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
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
