About Matthew 5:17-18- Some Objections and Responses- #2
About Matthew 5:17-18- Some Objections and Responses- #2
Be sure to read the first installment of this two part article. In the last article I challenged “Partial Preterist”, a YouTube poster, who had challenged the view of Matthew 5:17-18 which – honoring the clear cut words of the text – says that ALL of the OT had to be fulfilled before ANY of it could pass away. Partial had given seven claims about what the preterist view must establish for preterism to be true. I closed that first installment with these thoughts and a challenge:
//As I have shown, the first rule of hermeneutic is to take a word in its normal meaning, unless context will not allow it to have its normal meaning. You have not come close to proving that “until” in Matthew 5 does not have a terminal meaning. Running off to different contexts, which are discussing different subjects, does not offer any kind of probative evidence whatsoever. It is a flawed hermeneutic.
The indisputable fact is that the issue (in Matthew 5:17-18, DKP) was the passing of the Law: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets.” Thus, the passing of the Law was in the forefront of Jesus’ discussion. And he tells them that NOT ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE OF THE LAW would pass UNTIL IT WAS ALL FULFILLED. So, since the subject / issue / question was the passing of the Law and Jesus gave the point at which the law would pass, then your attempt to negate the emphatic and explicit words of the text fails.
Now, let’s not forget that you told us that the Jewish feast days with their animal sacrifices are fulfilled and no longer valid.
So, tell us, Partial, DID THE TOPOLOGY OF THOSE SACRIFICIAL NEW MOONS, FEAST DAYS AND SABBATHS, HAVE TO BE FULFILLED TO PASS AWAY?
Yes or NO– DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THIS!//
Well, Mr. Partial totally failed to fail to answer ANY of this.
However, Partial then posted the following, after ignoring everything that I posted above (in the first installment, DKP):
Partial Preterist…
So what about the word “UNTIL” when used in the New Testament? And especially in verses like Matthew 5:18. I think the CEV translation captures the message well in Matt.5:17-18, and it harmonizes perfectly with everything else Jesus said on this subject >>> “Don’t suppose I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.” Matt.5:17-18 CEV That translation doesn’t even use the word “FULFILLED” or the word “UNTIL.” Both of those words may have been misunderstood in this passage.
Let’s look at some other NT verses that use the word “UNTIL.” First, here is a translation of Matt.5:18 that actually does use the word “UNTIL” >>> “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.”
Matt.5:18 NLT The word “until” does not always mean to cease when the point of time is reached.
Here are several verses as examples of this. The first five use the same Greek word for “UNTIL” as in Matt.5:18 >>> “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.”
Matt.11:13 “Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”
Matt.18:22 “Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Matt.28:20 “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, and to teaching.”
1Tim 4:13 “Yet to which of the angels did God ever say: “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”?
Heb.1:13 “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
1Cor.11:26 “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” 1Cor 15:25
Absolutely none of the things mentioned in any of those verses would have to cease when the stated point of time is reached.
In Matthew 5:18 the Messiah is explaining the eternal character and holiness of God’s moral laws. The following verse from Luke is even clearer >>> “But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.” Luke 16:17 NLT Jesus came to magnify and make honorable the Law of God, not to destroy it. The word of God lives and abides forever (1Pet 1:22-25). That’s the “gospel” truth. And that was quoted from a prophet named Isaiah.
My Response: 1-24-2023
You continue to ignore everything I posted in response to your seven points, acting as if I did not post anything. That is dishonorable. This is not your forum to ignore everything that I say in response and just keep posting your unproven claims. Deal with my answers. Answer my questions.
And you continue to violate the rule of commenting on the content of the video, choosing instead to post your unrelated comments on video after video. This is dishonorable.
But let’s look at your post:
You cite a “translation” that is not even a translation to support your false claims. You cite a “translation” that ignores the fact that the Greek word for “until” is in the text, but they refused to translate it! Grasping at broken straws, Partial. Argumentum ad desperatum!
Then, once again, you are guilty of illegitimate totality transfer. You find some passages where “until” does not have a terminal idea, and you claim, “See, because “until” does not mean a terminal “until” in these verses this means that it can’t mean that in Matthew 5:17-18.” This shows your utter desperation.
As I have shown, the first rule of hermeneutic is to take a word in its normal meaning, unless context will not allow it to have its normal meaning. You have not come close to proving that “until” in Matthew 5 does not have a terminal meaning. Running off to different contexts, which are discussing different subjects, does not offer any kind of probative evidence whatsoever. It is a flawed hermeneutic.
The indisputable fact is that the issue was the passing of the Law: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets.” Thus, the passing of the Law was in the forefront of Jesus’ discussion. And he tells them that NOT ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE OF THE LAW would pass UNTIL IT WAS ALL FULFILLED. So, since the subject / issue / question was the passing of the Law and Jesus gave the point at which the law would pass, then your attempt to negate the emphatic and explicit words of the text fails.
Now, let’s not forget that you told us that the Jewish feast days with their animal sacrifices are fulfilled and no longer valid.
So, tell us, Partial, DID THE TOPOLOGY OF THOSE SACRIFICIAL NEW MOONS, FEAST DAYS AND SABBATHS, HAVE TO BE FULFILLED TO PASS AWAY?
Yes or NO– DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THIS!
Well, Mr. Partial did fail (refuse) to answer ANY of this, but then posted that he now agrees with my (the full preterist) position on Matthew 5:17-18. We shall see if that is actually true.
As the reader can see, Mr. Partial utterly failed to answer my arguments. He failed (refused) to answer my questions. He offered false arguments. He engaged in logical fallacies. His attempt to negate the force and power of Matthew 5:17-18 totally fails.