Matthew 5:17 - 18 - a closer look

[Deacon]

...that don't jibe:

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

...He indeed WAS the end of the law.

That's Paul's argument, not Matthew's.
We were asked to interpret a passage from the Gospel of Matthew.
What was Matthew's intent?

Matthew's point, noted in the OP's text concerned fulfillment, not ending of the law.
He crowds would not have flocked to Jesus if he proposed to abolish of the law - that what separated them from the gentiles.
Matthew's point (and Jesus'), is a greater law, the law of the kingdom, the law that lies in the heart of a believer.

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

That's Paul's argument

After the cross.

not Matthew's

Before the cross.

 

[Deacon]

Before the cross.

As dense as I am I do believe Matthew wrote his Gospel after the cross.

I understand (as a dispensationalist myself) that many discount the Sermon of the Mount as worth less (worthless?) because it was during a different dispensation. I'm not one of those.

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

As dense as I am I do believe Matthew wrote his Gospel after the cross.

He quoted Christ's words spoken before the cross. Paul, who completed the word of God [Colossians 1:25], declares unequivocally, that the law has been 'done away in Christ' [2 Corinthians 3:14]. Removed [Hebrews 12:27]. Abolished [Ephesians 2:15]. Disannulled [Hebrews 7:18]. ....and no doubt there's more synonymy that Paul used that escapes me for the moment....

 

[Deacon]

He quoted Christ's words spoken before the cross. Paul, who completed the word of God [Colossians 1:25], declares unequivocally, that the law has been 'done away in Christ' [2 Corinthians 3:14]. Removed [Hebrews 12:27]. Abolished [Ephesians 2:15]. Disannulled [Hebrews 7:18]. ....and no doubt there's more synonymy that Paul used that escapes me for the moment....

I'm sorry, what were the verses we were asked about? Wasn't it Matthew?
Wouldn't his intent (or even Jesus' intent) matter the most?

...rather than a systematic theology of the meaning as viewed through other authors.​

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

<------------------> duplicate post

 

[kyredneck]

I understand (as a dispensationalist myself)

Thank you. That sheds some light for me.

many discount the Sermon of the Mount as worth less (worthless?)

Not me. Contained within the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the law, given by the Author of the law, addressed to those to whom were given the law, revealing the spirituality of the law, and the impossibility of keeping the law. Also the sermon, given by 'The Prophet', is prophetic concerning 'that generation'. That's a biggie that Dispies miss. Mt. 5-7 is extremely important as a foundation for the rest of the NT writings.

Wouldn't his intent (or even Jesus' intent) matter the most?

Deacon, there's only One Author of this Book we both love, therefore there has to be an underlying continuity that could only come from a single Will.

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 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.

Since this is prophetic to that generation, and since the law was abolished/done away/removed/disannulled in that generation, it's logical to conclude that 'heaven and earth' here is to be understood as something other than literal. See post #16.

 

[Deacon]

Oh so very confusing...

Jesus says, “Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets." …But he really did come to do it?

And “the sermon, given by 'The Prophet', is prophetic concerning 'that generation'”

…tastes and feels like a classical dispensationalist to me.​

Matthew 5:17-18

QUESTION—What is being affirmed about the authority of the OT?
Here ‘law’ is considered with respect to its prophetic function, and he is saying that God’s redemptive purposes prophesied in the scriptures will be fulfilled in Jesus and the kingdom he is inaugurating [EBC]. The Torah, which Jesus brings to its intended goal, has an ongoing authority that Jesus’ disciples are not free to disobey or ignore [BECNT]. Scripture is permanently valid, and its divine purpose will be worked out [PNTC]. The law remains in force [NIBC]. He is saying that the law is to be observed as Jesus definitively and authoritatively interpreted it, and to follow his teaching is to be faithful to its entire meaning [WBC]. The law has an ongoing value and authority; it will never lose its significance, though all must be seen in a new light, since what it points forward to has become a reality in Jesus [NICNT].
David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013), 123.​

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

QUESTION—What is being affirmed about the authority of the OT?

20 For I say unto you...
21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time....
22 but I say unto you...
27 Ye have heard that it was said...
28 but I say unto you
31 It was said also...
32 but I say unto you...
33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time...
34 but I say unto you...
38 Ye have heard that it was said...
39 but I say unto you...
43 Ye have heard that it was said...
44 but I say unto you... Mt 5

Here ‘law’ is considered with respect to its prophetic function, and he is saying that God’s redemptive purposes prophesied in the scriptures will be fulfilled in Jesus and the kingdom he is inaugurating [EBC]. The Torah, which Jesus brings to its intended goal, has an ongoing authority that Jesus’ disciples are not free to disobey or ignore [BECNT]. Scripture is permanently valid, and its divine purpose will be worked out [PNTC]. The law remains in force [NIBC]. He is saying that the law is to be observed as Jesus definitively and authoritatively interpreted it, and to follow his teaching is to be faithful to its entire meaning [WBC]. The law has an ongoing value and authority; it will never lose its significance, though all must be seen in a new light, since what it points forward to has become a reality in Jesus [NICNT].
David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 1–16, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2013), 123.

Christ sums it here:

48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Mt 5

That's frightening to me. Can you do that? Be perfect? Thank God, Christ has that covered for us:

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb 10

 

[Deacon]

48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Mt 5
Can you do that? Be perfect? Thank God, Christ has that covered for us:

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb 10

Aye, on this we can agree!

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Deacon, there's only One Author of this Book we both love, therefore there has to be an underlying continuity that could only come from a single Will.

Amen! But it doesn't seem to me that you have found it.

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 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.

Since this is prophetic to that generation, and since the law was abolished/done away/removed/disannulled in that generation, it's logical to conclude that 'heaven and earth' here is to be understood as something other than literal. See post #16.

First of all, Christ's words are prophetic to all generations.
Secondly, the law, the moral law which is placed in the hearts of believers (Hebrews 8:10 etc.) has not passed and will not pass away.
Thirdly, the new heavens and new earth are a place where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). It doesn't sound a lot like anywhere I know in the world today.

"Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven but My Father only" (Matthew 24:34-36).

'All These things' (Gk. panta tauta) are indeed the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. There will be signs that people can read and flee from Jerusalem when they see them. But 'that day' (Gk. tes hemeras ekeines) is something quite different. There will be no signs; it will when men 'say "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them......' (1 Thessalonians 5:3). That event has nothing to do with AD 70. No one was saying, "Peace and safety!" when the Roman legions were surrounding Jerusalem.

 

[kyredneck]

Amen! But it doesn't seem to me that you have found it.

Wrong. I've found (or had it revealed) the continuity all through my search of the scriptures in my life many many times. I look for it, long for it, always. The underlying continuity of the scriptures is one of the most pertinent, if not the most pertinent, proofs of divine inspiration there is. There is One Author.

First of all, Christ's words are prophetic to all generations.

Wrong. Disregard for the first rule of scripture interpretation is the very reason we have so many hare brained cockamamie fantastical sensational 'last day/end times' narratives that the charlatans have made buku filthy lucre from. As 'The Prophet', He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

"Assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven but My Father only" (Matthew 24:34-36).

I've no idea how you conclude that this refutes anything that I've posted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Wrong. Disregard for the first rule of scripture interpretation is the very reason we have so many hare brained cockamamie fantastical sensational 'last day/end times' narratives that the charlatans have made buku filthy lucre from. As 'The Prophet', He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Well actually, I think it is those who wrongly divide the word of God who are responsible for cockamamie end-times' narratives. You are as guilty of that as any Dispensationalist. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." To take the Gospels and decide that they were only intended for Israel is barmy. Christ is my Prophet, and yours, whether you like it or not. 'And now the LORD says, "............It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth"' (Isaiah 48:5-6).

I can't think of any end-times narrative that is more crazy than to suppose that we are right now living in the New Heavens and New earth where righteousness reigns.

 

[kyredneck]

To take the Gospels and decide that they were only intended for Israel is barmy.

To twist my words and misrepresent me as placing irrelevance to any of God's word is deceitful tactic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As 'The Prophet', He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

To take the Gospels and decide that they were only intended for Israel is barmy. Christ is my Prophet, and yours, whether you like it or not.

To twist my words and misrepresent me as placing irrelevance to any of God's word is deceitful tactic.

If you think I've misrepresented you, perhaps you need to explain yourself better.

 

[kyredneck]

If you think I've misrepresented you, perhaps you need to explain yourself better.

24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15

Everything He said should first be viewed through that lens. You know, audience relevance? The first rule?:

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. Charles Hodge

 

[Martin Marprelate]

24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15

Everything He said should first be viewed through that lens. You know, audience relevance? The first rule?:

Wow! You really are a closet Dispensationalist. Why don't you just read the context? '"O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.' 'Therefore know that those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge knew better than to take our Lord's words in the sense ascribed to them by the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[kyredneck]

Wow! You really are a closet Dispensationalist.

Now you're spouting gibberish. False gibberish.

Why don't you just read the context?

She approached Him, He was NOT sent to her or any other non-Jew. There were other non-Jews that approached Him in faith but in no way does that negate His mission as 'The Prophet', sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

22 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me. To him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.
25 Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. Acts 3

Therefore know that those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'

I don't see that in the context. You sneaky, adding to scripture? I get your point, there's no doubt she was a child of the heavenly Zion as were myriads of other non-Jews at that time [Galatians 4:27; John 10:16], but in no way does that change the fact that He was sent only to 'that fold'.

Charles Hodge knew better than to take our Lord's words in the sense ascribed to them by the scribes and Pharisees.

I've no idea what you're getting at here. [add] I have to assume it's more ill-intended misrepresentation from you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now you're spouting gibberish. False gibberish.

It doesn't seem so to me. You are dividing the Scriptures into dispensations-- Christ's mission to the Jews and the Apostles' mission to the Gentiles. It isn't so. I have already quoted you Isaiah 48:5-6. You need to read it.

She approached Him, He was NOT sent to her or any other non-Jew. There were other non-Jews that approached Him in faith but in no way does that negate His mission as 'The Prophet', sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So what was He doing in 'the region of Tyre and Sidon' (Matthew 15:21)? That was never part of Israel. Whom would He expect to meet there but Syro-Phoenicians? Why 'must' He go through Samaria and meet the woman by the well (John 4:4)? Why does He go outside of Israel to the Decapolis, where men herd pigs, to heal the demoniac and feed the Four Thousand?

The words of Matthew 15:24 were spoken to test this woman. She showed herself to be a true spiritual Israelite just as much as Nathaniel or Zacchaeus. She identified the Lord Jesus as 'Lord' and 'Son of David.' 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.......but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart' (Romans 2:28-29). She took the kingdom of heaven by force (Matthew 11:12).

22 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me. To him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you.
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.
25 Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. Acts 3

Although these words were spoken to Jews, they are equally applicable to you and me. 'For so God loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.....' 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'

 

[kyredneck]

It doesn't seem so to me. You are dividing the Scriptures into dispensations-- Christ's mission to the Jews and the Apostles' mission to the Gentiles.

No, that’s your imagination, I’ve divided the scriptures in no such manner. He was at once ‘The Prophet’ who warned of the imminent demise of one dispensation and the Author and Mediator of a new one. [Hebrews 12:24-29]

“I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; as a priest, or as a Saviour and Redeemer, he was sent to make satisfaction and atonement for the sins of all God's elect, and to obtain eternal redemption and salvation for all of them, whether Jews or Gentiles; but as a prophet, in the discharge of his own personal ministry, he was sent by his Father only to the Jews; he was the "minister of the circumcision", Romans 15:8 that is, a minister to the circumcised Jews…..” Gill

It isn't so.

Yea, I know, but it’s not what I said. That was you jumping to conclusions.

So what was He doing in 'the region of Tyre and Sidon' (Matthew 15:21)? That was never part of Israel. Whom would He expect to meet there but Syro-Phoenicians? Why 'must' He go through Samaria and meet the woman by the well (John 4:4)? Why does He go outside of Israel to the Decapolis, where men herd pigs, to heal the demoniac and feed the Four Thousand?

The words of Matthew 15:24 were spoken to test this woman. She showed herself to be a true spiritual Israelite just as much as Nathaniel or Zacchaeus. She identified the Lord Jesus as 'Lord' and 'Son of David.' 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.......but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart' (Romans 2:28-29). She took the kingdom of heaven by force (Matthew 11:12).

Although these words were spoken to Jews, they are equally applicable to you and me. 'For so God loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.....' 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'

None of your reasoning above negates in the least the plain meaning of ‘The Prophet’s’ words:

24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 10

27 And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children`s bread and cast it to the dogs. Mk 7

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Ro 1

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. Acts 3

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts 13

It wasn't until Acts 10 that the joining of 'the two folds' began.