Did Jesus change the old testament rules?

The Messianic Jewish perspective based on their historical understandings of Jewish and Rabbinical culture is that this was a common Rabbinical formula for interpretation or revealing a fuller/deeper meaning to the Torah that was commonly misunderstood.

 

What I quoted above is the Messianic Jewish perspective which has a strong interest in reconciling Jesus' words with the Torah. That seems to be an interest that you share and I thought their perspective would help you.

My understanding of that passage is that the "eye for an eye" passages in the Torah was about judges giving out fair punishment for crimes. Jesus' deeper insight is that a better way is not to seek fairness and justice in those who wrong you but to return evil with good. That doesn't mean that the law is wrong or even that the traditional understanding of the Torah was wrong, only that Christ is showing an even better way.

 

I think the problem is that you are looking for a new Torah to follow in the new testament. The NT does not stand for New Torah.

Many Christians feel that Christ's new covenant is about a new set of laws that we must follow and dig in scripture to find that new set. But I believe they are totally missing the point of the gospel message which Paul describes in Romans as being no longer under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14).

 

xdisciplex,

I still would like to know if you are saved? you have yet to post anything to support the faith. Just one word would do...do you trust in Christ as your only hope for salvation?

I have asked this before and you never replied.

If so..why not post a few things you believe in..and not always attach. Just a idea xdisciplex

 

Yes. Being hit on the right cheek by a right hand is a backhanded slap which was more insulting in that culture than the forehanded slap that results when one turns the other cheek to face the person doing the slapping.

Bible.org : Jesus and the Law of Retaliation (Lex Talionis)

The following link might be a good read for you to consider.

 

Jesus often used every day illustrations to make his points which I think is probably more powerful than "return evil with good".

And the "return evil with good" only captures part of the imagery that Jesus presented with his examples.

Sometimes we want God/Jesus to speak in ways we understand clearly and for many of us, that is a list of dos and donts. I thank God that he didn't communicate in that way but revealed himself to us in the narrative of intimate interaction between Himself and his creation.

 

i think that when Jesus was doing that in the Sermon on the Mount - he was shedding a new light on the old laws - bringing it into a different perspective - but still truth - without changing anything - for God is unchanging - the same yesterday, today , and forever.

 

Again, you are looking at Jesus' words as a new law that we are held under. But we are no longer under the law, but under grace. Jesus wants for us a better way. A way of grace that recognizes that lust is what leads to adultery.

Regarding the pacifism of the Anabaptists and Quakers, I have great respect for their interpretation of Jesus' words which is how the early Christians interpreted it as they underwent persecution by the Roman empire. However, I would not consider myself a pacifist or non-resistor while being sympathetic to their view.

 

turning the other cheek - with more of a jewish perspective.

usually if somebody is going to slap you to give you offense - they would backhand you- on the right cheek - try it out roleplay - try backhanding someone on the left cheek with your right hand.

jewish people think using the left hand was unclean - that's apparently what the pharisee's believed i think.

so they'd always use the right hand to give somebody the backhand - so when they went to back hand the person on their right cheek - that would make the victim feel pretty bad - so if the victim turned to the other cheek. that would mean that the person would have to use their fist instead of the back of their hand

using the fist would put the "bully" to shame because they have to resort to violence. using the backhand wasn't necessarily violence.

same goes for giving them your extra coat if they sue you for something - they only had two or three layers of clothing back then - so for someone to sue somebody for their coat - and they recieve both their coats - the person would be in the nude - and the person sue-ing would feel ashamed because they've made this person naked. they wouldn't like it - so they'd give it back.

i dont know if this is making any sense. is it?

turning the other cheek was to bring shame upon the attacker and to make them realize that what they did in the first place was wrong.

 

Although God did sometimes have his people execute his judgment on the nations, God never told his people to return evil for evil.

 

That is a "two gospel" system if ever I have seen one.

The FIRST one you describe is the "bad gospel" of God in the OT. GIVEN by GOD - a gospel that "could only fail".

Then you point to a BETTER Gospel in the NT - AS IF this Bible-contradicting-method has anything to do with the ONE Gospel in all of time!

Why go down that road? IT leads nowhere.

Paul says that our faith in the Gospel "ESTABLISHES the LAW of GOD" Rom 3:31.

Further in Romans 6 He says that ANYONE who is still claiming to be helplessly violating God's Law is "enslaved to sin" and under the wages of sin.

Further in Romans 2 Paul makes it clear that the contrast between the saved and the lost will be SEEN in how they relate to God's Word - and His Law. Rom 2:11-13

Christ appears to be saying the same thing in Matt 7. (PRE-Cross!) and in John 14:15.

Just too obvious to "miss".

 

That is a "two gospel" system if ever I have seen one.</font>[/QUOTE]Not sure what system you are talking about.

I only mentioned one gospel, the one Paul references in Romans 6:14.

You obviously see something not intended or stated in my post.

 

When you use words like "NO LONGER UNDER..." you imply that the people of GOD WERE under some "other system" in the OT and that they now are "NO LONGER UNDER it".

That is a "two system" - "Two Gospel" model

But in Gal 3 we learn that IN THE OT they were getting the ONE Gospel - under the ONE Gospel system!!

Just one!

Not Two!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The phrase "... we are not under law but under grace ... " is not my phrase. It is Paul's phrase in Romans 6:15.

The implications you seem to derive from that phrase are from your own imagination since I never said any of that.