Did Jesus change the old testament rules?

[xdisciplex]

In the sermon of the mount Jesus says this "you have heard but I tell you" stuff which sounds like Jesus is changing or adding stuff to the old testament rules, as if he was correcting something. But this can't be. So what is the correct term? What did Jesus do? Did he add something or only refine something?
Because many unbelievers use this to show that Jesus changed something and that he had a different opinion as if Jesus did not agree with Yahwe.

And is it true that under the old covenant people were killed for doing works on the sabbath like collecting wood?
I don't know but I feel like the old convenant was very strict and not funny at all.
I mean where is the mercy in the old covenant and the chance to repent and to be forgiven? I feel like under the old covenant everybody was directly killed.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Beth Messiah : Yeshua's View of the Torah

...

Challenging Passages

...

Frequently, this passage "You have heard it said ... but I say to you ... " found in the Sermon on the Mount, is presented as evidence of his opposition to the traditions. Actually, this statement reflects a rabbinical approach used to indicate that there is a deeper meaning to a particular passage found in the Bible. In fact, this is a phrase that Rabbi Ishmael, a contemporary of Yeshua and one of the foremost scholars cited in the Talmud, used frequently (Mekilta 3a, 6a). You think that the Scripture has a certain meaning, but there is a deeper meaning that we need to learn to understand. This was a rabbinical way of refuting an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of Scripture.

...

 

[xdisciplex]

But since obviously no pharisee got it right could the people even have understand it correctly? I mean if the scriptures are so complicated that nobody understood them correctly then maybe they were too complicated for the people.

And how are the people supposed to know that "an eye for an eye" is supposed to mean to turn the other cheek? I mean come on. Where is the connection between this?
I always heard that Jesus only showed them that actually God is much more strict and has much higher standards than they thought he has and that they cannot fulfill them. This explanation makes much more sense than the one which you brought up. Because where is the connection? An eye for an eye is totally different than "turn your cheek".

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
But since obviously no pharisee got it right could the people even have understand it correctly? I mean if the scriptures are so complicated that nobody understood them correctly then maybe they were too complicated for the people.

And how are the people supposed to know that "an eye for an eye" is supposed to mean to turn the other cheek? I mean come on. Where is the connection between this?
I always heard that Jesus only showed them that actually God is much more strict and has much higher standards than they thought he has and that they cannot fulfill them. This explanation makes much more sense than the one which you brought up. Because where is the connection? An eye for an eye is totally different than "turn your cheek".

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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]

Dumb question, but why did God not directly tell the jews what he wanted? Why didn't he directly tell them to return evil with good?

By the way, there are also many interpretations of this "turn your cheek" thing. Some say to turn your cheek means that he also has to hit you on the other cheek and this is supposed to mean that he has to respect you because slaves were only beaten on one cheek. I think this is how the interpretation goes.

 

[Jarthur001]

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

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
By the way, there are also many interpretations of this "turn your cheek" thing. Some say to turn your cheek means that he also has to hit you on the other cheek and this is supposed to mean that he has to respect you because slaves were only beaten on one cheek. I think this is how the interpretation goes.

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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Dumb question, but why did God not directly tell the jews what he wanted? Why didn't he directly tell them to return evil with good?

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.

 

[gekko]

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.

 

[xdisciplex]

But before Jesus said that looking at a woman with lust it also wasn't a sin, was it? Before the people knew it they also could not be held accountable for it, could they?

I don't know, but I think these things are very hard to understand. Even this "turn your cheek" thing is hard to understand. I have talked to christians which say that this means that you must not even defend yourself if somebody wants to beat you up or kill you! I think this is ridiculous. If somebody wanted to kill me I would defend myself, of course. Allowing somebody to beat you up without doing anything is just crazy.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
But before Jesus said that looking at a woman with lust it also wasn't a sin, was it? Before the people knew it they also could not be held accountable for it, could they?

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.

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
I don't know, but I think these things are very hard to understand. Even this "turn your cheek" thing is hard to understand. I have talked to christians which say that this means that you must not even defend yourself if somebody wants to beat you up or kill you! I think this is ridiculous. If somebody wanted to kill me I would defend myself, of course. Allowing somebody to beat you up without doing anything is just crazy.

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.

 

[gekko]

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.

 

[xdisciplex]

Hmmm.
THis is interesting. But once again we don't know if this is the correct interpretation.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
Dumb question, but why did God not directly tell the jews what he wanted? Why didn't he directly tell them to return evil with good?

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

Leviticus 19:18
' You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 32:35
'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near,And the impending things are hastening upon them.'

Prov. 25.21.22
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
22For you will heap burning coals on his head,
And the LORD will reward you.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
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).

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".

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
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).

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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.