Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

"Law of commandments expressed in ordinances" is not referring to written Torah. He is referring to "the traditions of man" found in the Oral Traditions. The Oral Traditions which are recorded in the Talmud are Pharisaic laws. In other words there are Two Torahs to distinguish from in the Gospels and the Letters. The common mistake many make when trying to ...


1

This is a good question, and touches on a number of hermeneutical nuances. In order to bring out some of the subtleties which will underlie our answer, I'd like to begin by reviewing a number of key assumptions inherent in the question itself. Assumption 1: The disciples were Jews It is true that the disciples were of Israelite descent and had grown up ...


5

Commentators generally see this as a reference to the Mosaic laws forbidding blasphemy. For example, Barnes' Notes, the Pulpit Commentary, the Cambridge Bible and Ellicott's Commentary see it this way. Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he ...


0

May I suggest Occam's Razor? Perhaps the cup's contents were merely a symbol of the value of Christ's blood. Many translations say "this means my blood", and there seems to be a basis for this rendering in the Greek text. Further, as noted above, Mark doesn't record the exact phrase, and Luke's account emphasizes the covenant as being what the wine ...


11

The other two answers do a good job of answering the question, but I thought it was worth pointing out the actual ban and its explanation: Leviticus 17:10 Explicitly makes your point for you; those who consume the blood of animals are cut off from the Jews, but then verse 11 explains the reason for the ban on blood of animals; drinking blood takes upon ...


6

Jesus had aleady shocked his followers with references to drinking blood in John Chapter 6. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" When leads to.. As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. I think we can infer that by the time of the Last Supper, any disciples who had a problem with ...


11

This answer draws on Michael J. Cahill, "Drinking Blood at a Kosher Eucharist? The Sound of Scholarly Silence", Biblical Theology Bulletin 32/4 (2002): 168-181. It should be consulted directly for full discussion and copious further references. OP: Wouldn't Jews be taken aback by the suggestion that they should drink blood? Yes, they would. OP: How ...


1

Yes, the question is rhetorical, expecting the negative response, but no, this does not suggest Paul thinks that God is unconcerned about animals or that this Old Testament passage was originally about Apostles. Paul was attempting to draw the reader's attention to an Old Testament passage which clearly teaches the same principle Paul was trying to teach ...


0

The law was not "abolished" at all. Matt 5:17 considered contextually is saying "I didn't come to parse the law into "obey this but disregard that". The word is the same word used regarding the destruction of the temple stone by stone: Mar 13:2 "Do you see these large buildings?" Jesus responded. "Not one stone here will be left on another that will ...


1

The law given to Moses at Sinai was abrogated with the advent of the new covenant. To put it a better way: The entirety of the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. The law of Moses no longer serves as direct and immediate judge over the lives and conduct of God's people. God's children today obey the Law of Christ [Gal 6.2, 1 Cor 9:21]. Jesus, who is ...


0

I think we have to read "abolish" as having a very particular meaning in Paul's writings when it comes to the law. For Paul, because his ministry so heavily focused on the Gentiles (those not born as Jews), the dominant theological question of his writing is "what does it mean for Gentiles to be saved?" There were a lot of very prominent voices in the ...


5

Although Paul does not use the same word for 'abolish' as Jesus in Matthew 5:17, I think it helpful to bear that verse in mind, as Paul did not intend to contradict what Jesus says: 17“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. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth ...



Top 50 recent answers are included