You Have Heard That It Was Said... But I Tell You...

Have you ever read something in the Bible that caused you to say to yourself, “You know, I need to quit doing _____ because it’s clearly contrary to what God wants and has commanded/requested of me”? 

Or have you ever had that kind of moral clarity triggered by a sermon or a discussion in a Bible study class? 

Or maybe you saw someone being treated in a manner that struck you as totally inappropriate and totally unloving, and you realized that you too have been guilty of behavior equally bad and equally prohibited by the teachings of scripture. So you made up your mind to change your ways. Have your ever had that experience?

But now let’s flip the script. Have you ever read a passage of scripture and said to yourself, “I don’t understand how that biblical writer—let alone God—would ever declare that particular behavior to be OK, when it strikes me as so totally inappropriate”? 

For example, when you read Moses’ permission/command (see Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, Deuteronomy 24:19-20) to even the score when it comes to personal injury—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, fracture for fracture, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life—when you read that kind of permission/command, have you ever said to yourself: “That’s just far too harsh, too hateful, too vengeful; there’s something wrong with this picture”?

If you’ve had such a reaction, you’re in good company—really good company, actually—because that was Jesus’ reaction too. Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-39: “‘You have heard that it was said, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.’”

Jesus seems to recognize the time-bound nature of what Moses said. Achieving parity when it came to revenge may have been the best that could be hoped for in that semi-barbaric context. But it took the listeners/readers only so far in the right direction. Jesus, on the other hand, extracted the underlying principle and applied that principle much more comprehensively and compassionately. Jesus called for retaliation and revenge to be dropped altogether.

Now for a major question: Suppose you were born about a hundred years before Jesus. So you could read what Moses said about retaliation and revenge, but you wouldn’t have the benefit of the commentary and upgrade that Jesus later provided. You’ve studied the scriptures, you’ve prayed, you’ve meditated, you’ve discussed your concerns with others who are thoughtful and knowledgeable and sincere. 

All of this has led you to believe that what Moses said is flawed. It’s a totally inadequate way to deal with those who’ve wronged you. His approach certainly doesn’t mesh with the picture you have of love and God and forgiveness.

Granted the facts we’re imagining in the preceding two paragraphs, would you be justified in saying that Moses’s prescription is no longer a valid approach—not because it’s totally wrong but because it doesn’t go far enough? 

Before you answer, let’s look at a pertinent passage in Paul’s writings in the New Testament. We find it in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.”

Let me point out that the words “prophecy" (noun) and “prophesy” (verb), when used in the Bible, aren’t limited to predicting the future. No, they more often refer to speaking forth about God and spiritual things. 

So someone who was preaching a sermon would be said to be prophesying. As would someone who was giving a personal testimony. As would someone who was writing down such a message. All would be speaking forth about God and spiritual things. 

Such “prophecies”  might be universal and eternal in their application. Others might apply to specific individuals or groups in a specific context. Which means that the listener/reader must do some interpreting as well as some applying. So let’s see how such advice might play out if we apply it to the commands of Moses that we’ve been discussing.

It might be easy to “treat with contempt” pronouncements such as those of Moses about parity (equal payback) when in comes to retaliation and revenge. We might say the “prophesying” of Moses on that topic is simply barabaric. It seems to have been for unenlightened minds in unenlightened times. But Paul’s advice is to not react too quickly. We need to “test” what has been presented. Is there anything worthwhile in what Moses said on this topic?

If we look at the social-cultural context of Moses’s day, where retaliation and revenge knew no limits, we may begin to see how radical—in the positive direction—Moses’s instructions were. Mere parity in seeking revenge may have seemed soft at that time. It may have even seemed wimpy. But we don’t live in that time. What he outlined may have been a great step forward in that situation. But it may not be appropriate in an altogether different place and time.

Having tested Moses’s  “prophecy,” as advised by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5, we can extract a positive principle and build on it, applying it more comprehensively in a context where the more comprehensive application will be beneficial. Which is exactly what Jesus did. And which, I would argue, is what we should have done had we'd lived a century before Jesus provided his additional commentary. 

So back to 1 Thessalonians 5. To be offhandedly contemptuous and dismissive of inadequate or outdated rules and regulations (“prophecies”) works to our disadvantage. We need to “test” them and hold on to what is good about them, using that as a foundation for something even better. 

But if we find the prophecy to be totally inadequate, incorrect or outright evil, we should discard it. In fact, trying to cling to the specifics of instructions that were never intended to address the needs of every situation—and trying to impose such instructions on others as something of great value, which they may not be—can be  a form of evil in itself.

So how do we go about the process of testing? We’ll talk about that next week.