05.11.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 5:01 pm by Bryan Dunn
Rejection of the Pharisaic practices of the law (Matt. 6:1-7:6; Luke 6:37-42) [Part 1]
After Jesus rejected the Pharisaic interpretation of the law, He moves on to show that their practices that came about because of their interpretation was to be rejected as well. Let’s think about that for just a moment. You and I act on various things based on our beliefs. And the Bible is pretty clear on this from a very practical standpoint. For instance, take Luke 6:45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. I seem to constantly be amazed as ‘church folks’ say things that would seemingly be out of character as followers of Christ outside of church. You know, the off colored jokes, the cursing, the guys who talk less than glowingly of their wife or family. What this tells me is there is a heart condition that has not been addressed. And what is really contained in the heart – and mind – comes out of the mouth. Folks are acting on (or speaking of) things they truly believe. There are tons of examples in this area, and the one above is far from all encompassing or perfect, but it shouldn’t take any of us long to think of many examples of acting on our beliefs in very practical ways.
Among the beliefs of the Pharisees there was a ‘code’ (if you will) of teachings that revolved around certain acts of righteousness that should certainly be taught and followed. Among these were giving alms, praying and fasting. Jesus addresses each area, but realize that right up front (ref. Matt. 6:1 – Be careful…) these three items – designed by God to be a God-facing action – had been perverted to become man-facing actions so the Pharisees could build on their reputations of being pious. They were hypocrites! And none of us have heard believer and non believers call followers of Christ that same thing, have we?
You don’t have to look back far to see that Jesus gave blessings on those who were merciful (Matthew 5:7 - Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.) So…what’s this? Giving to those less fortunate, to those in need, is certainly an act of mercy. What an opportunity for followers of Christ to demonstrate the love of God by meeting needs. The Pharisees had perverted this in that they used it to impress men. This was something that was so widespread that the beggars – they may be poor, but they weren’t stupid – sought to stage themselves at the approaches to the temple so that they might receive these flashy gifts from the Pharisees as they entered.
It’s interesting to note that Christ says in the end over verse 2 that those that do this have received their reward in full. These folks were not really ‘giving’ in the sense that the law spoke of, in fact they were buying a service. That service was the praise of men! And that was all they would get for their purchase. God certainly couldn’t be bought in such a manner and He would not be heaping praise on them. They got what they paid for.
We talk about the blessings from God. You want them? Stop giving out loud! Why do we feel obligated to tell others? Is it to impress them? To make a show? Granted, we can gussy it up with our veil of religion and say it is to ‘encourage others to follow our example’. If I’m reading my Bible right, let me say this about the practice – it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. You may try to make it more appealing, but it’s still a pig. You want a true reward, one that won’t go anywhere or fade with the passing of time? Then get it from God – do your giving quietly, which is the right attitude taught by the Lord. He will reward those who follow His teaching in their practice, and He certainly repudiated the perversion the Pharisees had made of giving to the needy.
More parts of this lesson to follow…
Permalink
05.04.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 4:14 pm by Bryan Dunn
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…
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
04.06.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 6:06 pm by Bryan Dunn
Rejection of traditional interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:21-48) - Part 1
This is where we get an illustration from Jesus that shows that the Pharisees did not understand the intent of the law. So the choice was keeping the traditions (which were not fulfilling the righteousness demanded by the law) or listen to God in the flesh and be obedient. Six times He said ‘You have heard that it was said…But I tell you…’ (vs. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).
Note what Jesus said, He doesn’t say things for no reason. He said ‘you have heard that it was said’; He did not say ‘you have seen that it was written’. Keep in mind the crowd Jesus was addressing – these were not the literate folks. They didn’t have books/scrolls sitting on coffee tables near their TiVo’s. Most could not read or write. Because of this, their knowledge of the law came from public instruction directly from the synagogues. The law was faithfully read, but the spirit or intent of the law was frequently missed or obscured by those expounding on it.
In each of these 6 ‘cases’ to follow, Jesus refers to the law that governs the conduct of people toward others. Why? If the righteousness espoused by the Pharisees did not fulfill what the conduct of the law demanded (as people interact with one another) then it certainly failed to fulfill what God demanded – a righteousness that concerned our conduct towards a Holy and righteous God.
The law is pretty specific - Do not murder. Hard to explain that one away, most everyone could quote it! This was a demand of God’s holiness, however, the Pharisees interpreted the law to mean that as long as one did not take another man’s life, the person was innocent of breaking the law (and consequently they were acceptable to God). The Pharisees were only concerned with the physical act of murder.
Jesus brings in the intent of the law, because it was more than just checking the box to make sure you had not personally taken another man’s life. He said the law required one to refrain from anger. Jesus knew that the act of murder was a symptom of things like hatred, anger and malice. So if someone is full of those things, the law had been violated even though the fruit of murder had not taken place.
And that is the rub for us isn’t it? We may not have killed anyone, but we have relished the thought of it a time or two…and that reveals some nasty stuff in us that perhaps no one else is aware of. And the Word of God is full of what we should do – repent, go to our brother and ask for forgiveness, make peace with them. The Pharisaic interpretation of the law of murder does not fulfill the righteousness of God. And our attempts to live to the letter of the law fall short when we hide the nastiness of anger, malice, and hatred in our hearts. Sometimes it comes out in starting (or continuing) rumors, making assumptions based on minimal facts, and a host of other things. How can we stop this? A point to ponder for all of us.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
03.24.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 7:59 am by Bryan Dunn
The Relation of the King to the Law (Matt. 5:17-7:6; Luke 6:27-42)
As an introduction to the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ portion, the groundwork of everyone who had heard the Lord speak was aware that He demanded a perfection beyond reach of all people. Over the years the Pharisees had sought to assist those who sought righteousness through the law by codifying it into 365 prohibitions and 248 commandments. Then, the Pharisees imposed their code as a yoke on their followers.
What did Christ do? He needed to show that the Pharisees righteousness didn’t conform to the demands of the Law. So keeping their tradition did not make one righteous. He would also show why observing these Pharisaic rules didn’t fulfill the law of God.
Right from the start, Jesus states He is not against the Law of God. He didn’t stand in opposition to the prophets that were sent by God either. In fact, Jesus didn’t come to even ease the burdens put on folks who followed the Law! God set down His Laws and those demands were unalterable because they are a revelation of God’s Own holiness. God didn’t demand anything more of any man than He Himself could fulfill. If man wanted to be in a right standing before a holy God, man needed to walk upright and holy!
The Pharisees were concerned about righteousness, and that is a good thing. However, they had a misconception of what the law actually intended and demanded. Because of that it was impossible for them to receive the righteousness that was acceptable to God.
Us? Well – we judge a lot by externals. Then we’re good at making decisions based on sound bites. Is that all? Jesus lays it on the line here – He knew what questions they were thinking of, then tells it like it is. If we had the opportunity to ask someone of importance (say, the president…) of the issues/reason behind the actual decision, the thought process that went into what eventually the decision was – would we be surprised at the response? Are we quick with knee-jerk reactions?
Permalink
03.17.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 7:36 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority to Interpret the Law - The Subjects (Matt 5:3-16; Luke 6:20-26)
In this sermon, Christ described the characteristics of a righteous man (Matt. 5:3-16). Then He repudiates the Pharisaic interpretation of the law (Matt. 5:17-48). Then He correctly interprets the Mosiac law and shows what God demands. Later (Matt. 6:1 – 7:6) He rejects the Pharisaic practices of the law and shows that they actually violate the demands of the law. Lastly (Matt. 7:7-29) He instructs those who desired to enter the kingdom. Perhaps it is best to conclude that the Sermon on the Mount was God’s exposition of the holiness of God.
So, to set some ground rules, beliefs that I have on this which you may or may not adherer to, here’s where I stand on this particular passage of God’s Word. And, just FYI, this more than likely applies to the rest of the Word as well.
I don’t see this as a disjointed set of thoughts that Jesus just threw together, a shotgun approach to how to be blessed or happy. I also don’t see this as an end all be all listing of what to do to guarantee success in the Christian walk. What I DO see is a set of harmonious items in perfect unity that have a definitive start and a certain end. It’s the first ‘sermon’ – if you will – to Galilee that gathers previous teachings of The Master and delivers them in a startling way. Too often we ‘break it down’ and attempt to apply each one in a silo approach to equate to successful living in Christ. Let’s look at it anew…
Their Character
John had preached and demanded that people produce fruit in keeping with repentance. He wanted evidence of a new life as proof of their faith. Now, we see the beginning of Christ’s teaching, commonly known as the Beatitudes. These will describe the basis for blessing in ones life, but if you note they also describe the characteristics of righteousness of a person as well. Blessed can be translated Happy as well. Of note – when the Lord spoke of happiness (blessedness) here, He related it to holiness. Happiness and holiness are inseparably united in His kingdom!
1 – poor in spirit. Looking up the word ‘poor’ in the Greek we find
NT:4434 ptochos (pto-khos’); from ptosso (to crouch; akin to NT:4422 and the alternate of NT:4098); a beggar (as cringing), i.e. pauper (strictly denoting absolute or public mendicancy, although also used in a qualified or relative sense; whereas NT:3993 properly means only straitened circumstances in private), literally (often as noun) or figuratively (distressed):
KJV - beggar (-ly), poor.
(Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
What does that mean for us? We have no merit or righteousness of our own to stand on before God. I can offer nothing of myself to earn entrance into His kingdom. I’m utterly dependent upon God.
Here, the Lord is contrasting true righteousness and the righteousness taught by the Pharisees and learned from their traditions. That Pharisaic righteousness made them exceedingly proud and it was often offered to God as evidence that they were OK. Christ said the person that showed the righteousness He taught would be accepted into His kingdom.
2 – those who mourn. This is often expressed in Scripture (i.e., Ps. 51 or Dan. 9:3-5) as confession of sin. Poor in spirit recognized nothing good in them, mourning acknowledged the lack of righteousness to God and confession of their sin to the One that they had sinned against.
Contrast again to the Pharisees. They persuaded those that believe that they were righteous and had no sin that they needed to acknowledge. That is the opposite of what Christ is teaching here, so those that mourn are promised Christ’s comfort (forgiveness of sin based not on their own works, but the work He had done because they confessed/acknowledged the sin and asked for forgiveness).
3 – those who are meek. Again, we can review a couple of men who were characterized as meek in Scripture (Moses – Num. 12:3; Paul – 2 Cor. 10:1) and see that God used these men mightily to proclaim His message.
What is meekness? Being a doormat for others? Nah – it is NOT adopting a low view of oneself or discrediting the position, the authority, that God has given to the individual. Meekness recognizes the authority of God and submits itself to every expression of it. Meekness and obedience are kissing cousins – they go hand in hand. Meekness has the character of unquestioning submission.
Here, Christ is asking for obedience by submitting to His commands and will instead of our own, or any one else’s (like the Pharisees). Those that do will be welcome in His kingdom.
4 – they hunger and thirst for righteousness. We can see David, Moses and Paul among those that displayed this. According to 1 Peter 2:2 Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation every believer should look like this. Christ promised that these folks would be satisfied.
The Pharisees didn’t want true righteousness, they were already satisfied with their experience so they never sought after anything more.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
02.24.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 5:06 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority to Interpret the Law
The Subjects of the Kingdom (Matt 5:1-2; Luke 6:17-19)
Currently Jesus is enjoying great popularity in His ministry. As He comes down from the mountain where He had appointed the twelve, He again faces a great crowd. These folks came from Jew and Gentile areas to hear His word and to see His works. Matthew seems to indicate He withdrew from crowds to appoint the twelve, Luke makes it clear that Jesus found a level place to address the great multitude of disciples. So, there were more than the appointed twelve, multitudes were there.
The message had been substantiated by the miracles performed. These folks wanted to see and hear for themselves what others had told them about Christ. Many in this crowd were ‘outside’ the kingdom and were looking in – to catch a glimpse of what could be. As we look towards getting into the teaching Christ gave (’Sermon on the Mount’), He will warn them against trusting in the teachings of the Pharisees (sand) and urge them to build on His word (rock). John the Baptist demanded righteousness as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom (the same demands the OT had made). Christ – in offering Himself as King, made the same demands. He said only the righteous could enter Messiah’s kingdom. The concept was never challenged by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, or by the people themselves.
The question that did come up was – what kind of righteousness was necessary for entrance into Messiah’s kingdom? Because of Christ’s preaching, the nation faced two different concepts of righteousness.
- Righteousness of organized Judaism. This taught that a man was righteous if he attended the feasts, observed the rituals of sacrifice, and observed the traditions of the Pharisees.
- Christ preached righteousness that came as a result of faith in His person. This could not be earned by the people, instead it had to be received as a gift from God.
Here’s the start of another in the line of conflicts between Christ and the Pharisees. Folks coming to hear the teaching of Jesus didn’t need to be told that righteousness was necessary for entrance into the kingdom – they would readily acknowledge that. The question was turned into ‘what is righteousness’. So Jesus spoke to these concerns to the curious who were debating the issue of His person.
The theme of this discourse is found in Matthew 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ will be repudiating the Pharisaic righteousness as a basis for acceptance by the Messiah. Christ will offer Himself as the only basis for righteousness that admits one to into His kingdom.
And us – is that argument still being fought internally? Is it hard to accept that we don’t have this huge check list of do’s and don’ts that we must follow? Or is it harder to accept the grace and mercy from Christ who gave His all for my sin, and all I need to do is accept His offer?
Permalink
02.18.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 7:09 am by Bryan Dunn
Commissioning of the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16)
Here we see 2 responses to His presentation of Himself as Messiah.
- Opposition and rejection
- Faith – not only in Israel, but also by others in the surrounding nations.
This was the setting that Jesus chose His disciples from – and he had many folks to choose from. But why now to organize? There certainly were good reasons. His enemies had been organizing forces to oppose His ministry for some time. For this antagonism there certainly was a need to organize. Perhaps a larger reason was that the demands of ministry were growing, and this demanded a more complete organization of those working to do a better (more complete) work. I’m certain training had a part in organizing as well (perhaps this is a good example of train the trainer). And – there was a need to set apart the once that had ‘authority’ or ‘backing’ of Jesus to go forth on His behalf in the work.
This appointment was not made on a whim, nor was it the culmination of weeks / days / months of campaigning. Instead, Jesus spent the night in prayer – utter dependence on God to guide His decision – to ensure that these were the correct choices.
What is a disciple anyway? What does the word disciple mean? What connotations does it carry with it? Disciple is a learner. One who is willing to listen to a teacher. It doesn’t mean the person accepts the word of a teacher, it only means they will listen. From those that had been listening, Jesus chose the Twelve. They were called apostles. So what does that word mean?
Apostle means a sent one. The idea of authority is not in the word disciple, however it is essential to concept of apostle. These men were appointed as Christ’s representatives. The authority He possessed was conveyed to them.
Of interest is a comparison of the 4 lists of Jesus’ chosen apostles as given.
|
Matthew 10:2-4
|
Mark 3:14-19
|
Luke 6:13-16
|
Acts 1:13
|
|
Simon Peter
|
Simon Peter
|
Simon Peter
|
Simon Peter
|
|
Andrew
|
James s/o Zebedee
|
Andrew
|
James s/o Zebedee
|
|
James s/o Zebedee
|
John s/o Zebedee
|
James s/o Zebedee
|
John s/o Zebedee
|
|
John s/o Zebedee
|
Andrew
|
John s/o Zebedee
|
Andrew
|
|
Bartholomew
|
Bartholomew
|
Bartholomew
|
Thomas
|
|
Thomas
|
Matthew
|
Matthew
|
Bartholomew
|
|
Matthew
|
Thomas
|
Thomas
|
Matthew
|
|
James s/o Alphaeus
|
James s/o Alphaeus
|
James s/o Alphaeus
|
James s/o Alphaeus
|
|
Thaddaeus
|
Thaddaeus
|
Simon the Zelot
|
Simon the Zelot
|
|
Simon the Zelot
|
Simon the Zelot
|
Judas s/o James
|
Judas s/o James
|
|
Judas Iscariot
|
Judas Iscariot
|
Judas Iscariot
|
|
The first 4 names in Matt/Mark/Luke/Acts begin with Simon Peter and include the same people, but not always in the same order. Likewise, the second 4 names begin with Philip and include the same people, but not always in the same order. Lastly the last 4 names follow suit in beginning with James s/o Alphaeus and end with Judas Iscariot (except for Acts).
NO LITTLE PEOPLE
The list of Jesus’ twelve disciples does not give us many details — probably because there were not many impressive details to tell.
Jesus selected ordinary men with a mixture of backgrounds and personalities to be his disciples. Jesus did not choose these twelve to be his disciples because of their faith — it often faltered. He didn’t choose them because of their talent and ability — no one stood out with unusual ability. The disciples represented a wide range of backgrounds and life experiences, and apparently they may have had no more leadership potential than those who were not chosen. The one characteristic they all shared was their willingness to obey Jesus.
Today, God calls ordinary people together to build his church, teach salvation’s message, and serve others out of love. Individual Christians may feel unqualified to serve Christ effectively, but with other believers, they make up a group strong enough to serve God in any way. Remember that it is the oneness that believers have in Jesus that holds them together. Without that, all the congregations would break apart. Ask for patience to accept the diversity of people in your church, and for wisdom to see their gifts and abilities. Build on the variety of strengths represented in your group.
Jesus called people from all backgrounds and occupations — fishermen, religious activists, tax collectors. He called common people and uncommon leaders; rich and poor; educated and uneducated. Today, many people think only certain people can follow Christ, but this was not the attitude of the Master himself. God can use anyone, no matter how insignificant he or she appears. When you feel small and useless, remember that God uses ordinary people to do his extraordinary work.
(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.)
Permalink
02.03.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 10:19 pm by Bryan Dunn
The things Jesus said and did evoked such hostility that He left Jerusalem and returned to Galilee. Mark notes (vs. 7) that He sought a refuge from the time of conflict by withdrawing with His disciples to the lake. However, crowds of people followed them. Looking at verse 8, they came from all over, which geographically indicates that not only the nation of Israel - but all the border nations came to hear His message and seek His help.
What was Christ’s response? To teach the people, heal the sick, deliver those who were demon-possessed. In verse 9 we see it was probable that Jesus had to retreat to a boat to address the crowds because they were in a constant state of flux (some wanting to hear His words of truth and others coming for healing).
Matthew notes that this throng of people who had come from all the lands outside of Israel was a fulfillment of Isaiah 42:1-4. This prophecy portrayed a Messiah who would be empowered by Holy Spirit and would proclaim the message to Gentiles. He came to minister gently to the people, not to be quarrelsome or vengeful. He would be a catalyst for justice to triumph. It’s like Matthew, who was in the crowd listening, could not help but be awed with the realization that this One was God’s approved messiah in whom God delighted and was doing God’s work as God Himself would do it.
But there was a downside to all this. Jesus was in demand. The crowds were non stop. There were lots of reasons Jesus withdrew. And us?
Mark records several instances where Jesus set aside his work in order to spend time teaching the disciples, to pray, to escape his enemies, or simply to rest. For example:
- 1:12 — Jesus went into the wilderness alone to be tempted by Satan.
- 2:13 — Jesus went out to the seaside after the Pharisees considered him guilty of blasphemy because he claimed to forgive sins.
- 3:7 — Jesus went out to the seaside after confronting the Pharisees regarding his healing on the Sabbath.
- 3:13 — Jesus went up on the mountain and called to him those who would be his twelve disciples.
- 6:31 — Jesus took his disciples away for a time of rest.
- 6:46 — Jesus went up on a mountainside to pray.
- 7:24 — Jesus and the disciples left Galilee and went into the pagan territory of Tyre after confronting the religious leaders with their hypocrisy.
- 9:2 — Jesus took Peter, James, and John onto a high mountain to see his transfiguration.
- 14:32, 35 — Jesus went apart from his disciples to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Jesus withdrew to replenish his relationship with God the Father through prayer, and to build strong bonds with selected followers through long talks away from normal distractions.
Do you want to be a strong disciple today? It will require time, openness to a deepening relationship, and growing ties with God’s people. Do you want to develop Christian disciples today? Jesus’ methods work best.
(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.)
Permalink
01.13.08
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 4:54 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority over the Sabbath (continued)
Through Healing the Man with the Withered Hand (Matt. 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11)
The third confrontation over the Sabbath took place in the synagogue. Looking at the scene we have a recipe for a fight. The first punch was thrown when the Pharisees challenge Jesus with the question Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? What was the true issue? To enter the controversy they were having on what medication was allowable on the Sabbath.
To illustrate, here are some of the issues (read the 2 final paragraphs on page 167).
The answer came from Jesus by referring to their own practices. If the life on one of their animals were in jeopardy, they would work to keep it. The conclusion is that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. So Jesus deflected their punch, and they ended up punching at the air.
However, Jesus wasn’t finished. Christ seeing a man with a withered hand commands him to ’stretch out your hand’.
Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and it was restored, as sound as the other. Jesus refused to play by the Pharisees’ rules. After pronouncing that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (12:12), Jesus did exactly that. He told the man to stretch out his hand. In response to Jesus’ command and with all eyes focused on him, the man stretched his hand out in front of him. The moment he did so, it was restored, as sound as the other. “Restored” means that it became like it had been before. As with the leper (8:3) and the paralytic (9:6-7), Jesus gave this man his life back. The man could work again, and he no longer had to face the embarrassment of his deformity.
No particular action of Jesus is recorded; he told the man to move, and with that movement, healing arrived. Jesus did nothing that could be called “work,” but the Pharisees would not be swayed from their purpose. Jesus had embarrassed them. He had overruled their authority (Luke 6:11) and had exposed their evil attitudes in front of the entire crowd in the synagogue, showing that the Pharisees were more loyal to their religious system than to God. That was enough to cause them to get on with their mission of destruction (see 12:14).
(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.)
How did the Pharisees respond? In a couple of ways.
- They were furious with Christ (Luke 6:11). They had been publicly humiliated, He had arguments that were too good and had shown how shaky their entire tradition was (this wasn’t the first time He had done this with His arguments).
- They began to plot His death (Matt 12:14). You reject our traditions, you need to die.
- They entered into an alliance with the Herodians (their enemies) and looked for their support in attempts to kill Jesus (Mark 3:6). They were determined to carry out their plan for His death.
This controversy marked an important development – the opposition of the Pharisees was no longer veiled, it was now open.
And us? How do we respond when Jesus exposes our issues, faults, problems? Do we want to choke Him? Or do we fall down – broken and contrite – looking for forgiveness? How should we respond and what can we do to get to that point?
Permalink
12.23.07
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 5:22 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority over the Sabbath (continued)
Through the Controversy Over Grain (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
Well…Jesus was so good at answering the accusations of the Jews (that He was guilty of blasphemy) that the charge was not pursued. Those that opposed Him must be vigilant for other opportunities to catch and accuse. They didn’t need to wait long!
Observation – Jesus and His disciples were passing through a grain field on one Sabbath day. Because the disciples were hungry, they took some of the heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands (to get rid of what they didn’t want to eat) and then gobbled them up. The law allowed this – a hungry man could pick grain along a pathway to satisfy his hunger. But the Pharisees didn’t see this as acceptable because it violated their tradition about the Sabbath.
Edersheim notes: … according to Rabbinic statues, at least two sins. According to the Talmud, what was really one labor, would, if made up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of labor, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering. This so called ‘division’ of labor applied only to infringement of the Sabbath-rest – not of that of feast-days. Now in this case there were at least two such acts involved: that of plucking the ears of corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them, which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting out fruit, grinding or fanning. … One instance will suffice to show the externalism of all these ordinances. If a man wished to move a sheaf of his field, which implied labor, he had only to lay upon it a spoon that was in his common use, when, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! And yet, it was forbidden to stop with a little wax the hole in a cask my which fluid was running out, or to wipe a wound! With views like these, the Pharisees who witnessed this conduct considered this as a gross desecration of the Sabbath.
As on the previous occasion of being accused of blasphemy, Christ defended Himself. He offered a number of proofs that He was not guilty of a Sabbath violation. The first proof was based on their own ignorance of the Scriptures. Christ referred to a time when David and his companions were hungry. David went into the house of God and at the bread that was only to be eaten by the priests.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, “The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”
4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here — provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
So the question here needs to be asked – why was David blameless in this instance? The Sabbath law as not only a law for rest, it was one for rest and of worship. The object was the service of the Lord. The priests worked on the Sabbath because this service was the object of the Sabbath. David was allowed to eat the shew-bread, not because there was a danger to life of starvation, but because he pleaded that he was in the service of the Lord and needed provisions. The same with the disciples – they were looking at a higher reason; service to the Lord. The service of God superseded the Sabbath law.
Want more arguments?
- the law itself permitted men to work when they were involved in worship and service (see page 166)
- after appealing to the law, Christ appealed to the prophets and argued based on an interpretation of Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
- and in Mark we see Christ appeal to the original purpose of the Sabbath (see page 166) where men were not to be bent to the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was to conform to the needs of men
- also in Mark (vs. 28) we see an argument based on the authority of the Messiah Himself. All things are subject to this authority
During His ministry Jesus defended Himself only when His deity was attacked and His authority questioned. Since Israel’s salvation depended on faith in His person as the Son of God, it was only on these occasions that He sought to defend Himself against those that were His adversaries.
So – when do we feel the need to address those that question us? Every time anyone asks? Or only on those hills where the flag should be planted? When others question our actions or beliefs, can we go to the source (the Word of God) and answer? If not, why not? And if not, what are our beliefs based on – personal ‘experience’ or the word of someone else other than God (even if it’s a pastor)?
Permalink
« Previous entries
