Sermon Tone Analysis

Expounding the Spirit of the Law in Light of Its Letter

Introduction:

Ill - KS Civil Meeting Opening Prayer:

Omniscient Father:

Help us to know who is telling the truth.

One side tells us one thing, and the other just the opposite.

And if neither side is telling the truth, we would like to know that, too.

And if each side is telling half the truth, give us the wisdom to put the right halves together.

In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Perhaps that was (and is) a necessary prayer, but nevertheless it was a desperate expression of cynicism!

This cynicism regarding truth extends to the literature of our day as well.

University of Chicago professor Mortimer Adler, editor of The Encyclopedia Britannica and the Great Books of the Western World series, says in his classic How to Read a Book:

The question, Is it true?

can be asked of anything we read.

It is applicable to every kind of writing.…

No higher commendation can be given any work of the human mind than to praise it for the measure of truth it has achieved; by the same token, to criticize it adversely for its failure in this respect is to treat it with the seriousness that a serious work deserves.

Yet, strangely enough, in recent years, for the first time in Western history, there is a dwindling concern with this criterion of excellence.

Books win the plaudits of the critics and gain widespread popular attention almost to the extent that they flout the truth—the more outrageously they do so, the better.[Kent

Hughes PTW]

Main Thought:

Protected Heart = Projected Testimony = Presented Gospel

Sub-Intro:

Provide the context of representing Christ in LEGAL settings within the community

Body:

I. How the Disciple Deals with Passion (Matt.

5:21-32)

A. An Advocate for Christ in the People’s Court (Matt.

5:21-26)

Ill - Agreeing with an Adversary

“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison” (KJV).

According to Roman law, if a person had a quarrel that he could not settle privately, he had the right to order his adversary to accompany him to the praetor.

If he refused, the prosecutor took someone present to witness by saying, “May I take you to witness?”

If the person consented, he offered the tip of his ear, which the prosecutor touched; a form that was observed toward witnesses in some other legal ceremonies among the Romans.

Then the plaintiff might drag the defendant to court by force in any way, even by the neck (see Matthew 5:25), but worthless persons such as thieves and robbers might be dragged before the judge without the formality of calling a witness.

If on the way to the judge the difficulty was settled, no further legal steps were taken.

Jesus refers to this custom in the text.

When the accused is thus legally seized by the accuser, he is urged to make up his quarrel while on the way to the judge, so that no further legal process should be necessary.

[New Manners & Customs]

Jesus is quite clear about this basic fact—we cannot be right with God until we are right with one another; we cannot hope for forgiveness until we have confessed our sin, not only to God, but also to others, and until we have done our best to remove the practical consequences of it.

We sometimes wonder why there is a barrier between us and God; we sometimes wonder why our prayers seem unavailing.

The reason may well be that we ourselves have erected that barrier, through being at variance with our neighbours, or because we have wronged someone and have done nothing to put things right.

[New Daily Study Bible]

B. An Advocate for Christ in the Private Court (Matt.

5:27-30)

What we do have liberty to say is only this (for this is what Jesus said): if your eye causes you to sin, don’t look; if your foot causes you to sin, don’t go; and if your hand causes you to sin, don’t do it.

The rule Jesus laid down was hypothetical, not universal.

He did not require all his disciples (metaphorically speaking) to blind or maim themselves, but only those whose eyes, hands and feet were a cause of sinning.

It is they who have to take action; others may be able to retain both eyes, both hands and both feet with impunity.

Of course even they may need to refrain from certain liberties out of loving concern for those with weaker consciences or weaker wills, but that is another principle which is not enunciated here.

What is necessary for all those with strong sexual temptations, and indeed for all of us in principle, is discipline in guarding the approaches of sin.

The posting of sentries is a commonplace of military tactics; moral sentry-duty is equally indispensable.

Are we so foolish as to allow the enemy to overwhelm us, simply because we have posted no sentries to warn us of his approach?

[Stott, MSM]

C.

An Advocate for Christ in Divorce Court (Matt.

5:31-32)

Divorce and Adultery (5:31–32)

5:31–32 Jesus’s third example of his definitive interpretation of the law develops the biblical teaching on divorce.

Matthew 5:31 (cf.

Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18) refers to Deut.

24:1–4 (cf.

Matt.

19:7), which in its original context prohibits a man from remarrying a woman he has previously married and divorced if she has subsequently been married to another man who has died or divorced her.

The detail of the Deuteronomy passage most relevant to then-current views of divorce was evidently the existence of a written legal document (Deut.

24:1, 3).22 Apparently, many teachers of Jesus’s day had taken this passage as carte blanche for divorce.

According to the Mishnah (compiled from earlier oral tradition ca.

200 CE), Hillel (first cent.

BCE) permitted divorce if a wife had spoiled a meal, and Akiba (second cent.

CE) permitted it if a more beautiful woman was available (Deut.

24:1; m.

Giṭ.

9.10).23

Jesus’s strict view of divorce is evidently similar to that of Rabbi Shammai (first cent.

BCE), who is also cited by the above text from the Mishnah.24

According to Jesus, a man who divorces his wife for any reason other than sexual infidelity causes her and her potential future spouse to commit adultery.

If there has been no sexual infidelity, there can be no real divorce.

If there has been no real divorce, there can be no remarriage, and additional sexual unions are adulterous.

There is much debate on the word πορνεία (porneia, sexual infidelity), but it seems most likely that Jesus has in mind any sort of sexual activity not involving one’s spouse (W.

Davies and Allison 1988: 529–31).25 Jesus prohibits what the Bible was understood to permit in the area of divorce.

As the definitive eschatological teacher of the law, his interpretation is based on the original divine intent for marriage, not the expediency of the moment.

The Pharisees’ overly permissive interpretation capitalized on a concession to human sinfulness (cf. the commentary on Matt.

19:3–9).

Why do Matt.

5:32 and 19:9 alone among the synoptic divorce sayings (cf.

Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) provide an exception to the prohibition of divorce?26 Answering this vexing question is not properly part of the exegesis of Matthew.

Those who hold to Markan priority tend to view the exception clause as Matthean redaction, not authentic historical Jesus tradition (e.g., Hagner 1993: 123; Stein in J. Green and McKnight 1992: 194–95).

Others wish to take Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 as proverbial statements offering an ideal general principle, with Matthew providing a contextual qualification (Keener 1999: 190–91).

Another line of interpretation seems preferable, if not convincing, one related to the respective communities for which the Synoptic Gospels were written.

In this view, Matthew retains the authentic dominical exception clause for his Christian Jewish audience because of the connection with Deut.

24:1–3 whereas it is omitted by Mark and Luke, who are writing for mainly gentile audiences.1

1 David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 171–172.

II.

How the Disciple Deals with Promises (Matt.

5:33-48)

A. An Advocate for Christ in the Court of Honor (Matt.

5:33-37)

To swear by heaven is to invoke God’s very throne (Ps 2:4; 11:4; Isa 66:1), and that is God’s prerogative, not ours.

To swear by earth also goes back to God, for he created it and it is his.

It is God’s right to use earth as his own footstool, not our right to use earth to bolster our own petty claims.

To swear (facing) “toward” (εἰς) Jerusalem is to pretend that you can tell God what to do; it is his (the “great king,” Ps 48:2) city, not yours to control.

[ZECNT]

Here is a great eternal truth.

Life cannot be divided into compartments in some of which God is involved and in others of which he is not involved; there cannot be one kind of language in the church and another kind of language in the shipyard or the factory or the office; there cannot be one kind of standard of conduct in the church and another kind of standard in the business world.

The fact is that God does not need to be invited into certain departments of life and kept out of others.

He is everywhere, all through life and every activity of life.

He hears not only the words which are spoken in his name; he hears all words; and there cannot be any such thing as a form of words which evades bringing God into a transaction.

We will regard all promises as sacred, if we remember that all promises are made in the presence of God.

[NDSB]