Chapter 7 – According to the Scriptures

What did Able do to offend Cain? How did Jesus offend men in his day? How can we know what matters in scripture are the more important ones? These questions, and the danger posed by double standards, will be addressed in this chapter.

Milk Versus Meat

The consumption of information is sometimes pictured as eating and information is sometimes portrayed as food. We see this in verses where milk and meat were used to picture the difference between concepts that are easily digested and those that take time and thought to comprehend. Here is one such passage:

"I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal" (1Cor 3:1-4).

They were not able to handle teaching that qualified as meat, yet they were still brethren. So, if people cannot handle what scripture teaches on an issue, it does not mean they are not true followers of Jesus. Scripture indicates their inability to handle meat resulted from a willingness to identify with only part of the truth.

At that point, the whole truth was not their authority. They elevated their judgment over God's will when they decided to identify with one of God's messengers, but not another. The passage below shows why this was an unreasonable thing to do.

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase" (1Cor 3:5-7).

The authority of God was the unifying factor. Both men were teaching God's word. Therefore, there was no reason for anyone to assume either one of them had greater authority than the other. "God gave the increase." To go by what is right in the sight of God would require people to honor the teaching of both men equally, because the combination of their efforts is what God used to give the increase. Planting and watering are different functions that occur at different times, but they are unified in the result, for they work together to produce fruit, and both are needed.

If we judge according to God's goal of producing increase, then the work of Paul and Apollos will be seen to be equally necessary, and we will realize how God works these things together for good. Of course, the planting and watering of 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 is not about physical seeds or H₂O. In scripture, the word of God was portrayed both by seeds (Mt 13:19-23) and by water (Eph 5:26). So, if Paul was planting the word of God and Apollos was watering with the word of God, then it is easy to see why Paul said, "God gave the increase" (1Cor 3:6).

Acting as if God's message can be divided against itself was shown to be a foolish idea earlier in the same letter:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?" (1Cor 1:12-13)

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." The truth is not divided against itself. So, claiming to be of Christ based on a part of the truth from his messengers will not work because Jesus said, "he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (Fourth gospel 13:20).

In Corinth, they had pit one messenger of God against another, and this type of reasoning still produces divisions among those in the church. Self-willed people grant themselves the authority to make judgments based on their opinion and, as a result, they take a pick and choose approach to scripture. In any case, the two most important things a person can learn are the authority of God (1Chr 29:11-12, et al.) and the authority of God's word (1Pt 1:25, et al.).

Milk and Meat Portray Levels of Knowledge

Milk and meat also appear as word pictures in Hebrews 5:12-14 when the holy brethren were rebuked with these words:

"the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

This was said to people who had been in the church long enough that the writer said they should have been teachers by this point. So, we should realize that the length of time someone has been a follower of Jesus does not equate to a deeper understanding of God's word. [See Hebrews 5:12 & 6:1-3 for further proof of this.]

Rather than "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2Pt 3:18), they did the opposite and regressed to the point where they became "such as have need of milk." The picture was they became intellectual babies who could not digest "strong meat." Being told this would not have made those brethren feel good about themselves. But being made aware of their state might provoke them to change.

While hearing this might hurt the feelings of those brethren, God led the writer of Hebrews to highlight this problem. Undoubtedly, this challenge was meant to wake them up and encourage them to change and start growing.

The Word of God Versus the Teachings of Men

The men in groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests, etc., were formally trained and they knew the words of scripture. But they did not get the message that was conveyed by the words. What caused this? It was because they let tradition, i.e., the teachings of men, shape their view of scripture.

Jesus publicly berated the scribes and Pharisees and told them "ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" (Mk 7:9). Their beliefs came before God's word [much like the statements of beliefs and creeds of many groups]. This is why Jesus also said they made the word of God void by their tradition (cf. Mk 7:23). The misrepresentation of God's word that resulted from people being taught to trust the traditions of men was something Jesus challenged repeatedly. A prime example of this can be seen in the stark contrast of Jesus' words that show up in Matthew 5 as the opening words of the following six pairs of verses:

• • "ye have heard that it was said by them of old time… "
  • "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:21 & 22),

 

• • "ye have heard that it was said by them of old time… "
  • "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:27 & 28),

 

• • "it hath been said… "
  • "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:31 & 32),

 

• • "ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time… "
  • "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:33 & 34),

 

• • "ye have heard that it hath been said… "
  • "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:38 & 39),

 

• "ye have heard that it hath been said… "
• "but I say unto you… " (Mt 5:43 & 44).

Take a moment to read all of these verses and you will see Jesus contrasting error and truth on a wide range of issues. The words quoted above show he was putting the spotlight on the thing that caused the errors. It was the practice of quoting the words of men and getting people to put confidence in them. Jesus showed it is wrong to rely on beliefs that may be commonly accepted or that were believed by people who lived long ago. Listening to men is not the problem. Giving authority to their teachings is the problem. When the words of men are cited to sell people on an idea today, it is fair for us to wonder why are people being encouraged to trust in non-Bible sources?

Jesus stated, "I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (Fourth gospel 12:49). Jesus honored the authority of God. He did not honor the teachings of men.

Honoring the Words of Men Results in a Double Standard

As the bullet list above shows, judging by what others say leads people to be misled on a whole range of issues, for "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal 5:9). This principle lets us know that if people allow the teachings of men to be their measure of truth on any issue, they have already agreed to accept a substitute for the authority of God's word. If they do it in one instance, they can do it anytime they please, so God's word is not their standard.

In Jesus' day, the opinions of men had been presented as if they were true, but they did not accurately reflect what scripture taught. Since men can misunderstand God's word, believing something just because it has been said by others, now or in the past, is not a wise thing to do. Conversely, we can rely on what scripture says because the writers were inspired by God. It all comes down to the issue of source. Consider the source!

If God is the source of a message, then anyone who is accurately conveying that message is speaking the truth. When Jesus said, "but I say unto you… " in the passages above, he presented a different way to understand those issues. Those who heard him had a choice to make: keep following the "it hath been said" crowd or stop doing so, switch, and get in the habit of letting God's word be their only standard.

An Exercise in Discernment

If scripture says, "divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord" (Prv 20:10), how should we take these words? People who think this condemns stealing say, 'dishonest merchants used altered weights to deceive customers into paying for more than they received.' Charging for more than is delivered is a form of stealing. But is this really what the verse is talking about?

The word "divers" is not simply an old spelling of the word diverse. "Divers" expresses a difference in quantity. It means an indefinite number, not a great number but more than one, i.e., several. Diverse is all about a difference in quality. It means differing from one another, i.e., dissimilar, distinct, separate, unlike.

Does the verse require us to conclude it is talking about stealing? No. The words steal, cheat, or theft do not appear in the verse. So, why assume this is the topic of the verse? Does the context suggest this verse is about merchants who cheat their customers? Not at all. The verse before says, "who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" (Prv 20:9) The verse after says, "even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right" (Prv 20:11).

Scripture says, "thou shalt not steal" (Ex 20:15), "ye shall not steal" (Lev 19:11), "let him that stole steal no more" (Eph 4:28), etc. The word "abomination" was not used in any verse where the words steal, stole, thief, theft, or rob appear. So, why are "divers weights, and divers measures" an abomination to the Lord? If we think this is all about merchants using shaved weights to cheat people, where would that leave us? Not many things are called an abomination in scripture. Since stealing itself is not called an abomination but "divers weights, and divers measures" are, is the verse telling us using shaved weights is uniquely despicable? This cannot be. So, the verse must refer to something else, and the word abomination lets us know this involves a heavyweight issue.

What Do the Words Mean?

"Divers weights, and divers measures" is about having more than one weight or measure, for "divers" means more than one. At a basic level, therefore, this is talking about inconsistent standards. A godly perspective is not founded on the cares of this world, so Proverbs 20:10 is likely talking about something more important than petty theft. How do inconsistent standards impact the things of God? If "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16), a regard for God's authority will require a consistent standard when we deal with scripture. Still, far too often, an inconsistent regard is shown for the words that were inspired by God.

We employ a double standard if we say the Bible is God's word, but we dismiss verses that conflict with our views. If we assume we can decide when scripture must be respected and when it can be ignored, we are disregarding God's authority. This practice is dangerous because scripture indicates an inconsistent approach keeps people from a proper understanding of God's word. Let us take a look at several instances of this.

Weight and Measure

Consider the term "divers weights." If this is not speaking about physical weights, what does it mean? Jesus said something when he was rebuking the scribes and Pharisees that can help on this:

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which 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 whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Mt 23:16-24).

They did not give proper weight to the issues. As we saw when we previously looked at verse 23, rather than stick to God's word, they did what was right in their own eyes and they taught others to do as they did. They were not always wrong, for right after Jesus said, "ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin" he said, "these ought ye to have done." However, they were inconsistent in their regard for scripture.

Those experts said, "the gold," "the gift," and a "tithe of mint and anise and cumin" were what mattered. This put "the temple that sanctifieth the gold," "the altar that sanctifieth the gift," and "the weightier matters of the law" in an inferior position. Trust in their own opinion led them to "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel," for in making their own opinion the measure of truth, they made God's word void.

A reversal of priorities resulted from switching the standard by which truth is judged. Their unwillingness to let scripture be the sole measure of what was important, i.e., weightier, meant they did not have a consistent standard of truth and this caused them to take a pick and choose approach to what scripture said.

[Notice, "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" was not a critique of people who seek to pay attention to the details in God's word. It was about men who ignore or fail to obey what scripture says.]

How about the word "measure?" If we looked for verses with this word, we might notice when Jesus said, "take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you" (Mk 4:24). Here the word had nothing to do with a physical measure. When we refer to the measure of a man's character, others know this is a non-physical measure because the context clues them in, as it does in phrases like "the measure of faith" (Rom 12:3).

While the idea of physical weights and measures may seem to fit Proverbs 20:10 at first glance, upon closer inspection that idea is ruled out by both the immediate context and the rest of scripture.

Balance

Proverbs 20:23 says, "divers weights are an abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good." So, how was "balance" used in scripture?

In interpreting the handwriting on the wall, Daniel told the king, "thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting" (Dan 5:27), and it is clear those "balances" were not physical. Moreover, in the Bible, we find these other uses of the word "balance:"

• "Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances together" (Job 6:2),
• "Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity" (Job 31:6),
• "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" (Isa 40:12)

The word "balance" was used in a physical sense when Jeremiah bought a field. He said, "I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances" (Jer 32:10). But the meaning of words is not always obvious, so it is good to get in the habit of taking the time to check the context.

Weightier Matters

God's word should carry more weight than the words of men, yet too often, people are swayed by the views of others. This is why the scholars of Jesus' day had an erroneous view of scripture. Here again is a portion of Matthew 23:15-24 for you to consider:

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple… whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?… ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

When it comes to weighing various matters, something cannot be greater than the thing that sanctifies it. Also, notice what this is telling us about the Old Testament. Since "the weightier matters of the law" are "judgment, mercy, and faith," these three ideas are taught by God's law. Some see the law as being harsh or out of date, but this is not how Jesus saw it. Judgment, mercy, and faith are neither harsh nor out of date. To see the law that way is to miss "the weightier matters of the law." Regardless, even if one does not think of faith as being a matter of the law, Jesus' words prove it is!

If men give more weight to their own opinion than to God's word, their judgment acts as a false balance, since it is tilted in favor of their own view.

The Problem with Double Standards

If weights and measures are not a problem by themselves, why would more than one ["divers"] of them be an abomination?

Consider physical weights. One pound is a standard of weight and anything that is not one pound differs from the standard.

So, even physical weights show truth demands there be only one standard. Having a double standard will mean our weights and measures are not consistent.

Proverbs 11:1 says, "a false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight." Here we see two methods, one is "false" and one is "just" and they have vastly different outcomes. The principle in this verse does apply to physical things, but it also applies to how a jury ought to weigh the evidence in a trial.

Earlier we saw where Jeremiah 23:30 pictures a more dangerous type of theft – "I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words everyone from his neighbor." How were they stolen?

Throughout Jeremiah 23, we find the Lord rebuking the pastors, priests, and prophets who were promoting the ideas of men while they claimed to be conveying what the Lord had said. It starts in verses 1-2:

"Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away"

The Lord continued his rebuke of those religious leaders in the verses that led up to his accusation of stealing (in verse 30):

• "both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord" (Jer 23:11),
• "thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto everyone that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you" (Jer 23:16-17),
• "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (Jer 23:21-22).

The people were deceived because they were listening to men who gave their own words authority – "they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord." Notice also, "they say unto everyone that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you" (Jer 23:17). Here, men who claimed to speak for God offered unconditional promises to those who did not walk after the Lord. But they had no right to do so.

They ascribed to the words of men an honor due only to the words of God. Scripture tells us how things would have been different if those leaders had respected the authority of the word of the Lord: "but if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (Jer 23:22). By substituting their own words for the words of the Lord, they robbed people of the opportunity of being changed by his living and active word.

No one should think Jeremiah's warnings only applied in his day, for Romans 15:4 says, "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning." Thus, it is worth our time to think on the admonitions that are found in Jeremiah 23.

Abomination, According to Who?

Finding other verses that use the term "abomination to the Lord" is also helpful. Here are just two of many such verses:

• "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord: but the prayer of the upright is his delight" (Prv 15:8),
• "the way of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness" (Prv 15:9).

Knowing the Lord's view on these things helps us to understand other passages. For example, scripture states:

"the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect" (Gen 4:4-5).

Because "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord" (Gen 4:3), many assume he offered the wrong kind of gift. Yet, rather than make inferences, why not consult scripture? If we took the time to do a search on offerings, we would find this verse, "hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice" (1Sa 15:22). The problem was not what Cain offered. It was the one who made the offering. Consider this description, "Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous" (1Jo 3:12). Cain killed Abel because of Abel's righteous works. Cain's works were evil, so by doing right, Abel was making Cain look bad and this offense cost him his life! [Note: the Jewish leaders took offense at Jesus and killed him for the same reason, i.e., his righteousness hardened their heart.]

The Lord had no respect "unto Cain and to his offering" because he was wicked. To assume a different type of offering would make a difference is to ignore the fact that an offering does not change a person. To change, an evildoer must repent. Cain did not, and "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord" (Prv 15:8). So, the Lord could not respect Cain nor any gift from him. The Lord said, "if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" (Gen 4:7) Yet, Cain decided to kill Abel instead. His "works were evil, and his brother's righteous." This explains the difference between the offerings of these two men that was noted here: "by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb 11:4). Thus, Abel's offering was "more excellent," not due to the type of gift he offered, but because he offered his gift "by faith."

What Hurts People More?

As has been noted, the term "abomination to the Lord" is not tied to stealing or theft in commerce. So, Proverbs 20:10 must be describing a problem that is deeper than this.

Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us, "a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" are "an abomination" to the Lord. Who qualifies as a false witness? How about the men who spoke "a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord?" (Jer 23:16)

What about those who do the other things noted in Jeremiah 23, like those who the Lord said, "cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness?" (Jer 23:32) Ponder what we are told about the extreme action Jesus took when he:

"went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Lk 19:45-46).

Why did he do this? It does not say people were overcharged, and Jesus also cast out "them that bought." So, perhaps it is wrong to assume he took this action simply to protest price gouging.

However, if those thieves had been stealing the word of the Lord, then he cast them out because they were doing something much worse than making obscene profits.

Written Law Versus Oral Tradition?

Earlier we saw where Jesus debunked beliefs that were promoted based on phrases like "it was said," etc. (Mt 5:21-44) The teachings of men that were cited as having authority are sometimes called 'the oral law,' yet the very idea of an 'oral law' is a problem.

Scripture gave the law. If the traditions of men are presented as another source of law, then people are given a double standard. The way to avoid this trap is to stick to the standard of God's word.

Jesus taught the written word of God is the right measure of truth. For starters, consider his words in this statement:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt 5:17-18).

This taught regard for scripture's details since the jot and tittle are the smallest characters in the Hebrew language that was used to write the scriptures. This did not apply to any oral hand-me-down teachings because characters are not used in spoken language.

We use words to speak. We use characters to write. Thus, Jesus' statement applied to the written scriptures.

Jesus and his apostles did teach orally, but all their references to scripture showed the authority for their teaching was the written word of God. Men will often promote trust in the teachings of men. Jesus and the apostles never did. At times, they cited things that had been said by men, yet they never cited them as an authority. In Matthew 5:21-44, Jesus noted what men had said, yet it did not mean those men were correct. This was obvious in that instance. Scripture is a true record. However, not all the statements of men in scripture are true. Consider this statement, "one of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies" (Titus 1:12). This was said by a prophet from another group, not by a follower of Jesus. Did Paul quote this to ascribe authority to a non-scriptural source? No. Yet, after saying "the Cretians are always liars," Paul wrote "this witness is true" (Titus 1:13). Did Paul think everyone from Crete was a non-stop liar?

The only other time the "Cretians" are mentioned in scripture is in Acts 2:11, where they were identified as "Cretes" and were among the "devout men, out of every nation under heaven." They heard the apostles on the day of Pentecost and said, "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (cf. Acts 2:5 & 11). They did not lie when they said this. Thus, the claim, "the Cretians are always liars" is not a true statement. So, why would the words, "this witness is true" follow that quote?

Paul wrote this to Titus, "for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5). If he thought all Cretians were liars, he would not have told Titus to ordain some of them, because he said candidates for ordination should be "blameless" (Titus 1:6, et al.).

Paul expected that the ones who were ordained would "be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9). He also went on to note the problems those "gainsayers" were causing, and he said their teaching had to be overcome with sound doctrine:

"there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth" (Titus 1:10-14).

Paul told Titus, "vain talkers and deceivers" were teaching things "for filthy lucre's sake" – and one of them even said, "the Cretians are always liars." Paul then told Titus to "rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables." What Jewish fables?

In this passage, Paul gave an example of the teaching he wanted Titus to rebuke. Paul stated, "one of themselves, even a prophet of their own" had said, "the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies." So, this was a "Jewish fable" that was being taught by "vain talkers and deceivers" who were "of the circumcision." Like a man saying all people of a certain race are lazy, this was a slur against the Cretians that was outrageous and obviously false.

Also, consider how plain old common sense shows the idea must be untrue. If people move into Crete, do they become liars? If they move out, do they stop being liars? No, because residency is not what dictates a person's behavior, character does that.

In court, highlighting the fact that a person made a false statement impeaches his or her testimony. This lets people know to be wary of believing other things that have been said by the one who made the false statement. This also goes on outside the courtroom.

If a man makes a prejudiced statement that is patently false, it can be cited to show others they cannot trust what that man has said. If a co-worker states, 'The boss said, ____, I'm telling you it's true,' how would you take those words? Do they mean the boss spoke the truth? Or was the boss' statement so outrageous that people might doubt the report, so the one reporting this news felt led to testify the quote is accurate? Both scripture and common sense show this second option is what Paul was doing in Titus 1:12 &13.

When Paul said, "this witness is true" he was not affirming what this prophet said. Rather, he was testifying that such ideas were being taught, and giving Titus an example of the kind of teachers he was referring to when he told Titus to rebuke them sharply.

Who was the Good Samaritan?

Another passage that is often misunderstood is Luke 10:25-29, where a "lawyer stood up and tempted" Jesus saying:

"what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He [Jesus] said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he [Jesus] said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?"

Unlike men who talk down about God's law, Jesus pointed people to God's law, not away from it. The lawyer asked, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus then pointed him to God's word when he said, "what is written in the law?"

When the man then cited the law properly, Jesus said, "thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

But the man did not like that answer and sought to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "who is my neighbor?" Below is the exchange found in Luke 10:30-37 that followed after he asked his question:

"Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 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 bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."

How to Identify the Neighbor

Jesus gave a long answer to a short question. Why? Why not say, 'everyone is your neighbor' if this was that simple? In his reply, Jesus did not refer to everyone or all men. Instead, he contrasted the response of a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan to the plight of an assault victim who was half dead.

When the priest and the Levite saw the man, they "passed by on the other side." Jesus went on to show how the response of those who had religious training differed from the response of someone who did not. The Samaritans lacked such training since the Jews had no dealings with them (cf. Fourth gospel 4:9). Worse yet, as we saw with the Samaritan woman who talked with Jesus at Jacob's well, the Samaritans had a muddled history regarding religious ideas. Even so, in Jesus' teaching, the men with religious training did not exhibit compassion, while the one without it did.

Jesus indicated the deeds of the Samaritan offered the answer to the "neighbor" question, as we see in this exchange:

"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise" (Lk 10:36-37).

The "neighbor" was not the person who "fell among the thieves." In his teaching, Jesus defined the neighbor as the one who was willing to exhibit outrageous compassion for someone who was in a half-dead condition, who was not their family member or friend.

Jesus answered the question, "who is my neighbor?" by indicating how a true neighbor behaves. But who fits this description? In the parable, the Samaritan did not just stop to help the victim. He also took time to bind his wounds "and he brought him to an inn, and took care of him." Then Jesus raised the bar even further.

He also said, "on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee" (Lk 10:35). He obligated himself to pay a debt of an unlimited amount for a man who did not even know him. Wow!

Who does such a thing?

Who does such a thing is one who obeys the law of God – "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." In order "to justify himself," the lawyer asked Jesus, "who is my neighbor?" (Lk 10:29) Jesus' response was a rebuke to this lawyer, for it showed men can obey the law even if they were not raised with the scriptures, as was the case with the Samaritans.

The lawyer did not need Jesus to tell him how to act, scripture already did this. He knew what the law said, but he was not willing to obey it. Yet, he was willing to "justify himself" and this exposed a double standard. He acted as if he respected God's word and he also believed he was justified in not doing what it said.

Instead of obedience, he chose self-justification, and in order to make himself look good, he portrayed the law as unreasonable. He asked, "who is my neighbor?" in order "to justify himself," so he was not asking who he should act this way toward. Rather, he was asking who was acting this way toward him. Why? Because he would be justified in not obeying this commandment if scripture raised an impossible standard, and his question was supposed to show this, since he assumed there was no way to answer it.

Who was the Lawyer's Neighbor?

Jesus asked which of the three was "neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?" The lawyer replied, "he that showed mercy on him." If men can do this, then God's law is not unreasonable. When Jesus said, "go, and do thou likewise," he indicated men, including this lawyer, could do what God's word said.

However, Jesus also indicated someone was acting as a neighbor to the lawyer. Who recognized he needed help, had compassion on him, took time to tend to his half-dead condition, and got him to where he might recover from his fall among the thieves?

This parable of Jesus raised the idea of someone who agreed to take on an unknown, uncapped amount of debt to help a man who did not know him. This pictured what Jesus did when he took on an unspecified degree of debt for people who did not know him. Jesus acts this way toward people! So, he answered the question, "who is my neighbor?" by portraying what he was willing to do for the lawyer.

Was the image of the man who had fallen among the thieves picturing the lawyer? Is this what happens when men steal the Lord's word and cause people to have minds that are prejudiced to believe that God's law requires people to do the impossible?

The lawyer asked about eternal life but did not care about truth, for he tempted Jesus when he asked, "what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Lk 10:25) He wanted to justify himself, i.e., be justified without changing. But with his unrepentant heart, he fit the picture of a man who was half dead.

Some people might assume Jesus would never portray himself as a Samaritan. But the Jews did exactly this. Consider one of the many insults that were raised against Jesus in his lifetime. "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him [Jesus], Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" (Fourth gospel 8:48)

The phrase "say we not well" suggests this slur about Jesus had existed for some time.

Might this be why he used a Samaritan to portray the neighbor, i.e., the person who showed mercy, in his example?

All of us would want someone to do for us as the Samaritan did. But not everyone would do as the Samaritan did!