As it turns out, this isn’t an isolated incident in Scripture. For instance,
"Make for yourselves a new heart" (Ezek 18:31)Who’s doing the action … us or God? Similar things turn up with things like the need for us to repent when Scripture tells us that God grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25) or the command to love God when Scripture tells us, “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). So … can we make sense of these without requiring a contradiction? Yes, I think so … and, in fact, I think it’s important.
"I will give you a new heart" (Ezek 36:26)
"Circumcise your hearts" (Deut 10:16)
"The Lord will circumcise your hearts" (Deut 30:6)
For all of these examples, there are two elements in play: human responsibility and human inability. Consider a silly example. Someone says, “If you want to prevent World War II, you’d have to travel back in time and kill Hitler before he comes to power.” (Okay, so I’m playing an “alternate history” game here.) Notice that it’s an imperative. “You’d have to …” And it’s true. For the statement to be true, does it require that it be possible? No. So when God says, “This is required” (e.g., “Seek the Lord” or “Make yourselves a new heart” or “Circumcise your heart”), it is a statement of truth regardless of our ability to accomplish it. When we see that repentance is commanded or that love is commanded and we realize we don’t have it in us, we might despair, but we don’t need to. That’s because we have these wonderful responses from God about how He supplies what we need – seeking Him, new hearts, repentance, love, etc. Instead of offering the impossibility of our compliance, we get to see God’s ability on our behalf.
Instead of being a contradiction, these kinds of texts become a … benediction … a blessing. Along the lines of Paul’s “My God will supply every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Php 4:19), we see the amazing blessings that God bestows on those who are chosen (Eph 1:3-4), requiring what we can’t supply and then supplying what He requires … and blessing us for it. So when, for instance, Jesus said that in order to see the kingdom of God we must be born again (John 3:3, 7), He wasn’t talking about an impossible task where we make ourselves reborn. He was informing us of a necessary requirement that we can’t meet but He does. We can't make ourselves born again; God does that. And seeming contradictions become glorious praises instead.
__________
Postscript. Now ... that very first example at the beginning ... did Jesus contradict Deuteronomy? No, of course not. See if you can examine the Scriptures to see how He did not. Too many people still think Jesus forbade vows, nullifying marriage vows or oaths in the courtroom, for instance. He didn't. See if you can figure it out yourself.
4 comments:
I think the answer has to be the question, what was Jesus arguing against in Matthew? Was it against any oaths, or was it his first words, "Do not swear falsely"? Don't let oaths be the basis of validity, but just do what you say you'll do. If you do what you say you'll do, then making an oath on heaven or earth is unnecessary. The only reason we make oaths is because we're liars.
He clearly says our primary mode of operation must be "let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no.'" We should be known as people of integrity. I think that He didn't preclude oaths and vows as much as ... as you point out ... false oaths. But when we make vows based on God (as in courtrooms or marriage ceremonies), it's not the same.
I agree that the apparent contradictions in the Bible will generally be cleared up as one interprets Scripture with Scripture. Reconciling the instances of “on the one hand … and on the other hand” help give greater understanding to more complex truths in God’s Word, as I see it.
A perfect example of this is with the biblical doctrines of Reformed Theology that involve a proper understanding of God’s sovereignty and “human responsibility and human inability,” as you mention. Many people know of one aspect of a biblical teaching (say, “we must repent and believe the Gospel”), and they then reject any other seemingly conflicting aspect (such as, “we cannot believe the Gospel without God’s enabling”), when actually both are true. This leaves some with an unbalanced and improper view of conversion and the New Birth and embracing error such as “decisional regeneration” and other forms of man-centered soteriology.
Regarding the specific “contradiction” mentioned in your post:
I am aware that certain conscientious people--for example, the “Plain People” who live near me--refuse to swear oaths, since they believe that one should always speak truthfully and be people of integrity. My first thought reading this post was along those lines, where Jesus says “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No” (Matt. 5:37). In other words, “say what you mean, and mean what you say,” without needing to resort to “boosting” your word with appeals to anything beyond your own character. God’s Word is truth, and our words should be as truthful as humanly possible. (“Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.”) When people make marriage vows or oaths in the courtroom, they are simply asserting publicly what they believe in their hearts to be true and that they intend to speak truthfully, and therefore they can be held to what they say.
Also, I understand that Jesus’ use of “You have heard it said…. But I say to you …” in the larger passage addresses the Pharisees’ legalistic efforts to keep the Law, whereas Jesus was stressing an internal devotion to the spirit of the Law, as well as exposing their need for His righteousness. In this specific instance, flippant oaths of the type described by Jesus wouldn’t be necessary if the Pharisees were always people of integrity, keeping their word without embellishment. In the bigger picture, Jesus offers Himself as fulfillment of the Law that no one can keep.
Post a Comment