But in Luke, taking the obedience to law out of context to refer to incidents that don’t occur in that gospel is utterly unwarranted exegetically. If such a passage had appeared in Matthew the context-a wider sense of Torah to include all the Tanakh, and linking to the messages of the angel and the prophetic reference to Egypt-might justify you including the angelic messages. The verse is quite clear in its statement that Mary and Joseph went back to Nazareth after completing what the LAW OF THE LORD commanded, which in context is clearly the sacrifices. However, I was far more concerned by footnote 8 which seeks to reconcile the birth passages only by twisting and misquoting Luke 2:39. At the end of footnote 2 you state the angel told Joseph to go to Galilee, when in fact it was only the more general term “Israel.” As a theologian by training, I noticed several flaws in the footnotes of.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |