TBR Bible study -- Matthew 5

This may open up a can of worms, but here goes... it is my understanding that while Jesus was on earth, His purpose was multi-faceted. The gospels actually take place during the OT dispensation and Jesus is both fulfilling the law (thereby freeing us from it), and also living as an example of how we are to live. The challenge and sometimes confusion is to know where the differences are.

So in this passage, He is talking to Jews, who are under the law, and mistakenly believe that their good behavior is what qualifies them to go to heaven or be blessed. Some actually believed they were pretty good and deserving of their blessings. Here, I think Jesus was demonstrating their absolute hopelessness of achieveing this on their own and their need for a savior.

So i say all this, to say that I think we're not under the law because vs 18 says that not one iota of the law will diminish until it is all accomplished ( at that point it hadn't been) but on the cross Jesus said "it is finished".

 

I don't think it makes sense to say that Jesus fulfilled the law so others wouldn't have to. He fulfilled it by obeying it, & the central tenet of Christianity is that he did so perfectly, & was the only man to ever successfully do so. His life was meant to be an example, not merely a substitute for others. I think the intent isn't for his followers to depend solely on his sacrifice for forgiveness, but to follow his example of obedience to the best of their ability, with a lifelong continuing process of self-examination & improvement.

In the last verse of this chapter, Jesus says, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Change that BE to BECOME. That's the real purpose of obedience. Not to "get into heaven." It's purpose is to alter human nature to godly character.

Where it gets really confusing, perhaps, is in the matter of exactly what changed in God's expectations for his people once Jesus accomplished the sacrificing of himself to pay the penalty for all sins.

The way that I understand it, the animal sacrifices carried out in Old Testament times were symbolic & prophetic of Jesus' sacrifice of himself. So once his sacrifice was completed, that abrogated the need for the symbolic sacrificial rites.

But ask 10 different people what OTHER changes were made in the "law" that man is to obey from OT to NT, & you'll get 10 different opinions.

 

I'd like to see some discussion on the implications of these verses.

How can your eye or your hand cause you to sin? Does this mean that if seeing certain things incites lust, you should actually consider blinding yourself to prevent those thoughts?

And what is this about losing a body part in the afterlife, & bodies being thrown into hell? I was always taught it was my soul, not my body, that was in danger of hell & eternal torment. And I always envisioned a healing process that would make the person who got into heaven (or whatever the rewarded get) whole again in a spiritual body. How much of this is meant to be literal, & how much is figurative language?

 

.

 

.

I'm not saying that obedience to any law is required for Christian "salvation." That is, the part about not being condemned to hell. What I AM saying, though, is that I believe people who think salvation is all there is to it are missing the REAL point.

Why would any god wish to ransom a bunch of selfish, sinful characters to spend eternity with him? Maybe he wants company. Maybe he wants something like a family.

Now that I DO agree with. It seems to me that God would want his people to develop that character, though, if he wants their fellowship in eternity. The practice of obedience alone won't accomplish that, just because people are flawed. But if the sacrifice of Christ reconciles a person to him, won't that person then have God's help to keep working toward that end? Might that be accomplished eventually? Not in this lifetime perhaps, but eventually. Practice something repeatedly & you DO improve. Seems to me that divine help would make that possible.

Of course anyone who cares about more than saving himself--who actually cares about an ultimate purpose of becoming better & having a relationship with God--will want to obey those laws that God considers important, to act as Christ himself would have acted. And that's where I think people become confused about the DETAILS of obedience.

What I guess I'm saying is that while you may not need obedience to get the initial stay of execution, the convert most certainly IS expected to change & obey. But it's a process, not an instant thing.

 

.

 

Curly, what you've said does make sense. These are some very interesting & pretty tough points for most people to sort out. I'm very much enjoying the discussion all the way around, & learning from it

 

It would be more accurate to say that Jesus fulfilled the law because no one else could.

Correct, and that's one of the reasons why He was the only perfect sacrifice for the sins of others.

Exactly. It's a 'both/and' situation, not an 'either/or'. The apostle Paul addressed this in his letter to the Romans:

 

I totally agree.

I would agree with that interpretation. But remember -- the animal sacrifices were for penance after breaking one of the laws. In my opinion, the method of atonement being changed doesn't remove the law itself.

In my study, it seems to me that there is a separation in the Law. There is the law given to Moses we know as the 10 commandments. Later, there was a long and complex set of rules and punishments given which spanned a few books of the OT. In my understanding, the initial 10 commandments are transcendental, and seem to be reflected in Jesus' teachings and those of the apostles afterward. The latter group of laws given to the Hebrews seem to me to be more targeted to that particular race of people, and in many ways applicable to that time period. I could be very wrong about that, but it makes sense to me. What's more, that theory doesn't conflict with or cause problems with Christ's fulfillment of the law itself.

Another note on fulfilling the law I just thought of -- the original purpose of the law itself (all of it), was to paint a picture and give Israel a way to achieve righteousness. But because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, we have the option of 'righteousness by association', so to speak. Through faith, repentance, and allegiance to Christ, His righteousness is applied to us. That is the principle of His grace.

 

They can't, and He knows it as well as they did. He also knows that putting your eyes out won't necessarily stop you from lusting.

I believe His purpose in this teaching is twofold. First, He's trying to restore a contempt for sin within the Jewish community. The feeling I get is that Israel's "thirst for righteousness" had run a tad dry, so to speak. Second, it seems from Jesus' other statements in this chapter (and others) that He's calling them out for going through the motions of the law -- looking righteous on the outside while darkness remains alive and well in their minds and hearts. Sin originates in the mind. It always has.

I believe He's trying to urge the Israelites to avoid sin at all costs. If one could rid his body of sin by 'amputating it', losing an arm, a leg, or sight to achieve righteousness is better -- in a spiritual sense -- than being intact physically and corrupted spiritually. But again, both He and His audience knew that sin doesn't live in various parts of the body like a disease or deformity. It originates in the heart and mind (i.e. the consciousness or soul), but obviously that's not something that can be 'pruned'. He's just using an illustration to communicate the level of disdain the children of God should have for sin itself. Does that make sense?