Morality and Matthew 5

[Athée]

Hi Christians,

It's your friendly neighbourhood atheist again. Awhile ago I posted a thread about Matthew 5 and how Jesus seemed to be commanding that we should all be following the OT laws. Not as a salvific imperative but rather simply out of obedience to His command.

I got some great responses that resolved into a few main lines of discussion.

1. That's the OT, and Jesus came to fulfill the law, meaning we don't need to follow it anymore.
1a. I was not terribly convinced because in the passage Jesus says the exact opposite.

2. The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor and so any act that doesn't fit with their understanding of those two summary commands must be in contradiction of the law and so not apply today.
2a. This is unconvincing because Jesus says to obey all the specific commands of the law.

3. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience and meant it for them not for the gentile.
3a. This was much more compelling and gave me a lot to think about. It will also serve as the starting point for my main question in this thread.

Our new question:

If God does intend for one people group to follow the law until heaven and earth pass away, no matter who it is, He would be commanding the killing of spiritualists, sanctioning some form of slavery, the stoning to death of a few groups of people etc. Even if this doesn't apply to the majority of the world today, how is this moral?

Looking forward to your thoughts as always.

Peace

Athée

 

[Tree of Life]

Unfortunately all of those answers are mistaken .

In Matthew 5, and throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is contradicting the Pharisees' externalist interpretation of the Law. In its place, Jesus is giving his interpretation of the Law - which is the true Law of God that all are bound to follow.

So when he says: "You've heard it was said 'You shall not murder'...", he means: "The Pharisees tell you that the sixth commandment only forbids murder...". He then goes on to say: "But I say to you that whoever is angry...", which means: "But I say to you that the sixth commandment not only forbids murder, but even anger and abusive language..."

Jesus' interpretation of God's Law goes beyond the externals to the thoughts and intentions of the heart. True obedience to God is heart obedience.

 

[Athée]

Unfortunately all of those answers are mistaken .

In Matthew 5, and throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is contradicting the Pharisees' externalist interpretation of the Law. In its place, Jesus is giving his interpretation of the Law - which is the true Law of God that all are bound to follow.

So when he says: "You've heard it was said 'You shall not murder'...", he means: "The Pharisees tell you that the sixth commandment only forbids murder...". He then goes on to say: "But I say to you that whoever is angry...", which means: "But I say to you that the sixth commandment not only forbids murder, but even anger and abusive language..."

Jesus' interpretation of God's Law goes beyond the externals to the thoughts and intentions of the heart. True obedience to God is heart obedience.

I agree that fulfilled seems often to mean, clarifying that it is actually more difficult than the Pharasies imagined. That said, the text also says that not the least of the laws are to be set aside until heaven and earth pass away. This was actually my main thrust with the OP question. Did you have any thoughts on that specific question or were you just adding a helpful nuance to our thinking about what the law meant to Jesus?

Peace

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Christians,

It's your friendly neighbourhood atheist again.

Oh good, it's always nice to hear from one of those.

Awhile ago I posted a thread about Matthew 5 and how Jesus seemed to be commanding that we should all be following the OT laws. Not as a salvific imperative but rather simply out of obedience to His command.

Jesus is explaining how you keep the law, the Beatitudes are foundational.

I got some great responses that resolved into a few main lines of discussion.

1. That's the OT, and Jesus came to fulfill the law, meaning we don't need to follow it anymore.
1a. I was not terribly convinced because in the passage Jesus says the exact opposite.

The OT Law can't be dropped until all is fulfilled. It was always intended to be internal.

2. The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor and so any act that doesn't fit with their understanding of those two summary commands must be in contradiction of the law and so not apply today.
2a. This is unconvincing because Jesus says to obey all the specific commands of the law.

Jesus talks about adultery but says looking at a women lustfully is adultery. He is saying that murder is still bad but worse is calling your brother a fool. His main premise, be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect and that calls for internal discipline.

3. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience and meant it for them not for the gentile.
3a. This was much more compelling and gave me a lot to think about. It will also serve as the starting point for my main question in this thread.

Jesus actually talked to the Samaritan women at the well shortly after this sermon. He always intended to include the Gentiles.

Our new question:

If God does intend for one people group to follow the law until heaven and earth pass away, no matter who it is, He would be commanding the killing of spiritualists, sanctioning some form of slavery, the stoning to death of a few groups of people etc. Even if this doesn't apply to the majority of the world today, how is this moral?

Looking forward to your thoughts as always.

Peace

Athée

Wow, stoning, yea that one is enigmatic. False prophets were supposed to be stoned to death and yet, Jesus indicates the prophets most likely to be stoned were the true prophets. A woman caught in adultery is brought to him with a question, should we stone her. Notice the man she was with wasn't there and his verdict was he who is without sin cast the first stone. Yes, allowances are made for slavery but until 150 years ago it was commonly practiced around the globe, then stopped as the result of a population explosion.

The stoning to death of witches, yea, that has a rich history in European history. You know the witch hunts in Salem actually hung 19 people for witchcraft, all but two were Christians including one former Pastor of Salemtown?

 

[PamCAID]

Hi Christians,

It's your friendly neighbourhood atheist again. Awhile ago I posted a thread about Matthew 5 and how Jesus seemed to be commanding that we should all be following the OT laws. Not as a salvific imperative but rather simply out of obedience to His command.


Peace

Athée

I believe No. 3 is the place to start as well.

I wrote this in response to my Pastor telling us that the Beatitudes are to/for us, the Church:

Qualifying for the Kingdom - Church Age is Different

It's a long article with the first half being mostly OT verses. If you're interested, maybe skim over them, read the second half, then go back and read those verses again, but more carefully.

From there I'd suggest the home page, then Synoptic Gospels.

No problemo if you disagree!

God bless.

 

[royal priest]

Hi Christians,

It's your friendly neighbourhood atheist again. Awhile ago I posted a thread about Matthew 5 and how Jesus seemed to be commanding that we should all be following the OT laws. Not as a salvific imperative but rather simply out of obedience to His command.

I got some great responses that resolved into a few main lines of discussion.

1. That's the OT, and Jesus came to fulfill the law, meaning we don't need to follow it anymore.
1a. I was not terribly convinced because in the passage Jesus says the exact opposite.

2. The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor and so any act that doesn't fit with their understanding of those two summary commands must be in contradiction of the law and so not apply today.
2a. This is unconvincing because Jesus says to obey all the specific commands of the law.

3. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience and meant it for them not for the gentile.
3a. This was much more compelling and gave me a lot to think about. It will also serve as the starting point for my main question in this thread.

Our new question:

If God does intend for one people group to follow the law until heaven and earth pass away, no matter who it is, He would be commanding the killing of spiritualists, sanctioning some form of slavery, the stoning to death of a few groups of people etc. Even if this doesn't apply to the majority of the world today, how is this moral?

Looking forward to your thoughts as always.

Peace

Athée

The 10 commandments are universal in their scope to all mankind regardless of race, culture, etc.
They are also a reflection of God's moral character which is eternal and immutable. Therefore, it follows that God's expectation that His creatures, created in His image, should reflect that character. This was the point of Jesus' reiteration.
As for those laws regarding the treatment of spiritualists, regulation of slavery, stoning, etc. these belong to the nation of Israel exclusively. Even so, they do provide some points of wisdom for the church today. For instance, Jesus had taught some of the relevancy and spiritual significance of such laws for the life of the church by drawing out certain timeless principles.
The morality of those civil laws were rooted in God's purpose and plan for His nation that they were to be devoted in service to Him alone. With the prevalence of idolatry among the nations around them and the human tendency to corrupt that which is holy, stricter discipline is necessary when striving after higher standards.

 

[Athée]

Oh good, it's always nice to hear from one of those.



Jesus is explaining how you keep the law, the Beatitudes are foundational.



The OT Law can't be dropped until all is fulfilled. It was always intended to be internal.



Jesus talks about adultery but says looking at a women lustfully is adultery. He is saying that murder is still bad but worse is calling your brother a fool. His main premise, be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect and that calls for internal discipline.



Jesus actually talked to the Samaritan women at the well shortly after this sermon. He always intended to include the Gentiles.



Wow, stoning, yea that one is enigmatic. False prophets were supposed to be stoned to death and yet, Jesus indicates the prophets most likely to be stoned were the true prophets. A woman caught in adultery is brought to him with a question, should we stone her. Notice the man she was with wasn't there and his verdict was he who is without sin cast the first stone. Yes, allowances are made for slavery but until 150 years ago it was commonly practiced around the globe, then stopped as the result of a population explosion.

The stoning to death of witches, yea, that has a rich history in European history. You know the witch hunts in Salem actually hung 19 people for witchcraft, all but two were Christians including one former Pastor of Salemtown?

A lot of great stuff in there If I understood you properly, you seem to be saying that this internal law has outward expressions, that it is meant to be followed until heaven and earth pass away and is indeed for us all.
That said I'm not sure I took your meaning when it came to talking about some of those specific outward expressions that God commanded, the difficult ones like stoning etc, you seemed to be saying that these things had happened in the past. I agree that they they, but my question is about the morality of intending that they still be applied today (until heaven and earth pass away).

Peace

 

[Tree of Life]

I agree that fulfilled seems often to mean, clarifying that it is actually more difficult than the Pharasies imagined. That said, the text also says that not the least of the laws are to be set aside until heaven and earth pass away. This was actually my main thrust with the OP question. Did you have any thoughts on that specific question or were you just adding a helpful nuance to our thinking about what the law meant to Jesus?

Peace

I think we need to begin from the correct starting point in order to reach the correct answer to your question. So beginning from my view of Matthew 5, the civil laws that you've mentioned still apply to God's people. How they apply to whom is the more difficult and interesting question. Here's a summary of how I might answer this complex question:

1. Q. Should individuals today take it upon themselves to put adulterers to death? (The stoning is an accidental feature of the more essential command to put to death the adulterer.)
   
   A. No. Neither were individuals permitted to do this in the OT context. This is a civil law given to Israel as a state. The state, acting as the state, was to put adulterous offenders to death.
   
   
2. Q. Should individuals today practice debt slavery?
   
   A. Individuals today do practice debt slavery - we just don't call it this and it takes a different form than it did in the ancient world. The regulations that the Scriptures give to debt slavery are very wise and merciful and we would do very well to follow them and even legislate them.

 

[Athée]

I believe No. 3 is the place to start as well.

I wrote this in response to my Pastor telling us that the Beatitudes are to/for us, the Church:

Qualifying for the Kingdom - Church Age is Different

It's a long article with the first half being mostly OT verses. If you're interested, maybe skim over them, read the second half, then go back and read those verses again, but more carefully.

From there I'd suggest the home page, then Synoptic Gospels.

No problemo if you disagree!

God bless.

I am happy to go read but are you able to share a point form version of your take on the OP so that everyone can discuss it?

 

[Athée]

The 10 commandments are universal in their scope to all mankind regardless of race, culture, etc.
They are also a reflection of God's moral character which is eternal and immutable. Therefore, it follows that God's expectation that His creatures, created in His image, should reflect that character. This was the point of Jesus' reiteration.
As for those laws regarding the treatment of spiritualists, regulation of slavery, stoning, etc. these belong to the nation of Israel exclusively. Even so, they do provide some points of wisdom for the church today. For instance, Jesus had taught some of the relevancy and spiritual significance of such laws for the life of the church by drawing out certain timeless principles.
The morality of those civil laws were rooted in God's purpose and plan for His nation that they were to be devoted in service to Him alone. With the prevalence of idolatry among the nations around them and the human tendency to corrupt that which is holy, stricter discipline is necessary when striving after higher standards.

Are there any people groups today who should be following the OT laws as described?

 

[Athée]

I think we need to begin from the correct starting point in order to reach the correct answer to your question. So beginning from my view of Matthew 5, the civil laws that you've mentioned still apply to God's people. How they apply to whom is the more difficult and interesting question. Here's a summary of how I might answer this complex question:

1. Q. Should individuals today take it upon themselves to put adulterers to death? (The stoning is an accidental feature of the more essential command to put to death the adulterer.)
   
   A. No. Neither were individuals permitted to do this in the OT context. This is a civil law given to Israel as a state. The state, acting as the state, was to put adulterous offenders to death.
   
   
2. Q. Should individuals today practice debt slavery?
   
   A. Individuals today do practice debt slavery - we just don't call it this and it takes a different form than it did in the ancient world. The regulations that the Scriptures give to debt slavery are very wise and merciful and we would do very well to follow them and even legislate them.

Should the current state of Israel be putting to death those that the OT puts on thst list?

 

[Tree of Life]

Should the current state of Israel be putting to death those that the OT puts on thst list?

Any state is within its rights to conform itself to God's Law. It would not be unjust for a state to make adultery a capital offense.

 

[mark kennedy]

A lot of great stuff in there If I understood you properly, you seem to be saying that this internal law has outward expressions, that it is meant to be followed until heaven and earth pass away and is indeed for us all.
That said I'm not sure I took your meaning when it came to talking about some of those specific outward expressions that God commanded, the difficult ones like stoning etc, you seemed to be saying that these things had happened in the past. I agree that they they, but my question is about the morality of intending that they still be applied today (until heaven and earth pass away).

Peace

Ok, your best friend drops off his wife/girlfriend at your house because he is busy that day and your going to hang out. Ok, your alone, are you going to look at her lustfully, reach out a hand and touch her and then take her into the bedroom. That's not a serious question, I'm describing how Jesus describes how adultery is avoided and it comes down to the first look. You see, you reach, you take. Murder is bad, all societies have capitol laws against it but Jesus is warning against the things that lead to that kind of violence.

We can look at the first couple of Commandments in the Ten Commandments and wonder how it applies to us. When you get to the tenth commandment it simply says thou shall not covet. In other words, don't want things that don't belong to you. I'm sure you never stole anything but if you ever did the first thing you did was to look at it and want it in a way that provoked you to take action.

How many times a day does a man look lustfully at a woman passing by? I don't know, maybe not a lot, but it's all too easy to do that without getting caught. We have things paraded in front of us that advertisers make us want, they are good at it and it's highly effective. Jesus is saying your problem is internal and expressly tells them the Law is not going to be abolished, this is how it is fulfilled.

If you follow the Sermon on the Mount to it's conclusion, a couple of chapters later, Jesus is saying the road is narrow and the ones who follow it are few. Did you know that based just on conscience you, even being an atheist, could follow that path? Surely you realize that morality is internal and vice is expressed from the heart, or there wouldn't be anything called criminal intent?

The message preaches an internal morality, the little things you do, that maybe no one else sees. The things you say and do that lead to other things. Yes, I think it speaks to us in our day and age, even if we are atheists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Athée]

Any state is within its rights to conform itself to God's Law. It would not be unjust for a state to make adultery a capital offense.

So in your view it is morally good to have the death penalty for:
Spiritualist
Sabbath breakers
Blashphemers
Homosexuals
Youth who hit parents
Youth who disrespect and disobey parents

There are more obviously but you are good with these as moral commands to be acted on by the state?

What about the personal laws like mixed fabrics and such?

 

[Tree of Life]

So in your view it is morally good to have the death penalty for:
Spiritualist
Sabbath breakers
Blashphemers
Homosexuals
Youth who hit parents
Youth who disrespect and disobey parents

There are more obviously but you are good with these as moral commands to be acted on by the state?

It would not be unjust for a state to act in such a way. There are other considerations beyond justice - such as mercy. I'm not in the position to legislate and so I haven't thought my position through on these things enough to arrive at something very precise. So I suppose at the end of the day I'm not exactly sure.

But I have no immediate objection to a state considering capital offenses what the Bible considers to be capital offenses.

What about the personal laws like mixed fabrics and such?

The mixture laws are interesting and complex. The fabric law forbade a particular mixture - wool and linen. That's because this mixture was exclusively for priestly garments. Every Israelite did wear a mixture of wool and linen on their tassels. This connected them to the priesthood and showed that they were a kingdom of priests. But only priests could wear full garments of this mixture. The purpose of the law is to distinguish between priests and non-priests. While issues of priesthood have been adjusted in our day by the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, these basic principles still have meaning for the church.

 

[Halbhh]

Hi Christians,

It's your friendly neighbourhood atheist again. Awhile ago I posted a thread about Matthew 5 and how Jesus seemed to be commanding that we should all be following the OT laws. Not as a salvific imperative but rather simply out of obedience to His command.

I got some great responses that resolved into a few main lines of discussion.

1. That's the OT, and Jesus came to fulfill the law, meaning we don't need to follow it anymore.
1a. I was not terribly convinced because in the passage Jesus says the exact opposite.

2. The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor and so any act that doesn't fit with their understanding of those two summary commands must be in contradiction of the law and so not apply today.
2a. This is unconvincing because Jesus says to obey all the specific commands of the law.

3. Jesus was talking to a Jewish audience and meant it for them not for the gentile.
3a. This was much more compelling and gave me a lot to think about. It will also serve as the starting point for my main question in this thread.

Our new question:

If God does intend for one people group to follow the law until heaven and earth pass away, no matter who it is, He would be commanding the killing of spiritualists, sanctioning some form of slavery, the stoning to death of a few groups of people etc. Even if this doesn't apply to the majority of the world today, how is this moral?

Looking forward to your thoughts as always.

Peace

Athée

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
-- Christ Jesus, Matthew chapter 7


----
Next, since you asked about stoning, perhaps (if you are willing), you could learn what Jesus said, instead of merely us.


1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---------
Perhaps it would be so wonderful for you, since you now can see Jesus summarizing all the law entirely there in Matthew chapter 7, to yourself personally consider the verses leading into that same verse 12, those verses starting at verse 5 --

Matthew 7 NIV

 

[Athée]

Ok, your best friend drops off his wife/girlfriend at your house because he is busy that day and your going to hang out. Ok, your alone, are you going to look at her lustfully, reach out a hand and touch her and then take her into the bedroom. That's not a serious question, I'm describing how Jesus describes how adultery is avoided and it comes down to the first look. You see, you reach, you take. Murder is bad, all societies have capitol laws against it but Jesus is warning against the things that lead to that kind of violence.

We can look at the first couple of Commandments in the Ten Commandments and wonder how it applies to us. When you get to the tenth commandment it simply says thou shall not covet. In other words, don't want things that don't belong to you. I'm sure you never stole anything but if you ever did the first thing you did was to look at it and want it in a way that provoked you to take action.

How many times a day does a man look lustfully at a woman passing by? I don't know, maybe not a lot, but it's all too easy to do that without getting caught. We have things paraded in front of us that advertisers make us want, they are good at it and it's highly effective. Jesus is saying your problem is internal and expressly tells them the Law is not going to be abolished, this is how it is fulfilled.

If you follow the Sermon on the Mount to it's conclusion, a couple of chapters later, Jesus is saying the road is narrow and the ones who follow it are few. Did you know that based just on conscience you, even being an atheist, could follow that path? Surely you realize that morality is internal and vice is expressed from the heart, or there wouldn't be anything called criminal intent?

The message preaches an internal morality, the little things you do, that maybe no one else sees. The things you say and do that lead to other things. Yes, I think it speaks to us in our day and age, even if we are atheists.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Maybe we are talking past eachother a bit. I agree with how you are reading the law. If we consider adultery and lust it seems clear to me that in most circumstances if you can avoid lust then you will also avoid adultey. Following Jesus' deeper explanation of the law means that you will follow the legalistic interpretation as well by default.

Maybe it would be better to just ask plainly, given that heaven and earth have not passed away is there any people group or government that should be putting those adulterers to death?

 

[Athée]

It would not be unjust for a state to act in such a way. There are other considerations beyond justice - such as mercy. I'm not in the position to legislate and so I haven't thought my position through on these things enough to arrive at something very precise. So I suppose at the end of the day I'm not exactly sure.

But I have no immediate objection to a state considering capital offenses what the Bible considers to be capital offenses.



The mixture laws are interesting and complex. The fabric law forbade a particular mixture - wool and linen. That's because this mixture was exclusively for priestly garments. Every Israelite did wear a mixture of wool and linen on their tassels. This connected them to the priesthood and showed that they were a kingdom of priests. But only priests could wear full garments of this mixture. The purpose of the law is to distinguish between priests and non-priests. While issues of priesthood have been adjusted in our day by the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, these basic principles still have meaning for the church.

Thanks for your insight into all this. While I disagree with the moral stance you are taking, your willingness to share has been helpful.

Peace

 

[Tree of Life]

Thanks for your insight into all this. While I disagree with the moral stance you are taking, your willingness to share has been helpful.

Peace

What would be immoral about adultery being a capital offense?

 

[royal priest]

Are there any people groups today who should be following the OT laws as described?

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