Morality and Matthew 5

royal priest said:

Certainly not for the sake of the Old Testament. That has been done away with as fulfilled in Jesus according to His words.
To do so in 'obedience' to God today, would actually be disobedience out of disregard for the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Hi Athée,


I see you've already presented and addressed three possible proposals for alleviating the seeming tension in the issue of whether or not the O.T. has direct, Jewish like application to the moral life of the Christian. While I don't discount what you've said for each of these three positions, I'd like to briefly offer a few additional ideas on each of them and then to direct your attention to a 4th that I personally find very interesting.



1) In understanding “how” Jesus fulfills the O.T. Law, I think we need to fully consider ALL that Matthew actually says and implies throughout his gospel in its entirety. As some other people here have already pointed out, after Matthew seems to present statements by Jesus establishing the "permanency" of the Law in chapter 5, he shortly thereafter offers a few statements to his readers where Jesus Himself “amends” certain Laws, statements that are apparently less than consistent with what was said previously.

Moreover, not only does Matthew show Jesus making amendations to the Law, Matthew goes on to offer over a dozen statements of how he thinks various events in Jesus' ministry fulfill God's Will as expressed in the O.T. We see similar statements about Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets being made by the other three gospel writers as well, even if they do so to a much lesser extent than Matthew does. [You can trace these by referencing the word “fulfill” as it is comes up in the N.T. - here's a link to biblegateway.com]

2) As far as this second point is concerned, not only do we need to try to understand the overall context in Matthew, but I think we should also take into account that Matthew is a 'later' work in the corpus of N.T. Literature, with various letters coming earlier in the establishment of the Gospel of Christ. If Paul said some things about the nature of God's Kindgom and how it is to play out in the moral realm, and his statement were actually made previous to most of the reports we have from the gospel writers relating what "Jesus said," and Paul is fully implicated as an active and legitimate part of the 1st century Christian movement by at least one of these gospel writers (i.e. Luke), then the fact that Paul said what he said about “love fulfilling the Law” needs to be taken as a significant background context in our attempt to further decipher the apparent conundrum we think we find in Matthew 5.

3) I agree with this; Matthew does represent Jesus as addressing a primarily Jewish audience in chapter 5, so we need to keep this in mind, especially in going to the 4th proposal that I'm presenting below.

4) So, here's my additional contribution to think about: We might consider the suggestion by scholar Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (1997):

...it is my aim to propose a new interpretation of Mark 13:31 (and parallels) and Matthew 5:18. In brief I propose that by 'heaven and earth' is meant the Jerusalem temple and the Torah constitution at the centre of which the former stands. Neither saying envisages the collapse of the space-time universe (as has been understood by modern interpretation). Both refer to the imminent end to the social, religious and economic structure of Israel's covenant relationship with God with the attendant destruction of the temple. (in Kent E Brower & Mark W. Elliott, Eds, p. 146)​

If Fletcher-Louis is correct, then this would essentially remove much of the conundrum which we think we perceive when reading Matthew 5:18 (and similar texts), and it would fit well with both what we already know about what Paul said and with the additional points I made above regarding the overall Matthean contexts which the other gospel writers seem to share. I understand that the quote above only very briefly sums up Fletcher-Louis' position, but feel free to ask questions about it if you want, and I'll try to briefly tell you how he would address your questions (unless, of course, you want to buy that book and read the whole essay for yourself ).


… well, if I'm right, then those Jews or Christians who want to impose a legal and literal revival of O.T. Law are not in the moral right, at least not any longer, and they haven't been since about A.D. 70 (or really A.D. 33 if we want to split more hairs about it). In fact, we can see evidence from Paul in the N.T. (i.e. in the letters of 1 and 2 Corinthians, C. AD 52-57) where the O.T. death penalty language is cited but recontexualized in the way that it is referenced and applied within the Church: the essence being of the imputation of grace and mercy being that what was a death-penalty in the O.T. is now, in principle, a temporary ex-communication from the Church, open to a later reconciliation of the offending individual if he or she repents.


Reference

Fletcher-Louis, C. H. (1997). The destruction of the temple and the relativization of the Old Covenant: Mark 13: 31 and Matthew 5: 18. Eschatology in Bible & theology: Evangelical essays at the dawn of a new millennium, 145-70. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Click to expand...

Serving Zion said:

Hi again @Athée, it is nice to have an opportunity to chat with you again! I hope you will be finding through this that God's ways are higher than our ways.. because justice requires all things to be considered.. which a human in his limited perspective is ill-equipped, and in his corrupted way of thinking is unable to do impartially.

This law of execution for capital offence was given to a holy people, so as to maintain the purity of their culture. As it happened though, they did introduce corruption and then fell away entirely (read about King Manasseh), and it is because they were exiled among Babylon that they did in fact lose their authentic knowledge of The Holy One. When they reformed the nation, they did so using their best human efforts (their understanding/reasoning/mind - see Proverbs 3:5), creating a highly restrictive system so as to reduce the opportunity of transgressing God's law - yet they had lost sight of the way such as Jesus called them hypocrites, that while they claim to keep the law, they are in fact breaking it (eg, Mark 7:13, Matthew 23:28). Same thing happens on a huge scale among those calling themselves Christian today. They need to be born again, because they just don't have the life in them (Matthew 6:23, 2 Peter 2:2).

At that time, John the Baptist came along with a message of repentance (an authority he proclaimed based upon his relationship with God and the righteousness as given by Him instead of man's honour system (Matthew 3:7) - (consider Romans 6:16c, Romans 3:21-22, John 5:44, John 4:23).

As a result, the religious leaders ("blind Pharisee's", "brood of vipers", "whitewashed tombs") had become so enslaved and blinded by their beliefs that it caused them to reject and take the position of opposition (pride/envy) to the actual truth that Jesus spoke. In the end, they were so enslaved and trapped in their fallen state of mind that they reasoned it was better to release Barabbas and condemn Jesus (Matthew 27:18).

So you will see that written law is still able to be misused by those who do not apply it with the same spirit which it is written. (1 John 3:14, 2 Corinthians 3:6, John 1:4).

In that way, the nation of Israel declared it's total desolation through the act of condemning the most innocent, and the kingdom was taken away from them, to be given to a new nation (Matthew 21:33-46, Daniel 7:13-14,21-22).

We know that Christianity is now overrun with gentiles that have no knowledge of Torah, they have good intentions, but they do not truly reflect the holy society that Moses established. Therefore, these are times like no other and Torah is much more difficult to apply justly, because justice demands that a person is not only found to have acted contrary to the law, but also guilty of doing wrong so as to disobey (consider Romans 5:13, James 4:17).

This is the meaning of such scriptures as "there is none righteous, for all have fallen short of the glory of God". The Jews fell short of it by opposing Jesus, and the gentiles were ignorant of it, having chosen to believe doctrines that do not lead them toward it (2 Timothy 4:3, 1 Timothy 4:1-2).

These are those dark days that Jesus spoke of in John 12:35 after the light coming into the world had been violently rejected - those now walking in darkness do not know where they are going. St. Paul writes in Romans 8 that creation was subjected to futility, hoping for the glorious coming day - the revealing of the sons of God. This interstitial period is a time of grace, a charitable final offer for repentance, as it is written in Hebrews 10:26-31 that there is no more sacrifice remaining - anyone who keeps sinning after knowing the truth does disrespect toward the blood of the son of God.

Now you can consider the event where Jesus says "he who is without sin cast the first stone". This doesn't mean to say "he who has never sinned", it means to say "he who determines that it is holy justice to put her to death, let him cast the first stone". Imagine this picture. Some were full of wrath, bitterness and judgement. They are acting of sin. They had to depart because their conscience condemned them in Jesus' presence. The ones who were present and acting of noble virtue, for genuine care of protecting the robustness of righteous society .. what would they have thought? They surely knew that Jesus was the most righteous amongst them and that He had already advocated in her defence .. wouldn't they have been consumed by the indignation of His words if they thought they should act to condemn her? So we can see that Jesus knew there was something not quite just about condemning this one. He told her to leave her life of sin, so it shows that He had already observed the required repentance in her heart. She must have been pretty shaken up by all this - having received conviction by being brought so close to judgement.

In these days, Jesus has "bound the strong man" Matthew 12:29, Ephesians 4:8, receiving all authority to judge from another place (Luke 19:12, John 18:36, Matthew 28:18, Romans 2:5, Matthew 26:52) and setting Himself up as the everlasting High Priest of the new covenant (Hebrews 7:23-25).

.. So, even if heaven and earth shall pass away, His word will never pass away, and that is an inescapable fact. For example: Luke 6:37, Matthew 7:21-23, John 14:6, Psalms 139:8.

Click to expand...

mark kennedy said:

In short no, but I don't really believe in the death penalty. I don't know how much it happened under the Old Testament but I don't live in that time.

Click to expand...

ToBeLoved said:

I think I can maybe clarify this a little, hopefully.

Timing in some parts of the Bible is really important and this question, or rather your response (1a) shows how not knowing how this timing is can be confusing and the implementation of the New Covenant it's very important to know that the New Covenant did not begin until when Jesus was almost dead.

What I mean by this is that at the crucifiction, Jesus says "It is finished". That is very, very significant in understanding this because if we think about what the crucifiction was and is, it is when the Father put all of the sins of mankind on His perfect Son, Jesus Christ. It is only AFTER this significant event that sins are forgiven. So the timing in this is of particular significance.

Now, in the Bible reference above in your question, Matthew 5, please notice that Jesus is still alive. The crucifiction has NOT YET taken place. So the meaning that you added in the last portion of the phrase "meaning we don't need to follow it anymore" is AFTER that moment in time right before Jesus death when and AFTER He had suffered and taken all those sins upon Himself.

So, I would put your response in this context.

- Matthew 5 - Jesus was still alive (note fulfill is 'active' in the sense that it is in progress, Jesus is 'fulfilling' the Law, but until Jesus died it was not complete or fulfilled ('past tense).

- Mathew 27 is Jesus death, so you can see there is a progression here and it makes sense as far as chapters are concerned.

After Jesus death, the Old Covenant Law is fulfilled ('past tense') and the New Covenant is in place.

Does that make sense? I can look up the verses if you like

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

I just want to clarify...Your OP is based on Matthew 5 which means Jesus' teachings on moral laws. He did not address the punishments in accordance with the theocratic mandates in the Sinai covenant. Meaning, Jesus addressed the moral laws which transcended even the Sinai covenant (murder/hate, adultery etc) but did not address the Hebrew nation theocratic punishments according to the Sinai covenant. Jesus also did not address purity and ceremonial ordinances of the Sinai covenant. And as @mark kennedy pointed out, Jesus concludes by setting the example to follow in that the Father in Heaven is Perfect so we are to be like Him.

The 'story' continues after Matthew chapter 5. We find out the only one meeting this standard of perfection is when Jesus Christ Son of God submits to the will of the Father and carries His own cross.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

The Sinai covenant was replaced by the New covenant in Christ Jesus. There is no longer an Israel theocratic kingdom/state with center of worship in the temple at Jerusalem. Most of the ceremonial and purity ordnances of the Sinai covenant were fulfilled in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. These were types and shadows of what would come in Messiah. A good reference and detailed study of this can be found in the epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament.

So the OT sacrifices of animals, the washings, the purity rites were fulfilled in Christ. In Matthew 5 Jesus is (as @Tree of Life mentioned in an earlier post) teaching the internal nature of YHWH's Law as contrasted by how the religious authorities of the time deemed the law as external. As Jesus said "You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." (Matthew 23:26)

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

Jesus left us with a Church and a commission to spread the Gospel. He did not leave us with a theocracy as was in the Sinai covenant. The most stringent of church discipline is taught in Matthew 18 where if there is an unrepentant sinner among the church they are to be put out. Nowhere does Christ nor His apostles evoke death for sins or law breaking. Romans 13 addresses such offenses are to be judged by civil authorities.


You guys just love that and the shellfish. There is quite a determination between purity ordinances and moral laws even in the Sinai covenant.

Before the Sinai covenant the moral laws were in effect since "In the Beginning."

For example:

-In Genesis 1:27-28 and Genesis 2:24 YHWH established the one man one woman sexual relationship. This was His design from the beginning.

-That bond was holy to YHWH as we find out adultery was punishable by the experience of the king of Egypt by having Abraham's wife Sarah in his harem Genesis 12:17-20 That not only covers adultery but coveting. The same situation also covered lying. Abraham told a 'white lie' or lied by technicality and it got him into a heap of trouble.

-I don't think I have to explain idolatry was 'frowned upon' before Sinai as well as YHWH in many places says not to worship other gods and that He is a jealous God. Yet we see reaction to this in Genesis 35:2 where Jacob commands his household to get rid of their idols.

-Murder also transcended the Sinai covenant. Genesis 4 Cain murders Abel.

There's more if you want to explore. The moral law was from the beginning. Therefore, fabrics and shellfish were purity ordinances for the Sinai covenant with theocratic Israel. A People YHWH chose to be set apart from the other nations.

Click to expand...

royal priest said:

The "law and the prophets" is an expression which refers to the entire body of the OT scriptures including the historic, narrative, and wisdom literature. Jesus' life and ministry has shed such a light and stamp on the OT Scriptures that their significance can be appreciated now with infinitely greater understanding. The entire OT pointed to that eternal, immutable Christ of God. Luke 24:27
In Jesus, the application of those OT ceremonies and laws have drastically changed, but the principles behind them ie. "love God with all your being, and your neighbor as yourself", have not.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

The moral law is what Jesus is addressing in Matthew 5.

If you can find for me anywhere in the Gospels, any of them where Jesus addresses shellfish and proper fabrics, please show me. Or even Jesus teaching how to properly conduct a heave offering, or not to sleep with your wife while she is defiled from her menstrual cycle.

He did not focus on these purity and ceremonial ordinances because his audience was Jewish and according to the Sinai covenant they were supposed to be doing them. Yet He did not emphasize these, but the moral laws that were written on the hearts of mankind from the beginning when YHWH created us in His image and according to His likeness.

Click to expand...

PamCAID said:

The key is: who is Jesus speaking to. Who is to obey all the laws and teach others to do the same?

Us, the Church? Are we the audience here? No.

From Qualifying for the Kingdom:
Remember, the timing of the Sermon on the Mount is early in Jesus’ ministry to Israel. This isn’t Tribulation talk after His rejection. He’s explaining how to enter the Kingdom that He’s saying is at hand. The Kingdom is coming! Prepare! Get ready — Israel!

Verses
13-16
13. You, blessed people of Israel, are the salt. But you must maintain that saltiness.

14-16. You, blessed people of Israel, are the light. Give light, shine so that others may see your work and glorify God.

Then follows 17-19.

17-19. This is key. We know Jesus fulfilled the Law by keeping it perfectly so the Father would accept His sacrifice on behalf of all who believe, but that’s not the meaning of this passage.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He’s speaking of keeping commandments in the Kingdom! The Kingdom of Heaven, the Millennium, is the Kingdom that was at hand. It is the Kingdom that the Jews had been waiting for. In that Kingdom – whether it came shortly after Jesus’ death and resurrection (if they would have accepted Him as King) or whether it was to be postponed (if they rejected Him, which they did), regardless – there will be Law in the Kingdom. We’ll see some differences between the OT Law pre-death and the Kingdom Law post death in a minute. [See also Jeremiah 31:31-34.]


That's not us. That's not now.

21-48
So now the rest of the chapter are the examples of the Law that will exist in the Kingdom until heaven and earth pass away.

21-26. murder

27-30. adultery

31-32. divorce

33-37. false vows

38-42. eye for an eye

43-48. love

“You have heard” in each topic is OT law.

“But I say to you” in each topic is what will be required in the Kingdom.

See how clear the Bible is once you remove your preconceived notions that we, the Church, are the audience of every section of the Bible!


There's a lot more in the article, that's why I was so slow to respond to your earlier request for info.

Here's part of the closing:
These passages are to Israel, telling them to demonstrate their faith in God by obeying Him. Not outwardly, not for show, but from the heart out of love for Him!

You’ve seen it all along. Outward actions of obedience are not acceptable if inward thoughts/desires didn’t produce them. God knows the difference.

· Love and obey Me, Israel.

· Love and obey Me, Israel.

· Enter My rest.

After the Church Age books of Romans through Philemon, where we see none of the above-mentioned requirement to demonstrate one’s faith to enter the Kingdom (because we’ll enter it in our glorified bodies), Hebrews through Revelation pick right back up again with God giving Kingdom instructions to His people, Israel. Therefore, in these books (Heb. – Rev.) you’ll see the same requirements He gave them previously.

And as John closes out Revelation, which is still outside our Church Age, we see a mirror image of the OT passages to Israel we read earlier. Revelation 22:10-14 10 And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


Again, please read the whole article. I have some (hopefully) helpful charts here on CF Media too.

Click to expand...