Saturday study 12/20/25

 Part 2: Eye for an Eye...But I Say

Series Theme: 

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

The point is to see whether Jesus was merely repeating Moses or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, he changed and even overturned Torah at certain points: 

Did he change the Old Covenant law “Eye for an Eye”? 

1. "You Have Heard"

Exodus 21:12-27 “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth…”

Leviticus 24:17–22 “Whoever injures his neighbor… as he has done, so it shall be done to him.”

Numbers 35:16–34 The avenger of blood and kin-based vengeance.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 “Your eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye…”

• Laws of realtion (Lex talionis) established in Genesis 9:5-6 ("blood for blood") universal Noahide laws after the flood: kill for kill ("whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed");
• Torah reaffirms the principle extending it to non-fatal injuries (life for life, eye for eye, etc.), ensuring justice is equitable and prevents excessive vengeance.
• Over time, this judicial principle also began to shape personal ethics—many took it as permission for personal payback, venegance in kind.
• The Old Covenant allowed regulated retaliation, even to the point of the “avenger of blood” personally killing a murderer or an intruder, in certain situations.
• This is the ethic Jesus directly addresses and changes in the Sermon on the Mount.

1. "But I Say"

Matthew 5:38–42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist the evil person…”

Matthew 5:43–48 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” Cp. Luke 6:27–36 “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you…”

• The fifth antithesis contrasts Torah’s principle of measured retaliation (“eye for eye”) with the new law of Jesus. 
• Instead of insisting on one’s rights, Jesus calls his followers to surrender them—even to the point of suffering or death—for the good of others, including your enemies. 
• This prepares the way for his unqualified enemy-love command at the end of this chapter.
• Jesus explicitly quotes “eye for eye” and then says: 

“Do not resist the one who is evil.” “Turn the other cheek.” “Give to the one who asks.”

• This is not a repeat nor explanation of Moses; 
• This is overturning, changing the entire judicial Mosaic system and personal mindset replacing it with absolute enemy-love.
• Obedience to this command makes one a child of God, the Father.

1. Did Jesus Practice what he Preached?

Matthew 26:47–54 

Peter uses the sword; Jesus says, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Matthew 26:57–68; 27:24-31 Jesus himself supremely embodied the command to “turn the other cheek”, enduring mockery, abuse, and violence without retaliation.

Luke 7:36-50 Forgives a woman publicly known as a sinner.

John 8:1–11 Protects and restores the woman caught in adultery, contra Torah (adultery death penalty, Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)!

NOTE: common objections, both parties not present or somehow false charges.

Jesus didn't mention the missing husband, the lack of a formal trial, or the selective application of the law. Instead, assumed her guilt, "do not sin anymore," John 8.11!

Luke 23:33–34 From the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

• On the cross, instead of calling for vengeance, he prays for God to forgive them.
• His example is the pattern for Christians until he comes back.
• 1 Peter 2:18-25 summary of his whole minitserial practice. 

1. Did the Apostolic Church?

Romans 12:9–21 

Bless those who persecute you…never avenge yourselves… overcome evil with good.

1 Thessalonians 5:14–15 “See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always pursue what is good…”

Hebrews 10:26-39 “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”

• The apostolic church is unanimous: Christians are to respond to enemies with goodness, blessing, and mercy, not payback.
• The apostles repeat nor enforce the Old “eye for eye” as a Christian standard.
• Retaliation of any kind, lethal or not, is explicitly forbidden.
• Peter points to Jesus’ suffering as the model: no reviling, no threats, entrusting himself to God who judges justly.
• Hebrews reminds Christians that vengeance belongs to God, not to us—leave it in God’s hands.

1. Antithesis: Servant vs. The Son

Hebrews opens by teaching how God once spoke through Moses and the prophets, but now speaks through His Son, Jesus.

Hebrews 3:1-6 Moses is honored as a faithful servant in God's house, but Jesus is the unique procreated human Son of God, appointed heir of all things. 

Moses served in the household of God; the Son has been made the owner.  

Hebrews 8:6–13 Jesus, mediator of a better covenant; what is becoming obsolete is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 12:22–25 Jesus, mediator of a new covenant “see that you do not refuse Him who speaks.”

• The Old Covenant, with its judicial retaliation, is described as becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away.
• The ethic of “eye for eye” belongs to a former covenant; the ethic of enemy-love belongs to the New Covenant.
• To cling to Moses’ “eye for eye” against Jesus’ “love your enemies” is ultimately to refuse the Son’s authority.

1. Takeaways 

• Old Covenant: “Eye for eye” was a temporary, judicial principle, often extended (sometimes wrongly) into personal retaliation.
• Jesus’ Teaching directly confronts that mindset and commands absolute non-violence and unconditional enemy-love.
• Jesus Practiced what he Preached—no violence, no revenge, only forgiveness, even toward his killers.
• Apostolic Church understood and uniformly forbid repaying evil for evil and call believers to overcome evil with good.
• New Covenant Authority: Jesus, as new lawgiver, greater than Moses wherever their teachings differ—especially on this topic.
• Christian then and now not permitted to live by the old “eye for eye.” 
• Christians are called to absolute enemy-love, leave it at the altar for God's coming just judgment and vengeance.

Please visit and share: christenemylove.com 

Virgin Birth Discussion 12/15/25

 What it is not!

1. Muslims and others who say part of the Greco-Roman pagan stories, I.e., gods having sex with humans; the only such story is the awful, supernatural sin of angels procreating with women, Gen 6!

• What are Pagan stories? Zeus creating demi-gods [half god-half human, double nature] like Hercules!

• Mithra Roman mystery-cult savior, born from a rock! No ancient source says “Mithras had a virgin mother.” The “rock” is not a virgin woman; it’s a rock. And it wasn't Dec. 25.

• Luke carefully avoids any hint of a sexual encounter.

• In Luke 1:34 Mary asks the angel:

“How will this be possible since I have never been with a man?”  

The angel answered with a precise miraculous reason and no other, by the power of holy spirit.

• The language purposely echoes Genesis 1:2—the spirit “hovering” over the waters:

“…and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” (LSB).

• This is creation language, not a sexual description.

• The conception is by divine creative fiat, nothing to do with God sex!

• The Son of God is not some demi-god. He is a miraculously procreated human person, the second/last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), uniquely created by God like the first Adam.

• Jude 6–7 interprets Gen 6 as angels crossing boundaries “in a similar way to Sodom,” that is, sexual rebellion.

• This story is the opposite of the "virgin birth" story as a result leads to worldwide judgment (Flood), not a blessing on this earth!

• The contrast is intentional:

Genesis 6 shows angels acting against God’s will, Luke 1 shows Mary and the angel acting in obedience to God’s will.

Genesis 6 involves sexual union, Luke 1 involves the creative power of God.

Genesis 6 brings judgment, Luke 1 brings ultimate blessing, salvation.

Adoptionism, the oldest heresy; including IVF type miracle;

• Jesus was born in the normal human way — from a human father and mother, but at some later point (usually at his baptism) God “adopted” him and declared him His Son.

• This view regards Jesus as a normal man elevated later by God.

• Whereas both Matthew & Luke describe the origin (Mat 1.1, 18) by miraculous procreation (Mat 1.20; Luke 1:35) without a biological father.

• By definition excludes adoptionism!

• NOTE how Matthew 1:16 ends the record of the genesis [not just genealogy] of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of both Abraham and king David:

“Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, out of whom was fathered Jesus, who is called the Messiah.” 

• In the list preceding this verse, fathers beget or procreate sons, but in the case of Mary, the procreating is said to be by God Himself. 

• Joseph nonetheless remains important since Gospel of Matthew traces his geneology after all. But Joseph functions as Jesus' legal not biological father, a concept well-attested and uncontroversial in rabbinic Judaism.

• And at the start of his ministry recognized publicly as God’s Son at baptism, not that he only became His Son at that point (Mark 1:11; Ps. 2:7).

Catholic view, “perpetual virginity of Mary”;

• First, No Biblical Doctrine Ever Teaches or Even Suggests Celibacy as a Holier State for either Males or Females; cp. Genesis command "be fruitful and multiply."

• Celibacy like Monasticism post-biblical catholic dogmas.

• Matt 1:25 clearly states they had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus:

Joseph "did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son"!

• Hence, Gospels record Mary had multiple children after Jesus.

• NOTE the Greek does have a specific term for "cousin" (anepsios, used once in Colossians 4:10 for Mark, cousin of Barnabas). Whereas adelphos (and its Hebrew counterpart) was the common, everyday word Jews used for any close male relative of the same generation.

2. Christian view to do with “original sin” not a mark or taint with the Son.

• Sounds like another post-biblical invention that reflects Augustinian anthropolgy, nothing to do with the NT accounts.

• The Bible as a whole does not tie sin to male descent.

• NT account not a hint of it.

• Why then? Tied to the new creation motif, i.e., the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), a unique creation, just as Adam was specially created by God.

3. Common objections answers:

Isaiah 7:14; Mat 1.23 virgin or young maiden girl?

• The Heb. ʿalmâ in every occurrence in the Hebrew Bible, where the her sexual status is clear or implied, means a virgin (Gen 24:43 [Rebecca]; Exod 2:8 [Moses’ sister]; Ps 68:25; Song 1:3; 6:8; Prov 30:19).

• Although the prophet could have used betula, but that word is sometimes qualified with “who has never known a man” (Gen 24:16; Judg 11:39), whereas ʿalmâ never needs such clarification.

• NOTE sevelar later [2nd c. AD] Greek Jewish translations of Isaiah 7:14 [Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion] did not use παρθένος (“virgin”), unlike the earlier Septuagint (LXX).

• Jewish-Christian biased polemics including: patristic testimony, translation/textual patterns, historical context, show that Jewish translators deliberately avoided “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 to undermine Christian use of the verse.

• Preexistence Incarnation claims, Arian and Trini.

Summary: Why this matters!

• Subverts the gospel itself! 2Tim 2:8

"Remember Jesus Messiah, resurrected from the dead, a biological descendant/seed [i.e., from the family] of David according to my Gospel." 

• The virgin birth marks the moment when God, by His spirit, brought into existence a new, uniquely procreated human person—the second Adam. 


• This miraculous beginning parallels Adam’s own, yet surpasses it, because the Son was managed to do what Adam could not.

• His spirit-generated birth establishes him as the head of a new humanity, empowered to undo Adam’s failure and to lead his people into the coming Kingdom on earth.

• Consequently, because his origin by procreation miracle by definition means the Son cannot have literally preexisted.

• Don’t ASK QUESTIONS THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON.

Saturday study 12/13/25 New Law series Part 1: Anger & Murder

 Part 1: Anger = Murder, Matt 5:21-26

• Series Theme in the form of this question:

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus was merely repeating Moses…or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, he changed and even overturned Torah at certain points:

• In this case a new ruling on negative emotions, e.g., anger/hate now = the act of killing!

READ: Matt 5:21-26

Evangelical Line

GotQuestions.org Article: Did Jesus contradict the Law in Matthew 5:21-22?

"Rest assured, Jesus did not contradict the Law in any point...[but then they say]

Jesus’ point in the Sermon on the Mount was that God sees the heart, and that we are actually held to a higher standard than external conformity to a set of rules...[a change?]

The external command was 'do not murder.' This is a good command...

Jesus said, in essence, God sees your heart.

If you have hatred in your heart, then you are just as guilty as the murderer in God’s eyes."

• Seems contradictory, on the one hand "did not contradict the Law in any point" yet...

• Jesus holds us "to a higher standard";

• Hence, hatred = murder;

• Sounds like a new commandment not found in Torah.

Murder Vs Killing

• The prevalent Christian interpretation is that Jesus condemned murder meaning unlawful killing only but not killing in general;

• Majority of Christians may kill in self-defense or for country;

• RF does not hold to that because we're back to the initial question: Was Jesus simply following Mosaic system or teaching something new?

• Alane Rozelle TheoCon25 prez on LOVE re: Christian homes with weapons is a form of premeditated murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1zH5AM2-zw&t=21s

Torah on murder & anger/hatred

• Exodus 20:13/Deuteronomy 5:17: “You shall not murder.”

This prohibits the act of murder with a death penalty attached to the actual act, but nothing about anger/hatred = murder.

READ: Exodus 21:12-36

• Exodus 21:12–14 — Laws distinguishing intentional murder and unintentional killing.

• Exodus 21:18–19 — Injury laws; responsibility when anger leads to assault but not murder; cp. Exodus 22:1–3 — Killing during a break-in (night vs. day distinctions).

• Exodus 21:28–32 — Liability for negligent homicide (dangerous ox).

• Exodus 21:33–36 — Liability for creating deadly hazards.

• Deuteronomy 19:11 – "a person hates someone else and stalks him, attacks him, kills him [literally strikes him fatally]"; hate/anger can lead to murder.

READ: Numbers 35:9-32

• Numbers 35:16–21: If someone kills with hatred or enmity in his heart, it is premeditated murder, punishable by death.

• Leviticus 19:17–18: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart … You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge … but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

This is the law directly prohibiting internal hatred, which Jesus links to murder.

But again it does not = murder; therefore no divine penalty (“liable to judgment,” “the council,” or “the lake of fire”) to the emotion itself.

• Cp. some Proverbs (though not Torah) also repeatedly condemn internal anger, envy, wrath, etc.

• Hatred/enmity is evidence of premeditation, but the penalty is still tied to the actual act of killing, not to simply the emotion, i.e., hate or anger.

New Law

• Jesus goes along with the accepted interpretation of the 6th Commandment (“whoever murders is liable to judgment/the court”) but changes it to:

• The emotion of anger/hatred (without the physical act) now makes you a murderer and liable to be thrown into the lake of fire, unless God accepts your repentance of course (2Tim 2:25).

• Even calling someone names might make you liable to the lake of fire!

• May God forgive all of us right now of that continual sin!!

So Jesus’ teaching is not simply repeating the Torah; it is a deliberate, shocking intensification and internalization of the commandment that was widely regarded as new and distinctive in early Christianity (and recognized as such by both Jewish and Christian sources). The novelty lies in making the heart, not just the act, subject to the full judicial and eternal consequences of murder.

Summary

• The Torah condemned hatred and anger in the heart, but it never equates it with murder.

• The same in rabbinic Judaism, anger and hatred were sins, but they were not capital offenses or even court cases.

• Jesus novelly ties the negative emotion to the actual act of murder, the person is now fully under the same judgment as the hand that commits actual murder.

• That means Jesus isn’t just repeating Moses nor going along with known rabbinic teachings;

• Jesus is exercising a new authority as the New Covenant lawgiver.

Bottom Line

When Jesus teaches that unresolved anger and hatred incur the same judgment as murder (Matt. 5), the Christian response is simple:

• Obey Jesus,

• Repent from past or present, and

• Start or continue to Live under the New Covenant Law of Messiah rather than under the old covenant Law of Moses.

Above all, we must never twist clear NT commands to create a Christian “license to kill,” whether in self-defense, the defense of others, or the defense of one’s country by joining police or military.

https://rfcogstudy.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-new-enemy-love-law.html