The Law of Dominion versus the Law of Love

Someone in the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me." But He said to him, "Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?" Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." (Luke 12:13-15 NASB)

A man in the crowd spoke out and asked Jesus to intervene in a family dispute. He wanted his brother to divide the inheritance with him. The law required that the eldest son receive a double portion. Some commentators (including Matthew Henry) believe that this was a younger son who wanted a larger portion. He would have Jesus take from the older brother's legally obtained portion and give it to him. (The discussion about greed and coveting that follows suggests that this was not an inheritance that had been taken from him, but that he wanted to take it from his brother.)

When I read Matthew Henry's commentary on this passage, I was surprised. "In matters of this nature, Christ will not assume either a legislative power to alter the settled rule of inheritances, or a judicial power to determine controversies concerning them." 

This is so well written that I've copied a section of his commentary below. I know that, in this day of outrage, it may not be well-received. Remember as you read it that this was written in the late 1600's. This was a time of considerable unrest and severe religious persecution in England. Many people fled to the Americas to escape that persecution. 

"Now this shows us what is the nature and constitution of Christ's kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom, and not of this world. 1. It does not interfere with civil powers, nor take the authority of princes out of their hands. Christianity leaves the matter as it found it, as to civil power. 2. It does not intermeddle with civil rights; it obliges all to do justly, according to the settled rules of equity, but dominion is not founded in grace. 3. It does not encourage our expectations of worldly advantages by our religion. If this man will be a disciple of Christ, and expects that in consideration of this Christ should give him his brother's estate, he is mistaken; the rewards of Christ's disciples are of another nature. 4. It does not encourage our contests with our brethren, and our being rigorous and high in our demands, but rather, for peace' sake, to recede from our right. 5. It does not allow ministers to entangle themselves in the affairs of this life (2 Tim. 2:4), to leave the word of God to serve tables. There are those whose business it is, let it be left to them, Tractent fabrilia fabri- Each workman to his proper craft."1

I am not presuming to say how we should respond or not respond to the changes in freedom in our country. This is not a commentary for or against any current law or judicial ruling. I am quoting what a well-respected theologian, whose work has stood the test of time, has written. 

With that said, there is one phrase that I love ."Dominion is not founded in grace." It's a true statement. No matter how great the lack of grace in dominion, it does not change the rule of love. As believers, we must remember that Jesus gave us a Great Commandment, and it is that we must follow.

And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' (Matthew 22:37-39 NASB)

In questions of how we treat our brother or of how we treat our neighbor (even one with whom we disagree), the law of love must rule our words and our actions. This does not mean that we cannot take advantage of our legally-guaranteed rights, but it does mean that the exercise of those rights begin with the law of love.

~~~~~~~

Our Father, forgive me for my lack of love. Create in me a clean heart that loves You with every fiber of my being. Help me to love my neighbor as I love myself, even when we disagree. In Jesus' name, Amen.

1. 1. "Text Commentaries: Matthew Henry (Blue Letter Bible: Luke)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 12 Jul, 2015. http://www.blueletterbible.orghttps://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Luk/Luk_012.cfm

How to inherit eternal life, part 16: How the Samaritans came to be

But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' (Luke 10:33-35 NASB)

Today, we are looking at the difficulty between the Jews and the Samaritans. It turns out that the problems between the Jews and the Samaritans were not at all what I had thought. 

The problem began during Solomon's reign. He had taken numerous foreign wives and they "turned his heart away" from the Lord. (1 Kings 11:1-13) When he began to build altars on the high places and worship idols, God appeared to Solomon again and basically told him, "I've already told you not to worship any God except Me, and I cannot let this go." God told Solomon that He would "tear the kingdom" from him. Because of his father, King David, who loved God with his whole heart, the discipline was softened. The kingdom would be split, but not until after his death. Because of David's love for God, two tribes would be left with Solomon's descendants. (The second tribe was insignificant and actually David's descendants would basically have only Judah.)

God moved quickly. The prophet Ahijah found Jeroboam (an industrious and upcoming soldier) on the road. Ahijah had a new cloak which he tore into twelve pieces. He told Jeroboam to take ten pieces for himself. God, he said, was giving ten tribes to Jeroboam and leaving the rest (Judah) with Solomon's descendants. Jeroboam would have to wait until after Solomon died, but if he did, and if he listened to God's commands and obeyed them, He would be with Jeroboam, give Israel to him, and establish an enduring house (lineage) as He had done for David. 

Wait. Listen. Obey.

All Jeroboam had to do was wait, listen, and obey, but Jeroboam was much like us. God had promised the throne to him, and he wanted it. Who wants to wait? We will see more of his waiting problem in the next post, but I suspect that Jeroboam began to talk (and likely brag) about what the prophet had said, because Solomon soon heard about it. King Solomon added more sin to what he had already piled up when he became enraged and tried to have Jeroboam killed. (It would have been a perfect opportunity to repent and seek God's face, but, instead, he chose more rebellion.) Jeroboam fled to Egypt and waited. 

One of the greatest sermons of the 20th century was preached by Dr. R.G. Lee and was entitled "Pay Day Someday". (My mother heard him preach this sermon, and never forgot it. She was still speaking of it, more than fifty years later, in the months before her death.) Dr. Lee was right. There will always be a pay day someday. No matter how rich or powerful we are, we will have to answer for our choices, our decisions, our sin. Even Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, had to answer for his idolatry and his disobedience, and the price was tremendous. His disobedience not only devastated the lives of his descendants, but also ripped a nation into shreds. 

It is easy to think that Solomon had "bigger" sins than we have, or "more" sins, or was disciplined because he was "more visible", but that is not born out by Scripture. Solomon refused to obey and God disciplined him. He was not the only one who was worshiping at the high places. He was not the only one who worshipped idols. He was not the only one disciplined. He is simply the one we read about. God always responds to sin. He always responds to rebellion. It is as simple as that, and should serve as a strong warning to us. 

We would do well to heed the instructions that the prophet gave to Jeroboam if we want to avoid the discipline of the Lord. Wait. Listen. Obey. What joy, what peace, what blessings we would find if we would only wait, listen, and obey. Dear ones, resolve to do that very thing. Be still and know that He is God, then live as if you believe it. 

*******
The "Pay Day Someday" sermon is worth reading. Click here to read it. 

How to inherit eternal life, part 14: Walking past the need

Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. (Luke 10:30-32 NASB) 

In the previous post, we looked at the city of Jericho. (click on the link to read that post in a new window) 

The word translated here as "going down" is katabainō and means "to descend". As we saw in the previous post, there is a significant difference in altitude between Jerusalem and Jericho, so that a traveler literally "descends" when he travels from Jerusalem to Jericho. There have been some who suggested that the priest did not want to be defiled because of his duties as the priest, but he was clearly traveling katabainō, descending, which makes it obvious that he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho and away from the temple, just as the wounded man had been doing. That fact suggests that the priest had completed his priestly duties, performed in Jerusalem, and was heading to Jericho, possibly for the night. Matthew Henry references a historian (Lightfoot) who says that many of the priests lived in Jericho. If so, perhaps he was going home for the night.

Let's think for a moment about the position of priest. It was a highly visible leadership position. People would have looked to him, expected obedience to God from Him, and taken guidance from the priest's behavior. He was to set the example for righteousness because it was the job of priests to minister to the Lord in the temple on a continuing basis. Because of that ongoing ministry before God, one might expect them to understand something of the heart of God, the compassion of God, but apparently that was not the case in this particular priest. 

Why didn't the priest stop? Either he saw the wounded man or he did not. Jesus made it very clear that he saw the injured victim. Since he knew the man had a need that was obviously going to be tremendous, why didn't he stop? There are many potential excuses. Perhaps he didn't know what to do and thought he might cause more harm than good by trying to help. Perhaps he was concerned about the ritual cleansing that would be required after caring for this man and wanted to avoid that effort. Maybe he was headed home, running late, and didn't want to be delayed. God, however, is much more concerned with compassion than ritual cleansing or delayed dinners. 

There are many potential excuses, but perhaps Martin Luther King's interpretation is the best one yet. He said that the priest, as well as the Levite, asked the wrong question. They asked, "What will happen to me if I stop?" when they should have asked, "What will happen to him if I do not stop?" MLK suggested that their fear of what would happen stopped them from helping. That may be true, and, frankly, I hope it is. Equally as likely, though, is the possibility that the reason the priest failed to stop to help the wounded man was pure selfishness. He was concerned about himself and not the man lying, half-dead, on the side of the road. He was likely concerned about the things that would be delayed by stopping, the additional trouble he would encounter by stopping, and the risk to himself by stopping. He was only concerned about himself.

It is this selfishness that prevented the priest from loving his neighbor and caring for him, and that same kind of selfishness prevents us from loving our neighbor, as well. This passage suggests that, when we see a need, Jesus expects us to meet it, not walk by on the other side. The problem, then, becomes one of meeting one need or the other, either our own selfish desire or the one in greater physical or spiritual need. 

Perhaps the appropriate response today is to look at our own actions with regard to the needs of others. How quick are we to respond with aid to those in need? How consistently do we respond to need? How generously? Would Jesus view the kind and amount of aid we give as He did the priest and the Levite or as He viewed the Samaritan? When people look to us for an example of righteousness, do they see the kind of generous, compassionate lifestyle that they would do well to emulate, or not? 

Let us resolve, then, to give like the Samaritan, who risked himself for the one in need.