BIBLE IN TEN

Matthew 5:38

Friday, 13 December 2024
 
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ Matthew 5:38
 
“You heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth’” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus noted that one’s Yes should be yes and his No should be no. Anything beyond that is out of evil. He now starts a new thought, saying, “You heard that it was said.”
 
He again turns to that which was heard and understood by all. It is a precept out of the law itself which He will provide additional insights into what God expects. The precept is found first in Exodus 21:24. It is then repeated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, “Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.”
 
The original precept said –
 
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:22-25
 
This law is known as the Lex Talionis, the law of retaliation. The punishment is given to resemble the offense in both kind and degree of severity. It is a right standard for keeping people in check. If someone knows that he will have his eye plucked out for plucking out someone else’s eye, the chances are that he will restrain from doing that.
 
This goes for pretty much every action that will be repaid in kind. When one understands that his actions against someone will lead to like punishment, he will normally use wisdom and restrain himself.
 
This type of punishment was certainly to be evaluated and meted out in a judicial setting. It was not something that people were to do on their own. Whether this was something people did without judicial approval or not may be a part of how society in general acted, but it is certain that this was not expected to be what one would normally carry out on his own.
 
Jesus will next clarify what people should do in such cases of offense.
 
Life application: Exodus 21, cited above, specifically deals with the murder of an unborn child. The obvious point is that there is a child in the womb considered a human being. This is to be taken as an axiom, and yet it is as common as pages in a book for people to intentionally destroy their unborn children through abortion.
 
If you want to know if the Lord, who gave us the words of the Bible, finds aborting a child acceptable, one read through Scripture, while taking notes concerning the unborn, will reveal the truth. It is a great sin against human morality, and it is something that can never be condoned when placed in the light of Scripture.
 
Use wisdom in how you evaluate such moral matters. What is legal does not necessarily equate to what is right. The same people who find it acceptable to abort children because it is legal will claim that past policies concerning slavery cannot be condoned, even though it was legal. The thinking is awry. We must use Scripture as our standard for understanding what is morally acceptable or not.
 
Lord God, we live in a world of confused thinking, especially over moral precepts. Society cannot be the standard for our moral choices. That has failed throughout history. Where can we go to determine such things? To Scripture! Help us to use Your word to solidify our morals. Surely, in this, we will be doing what is right in Your eyes. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:37

Thursday, 12 December 2024
 
But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Matthew 5:37
 
“And let it be, your word, ‘Yes, yes.’ ‘No, no.’ And the surplus of these, it is out of evil” (CG).
 
The previous verse noted that Jesus said not to swear by our heads because we cannot make one hair white or black. Now, He tells His disciples how their words should be spoken, saying, “And let it be, your word, ‘Yes, yes.’ ‘No, no.’”
 
The meaning is that instead of swearing about a matter to elevate one’s supposed sincerity concerning it, a person’s simple Yes should mean yes, and a person’s No should mean no. There should be no need for a person to swear an oath because he is to be known for always keeping his word.
 
The thought is, “That Mike, you can always take him at his word. If he said ‘Yes,’ then he will do what he said.” Likewise, “I don’t know about you, but if Joey said ‘No,’ she didn’t do it. That settles it with me. She is the straightest shooter I have ever worked with.”
 
The precept is referred to by Paul in 2 Corinthians 1 –
 
“Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No. 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me, Silvanus, and Timothy—was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. 20 For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. 21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” 2 Corinthians 1:17-22
 
Likewise, James mentions it in the same context as Jesus in his epistle –
 
“But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment.” James 5:12
 
Of this need for sincerity of speech, Jesus next says, “And the surplus of these, it is out of evil.”
 
The word perissos, surplus, signifies that which is abundant, exceeding, more than, etc. In this case, the meaning is that the need to swear in order to affirm one’s veracity comes from an evil disposition, it stems from an evil purpose, or it is derived from the “evil one,” meaning the devil. No matter which, evil is ultimately derived from the devil. He got the whole ball rolling, and it has continued in hearts of wickedness ever since.
 
Life application: If you have watched people carefully over the years, you will see that Jesus’ words are borne out in those who constantly swear in order to affirm what they say is true. They will take advantage of the swearing, maybe not lying every time, but using it as a tool of deception when it is convenient.
 
When they are challenged on their falsities, they will often get angry, belligerent, or act as if they are offended because their integrity has been challenged. It is the people who simply state a matter and follow through with it that are held as people of true integrity.
 
There is no need for extra ruffles and flourishes in one’s speech when it comes to telling the truth. Just speak what is true in the simplest form, follow through with your words, and people will look at you as a person who is reliable and filled with integrity.
 
Glorious God, may we be obedient to the precepts laid out for us in Your word concerning our speech and conduct. You created us, and so the manual You have given us for proper living will guide us rightly. We know this, and so help us to remember it as we go forth in the world. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:36

Wednesday, 11 December 2024
 
Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. Matthew 5:36
 
“Nor in your head shall you swear, for not you are able one hair - white or black - to make” (CG).
 
In the previous verses, Jesus told His disciples not to swear at all. He then said not to do so in heaven, nor in the earth, nor unto Jerusalem. Now, He finishes this immediate thought, saying, “Nor in your head shall you swear.”
 
Some scholars have noted that swearing by one’s head was a practice held by those in the past, both in Jewish society and among the Gentiles. But other than being able to think about God and pondering His ways, such a vow has no relationship to Him at all.
 
The head is a part of the body, and the body of man was fashioned by God. To swear by one’s own head is its own special form of idolatry. First, it raises the head in general to a level of importance comparable to one’s view of God.
 
Second, it elevates one’s own head to a level that calls out for acknowledgment that it is so. In other words, it is comparable to saying, “I swear by my head. As this is the epitome of importance, you can trust that my vow has all the binding authority of God Himself.”
 
When thought through, it is an arrogant display of self-exaltation. But humans often say things without thinking the substance of their words through. Quite often this is unintentional, but our words are what define us. As a reason for not swearing by one’s head, Jesus next says, “for not you are able one hair - white or black - to make.”
 
The Greek word is poieó, to do or to make. The Berean Strong’s Lexicon says it is a word “encompassing a wide range of actions from creating and producing to performing and executing. It is often used to describe God's creative acts, human actions, and the fulfillment of commands or duties.”
 
Most interpreters consider these words to mean that we are unable to change the color of even a single hair. That seems unlikely, though, because we actually can change the color of our hair. Bengel attempts to get around this, saying –
 
“The dye of human art is not real whiteness or blackness. Not merely is a single hair, but even the colour of a single hair, beyond the power of man.”
 
In other words, his thoughts are that when we dye our white hair black, it is still actually white. This is a possible explanation, but other than the person who does the dyeing, no one else may even know this, and so it somewhat defeats the intent of the thought that is being conveyed. What is probably the meaning is how the Lamsa Bible paraphrases these words –
 
“Neither shall you swear by your own head, because you cannot create in it a single black or white hair.”
 
This seems more likely. It aligns with Bengel’s intent, but it avoids the thought of dyeing the hair completely. Humans cannot create anything, even a single hair that is the color of our choosing. If we do not have the ability to create a single hair, either black or white, then we have no right to affirm an oath by swearing upon our heads.
 
Life application: As noted above, we often quote things without thinking through what we are actually saying. Rather, we simply repeat something that sounded bold, extravagant, or funny without considering how ridiculous the words actually are.
 
People will often say things like, “Oh my, this kitchen is to die for,” meaning that it is a really beautiful or well-laid-out kitchen. But if someone was willing to die to have a similar kitchen, then he or she would be dead. A dead person having a kitchen is quite pointless.
 
Likewise, people often say, “He has more money than God.” It sounds funny at first, but it is demeaning of God while being a completely ridiculous claim. God possesses all things, including the money that we make. To say such a thing elevates money above God.
 
We should consider the clichés we pick up and repeat. Even if they are intended to make a particular point about the subject that is bold or funny, the substance behind them may be foolish, ridiculous, or even blasphemous. As such, we should be careful what things we convey with our lips.
 
Lord God, give us wisdom in how we communicate our thoughts, knowing that even our words are being evaluated by You. We often speak before we think. From there, our words become ingrained in our conversations and we repeat things that we should not. Help us in this. May what we say always be glorifying of You. Amen.

Matthew 5:35

Tuesday, 10 December 2024
 
nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Matthew 5:35
 
“nor in the earth, for it is a footstool of His feet, nor unto Jerusalem for it is a city of the great King” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus said, “And I, I say to you, not swear atall, either in the heaven, for it is God’s throne.” He continues this thought now, saying, “nor in the earth.”
 
Jesus again uses the word en, in. It would be like saying, “I swear in the name of the earth.” The sense is “by” earth. Jesus says that like heaven, we are not to swear by earth. These places are a part of creation. They are not God, nor are they to be likened to Him by using them as a point of swearing. Jesus explains this next, saying, “for it is a footstool of His feet.”
 
Here the hupopodion, footstool, is introduced. It comes from hypo, under, and pous, the foot. Thus, it is that which is under the foot, meaning a footstool. Almost all translations say, “the footstool” or simply “His footstool.” There is no article before the word in the Greek, but more, the earth is not the only footstool of God mentioned in the Bible –
 
“Then King David rose to his feet and said, ‘Hear me, my brethren and my people: I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made preparations to build it.’” 1 Chronicles 28:2
 
It is true that the temple is on the earth, and so someone could argue that it simply happens to be the point on the earth where His footstool exists, but because the use of the word is a metaphor, and as not only the earth is described as God’s footstool, it is best to translate this without a definite article. Next, Jesus says, “nor unto Jerusalem.”
 
Jesus changes the preposition from en to eis (unto). This word generally denotes motion or direction towards something or someone. In swearing unto Jerusalem, one would be swearing with the purpose or expected result of it being a satisfactory means of validating one’s words. Jesus, however, says that this is not to be so, “for it is a city of the great King.”
 
Again, there is no article before “city.” It is true that Jerusalem is the earthly city described as the city of God, such as in Psalm 48:2 –
 
“Beautiful elevation –Delight of all the earth:Mount Zion –Sides north,City of great King!” (CG)
 
However, the earthly Jerusalem is not the only city of the great King. Jesus was referring to the earthly Jerusalem in His words to the people, but that is only a type or hopeful anticipation of something else. There is also the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), which is the antitype of the earthly.
 
Life application: Sometimes, evaluating things in Scripture may seem to come down to splitting hairs, but it is important to try to be precise. This is often not possible when using a particular translation of the Bible or even many translations of it.
 
Translators are just people and they are prone to making mistakes. As such, if you are going to really search out the finest points of a verse or passage, it is good to at least be familiar with how to consult the original languages.
 
They are available right online and come with all of the parsing necessary to at least know if a translation is correct or not. Even if you don’t understand the language, you can determine if the words match or not. This is not necessary until absolute precision in understanding is needed.
 
Everyone is on a different level of understanding and maturity in relation to the word. So don’t feel like where you are is not acceptable. But as you continue to grow, strive to be precise in your analysis. Until that point, be careful about being dogmatic about something that you may have actually misunderstood.
 
Lord God, help us to desire precision in our understanding of Your word. May we be diligent about reading it, thinking about it, studying it, and sharing it with others. As we learn, may we be willing to acknowledge where we may be wrong and then be willing to correct our doctrine, fine-tuning it so that we will be sound in what we believe. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:34

Monday, 9 December 2024
 
But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; Matthew 5:34
 
“And I, I say to you, not swear atall, either in the heaven, for it is God’s throne” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus noted that in the law it says that one should not perjure and that oaths were to be performed. However, Jesus now says, “And I, I say to you, not swear atall.”
 
Here is the first use of the word holós. It signifies wholly or altogether. When preceded by a negative, it signifies “atall” which, yes, is an English word that matches the Greek exactingly. The other three uses of the word will be by Paul in 1 Corinthians.
 
Rather than making vows, Jesus says to refrain from making them. However, someone might consider this as contradictory. In Deuteronomy 6:13, it says, “You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.”
 
Someone could say that Jesus is contradicting what Moses taught. It could also be argued that He was rewriting the law rather than fulfilling it. But this is not so. Jesus continues His words with, “either in the heaven, for it is God’s throne.”
 
This is the first of five things Jesus says you are not to swear by. In this case, the word en, in, is used to indicate instrumentality as in “by heaven.” We use it this way at times, such as, “I swear in my dad’s name.”
 
Each of those five things is a part of creation. At times, an oath, adjuration, or vow is required. When it is, then it is to be made solely in the name of the Lord. This is evidenced by Jesus responding to such an adjuration in Matthew 26 –
 
“And the high priest arose and said to Him, ‘Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, ‘I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!’64 Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’” Matthew 26:62-64
 
Further, Paul makes such oaths in his epistles quite a few times, such as in Romans 1:8 where he calls God as his witness. Rather, anything less than an oath in His name would be idolatry, elevating something created to a level of prominence that belongs to God alone.
 
Jesus will continue with His list of things not to swear by in the coming verses.
 
Life application: There are many in Christian circles who refuse to make a vow, even in the name of the Lord, based on this verse. This is based on a faulty interpretation of what Jesus is saying.
 
If a matter requires an oath, such as in a courtroom, the oath is only to be made in the name of the true God. As He finishes this thought, Jesus will tell what the normally expected type of guarantee is to be. It is a precept that is repeated several more times in the New Testament, including by Paul.
 
Be sure to keep things in context and to fully consider the entire matter that is being addressed when coming to decisions about one’s doctrine and life conduct.
 
Lord God, help our words to be always truthful so that people can rely on them without ever questioning our sincerity and without calling our relationship with You into question. May all those we interact with consider us as faithful people whose words can always be trusted. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:33

Sunday, 8 December 2024
 
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ Matthew 5:33
 
“Again, you heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Not you shall perjure, and you shall render to the Lord your oaths’” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus spoke about divorce and the consequences of it. Now, He continues to cite references to the law and then provide stricter interpretations of them that must be considered for one to be right in God’s eyes. He begins the next such reference with, “Again, you heard that it was said to the ancients.”
 
As before, it is debated if the words should say “by the ancients” or “to the ancients.” The latter is probably correct, but either way, a point of law was conveyed long ago that had been taught and interpreted throughout the years.
 
Jesus is preparing to give an analysis of it from God’s perspective. First, however, He must state the precept. Therefore, He cites it, saying, “Not you shall perjure.”
 
The Greek word is found only here, epiorkeó. It signifies “upon oath.” Thus, it means to swear falsely and thus perjure. This is a point of law found in Leviticus 19:12 –
 
“And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.”
 
Because profaning the name of the Lord is tied in with swearing falsely in this verse, it then bears on the words of the third commandment as well –
 
“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7
 
When one makes an oath, he is swearing to the truth of a matter. However, to make an oath other than in the name of the Lord would be a form of idolatry. Jesus clarifies this later in Matthew –
 
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ 17 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ 19 Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.” Matthew 23:16-22
 
One can see the severity of trifling with the making of oaths. To do so in anything less than the name of the Lord is to defile the name of the Lord. But to make an oath in His name and then to not uphold the oath likewise profanes His name. Understanding this, Jesus continues with, “and you shall render to the Lord your oaths.”
 
This idea was summed up by Moses with words found in Deuteronomy –
 
“That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.” Deuteronomy 23:23.
 
The law set forth a standard for the people. Their failure to meet that standard is evident throughout their history because they, as a nation, vowed to be obedient to the Lord, something that almost never took place in their recorded history.
 
Jesus will express His thoughts on the issue of making oaths in the next few verses.
 
Life application: God expects us to keep and perform the words of our mouths. But that must be taken in its proper light. If someone makes a vow to spend his life as a Buddhist monk but later hears the gospel and receives it, then it would be impossible to keep the vow and also honor the Lord through his new life in Christ.
 
Therefore, that vow cannot stand. This is true with any vow that has been made prior to coming to Christ that would contradict one’s new life in Christ. There has to be a priority in our lives, the highest of which is allegiance to God through our new lives in Christ.
 
If two women were to get married, something legal in society today, and one of them was to come to believe the gospel, she could not remain married to her partner and be obedient to Christ. The marriage must legally end and the new life in Christ must be the priority henceforth.
 
In Christ, all things are new. We will not be held accountable for keeping oaths that are contrary to our life in Christ. If they were, they were sinful to start with and all sin has been atoned for through receiving Him. Let us remember that Jesus must be where our eyes are fixed as we seek out God through this wonderful Savior!
 
Lord God, may our lives be wholly dedicated to following You. Old things are gone. Our previous lives are behind us. May we steadily strive for this higher calling to which we have been called. To Your glory, we pray. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:32

Saturday, 7 December 2024
 
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32
 
“And I, I say, to you that whoever if he shall dismiss his wife, except a word of harlotry, he makes her commit adultery. And whoever if ‘her having been dismissed’ he shall marry, he commits adultery” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus cited the words of Moses concerning giving a woman a certificate of divorce. Having said that, He next says, “And I, I say, to you.”
 
As with Matthew 5:28, almost all translations say either “But I say” or “However, I say.” This then sets Jesus’ words against those of Moses. But this is not the intent at all. Moses said what he said under inspiration from the Lord. It cannot be that the Lord would now contradict or argue against what was previously written.
 
Rather, and as seen in the previous commentary, Jesus told the people that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. This means that God knew that the people would rebel against Him even more than they did if they were not given this allowance.
 
However, Jesus now explains what the standard of God actually is, not by contradicting Moses (But), but through an additional explanation of how God perceives such things (And). Understanding this, He next says, “that whoever if he shall dismiss his wife.”
 
To dismiss means to send her away through divorce. As seen, the law in Deuteronomy said that this could be done for a “word of nudity,” meaning some type of shame that caused the husband to no longer want her. As nothing more specific was cited in the law, it became common for divorce to be allowed for almost any reason. However, Jesus next says, “except a word of harlotry.”
 
Jesus uses the word parektos, translated as except. The meaning then is that there is but this one exception which is noted as a word. The idea of a “word” is that of a matter. The man finds out that the woman has played the harlot and he resolves to dismiss her because of that. This is the only exception allowed by God’s exacting standard.
 
As for the word porneia, translated as harlotry, it signifies “to sell off.” Thus, it speaks of surrendering oneself from sexual purity, meaning it refers to marital unfaithfulness. With this one exception identified, Jesus says that through any other reason for divorce, “he makes her commit adultery.”
 
In other words, the woman has not been unfaithful, but because of the actions of the man in dismissing her, he is actually causing her to be an adulteress. To God, the union did not have a sufficient reason for it being ended. But without such a sufficient reason, it means that to Him, it is still considered a legal union.
 
A piece of paper doesn’t change the reality of the state between the two. To further clarify the matter, Jesus finishes the verse with, “And whoever if ‘her having been dismissed’ he shall marry, he commits adultery.”
 
The woman, having been dismissed by her husband for a reason that is insufficient in the eyes of God, is now to be considered an adulteress. As such, the person who marries her is committing adultery with her. God still sees the original union in the light of Genesis 2:24 –
 
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
 
As this is so, then anyone coming into this union from the outside is violating the union that was first acknowledged as binding by God. One can see why Jesus’ initial word should be “And” not “But.” Jesus is speaking with the authority of God because He is God incarnate.
 
He is explaining what is and is not appropriate based on Scripture. But He is doing it from more than an interpretive angle. He is setting forth the standard of God, something only God can do.
 
Life application: Jesus has spoken forth the standard concerning marriage. He has given one exception for divorce which is sexual immorality (translated as harlotry above) on the part of the spouse. This excludes divorces for any other reason. As such, the marriage is expected to be honored regardless of any other situation that has arisen.
 
This is so contrary to the allowances in society that it seems impossible to imagine, but it is what the word has set forth. As noted, Paul gives his own thoughts on such things in 1 Corinthians 7. What he says there should be taken into consideration as well. But the idea of divorce should be repugnant to Christians, not an option that is always available because the spouse doesn’t measure up to one’s standards in some way or another.
 
May we be faithful in our marriages, and may we faithfully honor the spouse we chose, thereby honoring God who set forth the idea of marriage at the beginning of man’s time on earth.
 
Lord God, we are so grateful for Jesus who has cleansed us from all impurity. Each of us has been unfaithful in so many ways. Our eyes look to things they shouldn’t, and our hearts are easily turned away from the right path. Without Jesus, where could we go from our sins? But because of Jesus, there is a cleansing fountain always there to restore us to You. Thank You for Jesus. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:31

Friday, 6 December 2024
 
“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ Matthew 5:31
 
“And it was said that whoever, if he shall dismiss his wife, he gives to her a divorcement” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus spoke of what to do when the right hand causes one to sin. He now turns to an issue all too common in the world and which He will show that God’s standard is one that holds the marriage covenant as something binding. That begins in this verse with the words, “And it was said that whoever, if he shall dismiss his wife.”
 
The subject of divorce is addressed by Moses in Deuteronomy 24. A portion of that teaching says –
 
“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 uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house.” Deuteronomy 24:1, 2
 
Whether Jesus is citing Deuteronomy directly, or a teaching based on Deuteronomy, He is clarifying the matter as it is regarded in God’s eyes. Moses notes finding “some uncleanness in her.” The words in Hebrew signify a “word of nudity.” Thus, they point to some type of shame that has caused the husband to no longer want her.
 
If this is the case, then “he gives to her a divorcement.” The noun apostasion is used. It signifies a bill of divorce. A single word to convey the meaning is divorcement, a word first found in a translation of the Bible in the early 1500s to meet the translational need for such a word.
 
This is what was allowed by the Lord through Moses. However, we will see this stated by Jesus in Mark 10 –
 
“The Pharisees came and asked Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ testing Him.
3 And He answered and said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’
4 They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.’
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.” 7 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh”; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’
10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’” Mark 10:2-12
 
Jesus is not setting aside the law. He is showing that, in this case, the law accommodated the human heart, but that a standard was given prior to the law that was how things were originally intended in the covenant of marriage.
 
Life application: One can see that marriage was considered a decision uniting two as one. When one commits adultery, the two are no longer one. Likewise, when a divorce is made, it is also taking the one and dividing them again. The standard is that when two are united as one, they are to stay as one.
 
Although this is Jesus speaking to Israel under the law, the precept predates the law. And more, Paul refers to marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and clearly states that what Jesus says here is binding.
 
The reason for this is because these things recorded in the Old Testament are given as types of what God in Christ is also doing –
 
“Husbands, love your wives, 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. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 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. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Ephesians 5:25-33
 
God has covenanted in Christ with those who have come to Him through the New Covenant. The church is the body of believers who have been so joined to Him. God will never break the bond that exists because He is faithful. We have the hope of eternal security because of this. Thank God for what He has done.
 
Lord God, we are not always faithful in our relationships. Our hearts are drawn away, we lose direction, and we act unfaithfully. But we know it is not so with You. You are ever faithful in Your dealings with Your people. Thank You for the reassurance and security we possess because of this. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:30

Thursday, 5 December 2024
 
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:30
 
“And if your right hand, it entraps you, it – it hew – and it cast from you. For it conduces you that one of your members, it should perish, and not all your body, it should be cast into Gehenna” (CG).
 
The previous verse spoke of the right eye entrapping a person. If so, it would be more profitable to pluck it out and cast it away than to be cast into Gehenna. Now, Jesus continues with that same theme, saying, “And if your right hand, it entraps you.”
 
The right side in Scripture, as it is in society today, is considered the more noble, stronger, and more honorable side. As such, Jesus focuses on the right again, as He did with the previous verse. In particular, the right hand signifies the position of authority and power.
 
The intent here is going from sight (the right eye) to action (the right hand). The person first is entrapped by what he sees, he contemplates what to do, and then he acts, with his right hand, the instrument of his power, to obtain what he has now fixated on.
 
The right hand, being the hand that is normally the stronger and more used hand, is one of the chief and most important parts of the body. Despite that, Jesus notes that if it were to entrap you, “it – it hew – and it cast from you.”
 
Jesus uses the same word, ekkoptó, that John the Baptist used in Matthew 3:10 when he said, “And already also, the ax, toward the root of the trees it lies. Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit, it is hewn, and into fire, it is thrown.” It is a word that signifies complete detachment.
 
One could think of a person taking a big machete with his left hand, laying his right hand on a table, and then hacking it off. And then, as with the right eye, when the member is separated from the body, it should be cast away as if it were mere rubbish.
 
Jesus then explains why, using the same words as previously, saying, “For it conduces you that one of your members, it should perish, and not all your body, it should be cast into Gehenna.”
 
Priorities. What are your priorities? Is remaining in sin in this life better than being separate from God for eternity? Is the delight of the temporary sin better than an eternity in torment? This is the substance of what Jesus is conveying to His hearers.
 
Life application: The repetition of the same concept while using different, but both important members of the body is an instructional tool. By saying essentially the same thing twice while merely changing the focus from the eye to the right hand, Jesus is stressing the importance of the matter.
 
The Bible is filled with such repetitions, in individual words, in sentences, in similar concepts, and even in books of the Bible. For example, there are accounts in Kings and Chronicles that greatly overlap. Adding in the prophets, and there are even more instances of overlapping.
 
Having three synoptic gospels is another example of this. The same is true with how Acts and portions of the epistles weave together into a harmoniously presented record of what took place.
 
The Bible is sending us the same information, in various ways, to help us learn what is essential for understanding what is going on as well as what is obviously important to God. Different records of the same account also help us to know that what is conveyed has been reliably recorded.
 
And yet, when the same accounts have variations in the details, we are being asked to contemplate why the variations are there. For many, the immediate thought is, “See, there are contradictions in the Bible.” That is an easy out and it resolves the need for any serious brain effort at all.
 
But it is also shallow thinking. Such obvious discrepancies in accounts would show that the authors or compilers of the Bible were incompetent doofs. Rather, the differences are given to highlight different aspects of the same narrative, providing additional information to help us see the intricacies of what God has done in the unfolding plan of redemption.
 
When you come to such accounts, don’t just say, “These don’t match and so they contradict.” Rather, think about why the differences are there. Rich treasure is waiting to be uncovered. You will be rewarded in your studies according to the effort and contemplation you put into them.
 
Lord God Almighty, the detail and intricacy of Your word is incredible. People have been reading and studying it for thousands of years, and yet new insights come out of it from day to day. It is a treasure trove of wonder and delight. Thank You, O God for Your precious word. Amen.

Matthew 5:29

Wednesday, 4 December 2024
 
If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29
 
And if your eye, the right, it entraps you, it – pluck it – and it cast from you. For it conduces you that one of your members, it should perish, and not all your body, it should be cast into Gehenna (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus indicated that the sin of adultery lay not in the act but in the intent behind the act. Looking at a woman lustfully means that one has already committed adultery. Next, He says, “And if your eye, the right, it entraps you.”
 
Here is the first use of skandalizó in the New Testament. One can immediately see the etymological root of the word scandalize. The literal meaning is to fall into a trap. As such, it signifies to cause to stumble, give offense, etc. It is where right conduct or thinking is hindered.
 
Jesus is saying that if one’s right eye causes him to fall into such a trap, “it – pluck it – and it cast from you.” The thought is based on the words of the previous verse. What caused a person to lust after a woman and thus commit adultery? It was seeing her and then mentally dwelling on what was seen.
 
If the person didn’t see her, he would not have then begun the process of dwelling on her, lusting after her, and then committing the act with her. Jesus says in such a case that the person should pluck the right eye out. He uses another new word, exaireó. It is derived from ek, out, and haireó, to take for oneself, as in choosing. Thus, he is to completely remove it, meaning plucking it out.
 
The general consensus is that because of the obvious severity of the act, the words are not to be taken literally, although, throughout history, there have been instances of people doing just this. The problem with that, however, is that the act has already taken place. If one is to pluck out his eye because it scandalized him, he has already been scandalized. The sin has been committed and the act of plucking out the eye doesn’t atone for the act of adultery.
 
As such, and because pretty much everyone would eventually be walking around blind, the words should be taken as a testament to the severity of sin that is found in the heart of man. That is seen in the next words. Jesus says, “For it conduces you that one of your members, it should perish.”
 
Again, another new word is found here, sumphero. It is a word etymologically connected with our modern word “symphony.” Its roots signify “together with” and “to bring.” Thus, there is a bringing together in a way that results in profit or gain, as would be the case with a symphony bringing about a great and resounding sound for an audience.
 
As such, the word is often translated as profitable, better, etc. A single word that most closely identifies the meaning is conduce which is an act that leads or tends to a particular and often desirable result. In other words, Jesus is saying that not having a right eye is better than the alternative.
 
The right eye is identified by the Greek word melos, a bodily organ or a member. It is not the whole but a part of the whole. A missing part is better than a destroyed whole, as is next explained, “and not all your body, it should be cast into Gehenna.”
 
Jesus is saying that there is a problem that exists, and it is one that must be addressed or it can lead to eternal consequences. Therefore, it is something that must be considered and acted upon.
 
Life application: Under the law, when a man sinned, such as committing adultery as David did, there had to be restitution made for the sin. The law demanded that adulterers be dealt with through the death penalty, but the law was not always carried out. In David’s case (and Bathsheba who was equally guilty), the penalty for adultery was not executed.
 
However, David says this in Psalm 51, a psalm about his guilt –
 
“For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;You do not delight in burnt offering.17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,A broken and a contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise.” Psalm 51:16, 17
 
David didn’t pluck out his right eye, but the same force that was behind his adultery and murder was also behind the words he expresses in the Psalm. His heart got him in trouble and it is his heart that was penitent for the actions that he took.
 
He reconsidered his ways, was broken in his being, turning to God for mercy. When someone comes to Jesus through the gospel, what is happening? He is acknowledging that he is a sinner. Christ Jesus can’t die for sins in a person who has never sinned. Thus, the point is that there is a reconsideration of one’s state before God. “I am condemned because of sin in my life. Jesus died for my sins. I accept the payment and believe by faith that it is true.”
 
This is the good news. Sin is no longer imputed to those who come to Christ. We have all fallen short in our lives and actions, but Jesus can bring us up to the proper standard when we face an infinitely holy Creator, meaning perfection. This is not our own perfection, but His. This is what we need. Call on Jesus and be reconciled to God. Your reconsideration about things will make an eternity of difference.
 
Lord God, we can see from Jesus’ w ords to those under the law the severity of our actions before You. Thank You that we are not burdened by such law when we come to Christ. Instead, we are granted His perfect righteousness. How great and wonderful this is. Thank You for the release from sin we have because of Him. Amen.
 

Matthew 5:28

Tuesday, 3 December 2024
 
But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28
 
“And I, I say to you, that everyone – the ‘seeing a woman to passion upon her’ – already he committed adultery with her in his heart” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus cited the seventh commandment, “Not you shall commit adultery.” Now, He builds upon that thought with a note concerning the state of the heart, even when the physical act has not taken place, saying, “And I, I say to you.”
 
Almost all translations say, “But I say to you.” A few say, “However, I say to you.” This is unfortunate. Jesus is not making a contrast. The law is given and He is not in any way undermining it. Rather, He is showing what God considers concerning the intent of the words, “Not you shall commit adultery.”
 
To get this, a father may say to his son, “You are not allowed to drive the car until you’re 16.” However, at 15, the son goes out and sits in the car, starts it, and pretends to drive. When told he was doing wrong, the son may say, “I wasn’t driving the car.” With that, the father says, “And I say to you that what you are doing is violating the intent of my words to you.”
 
He is not saying that his original directive was somehow defective (but). Rather, he is saying that his intent all along has been that the kid leave his car alone until the time that he would be old enough to fiddle with it, much less drive it (and). Understanding this, Jesus next says, “that everyone – the ‘seeing a woman to passion upon her.’”
 
The word epithumeó is used. It comes from epi, upon, and thumos, an outburst of passion or wrath. Thumos comes from thuo, to rush, where hard breathing takes place. As such, one can see that the word signifies more than just noting a woman’s beauty, something that occurs in Scripture from time to time.
 
Rather, it is the type of passionate gaze that leads to lust. In Romans 13:9, it is the word used when citing the Tenth Commandment, “You shall not covet.” In such a state, Jesus says, “already he committed adultery with her in his heart.”
 
This is actually the standard that God intends with the words, “Not you shall commit adultery.” How can we know this? First, Jesus said it. But the fact that God included the Tenth Commandment in the Decalogue confirms it.
 
Coveting is something that is only known to the one coveting and by God. The judges of Israel couldn’t hold someone guilty of coveting unless he first confessed that he had done so. They might assume he coveted, but they couldn’t actually get inside his head and prove it. And yet, not coveting is a commandment.
 
As coveting is inclusive of desires that lead to action, such as stealing, murdering, adultery, etc., the intent is what God is evaluating, not merely the act itself. If a woman is married and a man who is not her husband drools over her in his thoughts and heart, he has harbored the desire that can and could lead to action. Therefore, he is guilty of coveting, and in his coveting, he is guilty of adultery.
 
Life application: In this verse, there is an implicit claim to deity. Jesus could simply be evaluating what He thought was appropriate, but He doesn’t say, “This is how I interpret these words.” Rather, He said, “And I, I say to you, that everyone – the ‘seeing a woman to passion upon her’ – already he committed adultery with her in his heart.”
 
He is making an authoritative claim upon the seventh commandment. Were He not God, this would be presumptuous. Someone may even say His words were blasphemous. The charge could be, “Who are you to speak for God?”
 
But Jesus is qualified to make such an adamant statement about the command because He first gave it to Israel at Mount Sinai. If Israel didn’t understand the intent, that doesn’t change the nature of the violation. An example of this type of thought leading to sin is found right in Scripture –
 
“Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold. 3 So David sent and inquired about the woman. And someone said, ‘Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?’ 4 Then David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to her house.” 2 Samuel 11:2-4
 
David didn’t call for someone to send a concubine or one of his wives to come to him. Rather, he looked upon a woman, coveted her, and called for her to be brought to him. The state of his heart directed his actions.
 
Jesus, who is God, rightly states the intent behind the command for the people to understand the true intent that God set forth in the Decalogue. Be sure to consider the words of Jesus as the authoritative words of God, because they are.
 
Glorious God, we have been granted the gift of passion, but it can be turned into a curse when we misuse it. Help us to consider Your word, contemplate its significance, and then rightly apply its precepts to our walk before You. Good things can become bad because of our misdirected thinking. So, Lord, help us to think properly and in accord with the word You have given us. Amen.

Matthew 5:27

Monday, 2 December 2024
 
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ Matthew 5:27
 
“You heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Not you shall commit adultery’” (CG).
 
In the previous verse, Jesus spoke to the disciples about not getting out of prison until the last penny had been paid. This is the idea behind the law. When there is law, there is a possible violation of the law. In violating the law, one can then be sentenced and punished according to the standard of the law.
 
But Jesus has been teaching that the standard of the Law of Moses is actually more stringent than simple external observance. He will begin to highlight that thought again by saying, “You heard that it was said to the ancients.”
 
As in verse 21, He addresses a teaching that has already been set forth long ago to the people. A teaching was spoken to them and they were to abide by it. It should be noted that some manuscripts do not include the words “to the ancients.”
 
If it was inserted into the text, it was probably for the sake of conforming to the previous instance in verse 21. If it was dropped out of the text, it was probably because this is a command directly quoted by the Lord to the people. As such, someone may have decided that the words shouldn’t be there because no additional commentary is attached to what is said, as was the case in verse 21. Either way, what was said was, “Not you shall commit adultery.”
 
This is the seventh commandment as recorded in Exodus 20:14. Despite it being one of the Ten Commandments, it was also a teaching that was passed down by the spiritual leaders of Israel. In fact, it may be that the people didn’t even realize it was a precept of Moses. Rather, it was something taught as binding upon the people as it is in many cultures.
 
Jesus will provide insight into this teaching that will go far beyond what was either taught or considered.
 
Life application: In 1631, Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, published a reprint of the King James Bible. A copy of that reprint is now worth between $55,000 to $85,000. This is because it has become known as the Wicked Bible. Other names for it are the Adulterous Bible or the Sinners’ Bible.
 
The reason for the names is that it is based upon a mistake made by the compositors. In the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:14, it says in the KJV, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” However, whether truly a mistake or an intentional change, the word “not” was left out, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
 
Along with that, Wikipedia describes a second error that was found in the print –
 
“The 1886 Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission (which gives the Bodleian Library manuscript Rawlinson A 128 as its source) lists this as one of the ‘two grossest errors’, among ‘divers other faults’. The other is a misprint appearing in Deuteronomy 5: the word ‘greatness’ appearing as ‘great-asse’ [meaning a donkey], leading to a sentence reading: ‘Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse’. Gordon Campbell reports that there are no surviving copies of the book that contain the second error (‘great-asse’), but that in three of the surviving copies there is an inkblot where the missing ‘n’ would be, suggesting such a mistake may have been covered up in these copies. He also notes that, at the time of the Wicked Bible's publication, the word ‘asse’ only had the sense of ‘donkey’.”
 
Because of the lack of current evidence, some have suggested that the second error was sabotage by other printers on the surviving copies. However, when the court was held, neither of the publishers suggested the possibility of sabotage. Either way, because of the nature of the error, the king had their printing license revoked, and they were fined 300 pounds, an enormous sum at the time, equaling $72,863.42 today.
 
Considering the penalty for making an error in a printed copy of the Bible levied upon these two, what do you suppose God will do when you purposefully or negligently trifle with His word? Be sure to treat the Bible with the utmost respect it deserves.
 
Glorious God, Your word is precious and holy. May we never trifle with its sacred contents. Amen.