|
|
While God commands formal worship, he considers something else much more important. God hates the worship of people who mistreat their fellowman and would like to smear their religious service in their faces as refuse. Mistreatment of others makes God despise the worship of Christians claiming to follow the Biblical pattern.
These electronically-transmitted pages are copyrighted © 1997 and belong to Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. All rights reserved. You are free to download this electronic material for personal use, to make copies to share with others, or to mirror on your local web site, with the following restrictions:
Except where otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations are taken from American Standard Version New Testament, © Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901, 1929.
Composed of excerpts from the cassette album The Teaching of Jesus, © 1990 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the publisher.
Copyright © 1997 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson
ISBN 0-938855-82-4
Gospel Themes Press
Hard copies can be purchased in booklet form directly from Gospel Themes Press. Click here to
A prevalent theme in the teaching of Jesus was his constant elevation of the importance of one's treatment of his fellowman over his formal religious service. This is most easily seen in Mt. 9.13, where Jesus told the Pharisees, who objected to his associating with publicans and sinners:
But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. . .
Jesus quoted from Hos. 6.6, where Hosea made the same point with the Israelites in the Old Testament: that although formal religious service (sacrifice) was important, in fact, commanded by God, one's treatment of his fellowman (mercy) was even more important.
Later, in Mt. 12.1-7, Jesus quoted this same Old Testament passage again as he further rebuked the Pharisees:
At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grain fields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. But he said unto them, have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice [emphasismine-- SGD], ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Continually, Jesus placed mercy toward mankind over formal religious service. In Mk. 2.27, Mark's account shows that Jesus frequently chastised the Pharisees because they placed greater emphasis on physical acts of worship than on treating others right:
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. . .
Jesus affirmed here that the treatment of one's fellowman was more important than one's formal religious service. The benefit of man was to be elevated over the benefit of formal religious service. Jesus engaged in formal religious service. He kept religious feasts, he offered sacrifices, and he wanted the Israelites to do the same. He also wants us to partake in formal religious service as well. However, these New Testament examples alert us to the fact that Christ considers formal religious service second in importance to how one treats his fellowman.
The fact that Jesus quoted an Old Testament passage shows that this principle has always been true, and still is. Thus, this booklet traces this theme throughout the Bible.
We begin in the Old Testament in Isa. 1.11-17. Isaiah wrote at a time of intense idolatry, and hence immorality in Israel. Through Isaiah, God asked Israel:
What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed cattle. And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats.
This is quite a statement by God since these are the very sacrifices he commanded of Israel. The following verses explain why God had no regard for their sacrifices:
When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My courts? Bring your worthless offerings no longer, their incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling ofassemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, they have become a burden to me. I am weary of bearing them. So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you, yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of bloodshed. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphans, plead for the widow.
Consequently, when Israel was not socially just, God didn't want the Jews' formal religious service. God also expected them to grow spiritually and to continually learn how to live godly lives and to do even more good. In addition, God insisted that they "seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend orphans, and plead for the widow." In other words, God didn't accept their worship if they ignored the sins of others in the congregation who mistreated their fellowman. God expected them to expose and speak out against mistreatment of others in the congregation.
In Amos 5.21, we notice similar teaching done contemporaneously by Amos where God expressed strong abhorrence of the Israelites' religious activities:
I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings.
The explanation of God's disregard for his own commanded formal religious service is found in earlier verses. In Amos 5.10-13, we read:
They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks with integrity. Therefore, because you impose heavy rent on the poor and exact a tribute of grain from them, though you have built houses of well hewn stone, yet you will not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, yet you will not drink their wine. Because I know your transgressions are many and your sins are great, you who distress the righteous and accept bribes, And turn aside the poor in the gate. Therefore, at such a time the prudent person keeps silent, for it is an evil time.
This verse shows that although the Israelites did everything right in their formal religious service, God took note of how they treated their fellowman. So, when the Israelites were not treating each other right, their formal religious service offended God. This is a powerful lesson for those of us today who emphasize "building all things according to the pattern" and giving "book, chapter, and verse for everything we do." We should pay strict attention to our formal religious service. But we had better pay even more careful attention to how we treat our fellowman, because these examples teach us our Lord places our everyday behavior over our formal worship.
In Mt. 5.23-24, Jesus taught this same principle near the beginning of his ministry:
If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
These men were involved in formal religious service commanded by God, yet Jesus taught that something was more important, and ought to have a priority in the lives of his people. The message? Take care of your relationships with your fellowman or God will reject your formal religious service. This is the same message we saw in the Old Testament examples. If New Testament Christians practiced this principle, attendance at many congregational assemblies might well be down significantly until brethren began treating each other as God would have them.
There are a number of examples of the Jews elevating sabbath-keeping, a religious ritual, over proper treatment of their fellowman. For instance, in Jn. 5.18, after Jesus both healed a man on the sabbath and forgave his sins, we find that the Jews became extremely upset:
For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
The term translated "brake" doesn't mean that Jesus violated the sabbath, but that he "loosed" it. It's the same word translated "loosed" in Mt. 16.19, where Jesus told the apostles that what they loosed on earth would have already been loosed in heaven. Likewise, it's the same word used by John the Baptist in Jn. 1.27, who said, "The shoes of his feet, I'm not worthy to loose." Thus, in John 5, Jesus, while not violating the sabbath, certainly loosed it from the traditions of the Jews, which placed this religious observance above the welfare of people suffering infirmities.
The reaction of the Jews to this freeing up of the sabbath, a formal religious activity, was a desire to kill Jesus. This is a tremendous elevation of formal religious service over one's treatment of his fellowman. A little later, in Jn. 7.19-23, Jesus discussed his having healed on the sabbath, and how the Jews tried to kill him. Jesus reasoned with the Jews thusly:
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me? The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon: who seeketh to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel because thereof. Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath?
Keeping their formal religious worship was more important to these Jews than the welfare of either Jesus or the man he healed.
In Mt. 12.9-14, we read how Jesus continued to heal on the sabbath:
And he departed thence, and went into their synagogue: and behold, a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be of you that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. . . But the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.
This example shows that these Jews placed the welfare of the healed man below their formal religious service. It also demonstrates that they placed the welfare of Jesus below their sabbath traditions. They sought to kill him!
In Mk. 3.1-6, we read in Mark's account of this same incident how Jesus demonstrated the utter inability of the Jews to understand their proper spiritual priorities:
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he said unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
That is, they didn't know the answer to such a simple question. Jesus asked, which is more important: formal religious service or the welfare of this man? It was a sign of their moral bankruptcy and warped religious values that they could not answer. But how many people today cannot answer either? Mark continued:
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored. And the Pharsees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.
Of course, they didn't regard the welfare of one who transgressed their traditions either. Killing Jesus was alright, breaking their rules of formal religious service was not! No wonder Jesus was angry at their warped sense of values!
In Jn. 19.31-33, after Jesus was crucified John recorded that:
The Jews, therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs. . .
How tragic that they thought it was alright to kill Christ unjustly, but above all they had to observe their formal religious service. What a mockery in the name of service to God!
Earlier, in Jn. 11.47-53, we read the reasoning of the religious leaders:
The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. . . So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death.
These men could not deny the miracles of Jesus, and they could not answer him in debate. However, to prevent the Romans from taking away their puppet rule, they were willing to kill Jesus unjustly, just to keep their formal religious service in operation.
In Lk. 10.30-37, Jesus taught a clever Jewish lawyer trying to justify himself about his responsibilities toward his fellowman:
But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
The force of this example is that a Samaritan, a half-breed Jew and Assyrian, knew more about compassion than the religious leaders of the Jews! The leaders were more concerned with formal religious service than they were about the welfare of their fellowman. Jesus told the Jews of his day to learn from this example what mercy is, and then do it. Mercy was more important than formal religious service.
Several applications may suggest themselves to us. Are there non-covenant people who know more about the weightier matters of God's law than some of us who are Christians? If so, we need to learn the same lesson these covenant people needed to learn: that how we treat our fellowman is more important than our formal religious activity. Similarly, we might apply this observation to some moral people we're trying to teach the gospel. Sometimes we observe a neighbor or friend who is a moral person, and seems to have more compassion for others than we who are Christians do. If we're interested in winning him to Christ, why not begin our attempt by saying something like, "I'm impressed with the way you treat people. I'm a Christian, and you're beating me at my own duty. Why don't you treat people that way out of allegiance to Christ, for He taught that the way we treat our fellowman is more important than our formal religious service?" Such an approach commends the person for his noble actions, but it also points him to the proper motive for such actions. In all likelihood, he's probably not rejected the nondenominational way of Christ at all, but perhaps some warped perversion of it.
In Mk. 12.28-33, we read how Jesus approached a scribe in this manner:
And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, What commandment is the first of all? Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he: and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.
This Jew had his priorities straight. He correctly understood that treating his fellowman right was much more important than his formal religious service.
In Lk. 18.9-14, Jesus taught concerning the proper attitude toward sinners:
And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get. But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner. I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
This Pharisee despised others, but notice how important his formal religious service was to him! He had it exactly backwards, didn't he? Both in the Old Testament prophets and in the teaching of Jesus, such an improper attitude toward one's fellowman renders one's worship of God absolutely worthless. Further, even if we cannot be in fellowship with someone, that doesn't mean that we may despise him. We cannot! When we do, we certainly won't make much of an effort to teach such a person, or influence him for good. Indeed, in I Jn. 3.15, John warned:
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Such a person is a murderer because he has the heart of a murderer; he just doesn't have the courage of a murderer. In Mt. 23.23, 24, as he hotly rebuked the religious leaders of the Jews the last week of his life, Jesus said:
Woe unto you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye build the sepulchers of the prophets and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Their fathers were condemned by Isaiah and Amos for putting formal religious service over their treatment of their fellowman, and now they did the same. They were preparing to kill Jesus, but they were making sure they kept the tombs of the prophets neat. How horrendous were their attitudes! Truly they had the characteristics of their parents!
The last example we have in the ministry of Christ is found in Mt. 27.3-6:
Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? See thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.
So the Jewish leaders thought it was alright to take money out of the temple treasury to kill the Messiah, but they couldn't put blood money back in! They exhibited a pretty warped sense of values in their attempted service to God.
Not only does this problem of putting formal religious service above proper treatment of one's fellowman occur during the entirety of God's dealing with the Israelites in the Old Testament and Jesus' relationship with the Jews, but we find it throughout the New Testament as well. Thus, it is a real danger that Christians today are susceptible to. We find it very early in the history of the New Testament church. Barnabas demonstrated genuine care for others in Acts 4.36-5.11 by selling a field to help needy Christians. In response to his example, Ananias and Sapphira also sold a field. However, they kept back part of the price; then, they lied and told the apostles they had given it all for needy Christians. What is this but an emphasis of formal religious service over correct treatment of brethren? Notice God's reaction to Ananias' deceit and treatment of his brethren. God took the lives of both Ananias and Sapphira which demonstrates that God still will not tolerate formal religious service from those who do not treat their fellowman right.
Later, in Acts 7.47-54, we find Stephen being killed because he pointed out the worthlessness of his Jewish audience's formal religious service:
But Solomon built him a house, Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet.. . . Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not. Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
These Jews were truly the sons of their ancestors. They came from the same line of stock. Just as their forefathers had placed more emphasis on formal religious service than kind treatment of others, these Jews did the same thing, and they did it with Stephen, as well.
In Acts 8.1-3, Saul not only approved of what the Jews did to Stephen, but before he became a Christian, persecuted Christians himself:
And Saul was consenting to his[Stephen's-- SGD] death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem.. . . But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women, committed them to prison.
After Paul became a Christian, he explained that he had done this because he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers.
. . . as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church. . .
Consequently, Paul's participation in the persecution and killing
of Christians was based upon a warped attitude toward formal religious
Later, in Acts 9.23 after Paul had become a Christian, we find the chief priests plotting to kill Paul because they couldn't answer his arguments against their religious traditions:
And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him. . .
Because of this extreme defense of their outward religious service over proper treatment of people, we find in Acts 13.44-45 that Paul suffered persecution at the hands of Jews on his first missionary journey:
And the next sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed.
These unjust actions toward a fellow Jew were all in defense of their formal religious service! So in Acts 17.5, we read:
But the Jews, being moved with jealousy, took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble, and gathering a crowd, set the city on an uproar; and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them forth to the people.
These religious people were so intent on protecting their formal religious service that they were willing to mistreat their fellowman. Then, in Acts 18.12-13, we read:
But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment-seat, saying, This man persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.
Just as their brethren had done with Jesus, these men were now giving the same treatment to Paul. In Acts 19.8-9, we read a similar example in the life of Paul:
And he entered into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, reasoning and persuading as to the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude. . .
Apparently, in the minds of these Jews, it was alright to misrepresent the true teaching of God and Paul to defend one's formal religious service. In Acts 21.20, 21 other Jews thought it was fine to deliberately misrepresent Paul's teaching in the defense of their formal religious service. As a result, the Jerusalem elders asked Paul to underwrite the vows of some Jews to counter a false charge made against him:
. . . Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
In Acts 21.27, these Jews lied about Paul, saying he brought a Gentile into the temple. In Acts 23.2, the Jews wrongfully struck Paul for saying he had lived in all good conscience, again in defense of their formal religious service. In Acts 23.8-10, although the Jews themselves disagreed about their concept of the resurrection, they believed it was alright to kill Paul in defense of their formal religious service. Lastly, in Acts 24.5, 6, the lawyer Tertullus misrepresented Paul in defense of the religious establishment:
For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: who moreover assayed to profane the temple. . .
Of course, no one in the church today ever misrepresents another Christian. Unfortunately, nearly all disagreements about doctrine abound in misrepresentation. Just as these Jews found it easier to attack Paul than to honestly examine the scriptures to see if what he taught was true, many Christians today immediately reject any teaching that is not what they've always heard and brand the teacher "a false teacher." Even today, attacks on the teacher often include outright lies and misrepresentation of his teaching, all in defense of what they've always done or their formal religious service. Is it any wonder that in many congregations, those who study the least and who behave the worst have more influence than those who study the most and who strive to behave the best toward their fellowman? Can we really think God approves of exposing young, noble Christians to such treacherous characters who defend their formal religious service at the expense of mistreating their brethren?
In Rom. 2.21, Paul spoke of Jews who taught not to steal, yet they stole! Their formal religious service (teaching) was correct, but their own treatment of their fellowman was sorely lacking. In Rom. 2.25-29, Paul dealt with this same phenomenon when he said:
For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
This is exactly the same lesson Jesus taught in the parable of the good Samaritan. Some non-covenant people are closer to God than many Christians because they have a proper concept of the elevation of one's treatment of their fellowman over formal religious service.
When Paul taught concerning treatment of weak brethren in Rom. 14.1-15.13, he applied the importance of considerate treatment of brethren while one maintained his formal religious correctness. For example, in Rom. 14.15, 16, we read:
For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of. . .
The obvious lesson from this incident is that our brother's welfare is more important than our technical doctrinal rights.
In I Corinthians 11, Paul addressed the Corinthians who were inconsiderate of their late-arriving brethren by not waiting to partake of the Lord's supper with them. He addressed people who placed more importance on their formal religious service than they did on their treatment of their brethren. In I Corinthians 13-14, Paul dealt with the same problem with the Corinthian Christians running over their own brethren in their zeal for exercising miraculous spiritual gifts. In I Cor. 13.1-3, Paul rebuked them:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal, and if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
These verses on love are not in the New Testament to give preachers something to read at weddings or calligraphers something to frame. Paul told the Corinthians that the reason their formal religious service did not profit them is the same reason God wanted someone to close the temple doors in the days of Isaiah and Amos: their disregard for their brethren completely negated their formal religious service. So in I Cor. 14.1-2, those Christians who sought their own edification through their exercise of miraculous spiritual gifts in the assembly rather than the edification of all their brethren, needed to learn this same lesson: God cares more about how we treat our brethren than he cares for our formal religious service.
In I Tim. 5.8, Paul said:
But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.
This is true even if the person is careful to maintain his formal religious service and makes sure it follows the Biblical pattern. This is exactly the same case as in the Old Testament examples we began this study with.
In Jas. 2.1-4, we read:
My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool; do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Isn't this the same problem we've noted all the way through this study? They were putting their formal religious service over their treatment of their own brethren, and so negated their religious service!
This same thing happens in churches today. Congregations overlook sin in certain members because they are good contributors or they are the elders' children. Individual Christians also make special allowances for their personal friends and make spiritual decisions not based on treating everyone right, but on keeping their personal friends happy.
In I Pet. 3.7-8, Peter said to husbands:
Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.
Here Peter told husbands that if they didn't treat their wives right, God wouldn't even hear their prayers. This was exactly the problem the Jews had in the Old Testament, and it is exactly parallel to Jesus' teaching in Mt. 5.22-23, where one's relationship with his brother was important enough to leave one's sacrifice at the altar until his relationship with his brother was taken care of.
Peter's warning to husbands is especially poignant. God created the husband to be the spiritual leader in both the home and the church. Yet often, instead of being a real leader, husbands exercise their authority in such a way as to mistreat their wives, children, and even other men and women in the congregation. What a mockery! What an insult to God who created man in his own image! No wonder God doesn't hear these husbands' prayers and despises their formal religious service.
When the truth is known, often some of the most doctrinally hardnosed preachers are actually some of the worst husbands. They don't know how to treat their wives at home and they don't know how to treat their brethren with whom they disagree either. Likewise, often men who cause the most problems in congregational meetings are also guilty of sins in the home. It is no wonder many churches are dying when the male leaders are emphasizing formal religious service over proper treatment of their fellowman including their wives and children. God does not hear their prayers or bless their mockery!
But the wives are not guiltless either. When wives watch their husbands assume positions of leadership in the churches, whether preaching, serving as elders or deacons, or simply offering prayers, leading singing, etc., and the wives cover up the sins of mistreatment of themselves and others, they partake of their husbands' sins. In the Old Testament, in Isa. 1.11-17, God didn't accept the worship of people who failed to seek justice or didn't reprove the ruthless. The example of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 shows God's attitude toward wives who cover up their husbands' sin. The great mockery against God that takes place in many congregations during public worship could not exist without the silent cooperation of the wives.
Many husbands and wives go to great lengths to put on a face of piety when attending public worship when their homes are full of all kinds of evil. Their brethren may be fooled, but God does not accept such mockery. If the scriptures are any indication, God wishes they wouldn't even unlock the doors to the building! How much better for a husband to remove his name from the duty roster while he and his wife work on getting their priorities right and learn how to properly treat their fellowman including each other.
John's epistles, written in response to gnosticism, a false system of salvation by knowledge, which resulted in more knowledgeable brethren looking disparagingly on less knowledgeable brethren, abound in teaching along this line. In I Jn. 2.11, John wrote:
But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.
Thus, it makes no difference to John what plateau of knowledge a Christian might have reached. If he's not treating his brother right, he's still in darkness. It's as though he hasn't learned anything. So, in I Jn. 3.14-18, John said:
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath the world's goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.
Notice that love of the brethren involves action, not just words. It's easy to preach a good sermon, pray a flowery prayer, sing a moving song, and teach a stimulating class, but still not practice true love of one's fellowman. True love involves caring about other people's problems, treating them fairly, and with the same consideration one expects and demands for one's self.
The Jews of Jesus' day were the conservatives of their time. They placed a great deal of importance on doctrinal correctness and formal religious service. Jesus taught that their misdirected emphasis was a real danger for them. For conservative people of our age, the danger can be no less.
The last main passage we want to use with this study is Mal. 2.3, where God rebuked indifferent priests:
Behold, I am going to rebuke your offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away with it.
Notice that God was so unhappy with the Jews' sacrifices that
he was going to smear garbage on their
But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts.
In other words, these Jewish priests had rendered their formal religious worship worthless because they were mistreating their fellow Jews. We can be assured that when we mistreat our fellowman, God views our formal religious activity as garbage. No matter how well it follows the Biblical pattern, he would like to smear it on our faces as well.
We close with Jesus' words in Mt. 9.13:
But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. . .
This booklet is available at the website: gospelthemes.com
where copies can be made to distribute freely as long as the booklet is kept intact along with all of its headers and footers and the copyright and publisher information and addresses. Or you can order hard copies of this booklet from Gospel Themes Press, 2028 South Austin Suite 906, Amarillo, TX 79109-1960 USA.
|
$18.95 482 pages with comprehensive |
This work begins with a study of covenant concepts in the Bible, the reign of God prior to the coming of Christ, and the sophisticated expectations God has always had of non-covenant people. After demonstrating that forgiveness of sins existed under the Mosaic Law, the author develops the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus as an urgent attempt to turn the Jewish nation back to God through faithful obedience to the Mosaic Law in order to avoid imminent national destruction. The Sermon on the Mount is viewed, not as a contrast between the Mosaic Law and the Teaching of Christ, but as Jesus correctly interpreting Moses to the Jews of his day. Thus, every syllable of that sermon is Old Testament teaching. That most of that teaching is also contained in the New Covenant is demonstrated. The parables of Jesus are then briefly analyzed, showing that each one of them is first related to the attempted reform of the Jews by Jesus. The theme of the relative importance of one's treatment of his fellowman over his formal religious service is traced throughout the Old and New Covenants. The study of the Teaching of Jesus concludes as Jesus concluded it, with a study of his pronouncement of imminent national destruction in Matthew 24, as well as a surprising study of Jesus teaching on hell. In summary, the teaching of Jesus leads the Jews from Mt. Sinai to destruction in Gehenna (commonly and incorrectly thought to be hell).
Jesus' teaching and the entire New Testament as it exposes many of our false concepts! |
- Is "The Old Testament" a good title for Genesis-Malachi?
- Is "The New Testament" a good title for Matthew-Revelation?
- Did God reign over everything and everybody before Christ?
- Does Christ reign over everything and everybody now?
- Do savages in Borneo have sophisticated moral law?
- Was there actual forgiveness of sin under the Mosaic Law?
- Is the Sermon on the Mount Old or New Testament teaching?
- Are the gospels Old or New Testament teaching?
- Were the parables directed first to Jews or us?
- Does our concept of hell come from Catholicism?
- Why does mistreatment of others nullify Biblical worship?
- How does Jesus expect us to deal with intimidation?
- Can I be a Christian without denominational allegiance?
- Did the Jews thwart the establishment of Jesus' kingdom?
- How can those who've never heard of Jesus be saved?
Ideal for: individual study, preaching, elders,
classes, personal evangelism, new converts, gifts
Do you want to study more about our misconceptions about the teaching of Jesus and judgment language?
Would you like to see more of Samuel G. Dawson's publications? Visit our Bookstore and Free Online Materials.
Learn about the Latest Tradition-Challenging Publications
Subscribe to free notification and receive information about
- New publications
- New free online materials
- Special offers and discounts
Note: Gospel Themes Press rarely sends notifications out more than once a month. We do not sell or share our lists.
 |
gospelthemes.com |
