Sunday, December 22, 2024

The Consistency Of Christ's Teachings And The Torah

The elaborations of Jesus in passages like Matthew 5 and Luke 6 are sometimes (very popularly in circles I'm familiar with) misunderstood as instances of him introducing a higher law and perhaps annulling God's revealed laws.  However, in Matthew 5:28, Christ is not condemning sexual attraction or any way of enjoying/expressing it not directly or by logical extension condemned by God (Deuteronomy 4:2), but he is condemning the intention to commit adultery and the sin of coveting someone else's spouse.  The former is immoral by logical necessity if the act of adultery is, because it could not be anything but sinful to hope or plan or be mentally willing to commit an evil.  The latter is condemned by the direct words of Mosaic Law (Exodus 20:17), so Jesus is in no way introducing anything "new" in this sense, though he is either way not teaching anything that does not already logically follow from the ideas of the Torah.

In other cases, like with what he says about divorce in Matthew 5:31-32 (and later in Matthew 19:1-9), he obviously seems to be speaking hyperbolically or in a purposefully inaccurate way to provoke serious reflection.  He has already literally said in Matthew 5:17 before all of this that he is not abolishing anything in Mosaic Law, which is a codification of the obligations universally rooted in God's nature regardless.  Mosaic Law directly and indirectly allows for divorce for any sin (Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 24:1-4), especially sins against one's husband or wife like neglect or physical abuse (Exodus 21:10-11, 26-27); also, divorcing for any sin at all is not condemned, nor does its immorality follow logically from anything else separate from the full scope of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  Jesus in no way really opposes any of this.

There are many verses, though, where Jesus is not even being hyperbolic or articulating something that the tenets of Mosaic Law do not already necessitate.  See what Jesus claims about love and lending in Luke 6:


Luke 6:32-35--"'If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners love those who love them.  And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners do that.  And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.  But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back."


This sort of statement is often blatantly misinterpreted as showing Jesus correct deficiencies in Mosaic Law or alter the requirements of righteousness despite the Law being clearly ascribed to God (Exodus 21:1, Numbers 15:1, 17, 35, 37 and so on), who is said to be unchanging (Malachi 3:6).  First of all, apart from what does and does not logically follow from the concepts behind these individual statements even as literally presented, there is the extremely plain declaration of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish anything in Yahweh's Torah laws.  Jesus thus anticipates that his occasional hyperbole or sometimes rather straightforward claims would be misunderstood in this way.  Second, love for one's enemies--or the resolution to treat them as morality requires even if one psychologically struggles with this--and freely lending without expecting repayment are very literally taught in the words of Exodus and Deuteronomy as follows:


Exodus 23:4-5--"'If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it.  If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.'"

Deuteronomy 15:7-8--"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them.  Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need."


The extended context of Deuteronomy 15:7-8 only reinforces that lending to the poor should not be contingent on the probability of eventual repayment, for every seven years, all debts within a country should be cancelled (Deuteronomy 15:3), and the following verse (15:9) outright says to not wickedly plan on not lending because the cancellation of debts is at hand.  Since logically and Biblically, no one is exempt from a moral obligation to another person because the former opposes/hates the latter or vice versa (as Exodus 23:4-5 emphasizes), lending is not to be restricted to only one's friends in good standing.  Everything Jesus touches on in Luke 6:32-35 is directly or by logical extension taught explicitly in Mosaic Law.

He is not calling for people to go above their obligations in order to truly be righteous, which is contradictory and thus logically impossible.  If something should be done (meaning it is obligatory), then going above and beyond could only be unnecessary.  Wherever the boundary is if there is such a thing as good and evil, no one could possibly need to do more than what is required to be morally good!  Loving one's enemies and lending to the poor without fixating on repayment, however, are requirements of the Torah's ethical philosophy.  You cannot rationally or righteously neglect someone's human rights just because someone dislikes or hates you or vice versa, and lending to the genuinely needy without concern for repayment is morally obligatory according to Deuteronomy's prescriptions.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

No comments:

Post a Comment