Sure, but can you exegete it?I can say the same for yours.
Right and if you read this passage it is not addressing a new law. There was no requirement for the disciples to fast given in this context. Jesus point is that this reaction would be improper given that the Son is present with them. Also, this is not part of the sermon on the mount. Different circumstances and different context.Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.”
I agree with this. While the law describes righteousness for man, love actually defines it. And incidentally -and interestingly to me-righteousness can be faked under the Ten Commandments while it cannot be under the Greatest Commandments. I can refrain from murder but still be a murderer at heart by following the Law but if I truly love as commanded-understood to be a tall order only attainable with grace-then I will possess all the righteousness that I was created to have-and no part of me will be inclined to murder as it happens.The point of the law from the get-go is to teach us what it looks like to love God and love our neighbor in word and deed.
I like how you leave out the part about old wineskins and new wineskins. Really helps you.Right and if you read this passage it is not addressing a new law. There was no requirement for the disciples to fast given in this context
Again, they were misquotations. And again, the law did address such things as I demonstrated with hating your neighbor, adultery, and divorce earlier.And the majority of those statements were quotations from the Law of Moses.
So yes, Jesus is setting a higher standard. In his passage, He is the New Moses.
I like how you left out the part where the focus is on Jesus’ presence with the disciples and not on any particular aspect of the law.I like how you leave out the part about old wineskins and new wineskins. Really helps you.
You can only make that case for one of them.Again, they were misquotations.
The Law gave provisions for divorce.And again, the law did address such things as I demonstrated with hating your neighbor, adultery, and divorce earlier.
Fasting was part of the Law. That’s another thing you neglected to mention.I like how you left out the part where the focus is on Jesus’ presence with the disciples and not on any particular aspect of the law.
The one caveat I would make here are that the Greatest Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law. They are found in Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19. These two sum up the purpose of the law, but they do not exist apart from it.I agree with this. While the law describes righteousness for man, love actually defines it. And incidentally -and interestingly to me-righteousness can be faked under the Ten Commandments while it cannot be under the Greatest Commandments.
When was fasting required and is there anything in the text that indicates that this occasion was during any of the liturgical fasts? Rather, the text seems to imply that this was done out of a personal discipline not required by the law. Or are you arguing that Jesus did not observe Jewish law and therefore did not fulfill it and is subject to the condemnation he issued in the Sermon on the Mount? You see the problem with this interpretation?Fasting was part of the Law. That’s another thing you neglected to mention.
Are you arguing against the implication Matthew is making that Jesus is the New Moses?Or are you arguing that Jesus did not observe Jewish law and therefore did not fulfill it and is subject to the condemnation he issued in the Sermon on the Mount?
No, Matthew is making the implication that Jesus is greater than Moses, but that does not contradict the fact that Jesus obeyed the law on our behalf that he might be the spotless lamb, given for our sins.Are you arguing against the implication Matthew is making that Jesus is the New Moses?
They definitely put a different spin on it though. And the time for their fulfillment didn’t seem to come truly ripe until the New Covenant. Had Paul fulfilled those commandments as a Pharisee who excelled at fulfilling the others, his justice or righteousness would’ve been complete and his actions modified as well.The one caveat I would make here are that the Greatest Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law. They are found in Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19. These two sum up the purpose of the law, but they do not exist apart from it.
No. I’m seeing a lot of said problems with yoursYou see the problem with this interpretation?
Not only did He fulfill Moses’s Law. He gave a new one. The text starts with Him going up a mountain., Matthew is making the implication that Jesus is greater than Moses, but that does not contradict the fact that Jesus obeyed the law on our behalf that he might be the spotless lamb, given for our sins.
Not sure what you mean by this statement about a different spin. Would need further explanation there. I don’t see it as a different spin, I see it as the original intention. But I am open to further explanation so I can understand what you mean. Also, its kind of weird what you are saying about Paul who considered his righteousness as rubbish to be discarded in favor of the righteousness by faith in Christ (Philippians 3).They definitely put a different spin on it though. And the time for their fulfillment didn’t seem to come truly ripe until the New Covenant. Had Paul fulfilled those commandments as a Pharisee who excelled at fulfilling the others, his justice or righteousness would’ve been complete and his actions modified as well.
I am aware of the archetype between the Sermon on the Mount and Mount Sinai. No issues there. Just not seeing anything new here. I am seeing a revival of the original law that was forsaken by the teachers in Israel for all of the reasons discussed above. Feel free to demonstrate something new that the law didn’t cover. So far, you haven’t demonstrated that.Not only did He fulfill Moses’s Law. He gave a new one. The text starts with Him going up a mountain
Not really. In Phil 3 the righteousness that he experienced as a Pharisee was legalism-based on the law, to be under the law. The “righteousness of God” that he received on the basis of faith, a matter of grace, can be defined most accurately by the term “love”.Not sure what you mean by this statement about a different spin. Would need further explanation there. I don’t see it as a different spin, I see it as the original intention. But I am open to further explanation so I can understand what you mean. Also, its kind of weird what you are saying about Paul who considered his righteousness as rubbish to be discarded in favor of the righteousness by faith in Christ (Philippians 3).
You haven’t demonstrated anything. Instead, you pontificated that these aren’t accurate statements of the Mosaic Law.I am seeing a revival of the original law that was forsaken by the teachers in Israel for all of the reasons discussed above. Feel free to demonstrate something new that the law didn’t cover. So far, you haven’t demonstrated that.
Again, you are trying to make distinction that the Old law didn’t require love, but somehow the new covenant does. We have already demonstrated that love was the requirement of the law as demonstrated in Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19. This was not pulled out of thin air, and it is also why some of Jesus’ challengers agreed with him when he spoke of the greatest commandment. It was something they were already familiar with. The actual new aspect of the New Covenant is Christ himself who died for our sins and made us righteous by his sinless life and his death of atonement. Where the old covenant once depended upon our obedience to inherit the blessings, the new covenant depends upon the perfection of the Lord as high priest and sacrifice. This is the author of Hebrew’s point.The “righteousness of God” that he received on the basis of faith, a matter of grace, can be defined most accurately by the term “love”.