The Sermon on the Mount Lesson 6 - The Righteousness of the Kingdom Citizen

The Concern of the Kingdom

In our last lesson, we noticed in verses 20-30 that the standard of righteousness in the kingdom of God is greater than the standard of righteousness accepted by the Pharisees.

By way of explanation, Jesus examined the popular understanding of the sixth and seventh commandments and showed that they failed to account for all that God had said concerning murder and adultery.

Not only did the prevailing views fail to account for other specific statements in the Law, they also failed to recognize the overriding principle of love that was inherent in the Law of Moses.

In verses 31-37, we see Jesus taking this same approach regarding the covenants we enter and the oaths we take.

By examining Jewish divorce practices, and the attitudes behind these practices, we see that dishonest dealings often hurt others.

By examining the hyper-technical view of oath taking, we see that failing to keep our word blasphemes God in whose name oaths are taken.

The sermon makes it clear that the kingdom citizen is expected to honest in all of his dealings, and that honesty is not defined by what is advantageous to self in the moment; rather honest dealings require us to consider God and others first.

Fidelity in Marriage

- The quotation here is from , the primary passage regulating divorce under the Law of Moses.

has been the subject of debate since before the time of Jesus. Several questions have been discussed regarding this section of the Law.

What is the meaning of “some indecency in her” (“uncleanness” KJV)?

Does this passage authorize divorce, or merely regulate a situation that was occurring anyway?

Is the passage intended to be instruction on how to properly divorce (putting the emphasis on verse 1), or is the intent to prevent wives from being passed between men (putting the emphasis on verse 4)?

In the first century, the debate centered around what was meant by “some indecency.” There were two schools that taught different positions on this passage.

Shammai

The Rabbi Shammai took a strict view of the passage arguing that the indecency mentioned was some grave offence, essentially arguing that adultery was the only acceptable grounds for divorce.

Hillel argued for a lax view of the passage. In his view ruining dinner or even being found too plain was grounds for divorce.

Rather than answer the popular question of when a man could get a divorce, Jesus emphasized the impact on others when the marriage vows were treated lightly.

- A man who put his wife away for an inadequate reason put her in a compromised position.

The “certificate of divorce” did nothing to dissolve the bond their oath to one another created, thus for her to be married to another caused her to commit adultery.

Likewise, anyone she married was taking another man’s wife, thus causing him to commit adultery.

This response demonstrated two key principles:

1. Love your neighbor as yourself has application in all of our relationships.

2. Divorce was never part of God’s purpose for marriage.

- In this expanded discussion, Jesus made it clear that marriage was/is intended by God to be permanent. Divorce is only a concession.

- The marriage law is stated - “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”

This statement should answer any questions regarding divorce for a cause other than fornication. It violates God’s marriage law and so it is sin.

- Divine commentary on is given - “because of the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you to divorce your wives...”

Moses was not commanding divorce, the passage was not legitimizing divorce. Instead, the law offered protection to the women of Israel and served as a deterrent to divorce itself.

- Divorce, except in cases of fornication, does not dissolve the marriage bond - “whoever divorces his wife…and marries another woman commits adultery”

Jesus dealt with the impact upon the put away spouse in , here He shows that the result is the same for the one who divorces their spouse.

Honest Speech

- This statement is not a direct quote from the Law of Moses, however it does express the sentiment found in several passages.

- “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”

- “You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God”

- “When a man vows a vow to the Lord, … he shall not break his word”

- “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not be slack to pay it”

Taking oaths and making vows was permitted under the Law of Moses. makes it clear that these were to be voluntary and once made they were to be performed.

The rabbis had taken these simple statements and turned them into complicated formulas filled with loop holes that allowed one to make a vow and not fulfill it.

These loopholes were later codified in Shebuoth (a tract within the Talmud). For example, swearing by Jerusalem was not binding, but swearing toward Jerusalem was (Chumbley pg 106).

The emphasis of many of these alleged loopholes was the name of the Lord.

The Message of the Sermon on the Mount 2. Honesty in Speech (33)

They shifted people’s attention away from the vow itself and the need to keep it to the formula used in making it. They argued that what the law was really prohibiting was not taking the name of the Lord in vain, but taking the name of the Lord in vain. ‘False swearing’, they concluded, meant profanity (a profane use of the divine name), not perjury (a dishonest pledging of one’s word). So they developed elaborate rules for the taking of vows. They listed which formulae were permissible, and they added that only those formulae which included the divine name made the vow binding. One need not be so particular, they said, about keeping vows in which the divine name had not been used.

- Jesus demonstrated the silliness of this type of distinction by showing that it is impossible to avoide some reference to God.

The rabbis were teaching that as long as one avoided the name of God one was free of their oath, so they would swear by other things.

Jesus’s point in the Sermon is that it is impossible to avoid some mention of God.

To swear by heaven is to reference the throne of God.

To swear by the earth is to reference the footstool of God.

To swear by Jerusalem is to swear by the city of God.

To swear by your own head is to reference the creation of God.

- Jesus dealt with this same mindset in His rebuke of the Pharisees. In this passage Jesus quoted a few of the formulas used by the Pharisees and labeled them as foolish

- Rather than obligating people to use just the right formula, Jesus showed that the real demand of the law was to keep one’s word and to be honest in your speech.

The loop holes themselves were dishonest in that they allowed one to make an oath they never intended to keep.

Jesus solution was to let “your yes be yes and your no be no” ().

This presents us with a few questions that are worth considering.

If swearing/oath taking is prohibited, why do we read of God taking oaths?

We should notice first of all that God does not take an oath in order to increase His credibility. Rather, a divine oath is intended to elicit our faith. In other words, if God did not use an oath there is no reason to doubt that He would do as He said, but the oath serves as a marker for men to look back on and recognize the fact that God has kept His word ().

Is Jesus forbidding the taking oaths, swearing or even making promises?

The point of the passage has to do with the honest intent of our words, not the precise words that we use. We should conduct ourselves in such a way that when we speak others believe us. Taking an oath, swearing or promising will not make a dishonest man honest.

- Paul, in inspired writing, used a phrase that literally means, “I put you under oath.” Several times in other passages Paul invoked the name of God in taking oaths about the truthfulness of what he was saying. (, ; ; )

- Jesus participated in oath taking

It would seem that in all of these instances oath taking was used to emphasize the seriousness of the message or situation rather than as a formula put in place of true honesty.

From these examples we can conclude that for the Christian to submit to an authority placing them under oath is not sinful. Likewise entering a vow based on a solemn oath, such as marriage vows, is not sinful.

Oath taking, especially the thoughtless use of oaths, is really an admission of our own dishonesty.

What other reason