What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."? [UPDATED]

IMPORTANT NOTE:  This article was originally published on December 27, 2021 but contains a serious error that I am correcting here.  You can still read the original in its entirety through this link.  Other than this one correction, this post is completely unmodified from the original.

Examining Acts 15

In a previous post, I refuted the claim that obedience is by definition, salvation by works.  Acts 15 is one example of this false claim influencing the interpretation of Scripture.  For example:

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." [Acts 15:1; NKJV]

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." [Acts 15:5; NKJV]

Here we have two parties making claims about what the believing gentiles must do.  The circumcision party said that they must be circumcised to be saved.  The Pharisees said it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses, but said nothing about that being necessary for salvation.  This is an important distinction that most will not catch.  Also, if you read verse 5 carefully, you will notice that the Pharisees who said this were believers in Yeshua.  Another important detail that is often overlooked, especially in light of the fact that the other group is not referred to as believers.

The reason that these key details are overlooked is (as mentioned earlier) the false doctrine that the teaching of obedience is, by definition, salvation by works.  But if you read the three verses between 1 and 5, and the 2 verses immediately following 5, you'll notice that there is a 3-way dispute on what the gentiles need to do and for what purpose.

The fact that the circumcision party is not described as believers, and says that circumcision is necessary for salvation tells you everything you need to know about them:  They rely on their own works to be saved, rather than the Work of Yeshua on the cross.  It's also telling that they used the word "custom" instead of "law" or "command" when describing circumcision.  Is this a subtle admission that the Law of God does not require foreigners who join with the house of Israel to be circumcised?  And that this is a human tradition?

What about the believing Pharisees, who have the entirety of the Law of Yahweh memorized from early childhood?  They seem to have made a distinction between circumcision and keeping God's Law.  Is this another hint that God's commands concerning circumcision are not what we think they are?  Also, you may have noticed at the end of my post on Good Friday vs Passover that I said it's okay if you don't want to keep the Passover because of it's requirements.  But how can I say that and pass the Deuteronomy 13 Test unless the Law of Yahweh does not say what you think it says?  Let's examine what the Law says concerning circumcision, starting in Genesis!

9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." [Genesis 17:9-14; NKJV]

Anyone descended from Abraham, and those living in the house of someone descended from Abraham, whether born into said house or bought with money from a foreigner, is to be circumcised.  But what about the foreigner that is not living in the house of a descendent of Abraham?  That person does not have to be circumcised according to this passage.  But what about the other commandments?

43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." [Exodus 12:43-49; NKJV]

Any woman living by herself may eat the Passover, since there are, by definition, no males in that house that need to be circumcised (at least, I don't remember reading anything that says otherwise).  But if any house has any males in it, then all the males in that house must be circumcised before anyone in that house is allowed to eat the Passover.  And eating the Passover without all the males in the house being circumcised is wickedness.  Let's see what other rules there are concerning circumcision.

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'" [Leviticus 12:1-3; NKJV]

This is basically re-affirming Genesis 17:12.  So not much extra information here.  We see another command to be circumcised in Deuteronomy 10:16, but this time, it's a circumcision of the heart.  And again in Deuteronomy 30:6.  Where have we heard of circumcision of the heart before?  That's right, Jeremiah 4:4!  Oh, you were thinking of "New Testament" passages?  Well, I just happened to find this one in Jeremiah and couldn't resist the bait and switch!  Romans 2:29 talks about circumcision of the heart.

Anyways, circumcision is a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and the physical descendants of Israel.  And only the physical descendants of Israel, along with anyone who is living in the house of a physical descendant of Israel, must be circumcised, along with all of their descendants after them forever.  This may be one of the reasons why the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.  The only exception to this rule is for the foreigner who wants to celebrate the Passover.  And of course, there is nothing stopping someone who is not a descendant of Israel from joining into the same covenant as Israel.  And concerning the New Covenant, there is no indication whatsoever of a gentile being required to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  At least, none that I can remember.

So, both the circumcision party and the Pharisees acknowledge that circumcision of the gentiles is not part of God's Law.  And when Peter testified in Acts 15:6-9 what happened to the gentiles that believed, that they received the Holy Spirit, though they had not been circumcised, and after Barnabas and Paul testified concerning the believing gentiles in Acts 15:12, and after James gave his testimony concerning what the prophets said in Acts 15:13-17, it was agreed by the entire assembly that the gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  Literally the only reason a believer from among the gentiles has to become circumcised is be able to keep the Passover without becoming guilty of sin!

So what about the keeping of the Law?  Well, here's what the Apostle James said:

19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. [Acts 15:19-21; NKJV]

Now here's where things get interesting.  There are four rules listed here.  Abstain from sexual immorality, and from eating blood, strangled meat, or foods polluted by idols.  The word translated as "sexual immorality" is the Greek word "porneia", which literally means prostitution, and is sometimes used to refer to sexual immorality in general.  The KJV translates this word as "fornication", which at the time that the KJV was written, also meant prostitution, but now means premarital sex.

So, does that mean that lying is now okay?  How about stealing or murder?  Some people, without thinking about the implications of what they say, interpret Acts 15:20 to mean we only have to follow the 4 rules mentioned in that verse.  Do you see the problem with that interpretation?  Also, who decides what is or is not sexually immoral?  Do we really want to leave that up to man to decide?  Of course not.  And if we translate the passage as saying "abstain from prostitution", then what about fornication, or adultery.  If we translate it as saying "abstain from fornication", then that also takes care of prostitution, but what about adultery, incest, or sodomy?  And although the rules are to abstain from eating foods polluted by idols, it doesn't say anything about not worshiping the idols!  Or using them to worship Yeshua.  Well, that's where verse 21 comes in.  The gentile believers are expected to attend the synagogues every Sabbath.  Either that or everyone in that assembly just failed the Deuteronomy 13 Test and are guilty of teaching idolatry.

As it turns out, in those days, the gentiles regularly met in the synagogues with the Jews.  For example, in Acts 13:42, there were clearly gentiles in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Saturday) eager to hear what Paul had to say from one Sabbath to the next.  Go ahead and read it and the verses after it.  Acts 14:1 is another example where the gentiles are clearly attending the synagogues every Sabbath.  And again in Acts 17:1-4, and Acts 17:10-12.  There are even more examples after that.  So it is expected of the gentile believers to attend the synagogues every Saturday to learn the Law of Yahweh, to keep it.

Notice that these believing gentiles are saved, though they do not know the law.  And as they learn the law, they are still saved though they now keep it.  These believers want to do what is right in the eyes of God.  And keeping God's Law is right in the eyes of God.  Like I've said before:  We don't keep the Law to be saved, we keep the Law because we're saved.

Remember, in Acts 15:1, these gentile were told that they must be circumcised to be saved.  In Acts 15:24, somebody added "saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'—to whom we gave no such commandment—".  There's a good way to lead people into idolatry.  How do we know it was added?  Simple:  The gentiles were told "you must be circumcised to be saved" (Acts 15:1), not "you must be circumcised and keep the law".  Plus, not all manuscripts have the part that I just quoted.  Not to mention the Deuteronomy 13 Test that I mentioned earlier.  Notice that the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 did not tell the gentiles "you must be circumcised and keep the Law", but took up their petition with the Apostles concerning the gentile believers.  And they didn't dare say it was to be saved because they knew salvation was by faith!

We also know that the last part of Acts was added to because of the vast amount of evidence that that the gentiles were in the synagogues every Sabbath learning the Law of God, and that Acts 15:21 expects this norm to continue, thereby satisfying the believing Pharisees' beliefs that it is necessary to teach the gentiles to keep God's Law.

Now the Law is broken-up into large portions, which are called "portions" (but with the Hebrew word for "portions").  Over the course of a year, the Torah is read, one portion each week, until the entire Torah has been read.  Then they start over at the beginning once they have finished reading through the entire Torah.  So the gentiles will learn a small portion of Torah at a time rather than being required to learn it all at once and be overwhelmed by it.  The Apostles' letter to the gentiles addressed the four most important issues of the time as simply the starting point.  Notice that their letter said nothing about not having to stop attending synagogue, which they were already doing.

What Did Jesus Mean by "But I Say..."?

The phrase "but I say" or "but I tell you" appears in the Gospels quite a few times.  But what does it mean?  Let's examine the first time it appears, which is in Matthew 5:22.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [without cause] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. [Matthew 5:21-22; NIV]

It appears that Jesus is quoting from the Law.  And indeed, the Law does say, "you shall not murder" [Exodus 20:13].  However, the Law does not say, "anyone who murders will be subject to judgement".  It says the one who murders is to be put to death [Numbers 35:16-21]!  Is Jesus making the Law harder to follow?  Not at all.  For the Law says, "love your neighbor as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18] and, "do not bear a grudge against anyone" [Leviticus 19:18].  What Jesus is doing here is linking Leviticus 19:18 with Exodus 20:13.  If you break the later, then you've broken the former in your heart.  This wouldn't be the only time that Jesus linked two different commands together, so that breaking one means you break the other in your heart.  In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus linked coveting with adultery.

So what about the next example?  Here's a verse where Jesus appears to be overriding God's Law.

31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."  [Matthew 5:31-32; NIV]

The Law does indeed say that anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce [Deuteronomy 24:1].  But here's the question:  Is Jesus forbidding what God has previously allowed?  Or is the intent behind the command in question being misused?  Remember the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  And the fact that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God:

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is 'devoted to God,' 6 they are not to 'honor their father or mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [Matthew 15:1-6; NIV]

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.  So it must be that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  What's the intent?  The word translated as "uncleanness" is the Hebrew word "erva", which means "nakedness" or "shamefulness".  If you read through Scripture carefully, you will find that sin is always linked with shame, with the former justifying the latter.  In other words, the intent of the command is to allow a man to divorce his wife if he finds out that she has been sexually immoral.

So then, what's with Matthew 19:8, where Jesus appears to be saying that the commands concerning divorce are not of God?  If Jesus was doing just that, it means that the inerrancy doctrine is wrong.  Also, remember Deuteronomy 13?  Moses could not have put that command there if God had not approved of it!  Otherwise, Jesus would be guilty of sin by forbidding what God's Law has allowed.  The issue here is the intent of the command, which agrees with what Jesus is saying.

Here's another example of Jesus apparently contradicting God's Law.  Mind you that Jesus is God, and God does not change (if he does change, then he cannot be eternal).

33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." [Matthew 5:33-37; NKJV]

If we take a careful look at the Greek text, you will notice that the "not" in verse 34 is a qualified not.  The most likely qualifier is the word "falsely" between "swear" and "at all".  What's going on here is that the Pharisees (in typical fashion) are saying, "If you swear by the Lord, you are bound by that oath.  But if you swear by other things, then the oath means nothing."  Jesus had a few things to say about the Pharisees rules concerning what you may or may not swear falsely by.  To paraphrase, "anyone who swears by anything is bound by the oath that they swear."

One more thing.  I noticed that the NIV says in verse 37, "All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."  Notice the clear change in meaning between the two translations.  The saying, "let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'" means we are to speak truthfully when we swear.  But the saying, "all you need to say is simply 'yes' or 'no'; anything further is from the evil one" is a clear violation of Deuteronomy 12:32.

To summarize, when Jesus said, "but I say", he either contradicted a human rule by what he said, or brought to light the intent of God's command, or linked breaking one command (one that cannot be enforced) with breaking another command (one that can be enforced) in your heart.  Never did Jesus speak against God's Law.  For he gave the Law and told King David through the Holy Spirit that the Law is eternal [Psalm 119:160].

What Does Believing Moses Really Mean?

A common (and 100% correct) argument used to refute theistic evolution is the fact that those who don't believe Moses will not believe Jesus.  When Young Earth Creationists (which I am one) make this argument, they are quoting Jesus directly, from John 5:46.  Again, this is 100% correct, but not just for the reasons that creationists give.

Most of the time, when a creationist invokes John 5:46, they're talking exclusively about believing what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything.  And while they are right that you need to believe what Moses wrote concerning the origin of everything in order to believe Jesus, where they go wrong is the exclusion of the rest of what Moses wrote.

Some will point to Genesis 3:14-15 as being where Moses wrote about Jesus.  This is indeed a prophesy about Jesus written by Moses, but there is so much more that Moses wrote than a single prophesy in a single book.  In fact, Genesis as a whole is a mirror image of the Messiah (both literally and figuratively).  The literal part because of the fact that Hebrew scrolls are striped (to guide the scribes on where to write) and pierced (to bind the different scroll pieces together to make a single scroll) just as Jesus was striped (by whips) and pierced (by thorns and nails).  The figurative part because many of the lives of those who are recorded in Torah mirror the life of Jesus.

Here are some examples of people who's lives mirrored that of Jesus:

• Noah's Ark saving Noah and his family, and two of every kind of animal from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus saving us from God's coming judgement.
• Noah's Ark being the only means of salvation from God's judgement is a mirror of Jesus being the only means of salvation from God's coming judgement.
• Isaac being born by the Spirit of God is a mirror of Jesus also being born by the Spirit of God.
• Isaac nearly being sacrificed is a mirror of Jesus actually being sacrificed.
• Joseph being betrayed by his brothers is a mirror of Jesus being betrayed by a close friend.
• God using the treason against Joseph to save the world is a mirror of God using the treason against Jesus to save the world.
• Joseph is never recorded to have sinned even once, mirroring Jesus never sinning once.

In addition to that, many of the things which are found in Moses' writings point directly to Jesus, including:

• Jesus is the Passover Lamb that caused God's wrath to pass over us (the Passover meal).
• Jesus is the Unleavened Bread, leaven representing sin (Feast of Unleavened Bread).
• Jesus is the First Fruits from the dead (Feast of First Fruits).
• Jesus is the Sabbath (seventh day) rest.
• Jesus is the Atonement for our sins (Day of Atonement).

There is quite a bit more in Torah that points directly to Jesus than what I've listed here.  Go search for yourself!  As you can see from this sample, Genesis is only a small part of what it means to "believe Moses".  If you believe Moses concerning Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote, then you really don't believe him.  For nearly everything recorded in Torah is a picture of Jesus our Lord and savior!  In fact, according to the biblical definition of faith, merely believing what Moses said is not good enough.  You must also obey him!

Again, believing Moses about Genesis, but not the rest of what he wrote is not believing Moses.  Believing Moses only starts with believing Genesis.  And believing all of what Moses wrote without obeying him is also not believing Moses.  For Moses told us how to live holy (set apart) lives dedicated to God.  Obeying him shows that you believe he was truthful concerning holiness, while disobedience shows that you believe he was mistaking or lying about holiness.  And Jesus obeyed Moses!  Isn't it interesting that those who do not obey Moses (who wrote exactly what God commanded him to write [Exodus 24:4]) also do not obey Jesus?  And that those who cherry-pick Moses' teachings also cherry-pick Jesus' teachings?