Biblical Scholars have long characterized the Gospel of Matthew as "the most 'Jewish' of the four Gospels." (Ehrman, The Bible). Indeed, many of them have noted just how intentionally this Gospel was organized by its author. The book begins with an origin story for Jesus which emphasizes his descent from Abraham and David. Also, just as the Torah is divided into five books, Matthew is divided into five discourses or sermons of Jesus. They are: 1) The Sermon on the Mount, 2) The Missionary Discourse, 3) The Parabolic Discourse, 4) The Discourse on the Church, and 5) The Olivet or End Times Discourse. (Five Discourses of Matthew) Finally, there is a kind of epilogue which follows these sermons which deals with the events surrounding Christ's arrest, trial, execution, burial, and resurrection.
In this connection, an article by Dr. Paul Penley caught my attention. Jesus vs. Torah is an excellent exposition on how the Sermon on the Mount redefined Torah. Penley wrote: "The allusions to the laws of the first covenant become even clearer when you investigate the form and content of Jesus’ first and most famous sermon given on a mountain. Have you ever thought about the fact that Matthew situates the first long sermon on a mountain? Do you think it is intentionally meant to mimic God’s first giving of the Law on Mount Sinai? Absolutely it is. If you have overlooked that detail your whole life, it’s because you were not immersed in the Torah as a child and did not participate in the Law’s required Jerusalem pilgrimages to worship as an adult. The Jewish audience of Matthew’s Gospel wouldn’t miss these subtle connections between the Law of Moses and teaching of Jesus."
Dr. Penley went on to point out that the Beatitudes "echo the blessings of Deuteronomy 28:1-14." He also referenced the fact that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls anticipated that the Messiah would revise the Torah, and that Jesus had done that in the verses which follow the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:31-47). Penley continued: "All these revisions to established practices that distorted God’s character lined up with Jesus’ thesis statement in the Sermon on the Mount: 'Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill it.' The Hebrew word 'to fulfill' means 'to obey' in Rabbinic teaching from Jesus’ day. 'To fulfill the Law' means Jesus’ teaching better represented God’s intent behind the original instructions. That is what the Sermon on the Mount and the entire teaching of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel is doing. It redefines the Torah as people understood it. It redirects people to faithfully represent and enact God’s will on earth."
Penley went on to observe that: "This structural and historical analysis of the Gospel according to Matthew dramatically elevates the significance of Jesus’ sayings. Matthew’s structure tells an informed Jewish audience that Jesus is the new Moses. His words are the new Torah. His 5 sermons now do what the 5 books of Moses did. The covenant is changing and therefore the content of God’s commands change as well, just like the Temple Scroll anticipated." He concluded that: "Jesus is the teacher of a new Torah. His words replace the books of Moses. His sacrifice undermines the Temple. His people become the locus of his presence rather than Jerusalem. They are the light of the world bringing a priestly message of atonement for all. The way Matthew’s Gospel organizes Jesus’ life for a Jewish audience makes all these moves clear."
It seems to me that it is highly unlikely these observations about the structure/organization of the Gospel of Matthew would be happenstance/coincidental. In short, it is self-evident to some of us that the author of this Gospel organized his account to draw a clear parallel between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, the nature of Christ's sermons were clearly intended to try to recapture God's original intention and make the application of the principles which underpinned Torah universal - going far beyond the children of Israel, the Temple at Jerusalem, and the borders of the Roman province of Judea.
"The nature of Christ's sermons were clearly to try to recapture God's original intention and make the application of the principles which underpinned Torah universal".
ReplyDeleteThis is a powerful statement! I feel like it answers a question you asked in a previous post comment as to why "there is a perception among all folks that have criticized my perspective on Torah that I have abandoned any moral standard or substituted a warm, fuzzy feeling to act as a new one".
I think what throws people off is the idea that you have advanced that "love" is the new moral standard instead of the law being God's eternal standard of righteousness. To me, the Torah transformed, is STILL the law and STILL the standard!
Many English dictionaries define "love" as --to regard with strong feeling; affection - hence, that warm and fuzzy feeling. In the Bible the word "love" has multiple meanings, but do any of them imply a "standard"? It's true that the 2 great commandments summerize the law and that love is the fulfillment of the law, but how does that change the law from being THE standard?
Now I'm not a linguist but I think there is a vast difference in the role that these 2 words play in scripture as far as a moral code goes.
Consider these 3 examples:
Romans 13:8
"He that loves another has fulfilled the law."
Here we have love and law used in the same sentence. What does love do? Love fulfill (performs, completes, executes, accomplishes, satisfies) the law. It doesn't replace it. Other translations bring this out better than the KJV.
Romans 8:4
"That the righteousness (righteous requirement, NASB) of the law might be fulfilled (satisfied, TCNT, fully met, Goodspeed) in us who walk after the spirit (love)."
1 Timothy 1:5
"Now the end (the goal, NASB, the object, WEYMOUTH, the aim, MOFFATT) of the commandment is charity (love) out of a pure heart.
I think it is clear from these scriptures that the law is the required standard, and love is the response, how the requirement is satisfied.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986 reprint, Vol.3, pg 1849, relates many things you have advocated, but with a different conclusion:
"The law is not abrogated. It remains as THE STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, the rule of life for believers. The upmost holiness to which they can attain under the influence of the holy spirit is still the righteousness which the law requires. That the apostle's teaching is far removed from antinomianism is shown, not only by all that he says in the chapters about the believer's new life of absolute spiritual service, but by the specific statement in Romans 13:8-10, which at once prescribes the commandments as rules of life (in Eph. 6:2 he cites and enforces the 5th commandment) and shows how true obedience is possible. 'He that loves neighbor has fulfilled the law'. Then after specifying several of the commands, he declares that these and all other commands are summed up in the word, 'thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself'. The man in Christ has found the true principle of obedience. He has entered into the true spirit of the holy Law, that is all summed up in love , and he having received the love of Christ, living in His love, sees the law not as a stern taskmaster condeming, but as a bright vision alluring. He indeed sees the law embodied in Christ, and the imitation of Christ involves obedience to the law, but he fulfills the law not simply as a STANDARD outside, but as a living principle within".
In other words, "the Torah transformed" is the standard of righteousness, THE moral code, and LOVE is our response thus satisfying it's demand!
Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing here, but law/love/and covenants are complex subjects and it's easy to get lost in the details. I agree with 99% of what you write on this subject but on this one point I couldn't get by it. I think even Neo had misgivings!
BP8,
DeleteLove is the principle/precept on which both the Torah and Christ's commandments are predicated. The two great commandments ARE commandments to LOVE. We read in Matthew 22: "35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The Greek word (Strong's G2910 - kremannymi) translated into English as "hang" literally means to suspend or hang. Hence, as it is "used of the Law and the Prophets, is summed up or hanging on two precepts" (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2910/kjv/tr/0-1/)
I have NEVER advocated antinomianism or the absence of commandments. I have and continue to insist that Torah was summarized by Christ into two broad commandments which are fulfilled as "a living principle within." Once again, the hundreds of dos and don'ts of Torah are NOT carried forward into the New Covenant, but the two principles/precepts/commandments which summarize it ARE carried forward into the New Covenant. As you say, Love is the object, goal, end, fulfillment of those commandments. Hence, even from the perspective of semantics, it is impossible (and futile) to try to impose a distinction between these commandments and that which is the foundation of them.
The Gospel of Matthew directly quotes more extensively from the Torah than any of the other Gospels (Mark, Luke, John). In a two-part article by Michael Vlach (PhD, Professor of Theology at The Master's Seminary) entitled "How Jesus Used the Old Testament in Matthew 5:21-48," presents three answers to that question: 1) "Jesus corrected distortions that the Jewish religious leaders allegedly made to the Law of Moses", 2) "Jesus actually quotes Mosaic Law instructions to contrast these with His new instruction for the new era He brings. With this view, Jesus is the better Moses and King who offers New Covenant instruction that supersedes the instruction of the Mosaic era", and 3) "Jesus maintains continuity with the Law of Moses as a rule of life for today, but He also makes some modifications to the Law, perhaps internalizing and individualizing the Mosaic commands. Allegedly, a merger of the Law of Moses and Law of Christ is happening."
DeleteThe professor settled on the second option, and I heartily agree with this conclusion. Why? He wrote: "All six statements by Jesus can be linked with specific Mosaic instruction. And while Jesus mentions the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 5:20, He does not appear to be addressing the issue of rabbinic interpretations in His sermon. Thus, the simplest and best view is that Jesus is simply quoting and paraphrasing Mosaic Law instruction. In sum, Jesus quoted the Mosaic Law six times in Matthew 5:21-48, not simply to explain the Mosaic Law or to correct misunderstandings of this Law, but to contrast Mosaic Law instruction with His New Covenant requirements." (Part I)
In the second part of the article, he went on to write: "Important with Matthew 5:21-48 are the six transitions from 'You have heard it said' to 'But I say to you.' The 'but' (de) is adversative and indicates a contrast. The 'I say' (egō legō) highlights the authority of Jesus. To paraphrase, 'Moses said … but I say to you … .' This is more than Jesus explaining Moses, He is emphasizing His authority. A transition occurs from the Mosaic era to the New Covenant era in Jesus (see John 1:17). Jesus presented Himself as the New Covenant lawgiver who contrasted His new and authoritative teaching with that of the Mosaic instruction. Jesus is not saying the previous Mosaic Covenant was wrong (see Rom. 7:12), any more than the old Aaronic priesthood was wrong. But the Mosaic Covenant and its particulars were shadows (see Heb. 10:2) that now give way to the superior New Covenant. This transition is similar to the message of Hebrews 8:13: 'When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first [Mosaic] obsolete.' With Galatians 4 Paul said the Law was a 'tutor' to that leads us to Christ, but now that Christ has come the tutor is no longer needed (see Gal. 3:24-25)."
https://sharperiron.org/article/how-jesus-used-old-testament-matthew-521-48-part-1
https://sharperiron.org/article/how-jesus-used-old-testament-matthew-521-48-part-2
You say, "it is impossible and futile to try to impose a distinction between these commandments and that which is the foundation of them".
ReplyDeleteYou are correct as long as that connection is maintained and recognized, but an " undefined love" that is promoted by the "love is love" crowd doesn't do that!
Yes, I think we are in agreement on this point? Christ, Paul and John all do a very thorough job of defining what love is and isn't.
Delete