Matthew 5:17 explanation?

[Hodos]

Again, I demonstrated from the OT that these were always requirements not to hate one’s brother or bear a grudge, the actual OT statement on divorce which Jesus upheld, and how people were attempting to get around the prohibition of swearing. Again, I see no expansion where the law already covers it. Here’s the problem with your answer. It assumes that Jesus wasn’t the Old Testament lawgiver to begin with. We don’t have two Gods. We have one. And in fact, Paul seems to indicate in 1 Corinthians that it was Jesus who went with Moses at the time of the Exodus.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Again, I demonstrated from the OT that these were always requirements not to hate one’s brother or bear a grudge, the actual OT statement on divorce which Jesus upheld

You didn’t demonstrate that killing was the same as holding a grudge.

the actual OT statement on divorce which Jesus upheld

He said, “No divorce (except if marriage is unlawful).”

Moses allowed it. Jesus switched it.

and how people were attempting to get around the prohibition of swearing.

“Do not swear at all.”

Yeah, no expansion.

Here’s the problem with your answer. It assumes that Jesus wasn’t the Old Testament lawgiver to begin with.

:man_shrugging:t6: No. You’re assuming an argument from silence. And we’re told the Law was given by angels

 

[Hodos]

The “righteousness of God” that he received on the basis of faith, a matter of grace, can be defined most accurately by the term “love

I’ll bite. Despite the fact that the text contradicts this and doesn’t say what you are saying…Who’s love if Paul speaking of in that passage? Yours? Or Christ’s?

But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.

A different spin just means that, with the law apart from the Greatest Commandments man is told how to act righteously while with the Greatest Commandments he’s told how to be righteous. Neither are attainable on our own, apart from God, but we can at least make a good pretense of fulfilling the former. But in truth, the Ten Commandments et al are not truly fulfilled unless and until the Greatest Commandments are fulfilled.

No one is disputing the fact that we fail at keeping the law, or obtaining righteousness. That is entirely the point. And just as the Old Covenant required atonement by blood (only here it is not effective, it only points to the work of Christ), so does the New Covenant where Christ sheds his own body and blood for us that we might be accounted as righteous before God.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

so does the New Covenant where Christ sheds his own body and blood for us that we might be accounted as righteous before God.

“Become righteous.”

 

[Hodos]

You didn’t demonstrate that killing was the same as holding a grudge.

I actually did. I point to the fact that Leviticus 19, which is part of the Mosaic law, tells us not to hate our neighbor nor bear a grudge against him, but we are called to love our neighbor.

He said, “No divorce (except if marriage is unlawful).”

Moses allowed it. Jesus switched it.

No, Jesus said the law provided for divorce because of sin. But he also said that anyone who divorces his wife except for unchastity (which is what Deuteronomy is speaking about when it speaks of finding indecency in her) causes her to commit adultery.

“Do not swear at all.”

Again, the point of the 2nd and 8th Commandments is that lying, and doing so particularly by swearing an oath on God’s name is prohibited. The Pharisees were teaching that breaking one’s word is cool so long as you don’t use formulas that beseech God as the witness in some way. Both are prohibited in the OT, Christ is just slamming the door on such loose interpretation of the law. So you are right, no expansion at all. Show me where in the OT Law it was cool to lie.

No. You’re assuming an argument from silence. And we’re told the Law was given by angels

No, it very explicitly states it was received from God. It says God came down to the mountain, and then explicitly and God spoke all these words. Again, there is only one God. I hope you are not attempting to argue tri-theism or hino-theism or some other variation here. If so, you need to talk with your priest and clarify some points of doctrine.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I point to the fact that Leviticus 19, which is part of the Mosaic law, tells us not to hate our neighbor nor bear a grudge against him, but we are called to love our neighbor

It doesn’t link killing with holding a grudge. Only Jesus does this

No, Jesus said the law provided for divorce because of sin. But he also said that anyone who divorces his wife except for unchastity (which is what Deuteronomy is speaking about when it speaks of finding indecency in her)

No. Jesus prohibits divorce except in cases where the marriage is unlawful. The Deuteronomy text would not have two schools of interpretation if so.

No, it very explicitly states it was received from God. It says God came down to the mountain, and then explicitly and God spoke all these words.

I guess Stephen was an open Theist.

Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
Acts 7:52‭-‬53 RSV-CI

Acts 7:52-53 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law | Revised Standard Version Old Tradi

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So you are right, no expansion at all. Show me where in the OT Law it was cool to lie.

“Don’t swear at all.”

Yeah, no expansion.

 

[Hodos]

It doesn’t link killing with holding a grudge. Only Jesus does this

You forgot the part where in Leviticus 19 it says you shall not take vengeance against your neighbor…but you shall love your neighbor as yourself…

No. Jesus prohibits divorce except in cases where the marriage is unlawful. The Deuteronomy text would not have two schools of interpretation if so.

I won’t get into the semantics of divorce vs. annulment. Suffice it to say there is no scriptural difference between the two.

Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

So first, I don’t think you understand the semantic range of the word αγγελος, nor does it say that they, the audience whom Stephen is speaking to at present received the law directly from God, but it was passed down to them. Feel free to peruse Exodus 19 and 20 though and see whom Moses credits with giving the law.

Yeah, no expansion.

Again, go back to Leviticus 19 which addresses both swearing and lying in the same context. Again, I agree, no expansion.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I don’t think you understand the semantic range of the word αγγελος, nor does it say that they, the audience whom Stephen is speaking to at present received the law directly from God,

Or, you erroneously leave out the possibility that God literally spoke through His angels on mount Sinai.

Paul says this too.

So they are reading something you aren’t.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You forgot the part where in Leviticus 19 it says you shall not take vengeance against your neighbor…but you shall love your neighbor as yourself…

You seem to forget that the Leviticus text doesn’t link this with Commandment 5.

Same old same old.

 

[Hodos]

Or, you erroneously leave out the possibility that God literally spoke through His angels on mount Sinai.

Paul says this too.

So they are reading something you aren’t.

Yes, and Christ is also called an angel at times. So again, you have no understanding of the semantic range of the word angel.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So again, you have no understanding of the semantic range of the word angel.

Angels, not angel.

https://biblehub.com/library/aquinas/summa_theologica/whether_the_old_law_was_3.htm

 

[Hodos]

You seem to forget that the Leviticus text doesn’t link this with Commandment 5.

Same old same old.

What do you think taking vengeance means in this context? Do you even OT bro?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

What do you think taking vengeance means in this context?

You dodge the issue.

Leviticus does not link murder to holding a grudge. Jesus in Matthew does.

 

[Hodos]

Angels, not angel.

At which verse. He uses a singular form and plural form depending on which verse you are referring to. In the singular sense he is referring to the Angel of the Lord (as mentioned in Exodus), which appears to be the pre-incarnate Christ.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Aquinas:
On the contrary, The Apostle said (Gal.3:19) that the Law was “given [Vulg.: ‘ordained’] by angels in the hand of a Mediator.” And Stephen said (Acts 7:53): “(Who) have received the Law by the disposition of angels.”

I answer that, The Law was given by God through the angels. And besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz. that “the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the angels,” there is a special reason why the Old Law should have been given through them. For it has been stated ([2064]AA[1],2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through Christ. Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given by the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e. by the angels. It is thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews (1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the Old; because in the New Testament “God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son,” whereas in the Old Testament “the word was spoken by angels” (Heb.2:2).

Reply to Objection 1: As Gregory says at the beginning of his Morals (Praef. chap. i), “the angel who is described to have appeared to Moses, is sometimes mentioned as an angel, sometimes as the Lord: an angel, in truth, in respect of that which was subservient to the external delivery; and the Lord, because He was the Director within, Who supported the effectual power of speaking.” Hence also it is that the angel spoke as personating the Lord.

Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), it is stated in Exodus that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face”; and shortly afterwards we read, “Show me Thy glory. Therefore He perceived what he saw and he desired what he saw not.” Hence he did not see the very Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that “He spoke to him face to face,” this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a subordinate creature, i.e. an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this vision “face to face” means some kind of sublime and familiar contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence.

 

[Hodos]

You dodge the issue.

Leviticus does not link murder to holding a grudge. Jesus in Matthew does.

Again, it does. But again, you are still trying to argue that that OT law was not of God or that there are two gods working here? The God of the OT is the God of the NT brother. This is the issue your interpretation has, it forces you to make arguments that divide the godhead.

For it has been stated ([2064]AA[1],2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through Christ.

Now this here is actually a worthwhile objection. The first you have presented. Well done. The actual issue here is that the old covenant was made between God and man, with the problem that the blessings were dependent upon man’s obedience (Hebrews 7). The issue was not the law, but who bore the obligation of fulfilling the law. But if we check Hebrews 8-10, the new covenant would be guaranteed by a greater high priest and a greater sacrifice. Notice it says nothing about abolishing the law that goes with the covenant. Rather he upholds it in chapter 10.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But again, you are still trying to argue that that OT law was not of God or that there are two gods working here?

No. You are creating a strawman, case in point.

You also pontificate on the subject, making statements running counter to Matthew’s claims.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He uses a singular form and plural form depending on which verse you are referring to. In the singular sense he is referring to the Angel of the Lord (as mentioned in Exodus), which appears to be the pre-incarnate Christ

Or Exodus speaks of angels standing in God’s place.

Read the answers to your objections from Aquinas.

You have accused me of Marcionism. I could easily accuse you of Arianism.

 

[AlNg]

Following this verse, shouldn’t we follow all the Old Testament laws?

Yes, it is true that Christians today think that they are exempt from the OT laws. But Jesus himself says that He did not come to abolish the OT laws. This was something decided by others, such as St. Paul.