Replies

Matthew 17-20 is not ratification of Moses. God is the giver of the Mosaic law, and He is also the author of the New Covenant. In abstraction, they have equal force, as the Lawgiver is the same, but we do not live in an abstraction, but time. Jesus accounts for this by providing a sunset clause to the Mosaic covenant, “Till all be fulfilled.” Thus it is as against Torah (understood here as the words of God by which we live) to neglect the realities of this new and better covenant as it would have been to neglect the realities of the Old Covenant while it was still in force. It is the same Lawgiver.

For that reason, I mean to enjoy my bacon (and I truly do - one of my favorite foods), because my God has liberated us from the tutelage of the signs and shadows, for which we have no need (other than to learn of Him in foreshadow), as we have the living reality of Christ, whom we ignore to our peril, and whose directive for us in the New Covenant are every bit as forceful as any command thundered from Sinai.

And what, now that we have this liberty, is Torah, the word of God to us lately, in these last days before the final establishment of His Kingdom? It is to love Him with everything we have, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Torah seen through the veil of Moses is a weak and flickering light by comparison to the glory of Gospel light we now have in Christ. Why should we retreat into the weaker light? We won’t. It would be an insult to the Spirit of grace.

As for your specious contentions about the alleged Hebrew prototext, it is pure, unadulterated speculation. There is no logical necessity that idiomatic Hebrew or Aramaic word patterns were part of an earlier text form, when they could just as easily have been a natural artifact of Jewish writers writing in Greek. When I speak Spanish, I still tend to use English word order and idiom. Such a phenomenon does not constitute proof of a Hebrew prototext for the NT. It only shows the rather unsurprising fact that the Biblical authors, being mostly Jewish, were influenced by Jewish speech patterns when they wrote in Greek.

BTW, I am aware of the discussion about Matthew. The evidence is hearsay. The patristic evidence does not show that Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel intended to be used authoritatively. It is even possible he wrote in Greek first and later revamped it to Hebrew for local use. That’s a good a speculation as any other, because in point of fact there is no extant Hebrew Matthew text. And no, the medieval Hebrew Matthews don’t count, as a) they are late documents with no provenance showing they preceded the Greek Matthew (for which fragments exist as early as the First Century), and b) they appear to have been written with a slant to deflect Christian missionary efforts among the Jewish communities in which they were found (See Shem-Tov - what a mess, apparently a medieval Hebrew translation of an earlier Latin text, put into service as a tool against Christians!)

So no, there’s no legitimate evidence the NT as a whole was originally Hebrew. Quite the opposite. Luke was a gentile. He wrote in excellent Greek style. Clearly he thought in the language in which he wrote. Paul likewise, whose mission was to the Gentiles, would have a hard time getting his epistles read if he foolishly wrote them in Hebrew. The Ryland fragment, a portion of John, was in Greek, and dates to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, nearly contemporaneous with the Apostle John himself. Any theory of the manuscript evidence that fails to account for these and many other factors supporting Greek as the predominant original language is a theory with it’s head firmly planted in the sand.

If you claim we are under the same dietary laws you had better show scripture to prove it.

Nothing more is needed than his ratification of Moses (Mat 5:17-20)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I kinda like Acts 111:4-7

4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story:

5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision.
I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was.
6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds.
7 Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’

It's kinda reinforced in Acts 15; too.

>>Nothing more is needed than his ratification of Moses (Mat 5:17-20)<<

Ah yes! The old “fulfill” meme that falls flat on it’s face under scrutiny.

Matthew5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Fulfill – To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises. To carry out (an order, for example). To measure up to; satisfy. See synonyms at perform, satisfy. To bring to an end; complete.

To bring to an end because they have been satisfied just as Paul states.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is an end of law for righteousness to every one who is believing,

Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the law for us because we are totally incapable in this earthly flesh. We have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ and can appear before the Father having been cleansed and purified.

The apostles cleared up all that dietary and carnal law keeping long ago and those who would attempt to put us back under them nullify the grace of God and the death of Christ.

Galatians 2: I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness be through law -- then Christ died in vain.