41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
COMMENTARY: In ancient times government agents were in a position to compel forced service upon a subjugated people. A Roman soldier, for example, could compel a Jewish native to carry his armor or materials for one mile. Jesus now states that if someone compels you to walk a mile, go with him twain. The believer is to be willing to "go the extra mile." Doing double our duty not only proves our loyalty to human authority, but likewise proves the spiritual intention of our heart.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Word For the Day MATTHEW 5:40 (KJV)
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
COMMENTARY: Whether robbed by personal assault or compulsory litigation, the believer is to respond with confidence in what is eternal, rather than that which is temporal. If the believer is sued in order that the accuser may take away thy coat, he is to also let him have his cloak . The coat (Gr. chiton) is the undergarment or tunic. The cloak (Gr. himation) is the more expensive outer garment worn over the tunic. Jesus taught us to have confidence in an almighty God who is completely aware of the injustice done to man and totally capable of revoking ultimate and eternal justice.
COMMENTARY: Whether robbed by personal assault or compulsory litigation, the believer is to respond with confidence in what is eternal, rather than that which is temporal. If the believer is sued in order that the accuser may take away thy coat, he is to also let him have his cloak . The coat (Gr. chiton) is the undergarment or tunic. The cloak (Gr. himation) is the more expensive outer garment worn over the tunic. Jesus taught us to have confidence in an almighty God who is completely aware of the injustice done to man and totally capable of revoking ultimate and eternal justice.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Word For The Day Matthew 5:38-39 (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
COMMENTARY: The principle of retaliation (lex talionis) is common in both Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern law codes (cf. the of Hammurapi). The judicial penalty of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is stated in Exodus 21:24 as a means of ending feuds. However, Jesus is clearly saying this method is not a license for vengeance. The Savior's point is that we should resist not evil. Evil is seen here, not as a state, but rather as the action of the evil ones or the malicious ones. It represents the evil and sinful element in man which provokes him to an evil act. Jesus shows how the believer should respond to personal injury. He is not discussing the government's obligation to maintain law and order. These passages do not mean that a man should not defend his family or his country, but rather that he should not attempt personal vengeance, even through the means of the law, to compensate for a personal injury. Jesus gives five examples (vv. 39-42) of how the believer should react to unfair or unreasonable treatment. In retaliation to physical violence, he is not to turn to him the other [cheek] also. Man's natural impulse is to strike back, but the disciple is not to be a natural man. He is to "overcome evil with good" (Roman 12:21). There is no greater example of this ethical truth than the life and death of Jesus Himself.
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
COMMENTARY: The principle of retaliation (lex talionis) is common in both Hebrew and other ancient Near Eastern law codes (cf. the of Hammurapi). The judicial penalty of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is stated in Exodus 21:24 as a means of ending feuds. However, Jesus is clearly saying this method is not a license for vengeance. The Savior's point is that we should resist not evil. Evil is seen here, not as a state, but rather as the action of the evil ones or the malicious ones. It represents the evil and sinful element in man which provokes him to an evil act. Jesus shows how the believer should respond to personal injury. He is not discussing the government's obligation to maintain law and order. These passages do not mean that a man should not defend his family or his country, but rather that he should not attempt personal vengeance, even through the means of the law, to compensate for a personal injury. Jesus gives five examples (vv. 39-42) of how the believer should react to unfair or unreasonable treatment. In retaliation to physical violence, he is not to turn to him the other [cheek] also. Man's natural impulse is to strike back, but the disciple is not to be a natural man. He is to "overcome evil with good" (Roman 12:21). There is no greater example of this ethical truth than the life and death of Jesus Himself.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Word For the Day MATTHEW 5:33-37 (KJV)
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
COMMENTARY: The basis of Old Testament swearing, or oath-taking, is found in Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; and Deuteronomy 23:21. To forswear means to swear falsely or perjure oneself. Oaths taken in the name of the Lord were looked upon as binding, and perjury of such oaths was strongly condemned by the law. By the time of Christ, the Jews had developed an elaborate system of oath-taking, which often formed the basis of actual lying. In other words, there were stages of truth and thus also of falsehood within the system of taking oaths. All such oath-taking, Jesus announced, was unnecessary if one were in the habit of telling the truth. thus, His command was Swear not at all. This does not have reference to cursing, as such, but to oath-taking. The disciple is to speak the truth in such a way that his "yes" and his "no" means no. Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: When you say "yes," make sure that is what you mean. When you say "no," make sure that also is what mean. Mean what you say; say what you mean. Anything that is more than a simple affirmation of the truth cometh of evil.
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
COMMENTARY: The basis of Old Testament swearing, or oath-taking, is found in Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; and Deuteronomy 23:21. To forswear means to swear falsely or perjure oneself. Oaths taken in the name of the Lord were looked upon as binding, and perjury of such oaths was strongly condemned by the law. By the time of Christ, the Jews had developed an elaborate system of oath-taking, which often formed the basis of actual lying. In other words, there were stages of truth and thus also of falsehood within the system of taking oaths. All such oath-taking, Jesus announced, was unnecessary if one were in the habit of telling the truth. thus, His command was Swear not at all. This does not have reference to cursing, as such, but to oath-taking. The disciple is to speak the truth in such a way that his "yes" and his "no" means no. Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: When you say "yes," make sure that is what you mean. When you say "no," make sure that also is what mean. Mean what you say; say what you mean. Anything that is more than a simple affirmation of the truth cometh of evil.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Word For the Day MATTHEW 5:31-32 (KJV)
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall pit away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
COMMENTARY: It hat been said is again a reference to the Old Testament commandment of the Mosaic regulation (cf. Deut. 24:1). The normal custom of the ancient Near East was for a man to verbally divorce his wife. In contrast, the ancient law of Israel insisted on a writing of divorcement or a certificate of divorce. This written statement gave legal protection to both the wife and the husband. Jesus explains elsewhere (cf. Matt. 19:8) that Moses' concession was not intended to be taken as license. The only exception given by Christ is for the cause of fornication (Gr. porneia), meaning sexual unfaithfulness. These statements make it clear that adultery or fornication is a legitimate ground for divorce. However, the legitimacy of the divorce does not necessarily establish the legitimacy of remarriage. Scripture never commands that one must divorce an unfaithful wife or husband. On the contrary, there are many examples of extending forgiveness to the adulterous offender (cf. Gen. 38:26; Hos. 3:1; John 8:1-11). The responsibility of divorce is clearly laid upon the one seeking the divorce. Whosoever shall put away his wife without biblical basis causeth her to commit adultery. Thus, the divorce brings about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee.
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall pit away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
COMMENTARY: It hat been said is again a reference to the Old Testament commandment of the Mosaic regulation (cf. Deut. 24:1). The normal custom of the ancient Near East was for a man to verbally divorce his wife. In contrast, the ancient law of Israel insisted on a writing of divorcement or a certificate of divorce. This written statement gave legal protection to both the wife and the husband. Jesus explains elsewhere (cf. Matt. 19:8) that Moses' concession was not intended to be taken as license. The only exception given by Christ is for the cause of fornication (Gr. porneia), meaning sexual unfaithfulness. These statements make it clear that adultery or fornication is a legitimate ground for divorce. However, the legitimacy of the divorce does not necessarily establish the legitimacy of remarriage. Scripture never commands that one must divorce an unfaithful wife or husband. On the contrary, there are many examples of extending forgiveness to the adulterous offender (cf. Gen. 38:26; Hos. 3:1; John 8:1-11). The responsibility of divorce is clearly laid upon the one seeking the divorce. Whosoever shall put away his wife without biblical basis causeth her to commit adultery. Thus, the divorce brings about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Word For the Day MATTHEW 5:29-30 (KJV)
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body shold be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thou that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
COMMENTARY: The statement of cutting off one's hand or plucking out one's eye definitely is not to be taken literally. What Jesus implies is that if thy right eye offend thee, then the logical thing to do would be to pluck it out. His point is not that one should literally pluck out his eye, but that one should recognize that the source of lust comes from within the mind and heart of man, not from the physical organ itself. The right eye is not the source of sin; the heart of man is that source. The seriousness of the sin of lusting is thus illustrated by this graphic comparison. Ultimately, it would be better for a person to be physically maimed than to go to hell forever. However, doing physical damage to oneself does not in any way guarantee entrance into heaven. Jesus is simply teaching that man must bring the passions of his heart under the control of the Spirit of God.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thou that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
COMMENTARY: The statement of cutting off one's hand or plucking out one's eye definitely is not to be taken literally. What Jesus implies is that if thy right eye offend thee, then the logical thing to do would be to pluck it out. His point is not that one should literally pluck out his eye, but that one should recognize that the source of lust comes from within the mind and heart of man, not from the physical organ itself. The right eye is not the source of sin; the heart of man is that source. The seriousness of the sin of lusting is thus illustrated by this graphic comparison. Ultimately, it would be better for a person to be physically maimed than to go to hell forever. However, doing physical damage to oneself does not in any way guarantee entrance into heaven. Jesus is simply teaching that man must bring the passions of his heart under the control of the Spirit of God.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
