-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Place of the Law
- Thread starter DaPastor
- Start date
Matthew 5:38-39
Hello David:
Here is my position again - (My main theme is that Jesus was pointing out how badly the Jews were misusing the Law):
You shared that this couldn't be true because of this:
I can appreciate how you could have arrived at your disagreement based upon Matthew 5:38-39 (and the OT passages). On the surface, it certainly appears that Jesus is "adding to and or/amending the Law" indeed. However, it should be noted that Scripture is not written in a vacuum. As you are well aware, David, correct interpretation of any given passage is discovered as the Holy Spirit teaches us a passage within its normative historical, cultural and grammatical context in which the text was originally expressed. With that said, let us understand what is taking place here.
It should first be recognized that the Laws quoted above were designed for judges to apply.
The Jews were applying these laws to personal retribution.
Now for the bigger picture, Jesus never repudiated the Law. He repudiated its misapplication!!! The Jews were using the Law as a spring board to confront the alien power - the Romans - in their land. What Jesus was doing in Matthew 5:38-42 was sharing with His disciples the proper interpretation of the Law under Roman rule. Everything Jesus said in these verses directly applied to how the Roman forces were treating the Jews. The Romans would "compel" the Jews to serve the imperial forces for a mile or more, seize their property, enforce loans, and generally conscript property, money and labor for its needs. The Jews were taught to resist this evil based upon personal application of the Law, but Jesus did not see it this way. There isn't a single contradiction to the Law here!
So to bring it down to your disagreement:
You said:
Jesus is telling His disciples to cooperate with the Roman citizens. The Law does not address this issue, but the Jews were trying to make it apply!
You said:
Jesus did not contradict the Law here. Taking this out of its cultural setting makes it seem that way! In this case, there is no "spiritual" application. It is a "time" application which applied to the proper response of a believer to an occupying force.
You said:
You are right! However, my main point still stands - Jesus did not modify the Law! Those phrases are used to underscore bad hermeneutics of the Jews.
You said:
The Letter only kills if misused, but it has more than one usage:
The law of Jehovah is perfect, refreshing the soul.
...he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Hello David:
Here is my position again - (My main theme is that Jesus was pointing out how badly the Jews were misusing the Law):
You shared that this couldn't be true because of this:
I can appreciate how you could have arrived at your disagreement based upon Matthew 5:38-39 (and the OT passages). On the surface, it certainly appears that Jesus is "adding to and or/amending the Law" indeed. However, it should be noted that Scripture is not written in a vacuum. As you are well aware, David, correct interpretation of any given passage is discovered as the Holy Spirit teaches us a passage within its normative historical, cultural and grammatical context in which the text was originally expressed. With that said, let us understand what is taking place here.
It should first be recognized that the Laws quoted above were designed for judges to apply.
The Jews were applying these laws to personal retribution.
Now for the bigger picture, Jesus never repudiated the Law. He repudiated its misapplication!!! The Jews were using the Law as a spring board to confront the alien power - the Romans - in their land. What Jesus was doing in Matthew 5:38-42 was sharing with His disciples the proper interpretation of the Law under Roman rule. Everything Jesus said in these verses directly applied to how the Roman forces were treating the Jews. The Romans would "compel" the Jews to serve the imperial forces for a mile or more, seize their property, enforce loans, and generally conscript property, money and labor for its needs. The Jews were taught to resist this evil based upon personal application of the Law, but Jesus did not see it this way. There isn't a single contradiction to the Law here!
So to bring it down to your disagreement:
You said:
Jesus is telling His disciples to cooperate with the Roman citizens. The Law does not address this issue, but the Jews were trying to make it apply!
You said:
Jesus did not contradict the Law here. Taking this out of its cultural setting makes it seem that way! In this case, there is no "spiritual" application. It is a "time" application which applied to the proper response of a believer to an occupying force.
You said:
You are right! However, my main point still stands - Jesus did not modify the Law! Those phrases are used to underscore bad hermeneutics of the Jews.
You said:
The Letter only kills if misused, but it has more than one usage:
The law of Jehovah is perfect, refreshing the soul.
...he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Hello David,
You said:
The position that you are taking comes from not understanding the historical and cultural situation Jesus was addressing. My position is that Jesus did not change one Law, and did not come to do so. This would directly contradict Christ's clear statement:
It almost seems that you are suggesting that Jesus totally reinvented the Law, which to me, is "rendering vain", "depriving of success", and "bringing to naught" the Law of Moses. My view does not create any contradiction! Please explain how your view does not!
You said:
The position that you are taking comes from not understanding the historical and cultural situation Jesus was addressing. My position is that Jesus did not change one Law, and did not come to do so. This would directly contradict Christ's clear statement:
It almost seems that you are suggesting that Jesus totally reinvented the Law, which to me, is "rendering vain", "depriving of success", and "bringing to naught" the Law of Moses. My view does not create any contradiction! Please explain how your view does not!
Very good, Pastor Randy. As I read your comments above, I find it difficult to identify too many places where I would have any disagreement at all.
Since this thread is a better match (now) for some things that David and I were discussing in the marriage thread, I'll put a bit of that here as well in support --
Blessings,
Mark
Since this thread is a better match (now) for some things that David and I were discussing in the marriage thread, I'll put a bit of that here as well in support --
The "law" done away with fallacy[does!] have its own thread...
First, with regard to the oft-misunderstood "eye for eye" and so on references, there ARE teachings in the "midrash" that are very valuable. This is a good example of one such. The principle is RESTITUTION, with the ever-understood priority to "choose life". For loss of a tooth, the slave is to go out free. When someone commits an act of negligence which costs a neighbor an eye, no one is generally served by striking out the eye of the offender; certainly the victim is not made whole by such. The concept is to MAKE THE VICTIM WHOLE. Since the eye, tooth, or wound, cannot readily be restored, the TEACHING (heart concept, if you will) is justice; the transgressor is to do what is possible to restore those injured. (Even to the point of bondservice if required.) And as the "ox which is known to thrust with its horn" example shows, the secondary issue is to assure that such negligence (or worse) is NOT repeated. Such practical teachings of Torah are STILL applicable today - and would, I contend, be FAR superior to a society based on Satanic principles, which institutionalizes dishonest money, subsidizes theft, punishes the innocent, and bails out the guilty.
Much can, and has, been written about how those who "added burdens" while ignoring the "weightier matters of the law" were rightly rebuked by Yeshua for getting all balled up in precedent and trivia, and ultimately vain tradition, rather than understanding the PRINCIPLES He taught.
(I think that Michael Rood's audio and video teaching on Yeshua's healing of the blind man, where He violated literally EVERY SINGLE oral tradition imaginable concerning His Sabbath day healing, while KEEPING every Written specific, is without peer to illustrate this point.)
The letter and the spirit are absolutely NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
[and...] Yeshua unequivocally showed otherwise. The fatal mistake is to assume that one can EARN SALVATION, or prove righteousness, or justify oneself before God - or any other similar fallacy - ONLY by works, by keeping the 'letter', or by any similar delusion. The process of "entering via the strait gate" and "walking the narrow path", with the goal of having our RedeemerKNOW US is ultimately about His regeneration of our hard, "desparately wicked", hearts - and giving us a new one, upon which His Torah is written.
Once that happens, we WILL be able to walk in obedience to Him (and His teaching and instruction), via the guidance of His Ruach Hakodesh (spirit). No conflict there at all...
Blessings,
Mark
The Perceived Changes
David,
You said:
This isn't a change. This is Jesus applying "case law" to the "general Law" of "Thou shalt not murder". This was very common in Biblical times. Again, Jesus was demonstrating that the Law was much deeper than externals!
You said:
This isn't a change either. Again, Jesus is demonstrating that the Law is much deeper than external obedience.
You said:
It should be noted that Jesus did not tell the Jews that a certificate of divorce is unnecessary. Jesus was correcting the popular Jewish interpretation of one single law. He didn't change the law one iota!
You said:
The way you wrote this gives the wrong impression. Jesus was not telling the disciples that one should not perform an oath. He is dealing with "false oaths"!
Jesus was using Hebrew parallelism which is very common throughout Jewish writing. He begins with a general statement "swear not at all", and then He breaks down specifically what He means by that general statement very specifically. In other words, He was affirming the Law by not affirming unauthorized or unlawful type of oaths. Psalm 109:17-19 reflects the godly hatred of false swearing.
You said:
I already dealt with this one with another post. Jesus is correcting the eisogesis of the Jewish leaders.
You said:
The Jews inferred the "hate your enemy" for it was not included in any law. Again, Jesus is demonstrating that their "enemy" was actually their "neighbor". This did not contradict the Law.
Jesus affirms the Law over and over again!!
David,
You said:
This isn't a change. This is Jesus applying "case law" to the "general Law" of "Thou shalt not murder". This was very common in Biblical times. Again, Jesus was demonstrating that the Law was much deeper than externals!
You said:
This isn't a change either. Again, Jesus is demonstrating that the Law is much deeper than external obedience.
You said:
It should be noted that Jesus did not tell the Jews that a certificate of divorce is unnecessary. Jesus was correcting the popular Jewish interpretation of one single law. He didn't change the law one iota!
You said:
The way you wrote this gives the wrong impression. Jesus was not telling the disciples that one should not perform an oath. He is dealing with "false oaths"!
Jesus was using Hebrew parallelism which is very common throughout Jewish writing. He begins with a general statement "swear not at all", and then He breaks down specifically what He means by that general statement very specifically. In other words, He was affirming the Law by not affirming unauthorized or unlawful type of oaths. Psalm 109:17-19 reflects the godly hatred of false swearing.
You said:
I already dealt with this one with another post. Jesus is correcting the eisogesis of the Jewish leaders.
You said:
The Jews inferred the "hate your enemy" for it was not included in any law. Again, Jesus is demonstrating that their "enemy" was actually their "neighbor". This did not contradict the Law.
Jesus affirms the Law over and over again!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Matthew 5:38-39
My experience over the years has taught me that most Bible commentaries cannot be trusted (look up any polygyny commentaries for a good sampling of their arguments). None of the provided quotes have convinced me I should start changing my mind now. The agenda they promote contradicts the plain reading of Scripture, which is my final authority on the matter. Suffice to say, I believe that THEY believe what they are saying.
These passages speak to man relations with his neighbors. Just a cursory glance of chapter 5: "wroth with his brother", "whoever says to his brother, 'Raka!'", "remember that your brother holds whatever against you", "make peace with your brother", "be well-minded with your opponent", "everyone looking at a woman to lust", "whoever puts away his wife", "you shall not swear falsely", "whoever slaps you on your right cheek", "he who wishes to sue you", "whoever compels you to go one mile", "give to him who asks", "from him who wishes to borrow", "love your enemies, etc. There is no context here to suggest the Mosaic law has an opposite interpretation when under foreign rule than when not.
1 Tim. 1:9: "knowing this: that Torah is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly..."
Scripture says that the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant was to bring CONDEMNATION and DEATH. That was it's sole purpose! The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of death that kills. The Messianic Covenant is a covenant of life that saves. That's the distinction I was trying to make. They cannot be mixed.
Love in Him,
David
Exodus 20-23 is addressed to the children of Israel. There is nothing in the context of this passage to suggest it was addressed only to the judges. These were laws addressed to carnal Israel. But regardless who these verses were addressed to, I'm sure we can agree that Yeshua's words on the mount were addressed to the same people. So regardless WHOSE law changed, it has indeed been changed. SOMEBODY was told eye for eye, tooth for tooth and that SAME SOMEBODY was now told not to resist the wicked and to turn the other cheek, a completely OPPOSITE and CONTRADICTORY meaning than what was written in Torah.DaPastor said:
My experience over the years has taught me that most Bible commentaries cannot be trusted (look up any polygyny commentaries for a good sampling of their arguments). None of the provided quotes have convinced me I should start changing my mind now. The agenda they promote contradicts the plain reading of Scripture, which is my final authority on the matter. Suffice to say, I believe that THEY believe what they are saying.
Except there isn't a single reference to Roman or any other occupation in the entire sermon. It's simply explaining away the plain sense reading of His words. The commentators are simply using smokescreens to avoid the obvious contradictions between Moses' law and Messiah's law.DaPastor said:
These passages speak to man relations with his neighbors. Just a cursory glance of chapter 5: "wroth with his brother", "whoever says to his brother, 'Raka!'", "remember that your brother holds whatever against you", "make peace with your brother", "be well-minded with your opponent", "everyone looking at a woman to lust", "whoever puts away his wife", "you shall not swear falsely", "whoever slaps you on your right cheek", "he who wishes to sue you", "whoever compels you to go one mile", "give to him who asks", "from him who wishes to borrow", "love your enemies, etc. There is no context here to suggest the Mosaic law has an opposite interpretation when under foreign rule than when not.
Applying the same interpretation rules to these passages as everywhere else in Scripture, I come up with the same bad hermeneutics. I'm not under Roman occupation and yet I can read the Torah as well as the next guy. There is no suggestion that those OT passages suddenly mean the opposite when under foreign rule, nor do these NT passages suggest the law does a 180 when the nation comes under occupation. The OT says black, the NT says white, and there is no context to explain how the law takes on an reversed meaning based on an occupation. Since Moses says no such thing under ANY circumstances, this is most certainly a "MODIFICATION" or "CHANGE" in the law. I mean, if an opposite reading isn't a change, then what WOULD constitute a change???DaPastor said:
Actually, Scripture says that the letter only kills if NOT FOLLOWED PERFECTLY, not merely if its misused. Obeying Torah with anything less than 100% perfection brings the curse. There is no provision for anything else under that covenant.DaPastor said:
1 Tim. 1:9: "knowing this: that Torah is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly..."
Scripture says that the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant was to bring CONDEMNATION and DEATH. That was it's sole purpose! The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of death that kills. The Messianic Covenant is a covenant of life that saves. That's the distinction I was trying to make. They cannot be mixed.
Love in Him,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Rather than go back over the whole "heaven and earth" discussion again, the quickest response is whether we say circumcision is required today. I know some will actually say yes, but that will take more time to correct than can be addressed in this format. Most believers who have read the NT know that circumcision is not applicable today. Was it destroyed? Was it fulfilled? Why would Yeshua bother to tell those with him NOT to think he had come to destroy the law? What would have given them that impression? Notice that immediately following His statement, He proceeds to make major alterations (in my view) to the law. Coincidence, or was He telling them something about what was to come?DaPastor said:
Regarding the word "destroy" in Matthew 5:17, I decided to check the Greek word "kataluo" to see if and how it was used in other verses by Matthew. Here's what I found:
Matt. 24:2: "And Yahweh said to them, "Do you not see all these? Truly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, at all, which shall not be "kataluo".
Matt. 26:61: "and said, "This one said, 'I am able to "kataluo" the Dwelling Place of Elohim and to build it in three days.'"
Matt. 27:40: "and saying, "You who "kataluo" the Dwelling Place and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of Elohim, come down from the stake."
We know the Jewish Temple was completely destroyed in 70AD, so I think we can understand what "kataluo", or destroy, means.
In contrast, He said that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, so we need to determine what it means to fulfill the law. The Greek word "pleroo" has a wide range of meanings: "satisfy, execute, finish, verify, complete, end, expire, fill up, fulfill, perfect, supply."
Hebrews 7:18: "For there is indeed a setting aside of the former command because of its weakness and unprofitableness"
The Greek word translated here as "setting aside" is "athetesis", which is a legal term that points to the cancellation of the command in question - in this case, the Mosaic law. The same verb "athetesis" is given just two chapters later.
Hebrews 9:26: "For if so, He would have had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the offering of Himself."
The disappearance of the Mosaic law is as absolute as the putting away of sin.
I believe the lack of recognizing the difference between the law of Moses and the Law of Messiah is essentially the same as not recognizing the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the Messianic Covenant. I'm amazed how often this question comes up among believers. This subject really needs to be addressed in extensive detail.
I have a quick question of my own though. In the garden of Eden, how many trees are mentioned as having significance? What do they symbolize? What tree were they expected to eat of, and what tree were they commanded not to eat of? What tree brought forth death and what tree brought forth life? Were they REALLY the same tree, yielding essentially the same fruit? Was one tree merely an extension of the other?
Love in Him,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Not at all. He did NOT destroy the law and prophets (essentially, the Old Testament Scriptures), rather He fulfilled them. They all pointed to Him and He is their fulfillment. One annihilates and makes void, the other completes and accomplishes. Consider a woman with child. The shadow points to the substance. There is a coming point in time when she will no longer be carrying the child. That's part of the intended plan and it's ridiculous to mourn the pregnancy. Destroying the pregnancy process means to kill the intended fruit and make the creation of its life null and void. Fulfilling the pregnancy process means to complete the birth of the child, bringing it life and accomplishing what was set out to be done. The way it seems that you are looking at fulfillment, it's almost as if giving birth to the child makes the pregnancy of no effect. On the contrary, it ACCOMPLISHED and FULFILLED its intended purpose. The Mosaic Covenant gave birth to the Messianic Covenant. The type gave birth to the anti-type, precisely on time as prophesied. God was completely faithful in accomplishing His Word.DaPastor said:
Love in Him,
David
Laws were applied by leaders
Hello David,
I said:
You replied:
Exodus 20-23 does not need to say who administers the Law. Scripture tells us how the Law was administered in other places:
In this case, it begins in Exodus 18. Here is where Jethro advises Moses to choose seventy elders to help him judge (the Jethro Principle). Moses responsibility was to teach the elders all the regulations (the Law) for settling disputes:
Moreover, it should also be recognized that not only were the difficult cases brought before Moses if the seventy thought they were too difficult, they were also brought before the Levites. Some believe that this was their "Supreme Court". None the less:
In fact, the priests are rebuked for their show of partiality in administrating matters of the law in Malachi 2:
Mal 2:7-9 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
The fact of the matter is that the people of Israel were informed of the Law. This is an act of Justice. However, the Law was clearly administered by chosen leaders. Jesus was correcting their misapplication of the Law.
Hello David,
I said:
You replied:
Exodus 20-23 does not need to say who administers the Law. Scripture tells us how the Law was administered in other places:
In this case, it begins in Exodus 18. Here is where Jethro advises Moses to choose seventy elders to help him judge (the Jethro Principle). Moses responsibility was to teach the elders all the regulations (the Law) for settling disputes:
Moreover, it should also be recognized that not only were the difficult cases brought before Moses if the seventy thought they were too difficult, they were also brought before the Levites. Some believe that this was their "Supreme Court". None the less:
In fact, the priests are rebuked for their show of partiality in administrating matters of the law in Malachi 2:
Mal 2:7-9 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
The fact of the matter is that the people of Israel were informed of the Law. This is an act of Justice. However, the Law was clearly administered by chosen leaders. Jesus was correcting their misapplication of the Law.
Commentaries
Hello David,
You shared:
I understand what you are saying. However, it is not only an unscriptural position to take, it could possibly lead to serious error.
1. Unscriptural Position: Although it is true that men are fallible, it is also true that God has ordained "teachers" in the church. Commentaries are written by teachers. Some are better teachers than others, but none the less, God gave them to the church for a purpose.
These teachers obviously need to be tested...
2. Possible Error One:
We should never assume that the "plain reading" is necessarily the "plain reading". Why? It leads to the anachronistic fallacy - reading back into the text our own cultural understanding of the day. There are some phrases and sentences that can ONLY be understood by knowing the manners and customs of the day.
3. Possible Error Two:
We should never assume that "WE" are THE INTERPRETERS. One reason for reading commentaries is to be forced to look at a passage from an entirely different mindset. This is not only healthy, but wise: Scripture tells us in the Pro 11:14 "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."
4. Possible Error Three:
The Bible says that "Knowledge Puffs Up" but "love builds up". Therefore, it is important in my mind to always be teachable, and one way of doing this is "listening" to other "teachers" that God Himself has placed in the Church, the body of Christ.
From my perspective, we are not the final authority. Scripture is the final authority. Which I know you believe. However, there is a fine line between allowing Scripture to be the final authority and making our own mind the final authority. For us to assume that we are the only ones who truly understand the plain reading of Scripture makes a two to four thousand mental leap of history. There are major gaps here! These gaps include historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic. From my perspective, we should tread softly, don't you think?
Hello David,
You shared:
I understand what you are saying. However, it is not only an unscriptural position to take, it could possibly lead to serious error.
1. Unscriptural Position: Although it is true that men are fallible, it is also true that God has ordained "teachers" in the church. Commentaries are written by teachers. Some are better teachers than others, but none the less, God gave them to the church for a purpose.
These teachers obviously need to be tested...
2. Possible Error One:
We should never assume that the "plain reading" is necessarily the "plain reading". Why? It leads to the anachronistic fallacy - reading back into the text our own cultural understanding of the day. There are some phrases and sentences that can ONLY be understood by knowing the manners and customs of the day.
3. Possible Error Two:
We should never assume that "WE" are THE INTERPRETERS. One reason for reading commentaries is to be forced to look at a passage from an entirely different mindset. This is not only healthy, but wise: Scripture tells us in the Pro 11:14 "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."
4. Possible Error Three:
The Bible says that "Knowledge Puffs Up" but "love builds up". Therefore, it is important in my mind to always be teachable, and one way of doing this is "listening" to other "teachers" that God Himself has placed in the Church, the body of Christ.
From my perspective, we are not the final authority. Scripture is the final authority. Which I know you believe. However, there is a fine line between allowing Scripture to be the final authority and making our own mind the final authority. For us to assume that we are the only ones who truly understand the plain reading of Scripture makes a two to four thousand mental leap of history. There are major gaps here! These gaps include historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic. From my perspective, we should tread softly, don't you think?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Commentaries
But my position is not dependent on who was to administer the law, only that the directives were inverted. Instead of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", we now have "do not resist the wicked, turn the other cheek". Nowhere in the Old Covenant does it say to "turn the other cheek". Nowhere in the New Covenant does it say to "take eye for eye". Regardless who these passages are addressed to, they are polar opposite positions. The law has been changed.
Hebrews 7:12: "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also."
Love in Him,
David
I didn't say I wouldn't read their commentaries, only that I wouldn't TRUST them. Placing their words side by side with Scripture doesn't add any weight to their opinions, unless said opinions are backed by actual Scripture. Many believers treat commentaries as if they WERE Scripture, simply because they're written in their Bibles.DaPastor said:
But my position is not dependent on who was to administer the law, only that the directives were inverted. Instead of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", we now have "do not resist the wicked, turn the other cheek". Nowhere in the Old Covenant does it say to "turn the other cheek". Nowhere in the New Covenant does it say to "take eye for eye". Regardless who these passages are addressed to, they are polar opposite positions. The law has been changed.
Hebrews 7:12: "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also."
Love in Him,
David
Re: Commentaries
Hi David,
You said:
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that there are those who treat commentaries as if they are Scripture. However, on the other extreme I have known those that take the position that all commentaries are to be ignored. I believe the truth is in the middle. We should read commentaries to glean information, especially in the are of culture and customs, being careful to not allow them to take the place of Scripture. As far as opinions being backed by Scripture, I agree in principle. However, it is important to recognize that the plain reading in Scripture isn't always plain in to us who are part of a modern culture. In other words, the Scripture may seem like it is saying one thing, but in reality, it is saying the opposite. Scripture was not written in a vacuum. To ignore the culture or historical circumstances is to teach error by default!
Jesus was correcting the wrong application of the Law. The Jews were using the "eye for eye" passage to suggest to the common man that he could personally administer justice to the Romans who were overseeing them. To break it all down. Jesus was encouraging them to submit to the governing authorities!! In other words, Jesus was telling the disciples to do the same thing that Paul told the Roman disciples - do not resist evil (the Romans were considered evil)/governing powers! Allow yourself to be conscripted. Stop fighting them. If they want you to go a mile, go two...etc... They were to turn the other cheek when a Roman soldier would hit one of them.
If what you say is the accurate interpretation, then we would not have any Scriptural authority to work as policemen, soldiers, body guards, security guards, etc... We would not even be allowed to protect our family. The interpretation that you hold would contradict the entire Bible! One major rule of hermeneutics is this: If one passage seems to contradict the majority of passages on the same subject, then the one passage should be interpreted in the light of the majority, not the opposite.
Hi David,
You said:
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that there are those who treat commentaries as if they are Scripture. However, on the other extreme I have known those that take the position that all commentaries are to be ignored. I believe the truth is in the middle. We should read commentaries to glean information, especially in the are of culture and customs, being careful to not allow them to take the place of Scripture. As far as opinions being backed by Scripture, I agree in principle. However, it is important to recognize that the plain reading in Scripture isn't always plain in to us who are part of a modern culture. In other words, the Scripture may seem like it is saying one thing, but in reality, it is saying the opposite. Scripture was not written in a vacuum. To ignore the culture or historical circumstances is to teach error by default!
Jesus was correcting the wrong application of the Law. The Jews were using the "eye for eye" passage to suggest to the common man that he could personally administer justice to the Romans who were overseeing them. To break it all down. Jesus was encouraging them to submit to the governing authorities!! In other words, Jesus was telling the disciples to do the same thing that Paul told the Roman disciples - do not resist evil (the Romans were considered evil)/governing powers! Allow yourself to be conscripted. Stop fighting them. If they want you to go a mile, go two...etc... They were to turn the other cheek when a Roman soldier would hit one of them.
If what you say is the accurate interpretation, then we would not have any Scriptural authority to work as policemen, soldiers, body guards, security guards, etc... We would not even be allowed to protect our family. The interpretation that you hold would contradict the entire Bible! One major rule of hermeneutics is this: If one passage seems to contradict the majority of passages on the same subject, then the one passage should be interpreted in the light of the majority, not the opposite.
Hebrews 7:12
Hello David,
Since you mentioned this passage, I thought I would reply:
This needs to be understood in reference to time passages. Is this passage telling us that the entire Law was to disappear? No!
I will allow Adam Clarke to answer one part of my thinking:
The finishing touch of my view will be answered by John Gill:
My summary is this... (which I have said all along) I stand between your position and Mark's position. I do not believe that all of the Law passed through the cross of Christ (for example those things that pertain to the Aaronic priesthood with the prescribed sacrifices). However, unless the New Covenant specifies what has been altered clearly and precisely, all the Moral Law is valid - only the application needs to be worked out!
Hello David,
Since you mentioned this passage, I thought I would reply:
This needs to be understood in reference to time passages. Is this passage telling us that the entire Law was to disappear? No!
I will allow Adam Clarke to answer one part of my thinking:
The finishing touch of my view will be answered by John Gill:
My summary is this... (which I have said all along) I stand between your position and Mark's position. I do not believe that all of the Law passed through the cross of Christ (for example those things that pertain to the Aaronic priesthood with the prescribed sacrifices). However, unless the New Covenant specifies what has been altered clearly and precisely, all the Moral Law is valid - only the application needs to be worked out!
Perhaps, Randy - but I will note again that, based on what you have written, I can reach out and touch your position from mine.
For the most part, of course, I take issue with the heavy-handed substitution of the word "Law" in presumed literal translation for the Hebrew use of "torah" in every single case*. After all, Yeshua taught "with Authority", precisely because He was WAS the "Word made flesh".
Finally, I'll note that, even long before Yeshua, both King David (Psalm 51) and Isaiah noted that men's sacrifices were not what God wanted, but Paul's nazerite vow and sacrifice was completed AFTER his experience on the road to Damascus. It's the heart condition that matters, and OBEDIENCE that He seeks.
Blessings in Him,
Mark
---------------------------
* Or the converse, of course. I contend that He probably said "without Torah" in Matthew 7:23!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Commentaries
But even allowing for that possibility (since the text says nothing either way about the Romans), the MEANING still has changed. There is no way to INTERPRET "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" as "turn the other cheek" by any recognized understanding of interpretation. They are saying opposite things. Would anyone living in Yeshua's day have guessed that "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" MEANT "do not resist the wicked?" Honestly, is that any kind of interpretation of "eye for eye" by any stretch of the imagination? Or is it an addition, change, alteration or modification of the written law?
1. Most Christians (such as fundamentalists) believe that we fulfill the New Covenant by keeping the Old Covenant in our hearts. The idea is that grace fills in the gaps whenever we fall short of perfection.
2. A few Christians (such as libertarians) believe that we are not under either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, but are rather free from ALL law. This idea is that grace covers all of our actions, good or evil, with no consequences for anything we do.
3. Some Christians (such as Messianics/Torah Observant) believe that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are essentially the same covenant, and that the written Torah is the same law which is written in our hearts. There are a variety of opinions as to how to apply certain Mosaic elements today.
4. Other Christians (such as myself) believe that there are two completely separate laws under discussion in the Scriptures and that we are only to obey the law of Messiah in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is in no way a modification of the Old Covenant. There is no continuity between the Old and New Covenants.
I'm sure there are other views (and variations of the above) but those are the ones I'm aware of so far.
Love in Him,
David
I understand this is how you must read this passage in order to avoid an apparent contradiction, but that's not what I see when I read it. He simply said, "You have heard X, but I say Y." Unless one's theology requires continuity between the Mosaic and Messianic Covenants, there is no need to assume this must be speaking about how to deal with occupiers. This passage says nothing specifically regarding administering justice to the Romans. In fact, the surrounding context is related to one's fellow man (neighbor), nor an opposing military force. I would think His words apply to all my neighbors.DaPastor said:
But even allowing for that possibility (since the text says nothing either way about the Romans), the MEANING still has changed. There is no way to INTERPRET "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" as "turn the other cheek" by any recognized understanding of interpretation. They are saying opposite things. Would anyone living in Yeshua's day have guessed that "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" MEANT "do not resist the wicked?" Honestly, is that any kind of interpretation of "eye for eye" by any stretch of the imagination? Or is it an addition, change, alteration or modification of the written law?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you here. If we are to say the Mosaic law is applicable in the New Covenant, then by the same token, policemen, soldiers, body guards, etc. would be required to match offenses tit for tat, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Otherwise, we're not obeying Torah as written. I think the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. We are permitted to protect our families, work in the military, etc. and we are not obligated to apply Torah rules in the daily application.DaPastor said:
Yeah, whereas Mark seems to believe all the Mosaic law passed through the cross, and I believe none of the Mosaic law passed through the cross (at least, not beyond the levitical administration which was "kataluo" in 70AD). I've actually been trying to consolidate the various views on the law and have come up with four basic positions so far (they still need work):DaPastor said:
1. Most Christians (such as fundamentalists) believe that we fulfill the New Covenant by keeping the Old Covenant in our hearts. The idea is that grace fills in the gaps whenever we fall short of perfection.
2. A few Christians (such as libertarians) believe that we are not under either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, but are rather free from ALL law. This idea is that grace covers all of our actions, good or evil, with no consequences for anything we do.
3. Some Christians (such as Messianics/Torah Observant) believe that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are essentially the same covenant, and that the written Torah is the same law which is written in our hearts. There are a variety of opinions as to how to apply certain Mosaic elements today.
4. Other Christians (such as myself) believe that there are two completely separate laws under discussion in the Scriptures and that we are only to obey the law of Messiah in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is in no way a modification of the Old Covenant. There is no continuity between the Old and New Covenants.
I'm sure there are other views (and variations of the above) but those are the ones I'm aware of so far.
Love in Him,
David
Mark C said:
Perhaps, Randy - but I will note again that, based on what you have written, I can reach out and touch your position from mine.
For the most part, of course, I take issue with the heavy-handed substitution of the word "Law" in presumed literal translation for the Hebrew use of "torah" in every single case*. After all, Yeshua taught "with Authority", precisely because He was WAS the "Word made flesh".
Finally, I'll note that, even long before Yeshua, both King David (Psalm 51) and Isaiah noted that men's sacrifices were not what God wanted, but Paul's nazerite vow and sacrifice was completed AFTER his experience on the road to Damascus. It's the heart condition that matters, and OBEDIENCE that He seeks.
Hello Mark,
1. There is nothing in the Greek text of Acts 18:18 that demands that Paul is the one who took the vow. The text could just as likely refer to Aquila instead of Paul. Textual variants have Paul alone, Aquila alone, Paul and Aquila, or Aquila and Priscilla. If nothing else, one should never make a doctrine on a single text - especially if one cannot determine an absolute from it.
2. Concerning the Nazarite vow (if it was Paul who took it), Josephus tells us that if one were to take the Nazarite vow, one would be required to break it in Jerusalem. Nazarite vows required the shaving of the head in Jerusalem, and the hair cut off was offered in the temple [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 2.15.1].
3. If Paul did perform this act, his motives are not clear as confirmed in Acts 21.
I guess I am reluctant to make an argument on evidence that seems to be rather weak.
Interesting points, Randy.
But it occurred to me as I read your response that Acts is a bit unique in this regard. Most of the 'acts' described there have no SECOND witness within the Bible itself.
But there are two or three witnesses that indicate that God was already long disinclined toward sacrifices.
I do tend to find other arguments (such as the fact that there is no sacrifice for intentional sin, or rebellion) to be much more compelling anyway. That means, of course, there was no "law" to be done away with.
Thanks,
Mark
But it occurred to me as I read your response that Acts is a bit unique in this regard. Most of the 'acts' described there have no SECOND witness within the Bible itself.
But there are two or three witnesses that indicate that God was already long disinclined toward sacrifices.
I do tend to find other arguments (such as the fact that there is no sacrifice for intentional sin, or rebellion) to be much more compelling anyway. That means, of course, there was no "law" to be done away with.
Thanks,
Mark