by Ken Rank
Over the last decade I have become increasingly aware of influences upon Scripture that are external of Scripture. I have begun to realize that the culture and language of the time period play a key role in the context of what we read. For example, many times in his letters, the Apostle Paul writes about the contrast between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. “The Spirit” he says, “gives life.” While the letter when alone, apparently in contrast, “kills.” These are incredible statements and aspects of the faith that have been argued about and divided over since the face of Christianity ceased being predominantly Hebraic. Yet, are these two entities in conflict, or do they work together to reveal the intent of God? Ironically, in that day and within that culture, there was a very clear understanding regarding these two perspectives.
Paul attended Beit Hillel (Beit = House or School) and was taught by Hillel’s grandson, Gamaliel. Hillel himself began the school which carried his name and the school was known for teaching, “The spirit of the law.” In contrast, another Pharisaical school existed in that day, it was known as Beit Shamai. That school’s moniker was, “The letter of the law.” So you had two dominant schools of thought at the time the NT was written and the main dividing line between their teachings was the letter of the law verses the spirit of the law. I would like to briefly mention that most of the rebukes and disagreements with the Pharisees that we see throughout the NT are not with both schools, they are centered mainly on one of them.
Not long ago on Facebook I posted a question the heart of which was centered on the differentiation between the letter and the spirit of a command. I thoroughly enjoyed the responses, and many people made some great points. For context, I would like to share that question with you now.
A father finds his son, swinging a baseball bat in the house. The father commands his son not to swing the baseball bat in the house. One day, the son is trapped upstairs as the house is on fire. His only means of escape is to break the window open with the baseball bat. Once he has broken the window, he climbs out to safety.
The question for the above story was, “Did the son obey his father?” Many people chimed in with an answer like, “No, but the circumstances made the offense forgivable.” Others decided that the father’s “intent” was tied to playing, not the preservation of life. I agree with the latter, but I see a clearer message here, one that differentiates between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. The letter is the essential foundation of a particular commandment, but it if taken alone, is more ridged and less forgiving. Whereas, the spirit reveals the intent the letter always carried, but which “alone” was unable to articulate. Yeshua came to reveal the intent of the law, the spirit behind the letter, that is exactly what Matthew 5:17 is saying. That verse reads like this:
“Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Modern KJV)
The word for fulfill is pleroo, which means to fill or fulfill, but there is another definition provided by Thayer as well as Liddel-Scott which truly stands in harmony with Messiah’s work.
Pleroo - To fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.
It wasn’t that he was coming to bring an end to the commandments of God, He was coming to show us how to obey them, how to properly understand them and His will for us as pertaining to them! We see him give us instruction regarding the depth of the commandments, the spirit behind the letter. And there might be no better example, then the topic of adultery.
The “letter” of the commandment stated simply, “You will not commit adultery.” But Yeshua revealed the intent by sharing, “Everyone looking at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This is a harder saying, is it not? If one doesn’t go through with the physical act but in his heart performs the action, it is as if he did the act in the flesh and it is still considered sin. In fact, it is worse because his heart ceased aiming at the righteousness of God, and aimed instead at something which was designed only to please the flesh.
So, let’s go back to the question of swinging the bat in the house. The boy was playing; his father sees this and doesn’t want anything broken, so he gives an order that the child is not to swing the bat in the home. By the letter any swinging of the bat at all would be a breaking of the father’s order. But the spirit of the law reveals the intent, which then includes the preservation of life, thus using the bat in the home to save a life was within the intent of the law. Somebody who responded to my question said simply “Sounds like a ‘donkey in the ditch’ scenario right there.” She was correct, that is exactly what this was. The law of God was not intended to be a burden. He takes His commandments seriously and we are expected to follow them, but at the same time, there are on occasion special circumstances that require action and helping a farmer pull his donkey from a ditch on the Sabbath, performing a healing act on another human being, or swinging a bat in the home to save a life after being told not to swing the bat in the home, are examples of special circumstances.Special circumstances do not break the law, they are considered within the law. When God said, “Do not commit adultery,” it was ALWAYS about a heart condition, not a physical act. Yes we were not to take part in the physical act, but we also were not to train our hearts on anything but Him and His righteousness. So to look upon another in lust reveals a heart condition in need of serious attention. The letter of the law does not consider the heart; the spirit of the law is and always has been ALL about the heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment