Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
“You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, ‘You shall not murder;’ and ‘Whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be in danger of the judgment. Whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ will be in danger of the council. Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.
“If therefore you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are with him on the way; lest perhaps the prosecutor deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be cast into prison. Most certainly I tell you, you shall by no means get out of there, until you have paid the last penny.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 He beginneth with the true expounding of the Law,…
He beginneth with the true expounding of the Law, and setteth it against the old (but yet false) glosses of the Scribes: So far is he from abolishing the least commandment of his Father.
He shall have no place in the Church.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv19–30 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least…
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Ver. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments] So the Pharisees called and counted these weightier things of the law in comparison to their tithings, Mat 23:23, and traditions, Mat 15:3. They deemed it as great a sin to eat with unwashed hands as to commit fornication. Dicunt Iesuitae quaedam peccata adeo esse in se et per se levia, ut factores, nec sordidos, nec malos, nec impios, nec Deo exosos reddant. (Chemnitius.) But albeit some commandments are greater than some, as those of the first table (in meet comparison) than those of the second; yet that pharisaical diminution of commandments, that idle distinction of sins into gnats and camels, venial and mortal, motes and mountains, is by no means to be admitted. The least sin is contrary to charity, as the least drop of water is to fire. The least missing of the mark is an error as well as the greatest; and both alike for kind though not for degrees. חטאה αυαρτια, a missing of the mark, or swerving from the rule. Hence lesser sins are reproached by the name of the greater; malice is called murder; lustful looks, adultery; sitting at idolatrous feasts (though without all intent of worship), idolatry, 1Co 10:14. See Job 31:27-28. Disobedience in never so small a matter (as eating a forbidden apple, gathering a few sticks on the sabbath day, looking into or touching the ark) hath been severely punished. Though the matter seem small, yet thy malice and presumption is great, that wilt in so small a thing incur the Lord’s so high displeasure. What could be a less commandment than to abstain from blood? Yet is their obedience herein urged with many words, and that with this reason, as ever they will have God to do anything for them or theirs, Deu 12:22. The whole law is (say the schoolmen) but one copulative. Any condition not observed forfeits the whole lease; and any commandment not obeyed subjects a man to the curse, Deu 27:26; Gal 3:10. And so some one good action hath blessedness ascribed and assured to it, as peacemaking, Mat 5:9; so he that shall "keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all," Jas 2:10. When some of the Israelites had broken the fourth commandment, God challengeth them for all, Exo 16:28. Where, then, will they appear that plead for this Zoar, for that Rimmon?-a merry lie, a petty oath, an idle errand on the Lord’s day, &c. Sick bodies love to be gratified with some little bit that favoureth the disease. But meddle not with the murdering morsels of sin; there will be bitterness in the end. Jonathan had no sooner tasted of the honey with the tip of his rod only, but his head was forfeited. There is a deceitfulness in sin, a lie in these vanities, Heb 3:13; Joh 2:23; "give them an inch, they’ll take an ell." Let the serpent but get in his head, he will shortly wind in his whole body. He plays no small game, but meaneth us much hurt, how modest soever he seemeth to be. It is no less than the kingdom that he seeketh, by his maidenly insinuations, as Adonijah. As therefore we must submit to God, so we must resist the devil, without expostulation, 1Pe 5:7-9; throw water on the fire of temptation, though but to some smaller sin, and stamp on it too. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth," saith St James. {Jas 3:5} A little poison in a cup, a little leak in a ship, or breach in a wall, may ruin all. A little wound at the heart and a little sin in the soul may hide God’s face from us, as a cloud, Lam 3:44. Therefore as the prophet, when a cloud as big as a man’s hand only appeared, knew that the whole heaven would be overly covered, and willed the king to betake himself to his chariot; so let us to our shelter, for a company comes, as she said, when she bore her son Gad. After Jonathan and his armourbearer came the whole host; and when Delilah had prevailed, came the lords of the Philistines. He that is fallen from the top of a ladder cannot stop at the second round. Every sin hardeneth the heart, and gradually disposeth it to greater offences; as lesser wedges make way for bigger. After Ahaz had made his wicked altar and offered on it, he brought it into the temple; first setting it on the brazen altar, afterwards bringing it into the house, and then, lastly, setting it on the north side of God’s altar, 2Ki 16:12-14. Withstand sin therefore at first, and live by Solomon’s rule, "Give not water passage, no, not a little." Silence sin as our Saviour did the devil, and suffer it not to solicit thee. If it be importunate, answer it not a word, as Hezekiah would not Rabshakeh; or give it a short and sharp answer, yea, the blue eye that St Paul did (υπωπαιζω), 1Co 9:27. Lividum reddo corpus meum. (Aug.) This shall be "no grief unto thee hereafter, nor offence of heart," as she told David; the contrary may, 1Sa 25:31. It repented St Austin of his very excuses made to his parents, being a child, and to his schoolmaster, being a boy. He retracts his ironies, because they had the appearance of a lie, because they looked ill-favouredly. (Confess. i. 19; Retract. i. 1.) Bishop Ridley repents of his playing at chess, as wasting too much time. Bradford bewaileth his dulness and unthankfulness. (Acts and Mon.) David’s heart smote him for cutting the lap of Saul’s coat only; and that for none other intent than to clear his own innocence; that in which Saul commended him for his moderation. There are some that would shrink up sin into a narrow scantling, and bring it to this, if they could, that none do evil but they that are in jails. But David approves his sincerity by his respect to all God’s comandments, and hath this commendation, that he did all the wills of God (θεληματα), Psa 18:21-22 Act 13:36. Solomon also bids "count nothing little that God commandeth, but keep God’s precepts as the sight of the eye," Pro 7:2. Those venturous spirits, that dare live in any known sin, aspire not to immortality, Php 2:12; they shall be least, that is, nothing at all, in the kingdom of heaven.
Read full note →
And teacheth men so] As the Pharisees did, and all the old and modern heresiarchs. In the year 1559 it was maintained by one David George (that arch-heretic) that good works were pernicious and destructory to the soul. Prodiit paradoxon, quod bona opera sint perniciosa ad salutem. (Bucholc. Ind. Chron.) The Anabaptists and Socinians have broached many doctrines of devils, not fit to be once named among Christians. The Pneumatomachi of old set forth a base book of the Trinity, under St Cyprian’s name, and sold it at a very cheap rate, that the poorest might be able to reach it and read it, as Ruffinus complaineth. In those primitive times, those capital heresies (concerning the Trinity and Christ’s incarnation) were so generally held, that it was a witty thing then to be a right believer, as Erasmus phraseth it, Ingeniosa res fuit, esse Christianum. All the world, in a manner, was turned Arian, as St Jerome hath it, Ingemuit orbis, et miratus est se factum esse. (Arianum.) Orosius telleth us that the Goths, being desirous to be instructed in the Christian religion, requested of Valens the emperor to send them some to preach the faith unto them. He being himself an Arian, sent them Arian doctors, who set up that heresy among them. By the just judgment of God, therefore, the same Valens being overthrown in the battle by the Goths, was also burnt by them in a poor cottage, whither he had fled for shelter. Iusto itaque Dei iudicio Valens a Gothis crematus est, quorum ille animis pestiferum errorum virus in fuderat. (Tertullian.) Heretics have an art of Pythanology, whereby they cunningly insinuate into men’s affections, and many times persuade before they teach, as it is said of the Valentinians. It was therefore well and wisely done of Placilla the empress, when her husband Theodosius, senior, desired to confer with Eunomius, she earnestly dissuaded him; lest being perverted by his speeches, he might fall into his heresy. (Sozom. vii. 6, 7.)
Shall be least in the kingdom of heaven] That is, nothing at all there; as Mat 20:16. Either of these two sins here mentioned exclude out of heaven; how much more both? If single sinners that break God’s commandments, and no more, shall be damned, those that teach men so shall be doubly damned: if God will be avenged on the former seven-fold, surely he will on the latter seventy-fold seven-fold. When the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies shall be gathered together (toward the end of the world) to make war against Christ, the multitude shall be slain with the sword, the poor seduced people that were carried along, many of them (as those two hundred that followed Absalom out of Jerusalem) in the simplicity of their hearts, and understood not the matter, shall have an easier judgment, 2Sa 15:11. But the beast was taken, and the false prophet, and were both cast alive (not slain with the sword, and so cast to the infernal vultures to be devoured by them as a prey; but cast alive), that they may feel those most exquisite pains, into a lake of fire burning with brimstone, Rev 19:20-21, wherewith they are encompassed, as fish cast into a pond are with water. {a}
But whosoever shall do, and teach them] First do, and thereby prove what that good, holy, and acceptable will of God is, Rom 12:2; and then teach others what himself hath felt and found good by experience. Come, and I will tell you what God hath done for my soul. "Come, children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye. I will teach transgressors thy ways, and sinners shall be converted unto thee," Psa 66:16; Psa 34:11; Psa 51:13. Charity is no churl, Psa 32:8; but cries, I would to God that all that hear me this day were as I am. Andrew calleth Simon; and Philip, Nathanael; the Samaritaness, her neighbours; and those good souls, one another, Hos 6:1. The love of Christ constrained the apostles, 2Co 5:11; they could not but speak the things they had heard and felt; as little as the holy Virgin could conceal the joy she had conceived upon the conception of God her Saviour. They could not but be as busy in building staircases for heaven as these Pharisees were in digging descents to hell. Blind guides they were of the blind, and both fell into the ditch, but the guides fell undermost. By corrupt teachers Satan catcheth men, as a cunning fisher by one fish catcheth another, that he may feed upon both. Here they corrupted the law by their false glosses, as our Saviour sets forth. But where they kept Moses’ chair warm, sat close and said sooth; all that they bid you observe, that observe and do, saith he, Mat 23:2-3; for a bad man may cry a good commodity, and a stinking breath sound a trumpet with great commendation. Balaam, Satan’s boggey man, may be (for the time) Christ’s spokesman, and preach profitably to others, though himself be a castaway, 1Co 9:27; as water, when it hath cleansed other things, is cast into the sink. Hear such therefore, saith our Saviour, but do not after their works, for they say and do not; they speak by the talent, but work by the ounce; their tongues are larger than their hands; their lives give the lie to their lips; {b} they shun the way themselves (with that priest and Levite) which they showed to others, when mercy should be showed to the wounded man. Out of their own mouths therefore will God condemn them; and it is a fearful thing to fall into the punishing hands of the living God. As for those burning and shining lights, that have Urim and Thummim, bells and pomegranates, trumpets of sound doctrine in one hand and lamps of good life in the other, as Gideon’s soldiers; they shall be great in the kingdom of heaven. He that holdeth them in his right hand here, Rev 1:20, shall set them at his right hand hereafter, and give them to hear, as Ezekiel did, the noise "of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the Lord," Eze 3:12.
{a} Dirissimum exitii genus quo hiatu prae reliquis devovebuntur. Parcus.
{b} Odi homines ignava opera, philosophia, sententia. Ennius. Συναδοντων μεν τοις εργοις αποδεκτεον, διαφωνουντων δε λογους υποληπτεον. Arist.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 Whosoever shall in his practice violate but one of…
Whosoever shall in his practice violate but one of the commandments of God, which the Pharisees judge of the least, and which possible are so compared with others, and shall teach men that they may do as he doth, making such false interpretations of the law as may warrant such a practice, he shall be accounted of the least value and esteem in the church of God, and shall never come into the kingdom of glory: but he who shall strictly and uniformly obey all the commandments, and teach others to do the like by his doctrine and example, that man shall have a great renown and reputation in the church, which is the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and shall have a great reward in the kingdom of glory hereafter.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29 To evidence yet farther, that the moral law is…
To evidence yet farther, that the moral law is a perfect rule of life, our Saviour tells his disciples, that if any of them did either by their doctrine or practice, make void any one of the least of God’s commands, either by allowing themselves in the omission of any kmown duty, or in the commission of any known din, they shall never enter into the kingdom of God.
Learn, That such a professor of Christianity as allows himself in the least voluntary transgression, either of omission or commission, and encourages other by his example to do the like, is certainly in a state of damnation.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv21, 27 Christ having laid down these principles, that Moses and…
Christ having laid down these principles, that Moses and the prophets were still to be their rulers, but that the scribes and Pharisees were to be no longer their rulers, proceeds to expound the law in some particular instances, and to vindicate it from the corrupt glosses which those expositors had put upon it. He adds not any thing new, only limits and restrains some permissions which had been abused: and as to the precepts, shows the breadth, strictness, and spiritual nature of them, adding such explanatory statutes as made them more clear, and tended much toward the perfecting of our obedience to them. In these verses, he explains the law of the sixth commandment, according to the true intent and full extent of it.
I. Here is the command itself laid down (Mat 5:12); We have heard it, and remember it; he speaks to them who know the law, who had Moses read to them in their synagogues every sabbath-day; you have heard that it was said by them, or rather as it is in the margin, to them of old time, to your forefathers the Jews, Thou shalt not kill. Note, The laws of God are not novel, upstart laws, but were delivered to them of old time; they are ancient laws, but of that nature as never to be antiquated nor grow obsolete. The moral law agrees with the law of nature, and the eternal rules and reasons of good and evil, that is, the rectitude of the eternal Mind. Killing is here forbidden, killing ourselves, killing any other, directly or indirectly, or being any way accessory to it. The law of God, the God of life, is a hedge of protection about our lives. It was one of the precepts of Noah, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6.
Read full note →
II. The exposition of this command which the Jewish teachers contended themselves with; their comment upon it was, Whosoever shall kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. This was all they had to say upon it, that wilful murderers were liable to the sword of justice, and casual ones to the judgment of the city of refuge. The courts of judgment sat in the gate of their principal cities; the judges, ordinarily, were in number twenty-three; these tried, condemned, and executed murderers; so that whoever killed, was in danger of their judgment. Now this gloss of theirs upon this commandment was faulty, for it intimated, 1. That the law of the sixth commandment was only external, and forbade no more than the act of murder, and laid to restraint upon the inward lusts, from which wars and fightings come. This was indeed the prōton pseudos - the fundamental error of the Jewish teachers, that the divine law prohibited only the sinful act, not the sinful thought; they were disposed haerere in cortice - to rest in the letter of the law, and they never enquired into the spiritual meaning of it. Paul, while a Pharisee, did not, till, by the key of the tenth commandment, divine grace let him into the knowledge of the spiritual nature of all the rest, Rom 7:7, Rom 7:14. 2. Another mistake of theirs was, that this law was merely political and municipal, given for them, and intended as a directory for their courts, and no more; as if they only were the people, and the wisdom of the law must die with them.
III. The exposition which Christ gave of this commandment; and we are sure that according to his exposition of it we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. The commandment is exceeding broad, and not to be limited by the will of the flesh, or the will of men.
1. Christ tells them that rash anger is heart-murder (Mat 5:22); Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, breaks the sixth commandment. By our brother here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much our inferior, as a child, a servant, for we are all made of one blood. Anger is a natural passion; there are cases in which it is lawful and laudable; but it is then sinful, when we are angry without cause. The word is eikē, which signifies, sine caus, sine effectu, et sine modo - without cause, without any good effect, without moderation; so that the anger is then sinful, (1.) When it is without any just provocation given; either for no cause, or no good cause, or no great and proportionable cause; when we are angry at children or servants for that which could not be helped, which was only a piece of forgetfulness or mistake, that we ourselves might easily have been guilty of, and for which we should not have been angry at ourselves; when we are angry upon groundless surmises, or for trivial affronts not worth speaking of. (2.) When it is without any good end aimed at, merely to show our authority, to gratify a brutish passion, to let people know our resentments, and excite ourselves to revenge, then it is in vain, it is to do hurt; whereas if we are at any time angry, it should be to awaken the offender to repentance, and prevent his doing so again; to clear ourselves (Co2 7:11), and to give warning to others. (3.) When it exceeds due bounds; when we are hardy and headstrong in our anger, violent and vehement, outrageous and mischievous, and when we seek the hurt of those we are displeased at. This is a breach of the sixth commandment, for he that is thus angry, would kill if he could and durst; he has taken the first step toward it; Cain's killing his brother began in anger; he is a murderer in the account of God, who knows his heart, whence murder proceeds, Mat 15:19.
2. He tells them, that given opprobrious language to our brother is tongue-murder, calling him, Raca, and, Thou fool. When this is done with mildness and for a good end, to convince others of their vanity and folly, it is not sinful. Thus James says, O vain man; and Paul, Thou fool; and Christ himself, O fools, and slow of heart. But when it proceeds from anger and malice within, it is the smoke of that fire which is kindled from hell, and falls under the same character. (1.) Raca is a scornful word, and comes from pride, "Thou empty fellow;" it is the language of that which Solomon calls proud wrath (Pro 21:24), which tramples upon our brother - disdains to set him even with the dogs of our flock. This people who knoweth not the law, is cursed, is such language, Joh 7:49. (2.) Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred; looking upon him, not only as mean and not to be honoured, but as vile and not to be loved; "Thou wicked man, thou reprobate." The former speaks a man without sense, this (in scripture language) speaks a man without grace; the more the reproach touches his spiritual condition, the worse it is; the former is a haughty taunting of our brother, this is a malicious censuring and condemning of him, as abandoned of God. Now this is a breach of the sixth commandment; malicious slanders and censures are poison under the tongue, that kills secretly and slowly; bitter words are as arrows that would suddenly (Psa 64:3), or as a sword in the bones. The good name of our neighbour, which is better than life, is thereby stabbed and murdered; and it is an evidence of such an ill-will to our neighbour as would strike at his life, if it were in our power.
3. He tells them, that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be reckoned for; he that is angry with is brother shall be in danger of the judgment and anger of God; he that calls him Raca, shall be in danger of the council, of being punished by the Sanhedrim for reviling an Israelite; but whosoever saith, Thou fool, thou profane person, thou child of hell, shall be in danger of hell-fire, to which he condemns his brother; so the learned Dr. Whitby. Some think, in allusion to the penalties used in the several courts of judgment among the Jews, Christ shows that the sin of rash anger exposes men to lower or higher punishments, according to the degrees of its proceeding. The Jews had three capital punishments, each worse than the other; beheading, which was inflicted by the judgment; stoning, by the council or chief Sanhedrim; and burning in the valley of the son of Hinnom, which was used only in extraordinary cases: it signifies, therefore, that rash anger and reproachful language are damning sins; but some are more sinful than others, and accordingly there is a greater damnation, and a sorer punishment reserved for them: Christ would thus show which sin was most sinful, by showing which it was the punishment whereof was most dreadful.
IV. From all this it is here inferred, that we ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with our brethren, and that if at any time a breach happens, we should labour for a reconciliation, by confessing our fault, humbling ourselves to our brother, begging his pardon, and making restitution, or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed, according as the nature of the thing is; and that we should do this quickly for two reasons:
1. Because, till this be done, we are utterly unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances, Mat 5:23, Mat 5:24. The case supposed is, "That thy brother have somewhat against thee," that thou has injured and offended him, either really or in his apprehension; if thou are the party offended, there needs not this delay; if thou have aught against thy brother, make short work of it; no more is to be done but to forgive him (Mar 11:25), and forgive the injury; but if the quarrel began on thy side, and the fault was either at first or afterwards thine, so that thy brother has a controversy with thee, go and be reconciled to him before thou offer thy gift at the altar, before thou approach solemnly to God in the gospel-services of prayer and praise, hearing the word or the sacraments. Note, (1.) When we are addressing ourselves to any religious exercises, it is good for us to take that occasion of serious reflection and self-examination: there are many things to be remembered, when we bring our gift to the altar, and this among the rest, whether our brother hath aught against us; then, if ever, we are disposed to be serious, and therefore should then call ourselves to an account. (2.) Religious exercises are not acceptable to God, if they are performed when we are in wrath; envy, malice, and uncharitableness, are sins so displeasing to God, that nothing pleases him which comes from a heart wherein they are predominant, Ti1 2:8. Prayers made in wrath are written in gall, Isa 1:15; Isa 58:4. (3.) Love or charity is so much better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifice, that God will have reconciliation made with an offended brother before the gift be offered; he is content to stay for the gift, rather than have it offered while we are under guilt and engaged in a quarrel. (4.) Though we are unfitted for communion with God, by a continual quarrel with a brother, yet that can be no excuse for the omission or neglect of our duty: "Leave there thy gift before the altar, lest otherwise, when thou has gone away, thou be tempted not to come again." Many give this as a reason why they do not come to church or to the communion, because they are at variance with some neighbour; and whose fault is that? One sin will never excuse another, but will rather double the guilt. Want of charity cannot justify the want of piety. The difficulty is easily got over; those who have wronged us, we must forgive; and those whom we have wronged, we must make satisfaction to, or at least make a tender of it, and desire a renewal of the friendship, so that if reconciliation be not made, it may not be our fault; and then come, come and welcome, come and offer thy gift, and it shall be accepted. Therefore we must not let the sun go down upon our wrath any day, because we must go to prayer before we go to sleep; much less let the sun rise upon our wrath on a sabbath-day, because it is a day of prayer.
2. Because, till this be done, we lie exposed to much danger, Mat 5:25, Mat 5:26. It is at our peril if we do not labour after an agreement, and that quickly, upon two accounts:
(1.) Upon a temporal account. If the offence we have done to our brother, in his body, goods, or reputation, be such as will bear action, in which he may recover considerable damages, it is our wisdom, and it is our duty to our family, to prevent that by a humble submission and a just and peaceable satisfaction; lest otherwise he recover it by law, and put us to the extremity of a prison. In such a case it is better to compound and make the best terms we can, than to stand it out; for it is in vain to contend with the law, and there is danger of our being crushed by it. Many ruin their estates by an obstinate persisting in the offences they have given, which would soon have been pacified by a little yielding at first. Solomon's advice in case of suretyship is, Go, humble thyself, and so secure and deliver thyself, Pro 6:1-5. It is good to agree, for the law is costly. Though we must be merciful to those we have advantage against, yet we must be just to those that have advantage against us, as far as we are able. "Agree, and compound with thine adversary quickly, lest he be exasperated by thy stubbornness, and provoked to insist upon the utmost demand, and will not make thee the abatement which at first he would have made." A prison is an uncomfortable place to those who are brought to it by their own pride and prodigality, their own wilfulness and folly.
(2.) Upon a spiritual account. "Go, and be reconciled to thy brother, be just to him, be friendly with him, because while the quarrel continues, as thou art unfit to bring thy gift to the altar, unfit to come to the table of the Lord, so thou art unfit to die: if thou persist in this sin, there is danger lest thou be suddenly snatched away by the wrath of God, whose judgment thou canst not escape nor except against; and if that iniquity be laid to thy charge, thou art undone for ever." Hell is a prison for all that live and die in malice and uncharitableness, for all that are contentious (Rom 2:8), and out of that prison there is no rescue, no redemption, no escape, to eternity.
This is very applicable to the great business of our reconciliation to God through Christ; Agree with him quickly, whilst thou art in the way. Note, [1.] The great God is an Adversary to all sinners, antidikos - a law-adversary; he has a controversy with them, an action against them. [2.] It is our concern to agree with him, to acquaint ourselves with him, that we may be at peace, Job 22:21; Co2 5:20. [3.] It is our wisdom to do this quickly, while we are in the way. While we are alive, we are in the way; after death, it will be too late to do it; therefore give not sleep to thine eyes till it be done. [4.] They who continue in a state of enmity to God, are continually exposed to the arrests of his justice, and the most dreadful instances of his wrath. Christ is the Judge, to whom impenitent sinners will be delivered; for all judgment is committed to the Son; he that was rejected as a Saviour, cannot be escaped as a Judge, Rev 6:16, Rev 6:17. It is a fearful thing to be thus turned over to the Lord Jesus, when the Lamb shall become the Lion. Angels are the officers to whom Christ will deliver them (Mat 13:41, Mat 13:42); devils are so too, having the power of death as executioners to all unbelievers, Heb 2:14. Hell is the prison, into which those will be cast that continue in a state of enmity to God, Pe2 2:4. [5.] Damned sinners must remain in it to eternity; they shall not depart till they have paid the uttermost farthing, and that will not be to the utmost ages of eternity: divine justice will be for ever in the satisfying, but never satisfied.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv19–30 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,....…
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,.... Which are to be understood not of the beatitudes in the preceding verses, for these were not delivered by Christ under the form of commandments; nor of any of the peculiar commands of Christ under the Gospel dispensation; but of the precepts of the law, of which some were comparatively lesser than others; and might be said to be broke, loosed, or dissolved, as the word here used signifies, when men acted contrary to them.
And shall teach men so; not only teach them by their example to break the commandments, but by express orders: for however gross and absurd this may seem to be, that there should be any such teachers, and they should have any hearers, yet such there were among the Jews; and our Lord here manifestly strikes at them: for notwithstanding the great and excellent things they say of the law, yet they tell us, that the doctors of the sanhedrim had power to root anything out of the law; to loose or make void any of its commands, for a time, excepting in the case of idolatry; and so might any true prophet, or wise man; which they pretend is sometimes necessary for the glory of God, and the good of men; and they are to be heard and obeyed, when they say, transgress anyone of all the commands which are in the law (h). Maimonides says (i), that the sanhedrim had power, when it was convenient, for the time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a negative one, in order to return many to their religion; or to deliver many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they may do whatsoever the present time makes necessary: for so, adds he, the former wise men say, a man may profane one sabbath, in order to keep many sabbaths. And elsewhere (k) he affirms,
Read full note →
"if a prophet, whom we know to be a prophet, should order us , "to transgress anyone of the commands", which are mentioned in the law, or many commands, whether light or heavy, for a time, we are ordered to hearken to him; and so we learn from the former wise men, by tradition, that in everything a prophet shall say to thee , "transgress the words of the law", as Elias on Mount Carmel, hear him, except in the case of idolatry.''
And another of their writers says (l),
"it is lawful sometimes to make void the law, and to do that which appears to be forbidden.''
Nay, they even (m) say, that if a Gentile should bid an Israelite transgress anyone of the commands mentioned in the law, excepting idolatry, adultery, and murder, he may transgress with impunity, provided it is done privately. You see what reason Christ had to express himself in the manner he does, and that with resentment, saying,
he shall be called, or be
the least in the kingdom of heaven; meaning either the church of God, where he shall have neither a name, nor place; he shall not be in the least esteemed, but shall be cast out as a worthless man; or the ultimate state of happiness and glory, in the other world, where he shall not enter, as is said in the next verse; but, on the other hand,
whosoever shall do and teach; whose doctrine and conversation, principles and practices agree together; who both teach obedience to the law, and perform it themselves: where again he glances at the masters in Israel, and tacitly reproves them who said, but did not; taught the people what they themselves did not practise; and so were unworthy of the honour, which he that both teaches and does shall have: for
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven; he shall be highly esteemed of in the church here, and be honoured hereafter in the world to come. The Jews have a saying somewhat like this;
"he that lessens himself for the words of the law in this world, , "he shall become great" in the world to come (n),''
or days of the Messiah.
(h) T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 79. 1. & 89. 2. & 90. 2. (i) Hilch. Memarim, c. 2. sect. 4. (k) Hilch. Yesode Hattorah, c. 9. sect. 3. (l) Bartenora in, Misn. Beracot, c. 9. sect. 5. (m) T. Hicros. Sheviith, fol. 35. 1. (n) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 85. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 One of the least - So accounted by men;…
One of the least - So accounted by men; and shall teach - Either by word or example; shall be the least - That is, shall have no part therein.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv19–29 Verse 19. Whosoever - shall break one of these…
Verse 19. Whosoever - shall break one of these least commandments] The Pharisees were remarkable for making a distinction between weightier and lighter matters in the law, and between what has been called, in a corrupt part of the Christian Church, mortal and venial sins. See Clarke on Mt 22:36.
Whosoever shall break. What an awful consideration is this! He who, by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force and meaning, shall be called least - shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 Mat 5:19. Whosoever therefore shall break — Shall himself…
Mat 5:19. Whosoever therefore shall break — Shall himself transgress in his practice, or pervert and weaken by his doctrine, one of these least commandments, and teach men so — Shall direct or encourage men to do the same, or shall teach them, either by word or example, that the obligation of these commands is dissolved; he shall be called — Or, shall be accounted one of the least, and unworthiest members in the kingdom of heaven — Or, Church of the Messiah, and shall soon be entirely cut off from it, as unfit for so holy a society, and shall have no part in the church triumphant. “There is in the text a figure, which the rhetoricians call μειωσις, diminution, often elegantly used to convey a strong idea. Thus, Gal 5:21, They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God, that is, shall be severely punished.” — Macknight. But whosoever shall do and teach them, &c. — Whosoever shall himself carefully practise these precepts of the law, and other parts of the divine word, and shall inculcate their universal obligation, shall be greatly rewarded.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30 Whosoever therefore shall break - Shall violate or disobey.
Whosoever therefore shall break - Shall violate or disobey.
One of these least commandments - The Pharisees, it is probable, divided the precepts of the law into lesser and greater, teaching that they who violated the former were guilty of a trivial offence only. See Mat 23:23. Christ teaches that in his kingdom they who make this distinction, or who taught that any laws of God might be violated with impunity, should be called least; while they should be held in high regard who observed all the laws of God without distinction.
Read full note →
Shall be called least - That is, shall be least. See Mat 5:9. The meaning of this passage seems to be this: in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in the kingdom of the Messiah, or in the church which he is about to establish (see the notes at Mat 3:2), he that breaks the least of these commandments shall be in no esteem, or shall not be regarded as a proper religious teacher. The Pharisees, by dividing the law into greater and lesser precepts, made no small part of it void by their traditions and divisions, Mat 23:23; Mat 15:3-6. Jesus says that in his kingdom all this vain division and tradition would cease. Such divisions and distinctions would be a small matter. He that attempted it should be the least of all. People would be engaged in yielding obedience to all the law of God without any such vain distinctions.
Shall be called great - He that teaches that all the law of God is binding, and that the whole of it should be obeyed, without attempting to specify what is most important, shall be a teacher worthy of his office, and shall be called great. Hence, we learn:
1.That all the law of God is binding on Christians. Compare Jam 2:10.
2.That all the commands of God should be preached, in their proper place, by Christian ministers.
3.That they who pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them, are unworthy of his kingdom. And,
4.That true piety has respect to all the commandments of God. Compare Psa 119:6.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29 He shall be called; i.e. (by a frequent Hebrew…
He shall be called; i.e. (by a frequent Hebrew idiom) he shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven; that is, according to St. Augustine he shall not be there at all; for none but the great in sanctity and virtue shall find admittance into heaven. (Witham) --- Do not then imitate the Scribes and Pharisees, who content themselves with instructing other in the precepts of the law, without practising them themselves, or if they observe the letter, neglect the spirit of the law, performing what it ordain, not to please God, but to satisfy their vanity. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v20 2. Relation, between the Doctrine of Christ and the…
2. Relation, between the Doctrine of Christ and the Law; and between the latter and the Doctrine of the Pharisees and Scribes, or Jewish Traditionalism, as exhibited in five special instances,—showing the spurious in opposition to the genuine development of the Law, its narrowing by the letter, and its fulness in the spirit.
Mat_5:20-48
Read full note →
( Mat_5:20-26, the Gospel for the 6th Sunday after Trinity)
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21Ye have heard that it was said by [to]12 them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be indanger of the judgment: 22But I say unto [to] you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause [without cause]13 shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but [and] whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27Ye have heard that it was said by [to] them of old time,14 Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto [to] you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee [cause thee to offend], pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee [cause thee to offend], cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, 31and not that thy whole body should be cast [depart, ἀπέλθῃ] into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving [save] for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by [to] them of old time, Thou shall 34not forswear thyself [swear falsely], but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication [word, λόγος] be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel [impress] thee to go a mile, go with him twain [two]. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,15 and pray for them which [who] despitefully use you, and16 persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which [who] is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others [that excels, τί περισσόν]? do not even the publicans [the heathen]17 so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which [who] is in heaven is perfect.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
General Remarks on the whole Section.—(1) Real abolition of the law under guise of rendering its injunctions more rigid; hedging in of the law in its spirituality and perfectness by the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, resulting in perversion of doctrine by converting the law into a series of outward and finite ordinances.
First Instance: Abrogation of the law through observance of the letter, by the conversion of a moral precept into a purely civil law, thus secularizing it, and destroying its spirit—as shown in the traditions connected with the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Second Instance: Abrogation of the law by weakening its force, and converting a limited permission into an encouragement—as shown in the traditions connected with the commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Third Instance: Abrogation of the law by the perversion of a solemn asseveration into a common mode of assurance, or into cursing—as exhibited in the injunctions connected with oaths. Fourth Instance: Abrogation of the law by the conversion of an ordinance of criminal law intended to put an end to private vengeance into a moral law, which, in reality, sanctioned vengeance—as shown in the law of retaliation. Fifth Instance: Abolition of the law by sectarian interpretation and false inferences—as exhibited in connection with the great commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor.”
(2) In opposition to these perversions, we have five instances of the fulfilment of the law by the teaching of Christ, in each of which the law is traced back to the mind and heart, or to the moral and religious life generally. In the first of the above instances, the law is traced back to the passion of anger; in the second, to adulterous desires; in the third, to the sinful want of reverence; in the fourth, to yielding to the power of evil; in the fifth, to selfishness and sectarianism, which are incompatible with the requirements of universal love. In reference to the first of these instances, the Lord requireth from us brotherly feeling; in reference to the second, He demandeth sanctity in the relationship between the sexes; in reference to the third, calm assurance in the fear of God, so that our “yea be yea, and our nay nay;” in reference to the fourth, meekness and mercy, which overcometh injuries; while in reference to the fifth, He points out the infinitude of ove.
(3) In all these examples, Christ shows that, viewed as a principle, in its true import and bearing, the law goes far beyond the mere letter, demanding not only a definite outward compliance, but reaching also the mind and heart. This boundless extent of the law in its application to the inner man is here presented in a definite form, and as special precepts; which, however, must not be interpreted literally, but regarded as so many symbols designed to illustrate the spirituality and depth of the law. Thus the carnal literalism and perversion of truth which appear in the rabbinical interpretation of “Thou shalt not kill,” is met by a more literal yet infinitely deeper application of the commandment. The dull stupidity of their literalism is met, so to speak, by a certain irony of literality. Similarly, the lustfulness which was legalized by the cunning perversion of the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” is met by an uncompromising demand of the most complete self-denial. In opposition to the third perversion of the law, by which that which was holy was thoughtlessly and sinfully dragged down, we have here a majestic prohibition uttered in the name of the highest authority. Instead of the spirit of strife, fostered by an abuse of the principle of retaliation, the Saviour inculcates readiness to surrender even our own rights; while, lastly, the national pride and narrow sectarianism of the Pharisees were to give place to the influences of a love so wide, as to break through all the narrow bounds of bigotry. Thus Jesus refutes the literalism of the scribes by literality; and shows that even in its literal interpretation, the letter of the law was from the first only the symbol of its spirit.
Mat_5:20. Except your righteousness shall exceed, etc., ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ.—The general idea, to be better, or to excel, does not exhaust the expression, which implies to grow up beyond the righteousness of the scribes—to exceed it. The antithesis lies in the statement, that the Pharisees have all their reward here, while the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven is not only lasting, but extends to the kingdom of glory. The word δικαιοσύνη does not merely refer to righteousness by faith, but in general to the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven as a principle, both in respect of doctrine and of life.
The directions here given by the Lord are manifestly not intended by way of improvement upon the law (Maldonatus and others), but as expressing its true fulfilment in opposition to its destruction by the traditions of the Pharisees. At first sight, it might appear as if Christ were setting aside the letter of the Old Testament; while in reality He only refutes the literalism of tradition, by which the true import of the law was perverted. Against every other abrogation of the law, the Lord protested on every occasion.
Mat_5:21. By them, or more correctly: To those of old, or to the ancients, τοῖς ἀρχαίοις.—Beza, Schöttgen, [our authorized version], and others, render, “by them of old.” But this interpretation is evidently strained, nor does it bring out the antithesis in the words of our Lord. “But I say unto you.” They of old, or the ancients, are evidently the old recipients of tradition, the Jewish synagogue,—not the Lawgiver himself. The reference to traditionalism in the word ἐῤῥέθη is peculiarly apt. It were impossible to fix upon any one who had first propounded these traditions; they rather originated from the general spirit of interpretation common in the synagogue.18
Thou shalt not kill, Exo_20:13.—To this the traditions of the scribes added, “And whosoever shall kill,” etc.—a gloss which destroyed the spiritual and moral character of the law, and converted it into a rigid and merely external legal enactment. For, in the addition made by the scribes, the term kill manifestly referred only to actual murder; thus implying that the law itself applied only to the outward act of murder.—Shall be in danger of the judgment: κρίσις, which, according to Mat_5:22, was subject to the Sanhedrim. Every town had such a local court, the Council of Seven (consisting, according to the rabbins, of twenty-three members), which had the power of pronouncing sentence upon crimes, and of inflicting execution by the sword (Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, 14; Deu_16:18). The Sanhedrim, or the Council of Seventy, alone had authority to pronounce sentence of stoning, or to adjudicate in cases of grievous heresy and of blasphemy.
Mat_5:22. The word εἰκῆ (omitted in Cod. B, and by some of the Fathers) is not of doubtful authority; at any rate, it would have to be mentally supplied, as the Scriptures do not condemn anger on proper occasions, or moral indignation (see Eph_4:26; the example of the Lord and His parables).19 The passage not only condemns unjust anger, but also the want of love.—By the term brother, our Lord referred not merely to Jews, but to our neighbors generally.—Raca. Variously interpreted as, 1. A mere interjection by way of reproach; 2. רֵיקָא, empty head! a common term of reproach at the time. (See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.; also Ewald, who derives it from the Aramæan רקעא, and renders it blackguard.) 3. From רָקַק, to spit out—the prolonged imperative: Spit out, used as an interjection to designate heretics, at whom it was customary to spit. In support of this interpretation it might be argued, that the party so reproached was thereby, as it were, arraigned before the Sanhedrim.—The word fool, μωρός, נָכִל, indicates the hopeless, helpless fool or atheist (Psalms 14).—Shall be in danger of hell fire, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν. Here the dative is awanting, as mention is no longer made of any tribunal, but of the punishment at once awarded to such a person. The New Testament term γέεννα, or hell, must be carefully distinguished from the Jewish Sheol or Hades, which means merely the realm of the dead or the region of the departed.20 Originally, גֵּיא הִכֹּם, the Valley of Hinnom; more precisely, the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, at the southern declivity of Jerusalem. Afterward, the place where, during the apostasy, the service of Moloch was celebrated, 1Ki_11:7. King Josiah converted it into a place of abomination, where dead bodies were thrown and burnt (2Ki_23:13-14). Hence it served as a symbol of condemnation, and of the abode of lost spirits (comp. Lightfoot, Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, and others).
Accordingly, the following are, in symbolic language, the three gradations of punishment:—
(1) The sin of anger without a cause—in danger of the local court.
(2) The sin of imputing heresy—in danger of the Sanhedrim, or the highest spiritual judicatory.
(3) The sin of condemning one’s neighbor—in danger of immediate condemnation.
These awards of the Lord are evidently not harsh judgments, but in strict accordance with what is absolutely right. He who pronounces judgment without cause, is justly liable to the same judgment he had pronounced, in contravention of the law of love and of truth. The expression ἔνοχοςἔσται is peculiarly apt, as meaning, he is liable, or justly subject. This implies, not that he is lost in these judgments, but that he stands in need of Divine grace. In His explanation of the sixth commandment, the Lord does not allude to actual murder,—according to Meyer—because such a crime could not be supposed among believers, or, as we think, because the Lord intended to trace back every action to the state of mind from which it sprung. In that respect, he who is angry without cause stands on the same level with the murderer, just as lust in the heart is in reality adultery (1Jn_3:15).
Mat_5:23-24. Going to the temple. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar.—If thou art about to bring an offering. In accordance with the above principles, the party who deems himself offended is treated as if he were the offender, or as debtor to his brother. In short, the Lord addresses Himself to offenders generally. The passage teaches, 1. That when approaching the sanctuary, we learn to feel our personal guilt. 2. In such case, it is more urgent to pay our brother the debt of love than to discharge our debt to the temple; since an offering presented by one who is chargeable with wrong could not be acceptable to God, and the moral purification of man is the great object of the worship of God: see Mat_9:13 (the πρῶτον must be connected with ὕπαγε).—In the ancient Church, it was customary for members of a family to ask each other’s forgiveness before going to the table of the Lord.
Mat_5:25. Going to the judgment-seat. This may be regarded as supplementary to what preceded. Agree, show thyself agreeable, εὐνοῶν, ready for reconciliation, with thine adversary, or the opponent in thy cause,—applying to the legal accuser, not to the devil (Clement), nor to God (Augustine), nor to the conscience (Euthymius Zig.). It is a mistake to regard this as a mere prudential rule (Theophylact, Paulus); it embodies a principle of moral right in the form of a symbolic ordinance. Accordingly, the whole passage, as that about going to the temple, has a symbolical meaning. The term prison, φυλακή, does not refer to purgatory (Roman Cath. interpreters), but to the full measure of punitive justice, which may, indeed, extend to Sheol (Olshausen: “transition state”).
Mat_5:26. Farthing.—The word κοδράντης, quadrans, a quarter of an as, implies that the debt is exacted to the last balance.21 Meyer suggests that ἕως, till, indicates a term, which, however, cannot be reached.
Mat_5:28. Whosoever looketh upon a woman.—The explanation of our Lord here follows immediately upon the mention of the commandment in Exo_20:14, to show that the scribes applied the commandment only to actual adultery. But while the matrimonial law of the Old Testament (although not the seventh commandment) accorded certain privileges to man in his relation to woman (such as the permission of polygamy and of divorce), the Lord here attacks and rebukes chiefly the sins of man.
To lust after her, ποὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαιαὐ τῆς.—“The word πρός manifestly indicates the mental object or aim” (Tholuck, p. 208). The statement, therefore, refers to intentional and conscious, not to unintentional desires.22 Even the latter are sinful; but, as Luther expresses it, a sinful thought, without the consent of the mind, is not mortal sin. “Nevertheless it is a sin, but included in the general forgiveness” (Tholuck, p. 210). In its strict grammatical bearing, the statement would imply that the most general, intentional desire of a carnal nature, is contrary to the spirit of marriage.—In his heart.—The heart as the centre of life, and the seat of feeling and desire.
Mat_5:29-30. And if thy right eye offend thee.—The word σκανδαλίζειν refers to incitement to sin, which leads to the actual commission of it, and not merely to incitement generally. The eye and the hand are mentioned as the organs of temptation: the former, as the symbol of delight in locking (sense of beauty); the latter, as the symbol of converse and intercourse (social feeling, converse, friendship). The right eye and the right hand, i. e., according to the popular view, the best: in the present case, symbolically referring to the fairest view and the highest intercourse. The injunction must neither be taken literally (Fritzsche), nor as symbolical of self-denial in the right and lawful use (Grotius), but as a figure of absolute and painful renunciation.
It is profitable for thee.—This cutting off and tearing out will be useful to thee. The word ἵνα, which follows, shows that συμφέρει refers to the previous clause.—This painful self-denial, this seeming self-deprivation of life and enjoyment, is real gain. For in that case only one organ of life is lost (i. e., only in one particular aspect) for this world, while in the other the whole life—here indicated by the body—is given over to hell. The word body is used for life, on account of the nature of this sin.
Mat_5:31. It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.—Christ here first takes up the later perversions of the law about divorce, and returns to the ordinances given by Moses, which He then further explains and develops. “According to Deu_24:1, צֶרְוַת דָּבָר—עֶרוָה, ‘uncleanness,’ ‘matter of nakedness,’ something abominable in a female—is admitted as a ground of divorce (Ewald, Alterthümer, p. 234). Rabbi Shammai and his school explained this as referring to adultery, while Hillel and his school applied it to anything displeasing to a husband (comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 8, 23). Rosenmäller, Schol. on Deu_24:1, sqq. Rabbi Akiba went even further, and permitted divorce in case a man should meet with a more pleasing woman; see Wetstein.”—Meyer. The difference between the two schools consisted not merely in this, that while Shammai limited divorce to adultery, Hillel allowed it in a great variety of cases; but that Shammai insisted on the necessity of a criminal and legal cause for divorce, while Hillel left it to the inclination of the individual. The terms employed by Moses implied at least the germ of those spiritual views concerning marriage which were the aim of the theocracy. But the teaching of Hillel destroyed that germ, and converted the law of Moses into a cloak for adulterous lust. As the Lord shows in another place, Moses allowed a bill of divorce in the case of moral aberrations on the part of a wife, in order to limit the number of divorces. The Rabbins reversed the meaning of the law by saying Moses has commanded, Mat_19:7. The practice of divorce was an ancient and traditional custom, which Moses limited by insisting on a definite motive, and on a regular bill of divorce. Hence, ὅς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ (according to custom), δότω ἀποστάσιον (according to the new arrangement in Israel). Its object was not merely to serve “as evidence that the marriage had been legally dissolved, and that the woman was at liberty to marry another man” (Ewald), but to render divorce more difficult.
Mat_5:32. Save for the cause of fornication, παρεκ τὸς λόγου πορνείας.—This exceptional case is not mentioned in Mar_10:11, nor in Luk_16:18; but occurs again in Mat_19:9 (εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ), and must be supplied in the parallel passages,—the more so, as, according to Lev_20:10, adultery was to be punished with death. Calov, Meyer, and others, maintain that the mention of this one ground of divorce excludes every other; while de Wette thinks that this one implies others also. But the question is not so simple as appears at first sight. We must distinguish between the legislation of the theocracy and that of the state which is intermediate between Moses and Christ; and again, between these two and the spiritual law binding upon Christians, and derived from the word of Christ. Moses permitted a bill of divorce, not to weaken, but to protect the marriage relationship. Absolutely to forbid all divorce, would have amounted to a practical sanction of the then customary low views on the subject of marriage, and to a rejection of the spiritual principles connected with it. Hence Moses introduced the bill of divorce, which rendered separation difficult, by requiring an adequate cause for it, as in Deu_24:1. This arrangement was intended as a lever gradually to elevate the views of the people from the former customary laxity to the spiritual ideal ultimately aimed at. It was left to the gradual development of spiritual life in Israel more clearly to determine and to settle the only sufficient motive for divorce, at which Moses had darkly hinted. This Christ did when He exhibited the full ideal of the law, by the words παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. But the practical difficulty which the State has to encounter in its legislation on this point, is that it cannot anticipate this interpretation of the Lord without raising the legal ordinances higher than the idea of marriage commonly entertained by the people. Still, this interpretation must always be the goal aimed at. Standing at that goal, our Lord does not refer to the recognition of an actual divorce, but to a positive divorce, when a man repudiates his wife. To make such a divorce, is certainly not allowed except for the sake of fornication. But it is another question, whether, if the divorce is actually accomplished by the other party, we are warranted in regarding and accepting it as accomplished. To this question Paul gives an affirmative reply in 1Co_7:15. The only difficulty lies in the question, Under what circumstances other than fornication a divorce may be regarded as actually accomplished by the seceding party? In this respect, the explanations which our Lord adds, may be taken as a final directory.
Causeth her to commit adultery—viz., by contracting another marriage. Strictly speaking, the actual adultery consists in, and dates from, the re-marriage of the woman who had been divorced. The following is the state of the case as laid down by the Lord. In the passage under consideration, we are told that he causeth her to commit adultery; and in Matthew 19, that he who divorces a woman, and marrieth another, himself committeth adultery. In the former case, the husband who divorces his wife is morally the cause of her committing adultery, and in that respect even more culpable than she. Still, the stigma of adultery is only attached to marriage after divorce, or to fornication before divorce. This implies, that where the guilty or the divorcing party has not actually committed the act of adultery (as above defined), the other party is in Christian duty bound to wait in faith and patience. This is the intermediate stage, or separation a mensa et thoro, which is the only kind of divorce allowed by the Roman Church: another species of legalism, by which the words of our Saviour are first converted into a literal ordinance, and next, the letter of the commandment—the παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας—itself is annulled. The bad consequences of this arrangement are sufficiently notorious in the degeneracy of the marriage relation in Roman Catholic countries, especially in South America.
“Our Lord,” says Meyer, “does not refer to the case of adultery committed by the man,—there being no occasion for it, since a woman, according to the law of Moses, could not divorce her husband. But the spirit of Christian ethics fully justifies and requires the application of the statement to the other case.” However, it ought to be noted, that Christ speaks three different times of the sin of the man, but never of the woman: (1) Whosoever looketh on woman, etc.; (2) whosoever shall put away his wife, etc.; (3) whosoever shall marry her who is divorced, etc.—Comp. Heubner, p. 68.
Mat_5:33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις (swear falsely): Exo_20:7; Lev_19:12.—In this instance, also, the Lord first reverts to the law as given by Moses, showing its full and spiritual import, and then condemns the perversions of it introduced by traditionalism. Like divorce, the practice of taking an oath was an ancient custom, which existed before the time of Moses. Considering it indispensable in civil causes, the legislator adopted it in his code (Exo_22:11, comp. Heb_6:16), just as he admitted divorce. But as all license was restrained by the enactment concerning the bill of divorce, so all levity by the ordinances attaching to an oath, viz.: (1) by the condemnation of a false oath, Exo_20:7; Lev_19:12; (2) by the injunction to regard vows as sacred, and to fulfil them, Num_30:3; (3) by the direction to take an oath only in the name of the Lord, Deu_6:13. Hence, when Christ ordains, Swear not at all, He enters fully into the spirit of this legislation, and fulfils this law, or carries it to its ideal. The internal agreement between the saying of the Lord and the law of Moses is evident. As, in the case of the law of divorce, Jesus had brought out the latent prohibition of Moses, by presenting it without the temporary and conditional permission attaching to it; so here also the same latent prohibition appears when the Saviour carries out the spirit of the limitations introduced by Moses, which ultimately aimed at the complete abrogation of the oath. But the law of Moses was intended to bring out the spiritual nature of marriage, and not as absolute legislation on the subject. Similarly, his ordinances concerning oaths were not intended to abrogate them completely, but to bring out the ultimate idea of an oath—the yea, yea, nay, nay!—both as before God. In these instances, however, Christ aims not merely after a negative, but after a positive result,—in the present case, to introduce the oath in its spiritual aspect. Accordingly, He now shows the difference between it and the practice common among the Jews. This consists not merely in the fact, that what had been sanctioned for judicial procedure was now used in every-day life, but also in the introduction of additional asseverations and of self-imprecations in the common mode of taking oaths, όμόσαι. These asseverations by heaven, by earth, etc.—this pledging as it were of things over which we have no control—are manifestly sinful. In a certain sense, they convert an oath into a curse. Hence, rendering the words of Christ according to their import, we might almost translate them: But I say unto you, Curse not, not at all! Since the oath, in the proper sense of the term, had thus degenerated, and been almost completely perverted, it was to cease, but only in order to give place to what was implied in the true idea of the oath—the calm and solemn attestation: yea, yea; nay, nay; as in the presence of God. The relation in which the Christian State and the Christian citizen stand to this absolute spiritua law, is the same as we formerly noticed in reference to marriage. So far as our own personal conduct is concerned, we are to adopt in the fullest sense the New Testament direction (Jam_5:12); it is the duty of the State to aim after realizing the ideal here set before it, while the Christian citizen is bound humbly to submit. (In this, and in similar respects, it is important to distinguish between the duty of bearing testimony and that of obedience. There is no inconsistency, for example, in the Christian minister, who as an evangelist is opposed to all war, and yet acts as an humble and efficient military chaplain.) This explanation Christ has sanctioned by His example. Like the patriarchs of old (Gen_21:23-24; Gen_31:33; Gen_47:31), He acknowledged the lawfulness of the adjuration before the Sanhedrin (Mat_26:64). It is not an isolated error when certain sectarians—as the Anabaptists of the Reformation period, the Mennonites, and the Quakers—confound the duty of the individual Christian as such with that of the citizen; the mistake goes far deeper. They deny in principle the moral and educational character and object of the State, which is intended to be subservient to the kingdom of heaven and to promote it. From the example of Paul (Rom_9:1; 2Co_11:10) we gather how the spiritual nature of the oath appears, when the Christian appeals to his fellowship with God in support of the reality and certainty of his assertions. Viewed in this light, the oath of the Christian is based even on that of the Lord Himself (Isa_45:23; Heb_6:13). God swears by Himself, i. e., He appeals to His absolute and personal certitude; and the Christian swears before God, when he solemnly attests his statement under a calm sense of the presence of, and of communion with, God. It is the duty of the State more and more to modify the oath in conformity to the spirit of the gospel, and to acknowledge a simple Christian assurance as equivalent to an oath. The Church cannot require an oath without obscuring the consciousness of standing before the Lord with all the solemn affirmations and vows of her members. Comp. on the different explanations Heubner, Com. p. 71 [and Tholuck, Bergpredigt, p. 258–275].
The scribes insisted on the obligatory character of vows, but distinguished between oaths which were binding and others which were not binding. Maimonides: Si quis jurat per cœlum, per terram, per solem, non est juramentum. Comp. Mat_23:16 Similarly, Philo regarded oaths by heaven, by earth, etc., as not very important, and advised that they should be employed rather than a direct appeal to the Most High God.
Mat_5:34. Swear not at all.—For the different interpretations of this prohibition, comp. Tholuck.—To swear not at all, if it be incompatible with due reverence toward God (Tholuck).—Not to swear lightly in ordinary life (Berlepsch),—not to swear after the manner and in the sense of the Jews (Matthiä).—Strict prohibition which is binding, so far as the kingdom of heaven is concerned, but not applying to our duty as citizens in the State (de Wette, Meyer).—Absolute prohibition binding at all times, and under all circumstances (the Quakers) Comp. also Winer, Heubner, Göschel (Der Eid), etc.23
Mat_5:34-36. Neither by heaven, etc.—“These modes of swearing were customary at the time among the Jews. Comp. Philo, De spec. leg. 776; Lightfoot; Meuschen, Novum Testam. ex Talm. illustr. p. 58.”—Meyer. [Dr. Thomson in his excellent work, The Land and the Book, vol. i., p. 284, says of the modern Orientals that they “are fearfully profane. Everybody curses and swears when in a passion. No people that I have ever known can compare with these Orientals for profaneness in the use of the names and attributes of God. … They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or, what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”—P. S.]
Mat_5:37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay.—Similar expressions in the Rabbins, הֵן הֵן and לאֹ לאֹ. Beza: Let your affirmative communication be yea, your negative, nay. Grotius: Let your affirmation and negation be in accordance with fact. Meyer: The repetition in the formula indicates emphasis in the assurance. Jam_5:12 : Let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay. Luther: A yea that is yea. (The same as Grotius.) Undoubtedly, the intention is to combine decidedness of assurance with the certitude of the fact. But the positive import of the “yea, yea,” is overlooked by those who imagine that the Lord concludes with a mere negative result. The true oath consists in the simple asseveration, uttered in perfect consciousness and under a sense of the presence of God, before Him, and in Him.
Cometh of evil, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.—1. Euthym. Zig., ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου. Similarly Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingle, Fritzsche, Meyer, and others. 2. From the πονηρόν, of evil, as a neuter.—The two in so far agree, as Christ uniformly traces all πονηρόν, or evil in the world, to the πονηρός. The statement, however, is not to be interpreted as meaning, that the traditional mode of swearing is of the devil, but as implying that the kingdom of darkness has occasioned this kind of asseverations; and that actual evil also attaches to them, in as far as they indicate a want of reverence, a pledging of things which belong to God, and a kind of imprecation.
Mat_5:38. An eye for an eye, Exo_21:24.—The right of retribution, jus talionis. A general principle of law, presented here in the form of a proverb, and applied to a special case. This principle was undoubtedly introduced into the judicature, not to foster revenge (as de Wette imagines), but to substitute law for private vengeance (Lev_19:18). We agree with Tholuck, that the Pharisees, in this instance, converted a principle of judicature into a rule of everyday life. But Meyer is likewise right in adding, that a Christian should not exact even judicial vengeance from his neighbor, as also appears from the word κριθῆναι, which follows.
Mat_5:39-42. But I say unto you, Resist not τῷπονηρῷ.—Chrysostom and Theophylact refer this to the devil; Augustin and Calvin, to wrong; Tholuck, to evil; de Wette and Meyer, to an evil person. The words ὅ στις σεῥαπίσει are apparently in favor of the latter interpretation. But, on the other hand, the idea of evil men scarcely applies to the various cases afterward enumerated. We are not to resist—as we understand it—the evil that is in the world (the combination of sin and evil):—
(1) As we encounter it in violent offenders;
(2) As we encounter it in litigious accusers;
(3) As we encounter it in intrusive applicants for favors, or else slavish instruments of superior powers;
(4) As we encounter it in beggars and borrowers.
Beggars and borrowers can scarcely be ranked among evil men. Hence our Lord must refer to the sin and evil in the world which is conquered by wise and Christian submission, rather than by strenuous resistance. In all the instances just mentioned, we do not yield from weakness to the course of events, but voluntarily desist from our just claims in the exercise of self-denying love. This yielding, in reality, constitutes true heroism, by which alone injustice can be conquered. To be merely passive or non-resistant were weakness; but a passiveness which springs from Christian principle, and has a spiritual object in view, is true strength and real victory. To present the left cheek to him who smites us on the right, is to return the blow in the right sense; to give the cloak, is to have gained the suit about the coat; to go two miles instead of the one that is imposed on us, is to overcome the arbitrary power that would coerce us; to meet the wants of others, is to render begging impossible; and not to turn away from him who would borrow, is to train him to right independence.
Of course, these expressions, in their paradox form, must not be taken literally. The fundamental idea of the passage is, that Christian love must make us willing to bear twice as much as the world, in its injustice, could demand. But in this case also, the requirements of the moral law must guide us in applying the principle here laid down to every particular instance (comp. the example of the Lord, Joh_18:22).
Mat_5:40. Κριθῆναι, litigare, to sue at law.—Χιτών (coat), the under garment.—Ἱμάτιον, the more expensive upper garment or cloak, which was also used for a covering at night, and hence could not be retained as a pledge over night (comp. Luk_6:29).
Mat_5:41. Compel.—’Α γγαρεύειν, a word introduced from the Persian into the Greek and into rabbinical language; meaning, to compel for the purposes of transport, or for conveying messengers, in accordance with the postal arrangements of Cyrus, who authorized messengers to compel others to convey them: Herod, viii. 98.24 This compulsion is mentioned third, because those who did it were officially obliged to resort to such measures. Besides, the word is here used in a more general sense, referring to a traveller who exacts under the stress of necessity. From the above we conclude, that those mentioned in the fourth example do not belong to a different category, as Ewald suggests.
Mat_5:43. Thy neighbor, πλησίον, לְכַעֲךָ Lev_19:18.—This passage referred in the first instance, as the context shows, to Jews, although Mat_5:34 proves that it includes love to our neighbors generally. The Pharisees argued, that the injunction to love our neighbor implied that it referred only to such, and that all Gentiles were to be hated. They went even further, and regarding those only as Jews who adhered to traditionalism, stigmatized as strangers not merely Gentiles, but publicans, and every one who shared not their peculiar views. But their great argument was, that every one who was not a Jew was an enemy, and that every enemy should be hated. Hence their pride and contempt of men, the odium generis humani. Meyer adds, that “the casuistic tradition of the Pharisees explained the word ‘neighbor’ as meaning friend, and inferring from it—perhaps in connection with Deu_25:17-19 (comp. Mal_1:3)—that every enemy should be hated,—a principle, as is well known, shared also by the Greeks.” But we see no reason for identifying the system of the Pharisees with the popular prejudices of the Gentiles. According to Grotius, the inference—to hate our enemies—was derived by the Pharisees from the command of God to destroy the Canaanites, etc.,—a statement which scarcely deserves the serious refutation of Heubner and Gerlach. The latter was manifestly a special theocratic injunction, bearing reference to the heathen institutions of the Canaanites, and not to the people as individuals (as appears from the history of Rahab).
Mat_5:44. Love your enemies,—is the principle from which all the following directions flow. The expression must be taken in all its literality, and the injunction is universally applicable.—By his very hatred, our enemy becomes our neighbor, since his hatred tempts us to retaliate, and leaves us no choice but to fall, or else to defend ourselves by the weapons of love. In the latter case, cursing is met with blessing; hatred, which leads to injuries, by well-doing; threatening, or calumniating in secret (ἐπηρεάζειν, from ἐπήρεια, threat, contumely), and persecution, by prayer and intercession on our part. Comp. Cyprian, De mortalitate, and Heubner, p. 76.
Mat_5:45. That ye may be.—The expression refers not merely “to final salvation in the kingdom of heaven,” but means, that ye may prove yourselves really the children of God, His sons, in the peculiar sense explained in Mat_5:9. For this constitutes the evidence of being “peacemakers,” whose great model is Christ Himself.—The Lord appeals to the example of His Father, in order to show the nature and universality of highest love; while the publicans and the heathen exemplify the egotism and narrow-mindedness of a selfish community,—a sin of which the Pharisees also were guilty, and which they sought to invest with the halo of special sanctity.
Mat_5:46. The publicans, τελῶναι, partly natives and partly Romans, employed in the service of the Roman knights who had leased the taxes of the country. They were disliked as being the representatives of Roman domination, and for their rigor and exactions. The Pharisees no doubt regarded them as under the ban, and in the same category as Gentiles (comp. Mat_18:17).
Mat_5:47. And if ye salute.—The persons saluted are here designated as brethren, meaning co-religionists. Hence the salutation indicates friendliness and readiness to serve.25
Mat_5:48. Be ye therefore perfect,—in the moral sense, perfectness being your ultimate aim.26
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Lord purposely makes no reference to pure Antinomianism, because such opposition to the law exposed or condemned itself. But He rends the veil of pretended adherence to the law under which traditionalism sought to hide its real Antinomianism, and shows how in all its essential features it is destructive of the law—a hostility which at last manifested itself in all its fulness in the crucifixion of Christ. This tendency springs from a rigid and carnal adherence to the letter, which takes away the symbolical import of the letter, and at the same time converts the law into a series of secular and external traditions. Traditionalism first converts the law itself into traditions, and then adds its own special traditions by way of explanation. It assumes various forms: externalism, which results from the spiritual deadness of legalism; perversion or detraction from the true import of the law, as prompted by the dictates of lust or passion; and, finally, apparent increase of rigidness resulting from egotism, fanaticism, and spiritual pride. Thus, what was meant to serve as the eternal foundation of humanity became changed into hatred of mankind.—What is here said of Old Testament traditionalism equally applies to that of the mediæval Church, in its relation to the Gospel.
2. Some have difficulty in regarding Christianity as the genuine development of the teaching of Moses and of the prophets. This partly arises from the circumstance that, notwithstanding the express statements of the Lord, many imagine that Christ abolished the law of Moses in its substance. The statements of Paul about the abolition of the law, so far as its temporary form was concerned (Eph_2:15; Col_2:14), are similarly misinterpreted, while his declaration in Rom_3:31 is entirely overlooked. It is only when we learn to trace throughout all history a double course of tradition—one internal and ideal, the other external and ever lapsing into secularism—that we fully understand the difference and the agreement between the Old and the New Dispensation. Hegel, too, only knew of the external tradition, and assumes that Socrates and Christ died according to law.
3. The positive idea underlying this section is, that in the doctrine of Christ the teaching of Moses was fulfilled and carried to its spiritual ideal. Murder, adultery, profane swearing, revenge, and the rancor and selfishness of party spirit, are destroyed, not merely in their outward manifestations, but in their root. In their stead, Jesus sets before us a holy, spiritual gentleness, a holy and spiritual marriage, a holy and spiritual oath, a holy and spiritual retribution, and a holy and spiritual love toward our neighbor. These, however, are only instances by which the whole law must be explained. Five are mentioned as being the symbolical number of liberty and moral development, whether for good or evil.
4. Christ is the end and the fulfilment of the law (Rom_10:4; Rom_13:10). Here, then, we have another picture of the life of Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount presents to our view the righteousness of Jesus in itself; here, we have it in its contrast with that of the Pharisees and scribes. Himself, however, in holy meekness, stands in the background, and only presents to His disciples this picture, as constituting their heavenly calling.
5. It is strangely and sadly characteristic of the Church of Rome, that it should have converted these fulfilments of the law of Moses into so-called “consilia evangelica,” and thus declared them, (1) not universally binding; (2) a directory for a species of higher legal righteousness,—such, for example, as that of the monks. Similar instances of strange—we had almost said, fatal—misinterpretation by the same Church, occur in connection with the two swords, Luk_22:38, the Lord’s Prayer, the laws on matrimony, etc.
[6. Mat_5:48. Be ye perfect, etc. “We who are created in God’s image, and restored in Christ, and made partakers of the divine nature in Him, are bound by the conditions of our creation, redemption, and sanctification, to endeavor to be like Him here, that we may have the fruition of His glorious Godhead hereafter. Eph_4:1; 1Pe_1:15; 1Jn_2:1.”]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The righteousness of the kingdom of heaven, and that of the Pharisees and scribes: 1. The former spiritual from the Spirit of God; the latter worldly, and from the spirit of the world. 2. The former implying a state of mind; the latter, outward and merely apparent service. 3. The former continuing throughout eternity; the latter passing away with the world.—A living and true faith, and dead ortho doxy.—Antagonism between the spirit of the law and the mere letter of the law.—True and false tradition.—The ordinances of man an abolition of the commandments of God.—While pretending to make a “hedge” around the law (which itself was a hedge), the Pharisees trod down the plants in the garden of the Lord.—The perversions of truth which appeal under the guise of enforcing truth.—On the difference between “It is written,” and “It has been said”—“It has been said,” as pointing to the impure source of tradition. 1. It has been said; but we know not by whom, where, or when; 2. It has been said, by religious indolence, by carnality and deadness.—“It has been said,” or the origin of tradition within the kingdom of God.—Our proper respect for what is ancient appears in proper reverence for what is eternal, which is at the same time both old and new.—The hearts of the fathers must be turned to the children, then shall the hearts of the children also be turned to the fathers (Mal_3:7; Luk_1:17).—The word of the Lord: “But I say unto you.”—If the letter of the law were carried out to its full length, it would consume the world, as did the fire of Elijah.—Christ condemning the service of the letter by the spirit of the letter.—Contrast between “It has been said to them of old,” and “But I say unto you.” 1. In the one case, it is the general unspiritual mass that speaks; here, it is the highest Personage—the Lord Himself. 2. In the former case, it has been said to past generations; in this, the Lord speaks to those around Him. 3. The former is a tradition from the grave; the latter, a word of life to the living.—The explanation given by the Lord of the commandment, Thou shall not kill. 1. His correction of traditionalism; 2. the law of the spirit.—(The same remarks apply to our Lord’s explanation of the other commandments.)—The anger of passion, the way to judgment and to hell.—The passion of anger appearing in reproaches.—He that judgeth set right in judgment: 1. Sudden passion set right by the dignity of the secular judgment-seat. 2. He who charges others with heresy set right by the judgment of the Church. 3. He who condemns set right by history, or the prospect of condemnation.—Going to the temple, an admonition to reconciliation.—Going to the judge, an exhortation to render satisfaction.—The sanctity of marriage, as opposed both to concupiscence and to divorce.—The sacred oath under the New Covenant is Yea, yea; Nay, nay.—The law of retribution: 1. Private vengeance giving place to law; 2. vengeance left to the proper authorities; 3. vengeance left to the Lord.—Our enemy becomes our neighbor by his aggressions upon us, which leave us no choice but either to hate or to love.—Love toward our enemies the weapon of spiritual defence against them.—Sunshine and rain preaching toleration and love.—The Divine rule equally over the good and the evil.—Sacred meditations during sunshine.—Sacred meditations during the rain.—Party spirit only a different form of egotism.—Party spirit under the guise of sanctity: 1. So far as our own nation is concerned; 2. so far as our religion is concerned; 3. so far as our own ecclesiastical denomination is concerned.—Love the bond of perfectness in spiritual life.—To feel that malice is weakness leads to pity.—The children of the Father in heaven: 1. Like their Father, they care for the world; 2. they bring it sunshine and rain; 3. in their Father they are hid from the world.
Starke:—Pharisaical legalists cannot but explain the law falsely.—The law is spiritual.—The Gospel has regard to the spirit, not to the letter, 2Co_3:6.—As one sin is more grievous than another (Joh_19:11), so the temporal and eternal punishments of God also ( Mat_5:11; Mat_5:22; Mat_5:24).—A genuine Christian will abstain from all opprobrious epithets.—All your worship is vain, so long as your heart retains enmity. Reconciliation is more necessary than anything else.—God has made our forgiveness the condition of His, Job_42:8; 1Pe_3:7.—He who neither forgives nor asks forgiveness, nor makes restitution, renders himself unworthy of the Lord’s table.—Let us not lose the season of grace.—True repentance is painful, but salutary.—If thine eye offend thee, etc.; see Col_3:5.—Men like to interpret the Scriptures according to their corrupt inclinations.—We must enter into the married estate in the fear of God, if our union is to prove happy.—If we suffer violence and bear it patiently, we shall be able to derive advantage even from the injustice of men.—To give and to lend are both fruits of love, Psa_112:5.—Even to love our enemies is regarded as too difficult; but who among us thinks of blessing them and of praying for them?—Oh where shall we find Christians among these Christians? Hos_4:1.—By faith we become the children of God, Rom_8:14; Gal_3:26. But love proves that we resemble our Father (1Jn_3:10), who is love, 1Jn_4:8.—If God had not loved us when we were still His enemies, we should never have become His children, Rom_5:8-9; and now we should cease to be the children of God if we ceased to follow Him in love, Eph_5:1-2—God would disarm our enemies by His long-suffering and by our kindness.—Love toward our enemies is both an evidence of sonship and a means of strengthening it, 2Pe_1:10.—Let us set more by the example of God than by that of the world, with its hatred and callousness, Luk_6:36.—God rewards only such virtue of which Himself is the beginning and the end.—God is willing to help all men, and His own people share the same mind, Rom_10:1.—Many are ready to imitate God in His punitive justice, but few in His love.
Lisco:—(The pericope Mat_5:20-26.) Those who have part in the kingdom of heaven cannot rest satisfied with the righteousness which Judaism regarded as sufficient, and which consisted in mere legalism and outward morality, without regard to the mind and heart.—True love is the sacrifice of all sacrifices.—Sinful lust must die in our hearts, and purity spring up, Mat_18:8; Mar_9:43.—Every oath is a solemn asseveration of truth, in which God is invoked as witness of the truth and avenger of untruth. Hence it always bears reference to God; and, whether it be in the form of witness-bearing or solemn promise, it is always an act of worship.—True love must bear and submit, and thus prevail. But this does not imply that we are not allowed to seek assistance or protection from magistrates or judges, who are instituted by God for that very purpose (Rom_13:4).—There is in these commandments of Christ a progression from what is easier to what is more difficult.—To love our enemies was commanded even in the Old Testament, Exo_23:4-5; Pro_25:21. Hence it was a lying addition to the command of God, to say, Thou shalt hate thine enemy.—Christ says, Your Father and My Father, but never, Our Father; the distinction is always marked, Joh_1:12—Perfect love is perfect bliss.
Gerlach:—The Old Testament itself contained the germ which was destined to burst through all husks.—Luther: Thinkest thou that God refers only to thy fist when He says, “Thou shalt not kill”? Whosoever does not love is a murderer, 1Jn_3:15.—Every one of us is on his way to the Judge, without knowing how long the road may be.—The heart belongs to God, it is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Who would not be afraid to commit adultery in a temple made of stone? and shall we not be afraid to do it in our hearts?27—Chrysostom: Have you noticed how many steps He has gone up, and how He has now placed us on the very summit of virtue? Look back! The first step upward was to do no wrong to our neighbor; the second, not to reward evil for evil, if he had done us wrong; the third, not to revile him, but to remain silent; the fourth, to offer our persons in order to take wrong; the fifth, to offer more than the offender demands; the sixth, not to hate him who had done us wrong; the seventh, even to love him; the eighth, to do him good; the ninth, to entreat God for him. Do you now perceive the full height of Christian virtue?—Every further explanation of His requirements on the part of God is based on a fresh manifestation of His holy character and love.
Heubner:—If you are angry with a child of your Father, how can you venture to approach the Father? Pericope for the 6th Sunday after Trinity: False and true righteousness: 1. their character; 2. their manifestations; 3. their effects.—Spener’s sermon on this text preached at Frankfort, a. d. 1669.—“Thou hast cleft my heart in twain. Oh! throw away the worsen part of it, and live the purer with the other half:” Shakspeare (Hamlet, Mat_3:4).—Not to resist, does not mean to submit patiently and passively to all aggressions, but not to meet evil by evil.—Harms: The close connection between love to our neighbor and true religion. [1. Love to our neighbor is one of the grounds of true religion, and leads to it. 2. Love to our neighbor is part of true religion, and belongs to it. 3. Love to our neighbor is a consequence of true religion.]28—Marheineke: What that righteousness is which excels the righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes: 1. Love to the commandment, yet not disjoined from love to God; 2. love to God, yet not disjoined from love to man; 3. love to man, yet not disjoined from love to our neighbor.—Schleier macher (Sermons, vol. 4): What the Lord would have us to learn from these words, especially with reference to united worship and service.—Kniewel: The righteousness of the Pharisees (its character; how to avoid it).
ADDENDA
BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR
The Sinaitic Manuscript of the Bible, which Professor Tischendorf rescued from the obscurity of the Convent of St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and carefully edited in two editions in 1862 and 1863,* two years after the issue of the third edition of Dr. Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, has been carefully compared in preparing the American edition of this work from Chapter 8 to the close of the Gospel of Matthew. I thought I was the first to do so, but just before I finished the last pages of this volume, I found that Bäumlein, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John,** and Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Commentary on Matthew, both of which appeared in 1864, had preceded me, at least in print. No critical scholar can ignore this manuscript hereafter. For it is the only complete, and perhaps the oldest of all the uncial codices of the Bible, or at least of the same age and authority as the celebrated Vatican Codex (which is traced by some to the middle of the fourth century), and far better edited by the German Protestant Professor, Tischendorf, than the latter was by the Italian Cardinal, Angelo Mai. In the absence of a simpler mark agreed upon by critics (the proposed designation by the Hebrew א has not yet been adopted, and is justly objected to by Tregelles and others on the ground of typographical inconvenience), I introduce it always as Cod. Sin., and I find that Dr. Meyer in the fifth edition does the same. As I could not procure a copy of the printed edition of this Codex till I had finished the first seven chapters, I now complete the critical part of the work by adding its more important readings in the first seven chapters where they differ from the textus receptus, on which the authorized English, as well as all the older Protestant Versions of the Greek Testament are substantially based.
*Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistola Barnabœ et Fragmentis Pastoris (Hermæ). Ex Codice Sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II., omnium Russiarum imperatoris, ex tenebris protracto orbique litterarum tradito accurate descripsit Ænotheus Friderious Constantinus Tischendorf, theol. et phil. Dr., etc. etc. Lipsiæ, 1863. The text is arranged in four columns and covers 148 folios; the learned Prolegomena of the editor 81 folios. There is besides a magnificent photo-lithographed fac-simile edition of the whole Sinaitic Bible, published at the expense of the Emperor of Russia, in 4 volumes (3 for the Old and 1 for the New Testament, the latter in 148 folios), under the title: Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis augustissimis imperatoris Alexandri II. ed. Const. Tischendorf. Petropoli, 1862. A copy of this rare edition I have also consulted occasionally, in the Astor Library of New York. For fuller information on this important Codex (in the words of Tischendorf: “omnium codicum uncialium solus integer omniumque antiquissimus”), we must refer the reader to the ample Prolegomena of Tischendorf, also to an article of Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii. (1864), p. 74 ff. (who is disposed to assign it to a somewhat later age), and to Scrivener’s treatise, which I have not seen.
**Hengstenberg, in his Commentary on John, concluded in 1863, pays no attention whatever to this Codex, and is very defective in a critical point of view
Mat_5:30.—Cod. Sin. sustains the Vatican Codex, Vulgata (eat), etc., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, in reading εἰς γέ εγς ας ἀπέλθῃ, should depart into hell, instead of the lect. rec. βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν, should be cast into hell, which seems to be a correction to suit the preceding verse.
Mat_5:44.—Cod. Sin. reads simply: αγαπατε τους εχθρους υμων και προσευχεσθευπερ των διωκον των love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, and omits after ῦμῶν the words from εὐλογεῖτε to μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς(bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you), and after ὑπὲρ τῶν the words: ἐπηρεαζόν των ὑμᾶς καί (who despitefully use you and). It agrees in this omission with Cod. B., Copt., Iren., Orig., Euseb., and other fathers. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, expunge the words referred to, as an interpolation from Luk_6:28; but de Wette and Meyer object, since the order of the clauses in Luke is different, and since the homœoteleuta could easily cause omissions. The words ἐπηρεαζόν των ὑμᾶς καί, however, are very suspicious, and in all probability inserted from Luk_6:28. Hence Meyer, also, gives them up.
Mat_5:47.—Cod. Sin. sustains ἐθνικοί, heathen, with B., D., Z., verss. and fathers against τελῶναι, publicans, which seems to have been inserted from Mat_5:46, as already remarked on p. 112, Crit. Note 6.
Mat_6:1.—Cod. Sin. agrees here again with the Vatican MS. (also D., Syr., Hieros., Itala, Vulgata, several fathers, Lachm., Tischend., Treg., Alf.), in reading δικαιοσύνην, righteousness, instead of ἐλεημοσύνην (text, rec., Matthäi, Scholz), which is “a mistaken gloss, the general nature of this opening caution not being perceived.”
Footnotes:
[12] Mat_5:21.—[Τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, to the ancients, is the interpretation of the Greek fathers, the ancient versions, and all the English versions from Wiclif’s to the Genevan incl., and also that of Rheims. This is certainly much more natural than the rare and mostly questionable ablative use of the dative case, which Beza, in his later editions, preferred, and which passed into the E. V. of 1611. Bengel (Gnomon in loc.) remarks: “Antitheton, vobis; undo patet, τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, antiquis, (patribus, tempore Mosis) non esse casu sexto: faciliorque est constructio: dictum est antiquis, id est, ad antiquos, quam ab antiquis.” The word ἐῤῥήθη is always followed in the N. T. or the Septuagint by the substantive which denotes the person to whom (not by whom) the words were spoken, comp. Rom_9:12; Rom_9:26; Gal_3:16; Rev_6:11; Rev_9:4. Comp. also Com.—P. S.]
[13] Mat_5:22.—Εἰκῆ, without cause, omitted by Cod. B., several minuscule MSS., translations, and fathers. [Lachmann and Tischendorf omit it, and Tregelles marks it as very doubtful. Alford retains it, and there is sufficient ancient authority for it to justify its continuance in the popular translations.—P. S.]
[14] Mat_5:27.—[The critical authorities are against τοῖς ἀρχαίοις of the text. rec. in this verse, and throw it out of the text. But Dr. Lange retains it in his transl. Comp. Mat_5:31; Mat_5:38; Mat_5:43, where these words are likewise omitted.—P. S.]
[15] Mat_5:44.—[The clauses of the received text: “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,” are marked as doubtful by Griesbach, and omitted in the modern critical editions; but they are genuine in the parallel passage, Luk_6:27-28. Hence Dr. Lange retains them here in his translation.—P. S.]
[16] Mat_5:44.—The words: “which despitefully use you and [τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καί] are omitted by some authorities. [Lachmann Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford omit them, and Meyer is disposed to regard them as an interpolation from Luk_6:28.—P. S.]
[17] Mat_5:47.—[Dr. Lange translates: die Heiden, the heathen, following the reading: οἱ ἐθνικοί (Vulgata: ethnici), which is better authenticated in Mat_5:47 than τελῶναι, publicani. The latter seems to have been taken from Mat_5:46, where τελῶναι is universally sustained. See Tischend., Lachm., Tregelles, and Alford ad loc.—P. S.]
[18][Dr. Alford, ad loc.: “Meyer (ed. 2) has well observed [Dr. Bengel did it before him] that ἐῤῥήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις corresponds to λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, and the ἐγώ to the understood subject of ἐῤῥ. He has not, however, apprehended the deeper truth which underlies the omission of the subject of ἐῤῥ., that it was the same Person who said both. It will be noticed that our Lord does not here speak against the abuse of the law by tradition, but that every instance here given is either from the law itself, or such traditional teaching as was in accordance with it. The contrasts here are not between the law misunderstood and the law rightly understood, but between the law and its ancient exposition, which in their letter, and as given, were κενά—and the same as spiritualized, πεπληρωμένα, by Christ; not between two lawgivers, Moses and Christ, but between οἱ ἀρχαῖοι and ὑμεῖς; between (the idea is Chrysostom’s) the children by the same husband, of the bondwoman and of the freewoman.” Dr. Wordsworth: “τοῖς ἀρχαίοις—to those of old (Chrys., Theoph., Maldon., Beng.), at the beginning of God’s written revelation, contradistinguished from ὑμῖν, ‘to whom I now speak face to face.’ Our Lord not only opposes the Pharisaic corruptions of the decalogue, but He unfolds it. He gives the kernel of it, its spirit, in opposition to those who dwelt only on the letter; for the letter (i. e., taken alone) killeth, but the spirit (added to it) giveth life, Rom_7:14; 2Co_3:6.”—P. S.]
[19][Grotius, ad loc., makes the appropriate remark: “Merito εἰκῆ additum. Neque eum iracundus est quisquis irasci solet, sed qui οἶς οὐ δεῖ, καὶ ἐφ’ οἶς οὐ δεῖ, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ δεῖ, at Aristoteles loquitur.”—P. S.]
[20][The English C. V., as also Luther’s German V., have almost obliterated the distinction between hell and hades in the popular mind, by translating γέεννα and ᾅδης alike hell Hölle). The term γέεννα occurs 12 times in the N. T., viz., Mat_5:22; Mat_5:29-30; Mat_10:28; Mat_18:9; Mat_23:15; Mat_23:33; Mar_9:43; Mar_9:45; Mar_9:47; Luk_12:5; Jam_3:6, and is always correctly rendered hell. The term ᾅδης (sheol, spirit-world, region of the departed, underworld, Todtenreich, Unterwelt) occurs 11 times in the N. T., viz., Mat_11:23; Mat_16:18; Luk_10:15; Luk_16:23; Act_2:27; Act_2:31; 1Co_15:55; Rev_1:18; Rev_6:8; Rev_20:13-14, and is inaccurately rendered hell in all cases except 1Co_15:55, where the authorized Version translates grave. The difference of the two terms has an important bearing on the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hades, and of the status intermedius between death and the resurrection.—P. S.]
[21][As κοδράντης is one of the smallest denominations of coin, the English farthing and the German Heller are the precise equivalents as to meaning, and therefore good translations.—P. S.]
[22][Dr. Alford, ad loc.: “The βλέπων πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθ, must not be interpreted of the casual evil thought which is checked by holy watchfulness, but the gazing with a view to feed that desire (for so πρὸς τό with an infinitive must mean).”—P. S.]
[23][We add the explanations of the latest English and American commentators on Matthew. Dr. Alford (Episcopalian), 4th Engl. ed. ad loc.: “In the words. Swear not at all, our Lord does not so much make a positive enactment by which all swearing is to individuals forbidder, e. g on solemn occasions, and for the satisfaction of others (for that would be a mere technical Pharisaism wholly at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, and inconsistent with the example of God Himself, Heb_6:13-17; Heb_7:21; of the Lord when on earth, whose ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν was a solemn asseveration, and who at once respected the solemn adjuration of Caiaphas, Mat_26:63-64; of His Apostles, writing under the guidance of His Spirit, see Gal_1:20; 2Co_1:23; Rom_1:9; Php_1:8, and especially 1Co_15:31; of His holy angels, Rev_10:6), as declare to us, that the proper state of Christians is, to require no oaths; that when τὸ πονηρόν is expelled from among them, every ναί and οὐ will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow. We observe (a) that these verses imply the unfitness of vows of every kind as rules of Christian action; (b) that the greatest regard ought to be had to the scruples of those, not only sects, but individuals, who object to taking an oath, and every facility given in a Christian state for their (?) ultim to entire abolition.”—(Does their refer to scruples, or is it a mistake for its, i. e. the oath’s?)—Dr. Wordsworth (Episcopalian) gives a similar interpretation, though not so fully, and quotes from St Augustine: Non ames, non affectes as, non appetas jusjurandum, which is hardly sufficient. He also remarks that the corresponding Hebrew verb שִׁבַע (from שִׁבַצ, seven, the holy number of the covenant) is used only in Niphal (i. e., to be made to swear, or rather to seven oneself, i. e., to take an oath confirmed by seven victims offered as sacrifice to God, Gen_21:28 sq.. or before seven witnesses), and in Hiphil (i. e., to cause to swear, to bind by an oath): as much as to intimate that no one ought to swear except when compelled to do so.—Alb. Barnes (N. S. Presbyterian): “Swear not at all. That is, in the manner which He proceeds to specify. Swear not in any of the common and profane ways customary at that time.”—Dr. Jos. Addis. Alexander (O. S. Presbyterian): “Christ teaches that the sin, where there is any, consists not in swearing falsely, which is a distinct offence punished both by God and man, nor in any particular form of oath, but in swearing at all without necessity or warrant.”—Dr. D. D. Whedon (Methodist) ad loc.: “Neither in his prohibition of swearing nor of violence (38–42) is our Lord giving any law for the magistrate or the governmental regulations, but for private conduct. The officer of government has still a right to use force, and the magistrate to administer an oath. In fact, to forbid these things in private life secures that they may be done magistratively with better effect. None of the oaths which our Lord adduces as specimens are judicial oaths, but the ordinary profanities of the Orientalists.”—P. S.]
[24][Also Xenophon, Cyrop. Mat_8:6; Mat_8:17. Comp. the classical dictionaries sub verbo Angaria, and Tholuck, Meyer, Conant, and Alford ad loc. The corresponding English word for ἀγγαρεύειν in its proper technical sense is to impress, i. e., to press or force into public service by public authority. The word occurs three times in the N. T., here. Mat_27:32, and Mar_15:21, where it is used of Simon who was impressed to bear the cross of our Saviour to Calvary. The Jews were strongly opposed to the duty of furnishing posts for the hated Roman government. The ἐπισταθμία, or billeting of the Roman soldiers and their horses on the Jews, was one kind of this ἀγγαρία.—P. S.]
[25][̓Ασπάσησθε may as well be taken, with Alford and others, in its literal sense. Jews did not salute Gentiles, as Mohammedans oven now in the East do not salute Christians.—P. S.]
[26][Comp. Alford, Wordsworth, Whedon, and other English commentators on this passage and its bearing on the doctrine of perfectibility or the attainability of moral perfection in this life, which Alford opposes as inconsistent with the whole discourse, especially Mat_5:22; Mat_5:29; Mat_5:32, as well as with Php_3:12; while Wordsworth and Whedon favor it, the former in the patristic sense, quoting from St. Jerome, the latter in the sense of modern Methodism.—P. S.]
[27][This sentence should be credited to Starke, from whom Otto von Gerlach (ad Mat_5:28) almost literally borrowed it. Starke remarks on Mat_5:28 (N. T., vol. i., p. 137): ‘Man scheuet sich vor den Augen der Menschen in einer steinernen Kirche einen dusserlichen Ehebruch zu begehen; und scheuet sich nicht vor Gottes Augen viel Ehebruche im Tempel seines Herzens zu begehen.”—P. S.]
[28][Omitted in the third edition, but retained hero from the transl. of the first.—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv19–30 Whosoever therefore shall break--rather, "dissolve," "annul," or make "invalid."
Whosoever therefore shall break--rather, "dissolve," "annul," or make "invalid."
one of these least commandments--an expression equivalent to "one of the least of these commandments."
Read full note →
and shall teach men so--referring to the Pharisees and their teaching, as is plain from Mat 5:20, but of course embracing all similar schools and teaching in the Christian Church.
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven--As the thing spoken of is not the practical breaking, or disobeying, of the law, but annulling or enervating its obligation by a vicious system of interpretation, and teaching others to do the same; so the thing threatened is not exclusion from heaven, and still less the lowest place in it, but a degraded and contemptuous position in the present stage of the kingdom of God. In other words, they shall be reduced by the retributive providence that overtakes them, to the same condition of dishonor to which, by their system and their teaching, they have brought down those eternal principles of God's law.
but whosoever shall do and teach them--whose principles and teaching go to exalt the authority and honor of God's law, in its lowest as well as highest requirements.
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven--shall, by that providence which watches over the honor of God's moral administration, be raised to the same position of authority and honor to which they exalt the law.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv19–29 19. Whosoever — Our Lord farther shows his reverence…
19. Whosoever — Our Lord farther shows his reverence for the law by guarding its least requirement with highest penalties. These least commandments — Contained in the Old Testament. Teach men so — As many of you may have feared that I or my disciples were about to do, in the new kingdom. Our Lord therefore is here laying down principles affecting the teachers whom he is to send forth. Shall teach men so — If to violate, with purpose, a known law of God is a dangerous sin, how much deeper the danger of teaching others to sin! Least — Many of the best commentators understand this as signifying that he shall be excluded. Yet such, surely, is not its exact meaning. Clearly to be least IN the kingdom of heaven is far less than shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Our Lord’s phrase here is adopted by him for the purpose of the antithesis — the violator of the least shall himself be least. Such mercy is shown to the case of erring man, in whom mistake may mingle in the interpretation of God’s laws, even when he would be a wise teacher, that our Lord uses a sentence which may imply, and yet does not absolutely express, exclusion. Such a man’s reward is terribly cut down; he is scarce if at all saved. Nothing but a state of repentance for all sin, known or unknown, can avail him. Great — The true observer and teacher of the law in its completeness shall be a star of brightest lustre in the firmament of heaven. Our Lord here clearly illustrates the truth of different degrees of future reward.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 19. Again addressed to the Apostles as teachers. The…
19. Again addressed to the Apostles as teachers. The union of doing and teaching is essential. It was the grave sin of the Pharisees that they taught without doing. See ch. Mat_23:2-3. This explains the for of next verse.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv19–30 (19) Shall break one of these least commandments.—The words…
(19) Shall break one of these least commandments.—The words seem at first to imply that even the ceremonial law was to be binding in its full extent upon Christ’s disciples. The usage of the time, however, confined the word to the moral laws of God (as in Sir_32:23-24), and throughout the New Testament it is never used in any other sense, with the possible exception of Heb_7:5; Heb_7:16 (comp. especially Rom_13:9; 1Co_7:19). And the context, which proceeds at once to deal with moral laws and does not touch on ceremonial, is in accordance with this meaning. The “least commandments,” then, are those which seemed trivial, yet were really great—the control of thoughts, desires, words, as compared with the apparently greater commands that dealt with acts. The reference to “teaching” shows that our Lord was speaking to His disciples, as the future instructors of mankind, and the obvious import of His words is that they were to raise, not lower, the standard of righteousness which had been recognised previously.
Shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.—The consequence of tampering with the great laws of duty, or the least laws, which are practically great, is described in terms at once severe and gentle; gentle, because the sentence, where the guilt is not wilful, or is repented of, is not one of absolute exclusion from the kingdom; severe in so far as being the “least” in that kingdom, the object of pity or sorrow to others, involved a severe humiliation to those who aimed at being the highest. To that condemnation many in every age of the Church have been liable, the Anthiomian fanatic and the Jesuit casuist standing so far on the same footing.
Read full note →
Whosoever shall do and teach.—Here again the teaching work of the disciples is prominent. The combination is in this case even more significant than in the other. Not right doing only, still less right teaching only, but both together, made up the ideal of the preacher’s work.
Great.—Not “greatest.” The avoidance of the latter word, interpreted by the later teaching of 18:4, would seem to have been deliberate. Men might aim at a positive standard of the greatness of the true teacher and the true worker, but the conscious aim at being “greatest” was self-frustrating. That honour belonged to him only who was all unconscious that he had any claim to it.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv19–30 Matthew only. As Christ honoured the Law (ver. 17)…
Matthew only. As Christ honoured the Law (ver. 17) so are his disciples to honour it. Whosoever therefore. Seeing that every part of the Law is of permanent value. In this verse our Lord once for all declares his opposition to antinomianism. Every one of the commands in the Law is, in its true and ideal meaning, still binding. Shall break (lush). Not merely in contrast to "do" (poihsh vide infra) in the sense of "transgress" (Fritzsche), but "abrogate". (cf. Bishop Westcott, on Joh_5:18, "Not the violation of the sanctity of the day in a special case, but the abrogation of the duty of observance;" cf. also Mat_16:19 Mat_18:18 1Jn_3:8) It expresses, indeed, a less complete abrogation than katalusai (ver. 17), because, while speaking of himself, the Lord could use the strongest word possible, and that with reference to the whole Law or the Prophets; but here his expression is limited by the inability of any individual disciple to carry out an abrogation even of one command. One of these least commandments. Not necessarily such as the Pharisees reckoned least, in their enumeration of small and great, but such as our Lord himself symbolized by "jot" or "tittle;" those precepts which in reality are the least important (Meyer). Chrysostom strangely says that our Lord here refers, not to old laws, but to those which he was about to lay down; similarly Bengel thinks of vers. 22-28, etc. While the Jews distinguished carefully between small and great precepts, they insisted on the importance of keeping even the smallest; cf. "Ab.," 4:5 (Taylor), "Hasten to a slight precept.., for the reward of precept is precept." And shall teach men so. Doing his best to abrogate it, not only in his own person by neglect or violation, but also for others by teaching them to disregard it. He shall be called the least. The Revised Version omits "he, .... the." He is not cast out of the kingdom ("Ubi nisi magni esse non possunt," Augustine), but his want of moral insight (did he consider it "breadth of thought"?) leads to his being called least in the kingdom. It is the converse of the parable in Luk_19:17, etc. There faithfulness in a very little (elacistw) wins much; here disregard of a very little causes a person to be reckoned (ver. 9, note) as very little the principle of judgment being that of Luk_16:10, "He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in avery little is unrighteous also in much." In the kingdom of heaven; i.e. probably in its full and final establishment. The doctrine of grades of blessedness and of punishment hereafter is clearly taught in Scripture. (e.g. Luk_12:47, Luk_12:48) But whosoever shall do and teach them. Similarly the Revised Version; but rather supply "it," i.e. "that which is required in the smallest commandment" (Meyer). The personal performance and conscious spreading of one of the least commandments will be found to involve so much that it gains for the person a high position. Do and teach. For many will perform a command without taking any conscious part in spreading it. The same; Revised Version, he (outov). Why inserted here and not in the previous clause? Partly because of the awkwardness of inserting outov there so soon after outwv ; partly because our Lord wished to lay stress there on the recompense, here on the person ("he and no other") who receives recompense. On the thought, cf. "Test. XII Parr." (Levi., "If he teach these things and practise them, he shall share the throne of the king, as also Joseph our brother." It is worth adding Tyndale"s remark in his "Exposition," "Whosoever shall first fulfil them these least commandments following himself, and then teach other, and set all his study to the furtherance and maintaining of them, that doctor shall all they of the kingdom of heaven have in price, and follow him and seek him out, as doth an eagle her prey, and cleave to him as burrs."
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On vv21, 27 Mat 15:21-28.
Mat 15:21-28.
Jesus Withdraws To Phoenicia
Read full note →
The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman is found also in Mar 7:24-30, in the same connection as here. Luke hastens through this part of the history, omitting various things, and stating others very briefly.
The jealousy of Herod Mar 14:1 f.), the hostility of the Pharisees (Mat 12:14, Mat 15:1, Mat 15:12; also Mat 4:12 Joh 4:1-3), and the fanatical notions of the masses, (Joh 6:15) still required that Jesus should withdraw from Galilee, as heretofore in Mat 14:13 Thence, probably from Capernaum. He now set out in a different direction, towards the northwest, into Phoenicia, thus getting beyond the jurisdiction of Herod, as in Mat 14:13, and hereafter in Mat 15:29, and Mat 16:5. Departed, withdrew, same word as in Mat 2:12, Mat 2:22, Mat 4:12, Mat 12:15, Mat 14:13. Into the coasts (Rev. Ver. parts) of Tyre and Sidon, i.e., the parts of the country, the region, belonging to those cities; so the same word in Mat 2:22, Mat 16:13; Mar 8:10; Act 2:10, Act 19:1, Act 20:2. ’Coasts,’ i.e., borders (see on "Mat 2:16"), is here an utterly erroneous translation of Wyc., Tyn., and followers, due to the generally received notion that our Lord never went beyond the bounds of Palestine; the word ’parts’ never means ’borders.’ Still, the term looks indefinite, and Mar 7:24 says’ borders,’ as Matthew also does in Mat 15:22; so it might seem not certain that Jesus went farther than to the boundaries of Phoenicia. But while ’borders’ often denotes the territory includes thereby, ’parts’ cannot mean simply the boundary. And the question is settled by Mar 7:31 (correct text), ’And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee.’ (See below on "Mat 15:29".) It is then certain that our Lord went into the heathen country of Phoenicia, the nearest part of which was about thirty miles from Capernaum. This does not conflict with the fact that his mission was exclusively to the Jews (Mat 15:24, for he did not go there to exercise his ministry, (Mar 7:24) and as soon as he had been induced to work a miracle which would attract attention and gather crowds, he went away again. He entered into a house (Mark), and wished to stay there in seclusion, just as Elijah had done in the house of a widow at Zarephath, or Sarepta, in the same country of Phoenicia. (1Ki 17:9 ff; Luk 4:25) He probably also desired bodily and mental rest for the disciples and himself, as on the first withdrawal not long before. (Mar 7:31) As to Tyre and Sidon, see on "Mat 11:21". The two cities together denote the country of Phoenicia. He was probably at first in the southern part belonging to Tyre, and afterwards went northward through the Sidon district. (Mar 7:31) We learn from Mar 3:8 Luk 6:17, that multitudes from the region of Tyre and Sidon had attended on our Lord’s ministry at an early period. It was a refreshing change for him and his disciples, in the hot weather of April or May, to leave the deep basin of the lake, so far below the level of the Mediterranean, and visit the mountain region of Phoenicia. (Compare on Mat 14:13)
Mat 15:22 f. And behold, calling attention to what follows as remarkable. A woman of Canaan. In the earliest times the people of Phoenicia are spoken of as Canaanites, (Jdg 1:3 f.) i.e., as belonging to the great tribe which occupied all the low lands, and which afterwards gave its name of Canaan to the whole land. It is probable that the Jews continued to apply this name to all the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though many of the later inhabitants may have been of different origin. To Matthew’s Jewish readers this word would show that she was a Gentile. Mark, having Gentile readers mainly in view, says (Mar 7:26) that she was a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, and also that she was a Syrophoenician by race, a term probably used by way of distinction from the Libyphoenicians or Carthaginians. Came out of the same coasts, i.e., that region or territory, as in Mat 2:16, Mat 4:13, Mat 8:34.
This means that she came, not from Galilee, but from the country of Tyre, to the place where Jesus was. Many writers, even Weiss and Edersh., understand that she came out of Phoenicia into Galilee, which they suppose Jesus had not yet left; but this arises from the persistence of the old notion that he did not really enter Phoenicia. Edersheim imagines that Jesus kept the Passover here, consequently in a Jewish house; but his chronological scheme is at this and some other points quite forced. Cried unto him, saying, the correct text omits ’unto him.’ The word denotes loud crying. Crieth after us, Mat 15:23, i.e., behind us, implies that she was following them along as they walked. It is easy to suppose that while staying at the house, (Mar 7:24) Jesus and his disciples were one day taking a walk, and that she having heard about him, (Mar 7:25)
followed behind and cried aloud as they went on Tischendorf reads in Mark ’came in,’ but it is evidently an "Alexandrian" alteration by some early critics who thought the scene of the interview was the house, not having duly considered Matthew. Have mercy on me, the word including also the idea of pity, which is here the prominent idea (see on "Mat 9:27"). She makes her child’s case her own. Lord see on "Mat 8:2". It is not clear whether this was an expression of high respect, or possibly of worship. She believed him to be the Messiah, as shown by her calling him Son of David. (Compare on Mat 9:27) Though a heathen, and living in a heathen country, she was yet near the land of Israel, familiar with the true religion, and like the woman of Zarephath, a worshipper of the true God. Perhaps she may have previously gone, among the many from Tyre and Sidon, (Mar 3:8) and attended the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. My daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. ’Badly demonized’ would be a literal rendering, though the Com. Ver. gives a more familiar English expression. ’Devil,’ however, should be ’demon,’ see on "Mat 8:31": as to demoniacal possessions, see on "Mat 8:28". Mark (Mar 7:25. Rev. Ver) uses a diminutive term, meaning ’little daughter,’ which shows that she was a child.
Mat 15:23 f. Here is a strong contrast; she cries aloud, he is absolutely silent. His reason for not answering appears below. The effect was to develop, strengthen, and manifest her faith (compare on Mat 9:28). It is often so now; if with hearty confidence in the Lord’s wisdom and mercy we continue to ask, we shall at last receive whatever he sees best for us, and besides may be improved in piety by the delay. The hearer of prayer is not less designing our good when he withholds or defers than when he "hears while we are yet speaking." His disciples, probably the Twelve, did not understand the wisdom and love of this apparent neglect. They were probably half touched and half annoyed by her loud and persistent cries, and perhaps also were uneasy lest she should draw attention to them, when they were wishing to remain in perfect retirement. So they came, lit., came near to Jesus and begged him to send her away, because she crieth after us. Some have thought they wished him simply to order her off, as troublesome and likely to attract to them the attention of others. But they had never seen him dismiss a suppliant in any other way than by doing what was asked; and that they desired him to grant her request is made plain by his answer, which is a reason why he should not grant it. Observe that this was an answer to the disciples, and not addressed to the woman. It is not clear that she heard it; for the statement in Mat 15:25, ’came and worshipped him,’ Implies that she had been following at some little distance, as does also the loud crying of Mat 15:22 f. I am (or was) not sent (Rheims), like ’I came’ in Mat 5:17, referring indefinitely to the time when the Father sent him forth to his mission in the world; he had no commission to go to any others, even as he had given the disciples none. (Mat 10:6) Jesus here and elsewhere speaks of himself as subordinate to the Father, with reference to his official position and work as the God-man, the Mediator (compare on Mat 11:27); this does not conflict with the idea that as the Eternal Son he is very God, and equal with the Father. (Joh 1:1 Rom 9:5) But (or except) unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, see on "Mat 10:6". He doubtless healed Gentile sick when brought to him in the land of Israel (Mat 4:24 f.; Mat 15:30 f. certainly in Mat 8:5 ff.); but now he had gone into a Gentile country, and must avoid entering upon a general ministry there. His ministry in Israel prepared the way for a blessing to the Gentiles. (Rom 15:8-10.) When his work was finished, then the apostles would be his "witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Act 1:8) It would have conflicted with the nature and design of Christ’s mission, had he anticipated this work of the apostles, though he alluded to it as a part of his own work. (Joh 10:16) The Jewish mind required slow preparation (as the history in Acts plainly shows) for the idea that Gentiles were to share freely the benefits of the Messianic reign; and the Jews would have been irritated and utterly repelled (Lutteroth), if their Messiah had at once begun a great work among the Gentiles. Jesus was induced to make an exception to the rule by this woman’s great faith and humble importunity, as the prophets had sometimes done. (Luk 4:25-27) There is no objection to supposing him overcome by importunity. But, in fact, this was hardly an exception, for her great faith brought her in some sense within the limits of his mission. (Gal 3:7) Notice that Mat 15:23 f. is found in Matthew only, who wrote especially for Jews, and desired to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark’s Gentile readers would not at first have understood such a saying as Mat 15:24, and would have been repelled by it.
Mat 15:25-27. The woman herself now comes. Worshipped him, bowing before him, probably prostrating herself, but not probably as to a Deity (compare on Mat 2:2, Mat 8:2). The Greek imperfect tense (correct text) not only states that she did this, but describes her as so doing. Jesus puts before her the same idea he had just stated to the disciples, that the Messianic benefits were designed for the Jews, and purposely employs harsh expressions which will develop her faith and humility. He had produced a similar effect in the centurion by an opposite course. (Mat 8:7) The Jews looked upon themselves as God’s ’children’; and spoke contemptuously of the Gentiles as ’dogs,’ unclean and vile. (Compare on Mat 7:6) The Gentiles around were accustomed to this, and therefore the expression here was not altogether so offensive and painful as it would seem to us. So the Mohammedans call Christians infidel dogs. It is not meet, or good, proper (kalon), pleasing to the sense of propriety. Wyc., Rheims, Tyn., Gen., say ’good’; Cran. gave ’mete.’ The woman’s reply not only shows a high degree of faith and humility, but also does credit to her shrewdness and prompt intelligence—perhaps stimulated by maternal affection and solicitude—for she gives the harshly expressed refusal an admirable turn in her favour. Truth (or yes) Lord, yet (for) the dogs eat of the crumbs. She does not present an idea opposed to what he had said, as the incorrect rendering of Com. Ver., ’yet,’[1] would indicate, but a confirmation of it. Yes, Lord, it is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs, for the dogs too eat of the crumbs that fall from their master’s table; they also have their lowly place, ’under the table’ (Mark), and their lowly portion. The Jewish people, she is aware, have a special mission in the world, and special privileges; and of these they need not be deprived by her request, for a despised Gentile also may have a humble share of Messianic blessing. He is not now healing any in Israel, and the chosen people will lose no Messianic good by this one act of pity for her. (Compare Mald., Weiss.) Luther: "Was not that a master stroke? She snares Christ in his own words." In Mark, what our Lord had said to her is introduced by the words, ’Let the children first be filled;’ implying that afterwards the dogs might get something. This furnished all the more natural occasion for the turn she gave to her reply. The Greek term in Mat 15:26 f. and Mar 7:27 f. is a diminutive, and leads us to think of smaller dogs, allowed to run freely about the house and under the table. The diminutive must have been intentionally used here, for it is found nowhere else in the Greek Bible, while the common word occurs five times in New Testament, and thirty-three times in Sept. Everywhere in the Bible dogs are spoken of as objects of dislike. In Tob 5:16, a dog is a companion, a thing very rarely the case in the East, where dogs run wild. It is hardly proper to suppose that ’little dogs’ is here a term of affection; and Weiss’ notion of lap-dogs, the children’s pets, is a strange anachronism.—This heroine of faith is an example to all persons who are spiritually seeking Christ. Some after awhile grow despondent, and even fretful, as if badly treated, in that they do not succeed as others do. Let them learn from her humble perseverance.
[1] Wyc., Cran., Gen., have ’for,’ Rheims exactly ’for.. also.’ Tyn. gave ’nevertheless,’ and so Com. Ver. Peshito omit the ’for,’ apparently because the meaning ’yet.’ All. but Rheims overlook the ’also.’ B. and was not perceived. In Mar 7:28 it is also omitted by several other MSS. and versions, probably for the same mason. Why should it have been inserted if not originally present in either Gospel? How then should W. H. bracket ’for’ in Matt.? Yet it may be spurious in Mark. The Greek word means in English either ’also’ (too) or ’even,’ according to the connection.
Mat 15:28. O woman, more expressive than simply ’woman.’ Great is thy faith. The world is ever admiring and lauding greatness, but it is great intellect or imagination, great ambition or force of character, beauty or amiability, great learning or discoveries, possessions or conquests; here is the noblest praise for the truest greatness. The centurion’s faith likewise excited the wonder of Jesus (see on "Mat 8:10"), and he too was a heathen. Be it unto thee, or let it come to pass for thee; the same phrase as in Mat 8:18 and Mat 6:10. The expression in Mar 7:29 may have immediately followed that given in Matthew As thou wilt, Trench: "He who at first seemed as though he would have denied her the smallest boon, now opens to her the full treasure-house of his grace, and bids her to help herself, to carry away what she will. He had shown to her for awhile, like Joseph to his brethren, the aspect of severity; but, like Joseph, he could not maintain it long—or rather he would not maintain it an instant longer than was needful, and after that word of hers, that mighty word of an undoubting faith, it was needful no more." Our Lord does not speak of her humility, though so remarkable, for that was a result of her faith. Perhaps the earliest offspring of unbelief is pride, (1Ti 3:6) while faith at once gives birth to humility; and in both cases, the progeny reinforces the parent. So, too, her faith had led to perseverance—a perseverance which may be compared with that of Jacob, in wrestling with the same Eternal Word,(Gen 32:24) who was now permanently incarnate as Jesus. From that very hour, compare Mat 8:13, Mat 9:22.—The so-called Clementine homilies (end of second century), in telling this story, call the woman Justa, and her daughter Bernice, which names may have been either invented or traditional.
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 15:21. Jesus withdrawing. (1) From what? (a) From the jealousy of Herod. (b) From the machinations of the Jewish rulers. (c) From the fanatical designs of some who counted themselves his followers. (2) In what spirit? Personal prudence. Patient forbearance. (3) Still everywhere doing good, Mat 14:14, Mat 15:28-30, Mat 17:18. (4) At last, when his hour is come, he will withdraw no longer, Joh 12:23.
Joh 12:22-28. The Canaanitish woman. (1) Believes in the Jewish Messiah, Joh 12:22. (2) Humbly submits to be harshly spoken to by him, Joh 12:26. (3) Shrewdly converts refusal into a new plea, Joh 12:27. (4) Gains her cause, and wins the highest possible commendation. Joh 12:28.
Joh 12:28. Great faith. (1) Seen in a heathen; compare centurion. (Mat 8:10) (2) Attended by great humility, (compare Luk 18:18) and producing great perseverance. (Compare Luk 18:7) (3) Recognized and rewarded by him who knows the heart. Joh 2:24 f.
Mat 15:22. A mother making her child’s case her own.
Mat 15:23. Disciples seeming kinder than their Lord. Henry: "There may be love in Christ’s heart while there are frowns in his face."
Mat 15:24. Hall: "We need no other rule of life than the intention of our several stations; and if he that was God would take no further scope to himself than the limits of his commission, how much doth it concern us frail men to keep within compass."
Mat 15:25. Chrys.: "She was the more instant. But it is not so with us; rather, when we fail to obtain, we desist; whereas it ought to make us the more urgent." Theophyl.: "Consider that even if holy men pray for us, as the apostles did for her, yet we ourselves, praying for ourselves, accomplish more."
Mat 15:27. Maternal shrewdness turning the Saviour’s argument against him. Henry: "Unbelief is apt to draw dismal conclusions even from comfortable premises; (Jdg 13:22 f.) but faith can find encouragement even in that which is discouraging, and get nearer to God by taking hold on that hand which is stretched out to push it away."
Mat 15:23-28. Jesus glad to be overcome, by intercession, by personal entreaty, by argument.
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30 Break one of these least commandments.
Mat_5:19
Break one of these least commandments.
Read full note →
The perilous harmfulness of little sins
Man is set free from the curse of the law, but not from its authority.
I. Let us consider these minor violations of the moral law as they are considered in relation to the lawgiver himself. The least commandment has the same authority as the greatest. Little sins will soon acquire all the gigantic proportions of the greatest. It is no paradox to say, that little sins are peculiarly offending in the sight of God, because they are little; in other words, because we run the risk of offending Him for what on our own showing we care very little about, and from which we only expect an insignificant return. It would aggravate the venality of a Judge that the bribe was so paltry. The least sin is aggravated by the small degree of temptation by which it is accompanied.
II. The awful danger of these little sins in regard to ourselves. Little sins leave men hardly conscious float they have broken Gods law; great sins stir up piercing thoughts. See the peril of little sins, as they are sure to draw greater ones after them. It is fools sport to play with firebrands. The multiplication of little sins show how we need the merit of an infinite atonement. (D. Moore, M. A.)
We learn
I. That all the law of God is binding on Christians (Jam_2:10).
II. That all the commands of God should be preached in their proper place by Christian ministers.
III. That they who pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them, are unworthy of His kingdom.
IV. That true piety has respect to all the commands of God, and keeps them (Psa_119:64). (Dr. A. Barnes.)
I. Christ does not hereby authorise us to suppose any of His commandments to be little. The meaning is-anything contained under or included in them, though seemingly small to us; as anger, scornful speaking, and reviling is the sin of murder.
II. As little in it, as he accounts of them; that is nothing; they shall be excluded.
(1) Observe the danger of vacating Gods commands.
(2) In any respect.
(3) In any one instance. (Thomas Adam.)
A little sin indicative of a carnal disposition
That an act in itself inconsiderable, may indicate the existing state of feeling, as clearly as one that is more palpable. As the motion of a leaf shows the quarter from which the wind blows as certainly as the agitated branches of an oak, so you may gather any ones dislike, though he does not strike you, or abuse you, or attempt insidiously to destroy your reputation. Only let him receive you with coldness, and his disaffection is as indisputable as if it were manifest in angry assault … Is it not evident that the man who has brought himself to the perpetration of one fraud, has broken down the only security against the perpetration of a score, lie who can be the oppressor of a few, wants only the means to become the despot of an empire. (C. Williams.)
Avoid the least sin
If we would save the big ship, let us stop the small leak. If we would save the palace from flames, let us put out the spark. (Newman Hall.)
The great evil and danger of little sins
I. What is meant by the least commandment. It must not be understood as if one commandment were less necessary to be obeyed than another; Gods commands are all alike necessary.
1. They are all enjoined by the same authority.
2. They are all necessary to be performed in order to eternal life. But when Christ speaks of the least commandment, He alludes
(1) to the corrupt doctrine of the Scribes distinguishing Gods commands into small and great.
(2) Those commandments which are great in respect of the Lawgiver, may yet be least in comparison with other commands of the same law, which are indeed thought greatest. This inequality arises from the inequality of the objects about which they are concerned, our duty to God or man. Sometimes it arises from the latitude that any command hath in it, to our thoughts, words, or actions; a thought is said to be less than an action.
II. What is meant by being least in the kingdom of heaven. Either the kingdom of grace, the Church, heaven. Little sins carry great guilt and bring heavy condemnation.
1. This appears in that the least sin is a most high affront and provocation of the great God.
2. It is a violation of a holy and strict law.
3. What a complicated evil every sin is, that the commission of the least makes you guilty of the greatest.
4. The authority of the great God seems more to be despised by the commission of small sins than by the commission of great.
5. Little sins do greatly deface the image of God in the soul. In curious pictures, a little scratch is a great deformity.
6. Little sins have in them ordinarily of temptation, and therefore more of wilfulness.
7. Little sins do maintain the trade and course of sinning.
III. The evil and danger of little sins hath been made apparent: I shall add farther proofs of their aggravated guilt.
1. Little sins usually are the destroying sins.
2. Small sins-what they want in weight, usually make up in number. A ship may have a heavy burden of sands, as well as of millstones; and may be as soon sunk with them.
3. It is very difficult to convince men of the great evil and danger of little sins.
4. The allowance of the least sin is a certain sign of a rotten heart.
5. Little sins usually make way for the vilest.
(1) The devil, by his temptations, nurses up youngling sins, till they arrive at full stature.
(2) Natural corruption is of a growing nature.
6. Little sins are the greatest provocations; murder is a reproach to all; unbelief does not provoke public scandal.
7. Damnation for little sins will be most intolerable-here for such little sins!
IV. Application:
1. If little sins have so much danger, what shall we think of great impieties?
2. Then behold a fearful shipwreck of all the hopes of formalists.
3. What absolute need we stand in of Christ.
4. What cause we have to bemoan and humble ourselves before God.
5. Pray for a tender conscience.
6. Keep alive reverent thoughts of God.
7. Get a more thorough sense of the spirituality of the law. (Bp. Hopkins.)
Little sins accumulate
The devil cannot expect always to receive such returns of great and crying impieties: but yet, when he keeps the stock of corruption going, and drives on the trade of sinning by lesser sins, believe it, corruption will be on the thriving hand, and you may grow rich in guilt, and treasure up to yourselves wrath against the day of wrath, by adding those that you call little sins unto the heap. (Bp. Hopkins.)
Great advancement made in sin by little stages
If Satan prevails with us to go with him one step out of our way, we axe in danger to stop nowhere till we come to the height of all profaneness: he will make us take a second, and a third, and so to travel on to destruction; for each of these is but one step: the last step of sin is but one step, as well as the first; and if the devil prevail with us to take one step, why should he not prevail with us to take the last step as well as the first step, seeing it is but one? Your second sin no more exceeds your first, than your first doth your duty; and so of the rest. (Bp. Hopkins.)
Little sins are often united with great, which together sweep the soul to destruction
As you see in rivers, the natural course of them tends to the sea; but the tide, joining with them, makes the current run the swifter and the more forcibly: so is it with sin. Little sins are the natural stream of a mans life; that do of themselves tend hell-ward, and are of themselves enough to carry the soul down silently and calmly to destruction: but, when greater and grosser sins join with them, they make a violent tide, that hurries the soul away with a more swift and rampant motion down to hell, than little sins would or could do of themselves. (Bp. Hopkins.)
The need of a sensitive conscience
A tender conscience is like the apple of a mans eye: the least dust that gets into it afflicts it. (Bp. Hopkins.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 19. Shall break one of the least of these.…
19. Shall break one of the least of these. The Pharisees taught that some commands were more important than others, and that it was a trivial matter to break the smallest commands. The papists still divide sin into mortal and venial. Christ shows that the spirit of obedience does not seek to make such distinction. Shall be least. He may get into the kingdom, possibly, but such a spirit will give him a very low spiritual rank.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v21 The aim and contents of the “Sermon.”—No mere sermon…
CRITICAL NOTES
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Read full note →
The aim and contents of the “Sermon.”—No mere sermon is this, only distinguished from others of its class by its reach and sweep and power; it stands alone as the grand charter of the commonwealth of heaven; or, to keep the simple title the Evangelist himself suggests (Mat_4:23), it is “the gospel (or good news) of the kingdom.” To understand it aright we must keep this in mind, avoiding the easy method of treating it as a mere series of lessons on different subjects, and endeavouring to grasp the unity of thought and purpose which binds its different parts into one grand whole. It may help us to do this if we first ask ourselves what questions would naturally arise in the minds of the more thoughtful of the people, when they heard the announcement, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was evidently to such persons the Lord addressed Himself.… In their minds they would, in all probability, be revolving such questions as these:
1. “What is this kingdom, what advantages does it offer, and who are the people that belong to it?”
2. “What is required of those that belong to it? What are its laws and obligations?” And if these two questions were answered satisfactorily, a third would naturally follow.
3. “How may those who desire to share its privileges and assume its obligations become citizens of it?” These, accordingly, are the three great questions dealt with in succession (J. M. Gibson, D.D.).
The originality of the Sermon.—We are not careful to deny, we are eager to admit, that many even of the most admirable sayings in the Sermon on the Mount had been anticipated by heathen moralists and poets (S. Cox, D.D.). To affirm that Christ was not in the world, nor in the thoughts of men, until He took flesh and dwelt among us, is no more to honour Him than it is to affirm that, when He came into the world, He showed Himself to be no wiser than the men whose thoughts He had previously guided and inspired.… His teaching, we may be sure, will not be new in the sense of having no connection with the truths He had already taught by them; but it will be new in this sense, that it will perfect that which in them was imperfect; that it will gather up their scattered thoughts, free them from the errors with which they had blended them, and harmonise, develop, and complete them (S. Cox, D D.).
Is the Sermon on the Mount evangelical?—You have heard, as I have, that there is no “Cross” in this Sermon on the Mount; that we are at the foot of Sinai listening to Moses, and not at Calvary “beholding the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” Let us not be deceived. You might as well say there is no sun in a coal-pit or a geyser because you do not see his form there. Your British coalfields are as truly the-children of the sun as is the ray of light that last fell upon our eyes, and the high-pitched morality of this sermon is as really the offspring of the death and resurrection of Christ as the first pulse-beat of joy on the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Will you say that the writer of Todhunter’s Trigonometry is unfamiliar with the first four rules of arithmetic because he assumes instead of stating and proving them? No more should we conclude that salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God for men is absent from the Sermon on the Mount, because it is not expressly stated and argued as it is in the third of the Romans. There is not a benediction that does not take us to Calvary. There is not a warning that may not urge us to Christ. There is not a mountain elevation of holiness that will not force from us the cry, “Lord, help me, or I perish.” The Sermon is full of the great principles we have to preach, and those principles are all embodied in the Speaker Himself. Teaching Him we teach the principles of this Sermon, and it is of little use teaching the ideas of this Sermon without also teaching Him (J. Clifford, D.D.). The Lord Jesus did not give the world His best wine in this cup, marvellous and precious though it be. The best thing in the Gospels is the gospel itself—that manifestation of the righteousness and love of God in the person, the life, and the death of His Son by which He wins our love and makes us righteous (S. Cox, D.D.).
The relation between the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St. Matthew and the account of it in St. Luke 6—Commentators are divided in opinion as to whether or not these are two versions of the same discourse. Augustine suggests a solution of the difficulty by saying that the two discourses are entirely distinct, though delivered on the same occasion—that reported by St. Matthew, on the mountain to the disciples; that of St. Luke, delivered on the plain just below to the multitude. Dean Vaughan concurs in this view, and says: “Men have doubted whether the discourse in St. Matthew is to be regarded as an ampler account of that which is reported by St. Luke. The general scope and purport is the same. Yet, as St. Matthew says expressly that Jesus spake ‘sitting on the mountain,’ and St. Luke says that He spake ‘standing on the plain,’ it seems not very unnatural to suppose that the one (that given by St. Matthew) was a discourse delivered, as it were, to the inner circle of His disciples, apart from the crowd outside; the other (preserved by St. Luke), a briefer and more popular rehearsal of the chief topics of the former, addressed, immediately afterwards, in descending the hill, to the promiscuous multitude.” Lange also favours this view. Carr (Cambridge Bible for Schools) states the arguments in favour of the identity of the “Sermon on the Mount” with the “Sermon on the Plain,” thus:
1. The beginning and end are identical as well as much of the intervening matter.
2. The portions omitted—a comparison between the old and the new legislation—are such as would be less adapted for St. Luke’s readers than for St. Matthew’s.
3. The “mount” and the “plain” are not necessarily distinct localities. The plain is more accurately translated “a level place,” a platform on the high land.
4. The place in the order of events differs in St. Luke, but it is probable that here as well as elsewhere St. Matthew does not observe the order of time.
Mat_5:21. Ye have heard.—It is as if the Saviour were referring to some specific discourse, which some Rabbi or other had recently been delivering to the people; and perhaps as a polemic against the doctrines and influence of Jesus. We need not doubt that there would be many such discussional discourses. And while the native majesty of our Lord would not suffer Him to descend into petty controversies, it is likely enough that several parts of the Sermon on the Mount owe their peculiar shaping to the peculiar nature of the representations made by his Rabbinical opponents (Morison). Whosoever shall kill, etc.—The fact that these words are not found in the Old Testament confirms the view that our Lord is speaking of the traditional comments on the law, and not of the law itself (Plumptre). In danger.—The phrase had a somewhat more technical sense in A.D. 1611 than it has now, and meant “legally liable to” (ibid.). The judgment.—That of the local courts of Deu_16:18. They had the power of capital punishment, though the special form of death by stoning was reserved for the Sanhedrin or Council (ibid.).
Mat_5:22. Without a cause.—Omitted in R. V. However we decide as to the text, we must restrict our interpretation to “causeless anger” (Brown). Raca = “thou good-for nothing” (Wendt). Thou fool = “thou godless one” (ibid.). The distinction between raca and thou fool is lost, and naturally, for they belong to that class of words, the meaning of which depends entirely on the usage of the day. There is, however, clearly a climax.
1. Feeling of anger without words.
2. Anger venting itself in words.
3. Insulting anger (Carr). Judgment … council … hell-fire.—There seems to be an incongruity in passing literally from the human events described by the “judgment” and the “council” to the divine sentence of the “Gehenna of fire.” The most natural interpretation seems to be to suppose that three degrees of human punishment are used to denote, by analogy, three corresponding degrees of the Divine sentence hereafter. The judgment, the council, the Gehenna of fire, will thus figuratively represent three degrees of the Divine vengeance against sin, corresponding to three degrees of temporal punishment under the Jewish law; death by the sword inflicted by the minor courts, death by stoning inflicted by the Sanhedrin, and finally, death with the body cast into the valley of Hinnom to be burned. It is not certain that this last punishment was ever actually inflicted under the Jewish law; it may be mentioned as an extreme case beyond the legal punishments, though, in one case, at least, as Tholuck observes, death by fire was ordained (see Lev_20:14), though no place of punishment is specified (cf. 1Ma_3:5) (Mansel).
Mat_5:25. Agree with thine adversary.—The Saviour here shifts His scene a little. He seizes, representatively, on such a specific manifestation of malevolence as leads the injured party to become an adversary, i.e. a prosecutor in a law-suit, who is determined to recover damages (Morison). The passion of which you have not repented, the wrong for which you have not atoned, will meet you as an adversary at the bar of God (Tholuck).
Mat_5:26. Farthing.—The Greek word is derived from the Latin quadrans, the fourth part of the Roman as, a small copper or bronze coin which had become common in Palestine. The “farthing” of Mat_10:29 is a different word, and was applied to the tenth part of the drachma (Plumptre).
Mat_5:28. To lust after her.—With the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Mat_6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires (Brown).
Mat_5:31. Whosoever shall put away, etc.—The quotation is given as the popular Rabbinic explanation of Deu_24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Mat_19:8, was given on account of the hardness of men’s hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The stricter party of Shammai held that the “uncleanness” meant simply unchastity before or after marriage. The followers of Hillel held, on the other hand, that anything that made the company of the wife distasteful was a sufficient ground for repudiation (Plumptre).
Mat_5:33. Forswear thyself.—These are not the precise words of Exo_20:7, but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Lev_19:12, etc.). This is plain from what follows (Brown).
Mat_5:34. Swear not at all.—Viz. in the following ways (Morison).
Mat_5:37. Yea, yea; nay, nay. Let your affirmation and negation be in accordance with fact (Grotius).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_5:21-37
Root and branch.—The Saviour’s purpose here seems to be that of explaining what He has just before said. He has described His mission as being that of “fulfilling” God’s “law” (Mat_5:17). Amongst the ways in which He was to do this—to do this in connection with the “moral” part of that law—was the way of bringing it home. On what principles were its various precepts founded? How far, in consequence of this, do its various requirements extend? These are the questions which He here sets Himself to answer so far as they bear on three commandments out of the “Ten”—three commandments which seem selected as samples of all.
I. The sixth commandment is the first “old-time” saying (Mat_5:21) which is dealt with in this way. Its actual language, as quoted here, is brief and simple enough. “Thou shalt not kill.” In dealing with this (Mat_5:21-26) our Saviour points us first, as we intimated just now, to its root. What is the root of the wicked action which this commandment forbids? It is to be found in the indulgence of the spirit of hate. If there were no hate, no desire to hurt, there would be no such endeavour, of course. It is with this root, therefore—this murder-germ—that the Saviour begins. He bids us understand that it is with this spirit of hate—this anger “without cause” (Mat_5:22)—that this commandment begins. In forbidding the action it forbids thereby its source. That is the first point to be noted. But that is not all. What we are to note next, is, that it forbids also all that follows from this. All that follows from indulgence in such a spirit, whatever its shape—all words of contempt even—all that is meant to degrade (Mat_5:22). All that follows from this, also, no matter what else in other directions we may think we have to rely on for acceptance with God. Not even the “worship” of our “gifts” on God’s own “altar” is acceptable to Him if we come in this spirit of hate (Mat_5:23-24, etc.; cf., in part, Gen_4:1-10). Not only so, it never can be acceptable so long as this enmity lasts. For what is it that such unrepented enmity does in effect? It turns your brother, as before God, into your “adversary at law”; and it is an indirect appeal to Him, therefore, to deal with you only as your merits deserve—a “process at law” which can only end in your irreversible death (Mat_5:25-26; also Psa_130:3; Psa_143:2; Rom_6:23). Understand, therefore, not only how far, but also how peremptorily, this commandment extends. The spirit of hate, indulged in, is the spirit of death!
II. The seventh commandment is next expounded, in like manner, by Christ. Here, also, the “old saying” was simple enough in its letter. But it was just as profound, also, and just as far-reaching—so the Saviour shows—in its spirit. For here, also, on the one hand, the commandment, in forbidding the action, forbids also the inward desire which gives it birth, as it were (Mat_5:28, cf. Jas_1:14-15). And here, also, on the other hand, it necessarily forbids also all those resulting evil indulgences and habits which so often become to men in consequence almost part of themselves. And it bids the sinner (which is more) wholly to part with them, even where that is the case; and warns him solemnly, also, that the only other alternative is that of destroying himself (Mat_5:29-30, Eph_5:3-6). All this that “old saying” taught in the “germ.” Further, on the important question of the dissolution of marriage (which is another branch of this subject) it did the same thing. The “old saying,” on this point, also, had been of a very definite kind. If you do dissolve this contract you must do so with as much formality as you entered on it at first (Mat_5:31). That restriction contained in it the seed of another. You must not dissolve it even in that way unless it has been dissolved in another way first (Mat_5:32). That is the “spirit,” and, therefore, those the results, of that “letter” of old.
III. The third commandment—possibly as being, unlike the previous two, a part of the First Table—is then taken up. To “take God’s name in vain” (Exo_20:7) is to invite His witness to that which is false. To forbid this, therefore (Mat_5:33), is to forbid, as before, that which lies at its root, viz. in this case, thinking lightly of God. And, therefore, as before, to forbid all that which branches therefrom—all language inconsistent with a proper recollection of the wide supremacy of His rule, whether in “heaven” above, or “earth” beneath, or in the midst of His church (Mat_5:34-35), or with a proper sense of our utter inability to alter or modify the most insignificant part of our frames (Mat_5:36). What it rather enjoins on us is a scrupulous anxiety to avoid any approach to these sins. Never call upon God as a witness unless in those cases in which you have His permission to do so. Even to wish this without adequate cause is of the nature of sin (Mat_5:37). So, of this commandment also, does the Saviour explain both its depth and its reach!
Declarations of this kind lend double value:—
1. To the mercy of the gospel.—When the Saviour undertakes to forgive sin, He is not speaking in the dark. He knows what He is doing, what sin is, what it involves, what it leads to, all that it means. Knowing the worst, He yet blots it all out.
2. To the offers of the gospel.—“Wilt thou be made whole?” This He says to those whose extremity is known to Him to the full (cf. Joh_5:6).
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat_5:21-24. Spiritual exposition of sixth commandment.—The keynote of the portion (Mat_5:20-26) is contained in Mat_5:20, and the meaning of that verse is set forth in six examples—murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love and hatred. Consider the Christian law concerning murder:—
I. In the letter.—Sixth commandment. We boast of progress, and of the march of civilisation. Our progress in material civilisation is indeed marvellous; but so long as the columns of our newspapers abound with reports of the most wilful and cold-blooded murders we have cause for “shame and confusion of face” rather than for vainglory.
II. In the spirit.—He who is “angry with his brother without a cause” commits murder in his heart. Anger is declared to be a work of the flesh (Gal_5:20); but it is often excused as an infirmity, rather than bewailed as a sin.
III. In the punishment.—The three degrees of punishment specified according to the degrees of guilt.
IV. In the application.—Our Lord being “a minister of the circumcision,” and the Jewish ritual being not yet abrogated, the language of the Mosaic ceremonial (“gift” and “altar”) is naturally employed. A pious Jew is supposed to be on his way to the temple, intending to offer to God on the altar his gift, eucharistic or sacrificial. Before reaching the altar, he recollects that his brother has some cause of offence against him—not that he has one against his brother, which is generally all we think of. Our Lord counsels him to “leave,” etc. To offer sacrifice or worship, before reconciliation has been effected, is but to mock the Searcher of hearts (Psa_66:18; Eph_4:26).—F. F. Goe, M.A.
Mat_5:21-22. Inward hatred.—I. The evil of this sort of anger.—
1. In our Saviour’s interpretation it is the first step towards the sin of murder.
2. It clouds the judgment with such thick fumes of passion that it is not capable of discerning truth from falsehood, or right from wrong, and gives a strong bias to the affections.
3. There is no passion more inconsistent with society and good government.
4. This anger is directly opposed to the love of our neighbours in general.
II. The means for preventing and removing it.—
1. Let us avoid a weak, peevish, waspish disposition.
2. Let us consider this world as a place full of trouble.
3. Let us accustom ourselves to overlook the immediate instruments of our troubles, and take them all as from the hands of God.
4. Let us avoid, as much as possible, all the usual causes or occasions of anger.
5. Let us consider how much self-denial is a principal duty of the Christian religion, and what noble promises are made to it.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Mat_5:22. Slight affronting words.—To guard us against all disrespect and slight, or even incivility to our neighbour, there are a few things I would offer to your consideration.
I. That this slight and disrespect towards our neighbour proceeds commonly from bad causes; such as:
1. A pride and haughtiness in ourselves, and a conceitedness as to our own opinions and ways.
2. At least, a want of due consideration of our neighbour’s case; perhaps that which we are offended at in him is owing to the uneasiness of his circumstances; the pains and diseases of his body; the fatigue of business; the stiffness of his natural temper; or some little mistake or oversight such as are very incident to all mankind.
3. Or it is owing to our own hasty and impatient temper, which could not bear with the least provocation or contradiction.
II. Disrespect to our neighbour is attended with very bad consequences and effects.—There is no man so dull but he can apprehend the least disrespect put upon him. Disrespectful words begin to alienate our neighbour’s affection from us, as persons that are unjust to him, etc.
III. All slight and disrepect towards our neighbour is exceedingly inconsistent with the laws of Christianity, which require a spirit of love, charity, humility, meekness, and patience; that we should honour all men; that we should curb our tongues, and govern our passions; that we should be courteous and condescending, and become all things to all men, that by all means we may gain some.
IV. Consider the good consequences of the contrary virtue.—I mean, true love and respect to our neighbour, manifested by all expressions of Christian friendship and civility; how it smooths men’s tempers, calms their passions, disposes them for receiving any good impressions we would make upon them; how it contributes to keep up peace and good neighbourhood, and a spirit of love and friendship among men, than which there is nothing more necessary towards the happiness of the world.—Ibid.
Degrees of punishment in the other world—
I. What foundation there is for this doctrine from the text.—
1. From the whole scope and purport of this Sermon on the Mount it is evident our Saviour is not instructing magistrates, but private Christians; He is not prescribing laws of human policy, but directing the conscience, His kingdom not being of this world.
2. Our Saviour never took upon Him either to inflict or to prescribe human penalties; but thought fit to leave the governments of the world in the full possession of their jurisdiction; and therefore it is no way probable that He is here prescribing the penalties of human courts of judicature.
3. It is plain from the sins here described, they are such as fall not under the cognisance of human laws, the first of them being inward anger, which, till it breaks out into some outward words or actions, cannot be the subject of any rule, but of Him who alone is the Searcher of hearts. The punishments, then, here assigned must all relate to the other world. And if so, there being here several degrees of punishments assigned, it follows plainly that there are several degrees of punishments in the world to come.
II. Some other Scripture proofs of the same doctrine.—Psa_62:12; Pro_24:12; Mat_16:27; Luk_12:47-48; Mat_11:22; Mat_11:24.
III. What ground there is in the nature and reason of the thing for this doctrine.—
1. All wicked people are not wicked in the same degree.
2. Of those who go to the same degree and pitch of wickedness, the sin is not equal in them all. In some, perhaps, it is only a sin of ignorance, and the error of their education; in others, it is studied perverseness and wickedness. Some have been captains and ringleaders in vice, others have been but followers and accessories, etc.
IV. Inferences.—This doctrine may serve—
1. To vindicate the justice of God.
2. To deter even wicked men from several high degrees of wickedness.
3. To put us upon a trial of our own state.—Ibid.
Mat_5:23-24. Worship and reconciliation.—This passage may be understood as combining two lessons.
I. The most sacred of all occupations should not be an impediment to the duty of reconciliation.
II. The gift will not be acceptable to God while offered in enmity against a brother.—On this precept is founded the rule of the church requiring adversaries to be reconciled before partaking of the Holy Communion.—Dean Mansel.
Mat_5:25-26. Agreeing with one’s adversary.—
I. The duty enjoined.—
1. We are not to abandon the adversary’s company if it may be allowed us.
2. We are to leave no means untried with him that may tend to reconciliation. There should be
(1) Inward love;
(2) Outward expressions of courtesy and civility;
(3) Receding from our strict right for peace’s sake;
(4) Acts of beneficence and friendship;
(5) Prayer to God for him.
II. The evil consequences attending the neglect or delay of this duty.—There are three sorts of evil consequences to be considered.
1. The evil consequences in this world of letting differences run on so far as to come to the extremity of the law.
2. The other evil consequences in this world likewise, of other quarrels beside lawsuits, which, by a parity of reason, fall under the consideration of this advice of agreeing with the adversary (Jas_3:5-6).
3. The evil consequences in the great day of judgment of neglecting or delaying to make our peace with our adversary.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Mat_5:26. (With Mar_2:10). Sin and forgiveness.—To the Christian doctrine of forgiveness men have offered a twofold objection—the objection of levity, and the objection of reason.
1. The first declares that sin is a mere trifle, if it is even as much as that, and that forgiveness is a simple process which can be magically and swiftly set at work.
2. To accept the objection of reason means despair. Reason says, “There can be no such thing as forgiveness of sins.” Science utterly slays the doctrine. All the forgiveness in the world is incapable of blotting out a man’s past. In nature there is no such doctrine, neither can there be in religion. Nature exacts her tribute to the full, and she says to us, “You shall not come out thence until you have paid the uttermost farthing.” Reason, however, under the guidance of God, will reach a much higher conclusion than the reason which is its own guide—a conclusion which is honourable and pacific and true to law.
I. The universal law of God is, “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”—Every violation of the moral law is followed by penalty. The Christian doctrine of forgiveness does not repeal that law. Whatever forgiveness does for a man, it does not sweep away from his life the consequences of past misdeeds. God forgave David’s great sin, but David had also to pay the bitter price of his wickedness, and the ages have been acquainted with the story.
II. What under such circumstances, can a man do?—There is at least a choice of two courses.
1. The first is to pay your own debt as best you can. This pseudo-courageousness has a fascination for some minds, but will you think what it really means? If you have a true conception of the extent of your liability, you will not so glibly talk about “paying like a man.”
2. The second course open to you is that in which God comes to us and makes us an offer by which the debt may be paid with honour to the law and with perfect deliverance to the sinner. This offer is known as the doctrine of forgiveness. Be careful to observe that the doctrine of forgiveness is a matter entirely of revelation. What then is forgiveness? It is the first medicine administered to us by the Great Physician with a view to our complete restoration to spiritual health.—F. C. Spurr.
Mat_5:27-32. The mastery of the body.—The two voices are again heard; the first “by them of old time,” the second that (apart from divinity) of a dogmatist—solemn, impressive, in His individuality. “But, I say,” etc. There is no division of responsibility, all rests upon that “Ἐγώ!”
1. All human impulses are to be held in perfect mastery.
2. There is a judgment upon the heart as well as upon the outer life.
3. When the bodily appetites and the spiritual nature come into collision, let the body suffer, not the soul. A whole body (a body wholly gratified) or a maimed soul—which?
4. There are bodily temptations as well as mental temptations. The mind has advantages in the probationary state which the body has not; death has yet to pass upon the body; the body is not to be wholly purified or transformed until the resurrection; the mind, on the contrary (except so far as modified by the body), may be “set on things above.”
5. Christ, in this paragraph, shows the bearing of His specific truths on the body and bodily relations:
(1) Personal mastery.
(2) Personal mastery may require the severest measures.
(3) Personal mastery required in the maintenance of the conjugal bond.—J. Parker, D.D.
Mat_5:28. Mental uncleanness.—
1. Begin at the root as our Saviour here advises, and restrain all mental impurities.
2. Carefully avoid all occasions of this sin, e.g. bad books, impure plays, lewd company, etc.
3. Keep the body under by labour and temperance.
4. Avoid idleness, and be prudent as to recreations.
5. When temptations are presented, do not argue or parley with them, do not lie still and muse upon them, but flee from them.
6. Keep yourselves in the love of God and contemplate the things of eternity.
7. Another remedy of lust prescribed by God Almighty is suitable marriage.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Mat_5:29-30. Plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand.—
I. The supposition.—That the best members of the body, particularly the right eye and right hand, may lead us into very dangerous sins.
II. The duty of mortifying these members. This implies:
1. A serious and firm resolution of restraining the members and imagination from unlawful objects.
2. An avoiding all the occasions of sin.
3. The continual use of all those means whereby sin may be entirely subdued in us.
III. The danger of suffering our members to continue the instruments of sin.—Ibid.
Abandoning darling sins.—
I. The possibility of conquering darling sins.—If this were not possible God would never require it of us, and that under pain of damnation.
II. The difficulty and the causes of it.—
1. To make a darling sin, we must suppose a great propensity of corrupt nature, and to rectify nature is very difficult.
2. This propensity must be supposed to be confirmed by a vicious course or habit, and so to have become customary (Jer_13:23).
III. Some advices to facilitate this matter.—
1. Let us be fully persuaded of the necessity of parting with our beloved sins, under pain of our eternal and final destruction.
2. Let us believe that the longer we indulge in vicious practices, so much the harder it will be to get rid of them.
3. Let us firmly believe that there is no impossibility in overcoming our most favourite sins.
4. Our chief care must be to apply ourselves diligently to the use of all the means of grace.
5. We must not be discouraged if we obtain not the victory at first.—Ibid.
Mat_5:31-32. The Christian doctrine concerning divorces.—
I. Explication.—Our Saviour was not here treating of the impediments of marriage from the beginning, but only of the dissolution of lawful marriages; particularly He is here correcting the too great liberty the Jewish husbands took to put away their wives for slight causes. He seems to have determined as much in this case as was fit in prudence, viz. that the liberty of divorce for any lighter cause than the marriage infidelity should be prohibited; but that even in that case it should not be commanded, but left to the greater or lesser aggravation of the crime, from the various circumstances of it; and the consideration of the consequences of severity or indulgence, to himself, and his wife and children, and the world abroad. I speak cautiously on this difficult subject, because, as far as I can perceive, there never was, nor is any positive command for divorce.
II. Vindication.—
1. To some it may seem very hard that for no other fault but that of adultery, a man can put away his wife. There are many other things which make the married state very uneasy, and if some men had their will they would have it as easy a thing to put away a wife as to turn out a boarder. But:
(1) The great ends of marriage could never be attained, if marriage were to be dissolved upon every slight account. Consider what those ends are, and whether they are generally attainable any other way than by making marriage a mutual contract for life. (a) As to the procreation and education of children; could that be so well minded, if their mothers were to be turned off at pleasure, and they left to the care of any strange woman, who would look upon them as so many encumbrances upon the estate, and so many rivals of her own children? (b) As to the being a remedy of lust, which is another good end for the institution of matrimony; if marriage were an uncertain loose thing, subject to be dissolved upon every humour and caprice of the parties, and new wives as frequently brought in, this would be no confinement of lust at all; but loose men would change their wives as frequently as they do their mistresses, and marriage would be only a cloak for whoredom, under a more specious name. (c) If we consider married persons, as they are mutual helps to one another in managing a common estate for the benefit of themselves and their children, there is nothing can so well qualify them to answer that end as the being linked together by an inseparable bond, which joins their two interests in one. But now, upon a supposition of these frequent dissolutions of marriage, each party would have a different interest to carry on; the woman upon the prospect of parting, nay upon the bare supposition of the probability, or even possibility of it, would think it but prudence to provide for that time, and to feather her nest, by pilfering and purloining from her husband’s estate, as much as she could, while they are together. (d) Marriage was instituted for the mutual love and comfort of the parties, that such a sacred friendship might ease and sweeten the several troubles and uneasinesses of life. Now, its being a perpetual lasting bond of amity, contributes very much to this; they know now if they have any differences, their best way is to make them up.
(2) This discrediting and making light of marriage would be attended by other very great inconveniences. Particularly the weaker sex, after having left father and mother, after having been deprived of their portion and their honour, must be turned off to strive with solitude and discontent all the rest of their life.
2. As to the permitting of divorce in case of the breach of the marriage covenant; as in all covenants, when one of the parties breaks the fundamental articles, the other is absolved if he pleases, so it is very fit that it should be in this great marriage-covenant, especially considering what an intolerable hardship it would put on the innocent party to be obliged to love and trust one that betrays him, to maintain and provide for an adulterous brood, and to have his right made away to strangers.
III. Inferences.—
1. Our Saviour not only acts the part of a good interpreter of the law, but sometimes makes use of the authority of a legislator too.
2. We may observe how sacred and inviolable He would have the state of marriage to be. He makes it a covenant for life. Teaching
(1) With what deliberation, prudence, and circumspection we should enter into that lasting state.
(2) With what sweetness and friendliness of temper we ought to behave ourselves so as to make the journey of life pleasant, both to ourselves, and to this our inseparable companion.
(3) Since our Saviour has left such a blot on that sort of uncleanness committed by married persons, that on account thereof he permits the dissolution of the marriage, let this deter us from all approaches to those sins. Let husbands and wives beware of everything that may in the least create any dryness or alienation of affection from one another. Let them beware of those pretended friends, who bring oil to inflame, instead of water to quench, the fire of strife and contention, when it is kindled between them. Let every approach of criminal address, so soon as it is perceived, be rejected with abhorrence.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Mat_5:32. The evil consequences of parting man and wife.—
I. A general lesson.—That whosoever commits any sin is answerable not only for the necessary, but for all the probable consequences of that sin.
II. A particular lesson.—That those quarrels of man and wife which are attended with parting, have very terrible consequences.
1. The dishonour and disgrace of it is apt to throw the wife into despair, that she does not care what becomes of her; and is consequently tempted to lay aside that guard she had formerly upon her honour.
2. The excess of injury is, perhaps, greater than any ordinary patience can bear.
3. The great want to which such an abandoned state exposes poor women, and the helplessness of their circumstances, often drives them upon ill courses.—Ibid.
Mat_5:33-37. Oaths.—In these words our Saviour gives another instance wherein the righteousness of Christians must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
I. What was good in the opinion of the Jewish doctors concerning the third commandment. They condemned perjury (Mat_5:33).
II. Wherein our Saviour finds it defective.—
1. In that they thought nothing else was prohibited in the third commandment, but the sin of perjury.
2. That they allowed of oaths by creatures, of which four are here mentioned, heaven, and earth, Jerusalem, and their head.
3. That they reckoned such oaths as were not by the name of God, not binding: whereas, though they were not in God’s name, yet they had so near a relation to Him, as having the formality of a promise upon oath, that on that account they ought to have been observed.
4. That they had brought in a practice of swearing in conversation, and so made way for rash, idle, customary oaths.
III. What further improvements He makes on this subject.—
1. He condemns all rash, customary swearing in conversation.
2. He disallows all swearing by the creatures.
3. He asserts the obligation of such oaths, as to men, though defective in point of duty to God.
4. He recommends such a veracity, honesty, and sincerity in speech, that we may be trusted upon our bare word, without an oath.—Ibid.
Mat_5:33. The great sin of perjury.—
I. Describe wherein perjury consists.—It is either swearing to a false thing at present; or afterwards, a voluntary breach of a lawful promise upon oath. Divines agree that the chief properties of an oath are those three mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah (ch. Mat_4:2), Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth, judgment, and righteousness. The first condition “truth,” excludes not only all lying, but all trick, deceit, or equivocation. The second condition is “judgment”; it is not sufficient that what we swear be true, it must be a thing of weight and importance. The third condition is “righteousness”; it must be a just thing in itself. Perjury is, in general, the calling of God to be witness to a lie. This is done:
1. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, which we know to be false.
2. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, of the truth of which we are not fully assured. And this, though the thing should happen to be true.
3. When we declare upon oath such a thing to be our judgment, which really is not so.
4. When, in giving our testimony as to any matter of fact, we wilfully suppress some material part of the truth, and aggravate other parts of it, or endeavour so to disguise and change our account of facts, as that the judges and juries may not have a right notion of the matter in question.
5. They that promise upon oath what they do not intend to perform are, ipso facto, guilty of perjury, because they call God to witness a false thing, where the intention of their minds does not concur with the words and meaning of their oath.
6. They are likewise guilty of perjury, who, though they promise with a sincere intention to perform, do afterwards, of their own accord, fall off; when the thing they promised is both lawful and in their power to perform.
7. They are guilty of perjury, who make use of tricks and equivocations, and put forced senses on the words of an oath, or look for evasions, contrary to the plain and genuine sense of the words.
II. What it is that leads and tempts men to perjury.—Bribery, rashness, partiality, self-interest.
III. The heinousness of the sin of perjury.—
1. It is a great proof of a profane, atheistical mind.
2. It is highly injurious to mankind; for an oath being of so universal use among men, in transacting matters of the highest consequence, whosoever goes about to make it vile and cheap does what in him lies to destroy the highest bonds of faith and truth among men.
3. As no sin has a worse influence on all parts of our duty, whether to God or man, so there is no sin more expressly forbidden, or more grievously threatened in the law of God. It is observed that idolatry and perjury are the only two sins to which an express threatening is annexed in the Decalogue.
IV. What absolves us from perjury, though we cannot always perform our oaths.—
1. They who are under the command of a lawful superior, cannot execute an oath or a vow in anything to which his consent is required, if he expressly dissents from it. See Numbers 30. All our oaths and vows must be understood to be meant with this limitation, “as far as it is in my power.”
2. When the matter of the thing fails about which the oath was given, then the oath itself is no longer binding. A soldier that takes the military oath, when peace is made and he comes to be disbanded, he is likewise free from that oath.
3. When we give our oath to another and promise him something for his benefit, if he pleases to forgive that obligation in whole or in part, no doubt we are then absolved from our oath or such part of it, provided no harm be done to any other.
4. If the oath we take to another be, either expressly or in its own nature, conditional, that is, with a proviso that something be done of his part; then, upon his failing as to his part of the condition, we are likewise absolved from ours. But it is otherwise where both parties absolutely promise one another, and not conditionally, for there the failing of one, doth not absolve the other.
5. Whatever we promise, even upon oath, must be understood with a proviso that it be both possible and lawful for us, and that no unforeseen thing happen which may make our observing our oath an evil, or uncomely, dishonest action.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Rash and superfluous oaths.—Though the words of the third commandment signify principally, thou shalt not swear falsely, they signify likewise, thou shalt not swear vainly or unnecessarily. So that all rash, trifling, superfluous oaths are forbidden as well as false ones.
I. The consideration of God should deter us from the common use of oaths; for He is not a common witness to be called in upon all trivial occasions.
II. The sacredness of oaths should deter us from making them cheap and common; for as in human judicatures for small matters there are inferior courts, and it is not allowed that the superior courts be troubled, except in cases of moment or difficulty, so God hath set such an honour upon an oath, which is an appeal to Himself, that it must be a matter of great consequence in which this last resort is allowed.
III. A due regard to our own dignity and reputation should make us abstain from unnecessary oaths; for he who has strictly kept up his honour and reputation will be believed upon his word without an oath.—Ibid.
Mat_5:37. Simplicity and veracity in conversation.—I. A precept.—“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” I take this to be a prohibition of:
1. A multiplicity of words.
2. A designed doubleness or equivocation in them.
3. Vain compliments and flattery.
4. Oaths and imprecations. And on the contrary, an injunction that our words be few, plain, sincere, and modest.
II. The reason of this precept.—“For whatsoever,” etc.
1. If we exceed the plainness and veracity of speech, this flows from some bad priciple or other.
2. Whenever our discourse exceeds the due bounds is simplicity and modesty, we are immediately to take the alarm, as beginning then to be under the temptation of the devil; and to what intemperance of language he may carry us, nobody can tell.—Ibid.
Mat_5:33-37.Christ’s teaching on oaths.—In order to avoid any conclusions drawn from this precept of Jesus, which are out of harmony alike with the general view of Jesus, elsewhere expressed in regard to the true righteousness, and with His own practice, we must fix our attention upon the purpose He had in view in thus prohibiting swearing. That purpose is plainly shown from the line of thought running throughout the discourse on righteousness. It was the inculcation of a righteousness having its root in the heart, and therefore requiring to be unconditionally observed in the simplest outward acts. An oath and solemn affirmation which a man may employ before his fellow-men, since, in their inability to read his inward truthfulness, they cannot put full confidence in his word if it be not solemnly asserted, are quite different in their nature and inward motive from the oath and protestation with which a man accompanies his word, because he would not feel absolutely pledged to truth and faithfulness by his simple word and promise. From the whole tenor of His teaching in regard to the righteousness of the kingdom of God, there is no reason to conclude that the members of the kingdom were forbidden the use of such confirmatory forms of speech towards others, or an appeal to God as witness to the truth of their words. Perhaps we cannot refer to the fact that Jesus Himself, at His trial before the high priest, answered by oath (according to the adjuration of the high priest), the question whether He were the Messiah, since, according to the original account in Mark (Mar_14:61), the high priest did not put his question in the form of an adjuration. Still, we can point to the fact that Jesus, according to the testimony of all our sources, frequently strengthened His statements by the addition of “verily,” in order to awaken a closer attention in His hearers, and greater trust in His word (e.g. Mat_5:18; Mar_3:28; Mar_8:12; Mar_9:1; Joh_3:3; Joh_5:19; Joh_5:24, etc.). When we consider the matter, it is certainly true in a certain sense that the absolute prohibition of oaths can only find its full realisation in the perfected kingdom of God, where the disciples have no longer dealings with men who mistrust them, and whom they must themselves mistrust. But, to my mind, we cannot say that Jesus consciously made this prohibition only for the future ideal state of the perfected kingdom, or only for His disciples in their intercourse with one another. For He addressed His precept to the then present hearers of His discourse, and that in regard to their speech in general, and not merely to their speech among other members of the kingdom. We must, however, bear in mind that principle which is so often to be observed in the discourses of Jesus, of aiming at the greatest clearness in the shortest compass. According to this principle, in order to make the meaning and scope of a rule as plain as possible, He abstracted from all the circumstances of ordinary life which tended in any way to obscure that meaning and scope, yet without really setting up an exception to the rule. According to the tenor of the discourse, the point intended here is to substitute, for the earlier command to be faithful and true in regard to oaths, the higher command to be true and faithful in regard to the smallest word. The prohibition of oaths and all confirmatory additions to the simple statement, is in this connection only meant to apply to the use of oaths and other protestations, as expressing the reservation that one is not pledged to truth and faithfulness by the simple and ordinary form of speech. Jesus sought with the greatest clearness to forbid, universally and unconditionally, such protestations made with this reservation, and so far as they arose out of a deceitful spirit.—H. H. Wendt, D.D
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv20, 22, 26 Mat 5:6; Mat 5:10; Mat 5:20 (See Scofield "Rom…
righteousness
Mat 5:6; Mat 5:10; Mat 5:20 (See Scofield "Rom 10:10")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29 In the meantime all men should know:
In the meantime all men should know:
v. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Read full note →
Here is a conclusion. Since the above is Christ’s view, He is bound to take His stand with reference to the transgressors of that rule. He that dissolves, abrogates, sets aside even those commandments that seem small and of little import, he that disregards as much as one of the little horns or hooks, whose presence or absence may, indeed, change the meaning of an entire passage, falls under Christ’s sentence of condemnation, he is declared to be the least in the kingdom of heaven. The sincerity of his convictions will not be accepted as an excuse, and his fault will only be made greater by his extending the false opinion he holds by means of teaching. He shall be called the least, he shall be rejected in this kingdom, he shall be excluded from its glories. On the other hand, he that teaches in entire conformity with the Old Testament, that preaches not only the Gospel, but the Law in its great purpose of preparing the hearts, that keeps silence with regard to nothing, that does not add thereto nor take therefrom, he shall have a great name in the kingdom of heaven, he shall receive the reward of faithfulness. For this teaching is essential in educating men as to the true righteousness of life, in holding up before the Christians a proper rule of conduct.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 whoever breaks
whoever breaks
"whoever disobeys" or "whoever ignores"
Read full note →
the least one of these commandments
"any of these commandments, even the least important one"
whoever ... teaches others to do so will be called
This can be stated in active form. AT: "if anyone ... teaches others to do so, God will call that person" (See: Active or Passive)
least in the kingdom of heaven
The phrase "kingdom of heaven" refers to God's rule as king. This phrase is found only in Matthew. If possible use "heaven" in your translation. AT: "the least important in his heavenly kingdom" or "the least important under the rule of our God in heaven" (See: Metonymy)
keeps them and teaches them
"obeys all these commandments and teaches others to do the same"
great
most important
For I say to you
This adds emphasis to what Jesus says next.
you ... your ... you
These are plural. (See: Forms of You)
that unless your righteousness exceeds ... Pharisees, you will in no way enter
This can be stated in a positive form. AT: "that your righteousness must exceed ... Pharisees in order to enter" (See: Double Negatives)
translationWords
command
kingdom of God
righteous
scribe
Pharisee
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29 5:19 The realization of the law in Christ means…
5:19 The realization of the law in Christ means that obedience to all of his commands (see 28:20) is the only acceptable response for his disciples. • Commandment refers to the Old Testament commands (5:18) as now fulfilled in Christ’s teaching (see 5:21-48). • the least in the Kingdom of Heaven: Jesus may mean that such an individual will enter the Kingdom, but only barely and with low status; alternatively, some Jewish evidence suggests that he is referring to damnation (cp. 8:12, where “those for whom the Kingdom was prepared” are eternally excluded).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.