Matt. 5: 21-48. What does Christ mean when He says “you have heard, but I tell you?

[Blik]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.
I think it is explaining the prophesy of Ezekiel 31:33, telling us that soon the Lord’s law would be written in man’s hearts.
In the OT the law was explained to man through fleshly symbols. To put information in man’s mind was said symbolically to eat. They were given laws regarding clean physical food instead of morally and spiritually clean information food. To be circumcised was to cut flesh, rather than spiritual circumcision of curring flesh and becoming spiritual or marking ourselves spiritually as separate from nonbelievers.
As we are told in Phil.”3-3: Watch out for those dogs, those evil doers who mutilate the flesh. For we who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Jesus the Messiah are the ones who are truly circumcised because we put no confidence in the flesh,












































































t but as Jeremaiah tells us in 31:33, Christ wrote it in our hearts.

 

[Dino246]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.

Matthew 5: 17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." That is not "Christ changed nothing of the OT".

Jesus is contrasting the letter of the Law with the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees enforced the letter of the law and made all kinds of loopholes for themselves. Jesus taught about the principles behind the Law, which completely closed the Pharisaical loopholes.

 

[Blik]

Matthew 5: 17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." That is not "Christ changed nothing of the OT".

Jesus is contrasting the letter of the Law with the spirit of the Law. The Pharisees enforced the letter of the law and made all kinds of loopholes for themselves. Jesus taught about the principles behind the Law, which completely closed the Pharisaical loopholes.

It isn't that I disagree with you, but I think there should be a lot more disocclusion of "letter of the law". Jesus is telling us that the Lord's law is no longer told to man through the law to circumcise as cutting flesh, for example, and circumcision if not defined as the letter of the law. Yet, we are told that Jesus is not disagreeing with the law to be circumcised.

 

[Dino246]

It isn't that I disagree with you, but I think there should be a lot more disocclusion of "letter of the law". Jesus is telling us that the Lord's law is no longer told to man through the law to circumcise as cutting flesh, for example, and circumcision if not defined as the letter of the law. Yet, we are told that Jesus is not disagreeing with the law to be circumcised.

During the time of Jesus' ministry on Earth, the Jews were still under the Law. Jesus' message was about the Law to those for whom the Law was relevant. He wasn't saying anything about "no longer"; that came after His death and resurrection. Rather, He was basically saying, "You think the law is this "-" big; but I say it is this "------------------------------------" big.

 

[ewq1938]

It isn't that I disagree with you, but I think there should be a lot more disocclusion of "letter of the law". Jesus is telling us that the Lord's law is no longer told to man through the law to circumcise as cutting flesh, for example, and circumcision if not defined as the letter of the law. Yet, we are told that Jesus is not disagreeing with the law to be circumcised.

There is no law regarding circumcision in Christianity. Jesus would certainly be opposed to such a concept.

 

[Blik]

It was the Lord God who commanded fleshly circumcision for many thousands of years. It is wrong to say that the Lord was in error when He commanded that. Christ changed that command, and the same time Christ did not say the Father was wrong to command this ritual. Until Christ came it was the law, after Christ came we were commanded to be circumcised but not to cut skin. It was still the same command, but to be performed spiritually only.

There was a change when Christ came. It did not wait until the crucifixion, because the gospels tell of Christ before the crucifixion. Matt. 5 is about the sermon on the mount, it is the teaching of Christ. The spirit of the law did not change. What changed was the way the law was given to us. It changed from teaching through fleshly acts to teaching directly through and heart. It was a change from the symbolic flesh, to directly to our heart and spirit.

 

[SabbathBlessing]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.
I think it is explaining the prophesy of Ezekiel 31:33, telling us that soon the Lord’s law would be written in man’s hearts.
In the OT the law was explained to man through fleshly symbols. To put information in man’s mind was said symbolically to eat. They were given laws regarding clean physical food instead of morally and spiritually clean information food. To be circumcised was to cut flesh, rather than spiritual circumcision of curring flesh and becoming spiritual or marking ourselves spiritually as separate from nonbelievers.
As we are told in Phil.”3-3: Watch out for those dogs, those evil doers who mutilate the flesh. For we who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Jesus the Messiah are the ones who are truly circumcised because we put no confidence in the flesh,












































































t but as Jeremaiah tells us in 31:33, Christ wrote it in our hearts.

This is my understanding

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

This is a prophecy fulfilled Isaiah 42:21 but fulfilled in Matthew 5:17 cannot mean the same as come to destroy as it does not reconcile with the next few verses, nor does it reconcile with the rest of Jesus teachings Mat 15:3-9, Mat 7:21-23, Mat 19:17-19, Mat 5:19-30 to name a few. Jesus did not give the law for Him so He could keep, and we can profane. HE is our example to follow and He led by example 1 John 2:6 Hebrews 4:15 John 15:10 He is not teaching that because He kept the law (fulfilled) we can now worship other gods, bow to idols, vain His holy name, profane His holy Sabbath day, covet, steal and break any of the least of these commandments as Jesus demonstrates in Mat 5:19-30 and not the example of what the apostles taught or kept long after the Cross. 1 Cor 7:19

If Jesus came to fulfill the law or prophets than we can just ignore chapters written by the Prophet Isaiah Ezekiel and Jeremiah to name a few and ignore 2 Timothy 3:16 because not everything these Prophets prophesized has been fulfilled so therefore the next verse still applies...

Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

So does that mean we can covet, vain God's holy name, worship other gods, break His holy Sabbath day, not if we are to believe Jesus and His teachings- not one jot or one tittle will by NO MEANS pass from the law. Jesus has not come yet, nor have many of the prophecy's in the law and prophets been fulfilled yet so not one change can be made to God's law.

Therefore:

Matthew 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus in His own Words is giving light and understanding to the Ten Commandments as many people only read them at face value and do not understand the magnitude of His holy and perfect law.

Jesus is applying to the 10 commandments to our thoughts and feelings and gave two as an example and it is how we are to live by the Spirit, not the letter, which is greater than the letter, not lesser.

Jesus is applying the Ten Commandments to our thoughts and feelings as this is where sin (Rom 7:7) starts, and He gives an example of two of them directly quoting from the Ten. This is an example of living the law written in our hearts and minds (NC) giving an example from two commandments but says not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, which means we are to keep all and apply this teaching/principle to all Mat 5:19. No where is Jesus telling us we can break the letter of the commandments- He makes this clear not one dot of an i can be changed.


Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

What Jesus is teaching here, that we need to change our thoughts before they turn into actions. If we change our thoughts and feelings of contempt and anger toward our neighbor to love and compassion, thou shalt not murder would automatically be kept. Jesus is not teaching its okay to murder as long as we don't have anger. It is impossible to keep the spirit of the law by breaking the letter. It's something the carnal mind can't understand according to Paul. Rom 8:7-8

 

[p_rehbein]

This is what He means:

21Ye 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:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

[JaumeJ]

Jesus Yeshua has come to fulfill the Prophets and the Law, for they both point to Him. Now it is up to believers to read and learn what our Savior has taught us about the Law and the Prphets.

Unless Matthew has been mistranslated, the law is not destroyed but fulfilled by Jesus on the Cross.

Reading further as to how the law is to be applied we find no law may be applied if it does not contain mercy, judgment and more.

We also learn from the Word that being made anew, we have the law inscribed upon our hearts, not on stone. Therefore it appears we have the Ten Commandments on our hearts as truly believing Jesus Yeshua. This being known, and known g the greatest law, we find by our new nature we know and follow all of the laws which must apply. Perhaps I am totally wrong; it may be difficult for any here to believe this, but I have actually been worng before in my sojourn here Jesus will take care of this if necessary.

God bless all in Jesus Yeshua...

 

[Dino246]

It was the Lord God who commanded fleshly circumcision for many thousands of years. It is wrong to say that the Lord was in error when He commanded that. Christ changed that command, and the same time Christ did not say the Father was wrong to command this ritual. Until Christ came it was the law, after Christ came we were commanded to be circumcised but not to cut skin. It was still the same command, but to be performed spiritually only.

There was a change when Christ came. It did not wait until the crucifixion, because the gospels tell of Christ before the crucifixion. Matt. 5 is about the sermon on the mount, it is the teaching of Christ. The spirit of the law did not change. What changed was the way the law was given to us. It changed from teaching through fleshly acts to teaching directly through and heart. It was a change from the symbolic flesh, to directly to our heart and spirit.

You seem to be confusing one ordinance with the Law as a whole. Physical circumcision was required under the Law, but it was given to Abram and his household before that. It was codified under the Sinai covenant.

Jesus did not "change" any part of the Sinai covenant. He explained it more fully, and then initiated a new covenant that is not based on the ordinance given either to Abram or at Sinai. Instead of being a males-only physical requirement, circumcision under the new covenant is for all peoples and happens not by the actions of men but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

The key point to this is that Christians are under a different covenant than the ancient Israelites.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.

Christ was not disagreeing with what was actually written. But Christ was giving the proper interpretation of some of the laws by His own divine authority. He did not "change" the Old Covenant. He FULFILLED it, and then He REPLACED it with the New Covenant.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT.

Jesus is correcting the Jewish "Creative Theology" that they'd come up with in constructing their "TRADITION" that they bound the people to. After all like "Denominational Theology" in general, it had fallen WAY SHORT of the truth. It was (and still is) the reason that Jews reject Jesus - because their phony "Tradition" told them what Messiah "Had to do", and Jesus didn't do that, so HE was false, and they murdered Him for it.

 

[Soyeong]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.
I think it is explaining the prophesy of Ezekiel 31:33, telling us that soon the Lord’s law would be written in man’s hearts.

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently proceeded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written", but in Matthew 5, he consistently proceeded a quote from what the people have heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different from of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey what was written as its was originally intended.

In the OT the law was explained to man through fleshly symbols. To put information in man’s mind was said symbolically to eat. They were given laws regarding clean physical food instead of morally and spiritually clean information food. To be circumcised was to cut flesh, rather than spiritual circumcision of curring flesh and becoming spiritual or marking ourselves spiritually as separate from nonbelievers.

As we are told in Phil.”3-3: Watch out for those dogs, those evil doers who mutilate the flesh. For we who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Jesus the Messiah are the ones who are truly circumcised because we put no confidence in the flesh,

t but as Jeremaiah tells us in 31:33, Christ wrote it in our hearts.

Paul was a servant of God, so while he spoke against becoming circumcised for incorrect purposes, he never spoke against obeying what God has commanded.

 

[Cameron143]

In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently proceeded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written", but in Matthew 5, he consistently proceeded a quote from what the people have heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different from of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written, but rather he was fulfilling the law correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey what was written as its was originally intended.


Paul was a servant of God, so while he spoke against becoming circumcised for incorrect purposes, he never spoke against obeying what God has commanded.

Do you believe Christians should be circumcised?

 

[Soyeong]

Do you believe Christians should be circumcised?

Either Paul only spoke against Christians becoming circumcised for incorrect purposes or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul cause Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised in Acts 16:3 right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose, which should not be mistaken as ruling against becoming circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it. For example, in Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wants to eat of the Passover lamb is required to become circumcised. So I do believe that Christians should be circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, but not for the purposes for which He did not command it.

 

[Cameron143]

Either Paul only spoke against Christians becoming circumcised for incorrect purposes or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul cause Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised in Acts 16:3 right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose, which should not be mistaken as ruling against becoming circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it. For example, in Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wants to eat of the Passover lamb is required to become circumcised. So I do believe that Christians should be circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, but not for the purposes for which He did not command it.

So all that to say yes. And despite the fact that Paul said those who continued in circumcision were attempting to justify themselves by the law? Making Christ of no effect?
You can spin it however you like, but you are a debtor to the whole law. Unfortunately, Christ has not set you free.

 

[Soyeong]

So all that to say yes. And despite the fact that Paul said those who continued in circumcision were attempting to justify themselves by the law? Making Christ of no effect?
You can spin it however you like, but you are a debtor to the whole law. Unfortunately, Christ has not set you free.

Is it your position that Christ is of no value to someone who becomes circumcised for any reason? So you think that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US?

There is a clear distinction between speaking against circumcision for the purpose of becoming justified (which Paul did) and speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason (which Paul did not do, such as with Timothy), so there is no need to accuse me of spin. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason, then he was a false prophet according to God and we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, or if Paul only spoke against circumcision for incorrect purposes, then we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, but either way we should obey what God has commanded. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God, so he shouldn't be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ set us free from God's law, but that he gave himself to set us free from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), and the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

 

[Blik]

Jesus is correcting the Jewish "Creative Theology" that they'd come up with in constructing their "TRADITION" that they bound the people to. After all like "Denominational Theology" in general, it had fallen WAY SHORT of the truth. It was (and still is) the reason that Jews reject Jesus - because their phony "Tradition" told them what Messiah "Had to do", and Jesus didn't do that, so HE was false, and they murdered Him for it.

The law under the old covenant is explained in Hebrews 9:10 ".This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order."

The law was given in fleshly symbols of the true spirit of the law. They were told that God is spirit, so God's true law would need to be spirit, but (especially the Pharisees) believed that to keep the physical law was to obey the Lord. Under the new covenant of Jeremaiah 31:33, the law was of the spirit.

To not murder was to not call others a fool, to not to commit adultr was to not lust, an eye for an eye was not to resist an evil person. To be righteous means to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees.

 

[The_old_guy]

It cannot mean that He is disagreeing with anything the Lord says in the OT. In Matt. 5:17 we are told that Christ changed nothing of the OT.
I think it is explaining the prophesy of Ezekiel 31:33, telling us that soon the Lord’s law would be written in man’s hearts.
In the OT the law was explained to man through fleshly symbols. To put information in man’s mind was said symbolically to eat. They were given laws regarding clean physical food instead of morally and spiritually clean information food. To be circumcised was to cut flesh, rather than spiritual circumcision of curring flesh and becoming spiritual or marking ourselves spiritually as separate from nonbelievers.
As we are told in Phil.”3-3: Watch out for those dogs, those evil doers who mutilate the flesh. For we who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Jesus the Messiah are the ones who are truly circumcised because we put no confidence in the flesh,












































































t but as Jeremaiah tells us in 31:33, Christ wrote it in our hearts.

 

[The_old_guy]

With much of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is talking to the crowd that gathered during his message but directs his "you have heard" in the direction of the Pharisees, who had taught the people their legalistic interpretations of the laws. That's why he gives the deeper meaning of murder as anger and adultery as lust.