Hi Bob;
I did not give examples of the continuity of Jewish practice in the Early Christian movement because I didn't think I needed to do so. Jesus himself said:
|
Mat 5:17 | | "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. |
Mat 5:18 | | For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. |
Mat 5:19 | | Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. |
The phrase "until all is accomplished" is open to interpretation. I see it referring to the Eschaton and not to the work of Christ in 1st Century Palestine.
RS: Art, I think this can be explained very easily. First, let me say that I appreciate your pointing out the eschaton. That phase of Matthew 7:17-19 is often missed by commentators.
But your particular interpretation proves too much for your case. If “until all is accomplished” had only the eschaton as its terminus, then nothing could be fulfilled before the eschaton. In other words, even though the eschaton can serve as the fulfillment of some of “the Law and the Prophets,” the eschaton cannot be the fulfillment of ALL the Law and Prophets.
We both agree that Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. But the crucial point is that the fulfillments take place in increments. Most of the Law was fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, but most of the Prophets will not be totally fulfilled until Christ’s Second Coming (cf. Daniel 12:2; 9:27; Zech 14; Ezk 40-48), a lot being fulfilled with his First Coming (cf. Isa 53; Daniel 9:24-26).
But this also means that since not one jot or tittle will pass away until either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then once either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then that portion of the Law or Prophets will pass away.
Hence, when Jesus fulfills the Passover (as Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7), then the OT Passover passes away, as do all the ceremonies that typified the suffering and death of Christ. Once fulfilled, there is no longer any use for them, and thus they pass away. That is the corollary point of Matthew 5:17-19 that I think you missed.
As it stands, then, Matthew 5:17-19 actually refutes the idea that the Mosaic law would still be mandated after Christ’s First Coming, since Jesus specifically said that it would “pass away” once it was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled it, so it passes away immediately; it doesn’t have to wait for the eschaton.
Now, if it wasn’t the case that the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets comes in increments, and you insist that it refers only the eschaton, then you must bring back every belief and practice of the Mosaic law. For example, you then have an obligation to bring back the practice of going to Jerusalem for the three major feast days. You must bring back the Cherem and tell the Jews to execute every Gentile near Jerusalem that doesn’t want to be made a slave of the Jews. You should bring back public stoning for adultery, and deny full citizenship to the castrated. You should demand circumcision for every male at 8 days old, and if people miss the day, then you should call for their execution. You should set up temple worship, complete with daily and annual sacrifices in Jerusalem, and find some way of restoring the priesthood. In fact, you must bring back every Mosaic law without exception, for if there is one law you ignore, you will be guilty of the whole law and condemned (Gal 3:10-11). And if the Jews don’t want to do any of these things, then they will have to be executed as well (which would include most of the world’s Jewish population, since most of them don’t follow these laws).
You cannot go partway. Either you take the whole law or you take none of it. You cannot pick and choose which laws you are going to keep legally valid, since the Mosaic law forbade such dissection of its rituals and regimens.
You have the additional problem that no Father, medieval, saint, doctor, pope, council or catechism has seen Matthew 5:17-19 as referring only to the eschaton. As you saw in my last email, it can easily be shown from Catholic history that the Fathers unanimously held to the abrogation of the Mosaic law at Christ’s first coming, not the eschaton. The Councils did the same.
Scripture will also give you a tough road to haul, Art. First, if Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; Col. 2:15; 2Cor 3:6-14 all say that the Old Covenant was annulled and replaced by the New Covenant, then obviously “until all is accomplished” of Matthew 5:18 cannot refer only to the eschaton, otherwise, you leave Scripture contradicting itself. By these passages in Hebrews, Scripture is drawing the parameters around the interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19.
AS: Then there is the fact that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem continued to keep Kashruth leading St. Peter to do so in Antioch to placate his visitors (Gal 1). St. Paul was not angry because St. Peter kept Kashruth. he was annoyed that he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles and sent them the wrong message.
We are told:
Act 6:7 | | | And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. |
| |
Act 21:17 | | When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. |
Act 21:18 | | On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. |
Act 21:19 | | After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. |
Act 21:20 | And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, | |
Act 21:21 | and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. | |
Act 21:22 | What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. | |
Act 21:23 | | Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; |
Act 21:24 | | take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. |
Act 21:25 | | But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." |
Act 21:26 | | Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. |
Act 25:8 | | While {St. Paul} answered for himself, "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all." |
I think that these verses make it clear that St. Paul was an observant Jew and did not act as if the Jewish law had been legally revoked.
RS: “Observant Jew”? If by that you mean that Paul, after he became a Christian, lived and taught that one is to adhere to all the precepts of the Mosaic law, and that his life as a Christian, except for Christ, was no different than his former life, I beg to differ. An “observant Jew,” if we use that term as it is normally understood of a Jew who kept the whole law, was not Paul’s practice. In fact, Paul repudiates that idea in Philippians 3:5 when he says of himself “as to the Law, a Pharisee…having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law.” It is one thing to say that Paul allowed certain Jewish rituals for the sake of his preaching to the Jews, but it is quite another to claim that Paul was an “observant Jew” and followed every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law. The two positions are entirely different.
I think the way to deal with this, Art, is to say that in regards to the Judaizers who were insisting on the practice of the Mosaic law for salvation, Paul was totally against this. Galatians is quite clear about this aspect of the discussion.
On the other hand, I am willing to concede to you that Paul, at times, believed it best to allow certain Jewish practices for the sake of the Jewish mind set. This follows his own teaching that “to the Jews I became as a Jew” when preaching the Gospel to win souls (1 Cor 9:20). When the practice of Jewish rituals did not threaten Christian salvation, it is easy to see that Paul considered them mere adiaphora, harmless, so to speak.
Hence, we can be clear on two points: (1) when salvation was the issue, the Mosaic law was not required, and, in fact, was condemned because it was non-salvific. (2) when appeasing Jews toward the Christian Gospel, certain practices of the Mosaic law were allowed by concession, for the sake of the Jewish conscience (even though many Jews in the first century forsook altogether their previous rituals).
Unless these distinctions are clearly made, the issue will become a cause for error, and even heresy.
AS: In fact I would ask you to produce one biblical verse which says that the Jewish Law has been revoked and that Jewish Christians are expected NOT to observe it. I have never found any such text.
RS: Here again we must make the proper distinctions. Jewish Christians were “expected” to observe the Mosaic rituals to one degree or another simply because they were Jewish people. Generations of Jews would come and go before these rituals finally dissipated.There was no harm in this, so says Paul. But there was a big difference between sincere Jewish Christians who could not let go of their Jewish rituals and the fanatical Judaizers who were insisting on Mosaic rituals in order to be saved. In regards to the issue of salvation, the New Testament is adamant that the Mosaic law cannot save, and it never could save.
The Mosaic law could not save, but it could condemn, for as Paul says, for one transgression of the law one would be guilty of the whole law (Galatians 3:10-11). Our catechism says the same: “Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin…” (para 1963).
If that is the case, then the Mosaic law, as a LEGAL power that condemns the whole human race in sin, must be lifted so that salvation can be applied. But one cannot merely wish the legal power of the Mosaic law away. It must be legally annulled, abrogated, revoked, in full. Only then can it be replaced by a new covenant. That is why Hebrews 7:18 says “the first commandment was annulled and replaced by a better commandment.” It is why Hebrews 8:13 says the first covenant was already becoming obsolete in Jeremiah’s day, and disappeared when Christ came. It is why Hebrews 10:9 says “he takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant].” That is why Colossians 2:14 says that Christ “canceled out the writ of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross.” These are legal cancelations, for Hebrews 7-10 is nothing but the legal replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant.
You need to incorporate these passages, and many like them, into your understanding, Art. You cannot merely glom on to Matthew 5:17-19 and think that it answers the question. The Bible is one cohesive whole. You can certainly believe in preserving Jewish practices as adiaphora all you want and I won’t bother you, but when you neglect to read and consider the clear language of the above passages which all teach that the Mosaic covenant has been annulled because of its condemnatory nature, then you haven’t reached the summit yet, and you become more detrimental to the process than helpful.
AS: What I have found is this:
| |
Gal 3:23 | | Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. |
Gal 3:24 | | So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. |
Gal 3:25 | | But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; |
Gal 3:26 | | for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. |
Gal 3:27 | For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. | |
Gal 3:28 | 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. | |
It was not the Law that had changed, but Christians who have been changed.
RS: Yes, the Law didn’t change. It was always condemnatory (even though it could also act like a tutor). But it is precisely because the Law couldn’t change that it had to be annulled.
1Cr 13:9 | For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; |
1Cr 13:10 | but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. |
1Cr 13:11 | When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. |
AS: The covenants of Abraham was never revoked even though Moses' covenant superceded it. It remained in force as St. Paul clearly saw and taught.
RS: “Superseded” means that the Mosaic law would have replaced the Abrahamic covenant, but that didn’t happen. We need to be careful how we use the word “superseded.”
Moreover, the Abrahamic covenant was a salvation covenant, the Mosaic covenant was a law covenant that didn’t offer salvation. The two are entirely different.
The Mosaic covenant was added because the Jews needed a more specific covenant for their purpose and needs, mainly as a tutor to Christ and as a convictor of sin, not as a salvific covenant. As Paul says in Galatians 3:19: “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions.” But if it was the convictor of sin and, as Paul says in Gal 3:22, it “shut up all men under sin,” then it had to be revoked in order to free men from its condemning grip.
The Abrahamic covenant, in being a salvation covenant for the world, was originally made when Abraham was a Gentile, for Paul makes the point that Abraham received the promises BEFORE he was circumcised. That is why Paul says in Galatians 3:6-8 that nations’ salvation was in view when God made the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.
AS: In like fashion the Mosaic Law and its promises have been transferred to the Church. The morality of the OT, several of the prayer forms, and our attitude towards liturgy is part of our patrimony from Judaism. So are Purgatory, the Decalogue, the oneness of God, and the witness of the OT to Christ.
RS: I heartily agree, but we borrow from the Mosaic law just as the US Constitution borrowed from the Magna Carta, as a practical help in guiding us, not as an in-force and valid legal entity that demands we accept its principles under pains of death and damnation. The Old Testament is very valuable. I read and study it more than the New Testament. But as I said about Matthew 5:17-19, once any portion of the OT “Law and Prophets” are fulfilled, then according to what Jesus said, that portion passes away. We merely keep the memory of them when we incorporate their principles in our own New Covenant worship.
AS: The OT covenants have not been revoked. They remain in force but with the coming of Christ they have been superceded and their benefits have been transferred to us.
RS: Again, you need to be careful with your language, and you need to make the proper distinction between legal and non-legal, otherwise you do an injustice to all the passages in Hebrews that speak of the revoking of the Old Covenant. “Revoke” is normally a legal term, and superseded means that the previous entity has been replaced. If the Mosaic law is not revoked, in the legal sense, then Colossians 2:14-15 is wrong and the Law will still condemn us.
AS: As to the symbolism of the Seder in the Mass, I am surprised that you have not understood what I meant. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Third cup of the Seder when the unleavened Afikomen was eaten. This Afikomen was the 2nd of three matzohs hidden until the end of the meal which had been was broken before being hidden. It was originally eaten with the last piece of the Passover Lamb and is considered to represent the Passover Lamb. (For us Christians, that is the Lamb of God.) The Third Cup was the Birkat Hamazon "the cup of blessing/redemption". It is self-explanatory. Jesus drank the Fourth cup on the cross which consummated the Seder and represented the End Times which are the times in which we live. Understanding the Seder the celebration of the redemption of the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt also celebrates their redemption from sin. It is this imagery that Jesus carried over into the Mass.
RS: That is certainly possible, but it is not provable, because the Gospels simply don’t mention anything about Four cups. Moreover, the Greek words that are used in the Gospel accounts are often devoid of Jewish seder background. I’ve written on this in the past, but I don’t want to get into it now. Understanding the Old Covenant’s revocation is much more important.
Recent Comments