Simplicity_10_Sup1_ SinThatSeparates.htm

2Cor 11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from ‘The Simplicity That Is in Christ’”

Ephesians 5:25-29 NKJV

25 . . . just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. . . . 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.

There are more people in the world involved with Jesus Christ – in one way or another – than with any other entity

of any kind. Surely then, all of us who claim any identity with Christ should be able to answer the simple question, “Why did God send Jesus to this world.” To understand and continually reaffirm a correct answer to this question will again and again strengthen our love for God, respect for Jesus and appreciation for his sacrifice for mankind.

But, the use of “mankind” may be too objective for me, and so I choose to talk in terms more personal, that is, of you and me. What God did, and Jesus did, must become subjective, personal and intimate. “Us” must focus on me, and my relationship with “Him,” and then my relationship with “you.” Without comprehending that God loved me (John 3:16), and Jesus died for me, I will never generate proper zeal for sharing this good news (the Gospel) with others. Paul might be a prime example, for he said, 1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. And then, “I am debtor . . .” (Rom 1:14ff.). Am I not a debtor? Reader, do you feel that you are a debtor?

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you will call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Mat 1:18:21).

Even after about two thousand years, even in the very sophisticated, enlightened and scientific culture of our times, and in spite of all the efforts of some people to prevent it, Jesus Christ still means more to humanity than any other person who has ever lived! What makes Him so? The answer is clear: Jesus and only Jesus provided a way that we can escape the penalty of sin! Not sin generally, but our sin. Will we accept this fact and act upon it?

John tells us that “He came to his own land, and his own people did not receive him; but to as many as received him, believing in his name, he granted the privilege of being children of God” (Joh 1:11,12 LO). At the birth of John the baptizer “his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, . . . And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins . . .” (Luke 1:67-77). And John did give “knowledge of salvation” to those who would repent of their sins. And after his death, time after time Jesus pled with his own people the Jews, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (8:24). Toward the very end of his earthly work he cried, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Mat 23:37).

The Scriptures clearly teach that God cannot and will not sojourn with evil. (Psa 5:4-6; Hab 1:13; etc.) From Adam and Eve till now, sin causes separation from God. Isaiah quotes God by saying, “Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isa 59:1,2).

For those of us who believe in the Sacred Scriptures

we must then believe that sin is real and sin separates man from God. And being separated from God means that sin dams and dooms the soul. Souls that sin and will not repent will be lost forever in hell. The sinner needs to be helped to see what sin is, and helped to seek forgiveness, and then helped to hate this influence of the devil. I'd like to think that none of our brotherhood is ever proud of the sins they may have committed. It is not something to be proud about, but to be ashamed that we let Satan tempt us and we were not strong enough to resist. And, as the Scriptures say, “Our sins will find us out.”

At times it seems that America is laughing itself into hell. Many of the comedy shows are hardly fit for a decent person to watch. And when one hears all the idle, worthless and often vulgar talk in the media we have to ask, “Do these people have no sense of God’s righteousness?” I am especially concerned for the casual attitude of many of our young people about promiscuity, especially the way some talk and dress – and act at times. My judgment is that there was a day when most young people knew what sin was, and tried to avoid it. Sitting at a Bible Lectureship some time back the speaker was talking about how times had changed and we need today to change with the times. I heard an aged saint sitting nearby speak out loud enough so a number of us could hear, “At least we knew what sin was!” Was he on target? One of the present presidential candidates, running on a moralistic platform, recently in Time Magazine urged us to be softer in condemning sin in order to win the influence of more Americans. Was he on target? J. W. McGarvey once wrote:

"I wonder if any of us has ever realized what it is to commit sin. I believe that I would esteem above every other gift that could be bestowed upon me as a preacher, the power to adequately conceive what sin is, and to adequately set it before the people. A number of times in my ministrations, I have prepared sermons designed to set forth the enormity of sin; but I have every time felt that I made a failure. I found, I thought, two causes of the failure: first, a want of realization in my own soul of the enormity of it; and second, inability to gather up such words and such figures of speech, as would, with anything like adequacy, set it forth before my hearers. The pleasures of sin have blinded our eyes to its enormity. So I have come to the conclusion, after a great deal of reflection, and a great deal of mental effort, that about the only correct gauge we have with which to measure the enormity or heinousness of sin, is the punishment that God has decreed against it. God is infinite in all his attributes; infinite in mercy, in love, in compassion; and when we find the punishment that such a God as that was constrained, by the justice that also characterizes him, to enact against sin, I think we shall be better able to form an idea of its enormity than we can from any other view of the matter."

I hear frequently about how hard-hearted the modern generation has become, and how resistant to the Gospel, and who can doubt it. We have become de-sensitized to the moral demands of holiness as we interact with the lifestyle of the world, that John says we should not love” (Study 1Jo 2:15-17). But, if someone were to ask us, “Do you believe that there are things that a Christian can not do?” We would answer, “Of course we do.” With many this means that murder, brutality, wanton violence, etc., is sin. But what about the sins of the tongue (Jam 3), and little lies and misrepresentations, and minor cheating, insincerity, etc. Many of us seem to not feel these are worth classifying as real sin. But of course, anything short of total honesty and sincerity is sin.

Many years ago this writer went to be examined for the Army. As he and others were standing in line for whatever reason at the moment, an attractive WAC (Women’s Army Corp) walked by and one of the soon-to-be soldiers whistled at her, as young men are prone to do. The Sargent in charge blew his whistle and an MP took the one who whistled off to jail. The Sargent then addressed the rest of us with a loud authoritarian voice and stated: “Boys, learn this lesson. While you are in the Army what you think is your business but what you say on this base becomes our business. Do you understand!”

This is pretty much the way the world looks at life; speaking out can be libelous but thinking is private and free. But according to Jesus this is not the way it is if you want to be one of God’s People.

Jesus opens the Sermon On The Mount with the Beatitudes (vs. 1-11), teaches his hearers that they are the salt and light of the world (vs. 13-16), assures them that "I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill" the Law of Moses (vs. 17-20), and then proceeds to deliver six striking references to the inadequacy of the Law (vs. 21-48). Each of them begins with some variation of the formula "You have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . ." In each of these, Jesus takes some part of the Old Law and explores and expands upon it. These comparisons are known among Biblical scholars as the antitheses, coming from the idea of the meaning of antitheses being "placing against itself, or "showing a contrast."

Our intent is to determine if Jesus, in these six sayings, teach that sin in thought is as bad as sin in action. We may, or we may not, come to somewhat different conclusions than expected. If indeed we come to the conviction that attitude is indeed a matter to be judged, then we have the obligation to reassess our thinking, and our motives, as well as our deeds.

If we are to accomplish our aim, we must first try to uncover the plain, simple meaning of what Jesus taught in these statements. What did He actually say, and what did he actually mean.

Secondly, we must deal with the relationship of his teaching with the Ancient and Venerable Law of Moses. Was he trying to abrogate this Law? To Expand upon it? What?

Thirdly, how did Jesus' teachings compare with the other teaching among the Rabbis of His day. Was he teaching contrary doctrines to that taught by the foremost Jewish leaders of His day? If so, in what respects?

Finally, we must attempt to come to some conclusion about the interpretation and application of these passages for the believer today.

These verses which make up our text contain six statements. They deal with six real-life illustrations of the believer's relationship with those around him. These include:

We repeat as stated above in other words: Our aim in this study is to confirm or deny, under our present dispensation – the “New Covenant Age – that anger is forbidden as well as murder, to look on a woman lustfully is the same as adultery, divorce is nearly always wrong, don't swear at all, don't seek retribution for wrongs, and, love even your enemies.

Since our aim in this lesson concerns sin in thought as opposed to sin in action, we are forced to deal with anger before murder, and lustful look (“eye adultery” it is called) before adultery. However, we will find that the entire group has much in common.

1. Was Jesus expanding on the Law, explaining the Law, or creating new law to replace the old?

2. Are the principles and commands taught in these illustrations really practical, or just idealism? Are they to be taught as truth and obeyed, or just offered as a challenging ideal. These are life and death considerations.

Jesus is accused by many critics of actually creating a new law in these passages to replace the old. The student should be careful of following this path. In the first place, we need to take this passage in context with what precedes it. By not doing so, we risk battering the Scriptures by not understanding the circumstances surrounding the original teachings.

In this instance, Jesus has just taught of the blessedness of being in the kingdom, has taught that his hearers are the light and salt of the world, and has just insisted that he came to fulfil the law - and not abolish it. He ends this last section with the rather strong statement "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (v. 20). In this context, the six contrasting statements dealing with personal relationships fit perfectly.

MAT 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus begins with the relationship of murder and anger. There are three points that appear clear. First, Jesus' emphasis on anger is not contradictory to the Old Testament nor the Rabbinic teaching of his day. God connects anger and sin as early as Cain.

GEN 4:6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

Angry in O. T.; from charah, to glow; grow warm; blaze up, translated 43 times as kindled, 13 times as wroth, 10 times as hot, 4 times as fret, 3 times as displeased, 2 times as incensed, 1 displeased, 1 time as burn, 1 time as grieved, 1 time as earnestly.

LUK 14:21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

LUK 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

TIT 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

ACT 15:39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

It is interesting (at least to me) that the word used for “contention,” which is understood as heated exchange, is also used in Hebrews 10:24, And let us consider one another to “provoke” unto love and to good works: Other translations use “arouse, stir up, stimulate, to incitement of, spur.” It would not appear to be such a neutral word as is commonly implied, but would require strong, determined and forceful action.

Honest scholarship must insist that anger was just as much denounced by the Rabbis as by Jesus.

In the second place, anger has been the precedent of murder or similar action from the beginning of time.

"So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. . . . And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him." (Gen 4:5-8)

Anger always is interpreted as leading to action. When that action is blunted because of legal restrictions, words may replace violence and evil thoughts and plans for the future may be allowed a place in the heart.

In the third place, man left to his own initiative develops a system in which slurs and insults are allowed free reign. Outright murder, or other physical violence, will be punished by an earthly court. Internal thought or carefully controlled slurs may go unpunished by men. One scholar has correctly said:

The use of the words Rayka and fool seems to have been tolerably frequent. I am inclined to think that there must have been a fair amount of basis for Jesus's reprobation. . . . Even the Rabbis were apparently not averse from calling their antagonists or people who annoyed the rayka or shoteh.

Jesus points out that God sees and knows everything and these actions will not go unpunished. Some actions will be punished in human tribunals while others must wait for the tribunal of God. Not only will the external act receive due punishment at human tribunals, but the inner feeling that prompts it is liable to the verdict of condemnation which will be pronounced by God. The Rabbis also understood the severity of putting anger into words.

". . . the Rabbis speak very strongly against what they call oppression in words (insults, putting to shame, etc.), which they consider as worse than oppression (cheating) with money. The sin of onaah (insult) is as heavy as that of robbery or idolatry. Of those who go down to Gehenna and do not return (i.e. whose punishment is eternal) there are three classes -- the adulterer, he who puts his neighbors to shame openly, and he who gives his neighbor an insulting name.

So far it appears that Jesus does not really disagree with those around him nor is his teaching radical. He gives his own applications in the verses that follow. Each of them is connected through the words initiative and responsibility. Jesus teaches that the greater righteousness is tied up in being like God. It means that the believer must take the initiative to make things right between him and his brother. It means that the believer must take the responsibility of correcting wrongs.

In the two examples that follow (vs. 23-26) anger is not mentioned. But what is mentioned is two very practical examples from daily life. In the first, you are at the altar worshiping and remember there is a brother who has something against you. In the second, you are involved in some legal matter. In the first case the other player is a brother. In the second case the other player is an adversary. In both cases, it is not even your anger but the other persons distress that must be corrected. The characteristic of the two examples that is in common is the uncommonness of the action. It would be highly unlikely, bordering on the absurd, to leave a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and rush out to be reconciled with a brother. It would be highly unlikely, bordering on the ridiculousness, to voluntarily give up your rights in a lawsuit. But this is just what Jesus is demanding.

Jesus is teaching that the initiative and responsibility for peace with those around us belong to the believer. This is different from the rest of the world. This is something the Law did not always demand. This is something the Pharisees would have found unparalleled in their doctrine of carefully constructed legalism. The end of the Law is that not only must the believer be free of guilt of action against another but he must be responsible for assuring an environment that will reduce the possibility of action. He must not only not murder but not be angry.

Some of the manuscripts include "without cause" in the admonition against anger. Most modern translations (NASB, NIV) either leave this out or mark it with brackets. The KJV is an exception. Metzger's statement is:

Although the reading with "without cause" is widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary.

Most of us recognize that there are times -- surely -- for righteous anger or indignation. Jesus is not speaking in that context. To try to find a contradiction so as to throw out or soften the words of Jesus simply misses the point.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery"; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." (vs. 27-28)

The second of the six contrasting statements deals with adultery. Jesus gets right to the point. As with murder, there are three points that are probably well accepted by the listeners of Jesus. The first is that lust, or coveting, is condemned in the Old Law and in the writings of the Rabbis.

" . . .; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife . . . " (Exo 20:17, Deu 5:21).

"The prohibition [v 27.] also includes lustful thinking, and the statement in the following verse is a sentiment well known in the rabbinic writings." (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, "The Anchor Bible).

"The sayings about adultery contain nothing new or off the Rabbinic line." (Montefiore)

"To talk to a woman, to look at a woman, indeed to have anything to do with a woman, was regarded as dangerous and objectionable." (Ibid)

"Evil thoughts’ (i.e. lustful thoughts) are even worse than lustful deeds" (Quoted by Coffman, Commentary on Matthew)

In the second place, it is true that lust is an antecedent of adultery. Adultery does not take place if there has been no lust. The natural progression from desire to sin should come as no surprise. James says:

"But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death" (Jam 1:14-15).

"You lust and do not have; {so} you commit murder. And you are envious and cannot obtain; {so} you fight and quarrel" (Jam 4:2).

In the third place, man, left to his own initiative and reason, will develop a system of legalism that may define the very point at which some sin becomes punishable. In this scheme, outward adulterous actions may be punished or at least condemned while the thoughts of man may be allowed to run rampant. The Pharisee might indeed keep the command [thou shalt not murder] while at the same time hating his enemy, hoping that a wild beast would slay him, that lightning would strike him, or that a poisonous serpent would bite him! The legalist might also keep the command [thou shalt not commit adultery] while spending great effort at imagining an illicit relationship.

It is at this point that those who are interested in applying the literal and plain sense of the Scriptures jump forward. Thus, Christ made the lustful thought as sinful as the overt act. In the light of this, who is innocent? (Our former president Jimmy Carter stated publicly that he too had lusted after women not his wife.) This ardor for applying Scripture correctly is admirable but I believe Coffman misses the point.

Here, as with the contrasting statement concerning murder and anger, Jesus offers two illustrations. The first fits but the second does not if Jesus' intention is to condemn just the evil look. The eye certainly participates in the action of looking but the hand would be a better symbol if he were talking about acting on the look. The hand in this context may be a euphemism for the male sexual organ, but even so the physical dismemberment would not solve the problem. Lust can certainly feed through the eye of the mind as well as the physical eye or else those who are blind are in an enviable position. If the phrase "so that she lusts," the prohibition makes more sense but the illustrations make even less.

These illustrations, as in the ones concerning anger, are designed to bring the hearers into sharp inspection of the everyday world around them. Cutting off or gouging out the offending part is a way of saying that Jesus' disciples must deal radically with sin. There is no easy way to deal with sin. But here, as with anger, Jesus calls for initiative and responsibility on the part of the believer.

Jesus urges men to accept responsibility for their lust rather than attributing it to the seduction of women. The exhortation to cut off the offending hand, in contrast, applies less to sexual scandal than to general situations. Because it is general in nature, this demand addresses women in a way that Jesus' prohibition of lust does not.

Man must not only abstain from adultery but must take the responsibility for any action of theirs that might cause them, or the other person, to trip up or to stumble. Man must take the initiative to arrange his surroundings in a more righteous manner than the Pharisees.

We could look at the remaining four contrasting statements in much the same manner as the first two. In each case, Jesus reminds his listeners of what they already had heard. Jesus then, in almost every case, gives some real-life practical illustrations of the action he expects from those who would be members of the kingdom. These illustrations are usually radical and would have caused his listeners to pay close attention. They might even have reacted negatively.

The illustrations in each case, if acted upon by the hearer, would contribute to the better righteousness referred to in verse 20. Levison speaks of the breadth and depth of this better righteousness:

"The breath of the better righteousness includes every potential action of a disciple's life." The six contrasting statements portray six situations of the believer's life. Jesus demands that a disciple accept full responsibility for his or her actions and, consequently, initiate goodness in all human relationships. To live as a disciple is to live according to the depth of this righteousness, the breadth of which includes all daily actions."

It is my opinion that the six statements of Jesus are not in sharp contrast with the Law nor the teaching of the Law by the Pharisees and Rabbis of Jesus' day. A close look at the Pharisees generally reveals that they were conscientious and accurate in their handling of the Law. The illustrations that Jesus used to demonstrate the action he expected from those who would be in the kingdom were yet another matter. They were, to say the least, radical.

Did Jesus teach that a man is culpable for evil thoughts even if he never acts on them? If we sincerely study the literal teachings of Jesus, we surely must come to realize that would be the very question asked by the Pharisees. Those who look for a specific answer to that question end with a perplexing problem. If we conclude that Jesus was teaching that the very thought of sin is sin itself then we wonder who isn't guilty. If we insist that there is no guilt without action, then we allow a person to spend much of their life immersed in evil thoughts such as anger, lust, and covetousness. I conclude that Jesus was not adding yet another technical and legal requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven.

Surely Jesus was showing the way to greater righteousness. A way that, if followed, would result in the disciple becoming more like God. I was impressed by the thoughts of John Levison.

In reality, the depth and breadth of Jesus's demand for a better righteousness complement one another. Jesus requires that disciples expand the depth of meaning of the Law in a radical way by accepting the responsibility to initiate goodness. This depth requires actions such as plucking out an offending eye, leaving a sacrifice at the altar, or carrying a Roman soldier's baggage two miles when only one is mandatory. By expressing this depth through a series of examples of the kind of action he requires, Jesus also expands the breadth of the application of the Law. His followers who act upon his teaching (Mat 7:24-27) will extend this pattern as does Jesus. They will avoid all sorts of stumbling by cutting off the offending member, exhibit unalloyed personal integrity in every spoken word, give goodness instead of evil in every circumstance of their life. They will live the life of the kingdom, going well beyond their natural tendency, becoming conformed to their Father in heaven.

The answer, I believe, is that the question may be irrelevant. If a person spends his life in thoughts of anger and lust, he will not have the energy to grow in the depth and breath of righteousness. He will not be able to be the salt and light of the world. He righteousness will not exceed that of the Pharisees.

The last question concerns the practicality of the teaching. If you accept my hypothesis that Jesus was not trying to add some new legal requirements but was making clear what was intended from the beginning, the teachings are practical. They are not necessarily easy or soft but Jesus never promised that. The life in the kingdom is tough but doable. Jesus teaches that the life in the kingdom requires your righteousness to touch every part of your daily life. “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (v. 48).