[Faith-talk] Baffling Bible Questions Answered for Monday, October 3, 2016

[Paul Smith]

Hello and greetings to all astute Bible students out there.  It's the 
first Monday in October, and for once the weather is cooperating 
temperaturewise here in the Baltimore-Washington metro area, and I hope 
it's the same way in your part of the country and other nations as well.

We continue looking at the Gospel of Matthew, so let's dive in with the 
verses and questions appended to them.



Matthew 5:17

Question:  How did Jesus fulfill the law and the prophets?

Answer:  Typical interpretations suggest Jesus intended to claim He 
would fulfill the predictions of the prophets concerning the future, or 
that He was the one the prophets spoke of.  However, Jesus here 
expresses another idea entirely.  It was the goal of every rabbi in 
Judaism to "fulfill" the law in the sense of explaining its true 
meaning.  Jesus simply said that His teaching, rather than abolishing 
the Old Testament law and prophets, in fact, explained the real meaning 
of the earlier revelation.

Note that, in Matthew 5, He goes on to do exactly this.  Whereas 
earlier interpreters of the law focused on acts (do not murder, do not 
commit adultery, etc.), Jesus shows that the law's commands actually 
point to man's inner attitudes.  The righteousness that the law points 
to required that man be rid of the anger that leads to murder and the 
lust that leads to adultery.  In saying that His hearers would never 
even be able to glimpse God's true kingdom (unless your righteousness 
surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law," Jesus makes 
it clear that a relationship with God requires an inner transformation 
that will make an individual truly good.



Matthew 5:29

Question:  How can plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand prevent 
sinning? Did Jesus really mean a person should do this?

Answer:  Most people take these words as hyperbole intended to 
emphasize the fact that sin is so serious it must be dealt with in a 
radical way.  The specification of "right eye" (5:29) and "right hand" 
(5:30) are references to one's best eye and hand and are added pointers 
to Jesus' intent.  Whatever may feed the imagination and lead to sin 
must be expunged.  Rather, the Bible's prescription for godliness calls 
on us to think about things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, 
and admirable--the excellent and praiseworthy and not the depraved and 
degenerate (Phil. 4::8).



Matthew 5:38-47

Question:  Does Jesus' rejection of the Old Testament teaching of an 
eye for an eye show that this was a primitive teaching unworthy of 
being sacred to God?

Answer:  The Old Testament principle was intended to limit the 
punishment that could be imposed for a hostile or accidental act.  Far 
from being primitive, it was morally advanced for the time.  Jesus did 
exactly what He had done in the other teachings recorded in Matthew 
5--look behind the law to expose the principle it expressed.  In the 
case of this law, which in essence outlawed vengeance, the underlying 
principle is forgiveness and grace.  Rather than strike back, we are to 
adopt God's approach and love even those who have become our enemies.



Matthew 6:22-23

Question:  What does "if your eyes are bad" mean, and why is this serious?

Answer:  The point of this analogy is that, as a lamp provides 
illumination that enables a person to find his or her way, that the eye 
lets in light that enables a person to make moral choices.  A bad 
("poneros," connotes "evil), evil eye distorts light, and thus one's 
moral choices are made without a clear focus on what is right or wrong. 
Scholars disagree whether this metaphor goes with verses 19-21 or with 
verse 24.  If the former, Jesus reminds us that the selfish person is 
spiritually and morally blind.  If the latter, Jesus says that a person 
who divides his attention between God and material possessions will 
develop moral and spiritual blindness.

And there you have this week's Baffling Bible questions answered 
column.  We have three clergymen reading these lines.  What do you 
think, based on your reading of the text and what is in your library, 
concerning what the compiler of this last part had to say? If you wish 
to reply privately I'd be happy to post your answers to the various 
lists and even individual recipients of these messages.

And that will do it for today.  Until next Monday when, Lord willing 
another in this series of columns will be posted, may the God of 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just keep us safe, individually and 
collectively, in these last days in which we live.  Your Christian 
friend and brother, Paul

P.S.  I meant to write four clergymen, not three.