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
12.09.07
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 4:09 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority Over the Sabbath
Through the Healing of the Paralytic (John 5:1-47)
It is thought that this was near or at the end of the first year of ministry of Christ. During this time His fame grew, as did the jealousy of the Pharisees. The second year of His ministry, which Christ was now entering, was to be a year of great public favor. Nearly all this year was spent in Galilee, but there was a feast, presumably the Feast of the Passover in Jerusalem, which He attended before going ahead into Galilee. There is a difference of opinion as to which this unnamed feast was, but the circumstances of His ministry as a whole seems to favor this being the Passover.
The Pharisees had often revealed their antagonism to Jesus during His previous ministry in Galilee. This antagonism had been veiled because of the popularity of Jesus due to His teaching and miracles. Now that Christ had come to Jerusalem, that popularity would no long be an advantage Jesus could count on, and the disdain for Jesus came out in the open. What was the occasion where we see it rear its ugly head? Over the question of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was divinely instituted as a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel
Exodus 31:13-17 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’” Observing the Sabbath marked Israel as a set-apart people and reminded them of this as well.
There was no institution among the Jews that was held with more care and compassion than this. It came from God to Moses – and carried from generation to generation. No working, just rest. Lengthy rules were formulated about what kinds of knots one could tie on the Sabbath, if you could make a fire, what you could or could not carry. The Sabbath had become a burden by the thousands of restrictions and rules that are truly too numerous to mention. Even thought the Mosaic law was sufficiently stringent as given by God, the Pharisees deemed it too lax and amplified and defined it more – in an attempt to capture every ‘what if’ that could be. (page 159-160 address this at length).
Jesus walked by a pool near the Sheep Gate. The pool is said to have had five covered porticoes. Hodges notes:
The rediscovery of the Pool of Bethesda has, of course, confirmed John’s knowledge of the topography of ancient Jerusalem. The reference to the somewhat strange number of ‘five colonnades’ (or ‘five porches’) is now explainable due to the fact that the pool was a double pool surrounded by Herodian colonnades on all four sides, while the fifth colonnade stood on the dividing wall that separated the northern and southern pools.
What did Christ see? A man who had been an invalid for 38 years. Looking on to verse 14, we would conclude that the man’s infirmity was the result of divine discipline due to sin. For 38 years this man had hoped for healing from the waters of the pool…but this hope had never been realized.
Of note – observe that divine discipline can NEVER be removed until the sin that brought the discipline is acknowledged and the person asks God to forgive that sin. It seems that the God who had imposed the discipline on the man had prevented him from finding a cure in the waters of the pool.
Jesus asked if he wanted to get well. Showing his despondency and loss of hope, the man let Jesus know that there was no one to assist him. Christ responded to this by commanding him to get up and to pick up his mat and walk. This command demanded obedience, which was impossible apart from faith in the One who had given the command. And the man picked up his mat and walked.
Now, what happened next did not jibe with Pharisaic tradition – one could not carry any burden on the Sabbath day. This man was publicly seen to be violating, not the law of Moses, but the traditions of the Pharisees. The Pharisees, who were jealous for their traditions, immediately challenged the man. What was his defense? Look at verse 11. The One who has the power to heal has the right to be obeyed. So who was this person? The man didn’t know.
In verse 14 we see the man in the temple. Perhaps he had gone there to offer thanks and sacrifices to God. While there, Jesus approaches him. The man went away and now became a witness to the power of Christ. He informs the Jews of who healed him, now that he knew it was Jesus. The result? In verse 16 we see it is persecution of Jesus by the Jews because He did these things on the Sabbath. What was Christ’s response to this persecution? Verse 17. Christ’s statement was very strong and clear. He referred to God as His very own Father. Now the Jews had another reason to persecute Him! This was blasphemy. Since Jesus Christ claimed God as His Father, they saw Him as guilty of blasphemy. And in verse 19 we see the authority that had been given to Him was proof of His person. To this, the Jews had a problem with arguing. They acknowledged God as the Creator, as the One that would give life to the righteous in the resurrection, and that God had the power to judge all men. Christ claimed that the authority vested by the Father in the Son proved the equality of the Son with the Father.
Christ affirmed that He would exercise His authority when the time was right. Look at verse 25 and 27. If He claimed to have authority but never used or exercised it, then we may have a reason to question what Jesus claimed. Also in those verses, Jesus refers to Himself as Son of God and Son of Man. Son of Man is the title that is Jesus’ favorite and in every instance – when used as a title – refers to Christ alone (the only exception is in Acts 7 in the speech of Stephen). It expresses dignity, dominion and authority. Son of God was less common on the lips of Christ, but was frequently used by the apostles, and it expresses an essential filial relation to God (for a detailed look at these 2 phrases, go to pages 161-163 in the book).
In anticipation of the objections of His opponents that would say He was bearing witness of Himself, He presents 5 other witnesses to His person.
- the witness of John the Baptist (vs. 33-35)
- the testimony of His works (vs. 36)
- the witness of the Father (vs. 37) – baptism, this is my Son…
- the witness of the Scriptures (vs. 39) – OT
- the testimony of Moses (vs. 45-47) – study of the types
There was abundant evidence to believe Jesus’ claims that He was the Son of God, the Son of Man, co-equal with His Father, and the One on whom the Father’s authority had been conferred.
How much evidence is needed to convince us of the reality of Christ’s claims?
Permalink
11.25.07
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 3:01 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority Over Tradition (Matt. 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39)
If there was any question that John’s disciples may have not continued or had disbanded in some way, this passage answers that question. Here they approach Christ with a question on fasting. Keep in mind that John had demanded repentance in connection with his baptism, and fasting coupled with prayer was a sign of that repentance. Now with this practice the Pharisees were in total agreement. And that is why the question arose…why didn’t Jesus and His disciples follow the practice of fasting and prayer? Jesus had frequently repudiated Pharisaic tradition, but this well-established tradition was practiced by John…so why didn’t Jesus conform?
Christ answers with figurative language, conjuring up the image of a wedding feast. When the bridegroom arrived, it was time to rejoice! Fasting at this event and on this occasion would be inappropriate. And with Jesus (the Messiah) being with His kingdom right now, this tradition would be inappropriate. And not just for Jesus, for all the guests as well.
Notice Christ alludes to something else in verse 15 - The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast . Here Christ alludes to His anticipated death and return to the Father’s right hand. Just as the departure of the bridegroom signaled the end of the feast, Christ’s departure would bring the disciples to a place where fasting and prayer would be the appropriate response.
Now for application. For this Jesus told parables. Edersheim captures the intent of these parables like this:
In general, the two illustrations employed – that of the piece of undressed cloth (or, according to Luke, a piece torn from a new garment) sewed upon the rent of an old garment, and that of the new wine put into the old wine-skins – must not be too closely pressed in regard to their language. They seem chiefly to imply this: You ask, why do we fast often, but Thy disciples fast not? You are mistaken in supposing that the old garment can be retained, and merely its rents made good by patching it with a piece of new cloth. Not to speak of the incongruity, the effect would only be to make the rent ultimately worse. The old garment will not bear mending with the ‘undressed cloth.’ Christ was not merely a reformation: all things must become new.
Or again, take the other view of it – as the old garment cannot be patched from the new, so, on the other hand, can the new wine of the Kingdom not be confined in the old forms. It would burst those wine-skins. The spirit must, indeed, have its corresponding form of expression, but that form must be adapted, and correspond to it. Not the old with a little of the new to hold it together where it is rent; but the new, and that not in the old wine-skins, but in a form corresponding to the substance. Such are the two final principles – the one primarily addressed to the Pharisees, the other to the disciples of John, by which the illustrative teaching concerning the marriage feast, with its bridal garment and wine of banquet, is carried far beyond the original question of the disciples of John, and receives an application to all time.
The parables clearly indicate that Christ did not come to reform an old and worn out system, but to introduce something new! Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. What was needed was not even a slight rehash of the old, Christ was ushering in a new thing in totality. If men would accept what He was offering them, they wouldn’t want the old. But the Pharisees, having tasted the old, were satisfied with it, and had no desire for what He was offering them.
And us? We don’t want to leave the tried and true. We get so comfortable…how can we break out of ‘tradition’ and better serve the Lord?
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »
