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

[food4thought]

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

So you think that the Law of Moses is still binding on Christians today?

 

[~Zao~]

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

As far as the dispensation found in revelation I’m in agreement that the judgement is on the nation of Israel, but not from Rev 1:1 onward as someone like Bullinger describes it, that the church is indeed invisible in most of the bible. He has a lot to say about other things that I agree with but the rest is not so believable. Might as well just not have a bible at all for all the good it does according to him. It’s just history past and history future with a few words thrown in by Paul to give us an idea that we have a guide in that Apostle. Well, truly my apostle is Christ Hebrews 3:1[ Moses a Servant, Christ a Son ] Therefore, brothers and sisters, holy partners in a heavenly calling, consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,.... and the only way that I can find meaning in what he says is to understand Christ. Not only that but I find his binding to be according to that of the time of Daniel and his logic is to throw half of Christianity into the lions den. So no, there’s more to answer to than that.

 

[food4thought]

As far as the dispensation found in revelation I’m in agreement that the judgement is on the nation of Israel, but not from Rev 1:1 onward as someone like Bullinger describes it, that the church is indeed invisible in most of the bible. He has a lot to say about other things that I agree with but the rest is not so believable. Might as well just not have a bible at all for all the good it does according to him. It’s just history past and history future with a few words thrown in by Paul to give us an idea that we have a guide in that Apostle. Well, truly my apostle is Christ Hebrews 3:1[ Moses a Servant, Christ a Son ] Therefore, brothers and sisters, holy partners in a heavenly calling, consider that Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,.... and the only way that I can find meaning in what he says is to understand Christ. Not only that but I find his binding to be according to that of the time of Daniel and his logic is to throw half of Christianity into the lions den. So no, there’s more to answer to than that.

I am not familiar with Bullinger… he may be an ultra-dispensationalist from what I can gather from your post. There are quite a few of them out there, but I can't accept relegating everything but a few of Paul's epistles to the junk-bin of history or fulfillment in the Kingdom. I believe that the entirety of the New Testament Epistles are binding on Christians (all of Paul's writings, plus Peter, James, John, and Jude)… the question I still have is this: how much of what Jesus said in the Gospels is binding upon Christians today? I would love to say all of it, but passages like Matthew 5:17-20 make that difficult, I cannot reconcile that with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (particularly Paul).

God bless;
Michael

 

[~Zao~]

I am not familiar with Bullinger… he may be an ultra-dispensationalist from what I can gather from your post. There are quite a few of them out there, but I can't accept relegating everything but a few of Paul's epistles to the junk-bin of history or fulfillment in the Kingdom. I believe that the entirety of the New Testament Epistles are binding on Christians (all of Paul's writings, plus Peter, James, John, and Jude)… the question I still have is this: how much of what Jesus said in the Gospels is binding upon Christians today? I would love to say all of it, but passages like Matthew 5:17-20 make that difficult, I cannot reconcile that with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (particularly Paul).

God bless;
Michael

I believe the same blindness is upon you that is on the Jews. Blinded by the physical in not seeing the spiritual.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What does Matthew 5:19 mean then?

Below is my commentary to the text:

17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law [i.e. to destroy all forms of law altogether], or the prophets [i.e. the Law and the prophets He came to fulfill and not just the Law alone; For there are many OT prophecies of the End Times that Jesus has yet to fulfill]: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil [Note: Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws, like the commands to be circumcised, to keep the Saturday Sabbath, and the dietary laws, etc. by nailing these ordinances to the cross - See Colossians 2:14-17; Jesus also fulfilled the Old Law with the fruition or the bringing in of the New Covenant Law - by which He was giving men at the sermon on the Mount].
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law [i.e. the Law and the Prophets], till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments [the commandments that He is speaking on the Sermon on the Mount that are New Covenant teachings], and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them [i.e. New Covenant teachings He was giving at the Sermon on the Mount], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19).

An example of "the least" type commandments:

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake." (Matthew 5:11-12).​

This is a new teaching that was not taught before; And not rejoicing when somebody persecutes you is not a major violation of loving God and loving your neighbor.

An example of "the greatest" type commandments:

"If your right eye causes you to offend, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell; And if your right hand causes you to offend, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell."(Matthew 5:29-30).​

This is a new teaching that was not taught before; And looking at another in lust is said to be a loss of one's salvation status because they can be cast bodily into hell fire for looking at another in lust.

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.

I disagree. The contrast of the Scripture verses I had shown to you in my previous post proves otherwise, my friend.

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.

No. Nowhere does Jesus say anything of the kind. Jesus counters this OT saying by saying, "But I say unto you.... turn the other cheek. Love your enemies, etc."

This is a clearly a contrast of "an eye for an eye."

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.

No. No OT verse or passage teaches such a thing. It is a new teaching by Jesus.

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.

I disagree. Jesus is saying to make no oaths at all. Those are the plain words of Jesus. 2 Corinthians 1:23 does not specifically say that this is an oath made by Paul. Paul is merely calling upon God to take witness or record of what he was doing.

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.

I believe it was because Jesus's teachings are consistent. Jesus rebuked Peter for taking up his sword and He told Peter that He could have called down a ton of angels to protect him and said that he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Jesus then undid Peter's damage by healing his enemy's ear. So Jesus surely loved his enemy here. He not only told us to do so, but He set an example by his actions, as well. If Jesus wanted to show how we are to react violently in return to a military threat, He surely would have given us an example during His earthly ministry.

Yes, I am aware that Jesus will return to destroy all enemy nations that will come up against Him, but this after the saints have lived out their faith. The saints that will follow Him are disembodied saints who lived out their faith already.

To learn more about the New Testament's teaching on Non-Resistance, check out this thread here:

Nonresistance as Taught in the New Testament is Moral and Good.

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.

The Bible proves itself to be divine in both the Hebrew, Greek, and in the English (i.e. the King James). People say you cannot prove the Bible. I say... "Yes, you can!" The Bible is divine in origin, friend. All of it. It's all true.

Here is a Blogger article (I created) that shows forth some evidences that the Bible is divine in origin:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

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.

It took me a while to figure it out, but through prayer, and comparing Scripture with Scripture, I was able to harmonize the whole of Scripture with no problem on this matter (by which I have shown). By comparing Scripture with Scripture it becomes clear in what it says. Jesus is referring to New Covenant teachings in Matthew 5:19, and He is referring to New Covenant teachings when He says the word "fulfill" in context to God's laws in Matthew 5:17.

The whole context is the Sermon on the Mount (Which are teachings that did not exist prior to Jesus). The Law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Yep.

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

But you believe Jesus taught Old Covenant primarily before the NT Covenant officially went into effect with His death. This is a contradiction not only because it goes against what Jesus plainly said, but it also goes against Paul saying that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ, he is proud and he knows nothing in 1 Timothy 6:3-4.

I believe the entire Old Covenant has been blotted out. Only the commands of the New Testament are binding on Christians.

I am glad and relieved to hear that. I was afraid that you believed that certain OT laws were still binding for Christians to obey today (like the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, etc.).

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.

I disagree, friend. Salvation was always by "Grace through faith + Works of Faith." Hebrews 11 clearly shows that the heroes of faith had brought forth works of faith as a part of their faith or trust in God. For faith without works is dead (James 2:17). We are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God has chosen us to salvation by the Sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth. So we need to have a belief in Jesus and we need to have the Sanctification (holy living via the Spirit) as a part of salvation.

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

You are most welcome.

God bless!
Michael

May God's goodness be upon you.

 

[food4thought]

I believe the same blindness is upon you that is on the Jews. Blinded by the physical in not seeing the spiritual.

Thank you for the encouraging words in support of my search for truth

 

[fhansen]

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.



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.

I agree. But I'd add that there is one variable however, that can still undermine the Holy Spirit's working in us. And that's us.

 

[food4thought]

I disagree, friend. Salvation was always by "Grace through faith + Works of Faith." Hebrews 11 clearly shows that the heroes of faith had brought forth works of faith as a part of their faith or trust in God. For faith without works is dead (James 2:17). We are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God has chosen us to salvation by the Sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth. So we need to have a belief in Jesus and we need to have the Sanctification (holy living via the Spirit) as a part of salvation.

I agree that living faith always results in works, and sanctification is a necessary part of our Christian experience.

 

[food4thought]

I agree. But I'd add that there is one variable however, that can still undermine the Holy Spirit's working in us. And that's us.

Don't I know it. Our carnal nature can separate us from fellowship with God if we let it. Praise God for His great mercy upon us!

 

[klutedavid]

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

You quoted from John's first letter to support the idea that we must obey the law.

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

It appears at first glance that John is saying you must obey all the commandments in the law.

Though you neglected to quote the commandments that John presented later in that first letter.

John 3:23-24
This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him.

So John is not talking about the commandments in the law, rather John is directly quoting the two commandments.

If you dance around in the New Testament quoting from here and there, and disregarding the entire context of each letter. You will end up with many different interpretations, which will generate endless contention and strife.

 

[Strong in Him]

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;​

​

Whoever annuls them shall be called least in the kingdom - that is not the same as saying that all Gentiles have to keep them.
I'm not annulling the Jewish law; to those to whom it was given and currently still live under it, it is important. But I'm not, and never have been, under the Jewish law - and even if I ever was, Christ has fulfilled it. Nowhere did Jesus teach "come to me, have eternal life and keep the law", or "no one can come to the Father except through me, and keeping the law."
As far as the Pharisees were concerned, Jesus broke the law (he didn't, but that's what they thought). He healed on the Sabbath, touched a dead girl and a woman who was haemorrhaging, miked with Gentiles and declared all foods to be clean, Mark 7:19. He was far more concerned about people than rituals - yet he still said that he came to fulfil the law.

Paul did teach that we should not knowingly eat meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10:14-22)...

No, in this passage he says, "Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No".(1 Corinthians 10:19.)
This is what he also says in 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "we know that an idol is nothing and there is only one God." In THIS chapter he says that they can eat meat offered to an idol, because it means nothing and they themselves know there is only one God. They should only refrain from eating meat offered to idols if it offends someone else, or if a weaker Christian would then follow their example and worry that they had sinned.
Paul says in chapter 10, " but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons ..... and I do not want you to participate with demons." Maybe he was saying, "it doesn't mean anything - as you know there is only one God, but in case it has connections with demons, it would be better not to do it."

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).

Neither Jesus nor the 12 taught that it does - and even Paul says that the food we eat does not bring us closer to God; that we are not better off if we abstain, nor worse off if we eat.

What theological tradition are you from?

Don't know really.
Brought up C of E, have attended Baptist, Methodist and Independent/free churches; currently a Methodist preacher in a Methodist/URC church. Would very much like to be no denomination at all.

 

[~Zao~]

Thank you for the encouraging words in support of my search for truth

I’m sorry, I should know better than to resort to shock value to promote a point. But the blindness against the spirituality that Christ inaugurated is the point that I see as the division between rock and sand. Those who are still of the law are not just the Israelites. Abraham had many children. Only those of Sarah are of the promise. Abraham was promised descendants as the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven. As Daniel points out it is those who are toward the saving of souls who shall shine as stars. The heavenly Jerusalem is not the same as the earthly Jerusalem. Why would Jesus be promoting n establishment that He knew for fact was to be destroyed? But that is what you are saying is it not?

 

[food4thought]

I agree that living faith always results in works, and sanctification is a necessary part of our Christian experience.

I should qualify that statement by saying our works do not save us, they only demonstrate our thankfulness towards God for saving us, and demonstrate that we are truly saved

 

[food4thought]

I’m sorry, I should know better than to resort to shock value to promote a point. But the blindness against the spirituality that Christ inaugurated is the point that I see as the division between rock and sand. Those who are still of the law are not just the Israelites. Abraham had many children. Only those of Sarah are of the promise. Abraham was promised descendants as the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven. As Daniel points out it is those who are toward the saving of souls who shall shine as stars. The heavenly Jerusalem is not the same as the earthly Jerusalem. Why would Jesus be promoting n establishment that He knew for fact was to be destroyed? But that is what you are saying is it not?

I apologize for resorting to sarcasm in response.

Just to be clear, I do not think Christians are under the Law.

As for the last two sentences... I am not certain what you mean. Revelation and Isaiah clearly say that we look forward to a new heavens and new earth. This entire creation will be destroyed and replaced with one where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:10-13).

 

[~Zao~]

I apologize for resorting to sarcasm in response.

Just to be clear, I do not think Christians are under the Law.

As for the last two sentences... I am not certain what you mean. Revelation and Isaiah clearly say that we look forward to a new heavens and new earth. This entire creation will be destroyed and replaced with one where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:10-13).

Np. What would debate be without friendly insults.

That really brings it to a dispensational topic when discussing when eternity begins or whether there is a kingdom set up between. But as I mentioned I believe that inheritance depends on being of the new creation, that Jesus began, or being subject to the same inheritance as the Jews because of disbelief.

The results are seen in the millennium. Eternity, otoh, is a gathering together of all, beloved and former wife into one at the new heaven and new earth.

But honestly I try to stay away from speculation as much as possible.

Yet at that point where Christ is being dismissed and Paul raised in His place is where I draw the line. I knew that it’s not Catholics as much as Protestants that were promoting that and when I discover that it stemmed from Dispensationalist heresy ,,, well ,, less than impressed because it is also my background that was being distorted.

 

[~Zao~]

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.

Most of my training was derived from Puritan study.

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

I’m sorry, I should know better than to resort to shock value to promote a point. But the blindness against the spirituality that Christ inaugurated is the point that I see as the division between rock and sand. Those who are still of the law are not just the Israelites. Abraham had many children. Only those of Sarah are of the promise. Abraham was promised descendants as the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven. As Daniel points out it is those who are toward the saving of souls who shall shine as stars. The heavenly Jerusalem is not the same as the earthly Jerusalem. Why would Jesus be promoting n establishment that He knew for fact was to be destroyed? But that is what you are saying is it not?

I also don’t think any of my questions have been adequately answered. : (

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I also don’t think any of my questions have been adequately answered. : ( Why would Jesus be promoting n establishment that He knew for fact was to be destroyed?

I agree. It does not make sense that Jesus would be establishing something like the NT teachings (like the Sermon on the Mount) to merely later destroy them quickly thereafter. It makes no sense for Him to do that.

Side Note:

I know the common reason why folks want to make Jesus's words say something else other than what He plainly meant. It would mean that if Jesus's words before the cross did not apply today, then believers today cannot be condemned by His words. However, Jesus words still apply today and He warned us about how sin can destroy us. Certain words of Jesus that warned us against how sin can destroy our souls would be like: Looking at another in lust (Matthew 5:28-30), not forgiving others (Matthew 6:15), not helping the poor (Matthew 25:31-46), etc.

In fact, Paul says that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine according to godliness, they are proud and they know nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). Jesus says if any man does not receive His words, those words will judge them on the last day (John 12:48). How can the words of Jesus judge us on the last day if they do not apply to us? Yet, most I talk with today do not believe these portions of Scripture in what they plainly say.

 

[pasifika]

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?

Hello, i couldn't find the passage where Jesus said we Have to keep the whole Law of Moses...

What the Law testify (Law of Moses) is fulfilled in Christ...

 

[Guojing]

Hello, i couldn't find the passage where Jesus said we Have to keep the whole Law of Moses...

What the Law testify (Law of Moses) is fulfilled in Christ...

Matthew 5:19 is one

 

[Guojing]

I agree. It does not make sense that Jesus would be establishing something like the NT teachings (like the Sermon on the Mount) to merely later destroy them quickly thereafter. It makes no sense for Him to do that.

Side Note:

I know the common reason why folks want to make Jesus's words say something else other than what He plainly meant. It would mean that if Jesus's words before the cross did not apply today, then believers today cannot be condemned by His words. However, Jesus words still apply today and He warned us about how sin can destroy us. Certain words of Jesus that warned us against how sin can destroy our souls would be like: Looking at another in lust (Matthew 5:28-30), not forgiving others (Matthew 6:15), not helping the poor (Matthew 25:31-46), etc.

In fact, Paul says that if any man does not agree with the words of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine according to godliness, they are proud and they know nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). Jesus says if any man does not receive His words, those words will judge them on the last day (John 12:48). How can the words of Jesus judge us on the last day if they do not apply to us? Yet, most I talk with today do not believe these portions of Scripture in what they plainly say.

Its because you missed the "biggest plot twist" in the history of scripture, in mid Acts when, one year after they crucified Jesus on the cross (Luke 13:8-9), the Jewish nation refused to accept Jesus as their Messiah and stoned his messenger Stephen.

God the Father then revealed a grand plan to reach the Gentiles, that was hidden in his mind only, since the creation of the world. Ephesians 3:9