WHEN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE

The Pharisees in Matthew12 accused the disciples of Jesus of breaking the law on the Sabbath. The disciples were accused of working because of the (to us in the Western world) simple act of picking some heads of grain and eating them. I’m sure their argument would have been that they should have purchased and prepared their food in advance of the Sabbath.

Jesus reminded them of what David did when he was fleeing for his life from King Saul. David and his men ate consecrated bread (bread of the Presence), which only the priest was allowed to eat. He also reminded them that the priests in the temple on the Sabbath were breaking the law of the Sabbath, by working on the Sabbath.

He then said something greater than the temple was here. I always read it as “someone” greater than the temple is here. But it wasn’t someone, it was “something. That “something” is the Greek word in v. 7, “eleos,” which most translations have as either mercy, compassion, or kindness. That something was the principal of mercy, compassion, and kindness, which superseded the law.

In essence, their charge was not directed at the disciples, but at Jesus himself. Because Jesus was their master (Lord), he was responsible for their actions. In their opinion, he could have, and should have, stopped them. That’s why he then said, “The Son of Man is Lord (master)of the Sabbath” (v. 8, emphasis added). So in reality, Jesus was saying that his law superseded the Law. His law operated on the law of kindness and mercy, not the laws of do’s and don’ts.

I have been very guilty of doing something similar to what the Pharisees did in that day. The truth is, I believe many who are true believers are guilty of this very same thing. When we see someone, whose lives are destroyed by drugs, alcohol, or by their actions, we tend to be less merciful in our attitude towards them. We say they shouldn’t have taken that first drink or taken that first drug. If they hadn’t done what they did in the first place, they wouldn’t be in this mess that they are in now. It’s their own fault because of what they did. God in his mercy has spared us many times from going down that same road of self-destruction. But for his mercy there go I.

Jesus then went from there to a synagogue, where a man with a crippled hand was in attendance. Some Jews, I suspect some of the same Pharisees who accused him earlier, were there, who questioned him whether it was right to do good on the Sabbath or not. He then charged them with caring more about a sheep than a human being. This is a way of Jesus’s emphasizing to them that he desired that they would be motivated by kindness. And so he told the man with the crippled hand to stretch out his hand and it was made whole. The result was that those Jews left the temple and made plans to kill him.

My response is “REALLY??!! You want to kill Jesus because he healed a man’s hand? My conviction is that their desire to kill Jesus wasn’t based on the fact that he broke the law according to them, but that he made them look like the terrible people they were, people without mercy and kindness. There are other instances recorded in Scripture that spoke of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and rulers of the people, who wanted to kill Jesus (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 6:1-11;19:45-48, John 5:1-18, 11:45-57). My belief is their desire to kill him in most, if not in all of these instances, was because they were more concerned that Jesus made them look bad, not that He broke the Law or disagreed with their theology. The Pharisees and many of the rulers in his day were consumed with how people viewed, admired, and respected them. It was all about appearance, not righteousness. They were filled with pride. It’s no wonder God hates pride.

This begs the question, why do Christians get all bent out of shape whenever other believers do or do not agree with their theology/doctrine? I am not in any way implying that we are not to guard basic/fundamental doctrines. We are to be defenders of the faith which Paul so eloquently points out to Timothy in 2 Timothy chapter one. I found this excellent definition of the difference of doctrines, here referred to as articles: “Fundamental articles are defined as ‘those divisions of Christian doctrine that one must know and accept’ for salvation. Non-fundamental articles ‘are those Scripture truths which are not the foundation or object of faith in so far as it obtains forgiveness.’” (stmarklutheran.files.Wordpress.com)

Some of the basics, not in totality, are, the Scriptures are inspired; there is one true God; the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ; His virgin birth; the fall of man; and the salvation of man, which is in Christ alone. What so often happens is Christians are beating one another up on matters which have no bearing on where we spend eternity. Things such as pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib. Should we worship on Saturday or Sunday? The answer, at least for me, is we need to worship God every day of the week. [For further insight on this subject check out my blog on the Sabbath] What about styles of worship music? What about the millennium? What does the Bible say about rewards and punishment? Is heaven eternal? Is hell eternal? These are not unimportant questions on matters of faith, but they do not determine our salvation and where we spend eternity.

One of the most important factors in light of this passage is motive. The apostle James in chapter 4:1, 11-12 (MSG) says it this way. “Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again…Don’t bad-mouth each other, friends. It’s God’s Word, his Message, his Royal Rule, that takes a beating in that kind of talk. You’re supposed to be honoring the Message, not writing graffiti all over it. God is in charge of deciding human destiny. Who do you think you are to meddle in the destiny of others?”

This is the question you need to ask yourself when you find yourself in disagreement with another Christian on matters of faith. Is pride the motivating factor? The truthfulness with which you answer this question determines how you should or should not proceed.