TBR Bible study -- Matthew 5

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

If you look at OT law (or Mosaic law, having come through Moses), it pretty much consists of commandments (Do this, Don't do that) and consequences (if you do that, you have to do this to atone for it). But why does the law exist in the first place?

From the beginning, God's intent has always been that humanity adopt His character, His integrity, and most importantly His love, so we can live in harmony with Him. And in the beginning, that dynamic worked for a while. But once mankind got it in his head to go his own way instead of God's way, the intimacy between man and God was broken.

In the generations to come, some chose to be close to God, but most didn't. The law was given as a way for people to understand the holiness and purity of God, and as a picture of the life He intended for them. But knowing that some would still stray, He added ways for them to atone for their contrarian acts. The law was basically the bridge that re-connected mankind back to God after being separated from Him by sin.

But by the time Jesus entered the picture, the "lawyers" had bent and twisted the law to the point that they had convinced themselves they were living in righteous harmony with God by going through the motions of the law while ignoring the spirit and intent of the law. In reality, they couldn't have been more wrong.

Jesus started ministering to the masses all over the place, teaching them the spirit of the law -- re-drawing the picture of God's heart and character so they can really be connected back to Him. The Pharisees saw this as blasphemous first (just because He was teaching something different than what they taught), and later threatening as He gradually began to expose them for the frauds they were.

So the pharisees decide they're going to shut Jesus down by claiming He's trying to convince Jews to ignore the law. Matthew 5:17 was His response to that accusation. But what did He mean by "fulfilling the law"?

His identity as the Christ -- the Son of God -- coupled with His perfect life fulfilled all the commandments. His identity coupled with His crucifixion fulfilled all the consequences for laws broken.

Here's a modern day example. Let's say for your sixteenth birthday, a rich uncle gives the state police a million dollars, surrenders his drivers' license, and spends 20 years in prison on your behalf to cover any and all traffic laws you might break for the rest of your life. You could still get pulled over by highway patrol for speeding, running a red light, whatever, because the law is still intact. But the fines and other penalties would already be paid in full. So you get off with what amounts to a warning because your uncle already took the heat for your indiscretion.

That's not a perfect illustration, but does it make sense?

 

So what it's saying is if you marry a woman who has divorced her husband, you aren't causing her to commit adultery?

 

It's saying that if a man marries a woman who got divorced from her husband for a reason other than adultery, then both the man and the woman are committing adultery.

 

The original Greek word translated here as "meek" is praus, which literally means "humble, gentle, or mild".

Here, righteousness is defined as "the condition acceptable to God". So Jesus is referring to people who have a strong desire to be everything God wants them to be.

Strong's Greek to English dictionary defines this phrase as:

1. free from corrupt desire, from sin and guilt
2. free from every admixture of what is false, sincere genuine
3. blameless, innocent
4. unstained with the guilt of anything

So we can deduce that the reason so many people don't see/hear/experience the presence of God is because of the reality of the choices we've all made contrary to God's will.

 

If this is a literal translation from Greek to English (and my research indicates that it is), what does this statement by Jesus mean for those who advocate war?

 

Normally I don't like it when people say, "that's where faith comes in," when trying to explain something about the Bible, but this is one of the instances where it's true. This is a promise that nobody can know for certain how true it is until they go through that persecution and stand in the presence of Christ. With only that promise to cling to, sometimes I wonder how much I would really endure if it came to it. Rejection and ridicule? Certainly. Imprisonment? I would like to think so. Torture? I honestly don't know. Hopefully I'll never have to find out.

 

So Jesus looks down at the crowds following Him and tells them, "You are the salt of the earth." Great! But what the heck does that mean? We cause high blood pressure?

In the first century Middle East, salt was a very valuable commodity. It was a preservative, it was (of course) a seasoning, and it was also an aid to those crossing the deserts for water retention. But what does that have to do with Christians?

I think Jesus is saying to them (and us), "You are valuable in many ways. People need you, because they need me. But if you lose what makes you valuable (your connection with Me), how can you still be useful to others?

 

This is a really tricky concept, I think.

For a long time, I held to a strictly pacificist viewpoint. NO reason was sufficient (in my opinion at that time) to act violently. I used this passage & others, both biblical & non-biblical, to support that view.

I'm honestly not clear on the biblical teachings on the topic.

However, my view now is not the same strictly pacifist view, & it's much less clear to me where the line needs to be drawn. But I have come to believe that in some cases, not to resist & repel evil amounts to condoning it. There are times when it's not only justified but also morally required to defend oneself, one's family, one's community--with violence if need be. To sit back & wait for God to do it strikes me as irresponsible.

I still think that violence should be a last & regretted resort. And I think it's vital to be absolutely certain your cause is just.

Ah, but here it gets VERY sticky. It's a big, complicated world out there, & we as individuals aren't privy to a lot of information. I'm convinced our government actually lies to us about many things. How can we know if a national cause is just or not? Should I classify myself as a "conscientious objector" just on principle, because I can't know enough about the situation to make an informed decision?

I don't know.

But beyond the need for decisions on when & if violence is justified, I think there's more to the meaning of "peacemaker." I think that includes those who sincerely try to cool tempers, to soothe wounded feelings, to negotiate, to arbitrate, to work for fair solutions to problems--on any scale.

Do you think this might also refer to a lessening of one's passion in his/her faith? Perhaps not losing the connection entirely, but losing his/her enthusiasm?

 

Certainly the application works a lot easier and paints a nicer picture on the individual level, and maybe He is referring mainly to that dynamic. But I still think it holds true for the individual who finds himself (or herself) in positions of leadership and/or government.

 

Absolutely. A Christian whose faith has gone dormant in all but knowledge is little different than one who doesn't know Christ at all. I think that's what He's talking about when He refers to salt "losing its saltiness'.