Matthew 5:17-20 and Acts 15:5-29

[food4thought]

The Jerusalem Council responds to 2 claims made by 2 different groups.

Claim from group #1(men from Judah) Acts 15:1 - you cannot be saved unless you are circumcised

Claim from group #2(Pharisees who believe in the Messiah) Acts 15:5 Gentiles should be obeying the Law.


Peter addresses claim #1, and explains that Gentiles and Israelites are saved in the same way: by faith Acts 15:7-11

James addresses the claim that Gentiles should obey the law Acts 15:13-21

James gives them commandments to start with, because the Gentiles will hear the Law being ready every Sabbath and learn it over time. Obviously the few commands that he gave we’re not the only things expected of the Gentiles. He didn’t tell them abstain from witchcraft, for example.

Hi Dkh587, thanks for replying!

What theological tradition are you from?

 

[food4thought]

Jesus was making a point that no one can keep the law and if they think they can, it must be greater than the ability of the scribe and Pharisee to do so, in which they claimed they did, but did not, so even they were not righteous enough.
Christ was making a hyperbolic statement.He was overstating the truth so that all will know they need redemption. No one walked away with a sense of security by obeying the Law, Jesus just made it much harder to do so. He did this quite often to prove a point like, cut off your hand, gouge your eye out or just thinking about a sin condemned you as if you committed it. All this to prove the weakness of the flesh and that the coming Holy Spirit is the only answer to redemption and regeneration. It is the only way to achieve righteousness and restore the relationship that perished with Adam and Eve.

Hi Maria, thanks for taking the time to reply!

What theological tradition are you from?

 

[Dkh587]

Hi Dkh587, thanks for replying!

What theological tradition are you from?

Well, I’m no longer associated with any denomination. I have somewhat of a southern Baptist background, but I left all churches and denominations a few years ago. I read and study the scriptures by myself, and visit different home groups in my area on the Sabbath for fellowship.

 

[food4thought]

Jesus begins this section with the assurance that He has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (Matt. 5:17, NKJV). Although there is no reference to it, many see this as a formulaic expression for the entire Old Testament (see also Matt. 7:12, 11:13, 22:40,Luke 16:16, Acts 13:15, 24:14, Rom. 3:21). In spite of what His opponents claimed, Jesus did not attack the very book that revealed the will of His Father. Instead, His purpose was to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to do away with them.

The word used for fulfill (plero) literally means to fill up, or complete. It carries the sense of filling to the brim. There are two ways to understand fulfill. One is to place the emphasis on Jesus as being the fulfillment of Scripture (for example, Luke 24:25-27, John 5:39). However, the key to understanding this text lies in the immediate context, which shows that Jesus did not come to destroy Scripture but to *reveal its inner essence. (ie giving more detail)

Having established His overall intent, Jesus switched emphasis from the Old Testament in general to the law in particular (10 Commandments). Almost as if He knew that people would one day accuse Him of abolishing the law (the 10), He cautions that as long as heaven and earth remain, the law (10 Commandments) will exist until everything is accomplished (Matt. 5:18, NIV). With this statement, Jesus confirms the perpetuity of the law. He helps us to overcome and keep the law, we can not keep them without Him. This is how one starts being transformed into His image and we do strive to do so out of Love for Him and for no other reasons.

John 14
14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. 15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

In fact, the law is so important that all those who violate its precepts will be called the least in the kingdom. Jesus is quick to point out that He is not promoting the empty righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees but instead a righteousness springing from a heart that loves God and seeks to do His will. He was saying that they (the Pharisees) are wrong in what they are doing.

* Example: (revealing inner essences of law)

Murder (Matt. 5:21-26)
After He clarified His intention to uphold the law, Jesus started to explain a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. He begins by citing the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13) and summarizing, from the law of Moses, the penalty for violation (Exod. 21:12, Lev. 24:17).

The sixth commandment does not include all cases in which one person kills another. In cases of manslaughter, a person could flee to a city of refuge and gain temporary asylum (Exod. 21:13, Num. 35:12). However, one who intentionally took another's life would receive swift judgment. In His explanation, Jesus does not focus on the act itself but on the motive and intents of the one who commits the act. One might take a life accidentally, but the person who purposes to take a life has gone through a period of deliberation. The sin took place before the person even carried out the terrible deed. Many potential murderers are stopped only by a lack of opportunity.

Jesus provided inner detail/explanation of Law (the 10), He did not abolish them. He filled the Law fuller, magnified the law, provided more detail about the law (the 10).

In Acts 15 (ceremonial/sacrificial law)

Some Jewish believers expected Gentiles to be circumcised and “to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). It could be that, according to them, Gentiles would be keeping the law of Moses by being circumcised, but perhaps they had in mind something else. Peter seems to suggest that the problem included ritual laws of uncleanliness. Speaking of the Gentiles, he says that God “made no distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith” (verse 9). In other words, God did for both Jews and Gentiles what the ritual ceremonial laws could not do, i.e., He purified their hearts (Acts 10:15; 11:9).

What laws were abolished? the ceremonial/sacrificial laws

The ceremonial law consisted of ordinances, ceremonies and sacrifices in the sanctuary system that pointed to the future redemption through Jesus Christ. This law typified the mysteries contained in the plan of redemption in Jesus.

After Christ’s death, the ceremonial law is no longer to be observed. Therefore "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath daysexcluding the 7th day Sabbath, because it's part of the 10) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:14-17). The laws consisting in ordinances, typifying Christ’s death were the ones nailed on the cross, "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace" (Ephesians 2:15). "For the law having a shadow of good things to come (pointing to Christ), and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (Hebrews 10:1).

Very important when the word law or laws appears in scripture to read in context carefully to determine what law or laws are being referred to.

I have no tradition, no denomination, I love the Lord and I study His Word and depend on Him to guide me through day by day.

Apologize for the post being so long. ;o) God Bless.

Hi eleos1954, thanks for replying!

I don't think it is possible to divvy up the Law that way... James 2:10 indicates that the Law is a unit, and in the immediate context he quotes both in and outside the Ten Commandments.

God bless;
Michael

 

[food4thought]

No he didn't.

Yes He did.

Matthew 5:18-19 NASB "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 said it right there ^

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the law. The Jewish law, with its sacrificial system and laws about foods etc that would make you clean and holy, was fulfilled in Jesus. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29; it is by his blood that we are forgiven and cleansed, 1 John 1:7-9, not the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 10:4, Hebrews 9:13. Jesus also taught that it is not what we put into our mouths that makes us unclean, but what comes out of it - our words, attitudes etc, Mark 7:14-15.
If anyone had been able to keep the Jewish law correctly and 100% perfectly, of course they would have been great in the kingdom of heaven - doing God's will and command 24/7. But the fact is that no one was able to keep it perfectly; Jesus is the only person who has been perfect and lived perfectly.
If we follow, obey and receive Jesus, our righteousness DOES exceed that of the Pharisees, because they rejected him; their Messiah, the Son of God and Holy One of Israel. Paul says that Jesus became sin for us so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God, 2 Corinthians 5:21. Only in Christ are we reconciled to God, Romans 5:11, have peace with God, Romans 5:1 and are forgiven and cleansed, 1 John 1:9. Only in Christ do we have every spiritual blessing, Ephesians 1:3. Jesus alone is the One who saves, Acts of the Apostles 4:12, gives eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40 and gives us his Spirit. It is through the Spirit that we are born again, John 3:3, and without being born again we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Yes.

Even keeping the Jewish law perfectly could not have brought all these blessings. If they had managed it, they would have known what it was to live with God as their king - obeying him, walking with him, trusting him etc etc. But as people proved, time and time again, it was impossible to keep the Jewish law perfectly.

I agree.

When the Apostles preached the Gospel there were Jews who said, "yes, but Gentiles STILL have to be circumcised before they can be saved." This was false teaching, the church discussed it in Acts 15 and Paul later taught strongly against it. At this point, the early church were almost all Jews and they were still working out how their new faith in Jesus fitted with what they had always been taught regarding holiness etc. It's possible that they thought that refraining from eating meat with blood in it - which had always been forbidden for them - was still sensible and to be obeyed. In time, though, they dropped even this; Paul taught that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, 1 Corinthians 8:8. He taught that food offered to idols means nothing, since idols are nothing, and it didn't matter whether a person ate meat offered to idols or not. I don't see this as a contradiction of Acts 15:29 - only evidence that his faith had developed, grown and his understanding of it and the Jewish law, had changed.

Paul did teach that we should not knowingly eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10:14-22)... and my understanding is that this restriction still stands, along with eating blood and sexual immorality (in all it's forms) (Acts of the Apostles 15:20).

What theological tradition are you from?

 

[RaymondG]

We must follow the law until the law is fulfilled in us...as indicated in Matthew.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One passage (Mat 5) says we have to keep the whole Law of Moses (down to the least pen stroke), while the other (Acts 15) tells us that there are only a few commands from the Law of Moses that we as Gentiles must obey. Which of these passages are we to follow?

Matthew 5 is referring to the "Law and the Prophets." (See: Matthew 5:17). The "Law" portion (i.e. the Old Law, not the New Law) of the "Law and the Prophets" has been fulfilled at the cross. The "Prophets" portion of the "Law and the Prophets" has NOT been fulfilled yet because there are still many end times future prophecies from the OT that have yet to come to pass.

Jesus did not come to destroy or abolish all forms of Law, either. He came to fulfill the Law into it's true intended purpose with the giving of the New Testament commands at the Sermon on the Mount, etc. and with the commands given to us by His followers.

Jesus was teaching New Covenant primarily and not Old Covenant.

How so?

Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
(Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
(Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).


The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).


The Old Way says:
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).


The Old Way says:
"And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.


The Old Way says:
20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).


Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
(Galatians 5:2).


The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
(Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
(John 1:17).

Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Colossians 2:14).

The ordinances that were against us (that Christ nailed to the cross) were all the ceremonial laws, like circumcision, the Saturday Sabbath, animal sacrifices, and the judicial laws, like the carry out of stoning for breaking God's laws. Christ was fulfilling the Law into it's final intended purpose of making it more about loving God and loving one's neighbor in a more perfect way (with the commands that come from Jesus and His followers in the pages of the New Testament).

The Old Law (that is no more) showed that God is a rewarder to those who follow Him, and that He is a punisher to those who do evil or sin. The Old Law (that is no more) also pointed to Jesus Christ, as well.

 

[fhansen]

Hello everyone! I am wondering how different theological traditions reconcile these two passages. Please let me know what tradition you are from and how you go about making sense of this apparent contradiction.

God bless you!
Michael

The problem arises only when we interpret Paul’s words as meaning that, under the New Covenant, man is now free to escape his obligation to be righteous. But the opposite of this is the case; the NC now frees and enables man to be righteous, but the right way, finally, by the Spirit, under grace, via communion with God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’.

And this is exactly what Jesus was saying, and doing. This easily exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees since their “righteousness” was merely an external show of it, while leaving them whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside only.

We must understand that with the New Covenant God not only forgives but also sets us on a new course, the course He’s always intended for man, the course of truth and obedience, and righteousness, the course of love, to put it most succinctly. He loves us too much and wants too much for us to do less than that, to leave us in our sin.

The Law is not abolished; we now have the means to fulfill it, and faith is the beginning and doorway to this new way, because it’s the doorway to God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe Jesus was saying that I come not to abolish all forms of Law but to fulfill the Law into it's true intended purpose with the commands given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers. The Old Law is no more as a whole or package deal, but that does not mean certain laws (like the Moral Law, i.e. love God, love your neighbor, or: Do not murder, Do not covet, do not steal, etc.) has not been repeated or carried over with the giving of the New Covenant Laws (by Jesus and His followers).

In short, we are New Covenant believers and not Old Covenant believers.
The temple veil was torn from top to bottom (not bottom to top) letting us know that God had ended the laws on animal sacrifices from the Old Covenant Law of Moses. A testament is not in force unless the testator (Jesus) dies.

A New Covenant would naturally include New Commands or New Law that would supersede the previous Covenant and laws.
We do not put old wine into new wine skins.
Scripture says that the Law is lawful, if one uses it lawfully.
I believe this is referring to God's Eternal Moral Laws (that one would instinctively know - i.e. the law that the Gentiles would sometimes obey without having the Law; It was a law that was written within their hearts, i.e. the Moral Law).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello everyone! I am wondering how different theological traditions reconcile these two passages. Please let me know what tradition you are from and how you go about making sense of this apparent contradiction.

God bless you!
Michael

As for my Theological Tradition or church affiliation?
Well, I am non denominational and I do not hold to any specific one church organization in what they say as if it was the Word of God. My Theological training is from merely studying God's Word on my own with the help of asking the Lord our God. I like to compare Scripture with Scripture to confirm the truth of God's Word and like to read the Bible in it's most plain meaning (unless the context or a cross reference suggests otherwise in the fact that certain words may be metaphorical).

To see an example of a commonly misunderstood story in the Bible because folks do not understand the Bible's metaphors involved, check out this thread here:

Biblical Metaphors Shed Light on Ham's Sin in Noah's Tent.

Anyways, I am a Trinitarian Sola Scriptura Christian who believes "God's grace + Works of Faith = Salvation." The only other Trinitarian Sola Scriptura church I am aware of that believes as I do exists on the Eastern seaboard. They are called: "Christ's Sanctified Holy Church."

Christ's Sanctified Holy Church-Holiness unto the Lord

I am looking forward to visiting them (via by plane) this year (if it is the Lord's will).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello everyone! I am wondering how different theological traditions reconcile these two passages. Please let me know what tradition you are from and how you go about making sense of this apparent contradiction.

God bless you!
Michael

Think of the Law in being kind of like an apple seed. If I took a hammer and smashed the apple seed, I would be abolishing or destroying the Law altogether in it's entirety. But if I took that apple seed and planted it into the ground and watered it, and I fed it proper nutrients, the apple seed could grow into an apple tree (Which is it's intended fulfilled purpose).

In other words, the Old Law is fulfilled by the New Law (Which was given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers). For many of the New Laws conflict with the Laws in the Old Covenant. One cannot obey both the Old Covenant Law and the New Covenant Law. It is impossible. These two different sets of Laws (i.e. the Old and the New) conflict with each other.

 

[fhansen]

Think of the Law in being kind of like an apple seed. If I took a hammer and smashed the apple seed, I would be abolishing or destroying the Law altogether in it's entirety. But if I took that apple seed and planted it into the ground and watered it, and I fed it proper nutrients, the apple seed could grow into an apple tree (Which is it's intended fulfilled purpose).

In other words, the Old Law is fulfilled by the New Law (Which was given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers). For many of the New Laws conflict with the Laws in the Old Covenant. One cannot obey both the Old Covenant Law and the New Covenant Law. It is impossible. These two different sets of Laws (i.e. the Old and the New) conflict with each other.

I believe that the obligation for man to be righteous remains with the New Covenant but that's its now fulfilled a new way, the right way, with intimate partnership with God, a relationship man wasn't ready for previously but which we can all become ready for now as we're able to understand and accept God's offer.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe that the obligation for man to be righteous remains with the New Covenant but that's its now fulfilled a new way, the right way, with intimate partnership with God, a relationship man wasn't ready for previously but which we can all become ready for now as we're able to understand and accept God's offer.

Right, I believe we cannot obey without first accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior, seeking His forgiveness, and in believing in His death and resurrection. This continues as a part of a believer's walk with the Lord. But God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world. But godly to which laws or commands? The Old Covenant Laws? Or the New Covenant Laws? I say we are to be godly according to the New Covenant Laws primarily speaking and not by the Old Laws. For no man can mix new wine into old wine skins.

 

[~Zao~]

Hi, LoreneDD!

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. And what theological tradition are you from?

God bless;
Michael

saying that there is not distinction between Greek, Jew, slave, free, male, female since Christ returned. When the law and the prophets were set with Christ on the mount of transfiguration there were no room made for them but Christ alone we were told to listen to. Who do you think that was said to? God repeated it in Hebrews 1 to establish that it was for everyone that came out of the beginning of His works. Levi was/is not the form of worship anymore.

"8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us.”

Most of my training was derived from Puritan study.

 

[food4thought]

We must follow the law until the law is fulfilled in us...as indicated in Matthew.

Hi, RaymondG, thanks for the reply! Could you elaborate on that a bit? I am not sure I follow you.

Also, what theological tradition are you coming from?

Thanks in advance;
Michael

 

[1213]

One passage (Mat 5) says we have to keep the whole Law of Moses (down to the least pen stroke), while the other (Acts 15) tells us that there are only a few commands from the Law of Moses that we as Gentiles must obey. Which of these passages are we to follow?

If you are a disciple of Jesus, follow Jesus and live by his teachings.

I think the message is, all laws are valid still, they are good and right. But there are many alleviations. Like for example in OT it was allowed that people can divorce, all though it is not right. Same is with the other “minor” rules. Person does well, if he lives by the commandments, but it is not condition. Wrong reason to obey is that you try to gain salvation by doing so, right reason is that you love God.


For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[food4thought]

Matthew 5 is referring to the "Law and the Prophets." (See: Matthew 5:17). The "Law" portion (i.e. the Old Law, not the New Law) of the "Law and the Prophets" has been fulfilled at the cross. The "Prophets" portion of the "Law and the Prophets" has NOT been fulfilled yet because there are still many end times future prophecies from the OT that have yet to come to pass.

Jesus did not come to destroy or abolish all forms of Law, either. He came to fulfill the Law into it's true intended purpose with the giving of the New Testament commands at the Sermon on the Mount, etc. and with the commands given to us by His followers.

Jesus was teaching New Covenant primarily and not Old Covenant.

What does Matthew 5:19 mean then?

How so?

Jesus clearly was making changes to the Law (even before the cross):
(Which means He was not teaching primarily Old Covenant, but New Covenant):

I disagree. The teaching of the Sermon on the mount, particularly chapter 5, is definitely OT teaching. The way I see it, Jesus was magnifying the Law in order to demonstrate it's true intent.

The Old Way says:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
(Matthew 5:38 cf. Exodus 21:23-25).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39).

Jesus was correcting the false teaching that the "eye for an eye" precept was applicable to personal retaliation. In it's context, it was supposed to be the limiting factor for the punishment inflicted by the judge for a crime.

The Old Way says:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21 cf. Numbers 35:30-32).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22).

This time Jesus includes a saying from the Jewish traditions along with quoting from Deuteronomy 5:17. Jesus again magnifies the Law to it's original intent, which was to deal with the heart, and also corrects the tradition of the Jews.

The Old Way says:
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:" (Matthew 5:34 cf. Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 23:21).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
34 "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:34-37).

The traditions of the Jews made it so one could seem to someone else to be swearing a binding oath, but have no intention of keeping it (see Matthew 23:16-22). Jesus says that in ordinary life our honesty should be sufficient that we need not even take on oath. Note that Paul uses an oath to verify his words in 2 Corinthians 1:23. He is not abrogating the command to fulfill one's oath, but He is saying it should not even be necessary to take an oath.

The Old Way says:
"And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant." (Psalms 143:12).

"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent." (Joshua 6:17).

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21).

16 "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee" (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them" (Psalms 106:34).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matthew 5:44).

Note: Yes, I am aware that the Old Way (Old Testament) also teaches to love one's enemies (Exodus 23:4-5) (Proverbs 25:21), but this was in context to their own Israelite people, and not pagan nations. Pagan nations were to be destroyed when God commanded the Israelites to destroy them. But Jesus taught a radically different way. Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you, and to pray for those who persecute you.

Again, I see this as correcting the traditions of the Jews that say it is ok to hate one's enemy (even among the Israeli people), and thus nullify the command to love one's neighbor. I don't think that military considerations were in Jesus' view in this passage.

The Old Way says:
20 "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 22:20-22).

4 "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:4-5).

The New Way (by Jesus) says:
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. " (John 8:7).

That passage in John is not in the most ancient manuscripts. It may be that it was in the original autographs, but I won't use that passage to make doctrine because it might not have been.

Even after the cross, there were changes being made:

The Old Covenant says this about circumcision:
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:14).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about circumcision:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
(Galatians 5:2).


The Old Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
32 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers 15:32-36).

Yet, the New Covenant says this about the Sabbath:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:" (Colossians 2:16).

So it appears things have changed.

Yes, it is clear that our relationship to the Law of Moses has radically changed post cross. This is why Matthew 5:19 is so difficult to interpret.

This makes sense because again, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
(Hebrews 7:12).

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
(John 1:17).

Jesus said,
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17).

Yep.

Jesus came not to abolish the Law (in the sense of destroying all forms of Law), but Jesus came to fulfill the Law (i.e. to nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us [like the Old Covenant ceremonial laws], and Jesus came to give us a more fulfilled and perfect way of obeying God via the commands that come directly from Him and His followers). For Jesus offered a more perfect way of loving God, and loving our neighbor (Which of course is only possible via if we are first saved by God's grace through faith).

I believe the Law of Moses is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), it has been set aside by the New Covenant, which is much better.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Colossians 2:14).

The ordinances that were against us (that Christ nailed to the cross) were all the ceremonial laws, like circumcision, the Saturday Sabbath, animal sacrifices, and the judicial laws, like the carry out of stoning for breaking God's laws. Christ was fulfilling the Law into it's final intended purpose of making it more about loving God and loving one's neighbor in a more perfect way (with the commands that come from Jesus and His followers in the pages of the New Testament).

The Old Law (that is no more) showed that God is a rewarder to those who follow Him, and that He is a punisher to those who do evil or sin. The Old Law (that is no more) also pointed to Jesus Christ, as well.

I believe the entire Old Covenant has been blotted out. Only the commands of the New Testament are binding on Christians. True, some of the commands are the same, but we do not relate to God through legal obedience anymore, but we relate to Him by grace through faith, mediated by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Thank you for taking the time to give such a thorough answer!

God bless!
Michael

 

[~Zao~]

I believe the entire Old Covenant has been blotted out. Only the commands of the New Testament are binding on Christians. True, some of the commands are the same, but we do not relate to God through legal obedience anymore, but we relate to Him by grace through faith, mediated by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Do you mean that the only binding things are those of Paul’s gospel? If so, do you mean the letters or the spiritual application? PS I’m still awaiting the answer to my other question in my last post, about the mount of transfiguration as it relates to Heb 1

 

[food4thought]

The problem arises only when we interpret Paul’s words as meaning that, under the New Covenant, man is now free to escape his obligation to be righteous. But the opposite of this is the case; the NC now frees and enables man to be righteous, but the right way, finally, by the Spirit, under grace, via communion with God, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’.

I agree. I would clarify that our righteousness is not through a better obedience to the Law, but that our righteousness is of Christ, and our obedience is to the Holy Spirit.

The Law is not abolished; we now have the means to fulfill it, and faith is the beginning and doorway to this new way, because it’s the doorway to God.

We fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law by obeying the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:4)… ultimately, this is done by loving God and loving our neighbors, which the Holy Spirit invariably leads us to do. We are not under Law, but under grace.

 

[food4thought]

Do you mean that the only binding things are those of Paul’s gospel? If so, do you mean the letters or the spiritual application?

No... I am loosely an Acts 2 Dispensationalist. Only the more radical ultra-dispensationalists would go there. BUT... I believe much of what Jesus said, including Matthew 5:19, was delivered to Jews under the Law; so even though we can take spiritual principals from His teaching and apply them to ourselves, we are not required to keep the Law nor are we to teach others to do so... that teaching was for Jews under the Law (which will also apply in the Millennial Kingdom, but not the current church age).

I apologize for not making that clear up front. I am just trying to see if there is a better way of dealing with Matthew 5 and Acts 15 than my current understanding, without dealing with all the dispensationalist bashing. To be honest, though, I have difficulty relegating ANYTHING Jesus says to a different dispensation! But Matthew 5:19, among other teachings of Jesus (like forgiveness of sins being contingent on our forgiving others unilaterally, Matthew 6:14-15), seems to be opposed to other New Testament teachings (mostly Paul's teachings). The obvious implication (to me, anyway) is that there are different teachings because God was dealing with people differently (always by grace through faith, but the content of that faith differed).


For example: what gospel was Jesus preaching (Mark 1:15)? It was not His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)! It was the Gospel of the offering of the Kingdom to Israel. Once they rejected that offer, then Jesus began teaching His disciples about His coming death and resurrection, and only after Pentecost did the Apostles deliver the gospel that we are currently saved under.

I am still trying to sort it all out, though. So I appreciate the input from other theological positions, but so far I haven't read a better way of dealing with these passages.

God bless you!
Michael