by Harry Osborne
This time of year brings with it some challenges, the most harrowing of which is signaled by those dreaded words "some assembly required." As one innately challenged with sub-normal abilities in mechanical tasks, those words struck fear into my heart when called upon to assemble wagons, bicycles, play sets and the like when the boys were younger. Why is it that the instructions were written by people as linguistically challenged as I am mechanically challenged? However, when the task of deciphering toy instructions was exchanged for the task of deciphering computer software booklets, I must confess that I long for a good old wagon to assemble. Those things must be written to prevent people from learning how to use programs!
Evidently, some of those in Jesus' day also sought to obscure the clear point of God's law by clouding the issue with complex definitions and provisions to qualify that law. One particularly noteworthy case is recorded in Luke 10:25-37. Jesus' encounter with one lawyer went as follows:
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" So he answered and said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live" (vs. 25-28).
God's law was plain enough for anyone to understand. Its charge to all was clear. Unless one complicated the simple commands of God, their meaning was obvious. The challenge involved in God's law was not in understanding the commands, but in living the truth that could be understood. This lawyer realized that he was not loving his neighbor if that law was understood in the normal sense of the words. Luke tells us of this lawyer's response:
But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (v. 29).
You see, he wanted some more provisions added to cloud the obvious meaning of the word "neighbor." He knew he was guilty, but sought a way to get off on a technicality in the law - a legal loophole of sorts.
Choice one. "Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side" (v. 31). Though the priest was highly esteemed as a follower of the law, his actions showed him to be a violator of that law. His willingness to fulfill the obligation given in the law regarding his fellow-man was tested him the road. He may have known the law and taught others the law, but he did not apply that law by exemplifying its definition in his life. Simply put, the priest was not a loving neighbor!
Choice two. "Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side" (v. 32). The Levites were supposed to be servants of God, but this one's actions showed him as anything but a true servant. No amount of redefining the word "neighbor" would change the simple requirements of the law. The Levite was not a true neighbor, either!
Choice three. "But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him" (vs. 33-34). Yes, he took care of the beaten man's immediate needs, but he also did more:
On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you" (v. 35).
Though Samaritans were viewed as lawbreakers, this one clearly obeyed God's law. Samaritans were despised and contemptible to the Jews, but this one gave a lesson in the nature of love. He loved his neighbor enough to care for him and spend two day's wages (two denarii), or more if needed, for his neighbor's future care. This Samaritan understood the requirement of the law and applied it to life.
Jesus then asked the lawyer to draw the conclusion. He asked, "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?" (v. 36). The lawyer understood the point and replied, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise" (v. 37).
The appeal of true Christians has always been to the clear teaching of God's word to establish doctrine and practice. Faithful brethren have noted the simplicity of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 regarding water baptism when talking with Baptists. They have rightly appealed to Matthew 28:18 in showing the Catholic that all authority in heaven and on earth resides in Jesus, thus leaving no place for papal authority. When erring brethren introduced the centralization of power with eldership from so called "sponsoring churches," it was because of the plain words of 1 Peter 5:1-2 and Acts 20:28 that brethren urged the innovators to cease their unauthorized practice. In each case, the Scripture was rightly seen as the authoritative and understandable answer.
Today, there is a great need for us to preach this truth to ourselves just as we have tried to do to others. It is alarming to hear brethren who say we cannot be sure that God really created the earth in six literal days at the beginning as He said (Gen. 1 & 2; Exod. 20:11; 31:17; Mk. 10:6; Psa. 33:6-9). We hear of these simple words being interpreted with "alternate possibilities" or as "a literary device." Brethren, what is so difficult to understand about the simple words used in those passages?
Not only that, we hear that Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 lacks sufficient "clarity" for us to understand alike. When one reads the account, the people at that time seemed to understand it fine even though they did not like it (Matt. 19:3-12). If you wonder whether Matthew 19:9 is understandable, let someone read it who is unfamiliar with the Bible and ask them what it means. It may surprise you to see how clearly they understand Jesus' teaching in comparison to some who have read so many convoluted theories that they have forgotten the simple text! The same could be said of present efforts to receive some in sinful practices into fellowship in contrast to Ephesians 5:11. What part of "NO" is so difficult to understand?
When modest dress and abstinence from intoxicants are condemned, some brethren claim this is a "gray area" clouded by "cultural vagaries" and custom. This subjective standard would justify shorts, modern swimsuits, miniskirts, shirtless males or other brief attire based on cultural acceptability. Such efforts do not center on examining the texts involved, but on obscuring those texts.
The Bible says, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-3). Let us not seek loophole in Christ's commands, but let us hear, heed and apply His plainly stated truth in our lives.