by jimwalton » Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:11 pm
Jesus didn't change the laws. People had changed them, and Jesus was straightening things out. These verses, then (Matthew 5:38-42), for example, are one of the examples of incorrect teaching and understanding by the religious leaders. They had taken the Bible and distorted it. The religious people were quoting the Old Testament out of context and wrongfully applying it to an area that God never intended. They were using the words "eye for an eye" as a justification for retaliation in personal relationships (you hit me so I get to hit you; you stole from me so I get to steal from you)—a total misunderstanding of the teaching. Jesus's point is that God never intended the words "eye for an eye" to be about personal revenge. The words were originally designed for a court of law (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)—fair judgments for what was perpetrated. In other words, the punishment should fit the crime.
I can explain it grammatically, and maybe that will help. There are several Greek words that mean "but" (Jesus uses one of them in Matthew 5.39). The one Jesus uses is a contrast that opposes but still continues and connects (in distinction from one that makes a complete separation). It is milder than the other form. In other words, the term Jesus uses ("but") represents a new development in the story, not a change like a contradiction or a different direction. It's a course correction.
So Jesus isn't changing the law. The law is still valid, but people have been misusing the law and distorting it for their own purposes. In essence, Jesus is bringing the law back to what it was always intended to be. Jesus is still teaching the Old Testament law, and nothing that He is teaching is new material. The Old Testament stressed gentleness, grace, and generosity (Dt. 15.11; Ps. 112.5, 9; Prov. 21.13).
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:11 pm.