Brother Josh,

No, not like in these cases you mention. I said that the OT taught love for enemies *in personal relationships.* Just listen to it:

“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it” (Exodus 23:4-5).

“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21).

Paul in Romans 12 teaches us to do good to those who do evil to us—to love our enemies; and the quote Paul uses in that passage is *from the OT.*

The first cases you mention are not about personal relationships. The examples you mention are of Israel as a nation acting as a civil body and an agent of God’s wrath. If we’re talking about the state, then you’re right, God clearly commanded the *state* of Israel to carry out vengeance and retribution toward their/His enemies. And the New Testament teaches the same thing. Just after Paul’s gets through teaching that Christians are not to take vengeance, Paul writes that the state is permitted and expected to enforce justice and retribution—even with the sword (Romans 13:4). But in personal relationships, both the OT (as cited above) and the NT teach love and kindness toward enemies.

As for the imprecatory Psalms, these also can be seen as expressions of a state agent. David was an earthly *king* after all. Of course, a nation will have enemies. And, of course, it was David’s responsibility as a national leader to protect and defend his nations interests *by force.* Even Psalm 137, could be understood as the Israelites *as a civil body* expressing their *national* sentiments toward their enemies (their Babylonian captors). The stark contrast between their time and ours is that Israel was a theocracy–*both* a religious and a *political* body. The church is not. Even though there is this difference, the OT still taught Jews to handle their personal relationships in much the same way the NT tells us to handle ours.

The point, of course, Brother Josh, is that if there is continuity between the covenants on this point, it demonstrates that Jesus was in no way criticizing or correcting or changing the OT, but rather He was criticizing a caricature of it—namely, the Pharisees caricature of it. Jesus’ sermon was not an “OT vs. NT” discourse, but rather, “OT vs. Phariseeism.” And there are many more reasons than that which tell us this must be what the Sermon on the Mount is about.

(1) He specifically tells His audience that they should obey the OT (Matt 5:19).

(2) He specifically tells His audience that anyone who *teaches* contrary to the OT is wrong (Matt 5:19).

(3) He specifically tells His audience that their righteousness must surpass that of the *Pharisees* (Matt 5:20).

(4) Everywhere else in the gospels when Jesus quotes the OT, He either mentions a specific author (“David said, Isaiah prophesied of you,” etc) or He uses the phrase “it is written.” Yet throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the phrases “you have *heard* that it was *said*.” This deviation from Jesus’ well-established and well-documented pattern strongly suggests He was not aiming to quote the OT.

(5) Many of the specific issues Jesus deals with in Matthew 5—we have passages elsewhere that show us Jesus was specifically countering *Pharisaical* teaching, not OT teaching. For instance, His denouncing of oath-formulas (Matt 5:34-36), we later find out, was clearly in contrast to a Pharisaical practice (Matt 23:16-22). His teachings regarding divorce and remarriage (Matt 5:31-32), we later find out, was clearly in contrast to the Pharisees’ erroneous exposition of the OT on this point (Matt 19:3-12).

(6) Jesus, if taken to be quoting the OT, actually misquotes it (Matt 5:21, 43). Surely Jesus would be able to accurately quote a Law which He, Himself, wrote.

(7) Most of His topic in Matthew 6 was a condemnation of superficial piety. God never accepted superficial piety in the OT. In fact, God used several of the prophets to condemn this very practice among OT peoples (Isaiah 1:11-17; Jer 7:3-8; etc.). However, the Pharisees did practice a superficial, hypocritical piety (Matt 23:25-28). Thus, they would’ve been the ones being criticized in Matthew 6, not OT doctrine.

(8) Jesus gives specific applications that could only pertain to an OT worshipper. He speaks of how to apply His teachings while one is “at the altar” “presenting an offering” (Matt 5:23-24). I, as a Christian, don’t come to an altar to present a sacrifice. But the Jews certainly did. Thus, He was intending to instruct *them* about what to do; He was not telling His audience how *Christians* should live out this speech of His.

Just because the Sermon on the Mount concerns a correct exegesis of the OT over against Pharisaical heresy, this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t teach us, Christians, anything. In fact, it teaches us a great deal because the NT maintains all of these same teachings regarding personal righteousness that were already contained in the OT. (But saying it that way, probably much to Brother Clarke’s chagrin, identifies that at root I am one of these tripartite-dispensationalists he’s speaking of.)

Blessings,

Guy

Though history has clear dividing points highlights of human achievement and interactions of a loving God. The core of Jesus Christ death was to merge all unto him as the last sacrifice. Thus the cross came the place where history stood unified in salvation. The power of Jesus death covered the sins of past and of future making one dispensation. Matt. 24:37-38: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,”

Like in killing off all the Ammonites and Philistines and praying for the deaths of your enemies (have you ever read the Psalms?) rather than for their good?