Translate

Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Fight for Your Rights?--Sermon on the Mount Series

            There was once a champion boxer who became a Christian. After he accepted Christ, he began to study the faith intently, and after a few years he became a pastor. He felt like his new role as a pastor didn’t really fit with boxing, so he left his successful career as a boxer, which really upset some of his friends at the boxing club. They felt like he’d become “holier-than-thou,” so one evening they decided to go to his house and see if they could provoke him into a fight.
            Several of the friends went together, and when the pastor opened his door, one of the men—without warning—punched him right in the side of the face! The blow knocked the pastor to the ground, but he got up and said, “Hey, what’s this all about?” Without answering, another man punched him in the other side of the face. The pastor was dazed for a moment, but he got up, and this time he started rolling up his sleeves. He looked at the men and said, “You better get ready, ‘cause I’ve turned the other cheek, and now I have no further restrictions from the Lord.”
            Today we’re going to look at the famous statement in which Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, and I don’t think He meant, “Let the other guy get in two punches first, then take him out!” But just what did Jesus mean? That question has been tossed around for a long time and for good reason, because this paragraph contains some of the most challenging statements in all of Scripture; yet, they are also some of the most familiar. Let’s read Matthew 5:38-42 [READ Matt 5:38-42].
            These verses encourage us to remember a couple of very important principles of biblical interpretation. First, we must keep statements in their context in order to understand them correctly. How many times have other people misunderstood you because they’ve taken something you’ve said out of context? We can do the same thing when we study Scripture. If we don’t consider how the context of a verse helps us understand that verse, then we run the risk of misinterpreting it. In this paragraph in particular, some people have isolated the statement, “Do not resist the one who is evil,” and have drawn conclusions from it that probably weren’t even on Jesus’ mind when He spoke those words.
            The second principle is that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. Since all Scripture comes from God, it all fits together; so if one statement in the Bible isn’t immediately clear, we can look at other passages in the Bible to give us some additional insight. This principle is very helpful for interpreting this paragraph since it’s a collection of short statements that seem to touch on very different subjects. When we keep in mind that Scripture interprets Scripture, that principle becomes a tremendous aid for interpretation.
            With these principles in mind, let’s dive into this passage. We’ll take the same approach that we’ve taken over the last several weeks of first looking at the problem that Jesus addresses and then looking at His solution.

The Problem: Misusing Scripture to justify revenge.
            In v. 38, the Lord states, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That’s a very short snippet from a statement in the Old Testament that was given as a guideline for judges to ensure that any punishment they meted out truly fit the crime—that is wasn’t too lenient or severe. Its very important to remember that this was a guideline for judges; it was not a license for people to take justice into their own hands.
            We find that statement three times in the Old Testament; I’d like to point your attention to Deuteronomy 19:16-21: “If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
            Again, notice how this guideline was given to the judges as a policy for them to follow. The problem was that the Pharisees and the people had turned this guideline into a license for revenge. So a principle that had been given as a guideline for justice had been twisted to excuse all kinds of injustice, because when we try to give people who’ve wronged us what we think they deserve—and that’s what revenge is—the end result is almost always injustice. If you push me down, I’m liable to think that you deserve to have your face rearranged like a Mr. Potato Head doll! Revenge does not produce justice, therefore it doesn’t line up with the character of God.

The Solution: Repay no one evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.
            In v. 39 the Lord says, “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.” Remember how important it is for us to keep this statement in context. The remainder of this paragraph will clarify what the Lord means. I think viewpoints that would tell us to never do anything to resist evil are guilty of taking this statement out of context. I believe the rest of this paragraph and the rest of Scripture reveal that Jesus means something much like “don’t fight fire with fire” or “don’t stoop to their level.” If someone does evil to us, we are not to respond in kind.
            In the rest of this paragraph, Jesus seems to clear away several of the limitations that we might want to place on a principle like this. When we think about refusing to take revenge, we want to draw our own lines in the sand to outline what we think we should tolerate, and if someone crosses our line in the sand, then we feel justified to take revenge. We might say, “I’ll let it slide if this guy talks about my daddy, but if he talks about my momma, he’s gone too far.” When we draw arbitrary lines like that, we become just like the Pharisees, and the rest of this paragraph wipes away any of these lines that we might draw.

1. No actions are exempt from this command (v. 39b)
            In the last part of v. 39, Jesus mentions an act that was deeply insulting to the Jews: “But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Some people have applied this statement in discussions about defending yourself from a physical assault, but I don’t think Jesus was addressing that matter. What He describes here is an insult, not an assault.
            He may have been making an intentional reference to Lamentations 3. Part of that chapter describes the good of waiting for God to make right all of the wrongs that you have suffered, and in one section we find these words: “It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD. It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him; let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope; let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults (Lam 3:26-30).” Here’s a good example of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture—Lamentations 3 clearly equates a slap on the cheek with an insult, so this sheds some light on what the Lord means in Matthew 5.
            This was a deeply insulting act to the Jews, but even then—even then—the Lord says that we should respond with patience, grace, and kindness. Jesus Himself was the perfect model of this response. 1 Peter 2:23 says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten.”
            The Jew of that day may have said, “I’ll put up with a lot, but if someone slaps me in the face, I’m going to take matters into my own hands.” But the Lord says that we cannot single out actions to make them exempt from the prohibition against revenge.

2. No rights are exempt from this command (v. 40)
            We Americans love our rights. We are weaned on the idea that there are unalienable rights that no one can legitimately take from us (and that is a good way for a government to act toward its people). But Jesus tells us, in this context prohibiting revenge, that we should hold even our own rights loosely enough that we will not take revenge if they are violated.
            In v. 40, the Lord says, “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” The basic Jewish wardrobe had three pieces of clothing to it. The first was the loincloth, which was wrapped around the groin; it was basically underwear. The second piece of clothing was the tunic, which was much like what we call a “dress.” It was a single piece of clothing worn against the body that covered the chest, the torso, and hung down over the legs. The third piece of clothing was the cloak, which is basically what we call a “coat.” It was the outermost piece of clothing which was also used a blanket at night, and for that reason, Jewish society gave people a virtually inviolable right to keep their coat.
            If the ancient Jews had had a Declaration of Independence, it would have said, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life and the right to hang on to your cloak.” According to Exodus 22, if I gave you my cloak as collateral for a loan, you were required to give it back to me at night so I could sleep in it.
            Yet Jesus tells His audience, “Don’t hold even your right to your cloak so tightly that you will not be willing to give it up rather than stoop to the level of an evil and unjust person.” Remember that Jesus is not saying all that could be said about lawsuits or about rights in a republican form of government like ours; rather, He is telling us not to consider our own rights to be all-important. There are goals like honoring God for which we should be willing to sacrifice our rights if the other alternative means dragging God’s name through the mud.
            Once again, our greatest example of this attitude is Jesus Himself. Philippians 2:5-8 describes the extent to which He humbled himself to carry out the plan of salvation: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped [in other words, something to be held on to at all costs], but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
            Think about Jesus’ rights as the Creator of all things. He has the right to the worship and gratitude of His creatures. He has the right to display His glory as God. He has the right to execute judgment against our sins, yet He laid down His own rights to knowingly and willingly endure the greatest injustice the world has ever seen.
            We are to hold our own rights in a similar way. There is no right that we can place into a special category and declare that the violation of that right somehow gives us permission to take revenge. As Philippians 2:5 says, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.”

3. No people are exempt from this command (vv. 41-42)
            Jesus goes on to mention two kinds of people whom we’re often tempted to think are taking advantage of us—those who rule over us and those who ask us for help. First, the Lord says in v. 41, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” The land of Israel at that time was ruled by the Roman Empire. The Jews hated that fact, of course, but there was little that they could do about it. Under the laws of the Empire, soldiers had the right to force private citizens to give them all kinds of assistance, which included carrying their gear up for a distance of up to a mile.
            Now, just imagine if the United States was conquered by a foreign nation and foreign troops lived right here among us and had the authority to make us serve them. You can imagine how deeply we would despise that, so you can imagine how the Jewish people felt as well. But the Lord said that even in that situation, we should be willing to extend generosity and good will. We should be willing to go above and beyond to show kindness even to those who don’t show the same treatment toward us.
            Well, its one thing when someone can force you to help them, but its another when someone simply asks you for help, which is the situation that Jesus mentions in v. 42—“Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” Once again, remember that Jesus is not saying all that could be said about the subject of giving. Clearly, Jesus is encouraging us to be generous; in fact, I think He’s saying that our default response toward others should be generosity.
            We should not have to be coaxed into helping others, kicking and screaming the whole way. Rather, we should respond with a generosity that has to be reined in so that it is not reckless and actually harmful. This is not an easy attitude to cultivate because it is so easy to think that people are taking advantage of us when they ask for help, and that’s the link that connects this statement to the rest of the paragraph. Whether we suffer real injustice or we’re only tempted to think that others want to take advantage of us, we are not to respond by doing evil. Instead, we are to overcome evil with good.

            Now the reason that we are ever tempted to take revenge on others is that we feel like the person who has done us wrong is going to get off the hook if we don’t do something about it. If we don’t carry out “justice,” we fear that justice will never be served. But the Bible tells us that that simply is not true. Romans 12:19 states, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Again, the Lord Jesus is our perfect example. To return to 1 Peter 2:23, it says, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” This is the way to squash that desire to take revenge—to remember that God will sort everything out in His time. Our role, then, is to do good to those who do evil to us, in the hope that they might repent and embrace Jesus.
            There was once a farmer who was a very ungodly man. He rejected God and mocked the Christians in his community, yet he consistently had better yields from his farm than they did. One year in particular he had a bumper crop, and like usual, he was telling all the Christians how stupid they were for worshiping God. But one wise old farmer simply told him, “God doesn’t settle all of His accounts in October.” Remember that my friends; God will one day settle all of His accounts, and He will see that justice is served. He doesn’t need us to do it for Him now, and He won’t need our help then. Until that day, let us not repay evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.


Monday, September 16, 2013

What God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate--Sermon on the Mount Series

            Today, in our study of the Sermon on the Mount, we’re going to read about Jesus touching ever-so-briefly on the subject of divorce. I’m sure the epidemic of divorce in our country is well-known to you, but I think we can take an interesting look at its history by looking at the history of the TV show Divorce Court. That show first came on the air in 1957. Now, I think the fact that a producer thought people would even watch such a show reminds us that divorce was such a novelty at that time. A show about divorce proceedings would tap into people’s curiosity about something that wasn’t very familiar to them.
            But as divorce became more common in our country, Divorce Court’s ratings fell. It survived until 1969, but was cancelled through all of the 1970’s. It was revived in 1985, but was cancelled again through most of the 1990’s. It was revived again in 1999 and has managed to stay on the air from that time until today, but there’s no telling how many people we would have to ask before we found someone who deliberately chooses to watch that show. People don’t need to watch a TV show about divorce proceedings today because sadly, too many people have lived through a divorce themselves.
            Jesus’ words in this section are words that our culture today desperately needs to hear. Later, in Matthew 19, Jesus would be asked specifically about divorce by the Pharisees, and He made a statement in that passage that is an excellent summary of God’s perspective on this subject: “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” That is God’s desire, and it should be our goal.
            As we study verses 31-32 today, we’ll focus first on the emphasis of Jesus’ teaching, then we’ll look at the exception to His teaching that He Himself mentions in v. 32.

1. The emphasis of Jesus’ teaching—Divorce followed by remarriage is adultery
            Let’s begin to read through these verses. The introductory statement that Jesus uses, especially when you read it in Greek, makes it clear that He is continuing the same train of thought from the previous verses. In those verses he told us that lust in the heart is the same as adultery in God’s eyes. Now, if I may paraphrase, its like Jesus is saying, “While I’m on the subject of adultery, let me mention something else that God considers to be adultery,” and He goes on here to mention divorce and re-marriage.
            In v. 31, He says, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’” That statement of the Pharisees’ teaching is based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but it is actually a misrepresentation of that passage. Moses had prohibited a situation in which a divorced and remarried woman might return to her first husband if she was divorced again or if her second husband died, but the religious leaders had become more interested in the procedure of divorce that Moses mentioned there. Moses really had not intended to discuss when divorce might be permissible, but that’s what the debate became among the religious leaders.
            In Jesus’ day, the situation regarding divorce was much like it is in our own culture today—divorce was increasingly common, and divorces were granted for very trivial reasons. The religious leaders’ concern was simply to make sure that divorce proceedings were carried out properly, but Jesus reminds us that God’s concern was much different. So He says in v. 32, “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
            Jesus took a wide-angle look at his culture and announced that people were committing adultery all over the place, because they had been taught to simply make sure that the paperwork for divorce was filed properly. The marriage bond had become something that could be dissolved almost on a whim, but Jesus announced that those who treated their marriage in such a way, leaving one and entering another in such a casual way, were actually committing adultery in God’s eyes.
            What a lesson that we need to learn today! When marriages end because of “irreconcilable differences” or because “things just didn’t work out,” we need a clear reminder of God’s opinion on the subject. To treat marriage in such a casual way is an offense to the God who designed it, and we actually commit adultery when we use our own rationale for dissolving our marriage bonds and entering a new relationship. When we use a rationale for divorce and remarriage that God does not permit, we can call ourselves ex-husbands and ex-wives, but to God, we are adulterers and adulteresses.
            Now Jesus language in v. 32 seems a bit strange. Why does He say, “everyone who divorces his wife…makes her commit adultery?” Jesus was assuming that the woman would enter a new relationship, which was the most typical result of divorce at that time. In the Jewish culture, only a husband could initiate a divorce, and the prospects for a divorced woman were very bleak. Remember, this was not a time when a woman could really get a job on her own outside the home to support herself. She could try to return to her parents’ home, but there was no guarantee that they would receive her back. She could beg, but of course, that is very unpredictable. She could try to earn her own income, but you can imagine what kind of profession that might require.       Most of the time, a divorced woman would enter a relationship with another man, and Jesus said that in that situation, both the woman and the other man would be committing adultery.
            I think it is very important that we allow this emphasis of Jesus to sink in lest we move too quickly into a discussion about the exception that He mentions here. As soon as we start to talk about an exception, our sinful hearts will try to find ways to make the exception bigger and bigger. That’s exactly what the religious leaders in Jesus’ day had done. The Old Testament mentioned a divorce procedure as a detail of a larger scenario, but the people took that detail and ran with it.
            The possibility that we might commit adultery through divorce and remarriage should provide a strong push away from divorce in any situation. That is the real emphasis in Jesus’ teaching. We should not search for exceptions; instead, we should allow these words to push us away from divorce in the same way that the previous passage pushed us away from lust, since the outcome for both can be exactly the same—adultery.

With that being said, Jesus does mention an exception to his teaching in v. 32—a situation in which divorce and remarriage would not be condemned as an instance of adultery. Those words are just as authoritative as everything else that Jesus said and everything else the Bible says, so we can safely act upon them. We could state the exception like this…

2. The exception to Jesus’ teaching—Divorce followed by remarriage is not adultery when adultery led to the divorce
            Remember again that in that culture at the time, only a husband was allowed to initiate a divorce. What Jesus is saying is that if a woman was put away by a husband who was engaging in adultery, God did not consider the innocent woman to be an adulteress if she got remarried. This exception makes sense in light of Israel’s laws and history.
            In the laws that God had given to the people of Israel through Moses, adultery was supposed to be punished by execution. For example, Leviticus 20:10 says, “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” This law is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22—“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”
            If the people had obediently carried out that command, it would have clearly put an end to the innocent spouse’s marriage because his or her spouse would be dead. The innocent spouse would thus become a widow or a widower, and such people had always been allowed to remarry under God’s laws. So in that situation, there would have been no confusion—the innocent spouse’s marriage would have ended with the death of their spouse, and thus he or she would have been free to remarry.
            But the people of Israel had never consistently carried out the death penalty for adultery, which resulted in confusion—as sin always does. What was the innocent spouse supposed to do now? They were now divorced, but their spouse was still alive. Would they be committing adultery if they got remarried? I believe the exception that Jesus mentions here was meant to cut through that confusion and tell us that the innocent spouse was free to remarry after the divorce had taken place.
            Now, we as a community of Christians can also create confusion about divorce and remarriage if we fail to follow God’s commands. We don’t live under the laws of the Old Testament today, so we are not to enforce a death penalty for adultery, but God has given us clear instructions on how to deal with a person in our church who might commit that sin. Matthew 18:15-20 outlines a process of loving confrontation that we are to follow in an effort to lead that person to repentance. But if that person will not repent, Matthew 18:17 says, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”—in other words, someone who is outside the family of God. We’re not supposed to hate that person, but to bring clarity to the decisions that we need to make as a church, we are supposed to consider that person to be an unbeliever.
            At that point, the Bible’s teaching on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 becomes applicable. Let’s turn there together so we can read vv. 12-16. This letter was written by the Apostle Paul, and he begins this section by saying, “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord).” All that Paul means by that statement is that he’s about to touch on a scenario that Jesus had not specifically talked about during His ministry on Earth. Let’s read his words [READ vv. 12-13].
            Now when Paul writes that the unbelieving spouse is willing to live with the believing spouse, surely he means more than “inhabit the same house.” I believe he’s saying that if you are married to an unbeliever, if your spouse is willing to honor his or her marriage vows to you, you should be willing to honor your marriage vows to your spouse. But then beginning in v. 15, Paul discusses the scenario in which the unbelieving spouse is not willing to honor his or her marriage vows [READ vv. 15-16].
            So, if someone in our church is abandoned by their spouse, whether that spouse is pursuing adultery or has some other motivation, I believe the innocent spouse is free to be divorced and to remarry if they desire to do so. To bring this back into the context of adultery, if someone in our church commits adultery, we are to lovingly confront that person to help them come to repentance. But if that person refuses to repent and persists in adultery, we are to consider that person to be an unbeliever. Then, on the basis of this passage in 1 Corinthians 7, we should allow the innocent spouse to get a divorce and to remarry if they desire to do so.

            This exception mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5 is divinely authoritative; thus, it gives us a basis as a church to act with clarity in situations of adultery. But we should never forget that God’s basic assessment concerning marriage is this: what God has joined together, let not man separate. As Christian spouses, we should realize that there is no scenario in which we could get a divorce that would not be the result of one of us directly disobeying God. If husband and wife are both obeying God, there is no scenario for divorce—but happily, there doesn’t need to be one in that situation! God does deal graciously with an innocent spouse who is abandoned by a sinning spouse, and we need to acknowledge that so that we don’t put the innocent spouse in a bind, but may God help us all so that there would never be another divorce among Christians. Rather, may our marriages be what God wants them to be—a beautiful picture of the love and respect that exists between Jesus and His bride, the Church.

Monday, September 9, 2013

"We're Going to Have to Operate"--Sermon on the Mount Series

[NOTE: There is a long illustration in this sermon that I read from The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis. Due to the length of the section, I did not type it out in this post. Thus, it would be best to listen to this sermon rather than read it. To hear the audio of this sermon, go to http://morningsidecommunitychurch.weebly.com/sermons.html, and scroll to the bottom of the page.]

            They’re the words that everyone dreads when they go to the doctor: “We’re going to have to operate.” We hear those words when all other options have been exhausted, and extreme measures have to be taken. The Lord has graciously allowed us to understand His world enough to make many operations safe and routine, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still extreme measures.
            In our study of the Sermon on the Mount, we come today to Jesus’ discussion of lust, and His treatment plan for battling this temptation is quite simple: we’re going to have to operate. We must take extreme measures against this temptation, especially when we realize that Jesus simply will not allow us to downplay the severity of the sin of lust.
            Let’s work our way through Jesus’ diagnosis of this sin, then we’ll focus on His prescription for it.

The Diagnosis: Lust is Serious Enough to Make Us Deserving of Hell
            As we read these words, please remember that Jesus is not critiquing the Old Testament in His teaching. He is critiquing the interpretations of the Old Testament that the people had heard from their religious leaders. That’s why Jesus uses the introductory phrase that He does rather than a statement like, “It is written.” So, in v. 27, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’” That command, of course, is fine as far as it goes; it’s an accurate statement of command number seven of The Ten Commandments.
            But as they had done with murder, the Pharisees—who were the religious leaders of the people—had begun to measure obedience to that command by their actions. As a result, the attitudes of the heart were downplayed, but as Jesus shows us, we cannot minimize the importance of our heart attitudes.
            In v. 28, the Lord states, “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Since God knows what is going on inside our hearts, He condemns the whole process that leads up to an act of sin. He knows when a thought is conceived in my mind, and He knows what I do to either put that thought out of my mind or nurse it along and feed it. Its kind of like the way that we look at weeds. We don’t just hate the leaves and the seeds that they produce—we don’t even want the roots around. In a similar way, God condemns the very roots of sin, which are found in our hearts.
            Now, its important to specify what Jesus means when he speaks of “looking at a woman with lustful intent.” To put it simply, its not the first noticing of another person that Jesus condemns—it’s the second glance, the look that is made with the intention of fanning the flames of lust in your heart.
            King David was not guilty when he noticed Bathsheba from the roof of his palace. As far as we are told, that was just an accident, and as the saying goes, “accidents happen.” No, King David’s sin came when he used that accidental noticing to feed a lustful desire in his heart. He had sinned long before he followed up on that desire because he had already committed adultery in his heart.
            So Jesus has backed us into a corner as far as our lust is concerned. He has cut off our retreat into the easy justifications that we want to use to tell ourselves that a “little look” is no big deal. To God, the very attitude is every bit as serious as any act that it may produce, so he gives it the same condemnation.

Now, in vv. 29-30, Jesus gives us his prescription for dealing with lust, and as I said before, it is simply this:

The Prescription: We’re Going to Have to Operate
            Less invasive procedures will not do; extreme measures must be taken. Let’s read the Lord’s words in these verses [READ vv. 29-30]. We have good reason to think that Jesus was speaking figuratively in these verses because He just told us that lust is a problem of the heart, and simply doing things to the outside of my body will not cure a problem of the heart. So He is not telling us the means through which to deal with lust, but the manner in which we must deal with lust. In other words, He’s not telling us the precise actions to take (“Just start cutting off body parts”), He’s telling us the attitude with which to fight against lust.
            The final outcome of lust is so bad that we should be willing and eager to get rid of anything that becomes like bait in a trap to us. That’s what Jesus means when he says, “If your right eye causes you to sin.” If something has become alluring to you, if it is enticing you to walk down the road of lust, you must put it away. None of this talk of “maybe just a little” or “just a quick glance—no! We’re going to have to operate; it has to go, or otherwise WE have to go out of the situation.
            I’d like to read for you several pages from a story by C. S. Lewis entitled, The Great Divorce. This is a passage that wonderfully describes the way that we must deal with lust and the way that we often try to minimize the need to take such drastic measures. This is a lengthy section, but I want to read it to you to feed your imagination some healthy food.
            You see, the war against lust is fought inside the imagination. This temptation often pits our desires or feelings against our intellect; our intellect knows better, but our desires are so enflamed that it is difficult to resist. In this stalemate between our intellect and our desires, the deciding vote, if you will, is cast by our imagination. Whichever force can captivate your imagination in that moment will almost always come out on top.
            That’s why we must feed our imagination healthy food. That’s why, when God wanted to teach us about the beauty of marital love and romance, He gave us a book of word pictures—a book of poetry in The Song of Solomon. So even though this passage I’m about to read is lengthy, I think it is well worth our time.
            In this book, Lewis writes of a group of people from Hell who are allowed to take a bus ride to the outskirts of Heaven. Keep in mind that he’s not writing to make definite claims about theology; he is simply writing a story. In the story, the people from Hell are referred to as ghosts, and on one occasion, Lewis gives us a very vivid description of the way in which lust must be handled.

[READ from The Great Divorce, p. 106-114. The final line, “Lust is a poor, weak, whimpering, whispering thing compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed.”]

            That is what we must remember if we are to gain victory over lust. It is a poor, unsatisfying substitute for true, godly romance—which possesses true beauty and power and satisfaction. It will be tremendous reminder for us if we fill our imagination with captivating pictures of godly romance. It will also be a helpful reminder if we remember the end game of lust as Jesus tells us here.
            The final end of lust for those who never repent and accept Christ as their Savior is Hell. That attitude in our hearts, which we so easily and so often tell ourselves is no big deal, in God’s eyes is deserving of Hell. My friends, if you have never humbly acknowledged that God’s verdict about you is true—that you are a sinner, worthy of punishment from God—I urge you to do so today, because there is hope for you! God loves you and does not want you to receive His punishment, so He carried out against His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, on the cross so that the penalty for your sins could be paid. And after Jesus died, God raised Him from the dead, brought Him back to life to show that all that He has promised is true, and we can receive forgiveness by placing our faith in Jesus as our Savior.

            But even after we make that choice, lust still produces devastating effects. How many people have we known or heard of who have walked down the path of lust and destroyed their lives through an addiction to ungodly material or a sinful encounter with another person? We can not only ruin our lives on that path today, but we may also forfeit rewards from God in the next life. If that doesn’t sound like a serious thing, we need to think again. God’s desire for you as His child is to join Jesus in ruling over the New Heaven and New Earth, just as Adam and Eve were created to rule over this Earth. You may lose the honor of a special role of service to God if you persist in a sinful lifestyle, so it is of the utmost importance that you take a serious stand against lust as Jesus commands us today. Lesser measures will not do; living with the pain, so to speak, will not suffice. You’re going to have to operate, so what is it in your life that has become like bait in a trap to you? It will have to go, but in the long run, you will never regret for a moment that it did.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Working to Live or Living to Work? Work and Labor in the Book of Ecclesiastes

            Tomorrow, as you know, is Labor Day, the day when we celebrate the contributions of workers to our country. I think I can safely say that the vast majority of people have kind of a love/hate relationship with their job. Some people have managed to get into a career that they absolutely love, but for most people, their job is just a way to pay the bills. This is really kind of sad when you think about it, because as adults, where do we spend a large portion of our waking hours? At work! This means that many, many people spend the bulk of their lives doing something that for them is little more than a necessary evil.
            I hope I didn’t just describe you, but if I did, I think I have some good news for you. It may surprise you to learn that the book of Ecclesiastes actually has some encouraging news about our work and labor. Now you might naturally think, “I don’t even want to hear what Ecclesiastes has to say about my job! That’s the really pessimistic book! Whatever it has to say will probably make me feel worse than before!”
            Well, let’s give this book the benefit of the doubt, because I think you might be pleasantly surprised to hear what Ecclesiastes has to say about the subject of work. As we look at this theme today, I think we will see that Ecclesiastes teaches us this:

Our work in this world is supposed to enhance our lives, not hinder them.

I. Excessive devotion to work or profit is a futile thing (2:18–23; 5:10–17)
            Ecclesiastes first of all gives us a helpful corrective to the obsession with work that may plague our lives. Solomon points out two observations that lead him to this conclusion.

            A. Whatever you earn, you can’t take it with you! (2:18–23)
            In light of our mortality, excessive work trying to earn a profit is futile because we have to give it all up when we die, and everything that we earned might be frittered away by someone else. [READ 2:18–23]
            Solomon was greatly troubled here by the thought of leaving everything that he had worked so hard for to someone who hadn’t worked for it at all. There was no telling what the next man would do with all of his stuff, but like it or not, Solomon had to give it up. Solomon understood that timeless principle that money that is easy to come by is easily frittered away.
            I remember when I got my first summer job in high school how I felt like I was living the high life. It was a pretty cushy job and at the time, I had no major expenses in my life. I was still living at home and basically had no bills, so my paycheck was easy come, easy go. I threw away money on a leather jacket and movies—all kinds of teenage stuff.
            And the worst part of it all is that sometimes I feel like I still haven’t learned my lesson. To this day when I receive an unexpected gift of money, its still much harder to put that money to good use than it is to put my paycheck to good use.
            Money that is easy to come by is easily frittered away. This observation is important for us think about. If we are hoping to leave our kids a large inheritance, we may not necessarily be doing them a favor. Now in 7:11 Solomon says that if we pass along wisdom with an inheritance, that can be a good thing, but an inheritance alone may not be a good gift.

Second observation about excessive devotion to work or profit…
            B. Profits will not bring the satisfaction that they promise (5:10–17)
            If we wear ourselves out at work trying to accumulate wealth and possessions, we’re going to be disappointed when we get them, because we’ll discover that they don’t bring the satisfaction that they promise [READ 5:10–11] I’m sure we’ve all heard the stories of lottery winners who suddenly discover that their family is a lot bigger than it was before! Let’s keep reading [READ 5:12–17]
            Notice how Solomon highlights the emotional grief that we experience when we hoard our profits and the fruit of our labor—our sleep is disturbed; our daily routine symbolized by eating in v. 17 becomes shot through with grief and sickness and anger. That excessive devotion to working and profiting and holding onto what we earn brings all kinds of grief with it.

So rather than devote ourselves excessively to work and building up a profit, we need to learn that…

II. Work should be done in the right way for the right reasons (4:4–8; 10:10; 11:6)

Solomon makes three observations along these lines…

            A. We should not work in order to “one-up” our neighbor (4:4)
            If our primary goal in our work is to “keep up with the Joneses” or if we are working out of a spirit of jealousy, we’ve got the wrong motive. [READ 4:4] Notice how Solomon is really condemning envy and not hard work per se. Business has a natural element of competition to it—businesses are always competing with one another with their goods and services, and that can be okay if a person conducts his work with godly attitudes and motivations. But if we are motivated in our work by jealousy of someone else, work practically ceases to be work and becomes some kind of vendetta. So jealousy or envy is not a proper motivation for work.

            B. We should work diligently, but not at the expense of rest (4:5–6)
            Ecclesiastes presents us with a wonderfully balanced view of labor and rest [READ 4:5–6] Notice the two extremes that we have here: first we have the fool who folds his hands. The picture is of someone reclining with their hands across their chest. Solomon says all kinds of negative things about the sluggard or the lazy man in the book of Proverbs. The other extreme is the man who goes after labor with both hands, and what Solomon commends is a balance—one hand full of rest, with the idea being of course that the other hand is at work.
            This is such an important lesson for us to take to heart, because I fear it is so easy for us to buy into the idea that time spent resting is simply wasted time. And sometimes in church we sanctify that idea because we say, “Well the Bible says to redeem the time for the days are evil, so there’s no time to just sit around.” Friends, what did God do on the seventh day of creation? He rested! We don’t really think He needed to rest, do we? No—He was setting an example for us!
            So we should understand that rest is not a bad thing. It is a hard thing to get, however, because there’s always something else that we could be doing. And you know what—that will always be the case! So perhaps what we need to do is make time to rest, and not feel guilty about it, but understand that its okay.

            C. We should work smarter, not harder (10:10)
            [READ 10:10] If we don’t employ wisdom in our work, we will only make things harder on ourselves. Imagine if no one had ever invented the wheelbarrow. I don’t know who invented the wheelbarrow, but imagine if that person had said, “I can’t waste my time with all of this silly daydreaming about a basket with a wheel—there are rocks to be moved! What I really need to do is just put in a few more hours moving the rocks—that’s the answer!”
            Now that sounds pretty silly, but its no sillier than what we often do! Its so easy to think that answer to every problem at work is a few more hours. How many times have you thought, “If I only had a few more hours?” Well usually at the end of those hours, we’re still thinking the same thing!
            I think the application to rest comes into play here once again, because when our bodies and our minds are properly rested we can use them to the best of their ability. We can think more clearly about our work when we’re rested, and that will allow us a better opportunity to see how wisdom can help us improve our work.

I think one way that we can apply wisdom to our work is by taking to heart our third lesson…

III. Finding the good that our work accomplishes is a gift from God (2:24; 5:18–20)

            A. We should look for the good that our work produces (2:24)
            Now I have said “look for the good” for a reason, because it is so easy to start feeling like your work is pointless and meaningless. If we embrace that attitude, then work will be drudgery for the rest of our lives, but if we can focus on the good that our work produces, we can find satisfaction in it.
            [READ 2:24] Notice that the verse says we are to “find enjoyment” in our toil. Now this doesn’t mean that we have to deceive ourselves or anything like that. A slightly more literal translation from Hebrew here would read “cause your soul to see good in your labor.” Solomon is talking about a choice—the attitude that we choose to have about our work. If we choose to think that our job is just pointless drudgery, that’s exactly what it will feel like. But if we choose to see the good that our work accomplishes, we can find satisfaction.
            But how do we choose to see the good, especially when work often has so many hassles and frustrations? I think the answer is to focus on the way in which your job allows you to serve other people. I briefly worked at a bank at one point during seminary. That really wasn’t a bad job—I had a good work environment and a very good boss, but nevertheless, that was not what I wanted to do with my life at that time. I didn’t wake up every day with a burning passion to be a bank teller, and there were days when it was very easy for me to have a bad attitude as I went off to work. But I started to become convicted about my attitude, and I decided that God had me there for a reason, so I decided to focus on the good that our bank accomplished. I started to focus on the small businesses that relied on our loans to get by, and the homeowner’s who had taken out a mortgage with us so they could buy a home. I started to focus on the financial planning that we offered to help people take control of their spending, and I started to see that our bank really did accomplish good in this community. We were providing a service that allowed our community to improve, and when I thought about my work like that, I was able to find satisfaction in it.
            So what about you? How does your work allow you to serve people and improve their lives? That’s what you need to focus on, because serving people is always a satisfying thing, and you can serve people in any profession (provided of course that profession is within God’s moral standards).

            B. We should enjoy the profit that comes from our work (5:18–20)
            We saw earlier that Solomon instructs not to devote ourselves excessively to the profit that we can make in our work, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not supposed to get any enjoyment from our profit at all! [READ 5:18–20] Notice the benefit that we get from enjoying our profits in v. 20 [READ v. 20]. Enjoying our profits takes some of the sting out of life.
            I think we all know that it can be very, very easy to become overwhelmed with all of the problems that we encounter in this world. If we focus on our own problems and the problems in our government and the problems in our world long enough, it is easy to be overcome with despair. But what Solomon is telling us is that the profits we receive are a gift from God that he allows us to enjoy to lift up our spirits as we deal with life in a fallen world. What a beautiful perspective on the fruits of our labor! I think this tells us that we don’t need to feel guilty if God allows us to be successful in business; we don’t need to feel guilty about enjoying some of the fruits of our labor.
            Now this is to be balanced of course by Solomon’s warning about devoting ourselves excessively to money and profits. And you know, as we look through Scripture, the Bible doesn’t give us a clear-cut guideline about how much is too much. The New Testament treats us like people who are supposed to be mature in Christ, and mature people are supposed to be able to achieve a balance in the various areas of their lives. So as we seek to mature in Christ, that’s a question we should wrestle with—“How am I handling the profits of my labor? Am I being too selfish with them? Am I enjoying them appropriately?” We may not always have an easy answer, but we need to wrestle with the question.

            I hope we have seen today the appropriate way to deal with work and labor, something that consumes a large portion of our lives. Friends, I hope we have seen that God does not consider your job to be an unimportant thing. It is not a waste of your time, it is not less important than a “spiritual” job like being a pastor, it is not even a necessary evil—it is a gift from God to you to give you an outlet for serving other people, to provide for your family, to be generous to others, and to get some enjoyment out of what your labor produces. I hope that you will buy into this perspective, because I believe it will make your days at work much more pleasant, and it will allow you to find satisfaction in what you’re doing. So, enjoy your day off tomorrow, and I hope you can return to work on Tuesday with a new appreciation for the gift of labor. 

Monday, August 26, 2013

Don't Get Mad...Get Leavin'--Sermon on the Mount Series

            There are certain activities in life that can really get my competitive juices flowing—like mini-golf, for example, or bowling, ping-pong, and tennis. I can also get very competitive when I play board games, which has often made me wonder how I’m going to react when Adrianna reaches that age when she will want to change the rules of every game so that she can win.
            That’s actually an attitude that we all struggle with in our lives—we want to define the standards of life so that we come out looking good. That’s exactly what the Pharisees in Jesus’ day had done with God’s commandments in the Old Testament. The Pharisees, you will remember, were basically the pastors of the Jewish people at that time, and in a time when people did not have their own copies of the Old Testament to read, the Pharisees functioned for many people as the official interpreters of God’s commands.
            Ironically, their efforts to interpret God’s commands came from a sincere desire to follow them closely, but what their efforts produced was a set of arbitrary guidelines that did not capture the heart of God’s commands, yet they allowed the Pharisees to tell themselves that they were being perfectly obedient.
            In Matthew 5:17-20, we saw Jesus launch the opening volley of a thorough attack on the Pharisees’ mindset and traditions. Beginning now in v. 21, we will see him discuss some specific examples from the Pharisees’ traditions and reveal how those examples fail to capture the true spirit of God’s commands. He begins with their interpretations of God’s commandments against murder. Let’s read all that He has to say here about this subject, then we’ll break it down a bit more [READ Matthew 5:21-26]. Let’s look at a few points in this text, then we’ll discuss some implications of Jesus’ teaching.
            Notice how Jesus says in v. 21, “You have heard that it was said to those of old.” That’s an important phrase because it reminds us that Jesus is not critiquing the Old Testament itself—He is critiquing what the Pharisees had said about the Old Testament; their interpretation of it. When Jesus referred to the Old Testament itself, He would say something like “it is written” or “haven’t you read…,” so this little phrase reminds us that Jesus was exposing the Pharisees’ teaching, not any deficiency in the Old Testament itself.
            Notice also that Jesus countered that phrase with the phrase in v. 22, “But I say to you.” That little phrase made two very important points. First, Jesus was clearly setting himself up for the people as an alternative to the Pharisees. It becomes crystal clear in the rest of the sermon that Jesus wants the people to accept his teaching as authoritative rather than the teaching of the Pharisees, and this little phrase effectively puts the people at a fork in the road. What are you going to follow—that which was said to those of old, or that which I say to you?
            Second, with this little phrase, Jesus was claiming to have the authority to accurately express the mind of God. That’s an incredible claim that lays the groundwork for Jesus’ later claims that He is God. This point was not lost on Jesus’ audience, because Matthew reports at the end of this sermon that “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes (Matt 7:28-29).”

Now let’s take a look at some implications from Jesus’ teaching.

1. Don’t use superficial standards to assess your relationships with other people.
            What the Pharisees taught about murder was okay as far as it went, but as Jesus reveals, it didn’t go far enough. Their teaching was, “You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.” God certainly did condemn murder through His commands, but He went beyond that to the very root of murder, which is anger. In Leviticus 19:17, the Lord said, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” but that point was apparently lost on the Pharisees, which is why Jesus criticizes their teaching here. Their traditions focused only on an external action like murder, and apparently, to them, any attitudes or even actions that stopped short of murder were okay.
            But Jesus declares that the mere attitude of anger is just as serious in God’s eyes as the act of murder itself, and actions like insults that we might think are less serious than murder are actually serious enough to make us deserving of Hell. That is a very penetrating assessment that calls us to consider not just our external actions toward others, but the attitudes that we hold about them in our hearts.
            This lesson holds an important implication for the way that we assess our relationships with each other. Let’s face it—its so easy for us to excuse anger in our hearts by looking only at superficial standards. Perhaps I’ve been angry at someone for a year but I’ve told myself, “What’s the big deal? I’ve never punched him! I’ve never slashed his tires!” Well, what a wonderful person I am! Let me pat myself on the back because I haven’t punched someone!
            But Jesus says we had better stop patting ourselves on the back and we better start examining our hearts, because the attitudes we harbor there are just as serious as if we had murdered someone. And if we have expressed our anger to another person through even something as “small” as an insult, Jesus instructs us to make it our top priority to ask forgiveness from that person.

2. If you have expressed your anger against someone else, make it your top priority to ask for their forgiveness.
            The Lord uses a very vivid example to get this point across. He was speaking at a time when the Jewish people were still offering animal sacrifices in accordance with the Old Testament laws, and He tells His audience that if they were standing at the altar of sacrifice, preparing to hand their sacrifice over to the priest, and they remembered that they had expressed their anger to someone else, they should immediately stop this ritual of worship and leave to go and be reconciled with that person.
            In other words, anger is such a serious matter that if I’ve expressed it against another person, I must make it my top priority to make things right with that person. It should even be a higher priority than performing a ritual of worship to God, and the reason for that is simple—God won’t be pleased by my ritual of worship if I am not at peace with other people. As Samuel explained to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22, “to obey is better than sacrifice.”
            So imagine that you are driving to church one Sunday morning when you remember that you had insulted someone the previous week and had not yet asked for their forgiveness. It would actually be a greater act of worship to go and make things right with that person than to come to church. That is the kind of priority that we should give to confessing our anger to the people whom we’ve hurt and asking their forgiveness.

Jesus gives us a further illustration of the urgency of making things right at the end of this section.

3. It is much easier to be reconciled to someone sooner rather than later.
            This lesson is the point of Jesus’ words about the judge and the guard and the prison. Some people have wanted to conclude that Jesus was telling a parable here with the judge standing for God and the prison standing for Hell, but there doesn’t seem to be any need to make that connection. Jesus is simply pointing to real-life circumstances to encourage us to make peace with other people quickly after an offense has taken place.
            Its never easy to swallow your pride, confess your sin, and ask someone else to forgive you, but it is almost always easier to do so soon after an offense rather than later. Its just like a physical illness in many ways—if you deal with it in its earliest stages, your odds of beating it are much greater.
            Proverbs 18:19 describes how difficult it can be to reconcile with someone you’ve sin against: “A brother offended is more unyielding than a strong city, and quarreling is like the bars of a castle.” That observation only becomes more and more applicable with each passing day after an offense has taken place.
With each day that passes, you better believe that Satan is hard at work to multiply the offenses and misunderstandings between you and that other person. He’s going to tempt that person every day to become more bitter, to build more bars around their heart so that you can no longer get in.
            So my friends, we must realize what a serious matter anger truly is. In the eyes of God, it is every bit as serious as murder, and when we have succumbed to it and expressed it against others, we must make it our top priority to heal that breach in our relationship quickly before Satan has time to exploit it. Obeying God in this matter is actually a greater act of worship than any ritual that we might perform, such as attending church, praying, or singing hymns. And if we know we’ve expressed anger toward someone else and we’ve not yet made our peace with them, God won’t be pleased with our rituals of worship, anyway!
            Now, let me answer a question that may have popped into your mind at this point—do I need to confess my anger to another person if its only been in my heart and I haven’t expressed it to them? That’s a good question, and I think the answer is a cautious “no,” and I say “cautious” because we need to remember that there are many ways in which we can express our anger beyond just the obvious ones like assaulting someone.
            Let me describe a scenario to help us think about this question. Suppose that I get a text message from Carmen one afternoon that says, “I made plans for us to go over to Billy Bob’s house tonight. Hope you don’t mind!” Now suppose that I start to think, “Oh man! There’s a big KU basketball game on tonight, and Billy Bob is a K-State fan so I know he won’t want to watch the game. How could Carmen be so inconsiderate? She’s just always thinking about herself and what she wants to do! You know, I remember a time six years ago when she did the same thing! This is twice now in six years! This is becoming a bad pattern in her life! She’s ALWAYS doing this kind of thing!”
            Now imagine that I allow myself to go on like this for a few minutes, just stewing in my anger. Then the Holy Spirit convicts me, and I repent of my anger and put it away. Would I need to confess that anger to Carmen? I think the answer is no, because I haven’t expressed it to her in any way. I still need to confess it to God and ask for His forgiveness, but I don’t think I would need to ask for Carmen’s forgiveness in that situation.
            Now suppose, however, that I held on to my anger until I got home. Perhaps I don’t say anything about it, but instead I just don’t say much of anything at all. I don’t give Carmen my normal greeting, and instead I just get ready to go over to Billy Bob’s house. Then I joke around with Billy Bob for a couple of hours, and we leave to go home and I’m silent again. We arrive at home and I just get ready for bed and go to sleep.
            Now would I need to confess my anger to Carmen in that situation? You bet I would, but why? How did I express it to her? First of all, Carmen knows that its out of character for me to be quiet like that and say nothing at all. She’s would know that something is wrong, and I’ve probably caused her some worry by leaving her in the dark about what it could be. Second, even though I didn’t say any harsh words to her, I didn’t speak any kind words to her either. I know I should speak kind words to her, and James 4:17 says “whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
            Third, I am commanded to love my wife, but just think about the definition of love from 1 Corinthians 13. Love is patient—have I been patient? No! Love is kind—have I been kind? No! Love is not rude—have I been rude? Yes! Love is not irritable—have I been irritable? Yes!
            You see, we have to remember all of the subtle ways in which we can express anger. Remember the first implication from today’s sermon—don’t use superficial standards to assess your relationships with other people! In that light, we probably need to confess our anger to others more often that we might initially realize. Are there times when it may not be necessary? I think there are, but they probably occur less often than we want to admit.

            Its never very hard for us to find ways to excuse our behavior, is it? We’re just like children playing a board game—we can always find a way to adjust the rules so that we come out on top. But my friends, we must not play that game. That is precisely the mindset that Jesus is going to dismantle here in The Sermon on the Mount, and He has begun with the ways in which we might justify our sinful anger against other people. We must take a sober look at ourselves in the penetrating light of God’s Word and allow it to reveal our hearts as they really are.

            If know that you need to make peace with someone because you’ve expressed anger against them, don’t delay. Don’t wait another day; don’t leave yourself or your neighbor vulnerable to Satan’s temptations. Do what you can to repair that breach, and pray for God to help your neighbor to be willing to do the same.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Probable "Cause?" Why the Difference in Translations of Matthew 5:22? Part 2--Sermon on the Mount Series

            Last week, we began to discuss the history of how the Bible has come from the pens of the original authors down through the years to us today. We talked about the important doctrine called inerrancy, which is the belief that the original documents of Scripture contained no errors and no lies. Now, to our knowledge, the original pieces of paper on which the Bible was written no longer exist, because they’ve simply worn out over time. Don’t let that thought trouble you, however, because basically no pieces of paper from that long ago still exist—they’ve worn out and disintegrated.
            I’ll bet some of you have a book that was owned by your grandparents, and I’ll bet that book has at least started to wear out. Now consider this—your grandparents’ book has probably been in your house, which means its likely been out of direct sunlight that could have caused it to fade. Also, for several decades at least, its been in an air-conditioned room, which means it was in relatively low humidity. And yet, its still at least started to wear out. Well, now imagine pieces of paper from 2,000-4,000 years ago that didn’t have those advantages. As we would expect, they would just wear out.
            So, to the best of our knowledge, the original documents of Scripture no longer exist, but what we do possess are copies of the Bible—in fact, we have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of copies of the Bible from over the centuries, some of which were written relatively soon after the original documents were written.
            Now as I also mentioned last week, those copies of the Bible don’t always agree about how a certain verse should be worded—which leaves us with questions like our question about Matthew 5:22 that led to this whole discussion. Today, we’re going to talk more about those differences. We’ll discover that those differences affect a relatively small number of verses and none of them undermine any central point of the Christian faith. In other words, we don’t find some copies that say, “Jesus rose from the dead” and other copies that say, “Ha ha—just kidding, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead.” But there are differences that exist between these copies, and critics of Christianity love to point that out, but we’ll see today that we really have no reason to be concerned about the text of the Bible that we hold in our hands in our copies today.
            Our discussion today is going to focus on the copies of the New Testament. The Old Testament has its own history since it has been preserved by two religions—Judaism and Christianity. Also, critics of Christianity really don’t pick on the Old Testament that much. If you hear someone on The History Channel talking about errors in the copies of the Bible, they will almost certainly be talking about the New Testament, so that’s what we will focus on today.
            Let’s return now to the outline that I introduced last week. Point #1 was this—the original documents of Scripture were written without any errors. We’ll move now to…

2. As people began to copy the original documents, they sometimes made innocent mistakes or inserted words to help clarify a statement.
            What kind of mistakes are we talking about? Let’s discuss a few…

a. Mistakes in spelling
            In many cases, this was probably the result of a copyist confusing letters that look very similar. Think about how easy it would be in English to confuse two “v”’s that are side-by-side with a “w.”

b. Eyes jumping down the page of the original copy
            We commit that mistake ourselves at times, and it would have been easier for some copyists to make that mistake since the earliest copies of Scripture were written INALLCAPITALLETTERSWITH NOSPACESBETWEENTHEWORDS.

c. Confusing different letters or words that sound similar
            We know from historical records that people would sometimes read the text of Scripture and have several people copy it at once. That’s a little more efficient in a situation when everything has to be copied by hand, but that introduces the possibility of some other mistakes. Imagine if we were copying an English document that way and we came to the word “there” or the word “to.” Think about how often people misspell those words!

d. Faulty memory
            By this I mean a copyist forgetting something during the time it takes to look at the original copy and then write out what was on that page. This would seem to account for some of the differences in minor details that we see between some copies.

Now my outline also noted deliberate insertions that were sometime made in the text, so what kind of insertions are we talking about?

a. Changes in spelling and grammar
            Think about the way that English is spoken differently even within our own country. In some places, people say “pop,” but in other places they say “soda.” In some places, its fine to say “ain’t” even though English teachers don’t like it. Well, the same situation was true with the Greek in the New Testament, and in some copies we see copyists cleaning up spelling or grammar that apparently seemed wrong to them.

b. Changes to harmonize stories found in more than one book
            In the gospels in particular, we find stories that are recorded in more than one book, but frequently the authors emphasized and included different details. But sometimes, we find copyists who were apparently trying to make Luke and Matthew’s account of a story read exactly the same, so they added a detail from Matthew’s account into Luke’s account or vice versa.

c. The addition of words frequently found together
            The most common example of this kind of addition is with the words “Lord Jesus Christ.” You’re probably familiar with some verses that refer to the Son of God simply as Jesus or as Christ or as the Christ. Well, some copyists had a habit of writing out Lord Jesus Christ in all of those verses, even if their original copy didn’t necessarily have all of those words.

d. Changes made for doctrinal sensitivity
            We see a clear example of this in the birth narratives of Christ, where some copyists made slight changes to avoid calling Joseph the father of Jesus. Apparently, their concern was to remind us that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus and that Jesus, or course, was born of a virgin.

e. Addition of miscellaneous details
            This habit has produced some humorous results in various copies of Scripture. For example, in Revelation 4:8, when the living creatures in Heaven sing, “holy, holy, holy,” a few manuscripts have the creatures singing “holy” four times, six times, eight times, or all the way up to 13 times!
            The title of the Book of Revelation has also been expanded in some copies over time. The earliest copies simply call it “The Revelation of John.” Later, after John was declared a saint by the Catholic Church, some copyists changed it to “The Revelation of St. John. Eventually, there was one over-achieving copyist who called it “The Revelation of the all-glorious Evangelist, bosom friend of Jesus, beloved to Christ, John the theologian, son of Salome and Zebedee, but adopted son of Mary the Mother of God, and Son of Thunder!”
            Now, it is very important to realize that we don’t even find notable mistakes and insertions in very many verses of Scripture. Let me explain—in the Greek New Testament that has been compiled by comparing all of the ancient copies with each other, there are 138,020 words. In that whole document, there are only 10,000 places where notable differences exist between the ancient copies. That ratio equates to roughly 1% of the text. In other words, for 99% of the text of the New Testament, there are no notable differences between the ancient copies. That’s an incredible fact when you consider that we have over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the Bible!

Even for that 1% of the text, point #3 of our outline is true…

3. By comparing the numerous ancient copies of Scripture that we possess, we can spot those mistakes and insertions and correct them.
            When there is a notable difference between the ancient copies of the New Testament, we are normally left with a situation like what I’ve portrayed in your bulletin handout for today. Normally, we will find many manuscripts that have exactly the same reading. Then, we will find some that have some of the various mistakes or insertions that we just discussed.
            Now notice one thing about my little illustration here—do you still get the same basic message from all of these statements? Of course you do! So for this very small percentage of the text where we find a notable difference between the copies, our doubt really isn’t about the message of the verse, just the exact, original wording of the verse. Also, its not that we’ve lost the original words of Scripture—one of the variations surely must capture the original wording, we’re just less than 100% sure about which variation that is.
            So remember, we’re only talking about 1% of the text—about 10,000 places. And in the vast majority of those places, we have a high degree of certainty about which of the variations captures the original wording. Evangelical scholar Norman Geisler concludes that there are only 40 places out of those 10,000 where we truly have significant doubt about which variation captures the original wording. We know one of them must, we’re just really not sure which one. And again, we’re only talking about 40 places out of the entire New Testament. As Dr. Geisler likes to say, we have 100% of the text, and we are sure about 99.5% of it.1

So for that small number of places, point #4 of our outline is true…

4. In some verses, the exact wording of the original documents remains uncertain. This uncertainty is one factor that lies behind the differences we find between translations.
            These differences show up primarily between the King James and New King James Version on the one hand and new translations such as the English Standard Version on the other. When the King James Version was written in 1611, the translators obviously could only work with the Greek manuscripts that had been discovered at that time. In the 400 years since then, archaeologists have discovered many more manuscripts, and newer translations have been able to take those into account when they make decisions about that small number of places where we find significant differences.
            This is not to say that the King James and New King James Versions are poor translations—not at all! Remember, we’re talking about a very small number of places, and its possible in some of those places that the King James has it right and the newer translations have it wrong!
            So how should we sum up all of this information? First, we must acknowledge that there are differences between the ancient copies of the New Testament. That’s true, and we need to acknowledge that its true. We need to get out ahead of skeptics who only mention this tiny part of the whole picture. Some people have their faith shaken when they learn about these differences because they learn about them from a skeptic who only mentions part of the story. Worse yet, some people conclude that their church has been deliberately hiding this information from them. All of this confusion is totally unnecessary because Christians have nothing to hide about the Bible, especially after we hear the whole story.
            So yes, there are differences between the ancient copies of Scripture, but the vast majority of them are insignificant. They consist of spelling mistakes and other mistakes that are easily spotted and corrected when we compare the ancient copies with one another. And among the 40 or so places where we do have a fair degree of uncertainty about the wording of the original text, we know we possess the original wording in one of the copies, and none of those instances undermine a core doctrine of the Christian faith. We don’t find copies making different claims about the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or salvation by grace through faith.
            Let me address one final question that arises from this whole discussion—why did God allow people to make mistakes as they copied the Bible? Why didn’t He just see to it that the copyists did their work perfectly? I think the answer is this—the fact that we do not find 100% uniformity between all the copies actually disproves a claim that many people have made about the Bible, namely, that there was a deliberate conspiracy in the past to change the teaching of the Bible. The fact that we find mistakes actually disproves that claim. Let me explain what I mean.
            Think about the difference between the produce that you grow in your garden and the produce that you see in the grocery store. When you harvest produce from your garden—say, tomatoes, for example—they don’t all look exactly the same, do they? They will be slightly different sizes and slightly different colors and some of them will have some flaws.
            But when you see tomatoes in the grocery store, what do you find? They all look exactly the same—they’re the same color, the same size, and the same shape. That uniformity tells us that there was a lot of human manipulation in the process of bringing those tomatoes to the grocery store. Someone threw out all the imperfect tomatoes and shipped out only the ones they wanted to have on display.
            Now, the fact that we don’t see complete uniformity in the copies of Scripture tells us that there has been no human manipulation over the copying process. If there was ever a conspiracy to change the message of Scripture, we would find uniformity in the copies because the conspirators would have destroyed all of the copies that they deemed imperfect. The history of the Bible as it stands shows us that there has never been centralized, human control over its copying and preservation.
            But consider this, even without that kind of centralized, human control over the copying process, we have received a Bible today that has no notable differences in over 99% of the text. I think we can conclude that God was overseeing the process, and He did so in a way that disproves the claims of those who want to attack the Bible.
            In the end, we can echo the words of the Apostle Paul from 1 Corinthians 1:20—“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” Indeed He has!


Notes

1. Norman Geisler, When Skeptics Ask, p. 160.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Probable "Cause?" Why the Difference in Translations of Matthew 5:22?--Sermon on the Mount Series

            Today, before we tackle the next section of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, we’re going to take an in-depth look at a question that arises from Matthew 5:21-22. Please follow along with me as I read those verses [READ Matthew 5:21-22]. Now, I just read those verses from the English Standard Version of the Bible, a fairly new English translation that came out in 2001. If you were following along in the King James Version or the New King James Version, you might be scratching your head, because both of those translations say, “whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” Or, if you’re following along in the ESV or the NIV or the New American Standard, there may have been a little note in your Bible in the margin or at the bottom of the page that says something like, “some manuscripts insert without cause.”
            That is an interesting and important difference. Why do some translations read, “whoever is angry with his brother without cause” and other translations simply read, “whoever is angry with his brother?” That little difference has an impact on how we understand this passage, because one reading seems to allow for no exceptions whereas the other reading acknowledges that there could be situations in which anger is okay.
            So why do we find these differences between translations of the Bible? To answer that question, we need to talk about the history of how the Bible has come from the pens of Moses and Paul and others all the way down through the years to us in 2013. This discussion should boost your confidence in the Bible, especially in light of misinformation about this subject that is common in our world today.
            In our next two sermons, we’re going to work our way through the following outline, which will take us through the basics of the history of how the Bible came from God all the way down through the years to us:

1. The original documents of Scripture were written without any errors.

2. As people began to copy the original documents, they sometimes made innocent mistakes or inserted words to help clarify a statement.

3. By comparing the numerous ancient copies of Scripture that we possess, we can spot those mistakes and insertions and correct them.

4. In some verses, the exact wording of the original documents remains uncertain. This uncertainty is one factor that lies behind the differences we find between translations.

            I suspect that this information is very new for some of you, and for that reason, it could be easy for you to walk away from the next two sermons thinking, “Pastor Tim said there are errors in the Bible!” That is not at all what I’m saying, and its so important for you to realize that, that I’m going to spend the rest of our time today showing you that that’s not what I’m saying.
            We’re going to spend our time today looking at just the first point of the outline that I just gave you—the original documents of Scripture were written without any errors. In other words, the documents that were written by the hands of Moses and David and Peter and Paul and others contained nothing but the truth—no errors, no mistakes, no lies. The big, fancy term for this belief about the Bible is “inerrancy,” and I’m going to make a case for you this morning to show you why we have good reason to believe that the Bible tells us nothing but the truth.

So, we’re going to look at a few observations about the Bible and then draw the most reasonable conclusion from those observations.

1. The Bible is a communication from God given to us through men (2 Timothy 3:16)
            Its certainly true that human beings actually put pen to paper to write out the words of the Bible, but these men claimed that they were writing out a message from God, and we have good reasons to believe that claim. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a good place to find that claim. In the first phrase of that verse, Paul writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God.” He is simply saying that God is the ultimate source of Scripture (which is just another term for the Bible).
            We have very good reasons to believe that claim—let me give you just one of them this morning. The Bible has shown the ability to accurately predict the specific actions of specific people hundreds of years before they happened. Now, we all know that humans don’t have that ability. We don’t always get it right when we predict how people are going to act next week, let alone hundreds of years down the road. But the Bible has shown that ability, which is a very good reason to conclude that God must have been the ultimate source of Scripture.

2. God directed those men as they wrote, and His direction extended to the tiniest details of their writings (Matthew 5:17-18)
            That last phrase is important, because if God’s guidance of those authors didn’t extend all the way down to the details, then we’re open to the possibility of human mistakes. But Jesus demonstrated an immense confidence in the tiniest details of Scripture, which tells us that God’s guidance must have extended down to the details.
            Consider a verse we read just last week—Matthew 5:18. In that verse, Jesus said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” We learned last week that the “iota” and the “dot” referred to the tiniest details of Scripture, and we can see what kind of confidence Jesus had in those details.

3. God knows all things; thus, He cannot make innocent mistakes in what He says.
            We’ve all had the experience of saying something that we thought was true, only to learn a little bit more and find out that we were wrong. I remember when I was in second or third grade and I was learning how to do division with remainders. You might remember that—you would figure out how many times a smaller number would go into a larger number, and anything left over was just called a remainder. Well, I had already seen some older kids doing math with decimal points, and I thought, “Ah! I see where we’re going here. I bet those decimal points are the same thing as a remainder.” Now, I wanted to show my teacher that I was way ahead of the game, so I did a whole assignment where I wrote out those remainders as decimal points instead of using that little “r” symbol. When I got that assignment back, my teacher had let me know with lots of red ink that a remainder is not the same thing as a decimal point.
            I had made a mistake because I thought something was true when in fact it was false. But think about this—since God knows all things, He’s not vulnerable to mistakes like that. He can’t be mistaken about something because He knows all things. So, when He says something, it must be free from any mistakes.

4. God cannot lie; thus, He cannot say something is true though He knows it to be false.
            Hebrews 6:18 makes this observation about God very clearly when it simply states, “…it is impossible for God to lie.” We can also approach this observation in a more philosophical way. Since God is the one who gave human beings our sense of morality, and since we understand intuitively that lying is wrong, then God must view lying as wrong, and thus He would not do it.

            Now think again about these observations: (1) The Bible is a communication from God given to us through men; (2) God directed those men as they wrote, all the way down to the tiniest details; (3) God knows all things, so He can’t be mistaken; and (4) God cannot lie. What we have to conclude about the Bible, then, is that it must be free from any errors or lies. In other words, everything in the Bible must be true.
            We can verify this conclusion by the fact that no one has ever proven a statement in the Bible to be wrong. Now this is the point, of course, when many people in our culture would throw up their hands and say, “Wait a minute! What about such and such a passage?” Certainly, people have suggested passages that they think are wrong, but no one has ever proven their case.
            Do keep one point in mind here—when we say that the Bible has no errors, we’re only talking about the original documents. People did commit errors as they copied those original documents, and that’s what we’ll talk about next week, but that’s not what we’re focusing on today—we’re focusing on those original documents. Particularly when someone makes a statement like, “the Bible has thousands of errors in it,” whether they realize it or not they’re referring to those copies of the Bible, not the original documents of Scripture.
            Let me give you a suggestion to keep in the back of your mind—the next time someone says to you, “the Bible has errors in it,” just ask them, “Are you thinking of any passage in particular?” The average Joe who says the Bible has errors in it is just repeating something he heard on The History Channel or on Facebook. He almost certainly hasn’t checked it out for himself, so just gently press him with that question, and don’t let him intimidate you with some statement like, “Everyone knows the Bible has errors in it!” Just keep bringing up that question—“are you thinking of any passage in particular?” If he does mention a particular passage, either help him understand that passage, or if you don’t understand it yourself, just say, “You know, that’s an interesting question about that passage. If you’re interested, I could do some homework on it and we could talk about it later.”
            Most of the time, however, that person will probably look like a deer in the headlights when you ask them if they’re thinking about any passage in particular. If they can’t name one, then you could say, “Why don’t you start reading through the Bible, and I’ll check in with you every so often, and if you find something you think is wrong, we can take a look at it together.” What a great opportunity if the person agrees to do that!
            Now, in the last hundred years or so, it has become sadly common for Christian people to modify the idea that the Bible has no errors or lies. We’ve been so intimated by ideas like the theory of evolution that some people have become willing to say, “Well, the Bible always gets it right when it talks about God and salvation, but it makes some errors when it talks about history or scientific stuff.”
            Sadly, quite a few denominations have been willing to make that compromise, but we run into a big problem when we take that step. There really is no way to separate what the Bible says about God and what it says about history (or “scientific stuff”) because the Bible is making claims about what God has done through history, as Lord of history. If the Bible states something about God by pointing to an event in history, but it turns out that that event never actually happened, then the statement about God just falls flat. We’re left with nothing more than fairy tales that have no basis in truth.
            The best example of this is the resurrection of Christ. I want to show you what Paul had to say about this matter in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 [READ 1 Cor. 15:12-19]. Notice that Paul did not say, “Well, if the resurrection didn’t actually happen, that’s no big deal because its still a good story about God that teaches us such and such.” No, he said that if the resurrection was not a real historical event, then he was telling lies about God and we’re all doomed! Those are the stakes, my friends—if the events recorded in the Bible did not actually take place, we’re not left with good, informative stories about God, we are left with lies about God.
            The importance of the doctrine of inerrancy was stated well by Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in northern Africa in the late 4th and early 5th centuries: “most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. That is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing put down in these books anything false. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true.”1
            In other words, if you say that there is even one error in the Bible, you’ve declared open season on the whole thing. If there’s one error, why couldn’t there be two? And if two, then why not three, and so on? And when we run into a statement that is hard to believe or hard to live out, we can just write it off as an error and move on.
            Perhaps the real question that surrounds the issue of inerrancy is simply, “Who’s the boss?” Who’s the boss—me or the Bible? Do I stand as judge over the Bible, declaring where it is right and wrong, or does the Bible stand as judge over me, declaring where I am right and wrong? May we never establish ourselves as the judge over Scripture, but as this book can be shown to be a message from the true and living God, may we humble ourselves beneath it and declare that it tells us the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Notes:
1. As quoted in Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 91.