By Roy B. Blizzard
Proverbs 19:17…A lender to God is one showing favor to the poor.
As we continue in 'our study, "Understanding More Difficult Words of Jesus," it is important to reiterate a few basic facts.
As the Church moves to the West, off Jewish soil and away from its Hebrew roots, Christianity begins to develop along quite different lines from that of biblical faith. It does not happen overnight, but it does happen more quickly than what the average individual would believe.
Influenced by Greek philosophy and pagan theology, Christianity soon develops an "other-worldly" mentality. This world is evil, the flesh is corrupt, and man strives and yearns for release from the physical body and the present world in order to receive his eternal, heavenly rewards. Menwhile, in this world, in the physical body, man's attention is focused upward, upward toward God, upward toward his ultimate, eternal abode. Very quickly In its development, the theology of "other worldliness" pervades Christianity. Man's attention, his focus, is upward on God. His cathedrals and churches rise upward as monuments to man's yearning, striving, looking upward for God.
Unfortunately, this attitude prevails in Christianity today. The focus is toward God, rather than outward toward one's fellow man.
Biblical faith is diametrically opposed to the "other-worldly" theology of ecclesiastical Christianity. Biblical faith is very much a religion of today, a religion whose focus is not so much upward as it is outward. In many ways, man's responsibility to his fellow man is more important than his relationship with, or to, God. Or, In other words, man's relationship to God is determined by his relationship to, and his concern for, his fellow man. This is of the utmost importance for us in understanding many of the statements of Jesus and other rabbis of His day.
Just recently, I received a rather lengthy letter of request from a lady in Dayton, Ohio, who wrote for a more in-depth treatment of a passage treated briefly in our book, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, on pages 111-113. The passage in Matthew 5:42 reads, "Give to him who asks of you and from him who would borrow from you, do not turn away." She wrote, in part:
I am writing because I want to help a student in a care-giving class [How to be a People Helper] in which I am taking part. A lady in our group shared she was being plagued with requests for money, food, clothing, etc., by some of her readers. The lady further asked, "After all, does not the Bible teach to give to every man who asks of you?" I shared with this lady and the class from your book but no one understood what you wrote. Please help us apply the principles you meant to convey. We need help and practical advice. These readers are not Christians. I thought Christians were not to borrow money and that we are not to expect loans we make to be returned. This is what is taught in an Institute in Basic Life Principles/Financial Freedom Seminar. Is this correct?
The answer to your question is NO. It is not correct. What is? And how do we understand these words of Jesus?
Most of Jesus' teachings relate to man's responsibility to his fellow man. This is especially true in the corpus of material we know as the "Sermon on the Mount." In this discourse, it is important to note that Jesus is, in a very practical way, telling man how he is to live with his fellow man. The principles set forth in His teachings are those that characterize the individual who is ruled by God, or is a part of His kingdom, His movement, here on earth. These are the characteristics that identify those who comprise, or make up, the kingdom. The context in which the passage in question is couched deals with the relationship of man to his fellow man or, more specifically, brother to brother; that is, those who are a part of the family of God-how they relate to other members of the family. For example, "Your unruly brother strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other and say, 'Go ahead and hit me on my left cheek if it will assist in our being reconciled to each other and to God."' "If your brother asks of you, give to him.…"
Before we continue, let us note that there are two different Hebrew words used here and, although we have the common Hebrew parallelism in the two phrases in this sentence, there is, nonetheless, a slight difference in meaning. The word 'ask,' sha'al, can mean a number of things but, in this context, means specifically to ask as a favor for temporary use, as opposed to the word, lavah, used in the second phrase, which means borrow as a matter of business.
In the first phrase, if a brother comes asking to borrow, as a favor, an item such as a book, then it would be loaned with the understanding that the book will be returned to the person from whom it was borrowed in the condition in which it was borrowed. In the second sense, if a brother comes in the course of a business transaction to borrow money, then that brother would be required to return not the same money but the same amount.
A number of points again should be noted for a clearer understanding. That this is couched in a context of a relationship between brothers is established from verse 43 when Jesus speaks of one's relationship to his 'enemy.' In Greek, the word is ekthros and simply means, in New Testament Greek, one who hates you. In classical Greek, however, there are three words for enemy, polemios, ekthros, and dusmenis. A polemios is one who is at war with you. A dusmenis is a brother who has been alienated for a long period of time and refuses to be reconciled. But an ekthros, the Greek word used here, is one who has been philos, or a brother, but is alienated.
In the Mishnah, in Order Nezikin, Tractate (chapter) Sanhedrin 3, Mishnah 5, an enemy is identified as anyone who has not spoken with his brother, through enmity, for three days. As such, he was disqualified from acting as either a judge or a witness in a court of law.
So we see the relationships discussed here are those of brother to brother. But there is more to be said, since everything belongs to God and we are simply stewards over that which He has entrusted to our keeping, we have a responsibility to see to it that that which we loan will, first, not be abused, and second, that we know the individual well enough to know that they are responsible and an individual of integrity. If we know that a person is irresponsible, not a person of his word, and has no intention of returning that which was borrowed, we have a responsibility not to lend.
It seems apparent that, in the discourse we know as the Sermon on the Mount, the basic thrust of Jesus' teachings is man's relationship with his fellow man or, more specifically, brother to brother, those who are a part of the family of God with other members of the family.
All this raises the question, to what degree is man responsible for those outside of the family of God? Or more specifically, what responsibility does the child of God have to unbelievers, or pagans?
In Jesus' day, it is questionable that the Jewish community, generally speaking, would have given all that much consideration toward pagans. However, it was a point of law that the ger toshav or the ger tsadik [resident stranger] was entitled to the full support of the community. One's concern for the needs of the pagan, or the outsider, undoubtedly would have varied from sect to sect, from the more rigid and orthodox to the more liberal. The parable of the Good Samaritan is a perfect example.
During the late Mishnaic and Rabbinic Periods, the idea of charity, or almsgiving, is considered to be an obligation and one of the foundational tenets of biblical faith. The word tzedakah is widely used to convey this idea of responsibility in assisting the needy in acts of charity.
Charity was considered to be one of the principal attributes of God. In Deuteronomy 10:17-18, it is stated, "For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords.…He doth execute justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raimant."
Rabbi Assi stated that tzedakah is as important as all the other commandments put together (Baba Batra 9a, Talmud). In Sukkah 49b, Rabbi Eleazar said that the passage in Proverbs 21:3, to do righteousness, (tzedakah), and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Therefore, charity (tzedakah) is greater than all the sacrifices.
The rabbis also taught that to give a tenth of one's wealth was considered to be a "middling" virtue; to give a twentieth or less is to be "mean." But, they warned, one should not give more than a fifth lest he become impoverished himself and depend upon charity. (Ketubah 50a)
Other interesting concepts of one's obligation of charity are found in the Shulkhan Arukh YD 251:3, "Women take precedence over men in receiving charity…poor relatives take precedence over strangers…the poor of your own community take precedence over the poor of another community…the poor of Israel take precedence over all."
But there is another interesting and important point in our study. It was taught that charity should be dispensed even to the non-Jewish poor in order to preserve good relationships. However, charity should never be accepted from a non-Jew unless it was unavoidable. Maimonides declared that the highest form of charity is not to give alms but to help the poor to rehabilitate themselves by lending them money, taking them into partnership, employing them, or giving them work, for in this way the end is achieved without any loss of self respect.
In more recent times, it has been the Jewish community worldwide that has taken the lead in the establishment of charitable institutions and associations of all kinds, including hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, medical schools, and schools for the blind, deaf, dumb, and handicapped. Many of these agencies continue to this present day and are international in scope. Because of this foundational principle of tzedakah, there can be no doubt but that the Jews have made a significant contribution to charity and welfare that is unparalleled in human history.
Before leaving this subject, I would like to make a further comment regarding the question of borrowing and lending. It has frequently been stated that the child of God should "owe no man anything": that is, they should not borrow, nor buy anything on time, pay only cash, and so on.
Again, all these conclusions are taken out of their proper biblical and historical context.
Buying on credit is one of the foundation stones of our modern economical and financial institutions. True, it can be a double-edged sword, but properly used, it is one of the things that has made this country great.
When a person buys on credit, there is an agreement between two people, the seller and the buyer. The seller agrees to sell for a certain amount. The buyer agrees to pay a certain amount, weekly or monthly, over a said period of time until the total amount is repaid. As long as the buyer has the capability of paying what the seller requests and makes his payments on time, he has not violated the principle of "owe no man anything." He owes only if he fails to make payments as agreed. As long as one is diligent in management of household finances, and a person of integrity who is careful not to extend beyond his ability to pay, no biblical principle has been violated. As far as I personally am concerned, a lot of what has been said and is being said is poor biblical exegesis and does nothing but place one in spiritual bondage.
Another passage that is extremely difficult for the non-Hebrew speaker is one that is actually a continuation of this same instruction about which we have been speaking, namely, man's relationship to his fellow man. It is the passage in Matthew 5, verses 21-22: "You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
What is Jesus saying? What does it mean by "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire"?
It was a popular idea several years ago in certain circles that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the New Testament was originally composed in Aramaic. This idea was promulgated mainly by a gentleman by the name of George M. Lamsa. Mr. Lamsa happened to be a personal acquaintance and had, on occasion, attended seminars I conducted in San Antonio, where he lived at the time. He was a fine gentleman and I respected him greatly for the monumental amount of work that he had done with little formal training.
Mr. Lamsa, in addition to his translations, wrote a book, Idioms in the Bible Explained: A Key to the Original Gospel, published by Harper & Row. I do not mean to take anything at all away from the intelligence and integrity of Mr. Lamsa, but much of what he says in this book is terribly in error. For example, his treatment on this passage [on Page 94] is as follows: "But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother Raca, shall be guilty to the council, and whosoever shall say, Thou effeminate one, shall be doomed to hellfire" (Matthew 5:22, literal translation from Aramaic).
Then Mr. Lamsa goes on to explain, "Raca in Aramaic means to 'spit in one's face.' In the East, spitting in each other's face is done very frequently during the business hours and the times persons enter into heated arguments. When a merchant and his prospective customer disagree in their bargaining, they generally spit in each other's face."
Such a translation and commentary forces me to question how well the late Mr. Lamsa knew Aramaic. In both Aramaic and Hebrew, the word Raca is a word of derision, meaning empty-headed. We would say the person is stupid, or an idiot, or extremely dumb – beware!
When translated literally from the Hebrew, the passage reads, "…Everyone that is angry with his brother without cause is liable to the bet din, or local congregational court. Everyone that says to his brother, 'You are an empty-headed idiot,' is liable to the Sanhedrin, and everyone that says, 'You are a fool [Hebrew, Naval]' is liable to the fire of Gehenna."
In order to understand the passage, notice the increasing order and severity of both the crime and the punishment. The one that is angry with his brother will be brought before the local congregational court for judgment. Remember, every congregation had its own court of law which judged certain transgressions. However, whoever slandered a brother would be brought before a higher court, namely, the Sanhedrin, for judgment, as cases of libel or slander could be judged only by the higher court. But, whoever called a brother a Naval was in danger of eternal judgment.
What was a Naval? And why was this transgression so heinous? In Everyman's Talmud, by Abraham Cohen, published by Schocken Books, paperback edition, Page 3, we read:
Whether Atheism, in the sense of the dogmatic denial of God's existence, was accepted by anybody in Biblical and Rabbinic times is doubtful; but both in Bible and Talmud the concern was with the practical atheist who conducted his life as though he would never be held to account for his deeds. In Biblical literature, the statement, 'There is no God," Is made by the Naval, ie., the morally corrupt person who, while acknowledging the existence of a Creator, refused to believe that He was at all interested in the actions of His creatures. His counterpart in the Talmud Is the Apikoros, or Epicurean, who likewise "denies the fundamental principle of religion" (Baba Batra 16b) by his abominable conduct. The Rabbis defined the atheist as one who affirmed "There is no judgment and no Judge" (Genesis Rabbah XXVI.6) in the Universe, irrespective of his disbelief in the existence of God.
What was the Naval? In Psalm 53, we read, 'The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that does good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them Is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God. There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God has scattered the bones of him that encamps against thee: thou hast put them to shame; because God has rejected them."
Notice the character of the individual. The Wicked does only abominable deeds and is rejected by God. When one says those things of another brother, he is, in essence, pronouncing judgment. He has usurped a place and position of judgment that belongs only to God and, in so doing, is in danger himself of eternal judgment. Perhaps the moral is that only God knows the true heart and intent of man and it ill behooves us to stand in judgment.
