in the gospels at different moments Jesus says "it was said to your ancestors... but I say..." and He seems to change the rules.

i understand that He had the authority to change things. most important: no more sacrifices of animals, no more priesthood of Aaron's descendants, etc.

Did the Apostles also have this authority?

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 27, 1999

Answers

Jesus didn't so much change the law as develop it. He Himself said that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and that not a jot or tittle would pass away. Jesus had authority over all this, and He guided the Apostles in their teachings on these issues. Hope this helps.

In Jesus' love, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), March 27, 1999.

So, "Hate your enemy" versus "Love your enemy" is not a change, but a "development." If this is just a "development", what would be a "change"? Give an example of what would be a change to "Hate your enemy".

Thank you,

David

-- David Harrison (sharr3193@aol.com), April 02, 1999.

Semitic usage of the words "love" and "hate" did not have the in- between gradations that we have in English (and which most other languages have). Thus there are verses in the Bible that are translated "hate" and so get a much "tougher" sound than the original text actually meant. Take John 12:25 for example:

John 12:25 (English-RSV)

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Jesus does not want us to hate our life in the way a modern person might interpet that. It is a Semitic usage that pitted opposites against one another because they didn't usually think in terms of the gradations.

Similarly, in this scene you're referring to, Jesus calls us to a higher ethic now, in terms of dealing with "enemies." The OT did teach forgiveness, forbearance, kindness, etc., but Jesus calls us to even more now.

In Jesus' love, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), April 02, 1999.

David,

On the subject of "hate" in the Bible, you might also check out the first half of this:

http://www.webcom.com/ctt/Hhate.html

The second half gets into some trivial stuff, but the first half explains why your question can't be answered in the form in which you put it (IMHO), because it contains a false premise.

In Jesus' love, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), April 02, 1999.

Concerning the "hate thine enemy" , is this maybe just a lesson? Is this God's way of showing us to "hate" satan/evil? Remember this law was given to the Jews at that time who were learning and living the true ways of God. Their only true enemy would be something (satan/evil) that would be interfering with God's plan for them. So, Jesus is only clearing this up,"hate" (satan/evil)but love every person. Satan is the only enemy not a man! The Jews did not quite grasp this so Jesus came to clearify it, as with all the other "changes" that were made. Jesus never changed anything in God's law he just showed them what it meant. The Jews started to become to legalistic with some of the law, thats why we have the messiah! Notice why Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrits, they are adding and being to legalistic of the law.

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), April 03, 1999.

Very good M.! Are you a "scholar"? :>)

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), April 03, 1999.

Jamey, no i am not a "scholar" i am just an ordinary man with common sense and morals. I believe any "child" can understand the word of God, but first you have to be a "child of God". To be a child of God you have to be a Jew! The bible clearly describes how to be a "child of God", you must be a spiritual Jew!

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), April 03, 1999.

Hi, Michael.

You wrote: {{{{{Concerning the "hate thine enemy" , is this maybe just a lesson? Is this God's way of showing us to "hate" satan/evil? Remember this law was given to the Jews at that time who were learning and living the true ways of God. Their only true enemy would be something (satan/evil) that would be interfering with God's plan for them. So, Jesus is only clearing this up,"hate" (satan/evil)but love every person. Satan is the only enemy not a man!}}}}}}}}

Interesting idea, but I disagree. The whole context of Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, where this appears, shows us that Jesus cant have in mind only Satan/abstract evil in this verse. Lets look at a few of the verses around it:

Matthew 5 (English-RSV)

11 "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [This is real people who might do this (and did do this, when the first Christians were persecuted).] 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. . . 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. [This too shows other people are under discussion.] 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. . . [Again, reconciliation with others, and forgiveness of them.]

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; [This means real people, because we are to resist both abstract evil and the devil.] 40 and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. [This would only make sense with real people. We are not to act this way with the devil.] 42 Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. 43 [Now we have some context for the verse under discussion:] "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [Notice enemies is plural, and so it cannot be the devil. Moreover, we are not to love the devil. Nor are we to pray for the devil.] 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? [Notice it is still plural (those) and so Jesus cannot mean the devil.]

Thus a summary of the reaons why I respectfully disagree with Michaels interpretation:

1. The whole context shows that Jesus has real (hostile) people under discussion, in several verses leading up to this one. The basic form of the teaching each time is to show kindness toward those with whom you have had an adversarial relationship.

2. Jesus shows here several times that He is speaking in the plural regarding those enemies we are to love, and this could not apply to the devil/evil.

3. We are not to love the devil/evil, but Jesus is commanding us love enemies here.

4. We are not to pray for the devil, but Jesus is commanding us to pray for enemies here.

In Jesus love, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), April 03, 1999.

HI CHRIS! Maybe your not understanding what i mean by saying your enemy is satan and evil. I am not saying that you should hate any man , but hate evil and satan. The bible teaches to fear God not satan hence this verse: 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. If you are "not resisting" one who is evil(satan) you do not fear him and are at odds with him(satan) therefore he is your enemy. Chris, are you saying that evil and satan are not your enemy? I do not believe you are. I don't hate a man for being evil i hate the evil that he does and the spirit behind that evil, because that man can change but that evil can not. Therefore i hate the enemy/evil/satan. I am justified to do so (hate thine enemy)and do not fear it.

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), April 03, 1999.

{{{{HI CHRIS!}}}}}

Hi! Its almost Easter and I cant wait!

{{{{{Maybe your not understanding what i mean by saying your enemy is satan and evil.}}}}}

Quite possible.

{{{{{I am not saying that you should hate any man , but hate evil and satan.}}}}}

Yes, I know. Its just that you think that the enemy in verse Mt 5:43 is Satan/evil, and I just presented a case to try to show that it is not. That would go against the whole context (IMHO) in several different ways.

{{{{The bible teaches to fear God not satan hence this verse: 39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. If you are "not resisting" one who is evil(satan) you do not fear him and are at odds with him(satan) therefore he is your enemy.}}}}}

Yes, I was hoping you could rewrite this and explain it pretty slowly, because I wasnt able to follow you.

{{{{Chris, are you saying that evil and satan are not your enemy? I do not believe you are.}}}}

Right. Evil and Satan are my enemy.

{{{{ I don't hate a man for being evil i hate the evil that he does and the spirit behind that evil, because that man can change but that evil can not.}}}}

I agree. I just disagree with your interpetation of what Jesus meant by enemy when He spoke of hating thine enemy. Nevertheless, its probably not such an important subject (this nuance in this one verse) that you and I ought to spill a lot of more of our brain cells over it. :-) Have a good Easter, you and anybody else who reads this! Jesus rose from the dead! He conquered death! It has no power over us anymore.

In Jesus love, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), April 03, 1999.

Happy easter, no i mean ressurection day! I'm not trying to burst any more brain cells but i was never refering to:

*Yes, I know. Its just that you think that the enemy in verse Mt 5:43 is Satan/evil, and I just presented a case to try to show that it is not. That would go against the whole context (IMHO) in several different ways.*

I was only refering to the "hate thine enemy" in the old testament! I agree with you about Mt. 5:43! That is about man and man is no enemy! Sorry about the confussion!

-- Michael(non-catholic) (mdroe@erinet.com), April 03, 1999.

Chris, I have many disagreements with your long answer, but you still didn't answer my original request. You pointed instead to a website, which I can't get into. You said there is a false premise but you didn't say what it was or why it was false. Please try to answer my original request, preferably without pointing to a website.

Thank you,

David Harrison

-- David Harrison (sharr@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

Chris, I have many disagreements with your long response, but you still didn't answer my original request. You pointed instead to a website, which I can't get into. You said there is a false premise but you didn't say what it was or why it was false. Please try to answer my original request, preferably without pointing to a website.

Thank you,

David Harrison

-- David Harrison (sharr@aol.com), April 05, 1999.

David --

Interesting request! I guess Chris (and everyone else) is stumped.

Alan

-- Alan James (Viddy0@aol.com), April 09, 1999.

First, let me say that Im glad that David has asked his questions respectfully. It is very appreciated! :-) My not posting on the forum has had nothing to do with Davids questions. I have not posted because I have been so discouraged by Jamey making yet a third attack on my sincerity, after all that weve discussed together. Many things that have happened have led me to wonder what I am really accomplishing on the forum. I think my time might be better spent by working on my book on Christianity. For one thing, Id be able to spend more time on the issues that really call me personally! :-) I dont think Ill be posting anymore after today, though Im going to think about it some more.

As to what David has said here: first, that web address was not to some vast website I wanted you to study (which I know can be tedious), but to a very short exchange on the Internet. The false premise was a misunderstanding of what hate versus love often meant in Semitic usage. It seemed to me that you put the modern understanding on these terms rather than the Semitic one, and this understanding was the basis of your question. If the words in fact were not intended in this way, then your question itself would have to be reconsidered.

At any rate, I looked into this and I found out something much more important. In fact the instruction to hate your enemies nowhere appears in the Old Testament. It was an addition made by the Pharisees, and Jesus is rooting it out in Matthew 5:43. Many of the developments Jesus makes both in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the NT do pertain to laws that really appear in the OT, but this teaching does not. Thus (just to make this clear) there is no requirement for me to defend a development here if hate your enemies never even appeared in the Bible. Nevertheless, I thought it might be worthwhile to say something about the concept of development in the NT in general.

First, its true that a development is a change, insofar as change is difference over time. Nevertheless, development is more specific. We might think of a Venn diagram, with change as the set and development as one of the subsets. Another subset of change is corruption. Jesus brought only developments to the law in the Old Testament.

For an analogy to development, we might think of the way that an artist sits down to sketch, say, a horse. He might draw some lines that are true to the horses form, but faint, and several at different angles. Then, he might take a darker pencil and refine these lines into a shape still truer to the horses form. That is analogous to what Jesus did regarding the Old Testament law.

Some examples of changes that would NOT be developments:

1. If Jesus had said that God is evil.

2. If He had said that it is good to bear false witness against your neighbor.

3. If He had said that it is good to covet what belongs to your neighbor.

What I have said naturally raises the very deep (and, I think, interesting) philosophical question of why God used development in His revelation. Just in passing, Ill point out that this process is a reflection of what God does with each individual believers understanding of Himself, as the believer gets closer and closer to Him.

I dont think Ill be responding anymore after today (I need to think and pray some more about where Im called), but I hope this helps.

Sincerely, Chris

-- chris butler (chrisbutler48@hotmail.com), April 10, 1999.

If you think that questioning your sincerity is "attacking", please remember the history that the "church" has and the position that I'm coming from. It's still is happening today "christians" fighting "christians" all over the world in the name of "god." No matter what the "churches" are teaching the "members" are still going at it. I still question that "teaching" and the quality of it.

In the places where I have made wrong "assumptions" I have tried to apologize for my misconceptions. The reason I question your "sincerity" is that they seem to keep occuring. Such as this case where you are occusing my of "attacking" you. I've already explained theI view the web and communicating thru it and that you've never met me. I try, thru my limited form of communication of trying to understand other positions and this is the only form I know of to do so - questioning. The reason I keep questioning, is that you seem to keep "accusing" me of things I do not say (ex. reference to "angel saved"). Which, btw, I know is easy to do thru this means and the only way I know to verify my thoughts/position is to 'defend' what I have said.

Jamey

On a another side, I was begining to wonder why you have been missing and was sincerely concerned. But, please do not use me as some excuse. I do consider you presence here an asset -even though I don't agree with you position. However, I do believe The Father and His Son will guide us all to find the Truth, no matter what they've been taught by "men." It may not occur in this life time.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), April 10, 1999.

Perhaps we can look at the life of Christ not so much as revolution but rather an evolution since losing it from Adam. Christ being the new Adam.

Peace And Well Being,

Jean Bouchard

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 11, 1999.