05.04.08
Rejection of traditional interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21-48) - Part 2
- Rejection of traditional interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21-48) - Part 1
- Rejection of traditional interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21-48) - Part 2
This is part 2 of the series…
4 – Oaths (vs. 33–37)
When I think of Pharisaism, I think of the deeply rooted practice of taking oaths. As noted by Pentecost, ‘A man took an oath to affirm the truth of the word that he spoke. The oath involved a curse that he placed on himself if his word were not true or his promise not confirmed.’
Let’s talk a bit about oaths. I find this in a well noted Bible Encyclopedia:
Oaths Permissible: That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of Our Lord (Matt 26:63 f), and of Paul (2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20) and even of God Himself (Heb 6:13-18). Consequently when Christ said, “Swear not at all” (Matt 5:34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where that principle holds sway, oaths become unnecessary.
(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
The conclusion reached by Pentecost is that, since Christ allowed Himself to be put under an oath (as seen in Matt. 26:63-64) one can conclude that He did not forbid His hearers to put themselves under an oath. He also agrees with the annotation above that their character, their reputation of honesty, and their word should be so true that no one would suspect or question their integrity in what they said. Why? When the Pharisees took an oath, they affirmed something that could be understood in more than one way. Let your yes be what you said it was! Believers should affirm only what is true because Christ demands trustworthiness in speech.
I will share that this isn’t a hill that I want to plant my flag on, but it is one that many love to argue about. In fact, I may be immature in this area, because I don’t find myself in agreement with the writers of the material I have studied. I do mean, I agree that we should let our speech be truthful and there should not be any need for swearing of oaths. However, there are many things I will not swear an oath to – things like commitment to give cards or drives that many churches conduct where you sign cards or some such oath to give a particular amount. I find those items (personally) in violation of what I believe to be sound biblical principals and a simple notion of letting your yes be yes – or your no being no. Again, color me immature, legalistic, or shallow – but I find such things to be either a throw towards clubs, the business world, or a lack of faith (while others frame this as planning, shows of faith, etc.).
This is an area that could take some substantial study time to get through, but in reflection it is an area each of us needs to look at in prayerful consideration for ourselves and others. How is my speech? Do I say what I mean and mean what I say? Do I keep my word and can others depend on my word? Is what I say truthful? Ponder those things…
5 – Retaliation (vs. 38-42)
A literal interpretation of the law by the Pharisees during this time meant that the law allowed for retaliation and equal retribution. “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). If you suffered an injury or a loss, you are entitled (or had a legal right) to repayment in kind! Perhaps the intention of the law was to curb or control excessive behavior. The law actually set a boundary on retaliation.
It’s important to note that the law required anyone to react in a like manner to the offender. Jesus taught that to demand one’s right was not a manifestation of divine righteousness. Christ said that righteousness, godliness, and holiness do not demand one to seek his rights. The opposite seems to be the norm here – we give up our rights. When Jesus stood before Pilate because He was falsely accused, did He demand His rights? Looking at these words of Jesus, He requires believers to give up their own rights and go beyond what was demanded as a demonstration of the righteousness that is acceptable to Christ.
At verse 41, the Life Application Bible explains this well.
This is an allusion to the forced labor that soldiers could demand of ordinary citizens, commandeering them to carry their loads a certain distance (one mile, the term for one thousand paces). The Jews hated this law because it forced them to show their subjection to Rome. Yet Jesus said to take the load and willingly go two miles. Jesus called for a serving attitude (as he himself exemplified throughout his life and especially at the cross). Jesus’ words probably shocked his hearers. Most of the Jews, expecting a military Messiah, would never have expected to hear Jesus issue a command of nonretaliation and cooperation with the hated Roman Empire. By these words, Jesus was revealing that his followers belong to another kingdom. They need not attempt to fight against Rome (as did the Zealots, a militant group of Jews), which could only end in defeat. Instead, they should work on behalf of God’s kingdom. If doing so meant walking an extra mile carrying a Roman soldier’s load, then that was what they should do.
THE SECOND MILE
In an unequal power situation, you have no choice about the first mile. The soldier has the sword, so you carry his gear. And it’s a mile and an hour you can never get back. You’re the loser.
What’s to be done?
The second mile is your choice. It’s your way of saying, “God is in control here. He gives me energy, and a mere mile does not exhaust me. That sword is nothing; God is everything. Do you want to know where the real power lies? Try to keep up with me and I’ll tell you.”
(from The Life Application Commentary Series copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 by the Livingstone Corporation. Produced with permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.)
6 – Love (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-30, 32-36)
The Pharisees just knew they were on top of things here. They knew the full implications of “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy”. But Christ again turns this beyond their limited expectations by demanding more than the demands of the law – true righteousness causes the believer to love enemies.
You mean…I can pray for those that persecute me? Show love and kindness to those that do us wrong? If you only love those who return love, what have you really done? And is that all that God does, love those who love Him? Does it only rain on those who trust in God? Are those folks the only ones that get raises, dodge sickness and debilitating diseases? Get real! Christ shows us that loving folks for the show of it (oh, I love what you’ve done for…fill in the blank) or because of some kindness you have experienced is shallow at best for the believer.
Jesus is more concerned about the attitude of your heart than your shows of affection. He wants to know that your mind is in obedience to His acts of love as you share that with others by your actions. Jesus sums this up in verse 48 ‘Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ This perfection is the standard to enter the kingdom of God. This far exceeded the standards of following the externals of the law like the Pharisees did. Following the law doesn’t make one perfect and acceptable to God. Only Jesus Christ can purify the mind and heart so that a life is transformed. And Jesus is in the business of transforming lives…what about yours?
