Jesus Interprets the Law- Pt. III

Letter of the Law, spirit of the Law continues

Is the Law good?

Is the Law perfect?

What is the purpose of the Law then?

What is the purpose of the Law today?

What was the purpose of Jesus using the Law?

Previously we have established

The Law in its truth is not pitting Jesus against the Law of Moses and the Prophets; it is going beyond the superficial interpretations of the Pharisees and the scribes.

Jesus described, Murder, Adultery

This afternoon we will pick up there and continue on about adultery, then

Oaths, and retribution and if time permits love, love your enemies as well as your neighbor.

I think we need to back up some so we keep things in context since we are picking up where we left off last week.

Mt5:27-28 “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

and that is where we ended last week.

As we discussed murder starts in the heart, so does adultery, it starts in the eye, the heart and can lead to the action, it is not the same but can end the same. Both are sin.

We stopped with the quote from FF Bruce

“It is also important to distinguish between temptation to sin and sin itself. the look is supposed to be not casual but persistent, the desire not involuntary or momentary, but cherished with longing.”

Jesus while tempted with all things (Heb4:15) did not since. He looked at all women as daughters of the king or sisters, sacred objects not ones to be desired in a physical way.

That leads us to our passage today and we will break it down little by little.

Our attitude in the war against sin

Mt5:29-30 “29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

Can you see that this is addressed very personal to the listeners here? Is this literal or figurative?

There were some like Origen an early theologian in 185 who took it literally who did castrate himself on the principle of this passage.

Think of this, if this were true and you did that to one eye you still had another eye to sin with, or another hand right?

The heart of sin is inward not outward. Even if you deal with the outward the inward is still there.

FF Bruce said “Mutilation will not serve the purpose; it may prevent the outward act, but it will not extinguish desire.”

Do you agree with that statement?

Jesus is stressing the point that we must be willing to sacrifice to be obedient, that obedience oftentimes has a cost. Sometimes we don’t think about, consider the cost, or even know what the cost is.

Jesus has been dealing with the sin of adultery, and that even looking at a woman with lust is a form of adultery so now Jesus comes back to another subject within marriage, divorce.

Mt5:31-32 “31 “It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

IF you are wondering where this comes from it comes from Deut24:1 “1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,”

Jesus takes this and says so much more than that. There is no reason except for reasons of Chasity, any know what the word means? Or their verse use another word, which I’m sure some do.

The certificate of divorce did nothing for the wife and was only an instrument for the husband, it was an instrument of cruelty against the wife. Though one of the Rabbinic school’s of Shammai did require “some indecency” to refer only to a sexual misdemeanor authenticated by witnesses.” Whereas the school of Hillel took it to include even burning the dinner.

We know in today’s society where it lands, on the loose interpretation of it. Where Jesus came in and interpreted it for no reason except for sexual immorality (porneia) which is fornication, you can read more on this in Mt19, we will not get there today.

Now the Grecian and Roman culture fully accepted relations outside of marriage for wives were for children only.

Illegitimate divorce gives place to adultery for God does not recognize the divorce , and sees the new relationship as bigamous. It may be recognized by the State but not recognized by God. I know it may sound harsh but that is what Jesus, what the scripture says.

And if that was not enough to chew on, let’s move on

I swear, well, we shouldn’t

Mt5:33-35 “33 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34 “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.”

Mt5:36-37 “36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

What is the “jist” that you pick up in this section? What are they being taught by the Pharisee’s and the scribes?

What is Jesus telling them?

They, the Scribes whispering in the ears of the Pharisees were using

Exo20:7 “7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.”

as the exact of the Law; do not use the name of the Lord in making any oath, you can break other oaths just not one using the name of the Lord.

Jesus is teaching that God is a part of any oath so don’t make any oath unless you intend to keep the oath.

So, better to make no oath then to make an oath and not keep it.

FF Bruce again says: “Again an unqualified statement, to be taken not in the letter as a new law, but in the spirit as inculcating such a love of truth that so far as we are concerned that there shall be no need of oaths.” - - - so let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no.”

Is Jesus making a new law, a new absolute? No, consider

Heb6:13 “13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,”

Or Lk1:73 “73 The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,” or maybe even what Jesus said under oath to the High Priest:

Mt26:63-64 “63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.””

So, no, Jesus was not making a new law, a new absolute, but giving the spirit of the law regarding oaths.

A good man need not make an oath, you can think back to a day when things were settled with a hand shake not a binding contract (oath).

Well, I think that is it for today, I don’t think it would be fair to the scripture to go any further, we will pick up at (v.38) next week.