A link for your reflection
The recent blog discussions about the Law has once again raised issues concerning translations of the text. Rodney (Australia) was kind enough to suggest this link in the hope of helping us sort out the theological bias from the text itself. We have written and commented extensively on this “Law vs. Grace” issue over the years but apparently it needs more attention. With the Church proclaiming a doctrine that finds its origin in the early Church fathers via Plato, not in Scripture, this is one more example of a paradigm dictating what are the facts. Here’s a link that demonstrates how much the paradigm affects the translation.
http://www.testeverything.net/blog-119/view/4906/dancing-with-the-scriptures–the–but–boogie
This is a site which has some very good teaching. I have been glad to see what is posted there. Certainly worth passing on to others on The Way.
From the link above:
“The English lesson is now over…The first passage is Matthew 5:17.”
Mat 5:17 King James Version Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Me: With all due respect to the KJV, below is the second English lesson, from my Bible:
Matt 5:17 The Jerusalem Bible Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.
Matt 5:18 I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved.
Me: That’s how the professors at Oxford and Cambridge write English and it doesn’t get any better than that… 🙂
Michael,
I’m not sure that that translation does pleromai any more justice than the KJV. There is still clearly a translator influence (dare I say, bias) in choosing the word “complete” rather than following the LXX usage (which would have been the common usage and understanding of the word in the first century).
Unfortunately, there are some “Christian” or Messianic Jews who believe that the Torah is “for the Jews only” and should not be taught to “gentiles” at all. This is clearly in conflict with my understanding of instructions in Torah that there will be “one Torah for you and the stranger who sojourns with you”. Of course, my understanding could be faulty as well (that has happened once or twice before 😉 ) but I think Torah is pretty clear on this. It is for all people.
In one sense, Yeshua did come to “complete” the Torah, because he obeyed all of the instructions that were applicable to him as a first century Jewish man and accomplished that which spoke of his mission of redemption. Contrary to popular church teaching though, he did not accomplish all of what the Torah taught about him at his first coming, hence in that sense he did not “complete” it but only partially completed it.
The danger of using “complete” is that it has an air of finality about it and could easily be interpreted to say that he “brought it to an end”. I don’t see that that view can be supported by the Greek text (or the rest of scripture, for that matter), especially in view of the LXX usage of the word pleromai as highlighted in the article.
“I’m not sure that that translation does pleromai any more justice than the KJV.”
Hi Rodney,
I don’t disagree with you, but on the one hand I’m not nearly as “detail oriented” as you and Skip.
An on the other hand, to use a Greek, rationalistic, metaphor: “the good, the true, and the beautiful.”
My point was more to the beauty and aesthetic power of the sound, which was very good IMO.
Than the “truth” content of the translation.
In other words, I like the alliteration of the “come” and the “complete” in Matt 5:17:
“I have come not to abolish but to complete them.”
It gives me a lot of aesthetic pleasure 🙂
“Let us look at two passages that use the word “but” and the interpretations associated with them.
Before we start we need to have a quick English Grammar Lesson. The word “but” is a type of coordinating conjunction, also called a coordinator. It is a conjunction that joins two or more items ofequal syntactic importance, such as words, main clauses, or sentences. Specifically, “but” presents a contrast or exception. Not left, but right. Not up, but down. Not today, but tomorrow.”
http://www.testeverything.net/blog-119/view/4906/dancing-with-the-scriptures–the–but–boogie
Hmmm
And my “beef” with this guy in regard to English grammar is that he is way too wordy.
In short, “but” is a “negative conjunction.”
Mind you, I do like that rendering of Matt 5:18. The question is, “Has the purpose of every part of the Torah been achieved?”
Let’s see – have we yet seen the fulfillment of;
– The Day of Trumpets (the resurrection of the dead and the “rapture” of those believers who have survived the Great Tribulation);
– The Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur (God’s judgement on the nations and “koshering” of the earth);
– The Feast of Tabernacles (the regathering of his people from all the nations of the earth to Jerusalem/Zion)?
Not that I can recall…
Second, “Have heaven and earth disappeared yet?”
Hmmm…I don’t think so. Last time I looked outside it was all still there, and I’m still breathing air, so…
The only conclusion can be that “not one dot, not one little stroke, has disappeared from the Law” – euphemistically speaking – in other words, it is all still in effect today. It’s just that there are bans on certain aspects in force because a) we’re not living in the land, b) there is no operational altar in Jerusalem and c) there is no operative Levitical priesthood to officiate at the altar.
Those things will be re-established, in YHVH’s time, not ours. In the meantime, in the words of the wisest king to ever rule Israel…
Shalom.