Truth Magazine

By Carl A. Allen

I trust you will read the whole article and follow the material till the end. Should you do this, it will be easy to understand the conclusion drawn. When I see the title of this article, “Swear not at all” I am reminded that the Bible teaches there were those who did swear.

God Swore

“Since he could swear by none greater. he sware by himself’ (Heb. 6:13). This had reference to a promise God made to Abraham. From this text we learn God did swear. Immediately, I am confronted with the problem, did God do something he forbade his people to do? It would be as if he is saying, “You are not to swear; but, I am going to do it!”

Jesus Swore

Jesus was told by the high priest, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). The definition of “adjure” is, “to cause to swear, to lay under the obligation of an oath,” but this word is “an intensive form” of the definition I have just given. The high priest called upon him, under the highest oath; called upon him to swear, “whether or not he is the Christ.” Under these circumstances, Jesus answered  under oath. One is compelled to ask, “Did Jesus do what he told others not to do?”

Angels Swore

“And the angel that I saw standing upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his right hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever” (Rev. 10:5-6). After observing that God swore, it is not strange to find an angel doing the same. Since the angels are lower than God, they can swear by someone greater; thus, he swore by “him that liveth for ever and ever.” He confirmed his word with an oath. This made it sure and steadfast, he could swear by none greater than “him that liveth for ever and ever.” Did the an-gel do what God forbade man to do?

Paul Swore

“But I call God for a witness upon my soul, that to spare you I forbear to come unto Corinth” (2 Cor. 1:23). Here is an apostle, in the New Testament dispensation, engaging in an act to “call God for a witness upon my soul,” which is swearing. There is no question about what Paul did; but, did he sin? I think not, and hope to offer proof that neither he, the angel in Revelation 10 sinned, nor Christ sinned.

Matthew 5:33-37

The first part of this text says, “Thou shalt not forswear thyself’ (v. 33). This obviously appeals to Leviticus 9:12, Numbers 30:2, and Deuteronomy 23:21. A casual reading of these passages will show that one is not to perjure himself or, “foreswear,” or give a false testimony under oath. Of course, a false testimony is always wrong; you do not make a false thing true by swearing. The text of this pas-sage states, “but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”

Matthew 5:33-37 is parallel with Matthew 23:16-22. In these two con-texts there is dealt with the idea that oaths are only binding when there are certain things involved, and if those certain things are not involved, then the oath is not binding. This was a religious way to lie! Jesus condemned it. “Woe unto you. ye blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple. It is nothing: but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple he is a debtor. Ye fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hath sanctified the gold?” (Matt. 23:16-17). He also deals with swearing by the altar. Consider the same argument made by the “heaven,” “earth,” “Jerusalem,” or thy “head” in Matthew 5:34-36. In the middle of all of this he says, “Swear not at all.” You can understand what kind of swearing he is talking about  “Foreswearing.”

Truthful Speech

We are taught to “lie not one to another: seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings” (Col. 3:9). James teaches concerning the tongue, “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father: and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren,. these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:9-10). How can one think of swearing for truth and error? Swear by one thing and you must do it, swear by other things and you do not have to keep your word! Amazing! My brethren “these things ought not so to be.” Even old Herod, as mean as he was, respected an oath when he made it (Mark 6:23: “And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom”).

The solution to this problem is, “Let your speech be, Yea. yea: Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than this is of the evil one” (Matt. 5:37). Tell the truth! “And I say unto you. that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt. 12:36-37). Tell the truth!

James 5:12

“But above all things, my brethren. swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: that ye fall not under judgment.” Note the idea of swearing by the heaven or earth; and, consider the in-formation in Matthew 5:33-37; also, that found in Matthew 23:16-22, and immediately one is compelled to note that he is dealing with men who swear but do not perform unto the Lord their oaths. This same passage  James 5:12  clearly states that our speech is to be yea, yea; and nay, nay. One has to consider James 5:12 in the light of what the Bible teaches in other places, the extended text, and in so doing we learn the truth. We are to “perform unto the Lord thine oaths” (Matt. 5:33).

Swearing and Cursing

I have heard men, preaching, who would begin on the subject of “swearing” and end up talking about “cursing,” as if they were the same. A statement in Mark 14:71 is worthy of consideration: “But he began to curse, and to swear. I know not this man of whom ye speak.” In this text a distinction is to be made between “cursing” and “swearing.” Should you make the mistake of saying the two are equal, then you have God swearing, thus cursing; Christ swearing, thus cursing; an angel swearing, thus cursing; and Paul swearing, thus cursing. Did they sin? No, the terms are not equal. Notice that Peter was swearing to that which was a falsehood! “I know not this man!” (Mark 14:71). That, my friends, was a lie.

Court of Law

The passages we have dealt with do not teach concerning this, Matthew 5, 23, James 5. All of these passages have to do with “performing unto the Lord thine oaths” (Matt. 5:33). The closest you would come to oaths in court is found in Matthew 26:63, when the Lord was before the high priest. In this passage he was under oath  “I adjure thee.” Jesus did not forbid the practice: but rather, practiced it.

Today

A common practice was to find ways to be relieved of one’s responsibility: “Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother. That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God: he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition” (Matt. 15:5-6). Then we are told by the religious world, and some of my brethren: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), as if this would keep me from dealing with the man’s sins. The rest of the passage teaches, “then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye” (Matt. 7:5). Jesus tells us clearly in John 7:24, “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” We are not to look for ways out of what we have said; or, from doing our duties to the Lord.

Don’t try to find ways to get out of doing what you said you would do. “Perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” When I obeyed the gospel, I made a confession to the Lord: “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In this confession I made a pledge, a vow, to be faithful to the Lord, all the days of my life (see W.E. Vine, Vol. I: 224). I need to perform unto the Lord my word, and be faithful to him all the days of my life. My speech is to be “yea, yea; nay, nay, what is more than these is of the evil one.” If I am going to swear some-thing that I do not intend to keep, “Swear not at all.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 26-27
February1, 1996

By Dan Petty

“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven” (Matt. 12:31). What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Why is this an unpardonable sin?

Context

The context of this passage (Matt. 12:22-37) is essential to understanding Jesus’ statement. Jesus had demonstrated his divinity by healing the demon-possessed (vv. 22-23). The multitudes marveled at his power, but the Pharisees (scribes who came from Jerusalem to Galilee, Mark 3:22), unable to deny that miracles had been performed, attributed them to the power of Beelzebub, “the ruler of the demons” (v. 24).

Jesus responded that the accusation of the Pharisees that represented Satan as divided against himself was absurd (vv. 25-26). Why would the evil one rob himself of his greatest achievement, his triumph over the souls of men? By so arguing, the Pharisees had also entangled themselves in gross inconsistency, since they claimed that some of their own could cast out demons (v. 27).

Their argument was actually a deliberate attempt to deny the truth. Jesus was able to cast out demons, not by the powers of evil, but by the “Spirit of God” (“finger of God,” Luke 11:20). By God’s power Jesus had entered a “strong man’s” (Satan’s) house and plundered him of his goods; far from being in league with Satan, Jesus had overpowered him (v. 29). The mighty works of Christ indicated the coming of the kingdom of God (v. 28). He had given clear and irrefutable evidence of the truth of his message; in the light of such evidence neutrality is impossible (v. 30). Yet the scribes willfully and deliberately assigned to Satanic origins what the Holy Spirit was actually doing, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

In Mark 3:22-30 Jesus’ saying about blasphemy against the Spirit appears in the same context as in Matthew. The statement is also found in Luke, but the context is different. The Pharisees’ charge that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub is recorded in Luke 11:14-26, but Jesus’ words about blaspheming the Spirit do not appear until 12:10. Here they come immediately between his warning that “he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the an-gels of God” (vv. 8-9), and his assurances to his disciples that the Spirit would be their helper when they stood before earthly powers, that they might know what to speak (vv. 11-12). In reviling the power through which Jesus worked, the scribes were blaspheming the very Spirit who was promised to be their Comforter in difficult times.

What is Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?

The word blasphemy (blasphemia), “impious and reproachful speech injurious to the divine majesty” (Thayer), in this context denotes an attitude of “defiant irreverence.” The scribes who accused Jesus were guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit because they defied the truth. They treated his miracles with something worse than indifference; they blasphemously attributed them to Satan. They were like those condemned by Isaiah the prophet (5:20): “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Philo thus commented that those who blaspheme against the divine and ascribe the origin of evil to God and not man can expect no forgiveness. By accusing Jesus of being in league with Satan when he was really acting through the power of the Holy Spirit, they had blasphemed the Spirit, hardening their hearts against the Spirit’s influence.

Why is This an Unpardonable Sin?

Jesus said that every other sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven. “And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him . . .” (Matt. 12:32). Christ referred to himself as the “Son of Man” to emphasize his humanity. To speak evil words against Jesus as a man working among men, though deplorable, was an evil that could be forgiven. The Son of Man in his earthly ministry was as liable to misunderstanding and ill treatment by others as any new messenger. When the source of evil speaking against Christ is ignorance, misconception, or ill-informed prejudice, then that blasphemy is as pardon-able as any sin. Men could repent of their careless neglect of his work or their mistaken opposition to it, and when they did repent, they were forgiven. There are many examples in the New Testament of people who first opposed Jesus but later turned to accept him. Peter, perhaps through fear, denied Jesus in his hour of trial (Mark 14:71-72), but he found forgiveness, and when he was restored he was able to strengthen others (Luke 22:31-32). Paul marveled at the mercy extended to him even though he had been “a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Tim. 1:12-16, emphasis mine, dwp). The apostle described himself as the “chief of sinners” to show, in fact, the perfect patience of Christ as the Savior of all.

The person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, however, places himself beyond the reach of forgiveness. This is true because the Holy Spirit is the agent in the revelation of divine truth (2 Sam. 23:2; John 15:26; 16:13; Eph. 6:17; 2 Pet. 1:21). It is only through the work of the Spirit that we come to know of God, our sins, the atonement provided through Christ, and our need for repentance and obedience. Blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgivable because its source is a heart of malice, selfish preference of wrong over right and evil over good, and a willful refusal to believe. The Pharisees had revealed that their hearts were evil, and Jesus called them a “brood of vipers” (Matt. 12:34). Such a perverse spirit consciously and deliberately rejects the truth and thus the salvation it brings. “Either in this age, or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32) simply means “never.” In Mark’s account, Jesus called it an “eternal sin” (3:29). As long as a person persists in this state, genuine repentance is impossible. There is no room in this person’s heart for penitence, which is a prerequisite for forgiveness. His sin is unpardonable simply because he is unwilling to travel the road that leads to pardon. The only sin that God is unable to forgive is the unwillingness to accept forgiveness.

Mark’s use of the imperfect tense in 3:30, “because they were saying,” implies a continued rejection of the truth on the part of the scribes: they “kept on saying” that he had an unclean spirit. The continuous refusal to respond to the guidance of the Spirit of God as revealed in his word may eventually lead to a state of moral insensitivity. Grieving (Eph. 4:30), resisting (Acts 7:51), and quenching (1 Thess. 5:19) the Holy Spirit may lead one to become so calloused that he will not even hear the truth.

Conclusion

There is such a thing as opposition to divine influence that is so persistent and deliberate, because of continual preference of darkness to light, that repentance, and there-fore forgiveness become impossible. The Law of Moses made a distinction between sins committed unintentionally, for which atonement could be made, and sins committed in open defiance of God. The person who acts “defiantly … , is blaspheming the Lord … , has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment . . . , shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him” (Num. 15:30-31). The Hebrews writer said it is impossible to renew to repentance those who crucify the Son of God afresh, placing themselves in a state of open repudiation of the only way of salvation (Heb. 6:4-6). For them “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (10:260. They have sinned the sin “unto death” (1 John 5:16).

The gospel is God’s power to salvation. But we must have an honest and good heart to receive it. “He who has ears, let him hear.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 14-15
February1, 1996

By Bill H. Reeves

Is Romans a Difficult Book?

Does 2 Peter 3:16 so indicate? There is milk and there is solid food (Heb. 5:11-6:3), so obviously there are some truths that are basic and fundamental, and others which require maturity of growth on the part of a Christian in order to rightly understand them. Things are hard of interpretation for the one whose hearing has become dulled (v. 11).

A Christian can and must understand the Scriptures (Eph. 3:4, 14-19; 5:17). Good hearts understand (Matt. 13:23), because God gives them understanding (13:11), the reason for this being stated in the next verse. But those with hearts waxed gross, ears dull of hearing, and closed eyes, do not understand (13:14, 15).

Peter’s point is what happens to those who do not study and are not stable and that therefore twist these and other Scriptures.

When the Romans first heard the letter from Paul read to them, it was not difficult for them! You see, they knew the conditions of the times in the brotherhood, and so they knew the purpose and theme of the letter. It was written in their language, so no translation (version) was involved. There was no Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism, Baptist doctrine, “faith only doctrine,” nor “new unity brethren,” to make things difficult. They did not hear this letter read to them, having first been confused with sectarian perversions of Paul’s letter. So, Romans wasn’t difficult for them! It need not be for us either.

Unlearned (in the truth, see 1 Cor. 2) and unstable men have through the centuries tried to make Romans fit their theologies, and now people come to the inspired letter with their minds somewhat conditioned by error, and they therefore find Romans difficult to understand, whereas the Roman brethren easily understood it.

Romans 4:1-8 is only a part of the letter, and must be studied in the light of the context. The key words (since sectarians have made them so by misusing them!) are “faith” and “works.” How does Paul use them? That is the issue! Note what he had just said in what we call, 3:28. There he contrasts “faith” (the gospel of the New Testament) and “works” (of the law of Moses, of the Old Testament). The word “faith” is used comprehensively of all that the believer does in compliance with God’s commands, and the word “works” are those of the Law of Moses, which if kept in perfect obedience, caused the Jew to live.

Paul is not contrasting “faith” with “obedience to the gospel” (1 Pet. 1:22), and he is not using the term “works” in the sense of “obedience to the gospel.” He is contrasting justification by the gospel with justification which the Jew sought by being identified (principally by circumcision and fleshly descent from Abraham) with the Law of Moses (“works of the law”). Keeping this in mind, Romans isn’t difficult!

In the time of the Protestant Reformation, since the re-formers were objecting to and combating the meritorious works which the Catholic clergy over time had imposed upon the people, and having read in Romans and in other passages that salvation is by faith and not by works, they applied such passages to the problem which they were facing. In so doing they misapplied the apostle Paul’s use of the terms “faith” and “works.” They concluded that there is nothing to do to be saved except to believe (faith only). (Of course the pure Calvinist insisted that even faith is a gift and is given only to the unconditionally predestined!) So we can easily see why baptism, something obviously which a person must do, has been so vehemently opposed as being necessary to salvation. They reason: It is a “work” (something to do), and therefore can be no part of man’s being saved! But in all this reasoning they are using the word “works” in a different con-text than the apostle Paul did.

Let Us Look At The Passage Verse By Verse

4:1 Since the Judaizers (Jewish Christians who demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved, Acts 15:1, 2) were making so much of the flesh, Paul re-minds them of the case of Abraham, their national father in the flesh. God justified him when he was of no particular fleshly identity and law, and before he was circumcised.

4:2  Abraham was not justified by perfect law keeping in reference to some particular law, so he wasn’t justified by works (law keeping), and therefore in his justification he had no reason for boasting. No other than the father of the Jewish nation represented a denial of the very claim of the Judaizers.

4:3  Genesis 15:6 cited by Paul as scriptural proof of Abraham’s being justified by faith and not by perfect law keeping, and this was before Abraham was circumcised (chap. 17)! God imputed or reckoned Abraham’s faith unto righteousness. He forgave Abraham because Abraham believed God. Being forgiven, he was then righteous (without sin).

4:4  Keeping in mind Paul’s use of “faith” (in the gospel of Christ) and “works” of the law (as pressed by the Judaizers), 3:28, it is easy to see that in this verse Paul is simply stating the fact that perfection in obedience to law makes the ensuing reward a matter of debt. God would owe such a one salvation. He would not be an object of God’s grace.

4:5  On the other hand, the one who does not work (keep the law perfectly) but who believes the saving gospel of Christ will have his faith reckoned unto righteousness. God will save him by his grace. The Protestant reformers, and sectarians today, take Paul out of his context and apply his words to acts of obedience in doing what God says in order for him to forgive us. No wonder Romans is “difficult” for many people! But the Romans to whom Paul wrote had no such problem in understanding the message.

4:6  Paul illustrates his case with the words of David: Happy is the man to whom God reckons righteousness by forgiving him on the basis of Christ’s death on the cross, and this apart from law-keeping (“works”) as a circumcised Jew.

4:7  Paul shows plainly that he is talking about forgiveness of sins, when he speaks of one’s faith being imputed unto righteousness, by quoting these words of David.

4:8  This happy, or blessed, man is such because God forgave him his sins, conditioned upon the man’s faith in Christ. Since God forgave him, the sins that before were put to the man’s account when he committed them are now not imputed to him any longer. This is the one to whom the Lord does not impute sins: to the one forgiven of his sins!

Think of the numerous times in Acts when in the cases of conversion people asked what to do to be saved, and were told what to do. Faith is something to do (Acts 16:30, 31). Repentance is something to do (2:37, 38). Confession of faith in Christ is something to do (8:37; Rom. 10:9, 10). Baptism is something to do (2:37, 38; 22:16). But of all such “doings” (or “works”) Paul is not speaking in Romans 4:1-8 when he speaks of “works”!

That “faith” is used by Paul in Romans 4:1-8 comprehensively is clearly seen in 6:7, 8, where he speaks of the Romans having obeyed from the heart (obedient faith) in order to be made free from sin and to become servants of righteousness. Of course salvation is conditional; even believing is something to do (John 6:28, 29). Such is not Paul’s point in Romans 4:1-8. His point there is to affirm that any man can be saved by faith in the gospel of Christ, and that no man can be saved by works of law, such as claimed by the Judaizers.

Keep in mind that Paul was directing himself in this passage to the Judaizer, and not to the unbelieving Jews. Keep in mind that he was not talking exclusively about the conversion of alien sinners. (Abraham was not an alien sinner in Gen. 15:6, but a worshiper of God.) God reckons any man’s faith unto righteousness; that is, he forgives him (saint or sinner) conditioned upon the man’s faith in the gospel of Christ.

There is nothing in this passage which is difficult within itself, but the denominationalist has made it “difficult.” If he will use the terms in the passage as Paul used them in the book of Romans, he will no longer find it difficult, but will understand the matter just as the Roman brethren did when the book was first read to them.

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 3-4
February 15, 1996

By Stan Cox

In this article I have been asked to explain, in its context, Jesus’ defense of his disciples in Matthew 12. The Pharisees had accused them of unlawful activity on the Sabbath. This is a difficult passage, and in misusing it, some are led to dangerous conclusions regarding what God allows in our response to his laws. Among these conclusions is the belief that on occasion, necessity outweighs the precepts of God’s law, and al-lows us to engage in unlawful activity without guilt. I trust you will open your Bible and read the entire passage, in its immediate context, in con-junction with this writer’s explanation of the text.

The Meaning of the Text

A correct understanding of the passage shows that Jesus was not, in fact, indicating that on occasion necessity outweighs precept. What he did was defend his disciples from an unjust attack, while at the same time impugning the motives of their hypocritical accusers. This becomes evident after a careful examination of the text and context.

The book of Matthew testifies to the Messiahship of Jesus. From his birth and childhood, to his resurrection, Matthew attests that Jesus is Lord. When Mary and Mary Magdalene sought him at the tomb, we read the words of an angel, recorded for posterity by Matthew, “He is not here; for He is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay” (28:6). It is in this light that we look at Jesus’ defense of his disciples in the twelfth chapter.

First, notice what the disciples did. “At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (v. 1). In doing this, the disciples were not violating the law of God, but were rather engaging in activity which was allowed under the Law (cf. Deut. 23:25). The only way the Pharisees could charge them with unlawful activity was by binding their traditions regarding the Sabbath day upon the disciples. Jesus’ disciples were in conflict not with the law of God regarding the Sabbath, but rather with the Pharisees tortured and convoluted interpretation of God’s law. Shortly after this occasion, Jesus again condemned the Pharisees for this very thing. Because they were keeping the traditions of the elders, and neglecting the actual commandments of God, he branded them hypocrites (cf. 15:7). “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:8-9). This is just another example of the Pharisees straining at gnats while swallowing camels (cf. Matt. 23:24). Jesus pronounced the disciples as “guiltless” (v. 7) in this matter. They were guiltless, not because “necessity outweighed precept,” but rather because they had done nothing wrong.

Second, notice Jesus’ defense. He began by exposing the Pharisees’ impure motives in condemning the disciples (vv. 3-4). They had an example in their history of a violation of the Sabbath, one they were familiar with. The inconsistency is obvious. If they were so concerned about the supposed violation of the disciples, why were they silent about the obvious unlawful action of David (Jesus termed David’s action in that instance as “not lawful,” v. 4), as recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6? The true motivation of the Pharisees is revealed a few verses later in our text, “Then the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him” (12:14).

Next, Jesus annihilated their tortured interpretation of “work” on the Sabbath (vs. 5). He pointed out to them, according to their interpretation of the Sabbath prohibition, even the priests would be guilty. And yet, he pronounced them blameless. They were not blameless because “necessity outweighs precept,” but rather because their actions were in fact lawful. Their actions, as the actions of the disciples, did not violate the God-given limitations of work on the Sabbath day. As such, just as the priests were “blame-less” in performing their service on the Sabbath, the disciples were “guiltless” in plucking heads of grain, and eating on the Sabbath.

Finally, Jesus declared his own authority. “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (v. 6). “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (v. 8). Remember the theme of Matthew’s gospel. Jesus is the Messiah. The Pharisees were attempting to discredit Jesus, and failing that to kill him. In their calculating and disingenuous way they were seeking to destroy the One who stood above even their beloved Temple and Sabbath. If the Jews had the proper motivations and understanding of the law of God, they “would not have condemned the guilt-less” (v. 7).

Therefore, a proper exegesis of the text reveals that the condemnation of the disciples’ actions by the Pharisees came not from any lawful basis, but rather sprang from impure and envious hearts. The Pharisees were wrong, not the disciples. The disciples were within the law in their action of plucking and eating. In contrast, the Pharisees stood condemned for their hypocrisy.

The Danger Identified

A few days prior to accepting this assignment, I received in the mail an unsolicited paper, called The Reformer, edited by Buff Scott, Jr. This was fortuitous, as editor Scott in his editorial stated the common false position taken regarding Matthew 12. The following quote, from said editorial, illustrates the danger of misunderstanding Jesus’ defense.

Buff Scott, Jr. does not believe there are no absolute rules governing right and wrong. But he does believe there are occasions when necessity outweighs precept, as Jesus himself indicated in Matthew 12:1-5. He re-minded the Pharisees who objected to him and his disciples picking heads of grain and eating them on the Jewish Sabbath that when David and his men were hungry, they entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful. Unlawful, yes, as Wayne pointed out (Wayne Jackson, in a previous article published in the Christian Courier, 4/95), but necessity outweighed the precept, so the action was permissible. Jesus even pointed out that the priests were innocent when they desecrated the Sabbath by performing temple service [verse 5]. Unlawful, yes, but necessity outweighed the precept” (The Reformer, Nov./Dec. 1995, emphasis his).

I do not personally know Buff Scott, Jr., so I have no idea how he applies his position. However, despite his denials, a consistent application of this point of view will lead to an acceptance of the principle that the goodness or badness of an activity is ultimately dependent upon the situation. Situation ethics is a frontal assault to the concept of lawfulness and absolutes. In contrast, Jesus condemned those who were claiming to do many “wonders” in his name, because they practiced “lawlessness” (cf. Matt. 7:23). Scripture is clear on this point. Any activity that is unlawful, or done without authority, is iniquitous. If unrepented of, such will lead to an eternity separated from our Lord, “Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness” (Ibid.).

Let us consistently apply the principle, “necessity out-weighed the precept, so the action was permissible.” In Matthew 12, the disciples were hungry. If their action of plucking heads of grain and eating them on the Sabbath truly constituted unlawful activity as the Pharisees claimed, then simple hunger is sufficient grounds to set aside the commands of God. Who can believe it? Other scenarios show the absurdity of this interpretation of the passage. For example, most would agree that abortion is far more damaging and serious than simple hunger. Does the immoral practice of legal abortion in our age give us sufficient cause to violate the laws of the land in protest? How about to murder a doctor to save a child’s life? Some believe so. How about our children’s well-being? If I could not afford to feed my four children, would that give me sufficient cause . to steal? In that case does necessity outweigh precept? Or how about my kids’ eternal well-being? If we are “losing our kids” as is the common claim, does that give us cause to use the Lord’s money to sponsor recreational activities, change our worship, and appeal to the sensual man in our` worship and work? Such are without authority, but if necessity outweighs precept . . . and on and on. In the end this take on the passage, that in certain situations necessity out-weighs precept so that the action is permissible, destroys the absolutes established by God governing right and wrong.

A hierarchical point of view, which places certain “higher goods” in conflict with certain “lower goods” simply cannot be sustained by Scripture. The Psalmist said, “The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever” (Psa. 119:160). The Bible is the complete, non-conflicting word of God. It is through this medium we find what we need to be “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Concluding Thoughts

The concept of “necessity outweighs precept” is shown to be absurd in its application. It ultimately makes righteousness based on one’s perception of what is “necessary,” rather than on a precept of God. God’s absolute standard becomes a joke. His commandments are reduced to mere suggestions, and anarchy and confusion reign. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.” Jesus did not teach situation ethics in Matthew 12. His defense of the disciples stands as a testament to his sovereignty, and his complete accord with and regard for his Father’s will.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 3-5
February 1, 1996