MATTHEW 5:17-48: NEW COMMANDMENTS

 vv. 17-20

How Jesus could say this when he proceeds to change all the commandments?

“Fulfill” may mean establish, confirm, cause to stand. In this case, it may also mean “bring to full intent

 and purpose.” (George Eldon Ladd)

Progressive revelation “in the Bible is not from the false to the true, but from lesser light to greater light.” (Warren Wiersbe)

Specific mention of the Ten Commandments includes:
Do not kill (Matthew 5:21-26)

Do not commit adultery (Matthew 5:27-32)

Do not take God's name in vain and do not bear false witness (Matthew 5:33-37)

Verse 39: The duty to turn the other cheek is also found in the Manual of Discipline at Qumran and in

no other ancient text.

Verse 41: Roman officials could force non-Roman subjects to carry any Roman's baggage for one mile along a highway.

Giving up our “rights and property.” This was the problem with the rich young ruler who had obeyed the 10 Commandments.

Why were only some of the 10 commandments mentioned and not all of them?

Have no other gods before me and Do not make images to worship

    Jesus had already categorized these as the greatest commandment, summarized as loving God with all your mind, heart and soul.

Remember the sabbath

    Jesus had taught that the Sabbath was for man, not vice versa. He had also emphasized doing the work of God on the Sabbath rather than avoiding all work.

Honor your father and mother

    Jesus covered this in his discussion of the custom of Korban, found in Mark 10:19.

Do not covet

    This command was similar to Jesus' whole approach to the law, concentration on underlying motive and heart issues.

As if the extensions of the 10 Commandments weren't enough, Jesus adds an additional commandment by turning “Do not steal” on its head in Matthew 5:38-41.

vv. 38-42 Jesus begins by quoting from Exodus 21:23-24, Leviticus 24:19-20 and Deuteronomy 19:21. The original context was to limit bloodshed and stop feuds from starting. Jesus says that even an eye for an eye is too much.

vv. 43-47 The first part of this statement is a summary of the second tablet of the law, as in Leviticus 19:18. The second statement is not in the Bible per se. Does that mean that Jesus misspoke? Note that he prefaces it with “You have heard it said,” as in other instances which do refer to the biblical commandments. It may refer to a logical inference from a number of passages in the OT. The prime example of these is Psalm 139:19-22.

What do we do about these feelings of hatred which David has?

1. First, remember that all the poetic sections of the Bible are written to engage not just our intellect, but our emotions as well, including hatred. We should be scrupulously honest in our prayers to God and let our emotions come out without editing them. One commentary I have subtitles Psalm 139 “Honest to God.”

2. Note the limitations to David's hatred: It is directed primarily to God's enemies, not his own personal enemies. They are called bloodthirsty in verse 19, but another understanding of the Hebrew says “men of idols.” It is directed to those who have proclaimed themselves as God's enemies.

3. David recognizes that it is up to God to deal with them, not himself. Remember that in his personal life, David didn't kill personal enemies such as Saul, Nabal, Shimei or Absalom when he had the opportunity. (Only his friends like Uriah the Hittite had to worry.)

4. “It should be remembered that...the psalmists...had as yet no conception of judgment in an eschatological sense, [i.e., they had no] doctrine of a future state in which the ungodly would be punished and the godly rewarded. Therefore if righteousness is to be vindicated it has to be vindicated now. When the righteous man prayed for the destruction of wickedness he did not distinguish in his mind between the ungodly and his ungodliness. The destruction of the one without the other was unthinkable to the pious.” New Bible Dictionary

Why did Jesus bother amending and adding to the commandments? Weren't they good enough as is?

1. As we mentioned earlier, Jesus went to the core motives behind each commandments, not just the overt actions.

2. This is similar to Jesus' words to the rich young ruler in Mark 10 on lacking one thing to be perfect. We need a higher standard to shoot for than the rest of society.

James 1:4 talks about believers facing trials which will make them “perfect.” The same Greek word is used in Matthew 5:48. When it appears in the Letter of James, it is usually translated as “mature.”

“Such sayings do not embody a new legalism. They are radical illustrations of the kind of conduct 

which will characterize the life perfectly submitted to the reign of God.” (Ladd)

3. Third reason is that with Jesus' upping the ante on the 10 Commandments, we will never be in the position that we think we can reach heaven on our own righteousness. Two examples:

A blog I have been following led me to a clip of a renowned scientist Dr. James Tour, professor of chemistry at Rice University and expert in the field of nanotechnology. He gets up early each day to read the Bible for two hours before going to work. He comes from a Jewish background, but converted to Christianity at 18 when a friend at college read him Matthew 5:27-32 on adultery and he realized that his addiction to pornography meant that he was breaking the Seventh Commandment.

I had a conversation with a colleague years ago on the fact that we are all sinners. He replied 

indignantly, “But I'm not a sinner.” I'm sure that by that comment he meant that he had never broken the

law. But God's law is not the same as man's law.

Vows

I would like to go back for the rest of the lesson to the subject of vows mentioned in Matthew 5:33-37. This word is used to translate two key words in the Bible: nadar (Hebrew) meaning “an offering” and euche (Greek) meaning “prayer.” A vow involved doing or abstaining from doing something either (a) in return for God's favor (Numbers 21:1-3) or (b) as an expression of devotion toward God (Psalm 21:25).

An “oath” is expressed by shebuwah in the OT, with a root meaning of “curse” (upon one who breaks a promise) or “seven” (a symbolic number meaning completeness or standing for seven animals sacrificed). In the NT it translates horkos (from “staff” since it was grasped in taking an oath, or from “fence” which constrains a person.

Some examples of rash vows involve Jephthah and his daughter (Judges 11:30-31), Saul putting a curse on anyone eating honey before battle (which his son Jonathan disobeyed), and Herod promising anything to Herodias (and she asked for John the Baptist's head).

    Leviticus 27 involves the subject of commuting vows and tithes. It naturally follows the previous section in which blessings and curses are described. These are the two times in which a person is most likely to make a vow to God, especially to God. The great seriousness with which we should take the matter of vows is stressed in the OT:

    Leviticus 19:12: You shall not swear by the name falsely.

    Numbers 30:2: When a man makes a vow to Jehovah or swears an oath...he shall not break his word.

    Deuteronomy 23:21: When you shall make a vow to Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it.

    Leviticus 27:2-8: Vow of persons     Basically, the idea is that a person would vow to serve God, i.e., as in the temple. Hannah's dedication of her unborn child Samuel is an example. But since such service was limited to certain persons, a wage could be paid to the temple instead. These values were quite high since in those times slave wages were about one shekel a month. Valuation in all these cases may have been set high to discourage lightly given vows. Verse 8 is a provision in case the value is higher than the person had realized. Since work was mostly hard labor, a man was “worth more” than a woman. This is not a statement of the relative worth of men and women as human beings in God's eyes.

    Leviticus 27:9-10: Vow of sacrificial animals. If a substitute were made, both animals belonged to God.

    Leviticus 27:11-13: Vow of unclean animals. These could be used by the priests, or they could sell them for profit. Alternatively, the one making the vow could keep the animal, but pay a 20% surcharge on the cost of the animal.

    Leviticus 27:14-15: Vow of houses. These were probably not those that were part of the family estate, but town houses.

    Leviticus 27:16-25: Vow of land. This was a more complicated case since the value of land depended upon its producing potential and the number of years until the jubilee year. It appears that getting out of this sort of vow was easier economically than for other types of vows. It may have been intended to ensure that people would not give up their family estate and be reduced to poverty because of a rash vow. Verses 20-21 envision a case of dishonesty in which a person sells land he has already dedicated to the Lord. Erskine Caldwell's God's Little Acre is an amusing story in which a landowner thinks there is buried treasure on his land so he keeps moving the acre he has dedicated to God from one place to another to avoid it containing the treasure. He ends up moving it to some swamp land on his property.

    Leviticus 27:26-27: First-born clean animals already belonged to God. This should be a lesson for us today.

    Leviticus 27:28-29: The ban was a more solemn form of vow, usually invoked by God or the leaders in case of a holy war (The Battle of Jericho is the prime example).

    Leviticus 27:30-33: Tithes. The explanation of verse 32 is that animals would be counted by passing single file and every tenth animal marked by a rod dipped in colored dye. The rule is a 20% excess required in money if the person wanted to redeem the tithe in cash.

    Leviticus 27:34: This verse can be taken as the conclusion to this section or to the whole book.

Matthew 5:34-36 According to the Mishnah, one could swear by anything other than God and not be guilty it you broke your word. For example, swearing by the earth and heavens was not binding upon a witness in a court of law. Other Jewish authorities held that the words “I swear” had to be used in order for it to be binding. Pertinent OT passages include:

    Psalm 11:4 and Isaiah 66:1 for God's throne or footstool

    Psalm 48:1-2 for Jerusalem as God's city

    Psalm 3:3 for the “head” reference

    Matthew 23:16-22 as a parallel passage. Jesus points out that everything that is invoked comes from God, and therefore the oath is equally binding. The real problem is not with the mouth but what is in the heart.

Matthew 5:37a This is based on the legal opinion of the Sanhedrin which stated that “yes” and “no” are only oaths if repeated twice. Rabbinical evidence indicates that “yes yes” meant your outward yes should also be an inward yes.

Matthew 5:37b The word can be translated evil or evil one. For the latter as the father of lies, see John 8:44. So the root problem is a hypocritical attempt to deceive others. James 5:12 is a parallel passage. Some translate “above all” as “before everything you say.” Matthew Henry says that this phrase is used because this is a very easy sin to fall into and one of the hardest to break.

There are two basic positions regarding these sayings of Jesus:

A. All oaths are forbidden. This is the position of the Quakers, the Jehovah Witnesses and many evangelical writers.

“By adding oaths to our statements, we either admit that our usual speech cannot be trusted, or else we lower ourselves to the level of a lying world that follows the evil one.”

“Instead of inculcating greater fidelity to oaths, Jesus sweeps away the whole mechanics of swearing.”
“The cross is God's truth about us, and therefore it is the only power which can make us truthful. When we know the cross we are no longer afraid of the truth. We need no more oaths to confirm the truth of our utterances, for we live in the perfect truth of God.” (Bonhoeffer)

“The idea that a man or woman can be trusted to speak the truth only when under oath tends to weaken mutual confidence in the exchanges of everyday life.” (F. F. Bruce)

“Swearing they avoid, regarding it worse than perjury, for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands accused already.” (Josephus, on the Essenes)

“Perfect honesty makes oaths unnecessary. Oaths are dangerous, for they make some speech more honest than other speech.” (Davids)

B. All oaths are not forbidden. (1) Otherwise there would be contradiction with several NT passages and many OT passages involving the patriarchs. (2) No rabbinical or early Christian literature forbade swearing in court. The intent of this teaching was to discourage the use of oaths in the ordinary relationships of life, or possibly it applies to members within the community of believers only.

“In swearing, we use the truth of something known, to confirm the truth of something doubtful or unknown...Only rash and unnecessary swearing is in question. We may be sworn, but we must not swear...An oath is a medicine, which supposes a disease.

“In this world of dishonesty and deception the oath is at times necessary to add solemnity and the guarantee of reliability to an important affirmation or promise.” (William Hendricksen)

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the commonality between oaths and vows?

2. Do the following verses help resolve the two interpretations above?

    Matthew 26:63-64

    II Corinthians 1:23

    Galatians 1:20

    Hebrews 6:13-17