3 Nephi 12:33-40
12:33-37 - We go from the topic of adultery and divorce to swearing oaths, it's kind of an interesting jump and I think that JW made it clear when he said, "Some biblical commentators have found this section in the Sermon on the Mount odd because it does not continue logically with the sequence of commandments in the Decalogue, as one might expect Jesus to follow if he were simply giving a commentary on the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Moreover, it is hard to see this as a demand of love. Instead, instructions are given on how religious commitments are to be made." That's a fair assessment and how I felt about much of this sermon, it just kind of jumps from topic to topic, but now seeing the different view point it seems a little bit more clear, even though I'm still trying to piece is together. HN comments on this concept when he says, "This next verse is about perjury. Unsteady and uncertain creatures that we are, we should not make definitive commitments and promises and threats because we can't keep them. Time and again in the Book of Mormon they swear solemn oaths that they will do something. Some people swore that they wouldn't eat until they had killed the Prophet Joseph and things like that. Well, you have no control over those things at all. I can swear by your head, but you can't make one hair black or white. You can't add a cubit to your stature, he says, so don't swear by things that you can't carry out? Very little, even things that you think would be very easy to carry out. If you say, I'll never do this again, or I'll do this at a certain time, you don't know what the conditions will be. It will be totally beyond your control at a later time, so never make oaths and commitments of that sort." I seem to remember Amalickiah swearing an oath to drink the blood of Moroni, or when that Jewish king made a covenant that if God helped them win the battle, he would give a human sacrifice to the first person he saw, and it ended up being his daughter and so he sacrificed her, I mean seriously? I can't imagine anywhere or anyway that the God I know and love would take that and be like "thank you, yeah that's why I helped you," come on now. JW seems to be quite convincing in his idea that "the point is that all oaths are ultimately oaths by and before God... Thus early Christians were in effect told that they should be different from those who swore horrific oaths or from others who regularly swore commercial or legal oaths in the Temple of Herod... From a Latter-day Saint point of view, the most important commitments a person can ever say 'yes' or 'no' to are those made in covenants with God." Looking at it from this perspective, this can be about honesty, about being a person of your word, it can also be about taking commitments made to God very seriously.
12:38-39 - There's an interesting phrase here in verse 39, we all know the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," saying, but here Jesus also says "that ye shall not resist evil." This is something that I had not heard in this context before, but HN explains, "How do you resist evil? By doing good; that's the only thing. You can't fight it if a person is going to be that way. You can't control the other person's conscience; you can't make him righteous by shooting him. It's possible that he might repent." It's interesting because I never really understood this principle, I didn't think that it was Jesus's rule to not defend yourself, but there are two things that I think fit into this. The first is God's requirement of engaging in combat, we can't be guilty of the first offense, being smitten on the cheek the first time, and we can't be guilty of the second offense, turning our face away from our enemy, not fighting back immediately. The second point goes hand in hand here, turning away your anger, we've spent much time talking about anger in your heart, and this would be a great way to start practicing that principle. People are going to do crazy things to you all the time, do you get mad about it when it happens? Because if you do, you are going to hold anger in your heart pretty much all the time. This new command is quite a bit different then the old Law of Moses that exacted revenge in equal measure. HN comments "Our entire obsession today is with revenge; this is the theme. John Wayne or his loved ones suffer violent wrongs from a very villainous person, and the rest of the movie is taken up with his elaborate revenge. We just love every bit of it, the way the guy is 'going to get it.' Revenge is the name of the game today; it's the great human interesting in all our crime shows. That's why we have to have happy endings all the time, because they amount to revenge, which is our obsession." I have a friend who's daughter was killed last year, hit by a car while walking home from school, and the driver of the car that hit her was absolutely devastated, when the press came to get the story, the little girl's grandparents said something to the effect of "our hearts are with the driver and his family, this is such a terrible accident and we love them, we know how devastated they are tonight along with us." And that statement made such an uproar because no one says stuff like that, news of the church spread like wild fire because even the cops said "we've never heard anyone make a statement like that before, everyone always wants revenge." It's a rabbit hole, the concept of revenge, because once you get it, then what? You're guilty of all these heinous crimes, and then you have a gaping hole in your life where the revenge once was. Like in the Count of Monte Cristo, when the priest says "Don't commit the crime for which you now serve the sentence." Later on, when Edmond Dantes has his amazing life, he's still consumed with his need for revenge, and his servant says to him "you have a fortune, a beautiful woman who loves you. Take the gold, take the woman, and live your life! Stop this plan, take what you have won!" To which Edmond replies "I can't." His servant tells him "I am still your man, Zatarra. I swore an oath, and I will protect you. Even if it means I must protect you from yourself." And yes, that's from the movie because I haven't read the book, but still just as profound. HN ties the simplicity of speech teaching previously with the turn the other cheek one together quiet nicely when he says, "Don't worry about the justice of God. He will overtake the wicked, but if you try to punish them you are wicked too. Sw we say, yea, yea, and nay, nay. We don't argue about things, and we don't resist evil- you turn the other cheek. Of course, this we all know from the Bible. you cannot eliminate it. What do you do? Well, you do good. That alone will defuse it if you do that."
12:40 - I had a pretty interesting insight into "if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." I don't remember what I was thinking about, something that had to do with me being taken advantage of financially or something like that, and this verse came to my mind. I thought "well I guess that means that it doesn't matter if I'm taken advantage of I should just give them all that I have." But then I thought, "no that doesn't make sense because that would make me a poor steward of what the Lord has given me." And then the thought came to me that the verse doesn't say "give everything you have to everybody," like I had been assuming, but it's really about generous restitution. The first requirement of the verse is being taken to court, "sue thee at the law," implying that someone feels that you have wronged them. The second requirement is that you lose the case because they "take away thy coat," they are awarded the coat as payment. So basically it's saying that if you're guilty of something, not only make amends, which falls in line with the anger with your brother concept that we talked about earlier, but go above and beyond. If the court deems that your coat is enough payment for restitution for what you have done, then give the person that you've wronged your cloak also, be generous, and therefore acknowledge your guilt and seek repentance. I thought that that was pretty interesting, and honestly I was pretty excited that I had that kind of insight. When you're wrong, admit it, make amends, and then do extra to try to rectify the situation.
12:38-39 - There's an interesting phrase here in verse 39, we all know the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," saying, but here Jesus also says "that ye shall not resist evil." This is something that I had not heard in this context before, but HN explains, "How do you resist evil? By doing good; that's the only thing. You can't fight it if a person is going to be that way. You can't control the other person's conscience; you can't make him righteous by shooting him. It's possible that he might repent." It's interesting because I never really understood this principle, I didn't think that it was Jesus's rule to not defend yourself, but there are two things that I think fit into this. The first is God's requirement of engaging in combat, we can't be guilty of the first offense, being smitten on the cheek the first time, and we can't be guilty of the second offense, turning our face away from our enemy, not fighting back immediately. The second point goes hand in hand here, turning away your anger, we've spent much time talking about anger in your heart, and this would be a great way to start practicing that principle. People are going to do crazy things to you all the time, do you get mad about it when it happens? Because if you do, you are going to hold anger in your heart pretty much all the time. This new command is quite a bit different then the old Law of Moses that exacted revenge in equal measure. HN comments "Our entire obsession today is with revenge; this is the theme. John Wayne or his loved ones suffer violent wrongs from a very villainous person, and the rest of the movie is taken up with his elaborate revenge. We just love every bit of it, the way the guy is 'going to get it.' Revenge is the name of the game today; it's the great human interesting in all our crime shows. That's why we have to have happy endings all the time, because they amount to revenge, which is our obsession." I have a friend who's daughter was killed last year, hit by a car while walking home from school, and the driver of the car that hit her was absolutely devastated, when the press came to get the story, the little girl's grandparents said something to the effect of "our hearts are with the driver and his family, this is such a terrible accident and we love them, we know how devastated they are tonight along with us." And that statement made such an uproar because no one says stuff like that, news of the church spread like wild fire because even the cops said "we've never heard anyone make a statement like that before, everyone always wants revenge." It's a rabbit hole, the concept of revenge, because once you get it, then what? You're guilty of all these heinous crimes, and then you have a gaping hole in your life where the revenge once was. Like in the Count of Monte Cristo, when the priest says "Don't commit the crime for which you now serve the sentence." Later on, when Edmond Dantes has his amazing life, he's still consumed with his need for revenge, and his servant says to him "you have a fortune, a beautiful woman who loves you. Take the gold, take the woman, and live your life! Stop this plan, take what you have won!" To which Edmond replies "I can't." His servant tells him "I am still your man, Zatarra. I swore an oath, and I will protect you. Even if it means I must protect you from yourself." And yes, that's from the movie because I haven't read the book, but still just as profound. HN ties the simplicity of speech teaching previously with the turn the other cheek one together quiet nicely when he says, "Don't worry about the justice of God. He will overtake the wicked, but if you try to punish them you are wicked too. Sw we say, yea, yea, and nay, nay. We don't argue about things, and we don't resist evil- you turn the other cheek. Of course, this we all know from the Bible. you cannot eliminate it. What do you do? Well, you do good. That alone will defuse it if you do that."
12:40 - I had a pretty interesting insight into "if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." I don't remember what I was thinking about, something that had to do with me being taken advantage of financially or something like that, and this verse came to my mind. I thought "well I guess that means that it doesn't matter if I'm taken advantage of I should just give them all that I have." But then I thought, "no that doesn't make sense because that would make me a poor steward of what the Lord has given me." And then the thought came to me that the verse doesn't say "give everything you have to everybody," like I had been assuming, but it's really about generous restitution. The first requirement of the verse is being taken to court, "sue thee at the law," implying that someone feels that you have wronged them. The second requirement is that you lose the case because they "take away thy coat," they are awarded the coat as payment. So basically it's saying that if you're guilty of something, not only make amends, which falls in line with the anger with your brother concept that we talked about earlier, but go above and beyond. If the court deems that your coat is enough payment for restitution for what you have done, then give the person that you've wronged your cloak also, be generous, and therefore acknowledge your guilt and seek repentance. I thought that that was pretty interesting, and honestly I was pretty excited that I had that kind of insight. When you're wrong, admit it, make amends, and then do extra to try to rectify the situation.
Comments
Post a Comment