Replies

No, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not extending any of these laws. He is explaining what He meant by the law. He is, after all, God:

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
(Psalms 19:7)

For example, in Matthew 5:

1. Anger.

Unjustified anger is a violation of Moses, even in the absence of physical murder, because it is an offense against the two greatest commandments, to love God, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The spiritual component has always been part of the law. It was suppressed by the the formalists, who made avoidance of the spirit of the law into an art form. The advice to reconcile is really about relationships. Twisting it into confirmation of spurious rabbinic traditions such as purging in the afterlife is an inversion of it's core meaning.

2. Lust.

Again, a man who loves his wife does not deprive her of his love by seeking pleasure from another woman. The first line crossed is a failure to love her the way he would want her to love him. All sin at the root is a violation of the principle of love, which is why Jesus made sure we knew that love was the greatest principle of the law. There is no new invention here. Just Jesus connecting dots in a way the Pharisees never would have seen.

3. Divorce.

We both know God hates divorce. He would never sanction it, else He would contradict Himself. Moses did permit a writ of divorce, based on "uncleanness," but the scholars were in a dispute. Was the "uncleanness" mentioned in Deuteronomy 24 any old thing (Hillel), or was it sexual immorality, unfaithfulness (Shammai). Jesus confirms the Shammai position, and stipulates that under Moses, rightly understood, divorcing a woman who was not guilty of unfaithfulness and subjecting her to remarriage was causing her to commit adultery, the onus being largely on the man who rejected her for some reason other than a breach of faithfulness. So no, this is not an extension of the law, but an illumination of the law as it existed.

4. Swearing Oaths

The problem Jesus is addressing is not oaths as they were meant to be, firm promises, which He never negated, but oaths as what they had become under the corrupt teaching of the Pharisees. Under them, oaths had become a game of crossed fingers, where if you didn't swear in a binding formula, you could break any promise and not be held to account under the law. It had become a safe way to lie with regularity. The whole meaning of "swearing" had been corrupted. Jesus takes his listeners, not to some bizarre new rule about never making promises, but back to the primitive truth about integrity, that a man's own word must be his bond, and you should do what you say you're going to do, and if you don't, you've fallen short of the righteousness of God, and the law of love.

5. Justice versus mercy

Jesus, being God, would never speak against one of the most basics principle of justice, the law of proportional punishment. But the Pharisees had perverted this good principle of the civil justice system and falsely used it to justify personal vengefulness. Jesus here is not abrogating justice, but He is insisting on a personal generosity of mercy. I do not have to extract perfect retaliation for every wrong done to me. As Peter says, love covers a multitude of sins. The person living in a world where they cannot forgive but must have justice for themselves at any price is living in a self-created hell. I have seen it. The law of God has never supported personal vengeance, no matter how "even-handed." There is no new law in this. Only a solemn reminder of our own need for mercy, both to give, and to receive.

6. Love your neighbor but hate your enemy?

Where is "hate your enemy" in the law of Moses? It is nowhere. It is not a law of God, but yet another perversion of the law foisted on the people of Israel by their failed Magisterium. Clearly here also, there is no extension of the law, but a critical correction of a gross misunderstanding or perhaps even willful misrepresentation of God's good law. Jesus teaches us to love our enemy, and this is consistent with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The law was not deficient. The law of the Lord is perfect. But the interpretation of "neighbor" had been perverted. Jesus corrects that error in the story of the Good Samaritan, where we learn the law of love is to apply even to those we would think of as our enemies. Yet it is Moses unvarnished and unaltered. All that was need was for the Law-Giver, who wrote it in the first place, to give His own explanation of it. And that's exactly what Jesus did.

Peace,

SR

No, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not extending any of these laws. He is explaining what He meant by the law. He is, after all, God:

3. Divorce.

We both know God hates divorce. He would never sanction it, else He would contradict Himself. Moses did permit a writ of divorce, based on "uncleanness," but the scholars were in a dispute. Was the "uncleanness" mentioned in Deuteronomy 24 any old thing (Hillel), or was it sexual immorality, unfaithfulness (Shammai). Jesus confirms the Shammai position, and stipulates that under Moses, rightly understood, divorcing a woman who was not guilty of unfaithfulness and subjecting her to remarriage was causing her to commit adultery, the onus being largely on the man who rejected her for some reason other than a breach of faithfulness. So no, this is not an extension of the law, but an illumination of the law as it existed.

It seems to me that you are inserting the idea that adultery is grounds for divorce. The word was not used in Deuteronomy or Matthew as a valid reason for divorce, and the woman taken in adultery was not stoned. I don't see how you can argue adultery is a valid reason for divorce, and you would say instead, like the disciples, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Okay, so He is explaining what He meant by the law which for more than a thousand years was interpreted and applied differently, because of the hardness of their hearts, so that it is now recognized as a change in the law. It sure seems, by the text, that the Messiah is restricting divorce and remarriage, which Moses permitted, and returning to a more ideal standard not codified in the Law. The apostles certainly recognized it as being extended or restricted, by their reaction to it here:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Deuteronomy, Catholic chapter twenty four, Protestant verses one to four,
Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses three to twelve,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold and underline emphasis mine

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

Have you seen the word translated perfect before perhaps ?

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Genesis, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verse nine,
Genesis, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verse one,
Genesis, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verse twenty seven,
Job, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine

Swearing Oaths

The problem Jesus is addressing is not oaths as they were meant to be, firm promises, which He never negated, but oaths as what they had become under the corrupt teaching of the Pharisees. Under them, oaths had become a game of crossed fingers, where if you didn't swear in a binding formula, you could break any promise and not be held to account under the law. It had become a safe way to lie with regularity. The whole meaning of "swearing" had been corrupted. Jesus takes his listeners, not to some bizarre new rule about never making promises, but back to the primitive truth about integrity, that a man's own word must be his bond, and you should do what you say you're going to do, and if you don't, you've fallen short of the righteousness of God, and the law of love.

Think of Jesus in the role of judge, and changing the law by his rulings.

As I referenced previously in the chain, and is clear in the scriptures, one was permitted to swear or not swear, without sin. as long as one performed one's oath or word. Now, Jesus commands us not to swear at all, and still to perform our words. That is a change, no more oaths.

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.