|
Who seeks to gain by promoting the idea that Jesus violated the Law of Moses? The answer is very simple—the enemies of Jesus. But why would the enemies of Jesus gain from promoting such an idea? Again, the answer is very simple—if Jesus violated the Law of Moses (LOM), under which He lived and was obligated to obey, He committed sin and was not the Messiah. Thus, the enemies of Jesus set up Web sites and publish articles, etc., in their endeavor to promote the idea that Jesus sinned by teaching contrary to Moses on various issues. This is to be expected. But what is astonishing and distressing is the fact that there are some who profess to be friends of Jesus who make the same charges against our Lord. The motivation for their teaching may be different, but the consequences are the same.
In spite of the noted consequences of arguing that Jesus contradicted the Law, some brethren are persistent in their effort to point out a passage that supports their assertion. Below are some examples (comments from David Willis from Focus On Truth list): “Jesus taught many parts of His gospel before He died and the gospel conflicts with the LOM in many areas.” “To teach that one must be baptized in order to go to heaven (which Jesus taught) is as much in conflict with the LOM as it would be for me to teach today that one must be circumcised.”
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
“Would a righteous Jew who died that day without faith in Jesus and with out being baptized be able to enter God's kingdom?” “If Jesus had told Jews that they would not sin by eating all kinds of meat, would that be in conflict with the LOM?”
In this article I endeavor to deal with the arguments made by enemies/friends of Jesus who labor to demonstrate that Jesus contradicted or broke the Law of Moses.
In Jesus’ day, even some of His own followers misunderstood His teaching. In John 6:48-66, Jesus explained that we are to eat His flesh, and drink His blood. Some of the Jews, thinking that He was advocating literal cannibalism, took exception to the comment. Even some of His own disciples left Him over this matter. The Messiah was not promoting eating human flesh and drinking human blood. He consistently taught and practiced God’s laws. (This text is dealt with in detail later in this article.)
The material to follow, which deals with the various passages that some pervert, might be an article written by some other author, comments by noted commentators, comments from me, or a combination of the above. Below is a hyperlinked index for your convenience:
Index:
Matthew 12:1-2 (Was Jesus a violator of the Sabbath?)
John 3:5 (Jesus’ teaching regarding baptism)
Mark 7:19 (“purging all meats”)
Sermon on the Mount texts that contain “but I say unto you”
“The Law and the Prophets Were Until John”
(Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16)
The “Hedge” (just in case the “Jesus Contradicted Moses” argument fails)
John 6:48-66 (“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood”)
Conclusion
By doing an Internet search for the phrase “Did Jesus violate the Sabbath?” I found several interesting articles. In virtually all of them the author labored to point out that Jesus did not violate the Sabbath and endeavored to show that the Jews falsely accused Jesus. The only article I found that said Jesus contradicted the Law was on a site owned by a Jew—an admitted enemy of Jesus, who thinks that Jesus was an imposter. (See the following: http://www.messiahtruth.com/sinless.html .)
An article written by Irvin Himmel contained the following paragraph: “Were Jesus and his disciples guilty of violating God's law pertaining to the Sabbath, even technically speaking? If so, Jesus was a transgressor, legally speaking, therefore technically a sinner! John says that ‘sin is the transgression of the law’ (John 3:4), but Peter reminds us that Jesus ‘did no sin’ (1 Pet. 2:22); hence, Jesus was not a transgressor, legally or otherwise!”
Unless the above can be proven to be faulty reasoning, any doctrine that is dependent upon the idea that Jesus contradicted the Law for its veracity is not only questionable but also is not on solid ground.
Did Jesus Violate the Sabbath?
Irvin Himmel
One Sabbath when Jesus and his disciples were walking through fields of grain, the disciples were hungry and began plucking ears of corn to eat. The Pharisees, eager to find fault with Jesus, made the charge that the disciples were breaking the law.
On another occasion, Jesus healed a man at the pool of Bethesda, telling him to take up his bed and walk. Because it was the Sabbath, the Jews accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing on that day, and they charged the healed man with violating the Sabbath by carrying his bed on that day (John 5).
Leroy Garrett, writing in his Restoration Review, Dec., 1971, and defending situation ethics, says, "Legally speaking, Jesus violated Sabbath laws, but it was always for persons that he did so." From this premise he reasons to the conclusion that in certain situations we may "bypass a biblical principle" in order to honor "the law of love."
Were Jesus and his disciples guilty of violating God's law pertaining to the Sabbath, even technically speaking? If so, Jesus was a transgressor, legally speaking, therefore technically a sinner! John says that "sin is the transgression of the law" (John 3:4), but Peter reminds us that Jesus "did no sin" (1 Pet. 2:22); hence, Jesus was not a transgressor, legally or otherwise!
Jesus replied to the Pharisees who accused his disciples of breaking the law by plucking grain and rubbing it in their hands on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1,2; Lk 6:1, 2), by calling attention to the case of David. When David was being pursued by Saul, he went to the house of God and ate the sacred showbread. The law forbade any but priests to eat this bread (Lev. 24:9). David clearly violated divine law. Jesus said David ate that "which was not lawful for him to eat" (Matt. 12:4). But the disciples had not violated divine law. Jesus said they were "guiltless." The Pharisees condoned David's action although it was "not lawful," yet they "condemned the guiltless" by falsely accusing the disciples. Jesus exposed their inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Also, Jesus called attention to the priests who, by the very nature of their duties, worked on the Sabbath day. According to the Jewish interpretations of the Sabbath law, the priests profaned the day, yet even the Pharisees counted them blameless. This case further illustrated their inconsistencies in accusing Christ's disciples falsely.
What God's law pertaining to the Sabbath actually said was one thing; what Jewish tradition said was another. Jesus did not admit that either he or his disciples had violated the divine law of the Sabbath in any sense -- legally, technically, or otherwise. The only violation was of man-made interpretations of the Sabbath law.
Jesus laid bare the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and freed his disciples from false methods of observing the Sabbath. He differentiated between true obligations and endless burdensome rules that were of human origin that had perverted the Sabbath law.
Our Lord taught nothing that would authorize us to "bypass a biblical principle" in any situation. True divine principles do not have to be bypassed to honor love, mercy, and the authority of Christ. Jesus broke with the traditions of the elders, but he did not violate God's law, even technically.
-- Via Truth Magazine XVII: 7, p. 12, December 14, 1972
Links to other articles regarding the Sabbath:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/did_jesus_violate_the_sabbath
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/ChristianSituationEthics.htm
http://www.new-life.net/faq004.htm
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn01/commandmentsjesusbreak.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave99.htm
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/bible/jesus_sabbath.php
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html
http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/tw/magazine/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine36&item=1115662605
(John 3:5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
It is being argued that Jesus’ teaching regarding baptism was contrary to the Law of Moses. Note the following:
“You can NOT be serious to try to say that what Jesus taught about faith and baptism is consistent with the plan of salvation under the LOM. It is NOT. Jesus taught something NEW. No one had to be baptized to be saved under the LOM. Show me a passage in the OT that says that. What Jesus said about salvation conflicted with the LOM just as much as it would conflict with the gospel to require circumcision today.” (David Willis – Focus on Truth)
Willis argued: “Would it be contrary to the gospel to require circumcision in order to be saved today? If so, then how could it NOT be contrary to the LOM for Christ to require baptism which was NOT required for salvation under the LOM?”
The same writer noted above wrote:
“A Jew did not have to have faith in Jesus or be baptized to be saved under the LOM. Even after Jesus spoke His gospel message about faith and baptism, a Jew who died before Jesus died on the cross did not face damnation because he was not baptized.”
Consider the above statement in light of the following passages:
John 8:24 “…If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
Luke 7:29-30 “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”
The teaching of John 3:5, according to David Willis, is supposed to be proof that Jesus contradicted the Law. But let us take a close look at the text to see if he is correct. The fact that Jesus taught only Old Testament doctrine--nothing new--is born out by the context. Jesus noted that a master teacher should have understood and known what Jesus was talking about. What, other than the Old Testament scriptures, would have enabled this teacher of the Law to have known (not just understood) what Jesus said he should have known?
Look at the text. I have highlighted significant words for emphasis.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Verse 14 is a reference to an Old Testament teaching regarding Jesus and the new birth that involved baptism. The people were being bitten by snakes and many were dying. Moses put a snake on a pole made of brass and told the people to look upon it. When they looked they were healed (Numbers 21:8, 9). If we look upon Jesus and obey by being baptized, we will be saved by our faith just as those in the wilderness who looked upon the serpent were healed by their faith and obedience. This text on baptism alludes to Jesus as the saving power that man can receive by faith—a teaching that was presented long before as Old Testament teaching.
Commentaries:
Barnes: John 3:10 -
A master of Israel - A “teacher” of Israel; the same word that in the second verse is translated “teacher.” As such a teacher he ought to have understood this doctrine. It was not new, but was clearly taught in the Old Testament. See particularly Psa_51:10, Psa_51:16-17; Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26. It may seem surprising that a man whose business it was to teach the people should be a stranger to so plain and important a doctrine; but when worldly-minded men are placed in offices of religion when they seek those offices for the sake of ease or reputation, it is no wonder that they are strangers to the plain truths of the Bible; and there have been many, and there are still, who are in the ministry itself, to whom the plainest doctrines of the gospel are obscure. No man can understand the Bible fully unless he is a humble Christian, and the easiest way to comprehend the truths of religion is to give the heart to God and live to his glory. A child thus may have more real knowledge of the way of salvation than many who are pretended masters and teachers of Israel, Joh_7:17; Mat_11:25; Psa_8:2, compared with Mat_21:16.
Of Israel - Of the Jews; of the Jewish nation.
Barnes’ comments were excellent but we must not overlook JFB. He has a false idea about the necessity of baptism, but note what he said about whether Nicodemus should have known (from the O.T. scriptures) about Jesus’ teaching on baptism:
(John 3:10) “Art thou a master of Israel , etc. - Hast thou taken upon thee to guide the blind into the way of truth; and yet knowest not that truth thyself? Dost thou command proselytes to be baptized with water, as an emblem of a new birth; and art thou unacquainted with the cause, necessity, nature, and effects of that new birth? How many masters are there still in Israel who are in this respect deplorably ignorant; and, strange to tell, publish their ignorance and folly in the sight of the sun, by writing and speaking against the thing itself! It is strange that such people cannot keep their own secret.”
So, we have not just one but TWO respected scholars, both of which held the traditional MDR view, who were very confident that the idea that Jesus taught something new in presenting John 3:5, is not a possibility. I suppose if these guys knew that their comments actually hurt their MDR doctrine they might have been tempted to say something that harmonized with their doctrine.
Willis’ reply:
“Because He expected Nicodemus to understand does not mean that He expected Nicodemus to already know it before Jesus SAID it! It was NEW.”
From the context it is apparent that Jesus said Nicodemus should have KNOWN what he was talking about—not just understood from His explanation. Thus, the argument that Jesus contradicted the Law in His teaching regarding the new birth is refuted by Jesus Himself.
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesusignorelaw.html
“Matt. 15.11//Mark 7:15. These words alter or ignore no Jewish law; they merely stress the obvious point that it is the disobedience, not the food itself, that is the essence of the violation. (The interpretive comment in Mark 7:19 can be seen as a significant alteration in meaning; however, there are strong reasons to doubt that it is part of the original text: The participle construction hangs awkwardly with no obvious syntactical connection to what surrounds it; the word "foods" is a hapax legomemon (not found anywhere else in the NT); and Mark's usual method of making such "side comments" is entirely different. [Guelich's commentary on Mark, 378])”
Article posted to Focus On Truth by Christina Dozier:
It has been said that the passage below teaches that Jesus cleansed all meats. I just don't see how we can get that idea from what is said.
Mar 7:18-19 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.)
The KJV says:
Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
The Interlinear says:
Mark 7:18 And he says to them: Thus also ye undiscerning are? do ye not understand that everything from without entering into a man cannot him to defile, 19 because it enters not of him into the heart but into the belly, and into the drain goes out, purging all foods?
The NKJV says:
Mar 7:18-19 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"[fn5]
Webster says:
Mar 7:18-19 And he saith to them, Are ye so void of understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him. Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all kinds of food.
First, what Jesus seems to be saying--to me anyway--is that BECAUSE food goes not into a man's heart but into his belly and then out into the draught, that's WHY it doesn't defile and that's why it's clean. Did food not go into the belly and out into the draught under the Law of Moses? Of course it did. In my opinion, if we're going to take this to mean ANY food is okay, we could also take it to mean any drug is okay. Drugs go into the belly and out, don't they?
Second, I think His point is not that unclean meats are suddenly clean but that it's ALWAYS been the heart that really matters. A man can eat only clean meat all his life and not be right with God if his heart is wrong.
Third, most of these translations have Jesus asking a question. HE says, "Don't you understand that it's not what goes in that defiles but rather what goes out because what goes in goes not into the heart but into the belly and then out again into the drain and it all gets cleaned?" I guess some translators decided to take that last part out of Jesus' mouth and put it into the writer's mouth and have the writer say Jesus was cleansing all meat.
I don't think Jesus was saying, "Hey, boys, guess what! After I'm resurrected you're gonna get to eat pork and bacon!" *I* think Jesus is just saying that our words, our deeds, our actions, our thoughts--all the things that proceed from our hearts--that's what defiles us. To me it's like saying:
1 Peter 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
That doesn't mean we can suddenly go streaking down the highway. It just means that what's IMPORTANT is the hidden man of the heart. Our heart is what's going to make us right with God, or our heart is what's going to get us in trouble with God.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if Jesus WAS cleansing all meats, Peter sure didn't pick up on it. All the way over in Acts 10 he's still not eating unclean meat. Did an inspired man not get the meaning of Jesus' words but we do?
Christina
http://www.mykentuckybooks.com/br>
http://www.giveshare.org/Health/health5.html
The RSV renders verse 19, "since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on? (Thus He declared all foods clean.)." This is an unwarranted addition to Scripture. The context is verses 1-5, which describe the Pharisees’ practice of always washing their hands before eating, and a host of other traditions of washing pots and cups. The subject is not clean and unclean meats, but unclean hands.
Jesus showed that unclean thoughts are the things that most defile a man, not just unwashed hands, verses 20-23. The parallel passage to Mark 7 is Matthew 15. After explaining that inner defilement of the mind is far worse than defilement of the body, Jesus concluded, "These are the things which defile a man [evil thoughts, adulteries, etc., described in Matthew 15:18-19: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man," verse 20. Ceremonial washing of the hands and cups doesn’t affect the inner man. Jesus was not speaking against sanitary, hygienic cleansing with water, either. He criticized the fanatical ceremonial practices of the Pharisees, who cleaned up the outside, but inside were rotten to the core, Matthew 23:25. We need to keep the inside and outside of our bodies pure before God.
The Pharisees watched every word and movement Jesus made. They falsely accused Him of breaking the Sabbath, and claimed that He blasphemed when He said God was His Father, John 5:18. But never did any Jew accuse Jesus of eating, or advocating the eating of, unclean meats. Jesus said, “He did not come to destroy the Law of God, but to fulfill and keep it,” Matthew 5:17.
Barnes Commentary:
Mar 7:1-23 -
See this passage explained in the notes at Mat. 15:1-20.
Mar_7:1
Came from Jerusalem - Probably to observe his conduct, and to find matter of accusation against him.
Mar_7:2
Defiled hands - The hands were considered defiled or polluted unless they were washed previous to every meal.
Mar_7:3
Except they wash their hands oft - Our word “oft” means frequently, often. The Greek word translated “oft” has been rendered various ways. Some have said that it means “up to the wrist”— unless they washed their hands up to the wrist. Others have said up to the elbow.”
There is evidence that the Pharisees had some such foolish rule as this about washing, and it is likely that they practiced it faithfully. But the Greek Word p??µ?´ (pugme¯) means properly the “fist,” and the meaning here is, “Unless they wash their hands (rubbing them) with the fist”—that is, not merely dipping the finger or hands in water as a sign of ablution, but rubbing the hands together as a ball or fist, in the usual Oriental manner when water is poured over them. Hence, the phrase comes to mean “diligently, carefully, sedulously.” - Robinson, Lexicon. The idea is, unless they pay the utmost attention to it, and do it carefully and according to rule.
The tradition - What had been handed down; not what was delivered “by writing” in the law of Moses, but what had been communicated from father to son as being proper and binding.
Mar_7:4
Except they wash - In the original, “Except they baptize.” In this place it does not mean to immerse the whole body, but only the hands. There is no evidence that the Jews washed their “whole bodies” every time they came from the market. It is probable that they often washed with the use of a very small quantity of water.
The washing of cups - In the Greek, “the baptism of cups.”
Cups - drinking vessels. Those used at their meals.
Pots - Measures of “liquids.” Vessels made of wood, used to hold wine, vinegar, etc.
Brazen Vessels - Vessels made of brass, used in cooking or otherwise. These, if much polluted, were commonly passed through the fire: if slightly polluted they were washed. Earthen vessels, if defiled, were usually broken.
Mar_7:7
For doctrines - For commands of God binding on the conscience. Imposing “your” traditions as equal in authority to the laws of God.
Mar_7:8
Laying aside - Rejecting, or making it give place to traditions; considering the traditions as superior in authority to the divine law. This was the uniform doctrine of the Pharisees. See the notes at Mat_15:1-9.
The tradition of men - What has been handed down by human beings, or what rests solely on their authority.
Mar_7:9
Full well - These words are capable of different interpretations. Some read them as a question: “Do ye do well in rejecting?” etc. Others suppose they mean “skillfully, cunningly.” “You show great cunning or art, in laying aside God’s commands and substituting in their place those of men.” Others suppose them to be ironical. “How nobly you act! From conscientious attachment to your traditions you have made void the law of God”; meaning to intimate by it that they had acted wickedly and basely.
Mar_7:17
The parable - The “obscure” and difficult remarks which He had made in Mar_7:15. The word “parable,” here, means “obscure” and “difficult saying.” They could not understand it. They had probably imbibed many of the popular notions of the Pharisees, and they could not understand why a man was not defiled by external things. It was, moreover, a doctrine of the law that men were ceremonially polluted by contact with dead bodies, etc., and they could not understand how it could be otherwise.
Mar_7:18
Cannot defile him - Cannot render his “soul” polluted; cannot make him a “sinner” so as to need this purifying as a “religious” observance.
Mar_7:19
Entereth not into his heart - Does not reach or affect the “mind,” the “soul,” and consequently cannot pollute it. Even if it should affect the “body,” yet it cannot the “soul,” and consequently cannot need to be cleansed by a religious ordinance. The notions of the Pharisees, therefore, are not founded in reason, but are mere “superstition.”
The draught - The sink, the vault. “Purging all meats.” The word “purging,” here, means to purify, to cleanse. What is thrown out of the body is the innutritious part of the food taken into the stomach, and leaving only that which is proper for the support of life; and it cannot, therefore, defile the soul.
All meals - All food; all that is taken into the body to support life. The meaning is, that the economy or process by which life is supported “purifies” or “renders nutritious” all kinds of food. The unwholesome or innutritious parts are separated, and the wholesome only are taken into the system. This agrees with all that has since been discovered of the process of digestion and of the support of life. The food taken into the stomach is by the gastric juice converted into a thick pulp called chyme. The nutritious part of this is conveyed into small vessels, and changed into a milky substance called “chyle.” This is poured by the thoracic duct into the left subclavian vein and mingles with the blood, and conveys nutriment and support to all parts of the system. The useless parts of the food are thrown off.
Mar_7:20
That which cometh out of the man - His words; the expression of his thoughts and feelings; his conduct, as the development of inward malice, anger, covetousness, lust, etc.
Defileth the man - Makes him really polluted or offensive in the sight of God. This renders the soul corrupt and abominable in his sight. See Mat_15:18-20.
Note Matthew’s version:
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Those who endeavor to teach that Jesus contradicted the Law so they can defend their divorce and remarriage teachings and practices assert that when Jesus said “but I say unto you” He was saying He was changing what Moses said to His new law. Let us look at the various texts to see if Jesus took issue with Moses or someone else. First, Moses’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus was and is God. Thus, to contend that Jesus took issue with Moses is to contend that He took issue with God–Himself. Thus, the following comments from a noted and highly respected commentator are worthy of consideration:
Barnes:
Mat 5:21 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: Mat 5:22b But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
Mat 5:21 -
Ye have heard - Or, this is the common interpretation among the Jews. Jesus proceeds here to comment on some prevailing opinions among the Jews; to show that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was defective; and that people needed a better righteousness, or they could not be saved. He illustrates what he meant by that better righteousness by showing that the common opinions of the scribes were erroneous.
By them of old time - This might be translated to the ancients, referring to Moses and the prophets. But it is more probable that Jesus here refers to the interpreters of the law and the prophets. He did not set himself against the law of Moses, but against the false and pernicious interpretations of the law prevalent in his time.
Thou shalt not kill - See Exo_20:13. This properly denotes taking the life of another with malice, or with an intention to murder him. The Jews understood it as meaning no more. The comment of our Saviour shows that it was spiritual, and was designed to extend to the thoughts and feelings as well as the external act.
Mat 5:22b But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment
Barnes comments: “What he condemns here is anger without a cause; that is, unjustly, rashly, hastily, where no offence has been given or intended. In that case it is evil; and it is a violation of the sixth commandment, because “he that hateth his brother, is a murderer,” 1Jo_3:15. He has a feeling which would lead him to commit murder, if it were fully acted out.”
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Barnes comments: Our Saviour in these verses explains the seventh commandment. It is probable that the Pharisees had explained this commandment, as they had the sixth, as extending only to the external act; and that they regarded evil thoughts and a wanton imagination as of little consequence, or as not forbidden by the law. Our Saviour assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and committed adultery in the heart.
Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Barnes: It hath been said ... - That is, by Moses, Deu_24:1-2. The husband was directed, if he put his wife away, to give her a bill of divorce, that is a certificate of the fact she had been his wife, and that he had dissolved the marriage. There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other maintained that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when and for what cause he chose. And this seems to be agreeable to the law in Deuteronomy.
Mat 5:33 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:
Barnes: Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Lev_19:12, and Deu_23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Barnes: Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.
It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black.
To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt.
It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”
Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat_26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1; Gal_1:20; Heb_6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo_22:11; Lev_5:1; Num_5:19; Deu_29:12, Deu_29:14.
An eye for an eye ... - This command is found in Exo_21:24; Lev_24:20, and Deu_19:21. In these places it was given as a rule to regulate the decisions of judges. They were to take eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and to inflict burning for burning. As a judicial rule it is not unjust. Christ finds no fault with the rule as applied to magistrates, and does not take upon himself to repeal it. But instead of confining it to magistrates, the Jews had extended it to private conduct, and made it the rule by which to take revenge. They considered themselves justified by this rule to inflict the same injury on others that they had received. Our Saviour remonstrates against this. He declares that the law had no reference to private revenge, that it was given only to regulate the magistrate, and that their private conduct was to be governed by different principles.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
The command to love our neighbor was a law of God, Lev_19:18. That we must therefore hate our enemy was an inference drawn from it by the Jews. They supposed that if we loved the one, we must of course hate the other. They were total strangers to that great, special law of religion which requires us to love both. A neighbor is literally one that lives near to us; then, one who is near to us by acts of kindness and friendship. This is its meaning here. See also Luk_10:36.
Mat 5:44 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;
Love your enemies - There are two kinds of love, involving the same general feeling, or springing from the same fountain of good-will to all mankind, but differing so far as to admit of separation in idea. The one is that feeling by which we approve of the conduct of another, commonly called the love of complacency; the other, that by which we wish well to the person of another, though we cannot approve his conduct. This is the love of benevolence, and this love we are to bear toward our enemies. It is impossible to love the conduct of a person who curses and reviles us, who injures our person or property, or who violates all the laws of God; but, though we may hate his conduct, and suffer keenly when we are affected by it, yet we may still wish well to the person; we may pity his madness and folly; we may speak kindly of him and to him; we may return good for evil; we may aid him in the time of trial; we may seek to do him good here and to promote his eternal welfare hereafter, Rom_12:17-20. This seems to be what is meant by loving our enemies; and this is a special law of Christianity, and the highest possible test of piety, and probably the most difficult of all duties to be performed.
David Willis wrote: "The law and the prophets were until John; from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached. Mt 11:13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. I believe that passage. Do you, Robert?”
Yes, I believe what the Bible says, but I do not believe the twist that some put on various texts in their effort to make an argument to support a false teaching that they seem compelled to defend.
The argument is as follows: The Old Testament ended with John and therefore Jesus, who lived at the same time as John, taught something different. Thus, He could change Moses' teachings regarding who could marry.
This statement poses some obvious problems. The first problem is that no evidence exists that the Jews, who sought to entrap Jesus in His words so they could kill Him, accepted Jesus as a prophet and certainly not one that could contradict the Law.
Another problem with the theory set forth is that if John was the last prophet then Jesus was not a prophet because He was born after John. But the Bible says Jesus was a prophet: Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22, 7:37; Heb 1:1, 2).
When we read the text from various versions it becomes apparent that it does not support the idea that Jesus taught contrary to Moses.
Mat 11:13
(ASV) For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
(CEV) All the Books of the Prophets and the Law of Moses told what was going to happen up to the time of John.
(GNB) Until the time of John all the prophets and the Law of Moses spoke about the Kingdom;
Luke 16:16
(CEV) Until the time of John the Baptist, people had to obey the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets. But since God's kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.
(ISV) The law and the Prophets were prophesying until the time of John. Since then, the good news about the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is trying to enter it by force.
(KJV) The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Barnes:
Mt 11:13 All the prophets, etc. It is meant by this verse that John introduced a new dispensation; and that the old one, where the prophets and the Law of Moses were the guide, was closed when he preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. By the law is meant the five books of Moses; by the prophets, the remainder of the books of the Old Testament.
The key phrase in Barnes' comments is "introduced a new dispensation." This obviously does not mean that the New Law went into effect at John’s birth. Nor did it go into effect at some point in John's life. The Law of Moses ended upon the death of Christ, at which time the New Testament went into effect (Heb. 9:16, 17).
Links for further study:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1355-is-the-law-of-moses-torah-still-binding
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1lawandtheprophets.htm
The “Hedge”
(Just in case the “Jesus Contradicted Moses” argument fails)
John 6:48-66 -“Eat my flesh, and drink my blood”
Some, who are arguing that Jesus contradicted Moses on various issues, including divorce and remarriage, evidently are not confident with their argument because they argue that Jesus’ so-called “new” teaching (that supposedly was contrary to Moses) was not to go into effect until after the cross. If the first argument is valid then the second is superfluous. But on the MDR issue, it can be easily demonstrated that Jesus’ teachings were applicable to the people to whom he spoke at the time He spoke them. All one needs to do is look at the context and take note to of who the audience of Jesus was. Therefore, the argument that Jesus’ teachings were not intended to apply at the time He spoke them is obviously illogical.
Moses’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus’ teachings were God’s teachings. Jesus was God and therefore if Jesus was teaching contrary to Moses then God taught contrary to God. Thus, it is obviously imprudent for Christians to argue that Jesus actually contradicted Moses.
David Willis asked, “…Was the requirement that a person eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus in effect the moment He said that in John 6?”
John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
“Was that true at the moment Jesus said that?”
Yes, it was true. To argue that anything Jesus said was not true at the point He said it is to contend that Jesus lied. Jesus always told the truth.
Barnes:
His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
Conclusion:
Did Jesus contradict, disagree with, change, or break the Law of Moses?
This question is similar to that of the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection. The apostle Paul dealt with this false element in the church at Corinth:
(1Co 15:12-20) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Indeed, Christ is raised from the dead and He is our Savior. But this would not have been possible if He had not lived a sinless life. To live a sinless life involves obeying the laws to which one is subject, which Jesus did. Thus to argue that Jesus contradicted Moses’ Law, which would have been a sin, is tantamount to saying Jesus was a sinner; which, if true, makes our faith vain and “ye are yet in your sins.”
|
