Micah commented with this question, so I'll try to answer it:
It's Micah.
I have a question that has been debated about in my Bible class today: It has to do with, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." The topic we were talking about in class was the issue of capital punishment. When Jesus quoted this verse from the Old Testament and then added that what he now says is "turn the other cheek", was he nullifying what was previously written or was he clarifying it? Since Jesus is the WORD, was he contradicting himself? This is kind of a loaded question, but along the lines of "turn the other cheek", did he mean take a beating? What are we supposed to do, or where do we draw the line between defending ourselves and fighting back? Our body is not our own, right? Did Jesus fight back when people spat on his face? If we are supposed to be examples of Christ, how are we supposed to stick up for what is right when someone mistreats us or hurts us? Whatever insight you have is helpful.
Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth
There are three passages in the Law that contain the phrase "eye for eye."
Ex. 21:22-25, Lev. 24:17-22, and Deut. 19:16-21
The context of the Exodus and Leviticus passages both start out with people fighting. If the fight was avoided in the first place, then there would be no need for gouging eyes or pulling teeth. But like with divorce, some sacrifices, and other punishment commands, this is sort of a secondary command. It would be best if people would just not break their vows or sin or hurt people, but we do those things, so God says how to deal with it.
The Leviticus passage seems like a list of clear cut statements, but they are actually basic statements that are clarified elsewhere. For example verse 17 seems pretty straight forward; you kill, you die. But Ex. 21:12-14 and Num. 35:9-25 clarify that if a person accidentally kills someone then he can flee to a city of refuge, but for premeditated murder the punishment is death.
The Deuteronomy passage says that false witnesses get punished however the defendant would have been punished.
Capital Punishment
According to Num 35:30, Deut 17:6 and 19:15 two or three people have to be witnesses. These witnesses have to be sure, because according to Deuteronomy 19 they could be put to death if they’re falsely accusing the defendant.
According to Deut 17:7, once the suspect is found guilty, the witnesses have to throw the first stone.
A lot of people think that following the Torah’s judicial system would be barbaric, bloody and cruel. But it is actually more lenient than America’s judicial system. The complaint would not be that the Torah’s judgements are too strict, but too lenient. Mercy triumphs over judgement in the Torah. In how many modern day trials are there two or three witnesses so 100% sure that they would risk their lives to convict the offender?
So I'm for biblical capital punishment, but it's not allowed in America. So if someone were to ask me, "Are you for or against capital punishment?" I would have to say against.
Turn the Other Cheek, etc.
The "Sermon on the Mount" starts out with Jesus saying that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. In old school Hebraic thought those phrases meant that he came to interpret the Law correctly. And the Greek word for fulfill means to fill to the brim. So in order to fill up, you don’t take things out. He just filled the gaps, not in the Law, but in people’s understanding of the Law. And Jesus warned other people not to teach anyone to break even the least commandment, so why would he himself teach people to break commandments?
Some people say that the stuff Jesus says after the eye for eye thing is subversive submission. That when they struck the first time it was with the back of the hand, so if you turn the other cheek they would have to slap you with the palm, which would mean acknowledging you as an equal. If someone sues you for your tunic and you give them your cloak, then you will be left there naked and will shame them. And if you go the second mile, they were in charge the first mile, but the second mile you’re volunteering, so you’re in charge. These may be right or not.
But I’m going to go back to looking at it judicially. In order to take tooth for tooth, you had to take the guy to court, you couldn’t take the law into your own hands. If a guy punched you and broke your nose, the commandment didn’t require you to break his nose, but if you really wanted to get him back then you could take him to the judges, present your case, and then you might be allowed to break his nose but nothing more.
So Jesus is saying don’t bother with all that. Be the good guy. Don’t stoop to the bad guy’s level. So there's a hint of subversiveness.
I feel like I should bring up the case of the adulterous woman from John 8. Jesus affirmed that her punishment should be stoning. But the scribes and pharisees hadn’t correctly gone through the red tape required for a stoning. So when Jesus said he who is without sin, he might have meant he who has followed the Torah fully in these court proceedings. First of all, they didn’t bring the man. The Law says to put both of them to death, not just one. And it seems like the pharisees might have made a deal with the man, or that they were following around the woman, not wanting to stop her from adultery, but in order to catch her in the act. So in order for the situation to come about the accusers were most likely violating Torah.
So Jesus was consistent with the Law. The Old and New Testament emphasizes mercy. Why fight back? Why not suffer physically and receive spiritual rewards? Why "hurt your witness"? I know those last couple of phrases seem trite. About the line between defending yourself and fighting back, I don’t think scripture gives a hard and fast rule for distinguishing between defense and attacking. It’s one of those things where you have to know your heart and emotions at that time and decide if you’re acting out of fear or anger or if you’re level headed.
Hope this helps. I gotta post and run. More comments and questions are welcomed by me.
8 comments:
Ok, first, I don't have a blog on this site, that's why I'm posting anonymously. You can post your reply to my www.xanga.com/rusouledout site or just reply on your site... I'll check it. Ok, now let me challenge your line of thinking...
You said:
>The "Sermon on the Mount" starts out with Jesus saying >that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. >In old school Hebraic thought those phrases meant that >he came to interpret the Law correctly. And the Greek >word for fulfill means to fill to the brim. So in >order to fill up, you don’t take things out.
The word fulfill means to fill to the brim, it does not mean to fill to the brim without removing anything. Yesterday as I was getting ready to go back to New Mexico, I needed to fill up my trunk with many bags and boxes. In order to get the most into my trunk, I had to remove some things to make room for more important things. I filled up my trunk to the rim, but in order to do so, I had to remove some things. Your assumption that "in order to fill up you don't take things out" is not fully substantiated.
Following this line of thinking, Jesus gave us a list of things that the people were familiar with: "an eye for an eye," "you shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy," and so on. Then he told them why these sayings were not pleasing to God. You also have to understand that in this passage, Jesus was talking to people who were still under the law -- they still had to make sacrifices for their sins. He was beginning to show them the heart of God when it comes to the law in that God does not want us to ritualisticly follow the letter of the law, but to act out of love. He was preparing them for the revelation of the new covenant that would be revealed after His death and resurrection.
You also said:
>It’s one of those things where you have to know your >heart and emotions at that time and decide if you’re >acting out of fear or anger or if you’re level headed.
You're exactly right in this and that is the heart of the new covenant. God not wanting us to vainly follow rules, but to choose to love Him and others with our whole hearts. It's the condition of your heart that pleases God, not following rules.
You’re correct that fulfill does not necessarily mean that you don’t take anything out. So allow me to better substantiate the not taking things out.
In my post, I focused on the fulfilling part, but Jesus also said twice that he did not come to abolish/destroy the Law or the prophets. And in the next verse, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Tell me, have heaven and earth passed? The word translated fulfilled in this verse is different from the word in the verse before. Out of the 678 times this word is used, the KJV translates this word as fulfilled only 3 times. It is most often translated as “be” and second most as “come to pass.” Has everything been fulfilled? Has everything been? Has everything come to pass? Or are you still looking to the future for some end times prophecies to come to pass? For instance the Millennium or Daniel’s 70th week (a.k.a. the Tribulation).
So it seems to me that, according to Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus did not abolish the Law, not even a little part of it, he did not break even the smallest command, nor did he teach others to do so.
But what he spoke against was the people’s incorrect understanding/ assumptions/ interpretations of the Law. He spoke against what they had added to and subtracted from the Law. The Law does not say get divorced for any and every reason. The Law does not say hate your enemy. And I already explained what the Law actually says about an eye for an eye.
The rules that people made up were not pleasing to God because they were man made rules and not what God had commanded. Traditions, rituals, rules and good works that are of human origin are like flowers that look pretty but don't last. But the word of our God shall stand forever. I think God wants us to Love him and therefore lovingly obey His Law with our whole hearts.
Ok, you said:
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Tell me, have heaven and earth passed?
Ok, there are two "till"s in this verse that apply to "one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law." The first "till heaven and earth pass." When exactly are heaven and earth going to pass? I thought heaven was eternal. That phrase is more of a saying similar to "when pigs fly." However, the "till all be fulfilled" is something that can come to pass. Jesus' whole reason in coming was to fulfill the law. We were separated from God by Adam and Eve's sin. God gave us the law with an imperfect way redeem our sins: sacrificing a pure animal. The sacrifice was not perfect, though, because an animal is not equal to a human. God knew that the only perfect human that could be sacrificed would be His son. So, when Jesus died on the cross, becoming our perfect sacrifice, the law was fulfilled. Once the law was fulfilled, things could be changed (by God) in the law. We no longer had to make sacrifices for our sins -- that was removed from the law. We no longer look at things as clean or unclean -- that was removed from the law.
You also said:
"Traditions, rituals, rules and good works that are of human origin are like flowers that look pretty but don't last. But the word of our God shall stand forever. I think God wants us to Love him and therefore lovingly obey His Law with our whole hearts."
Let me take that one step further. Traditions, rituals, rules and good works look pretty but don't last if they are done without love. Take out the "of human origin" and you've hit it on the head. I Corinthians 13 talks all about this. People were doing things that looked very Godly, but they weren't because they lacked love. You can follow all the rules in the Bible, but if you lack love, it means nothing. If you let your complete love for God and others guide you in everything you do, you will bring honor to God. If you simply follow rules that are mandated on you, you bring no honor to God. If you have a problem with sin, following the law will not help you. Your heart does not change because you know something is wrong... it does not change your desire to do something, it just changes your outward actions. Falling deeper in love with God and others will change your heart's condition toward things that do not show love towards God and others. I think God wants us to love Him and others with our whole hearts.
“Till heaven and earth pass.” If this will never happen then neither will any bit of the Law pass. Also ... Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). Also, heaven was created, therefore it’s not eternal.
The second till:
Matt 5:17 ...I am not come to destroy but to [pleroo (fill full)]
Matt 5:18 ...one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all [ginomai (comes to pass)]
So Jesus filling up the law does not mean that everything has come to pass. Like I said before, you’re still waiting for stuff to come to pass.
You said, “Once the law was fulfilled, things could be changed (by God) in the law.”
Where does scripture say that the fulfillment of the law allowed God to make these changes? And where in scripture does God announce the changes that he made?
About the traditions and good deeds, I agree that love is important. But that’s not all, the origin is important. A Buddhist doing good stuff with love just isn’t the same as someone doing something for God. You can say that you are doing a whole bunch of stuff with love, but if it disagrees with what God said to do or not to do, it’s messed up. What is love? Isn’t it a verb? If loving is doing, then could loving God mean doing what he commanded?
If you have a problem with sin, and we all do, why not try following the law? Outward actions can influence what’s on the inside. If you force yourself to smile, you often feel happier. If you lie in the dark all day you’ll get depressed. The longer you don’t smoke, the less often you desire to smoke. Maybe trying to obey the commands that you never have kept will cause something new to happen inside of you.
"“Till heaven and earth pass.” If this will never happen then neither will any bit of the Law pass. Also ... Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). Also, heaven was created, therefore it’s not eternal."
I don't know which meaning of heaven Jesus is using here, the skies or the kingdom of heaven. If He is talking about the sky, that could pass, but if He's talking about the kingdom of heaven, that won't pass. Just because God created something doesn't mean it's not eternal. God created angels and satan -- they are eternal.
"The second till:
Matt 5:17 ...I am not come to destroy but to [pleroo (fill full)]
Matt 5:18 ...one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all [ginomai (comes to pass)]
So Jesus filling up the law does not mean that everything has come to pass. Like I said before, you’re still waiting for stuff to come to pass."
Jesus came to fulfill the law. That was His whole reason for coming to this earth. Why would Jesus come to earth, give His life, if nothing was going to change? You cannot say that nothing in the law changed as a result of Jesus' sacrifice. This is where I'm not sure where you stand. Do you believe that the entire law, sacrifices and all still stand.? Or, do you believe that all the commandments in the law are still applicable, just not the sacrifices? Or, do you believe that some of the laws are supposed to be obeyed, but some were "cultural laws" and are no longer relevant?
"You said, “Once the law was fulfilled, things could be changed (by God) in the law.”
Where does scripture say that the fulfillment of the law allowed God to make these changes? And where in scripture does God announce the changes that he made?"
In Acts 10, God gives Peter a vision and commands Him to eat things that would have been considered unclean under the law.
In Romans, Paul talks about how circumcision of the body under the law is no longer important, but circumsision of the heart does.
Romans 3:19 says, "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God."
Romans 6:14 says "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."
God does not want us to blindly follow a set of rules, making us slaves to the law, He wants us to be slaves to Him, blindly following Him out of our love and faith in Him.
"If you have a problem with sin, and we all do, why not try following the law? Outward actions can influence what’s on the inside. If you force yourself to smile, you often feel happier. If you lie in the dark all day you’ll get depressed. The longer you don’t smoke, the less often you desire to smoke. Maybe trying to obey the commands that you never have kept will cause something new to happen inside of you."
II Peter 1:3-11 tells us how to keep from sinning. It's not about putting on a happy face or doing something out of habit. It's about growing in our relationship with God.
I still don’t understand how Jesus fulfilling the law opens it up to change. Ask any 6 year old in church "what was Jesus’ reason for coming to earth?" and she will answer "to save us from our sins." He did not come to change the definition of sin. He came so that even though we do sin, we would not perish but have everlasting life.
I believe that each command still stands as properly understood in context. If a commandment can be properly obeyed, it should be. If a commandment does not apply to you at a given time or place, then it does not apply. I’m not going to go through every commandment right now, but I might later. You mentioned sacrifices a couple of times, so I’ll talk a little about that.
There is no temple now, so we cannot make sacrifices. But did Jesus’ death mean the end of burnt offerings for Christians? Let Paul and James answer that.
In my Scofield Reference Bible, Acts 21:18-26 has the section heading, “Paul takes a Jewish vow involving a Jewish sacrifice.” After Paul’s third missionary journey, James tells Paul that the Jews have heard rumors that Paul was teaching that the Law had been changed. So James tells Paul to offer a sacrifice and pay for four other guys’ as well. The purpose was that the Jews would know that there was no truth in the accusations that Paul was preaching changes in the Law. Now this would have been a good opportunity for Paul to speak up, but he went to offer sacrifices.
Peter’s vision was a vision. It was symbolic. The entirety of Acts 10 and 11 make it clear that the purpose of the vision was to show Peter that he should not call any man common or unclean (10:28). The gentiles were not to be looked at as dogs.
When Peter explained his vision and everything that happened to the Jews in Jerusalem, they understood that it meant that salvation was available for gentiles, not that God had changed his mind about what animals could be eaten (11:18).
Peter had been with Jesus for 3 ½ years. Yet when he saw the vision he kept trying to figure out what it meant (10:17). Why hadn’t Jesus’ teaching prepared Peter to just accept that God changed the rules about what is to be eaten? Didn’t Peter understand that the whole reason Jesus came was so that the commandments could be changed?
Circumcision of the heart is a Torah commandment (Deut. 10:16, 30:6). Paul talks about circumcision more in Galatians than he does in Romans. And the debate wasn’t about the commandment God gave through Moses concerning circumcising sons at 8 days old. It was about circumcision as a prerequisite to joining the body of Christ. Like do you have to get baptized to be a true Christian? Or do you have to quit smoking before you can become a Christian?
And even if Paul was preaching changes in the law, where did Paul get his information? Could he support his arguments with scripture? Or did he just have some kind of extra-biblical special revelation?
alright, let the outsider who has to struggle with both issues comment.
A) I agree with Josh about God not giving us more clues about the change in law. How come Jesus Christ doesn't at least hint more. He says the underlying argument: I want you not your stuff. The same argument made in 1 Corinthians is made in Micah 6. But read the commentaries. Back then God wasn't telling anyone to quit making sacrifices or to quit following the law. God wants both. He wants our obediance and our love
B) You both have holes in your arguments because you see things in one dimension. You can't ever use human experience and think that it ultimately proves a point. I pack my car a lot and i plan exactly where i want to put everything. If God was planning ahead, he wouldn't need to take everything out in order to fill. And i have talked to smokers who haven't smoked in 20 years and there are a lot of times they still want a cigarette.
C) I am stuck. I have a lot of questions. If I am still supposed to follow the Law, How could he pretend that he was happy with me, so in love with me and yet greiving him because i did not follow the law? Why didn't he ever tell me? Why would he call me to be a youth pastor and then hand me this? Messianics don't have youth camps. They are home schooled. Why am i learning all this crap when i can't even use it. My whole life was pointing in one direction. I new what i wanted to do it, how i could do it and why i wanted to do it. Bam. It's a lie. God's not happy with me.
I could think that and get discouraged and just leave God forever, thinking he was a sham. But i know better. I know that God loves me and that he will always love me, regardless of the law. God/Jesus died for me. In Zechariah it says that in one day God will take away the sins of the world. Not "one day" but "in one day." That's what Christ's death means. And maybe i do need to follow the law yet. But God is patient with me and if i need to, that is where he will lead me. For now I am going to rest assured that God has always loved me and he can't let go of me, just like i can't leave him behind. Otherwise I am going to go nuts.
I plan on this being my last response in this post since we aren’t talking about capital punishment or the sermon on the mount any more, and this post is now off of the front page. I am writing new posts that deal more directly with the topics we are discussing here. Comment on those posts.
“Break a commandment, offer a sacrifice, go to heaven. . . . you could get to heaven without loving Him.”
That is just such a messed up idea.
“Jesus tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God with all out hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves. . . . The commandment wasn’t given in the law.”
Actually, Jesus said they were the two greatest commandments.
The greatest is Deuteronomy 6:5, Love LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
And the second greatest commandment is similar, from Leviticus 19:18, Love your neighbor as yourself.
Post a Comment