Tensions between the Old Testament and Jesus

[robbyyoung]

Decisively refuted? Let's now examine what seems to be your main trump card—Matthew 15:4

For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’(Matt 15:4 NASB)

For you, this proves that Jesus claimed that God had said, "He who speaks evil of father and mother is to be put to death." But how can you be so sure that Jesus said this? Is it simply the fact that Matthew wrote it? Why do you believe Matthew's record over Mark's? Did you forget about Mark's? Or did you just negect to mention it?

Mark wrote about the same event, but recorded Jesus as having said these words with one significant change:

For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ (Mark 7:10 NASB)

Whom did Jesus say uttered these words? God? Or Moses? He couldn't have said both, since it was the same occasion.

I'm sure you will come back at me with verse 13 where Jesus indicated that the Pharisees invalidated the word of God by their tradition, so I suspect you want to say that both commands were the word of God. But the Pharisees didn't invalidate the second command; they invalidated the first. Also, these commands are found in two different places. The first is one of the ten commandments, "Honour your father and mother." Elsewhere this is called "the first commandment with promise." I believe this is the commandment which Jesus recognized as the word of God that the Pharisees invalidated by their tradition, and that the command that he who speaks evil of father and mother is to be put to death is that of Moses, one of his many commands that he needed in order to control Israel.

Hi Paidion,

I'm sure Steve is more than capable of responding to your post, however, YOU FAILED, once again, to prove ANY reprimands or injustices by Yeshua, towards Moses',in his record of The Law in it's totality. If anything, Mark's account AFFIRMS the validity of Moses' claims, and NEVER hints to any error, only that of the evil Pharisees 'traditions of men'. For the entirety of Moses' claims WERE IN NO WAY lumped into this category, as stated in vs.13.

God Bless.

[steve]

Hi Paidion,

I do not pit one Gospel writer against another. I believe that, when one account differs in wording from its parallel in another Gospel, that both writers would approve of what is being taught in the other's paraphrase. If Mark (who heard the statement related second-hand from Peter) heard Jesus' statement worded one way, and Matthew (who was present when the statement was made, and heard it first-hand) heard it another, this does not mean we must choose between two contrary opinions. Every Jew (including Jesus) believed that what Moses wrote was the word of God. On this occasion, Matthew apparently heard Jesus say that "God commanded" such-and-such. Mark's paraphrase allows his Gentile readers to know where it was that God said that—namely, through Moses.

You yourself believe that the Fifth Commandment, which Jesus first recites, was a genuine command of God. You do not accept the second command as being from God. Yet, Jesus either attributed both of them to God (as per Matthew), or both of them to Moses (as per Mark). If Jesus did not believe that laws given by Moses, by definition, carry divine sanction, then He was inadvertently raising questions about the Fifth Commandment (assuming He attributed it to Moses, and not to God). In any case, Jesus attributed both commandments to one source—a source whom the Pharisees were obliged to obey, and both of which Jesus summarized as "the commandment of God" (Mark7:8), and "the word of God"(Mark 7:13).

Regardless which formula Jesus actually uttered ("God said" or "Moses said"), Matthew, by using the former, clearly found no problem having Jesus attribute both laws equally to God, because that is what Matthew (who was taught directly by Jesus for years) knew His meaning to be. It is at least indisputable that Matthew's record indicates that he saw no incongruity (as you do) in attributing the second command to God, as well as the first. I would sooner let an apostle's understanding of Christ's character and teaching inform my christology than yours or any other modern man's. You actually trust yours instincts about Jesus above Matthew's, which is a demonstration of what I said about you earlier. While you repeatedly say your views are informed by Jesus, the truth is that you are only informed by your personal biases about Jesus—biases not shared by anyone who knew Him, nor any of the biblical writers.

In your eagerness to neutralize biblical testimony that you recognize to be hostile to your position, you have failed even to recognize the point of Christ's rebuke (and have thus inadvertently fallen under its censure yourself). Jesus' point was to identify two opposed categories—namely, "the Word of God" and "the traditions of men," and to criticize the Pharisees for their neglecting the former and their embracing the latter. In illustrating the truth of this criticism, Jesus gives examples of what "Moses said" (i.e., the word of God) in contrast to, "but you say..." (i.e., the traditions of men).

Clearly, the "Moses said" portion refers to the commandment of God (Mark 7:8) that they were neglecting, while the "you say" portion identifies the tradition that they kept instead. The tradition that they had adopted was an application of Corban that permitted their neglect of responsibility for assisting their parents (which we need not explore at this point). By contrast, the "Moses said" portion is what He was accusing them of neglecting, which He also referred to as "the Word of God" (Mark 7:13).

Now, if Jesus believed that Moses was right in giving the Fifth Commandment (as you acknowledge), but wrong in prescribing the death penalty for rebel sons (as you assert), then He could still have made His point perfectly by omitting the second example. The Fifth Commandment, by itself, would suffice to illustrate His intended point. In fact, if Jesus did not think that the second example (capital punishment for rebel sons) was a genuine command of God, He would only be muddying the waters by including it. In addition to His seeming to endorse it, He would be introducing a confusing irrelevancy into His argument. His point was to criticize their failure to keep what Moses said. If He believed that the second command was something Moses said that rightly should never have been kept, then He is throwing a wrench into the works, and making His point ambiguous, at best, and totally incomprehensible, at worst.

Jesus lists the command to execute rebellious sons on the "word of God" side of the dichotomy, not on the "tradition" side. If He thought Moses had misspoken this command, this would have been the right time for Him to say so, since He was criticizing rules that had merely human origins. The structure of the argument is nonsensical and misleading if Jesus was not saying that both of Moses' statements were legitimately binding upon the Pharisees.

What they were saying (that is, the thing Christ was objecting to) was that respect for parents could legitimately be mitigated (as per their tradition). By contrast, Jesus was arguing for the absolute necessity of honoring one's parents (as per the Fifth Commandment). His seemingly superfluous addition of the law prescribing the death penalty for sons who curse their parents is intended either as agreeable with one side or the other of the debate, because it was included to bolster one or the other sides of the dichotomy. In your judgment, does Christ's inclusion of that unpleasant law tend to support His position that one must revere one's parents, or does it tend more to support the Pharisees' position of maintaining their right to dishonor them?

The question clearly answers itself! The second law cited reinforces to Fifth Commandment—not the Pharisaic tradition. Thus both commands of God (communicated through Moses) are being treated as binding laws of divine origin. This is what we call exegesis. Sadly, it places your doctrine in opposition to Christ's.

[Paidion]

In your judgment, does Christ's inclusion of that unpleasant law tend to support His position that one must revere one's parents, or does it tend more to support the Pharisees' position of maintaining their right to dishonor them?

The former. I wrote in my previous post:

I suggest that since the Pharisees were gung ho on the law of Moses, Jesus wanted to show them what would have happened to them under the law, if they had spoken evil of their parents and tried to evade taking care of them.

In other words, Jesus was contrasting their present situation of not taking care of their parents with the situation under the Mosaic law. If He had quoted only the commandment (Honour your parents), He would have been only pointing out to them that by their tradition they were failing to keep that command. But by including the Mosaic law about putting to death disrespectful children, He was pointing out that they were not only breaking God's commandment (one of the ten), but He also indicated if they had been still under the law of Moses, they would have been put to death. As I see it, that was the purpose of including the quote from the Mosaic law. However Jesus had no intention of putting them to death because of their disrespect of parents and their failure to take care of them. The law of Moses was on its way out for the Jews, though most of them didn't realize it, and the law of the Messiah was about to be established. Jesus expressed the real law of God in "the sermon on the mount," a much deeper law than the law of Moses—in some ways much more strict. But real law of God didn't involve wreaking violence on people or putting them to death. Instead it concentrated on enemy love and service to others.

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Of what law did Paul become outside? Did he not refer to the law of Moses? But of what law did He remain inside? He calls the latter law both "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." The two are identical: "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." But obviously Paul considered that law to be different from "the law of Moses."

[robbyyoung]

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Of what law did Paul become outside? Did he not refer to the law of Moses? But of what law did He remain inside? He calls the latter law both "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." The two are identical: "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." But obviously Paul considered that law to be different from "the law of Moses."

Hi Paidion,

Paul WAS NOT speaking to The Law of Moses, rather, the oral law and traditions of the Pharisees, else this would put him at odds with Matt 5:18-19. The Law of God has never changed concerning His love, mercy, and righteous justice. You can conflate this with Matthew 5 beginning at verse 20 (oral law of the Pharisees), in which Yeshua reminds them of what The Law of God is, regardless of their misrepresentations through oral teachings. An example would be in vs.43, where apparently their Oral Law taught to hate their enemies, when God's Law clearly teaches the opposite, Exodus 23:4-5, Proverbs 24:17, and Proverbs 25-21 just to name a few. In Matt 5, Yeshua goes down the list, exposing erroneous oral teachings in direct violation to the correct Law of God.

Yeshua wasn't altogether saying anything new, rather, reminding The Jews what they obviously have forgotten about God's Law, being overshadowed by The Pharisitic oral teachings. Paul nor any other person was obligated to these laws, only The Law of God which Christ brought back to the forefront.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

A strange interpretation indeed, Robby, but an unlikely one. Consider the verse with the immediately preceding one:

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Paul's purpose was to win people for the Messiah, no matter who they were.
When he was with the Jews, he observed the Mosaic law like a Jew. His purpose was to win them for Christ Jesus. That wasn't too difficult, since he had been under the Mosaic law for a long time prior to his conversion to the Messiah. To those without law, that is, to the gentiles, he himself, was without law. That is, he didn't observe the Mosaic law while he was bringing the message of Christ to them. However, he hastens to explain that he didn't mean that he wasn't outside of ALL law at that time. He wasn't outside the law of God, for he was under the law of Christ. Doubtless that was the law Jesus gave which is recorded in Matt 5, 6, and 7 as well as elsewhere.

[steve7150]

He wasn't outside the law of God, for he was under the law of Christ. Doubtless that was the law Jesus gave which is recorded in Matt 5, 6, and 7 as well as elsewhere.









Right, when Paul became a believer he followed the law of Christ/God/Royal law/law of liberty etc but before Paul converted he followed the Mosaic Law because he was a Pharisee.
Paul never said the law of Moses was false or anything Moses said was false or was some kind of misunderstanding on Moses part but he did say it was passing away which sounds like it had a purpose at one time but that time was over.

[robbyyoung]

A strange interpretation indeed, Robby, but an unlikely one. Consider the verse with the immediately preceding one:

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

Paul's purpose was to win people for the Messiah, no matter who they were.
When he was with the Jews, he observed the Mosaic law like a Jew. His purpose was to win them for Christ Jesus. That wasn't too difficult, since he had been under the Mosaic law for a long time prior to his conversion to the Messiah. To those without law, that is, to the gentiles, he himself, was without law. That is, he didn't observe the Mosaic law while he was bringing the message of Christ to them. However, he hastens to explain that he didn't mean that he wasn't outside of ALL law at that time. He wasn't outside the law of God, for he was under the law of Christ. Doubtless that was the law Jesus gave which is recorded in Matt 5, 6, and 7 as well as elsewhere.

Hi Paidion,

Of course Paul wasn't outside ALL OF THE LAW. When was The Moral aspect of The Law ever hinted to cease to exist? Isn't this The Law of Christ that was shown by God in the OT? Paul had to be eluding to ceremonial laws steeped in misrepresentations by The Pharisees, NOT ANY MORAL LAWS, which have always been The Law of God and His Christ.

Steve7150 referred to Hebrews 8:13 concerning the transitioning of the covenants. However, clearly some aspects of the Old Covenant transcends into the new, e.g. The Moral Law. Clearly this WAS NOT ready to disappear, was it? No, it's the ceremonial and exclusive privilege Israel had that was to disappear, and it did!

Again, Yeshua outlined The Pharisees' misrepresentation of God's true law in Matt 5. I see no reason to pit Paul against God's Law that transcends into the gospel he preached.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

Jesus expressed the real law of God in "the sermon on the mount," a much deeper law than the law of Moses—in some ways much more strict. But real law of God didn't involve wreaking violence on people or putting them to death. Instead it concentrated on enemy love and service to others.

It was not in "some" ways more strict. It was in every way more strict. Let's not forget cutting off hand or eye if it causes us to sin. Where's that in the OT law? Where is "thought crime" in the OT law (look on a women to lust for her)? The Law of God concentrates on our sinful attitudes, not only loving others. Also defining loving someone that hates you is difficult—it doesn't mean doing what the person that hates you wants, or they would want you to destroy yourself. You think someone would never take advantage of turning the other cheek or giving them two cloaks or going with them two miles? It's the attitude that's being focused on because sometimes giving someone too much is actually bad for them, if they want it for the wrong reasons. Part of your problem with your "God is only lovey dovey" doctrine is that you won't come to see yourself as the disgusting, sinful and evil person that you are in the old nature, worthy only to be crucified for your crimes. And because you never come to that moment of realization that you truly deserve hell, you never really and fully trust Christ to save you from that hell—because Christ is all only about love and all that. Who would say that "love" in and of itself is honorable by ignoring every other attribute of one's character? Such as justice, righteousness and holiness. There is something more offensive than physically killing someone for committing a crime—and that's killing the holiest and most pure and most blameless person who ever existed for the crimes of everyone.

To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. (1 Corinthians 9:21)

Of what law did Paul become outside? Did he not refer to the law of Moses? But of what law did He remain inside? He calls the latter law both "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." The two are identical: "the law of God" and "the law of Christ." But obviously Paul considered that law to be different from "the law of Moses."

Paul was totally outside any and every law. Paul was crucified in Christ and that fulfilled the Law which said Paul must die for his sins. Game over. This is the way of salvation, faith in Christ's sacrifice, and no attempt at fulfilling any law, moral or otherwise, will achieve salvation. Because we need a new birth and new life, and if we try to "turn over a new leaf" without reckoning our old nature crucified with Christ, we are trying to change the Ethopian's skin remove the leopard's spots and bring blood from a stone. Those who argue Paul was still under the "law of Christ" (by which Paul meant the law of the Spirit of life in Christ) or under any moral law whatsoever, really don't understand the nature of the Law or Paul's teaching on it. The Law by nature is a demand for something, whether it be right attitudes or right actions. Paul was no longer under a demand, he was under a supply. Grace means God supplies us with the very things the Law asked of us, and supplies those things freely by the riches of Christ poured out in the Holy Spirit. The Law, whether moral or otherwise, only does one thing to a completely honest person seeking righteous by it: it shows that person he cannot live up to it.

[Homer]

Dizerner,

You lost me there brother. Paul's statement doesn't seem to fit with what you just wrote:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (NKJV)

24. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.


Do you believe that in following Jesus there are no commands that must be obeyed, however imperfectly? If He is Lord, and I'm sure He is, there must be some things that require us to yield to His will.

[dizerner]

Dizerner,

You lost me there brother. Paul's statement doesn't seem to fit with what you just wrote:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (NKJV)

24. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.


Do you believe that in following Jesus there are no commands that must be obeyed, however imperfectly? If He is Lord, and I'm sure He is, there must be some things that require us to yield to His will.

Sure Paul continually exhorts us, yet clearly says in no uncertain terms "Yet not I, but the grace of God," and "if it is by grace is no longer by works," "not by the man who wills or runs but God who has mercy" and "the life I live in the flesh I live by trusting another's life." It is faith in the grace of God alone by which Paul ran the race and fought the fight. I dare say, if you honestly measure yourself up to the way you know in you heart you should be living, the standard of complete devotion Paul talks about, you will find you fall short. So many end up preaching "we can't throw out law" yet never really living or attaining to the law they preach (Romans 2). So I believe there are commands but no demands—these commands are not Laws which minister death but promises which minister life. Homer, what will solidify grace in our hearts, I believe, is the understanding that God literally asks us to do the impossible. When you say it's okay to "try your best and get as close as you can" to obedience to God's Word, you have effectively mixed law and grace so that you can hold on to a form of works righteousness that is partial but you mix some grace in. This allows you to sneak in a form of righteousness by works while still claiming you believe in grace. But the truth is, we only bear fruit through faith in the work of the Cross, not through reading commands and trying to perform them. The commands of Jesus are to be like the beat of our heart, Homer, or the breath we breathe—who we are in our deepest being (I delight to do your will O my God! Your Law is within my heart!) Yet who can claim that level of devotion and purity? We lower the standards so that we can preach and live a replacement for new life, a moralism and a good deeds religion, where we try to say the outward is what really matters the most. We get cheap law, rather than cheap grace—trying to attain righteousness by outward deeds should strike fear into a believer's heart. It's a ministry of condemnation and our deeds that are not based in a free gift of grace, are the filthy rags that drove the stakes through Christs hands and feet. He doesn't want our very best works—He wants us to trust in his crucifixion and resurrection alone, and that faith alone will produce the level of love and devotion that striving, fleshly effort and continual re-dedication never will.

I encourage you to examine yourself in the light of God's holy and perfect law, and you will end up having to do one of two things: either start making excuses and saying it's okay to "not quite" measure up to what God expects and that it's "unrealistic" to expect that Christians actually perfectly obey the Law of Christ, or it will drive you to complete desperation and humility to look entirely away to Christ and his work for your sanctification as much as your justification. God makes no apologies for asking us to do the impossible, not just that he be a "big part" of our life, but that we actually worship him fully every moment. No human being ever could or ever will do this by the principle of law, but this state of being is effectively living again the life of Christ. The word is near us, in our mouth and in our heart, and this is an obedience unto faith but not unto law—laws won't help us anymore than going up to a dead man and commanding him "Thou shalt live! Thou shalt breathe! Thou shalt beat thy heart!" If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation and old things have passed away. The difference between try and trust can be the difference between heaven and hell. And I thank my God through Jesus Christ! Trying to live the life of Christ is exhausting in the flesh.