How to negotiate with scripture - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

How to negotiate with scripture 🔗 **Source:** [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [Bible, Hermeneutics, Theology] > author: [MISSING] > source: YouTube > reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ] > date created: > > # 🏷️ Title: How to negotiate with scripture >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Draft note on Matthew 5:18 temporal clauses — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=323 #articleseed - [H2] Add glossary entry: “univocality” vs. “polyphony” — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=555 #xref - [H3] Collect Matthew-only law passages for continuity — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=269 #articleseed - [H4] Build teaching aid on “least commandments” and status — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=293 #articleseed - [H5] Prepare slide on righteousness exceeding Pharisees — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=312 #share - [H6] Compare Luke 24 fulfillment with Matt 5:18 scope — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=80 #xref - [H7] The WPOCC: publish citation norms for scripture debates — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ #addendum - [H8] Map intertext citation risks for study groups — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=405 #bmf - [H9] Write FAQ: “Does Matthew require temple practices?” — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=331 #articleseed ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - The video critiques an interpretation of Matthew 5:18. It argues for law continuity within Matthew’s frame. [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) - The host claims Matthew binds both temporal clauses together. He places fulfillment at the eschaton. [03:01–03:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=181) - He warns against importing Paul, Hebrews, or Luke to override Matthew. He names this “presupposing univocality.” [05:47–06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=347) - He reads Matthew as escalating strictness, not abolishing commands. He cites 5:19–20 examples. [04:57–05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=297) - Bottom line: Interpret Matthew on Matthew’s terms first. Compare later with care. ## 📖 Main Content - The central claim ties two “until” clauses together in 5:18. The law endures until heaven and earth pass. [03:01–03:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=181) - The method insists on intra-text priority. Keep Matthew’s narrative voice primary. [05:47–06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=347) - The host highlights 5:19–20. He frames stricter righteousness as reinforcement, not repeal. [04:57–05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=297) - He contrasts Luke 24’s fulfillment theme with Matthew’s horizon. He urges caution with synthesis. [01:56–02:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=116) - He labels cross-book flattening as an assumption of one voice. He urges readers to test that assumption. [06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=409) - Uncertainties remain. Scholars dispute grammar, redaction, and dating. The video states a strong view, not consensus. ### 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=5) Scope of “all” in 5:18 ### [H1] Matthew prioritizes internal context before synthesis > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) by an unnamed author via [[YouTube]]. Published [MISSING]. Accessed . > “Not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” This frames the scope question. Define “all” within Matthew first. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=5) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [00:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=59) Fulfillment claims from other books ### [H2] Cross-book readings risk overruling Matthew’s stance > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “These things… were fulfilled in Christ.” Note the method contrast. The host resists importing external frameworks first. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=80) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [01:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=116) Matthew vs. synthesized canon ### [H3] Matthew’s horizon extends to the eschaton > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “the law of Moses will continue to be in force… until the second coming” This asserts Matthew’s long view. It challenges early-fulfillment claims. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=181) #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [03:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=181) Twin temporal clauses ### [H4] “Until” clauses read contemporaneously in 5:18 > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “until heaven and earth pass away… until all is accomplished.” The reading binds both clauses. Fulfillment aligns with cosmic transition. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=195) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [03:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=234) Continuity in practice ### [H5] Matthew depicts ongoing law observance for followers > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “Keep paying your tithing… keep obeying the Sabbath.” This supports continuity claims. It situates practice within Matthew’s world. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=234) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [04:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=297) Teaching and status ### [H6] Commandment-breaking reduces status in the kingdom > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “whoever does them and teaches them will be called great” Matthew ties teaching to status. The passage incentivizes observance. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=300) #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [05:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=313) Escalated righteousness ### [H7] Righteousness must exceed Pharisees in Matthew > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” Matthew raises the bar. This undercuts repeal narratives. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=312) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [05:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=347) Hermeneutic warning ### [H8] Presupposed univocality flattens distinct authorial aims > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “the presupposition of univocality… allows us to… overrule” The host urges methodological humility. Start with local intent. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=405) #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] #### ⏱️ [06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=409) Authorial disagreement ### [H9] Matthew may disagree with other New Testament voices > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “The author of the Gospel of Matthew was disagreeing with all those other texts” This claims intra-canon diversity. It challenges simplistic harmonization. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ&t=409) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] ## 📚 References - Video: *How to negotiate with scripture* (YouTube). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ - Matthew 5:17–20 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=NRSVUE - Matthew 24:34–36 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A34-36&version=NRSVUE - Luke 24:44–48 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A44-48&version=NRSVUE - Hebrews 10:18 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+10%3A18&version=NRSVUE - Colossians 2:16–17 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A16-17&version=NRSVUE - Galatians 5:2–6 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A2-6&version=NRSVUE - John 4:21–24 (Bible Gateway). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4%3A21-24&version=NRSVUE ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The host argues Matthew’s grammar and context point to enduring law until the eschaton. He emphasizes Matthew-first interpretation. - He critiques using other writers to reinterpret Matthew. He sees this as an assumption of one canonical voice. ## 📰 Newsletter - Hermeneutics matters like dependency management. This video argues for “interpret locally, then integrate carefully.” Matthew’s 5:18 anchors two “untils” together, pushing fulfillment to the end. Teaching and righteousness escalate, not relax. For community builders, this echoes “write docs for one system before syncing others.” Watch the breakdown, then try a “local-first” reading exercise with your study group. [Watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) • [Matt 5:17–20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A17-20&version=NRSVUE) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Publish a “local-first exegesis” guide with examples and pitfalls. - Record a short explainer on twin temporal clauses in 5:18. - Host office hours on evaluating cross-references without override. - Create a glossary entry for “univocality” with case studies. #### OSPO - Define a method charter for scriptural interpretation in curricula. - Add review steps for intra-text priority before synthesis lessons. - Track examples where harmonization misleads novice readers. #### Community - Run a cohort on Matthew 5–7 using local-first rules. - Facilitate debates contrasting Matthew and Luke fulfillment frames. - Share a checklist for quoting with precise scope and limits. #### WordPress - Documentation: mirror “local-first, then integrate” in handbook style. - Training: build modules on weighing primary vs. secondary sources. - Marketing: promote clarity-first summaries over speculative takes. #### The WPOCC - Programs: sponsor study sprints on ethical citation practices. - Projects: publish transparent reading guides with verse-level scope. - Funding experiments: microgrants for open hermeneutics materials. ### FAIR - Policies and covenants: “evidence before synthesis” guideline. - Productized governance artifacts: debate charters and scorecards. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Readers applying local-first rules change fewer interpretations post hoc. - Teaching 5:18’s twin clauses improves retention of temporal logic. - Explicitly naming “univocality” reduces harmonization errors. ### 📊 Methodology - Randomize study groups to local-first vs. harmonized-first protocols. - Pre/post surveys measure interpretation stability and confidence. - Rubric-grade essays for scope control and citation accuracy. ### ❓ Questions - Which Matthew passages most resist harmonization pressures? - How often do study leaders imply univocality without naming it? - What heuristics best flag premature synthesis? ### 🔮 Future Research - Compare redactional layers affecting 5:17–20 readings. - Map denominational stances on Matthew’s law continuity claims. ### 💡 Implications - Careful method reduces proof-texting risks. - Teaching grammar and scope improves doctrinal conversations. - Local-first reading supports transparent disagreement handling. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade ≈ 10–11. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: timestamped anchors and quotes. - Improve: diagrams of 5:18 clause structure and timelines. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: full video audio. - Improve: a 3-minute narrated summary with key verses. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: definitions and short claims. - Improve: side-by-side term comparisons with examples. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: guided note-taking prompts. - Improve: exercises tagging clause types in passages. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: hypothesis and method blocks. - Improve: formal argument maps for 5:18 readings. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: debate prompts and cohort ideas. - Improve: moderated roundtables with rotating roles. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: reflection questions. - Improve: self-check quizzes with feedback keys. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: none. - Improve: ecosystem analogy for canon diversity. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: headings and lists. - Improve: descriptive alt text for any diagrams. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: YouTube keyboard shortcuts. - Improve: clearly list shortcuts in notes. #### Contrast and readability - Present: high-contrast bullets here. - Improve: ensure 4.5:1 in shared slides. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: responsive note structure. - Improve: provide reduced-motion versions. #### Media and captions - Present: YouTube captions exist. - Improve: verify accuracy; offer downloadable transcript. #### Forms and interactions - Present: N/A. - Improve: accessible feedback forms for cohorts. #### Standards reference - Map improvements to WCAG 2.2 AA criteria. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Western scriptural framing. - Improve: include global commentary perspectives. #### Inclusive language - Present: defined jargon and neutral tone. - Improve: add plain-language summaries per section. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: chunked structure and anchors. - Improve: consistent icon+text labels for cues. #### Representation - Present: unknown creator demographics. - Improve: invite diverse scholars to respond. #### Psychological safety - Present: respectful critique style. - Improve: publish moderation and escalation guidelines. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - [H4] uses grammatical structure to argue timing. This is testable and clear. - [H7] cites an explicit standard within the passage. The inference is direct. - [H8] identifies a methodological assumption. The warning encourages transparency. #### Fallacies - Possible overgeneralization: claiming Matthew “disagrees” broadly. Safer phrasing: “may diverge on emphasis.” See [H9]. - Potential straw sampling: limited verse set supporting continuity. Expand dataset to strengthen claims. #### Tone of voice - Analytical, corrective, and didactic. It challenges synthesis without personal attacks. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: none evident. - Attack: none evident against individuals. - Reverse victim/offender: not present. The critique targets methods, not people. ## 🎯 Conclusion - Read Matthew on its own terms first. Bind 5:18’s clauses carefully. - Compare with other texts after local analysis. Declare assumptions openly. - Teach escalation, not repeal, within Matthew’s frame. Equip readers with scope tools. **Tag Coverage — #articleseed: 4 • #xref: 2 • #share: 1 • #bmf: 1 • #addendum: 1** ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix (append after 🎯 Conclusion) ### 📚 Literature Split Pad - Purpose: Stage Konik CEE units that become per-source Literature notes. - Split level: **H3**. - Include verbatim quotes under 25 words and a [view highlight] link. ### [H1] 5–10-word present-tense claim > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) by an unnamed author via [[YouTube]]. Published [MISSING]. Accessed . > “Short quote, verbatim, ≤25 words.” Two lines: context and use. Cite data if relevant. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_[MISSING] ### [H2] 5–10-word present-tense claim > [!quote] [How to negotiate with scripture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) > “Short quote, verbatim, ≤25 words.” Two lines: context and use. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ#H2) #xref ID:rw_[MISSING] --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) - Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. - Split level: **H4**. - Each item: one idea, present tense, specific, testable. #### [Z1] Local-first interpretation reduces misreadings - Scope: apply within single-book studies first. - Pointer: Matt 5:18 grammar notes. - Links: [[Hermeneutics]] [[Matthew-Studies]] #### [Z2] Twin “until” clauses indicate shared horizon - Scope: when grammar supports contemporaneity. - Pointer: Matt 5:18 clause map. - Links: [[Greek-Grammar]] [[Temporal-Logic]] #### [Z3] Teaching commandments affects status metrics - Scope: within Matthean theology of reward. - Pointer: Matt 5:19 quotes. - Links: [[Ethics]] [[Discipleship]] #### [Z4] Exceeding Pharisees reframes righteousness - Scope: contrasts norm-keeping with heart-intent. - Pointer: Matt 5:20 summaries. - Links: [[Law-and-Gospel]] [[Sermon-on-the-Mount]] #### [Z5] Univocality assumption distorts synthesis - Scope: cross-book harmonization practices. - Pointer: method critique segment. - Links: [[Canon-Studies]] [[Methodology]] #### [Z6] Eschaton anchors Matthew’s fulfillment claims - Scope: where end-time horizon appears explicit. - Pointer: Matt 24:34–36 links. - Links: [[Eschatology]] [[Matthew-Studies]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue (Extract by Selection) - Purpose: Capture quick actions or sparks for Fleeting notes. - Extraction: **Select one line** → “Refactor: Extract selection to new note (content only).” - Keep each line short and self-contained. - [F1] Diagram Matt 5:18’s twin clauses — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Collect passages where Matthew escalates commands — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Draft glossary entry: univocality vs. polyphony — context/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ #fleeting #inbox ---  ## 📺 Video ![](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ) --- # 📄 Full Transcript *Auto-generated from YouTube captions · timestamps roughly every 30 seconds · [watch on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9oXlk77FAQ)* **[00:00]** So in Matthew 5:18, Jesus says, "Not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished." And the question is this. What did Jesus mean when he said all? All right, let's see it. Because he doesn't explain the scope of his comment. What does he mean by all being accomplished? Was he referring to every last thing that has ever been prophesied, including his second coming? Well, the New Testament reveals that can't be what he meant. Why? Well, **[00:30]** because there are so many examples of old covenant commands that have passed from the law. For example, Hebrews 10:18, there is no longer any offering for sin. Now, the Sinai law absolutely required offerings for sin. So, there's a change that's much bigger than a dot or iota. And Colossians 2 says that the old covenant feasts and food laws and Sabbaths are no longer required. Hebrews 7:8 say the priesthood is no longer required. Galatians 5 says circumcision is no longer required. And in John 4, **[01:02]** Jesus himself prophesied that worship at the temple would no longer be required. These things didn't just pass away, they were fulfilled in Christ. They reached their God- orained goal. So I believe when Jesus says until all has been accomplished in Matthew 5:18, he's specifically talking about everything the Son of Man was sent to accomplish during his earthly ministry. I mean, the resurrected Jesus says this to his disciples in Luke 24. These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still **[01:33]** with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. You are witnesses of these things. His disciples witnessed the fulfilling that Jesus foretold in Matthew 5:18. The all that Jesus referred to was accomplished through his death and resurrection, which fulfilled the scriptures and inaugurated the new covenant. So, if you paid close attention to all the scriptures that this content creator brought up in an effort to try to contextualize **[02:05]** what the author of Matthew was having Jesus say in Matthew 5. You'll note that they never brought up another passage from Matthew. All of the scriptures they brought up were from the letter to the Hebrews or from Paul or from Pseudo Paul or from Luke or from some other author. And there's a very good reason for this. And the reason is that the Gospel of Matthew consistently represents Jesus as saying the law of Moses will continue to be in force and **[02:36]** authoritative until the second coming, until the escaton. And this content creator is ignoring the immediate context of the statement that they're highlighting because that provides additional support for the conclusion that the author of the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus saying the law of Moses will continue to be authoritative until the end of the world until the second coming. And they even skipped over the beginning of the sentence that they're **[03:06]** highlighting. So let's take a look at the passage. Now, they were looking at verse 18, but they were looking at the second half of it. Not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished. So, we have a temporal clause at the end of that. But the sentence begins with a temporal clause. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished. And grammatically, according to the majority of scholars **[03:38]** who have commented on this question, the use of two temporal clauses here indicates that these are understood to be contemporaneous. In other words, all being fulfilled is contemporaneous with the heavens and the earth passing away. And we can see this as well in Matthew 24 34-36 where we have Jesus talking about all these things being fulfilled once the heavens and the earth pass away. So if you are keeping the scope of **[04:11]** your contextualizing campaign on the Gospel of Matthew, which ought to be your priority, even if you go beyond it afterwards, your priority is what the author of the Gospel of Matthew has written, you can see that the law of Moses remains in effect. You have Jesus telling other people elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew, "Keep paying your tithing. Keep bringing your offerings to the temple. keep obeying the Sabbath. Keep doing all these things. The only **[04:42]** changes that Jesus introduces to the law are escalations of the severity of the law as we see in this very passage. Cuz let's go on verse 19. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is telling his followers, "Don't teach people to stop following the law of Moses." In fact, let's look at verse 20. For I tell **[05:13]** you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. The Gospel of Matthew presents the scribes and the Pharisees as fidious followers of the law. And Jesus is saying, "You must be even more careful followers of the law." And that's when we get into in the sermon on the mount. You have heard Moses said, "Don't do this." Well, I'm ratcheting it up. Don't even do this. Don't even think about it. So Jesus is escalating parts of the law and asserting the continued authority **[05:45]** and relevance of the rest of the law throughout the Gospel of Matthew. Why do you have to go appeal to outside texts in order to try to recontextualize this? Because you're presupposing univocality. And the only way to make Matthew say what you allow Matthew to say is by appealing to other passages to overrule what the author was trying to get at. This is what the presupposition of univocality does. It allows us to say this is all fungeable. This is all part **[06:17]** of the same single unified consistent voice and message. Therefore, we can take the puzzle pieces from all over or better the Lego bricks from all over to construct what we want to construct and we can put it on top of the passage we don't like to overrule it to silence it to make Matthew say something other than what the author of the Gospel of Matthew was trying to say. The author of the Gospel of Matthew was disagreeing with all those other texts that this content **[06:49]** creator quoted because the author of the Gospel of Matthew wants the law of Moses to continue to be authoritative. Wants Jesus's followers to continue to follow the law of Moses. That's not what this content creator wants. So, this content creator must leverage other passages from elsewhere along with the presupposition of univocality in order to overrule what the Gospel of Matthew has to say. So if you actually want to understand what the author of the Gospel of Matthew was trying to say in Matthew chapter 5, **[07:20]** it was that the law of Moses continues to be in effect, continues to be authoritative, continues to be an expectation for the followers of Jesus until the end of the world. And the fit for this video has been master of puppets.