skip to main |
skip to sidebar
“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” Matthew 5:38-39.
This passage is a general truism and perhaps meant to not only prevent aggression from escalating but also to illustrate a Christ-like behavior to the world. Certainly Jesus Christ provided the example for this when he let the Roman soldiers slapped him around.
But, in my opinion, its not a premise to be obeyed in an absolute sense.
For instance, If your child cursed you and slapped you should you turn the other cheek and invite him/her to keep slapping you? No, you would recall the passage, “spare the rod and spoil the child” and correct that behavior.
If you saw someone attacking your wife would you sit on the side line and remind her to “turn the other cheek?” Or would you intervene and give the scoundrel a good thrashing?
I’m afraid that I would correct the child and protect my wife and I think Jesus Christ would pat me on the back and say “good job Rob”
So when we read a passage like Matthew 5:38-39 (and others) we must consider why it was written and apply it in that circumstance.
Sometimes “turning the cheek” can advance the cause of Jesus Christ and other times “turning the cheek” can bring ridicule to the cause of Christ. Let's be careful how we interpret scripture so we can always advance the cause of Jesus Christ.
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation” Mark 16:15
Just before Jesus’ resurrection into Heaven he gave the Apostles the so called “Great Commission”. He commissioned them to go to the whole world and preach the Gospel. Of course he equipped them to do so by giving them the Gospel message to be preached, the Holy Spirit and the ability to speak that message in foreign languages.
Naturally some questions come up like “how could they accomplish this in their natural life spans?” And how were they to travel to lands and peoples who had not even been discovered yet like Eskimos and Peruvians and Japanese and Amazon Jungles?
Notice this passage…
“…if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister” Colossians 1:23.
Colossians was thought to have been written by Paul in about 62 AD and according to Paul, the Apostles had already “preached the Gospel to the whole creation”
Which seems to be impossible that in thirty years or so and without recorded miraculous means the Gospel message had gone to the whole world including the,,, Eskimos, Peruvians, Japanese and Amazonians.
Now maybe an Apostle paddled up the Amazon river and we just have no record of it (biblical or historical) or maybe words like “all” and “whole” shouldn’t be interpreted in a strict literal sense.
Perhaps “all” doesn’t mean all and “whole of creation” does not mean the entirety of creation. Perhaps it means the whole known world or perhaps the entirety of the ruling Roman world.
So as Bible students when we run across words like “all” or “whole” we should at least consider that those words might not be literal and in so doing not paint our selves in a position that does not seem to be probable.
There are 5 named women in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Two of them were gentiles… Rahab and Ruth. And two of them were women of Levirate marriage… Tamar and Ruth.
One of the gentile women, Rahab, had a son who married the other gentile woman… Boaz. Boaz married Ruth and Ruth became the daughter-in-law of Rahab.
So the intersecting point between being a gentile and a levirate wife in the lineage of Jesus Christ was Ruth.
Boaz’ mother was a gentile and Boaz’ wife was a gentile.
Consider the similarities and differences between Tamar and Ruth.
- Tamar’s father-in-law, Judah, had two sons killed by God because they were evil.
- Ruth’s father-in-law, Elimilech, also had two sons who died. The text doesn’t state that God killed them but that idea has to be considered because of the obvious parallel with Judah’s sons.
- Judah considered Tamar to be cursed and the cause of his son’s deaths.
- Judah started with three sons, lost two of them then gained two more. He finished with three sons.
- Tamar’s un-named mother-in-law died but Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi lived and reared Obed. Naomi was named because of her obvious righteousness.
- Tamar’s father-in-law, Judah, lived but Ruth’s father-in-law, Elimiech, died.
- Tamar seduced her father-in-law to have sex with her. There is no record that they ever married. Tamar’s twin sons were sired unrighteously but in spite of that her son Perez and his household became famous.
- Ruth carefully and righteously followed Naomi’s instructions to “court” Boaz and the text says they were married and had a son conceived out of righteousness named Obed.
- The people of Bethlehem blessed Ruth and recognized the parallels between her and Tamar.
- The people told Naomi that she was blessed to have Ruth and that Ruth had been better to her than seven sons. Poor Tamar never received such acclaim.
- Tamar and Ruth were both famous but one was better than the other.
In Deuteronomy 7, God made a “Covenant of Love” with his chosen people of Israel. He promised them that if they obeyed his laws that he would bless their families, their livestock, their crops and would protect them from disease. Great promises but great promises come a great cost.
God’s laws, given through the hand of Moses, regulated almost every aspect of their lives… what they could eat, who they could marry, what was clean and could be touched and what was unclean and could not be touched. Additionally, God required days and events that were to be commemorated on a weekly and yearly basis. They also were required to give back to God 10% of everything they owned.
And yes… this people who had been servants in the Land of Egypt were to become soldiers and killers. Killers of men, women and children to cleanse the promised land.
Of course the children of Israel could not or would not keep all those laws so they were cursed with famine and infertility and death and slavery at the hands of surrounding nations.
In Matthew 6 Jesus made another type of covenant people who chose faith. If his people would put God first in their lives and love him with all their hearts he would make sure they had all the necessities of life… food, shelter and clothing.
One system was a system with a focus on the strict obedience of laws and the love of laws.
The other system’s focus was on the loving of God and letting the obedience of laws take care of themselves
If you were offered either of those deals today which would you choose?
When God let Solomon choose anything he wanted… you know what happened… Solomon chose wisdom and in addition to wisdom God granted him great wealth.
Choose God and put him first and maybe like Solomon God will bless you with not just the necessities of life but also some of the niceties as well. It is a better and achievable system.
Someone on Facebook used the Parable of the Good Samaritan to justify all the illegal immigrants coming over the border and the necessity of our government to care for them. I responded with this...
"The primary point of the parable was to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Of course we are instructed to do good to all but even Jesus said we would always have the poor and it certainly was not his mission to make everyone materially rich. If the good Samaritan acted like the USA he would be inviting all the poor over to his home and would soon be overwhelmed. Similarly the USA cannot be responsible for all the poor of the world."
“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel” Deuteronomy 25:5-6
The preceding verses describe something called Levirate Marriage. “Levir” meaning the husbands brother.
Levirate marriage was not an exclusive practice for Jews. In fact, it was commonly practiced historically among many peoples.
You might conclude from the text that this only applies to a deceased husband who had brothers.
However, the Bible gives examples of others it applies to. For example, Tamar was married to Judah’s first born Er. But God killed Er because he was wicked. Judah then instructs his second son, Onan, to impregnate his brothers widow. He too was evil and God killed him.
Ultimately, Judah himself impregnated Tamar and gave him twins… Perez and Zerah. Who became his sons and grandsons.
Ruth (widow of Mahlon) married a near-relative of her father-in-law Elimilech. A man named Boaz. Boaz might have been a cousin or an uncle or nephew of Elimilech, but not a brother to the deceased Mahlon.
In fact, if God indeed wanted an heir sired by Boaz, then Elimilech, Mahlon and Chilion had to die. If anyone of them survived they would have been obligated to take Ruth as a wife.
And Boaz and the house of Perez would have been excluded from the lineage of David and Jesus Christ.
Ever since Elimilech and Naomi had left Judah because of a famine things had not gone well with Naomi. Yes they had plenty to eat but then Elimilech dies and Naomi becomes a widow.
But then her two boys Mahlon and Chilion married, and sure Naomi would rather that they had married from their own people (and not moabite girls) but at least now she would at least have the prospect of grandchildren.
Ten years go by and no grandchildren and then both Mahlon and Chilion die and she buries them also. Moab had not been a pleasant place for Naomi. She had buried the three dearest people on earth to her. What to do with her daughter-in-laws?
So Naomi hears there is food in Judah and predictably decides to go back, and then something unusual happens… even though Ruth and Orpah want to go back with her to Judah, Naomi tells them not to and argues with them why they shouldn’t go with her.
Naomi was testing Ruth and Orpah.
What older widow woman wants to take a 75 mile trek by herself where she has to depend on the hospitality of strangers and perhaps even have to sleep on the road? There were thieves and wild animals along that road. I don’t know of anyone.
Orpah of course takes Naomi’s logical advice and returns to Moab and the house of her mother.
And then Naomi directs her attention to Ruth and said this… “Behold your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods…
Ruth with great faith and an unknown future said this… “your people will be my people and your God, my God” Ruth was not about to go back to her previous Moabite life and Moabite gods, even at Naomi’s urging. Naomi had found her true daughter.
Naomi knew she had ancestral land in Judah and she knew she had near relatives that could marry both her daughter-in-laws but she wanted it to be their choice and their decision and not a decision based on pity for her.
Orpah wasn’t a true proselyte, she hadn’t bought into judaism and quickly turned her back on Jehovah God and went back to the “gods” of Moab.
Ruth, of course, hammered the test because she like Naomi lived by faith in God. Poor choice Orpah, you have been lost to history but your sister-in-law Ruth and her example of faith lives on and on.
Lesson for us… faith trumps human logic. Choose faith. Don't be like Orpah... be like Ruth.
