Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

In 2 Timothy 4:1-5 Paul charges Timothy to “Preach the word!” both in season and out of season, because there will come a time when people will stray from the word [of God] and rely on themselves instead of the word.
The church can’t be an infallible source because the church is made of people, and as someone pointed out earlier, all men/women who walk the face of this earth have sinned Romans 3:23; the only exception is Jesus. So if all men sin then the possibility of error exists and we can all agree that God is perfect and in Him there is no error. So if in Him there is no error then His word, the Bible, must be considered perfect as well.
Now some would say that certain aspects in the Old and New Testaments contradict and I say the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament. The laws in the Old Testament was a place holder until Jesus came and fulfilled the law and He sanctified us once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-10). So now we no longer live under the law of Moses but under the grace of Christ.

 

[medwigel]

The Bible is God’s covenant to His people.
There is an old covenant (Old Testament) that He had with the Jews and the new covenant (New Testament) that He has with Christians.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . . .

The church can’t be an infallible source because the church is made of people . . .

Using THAT reasoning medwigel, do you think St. Matthew can’t be an “infallible source” of God’s teaching?

How about Sts. Paul and St. John? They are “people”?

Why or why not?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

The Bible is God’s covenant to His people.

I thought Jesus said the New Covenant was in HIM (His body and blood)?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . . .

all men/women who walk the face of this earth have sinned Romans 3:23

Have “sinned” how? Are you talking about COMMITTING sins, or Original Sin, or both?

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

Now some would say that certain aspects in the Old and New Testaments contradict and I say the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament. The laws in the Old Testament was a place holder until Jesus came and fulfilled the law and He sanctified us once and for all (Hebrews 10:1-10). So now we no longer live under the law of Moses but under the grace of Christ.

.

This is excellent medwigel.

 

[medwigel]

What he is writing is divinely inspired by God and is God’s word; Matthew is serving as a scribe (he is the court reporter who is taking down God’s word to His people)
Now there are times when the writer will offer their opinion as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7:12 does. So he makes a point to say that what he is now saying does not come from God (as the rest of the text does) but from him.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

What he is writing is divinely inspired by God and is God’s word; Matthew is serving as a scribe . . .

.

So it sounds like you are now affirming God CAN use sinful fallible men to convey infallible truths (at least SOMETIMES).

Is this correct?

 

[medwigel]

It’s both
According to Psalm 51:5 we were born into sin- Original Sin. Then there are the sins we commit as we live our life.
There are sins of commission AND sins of omission James 4:17

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel (referring to Romans 3:23) . . .

all men/women who walk the face of this earth have sinned Romans 3:23

.

Cathoholic . . .

Have “sinned” how? Are you talking about COMMITTING sins, or Original Sin, or both?

.

medwigel . . .

It’s both.

 

[medwigel]

So it sounds like you are now affirming God CAN use sinful fallible men to convey infallible truths (at least SOMETIMES).

Is this correct?

Yes, in a state of divine inspiration- and that’s the key; it wasn’t written under his own power.
Matthew is also unique in that he was also documenting his own eye witness account of Christ and what he was told personally and that in its self makes it hard to dispute.
Did someone come up with a doctrine/dogma/tradition outside of the Bible via divine inspiration or through their own interpretation.
And there must be a litmus test that you can use to prove whether the view is credible or not.

 

[medwigel]

But not always. In the two passages I’m quoting here, Jesus is saying, in effect, that Moses was wrong to allow husbands to divorce their wives, requiring them only to follow a correct procedure. He is saying that God requires stricter marriage laws than those laid down by Moses. In other words, what Scripture teaches as the Law is wrong because it is not in accordance with God’s will.

Jesus isn’t saying that Moses was wrong, He says that God gave this concession to the Jews to divorce because the Jews had “harden their hearts” to God’s divine will. Prior to this, men would just divorce their wives for any reason. So instead of just letting men divorce their wives and put them out without any means of support, God was forced to give them guidelines so that the men couldn’t come up with just any reason to divorce their wives.
There was also a huge negative social implication for women who were divorced since there were very few options for women to support themselves in that time, so making the reasons of divorce more difficult was to protect the vulnerable women of that society.
So the law was not wrong, the people were wrong.

 

[BartholomewB]

Jesus isn’t saying that Moses was wrong, He says that God gave this concession to the Jews to divorce because the Jews had “harden their hearts” to God’s divine will.

“God gave this concession to the Jews.”―Is this idea of a “concession” taught anywhere in the OT? Or is it an aspect of the new teaching introduced by Jesus in the Gospels?

 

[medwigel]

III

“God gave this concession to the Jews.”―Is this idea of a “concession” taught anywhere in the OT? Or is it an aspect of the new teaching introduced by Jesus in the Gospels?

We absolutely find other examples of consessions that God made to the Jews in the OT- outside of His divine will. The most significant and historically/spiritually altering consession was when God allowed the Jews to have an earthly king - 1 Samuel 8:1-22.
Originally God set Himself up as King over Israel when He brought them out of Egypt and into the promised land. Over the years, as the need arose, God would raise up judges and prophets to guide the people, but the people’s worldly desires got the better of them and they went to Samuel and asked him to make someone an earthly king over them.
God told Samuel that the people weren’t rejecting Samuel’s leadership but they were rejecting God’s reign over them. So God said “fine”, He would give into their demands, despite all He had done for them since leaving Egypt, sustaining them in the wilderness and giving them victory in the land on Canaan, but He told Samuel to warn the people that they would suffer many hardships under the rule of an earthly king. Samuel told the people all of what God had said, in an effort to change their minds, but they still insisted that they wanted an earthly king so that they could be like all the other nations. With that decision made, God said fine and instructed Samuel to make the people a king.
So began the cycle of kings in Israel, many of who were wicked and lead the people down the wrong path which lead to the division of the kingdom in half and cycles of war, conquest and periods of exile.

 

[BartholomewB]

I see I failed to express my meaning clearly. I’m sorry about that. I’ll try again. The only “concession” I’m asking you about is the one that has to do with divorce.

You say that divorce was a “concession” that God gave to the Jews because they had hardened their hearts to the divine will.

Is this idea that divorce is a “concession” given by God taught anywhere in the OT? Or is the idea that divorce is a “concession” given by God an aspect of the new teaching introduced by Jesus in the Gospels?

 

[semper_catholicus]

Funny. I don’t see it saying that we live upon the Word of God ALONE.

(Begin sarcastic, and it isn’t directed to the OP)

 

[medwigel]

I see I failed to express my meaning clearly. I’m sorry about that. I’ll try again. The only “concession” I’m asking you about is the one that has to do with divorce.

You say that divorce was a “concession” that God gave to the Jews because they had hardened their hearts to the divine will.

Is this idea that divorce is a “concession” given by God taught anywhere in the OT? Or is the idea that divorce is a “concession” given by God an aspect of the new teaching introduced by Jesus in the Gospels?

Ok, let me try again.
I interpret it as a concession based on how Jesus refers to it in the NT.
If I were to read the OT without the benefit of Jesus’s explanation in the NT, I don’t think I would have been able to view divorce as a concession. I would then be left with the question of why would God allow such a thing if He meant for the 2 to become 1.
Now I know there are many scholars out there who have studied life in OT times and some have concluded that God allowed divorce as a way of protecting women: without a divorce if a man no longer wanted to be with his wife she would not be able to remarry and her only means of support would be going back to her family if they agree to take her back in. If her family refused or if she didn’t have any family life choices for her would be grim.

 

[medwigel]

Funny. I don’t see it saying that we live upon the Word of God ALONE.

(Begin sarcastic, and it isn’t directed to the OP)

1 Timothy 3:16 refers to all SCRIPTURE, not man’s words, is given to us by God for “teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living”
2 Peter 1:19-21 confirms that the words given to us by the prophets comes from inspiration from the Holy Sprit and he tell us we would do well to pay attention to those words.

In both verses God is pointing us to the scripture to know His will for our life NOT to man.

 

[Gorgias]

The Bible is God’s covenant to His people.

No… the Bible is a record of the covenants that God made with His people.

There is an old covenant (Old Testament) that He had with the Jews

Actually, there are many covenants that God made in the Old Testament. Noah, Abraham, Moses… all of these are covenants.

and the new covenant (New Testament) that He has with Christians.

Well, I think I would quibble (along with @Cathoholic) and say that it’s Jesus’ New Covenant.

In any case, the covenant isn’t the Bible itself. Rather, the Bible records God’s covenants with humanity.

Getting back to the point: the Ten Commandments – that is, the “ten words”, according to the Bible – are part of a covenant. This part is what Jesus was referencing in Matthew 4:4… not all of the Bible.

 

[medwigel]

Getting back to the point: the Ten Commandments – that is, the “ten words”, according to the Bible – are part of a covenant. This part is what Jesus was referencing in Matthew 4:4… not all of the Bible.

No, Jesus, in Matthew 4:4 is referencing Deuteronomy 8:3 where Moses is recapping the 40 year journey to the people and he is having a “pep rally” of sorts to remind the people of how to live as they prepare to enter the promised land. They should not rely on bread, as they relied on manna in the wilderness, but to depend on the word of God to sustain them as they move forward.