are the authentic scriptures, not the Greek text of the KJV Bible. 'The New Testament was given in its original, inspired from the Hand of God, in GREEK, not Hebrew. Most of the extra-biblical Hebrew "scriptures" that the HRM is seeking to foist onto the Christian Church are ancient writings, often with occult and mystical sources, traditional material which are NOT Scripture at all. They are extra-biblical sources of knowledge. 'The Bible was written in 3 languages: '1. Hebrew was the Language of the Old Testament. '2. Aramaic was the language of the far east until the time of Alexander the Great. '3. Greek was the New Testament language and the International language at the time of Christ. 'But yet the Hebrew Roots Movement claims falsely that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, and that the Greek New Testament is a mere translation and in some cases a mis-translation of the Hebrew or Aramaic originals. They have even gone so far (some of them) to conclude that Paul's writings where he addressed the heresy they teach, were re-written by Rome and are not authentic. Of course they cannot prove this, but it is enough to cast doubt in their adherents and justify themselves in their error.' ____________________ http://www.angelfire.com/la/jlush/dangersHRM.html |
||||||
7 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137664 | ||
Mathew wrote in Hebrew – Let’s get this back into context. The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." An argument came that Matthew wrote in Greek and therefore my interpretation was not valid. In response to this I made 2 points: 1) The common Jewish people of Jesus day spoke Hebrew and therefore regardless of what language Matthew wrote in, the interpretation still stands. This idiom (Matt 5:17) was used often in the 1st century, and those living then would have understood it as such. I used extra Biblical sources to make my point because they paint a good picture of history and culture during that time. I also used archeology. 2) Matthew was writing to Jews and would have used their language; Every church father for 400 years after Jesus said Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Jerome said the Hebrew version was still extant at the library of Caesarea (which is a bold thing to say if it isn’t true since his reader(s) would have been able to easily check.). Your comment does not address my comments at all. The fact remains that Jesus spoke in Hebrew. I attest that all of our manuscripts are in Greek. But to assume that one should neglect to study the Hebrew culture of the 1st century is dangerous to accurate scriptural interpretation. Most Evangelicals (and others) agree that you must first attempt to know what the original hearers understood in order to grasp the texts full meaning. Getting back to the verse--when one understands the Hebrew culture of the first century and their idioms, this text is much easier to understand. One more point about Hebrew culture and extra Biblical writings. Jesus often is addressing these very things when he speaks. There were 8 great debates in his time and he addresses every one of them. We can know what many of Jesus contemporaries thought because of extra Biblical evidence. Who are the Sadducees, Pharisees (more than one type), Essences, and Zealots? The Bible is largely quiet on this, but for centuries we knew the answer because Bible commentators used extra Biblical information to paint a better picture of the historical/cultural times. |
||||||
8 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 137669 | ||
Jesus spoke in Aramaic "The people of first century Palestine, including Jesus, spoke the Aramaic language. However, early Christian writings were written entirely in Greek, the universal language of the Roman Empire." (http://www.twopaths.com/faq_kjv.htm) 'It is almost universally accepted that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Aramaic. The theory that the New Testament was written in Hebrew is without basis, though I believe that I have heard some suggest that some of the sources may have been in Aramaic. The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). 'You will remember that when Jesus cried out from the cross, "Eli, Eli, LAMA, SABACHTHANI"(Matthew 27:46-47), He was citing the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, and no one there seemed to understand it. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. How could this fellow’s (Norman Willis') theory* hold up if no one at the cross could understand the Hebrew words Jesus spoke? (Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, but not the same.)' ____________________ *Norman Willis' theory. Norman Willis claims that the NT may have been written in Hebrew instead of Greek. (http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/) |
||||||
9 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 137674 | ||
Quotable Quote "In the great scheme of things what effect on one’s salvation could finding out what language the New Testament was written [in] make?" --EdB |
||||||
10 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137682 | ||
Absolutly NONE! Thank God for that, heh? | ||||||