Burden of Proof

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   You (Apollos) wrote:  �It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it.�
(From Serv):
 Here, then, is a difference, and not one only of semantics.  I don�t think that negating the thesis amplifies it.   I think that negating the thesis creates the antithesis.  As I read it, Moses stated the thesis and Jesus stated the antithesis (see above).            

(From Apollos):

Servetis -
I understand that you see this as a thesis and antithesis scenario but unless you intentionally want to ignore the context of the sermon Jesus is giving, I don�t see why you should. In this sermon on the mount Jesus makes a transition from the Blessed are the meek, etc. to this part where He tells them: �Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.� (The Greek word translated as �fulfill� means complete, perfect, finish, etc.). He then goes on to warn against relaxing (loosen, break, destroy) any of these commandments. After this intro He gives four examples of the Law that He clearly amplifies. Following the same pattern of �You have heard it said � but I tell .. �, Jesus says: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."  But I say to you, Do not resist evil. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. And to him desiring to sue you, and to take away your tunic, let him have your coat also. whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two.  Give to him who asks of you, and you shall not turn away from him who would borrow from you. 

From the introduction and context of the preceding amplifications, it would seem quite odd for Jesus to contradict Himself and actually do what He had just warned against doing. I give Him at least the same benefit of the doubt I would any speaker or writer and investigate the details before assuming the worst. When one does investigate the details I think the conclusion is that Moses commanded a limit on recompense not a minimum. 

But let�s say I am wrong. Let�s say that Jesus was repealing this Law, as He replaced it with a higher standard of Grace. Ultimately that is what He preached � That we humans can�t attain to the Law in principal or outward show. Would such a change amount to destroying the Law or perfecting the Law? If it is the former, the Old Testament has more explaining to do than the New Testament. For God in the Old Testament allowed David to live after he had killed Uriah and committed adultery with his wife. He instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a harlot or a woman who became a harlot and not put her to death � in order that God dramatize the sin of the Jewish nation. These and other examples lead me to conclude that God�s Grace fulfills/completes/perfects the Law of God without destroying it. 
(From Serv):
Please allow me to put it in practical, logical rather than theological, but still hypothetical terms.  Forget all else and accept, for now, that there are two primary laws, or statements of law, on the books, one by Moses and the other by Jesus:
(Moses)�If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.�
(Jesus)�You have heard that it was said [by Moses], �Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.� But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.� 
I am the aggrieved party (plaintiff) standing before you, the sole judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner.  The defendant has, hours before, in a fit of fury and for no legitimate reason, punched me in the face and knocked out one of my teeth.  How do you judge the case and dispense justice according to both Moses and Jesus (using these and related verses) and what, in the end, becomes of the defendant?  What, if any, punishment is meted to the perpetrator of the crime?  Answering that might provide a workable synthesis.
(From Apollos):

Serv �
You ask a good question but I think the stage is missing some elements. Actually Jesus described a similar setting in some of His parables and stories and He made you both the judge and plaintiff. He then added a Supreme Judge over you and described a situation where your decision toward the one who has harmed you will be used as the measurement for how you will be treated. If you demand justice, justice will be demanded of you. If you give forgiveness and grace, these will be given to you. As long as you see only look at the horizontal plane, you might imagine yourself as a plaintiff. When/if you can see yourself in the vertical plane, you will see that God is the plaintiff and we need grace not justice.
Apollos