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.
Parallel Translations
-
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.
-
For I saye vnto you except youre rightewesnes excede the righetewesnes of the Scribes and Pharises ye cannot entre into the kyngdome of heven.
-
For I say vnto you, except your righteousnes exceede the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharises, ye shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (2)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (22)
Passages linked to Matthew 5:20 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Romans 10:2-3 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they didn’t subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
- Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith,
- Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who didn’t follow after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, didn’t arrive at the law of righteousness. Why? Because they didn’t seek it by faith, but as it were by works of the law. They stumbled over the stumbling stone;
- Luke 16:14-15 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him. He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
- Matthew 23:2-5 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat. All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don’t do their works; for they say, and don’t do. For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But they do all their works to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments,
- John 3:3-5 Jesus answered him, “Most certainly, I tell you, unless one is born anew, he can’t see God’s Kingdom.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most certainly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into God’s Kingdom.
- Matthew 23:23-28 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that its outside may become clean also. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
- 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new.
- Hebrews 12:14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord,
- Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
- Luke 11:39-40 The Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness. You foolish ones, didn’t he who made the outside make the inside also?
- Luke 20:46-47 “Beware of those scribes who like to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts; who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these will receive greater condemnation.”
- Revelation 21:27 There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
- Matthew 3:10 “Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire.
- Matthew 18:5 Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me,
- Mark 10:15 Most certainly I tell you, whoever will not receive God’s Kingdom like a little child, he will in no way enter into it.”
- Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into God’s Kingdom.”
- Luke 11:44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like hidden graves, and the men who walk over them don’t know it.”
- Luke 12:1 Meanwhile, when a multitude of many thousands had gathered together, so much so that they trampled on each other, he began to tell his disciples first of all, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
- Luke 18:10-14 “Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of men, extortionists, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
- Luke 18:17 Most certainly, I tell you, whoever doesn’t receive God’s Kingdom like a little child, he will in no way enter into it.”
- Luke 18:24-25 Jesus, seeing that he became very sad, said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into God’s Kingdom! For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into God’s Kingdom.”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (20 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 20 For I say unto you, That except your…
20 For 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.
Ver. 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees] And yet they went far: 1. In works of piety, for they made long prayers, &c. 2. In works of charity, for they gave much alms. 3. In works of equity, for they tithed mint, anise, and cummin. 4. In works of courtesy, for they invited Christ often, &c. They were the most exact and accurate sect of that religion, as St Paul (who once was one of them) beareth them witness; {a} and so carried away the heart of the people, that there was no holy man that was not termed a Pharisee: and therefore among the seven kinds of Pharisees in their Talmud (whereof one sort was Pharisaeus: Quid debeo facere, et faciam illud, such a one was he, Luk 18:18); they make Abraham a Pharisee of love, Job a Pharisee of fear, &c. Yea, it was commonly conceited among the Jews, that if but two of all the world were to go to heaven, the one should be a scribe and the other a Pharisee. And what high opinions they nourished of themselves may be seen in that proud Pharisee, Luk 18:11-12. Like unto whom, how many civil justiciaries are there among us? who if they can keep their church, give an alms, bow their knee, say their prayers, pay their tithes, and once a year receive the sacrament (it matters not how corrupt hearts, how filthy tongues, how false hands they bear), can thank God for their good estate to Godward, and take up their seats, as it were, in heaven beforehand. But our Saviour says nay to it in this text; yea, sets a double bolt upon heaven’s gates to keep out such. And when they shall come knocking and bouncing, with "Lord, Lord, open unto us," he shall say, Discedite, Depart ye; or as once he did to their fellow Pharisees, Ye are they which justified yourselves before men, but God knew your hearts. And you shall now know (to your small comfort) that that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God, Luk 16:15. Civility rested in, is but a beautiful abomination, a smooth way to hell. The world highly applauds it, because somewhat better than outrageous wickedness: as a cab of dove’s dung was sold in Samaria’s famine at a very dear rate, &c.
Read full note →
{a} αρκιβεστατη αιρεσις, Act 26:5. In hac haeresi sum: i.e. sic sentio.
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 I am so far from giving a liberty to…
I am so far from giving a liberty to the violation of my Father’s law, (as the scribes and Pharisees may possibly suggest), that I assure you that unless your obedience to it exceed that obedience which the scribes and Pharisees teach you, and themselves practise, you shall never come into heaven. What the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was we cannot better learn than from St. Paul, who was himself a Pharisee, and bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor amongst them, Act 23:6; 26:5; Phi 3:5. That it was a righteousness of works appeareth from Phi 3:1-21, and the whole Epistles to the Romans (Rom 1:1-16:27) and Galatians (Gal 1:1-6:18); and their not owning Christ as the Messiah, nor believing on him, Joh 7:48, made it impossible that it should be any other. That they looked upon their mere obedience to the ceremonial law as their righteousness cannot be proved, yea, the contrary is enough evident by their obedience to the moral law, according to the interpretation they put upon it. But their interpretation of the moral law was so short and jejune, that it is manifest that their righteousness was not only a righteousness not of faith but of works, but works that were very imperfect and short of what the true sense of the law required, as our Saviour afterward proveth. That is to say, it was no righteousness, for he that keepeth the whole law, if he be guilty in one point, is guilty of all, Jam 2:10.
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 Observe here, 1. A glorious prize or reward set…
Observe here, 1. A glorious prize or reward set before the Christian as attainable, namely, the kingdom of heaven.
Observe, 2. The means required in order to our obtaining of this prize, and laying hold of this reward; we must be holy and righteous persons: heaven is the reward of righteousness, a reward conferred only upon righteous persons.
Read full note →
Observe, 3. Here is the special qualification of that righteousness expressed, which will entitle us to heaven and salvation: it must be a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and that these three ways;
1. In its principle and motive; love to God, and obedience to his command; not the applause and commendation of men.
2. In its aim and end; the Pharisees made themselves. their own credit and esteem, their worldly gain and interest, their ultimate end; and not God’s glory, their supreme aim.
3. In the manner of performance; the Pharisees duty wanted that purity and spirituality which the law of God required. They had respect only to the outward action, without any regard to the inward intention, and to that purity of heart which God required.
Quest. In what things are we to exceed the Scribes and Pharisees?
Answ. In sincerity, or by being that within which we seem to be without.
In simplicity, or having holy ends in our religious actions.
In humility, or having low and humble thoughts of ourselves, and our best performances.
In charity, or having compassion on all distressed persons.
In universality of obedience to all commands.
Learn, That holiness of heart, and righteousness of life, which God’s law requires of us, is absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain For I say unto you,.... These words are directed,…
For I say unto you,.... These words are directed, not to the true disciples of Christ in general, or to his apostles in particular, but to the whole multitude of the people; who had in great esteem and admiration the Scribes and Pharisees, for their seeming righteousness and holiness; concerning which Christ says,
that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. He mentions the Scribes, because they were the more learned part of the people, who were employed in writing out, and expounding the law; and the Pharisees, because they were the strictest sect among the Jews for outward religion and righteousness; and yet, it seems, their righteousness was very defective; it lay only in an external observance of the law; did not arise from a purified heart, or the principles of grace; nor was it performed sincerely, and with a view to the glory of God; but for their own applause, and in order to obtain eternal life: besides, they neglected the weightier matters of the law, and contented themselves with the lesser ones; and as they were deficient in their practice, so they were very lax in their doctrines, as appears from the foregoing verse. Wherefore Christ informs his hearers, that they must have a better righteousness than these men had, if ever they expected to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There will be no admission into heaven without a righteousness: it was the loss of righteousness which removed Adam out of his earthly paradise; and it is not agreeable to the justice of God, to admit man into his heavenly paradise without one; yea, it is contrary to his nature, and would be destructive to the comfort of saints, to receive an unrighteous person into his kingdom and glory. A "pharisaical" righteousness will never bring a person thither; nor will any righteousness of man's, be it what it will, because the best is imperfect; it must be a righteousness exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees; and such is the righteousness of the saints: indeed their inherent righteousness, or the sanctification of the Spirit, is preferable to any righteousness of a natural man; it exceeds it in its author, nature, effects, and usefulness; yea, even works of righteousness done by believers are greatly preferable to any done by such men as are here mentioned: but, above all, the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to them, and received by faith, is infinitely more excellent in its author, perfection, purity, and use; and which is their only right and title to eternal glory; and without which no man will be admitted into that glorious state.
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 The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees - Described…
The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees - Described in the sequel of this discourse.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed] περισσευση, Unless…
Verse 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed] περισσευση, Unless your righteousness abound more - unless it take in, not only the letter, but the spirit and design of the moral and ritual precept; the one directing you how to walk so as to please God; the other pointing out Christ, the great Atonement, through and by which a sinner is enabled to do so - more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, who only attend to the letter of the law, and had indeed made even that of no effect by their traditions - ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This fully explains the meaning of the preceding verse. The old English word is [Anglo-Saxon], right-wiseness, i.e. complete, thorough, excellent WISDOM. For a full explanation of this verse, see Lu 18:10, &c.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Mat 5:20. For, except your righteousness shall exceed —…
Mat 5:20. For, except your righteousness shall exceed — Gr. περισσευση, shall abound more than the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees — Than that which is apparent in their lives, or even required in their precepts, as is described in the sequel of this discourse, as highly as they are generally esteemed; ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven — That is, into the kingdom of glory after you die, or be owned by the Son of man as his subjects while you live. It is justly observed by Dr. Doddridge here, that this must have greatly surprised Christ’s hearers, if the proverb, which has since prevailed, was in use then; namely, that “if but two men were to enter into the kingdom of heaven, one of them would be a Pharisee and the other a scribe.” It appears from what follows, the Pharisees affirmed that only the outward action was commanded or forbidden in the law, and that they interpreted all its precepts accordingly. On this principle, they boasted of having performed every thing that was required of them. Nay, they were so arrogant as to think they could do even more than was required. This pernicious morality, destructive of all virtue, Jesus loudly condemned, as was fit, in the beginning of his ministry.
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 Your righteousness - Your holiness; your views of the…
Your righteousness - Your holiness; your views of the nature of righteousness, and your conduct and lives. Unless you are more holy than they are, you cannot be saved.
Shall exceed - Shall excel, or abound more. The righteousness of true Christians is seated in the heart, and is therefore genuine. Jesus means that unless they had more real holiness of character than the scribes and Pharisees, they could not be saved.
Read full note →
The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees - See the notes at Mat 3:7. Their righteousness consisted in outward observances of the ceremonial and traditional law. They offered sacrifices, fasted often. prayed much, were punctilious about ablutions, and tithes, and the ceremonies of religion, but neglected justice, truth, purity, and holiness of heart. See Mat. 23:13-33. The righteousness that Jesus required in his kingdom was purity, chastity, honesty, temperance, the fear of God, and the love of man. It is pure, eternal, reaching the motives, and making the life holy.
The kingdom of heaven - See the notes at Mat 3:2. Shall not be a suitable subject of his kingdom here, or saved in the world to come.
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 Of the Scribes and of the Pharisees. The Scribes…
Of the Scribes and of the Pharisees. The Scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses; the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. (Challoner) --- See how necessary it is, not only to believe, but to keep all the commandments, even the very least. (Bristow) --- Our Saviour makes this solemn declaration at the opening of his mission, to shew to what a height of perfection he calls us. (St. Thomas Aquinas) --- "Your justice." It is our justice when given us by God. (St. Augustine, in Ps. xxx. lib. de. spir. & lit. chap. ix.) So that Christians are truly just, and have in themselves inherent justice, by observing God’s commandments, without which justice of works, no man can be saved. (St. Augustine, de fide & oper. chap. xvi.) Whereby we see salvation, justice and justification, do not come by faith only, or imputation of Christ’s justice. (Bristow)
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 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 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness…
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees--The superiority to the Pharisaic righteousness here required is plainly in kind, not degree; for all Scripture teaches that entrance into God's kingdom, whether in its present or future stage, depends, not on the degree of our excellence in anything, but solely on our having the character itself which God demands. Our righteousness, then--if it is to contrast with the outward and formal righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees--must be inward, vital, spiritual. Some, indeed, of the scribes and Pharisees themselves might have the very righteousness here demanded; but our Lord is speaking, not of persons, but of the system they represented and taught.
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven--If this refer, as in Mat 5:19, rather to the earthly stage of this kingdom, the meaning is that without a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees, we cannot be members of it at all, save in name. This was no new doctrine (Rom 2:28-29; Rom 9:6; Phi 3:3). But our Lord's teaching here stretches beyond the present scene, to that everlasting stage of the kingdom, where without "purity of heart" none "shall see God."
Read full note →
The Spirituality of the True Righteousness in Contrast with That of the Scribes and Pharisees, Illustrated from the Sixth Commandment. (Mat 5:21-26).
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 20. For I say unto — By way of…
20. For I say unto — By way of illustration of the terrible danger of making void God’s law. Exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees — These not only violated the spirit of the law, but often both letter and spirit, and systematically taught men so. They could not be even the least within the kingdom; they were excluded from it. They, with all the ancient fathers of their tradition, had lowered the power of God’s law, as Jesus proceeds to show in the following verses.
2. Christianity distinguished from degenerate Judaism, Mat_5:20 to Mat_6:18.
Read full note →
(1.) In regard to angry passions:
In interpreting much that follows, it is important to understand that corporeal and earthly objects are often made to stand as symbols for spiritual ideas. Sometimes the entire sentence is constructed with a series of such symbols; as, for instance, Mat_5:25. A true interpretation will reduce the figurative to the literal, by substituting the idea symbolized for the symbol. Having prepared his way by showing that he does not oppose but fulfil the pure Judaism, the Teacher now proceeds to reject and condemn the false glosses and traditions heaped upon Moses, which the people had heard from the Jewish doctors.
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 20. scribes] See note, ch. Mat_7:29.
20. scribes] See note, ch. Mat_7:29.
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 (20) Shall exceed.—Better, Shall abound more than.
(20) Shall exceed.—Better, Shall abound more than.
Scribes and Pharisees.—Here, for the first time, the scribes are mentioned in our Lord’s teaching. The frequent combination of the two words (thirteen times in the first three Gospels) implies that for the most part they were of the school of the Pharisees, just as the “chief priests” were, for the most part, of that of the Sadducees. Where “scribes and chief priests” are united, it is with a different import, as the two chief divisions of the Sanhedrim, or Great Council. The New Testament use of the word differs from the Old. There the scribe is simply the man who writes, the secretary or registrar of the king’s edicts and official documents (2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:25; 2Ki_18:18). After the return of Babylon, as in the case of Ezra (Ezr_7:6; Ezr_7:12), it was used first of the transcribers and editors of the sacred books, and then, by a natural transition, of their interpreters; and this is the dominant sense of the word in the New Testament. As interpreters they were much occupied with the traditional comments of previous teachers, and these as descending more into particulars, and so affording a better basis for a casuistic system, had come to usurp the rightful place of the Law. As far as the three Gospels are concerned this is the first direct protest of our Lord against their teaching. St. John’s record, however, shows that the conflict had begun already in Jerusalem (Joh_5:10), and that the Sabbath question was prominent in it.
Read full note →
Ye shall in no case enter . . . .—The “kingdom of heaven” is here neither what we speak of as the visible Church—for there the evil and the good grow together till the harvest—nor yet the Church triumphant in the far future. It stands here rather for the ideal and invisible Church on earth—that which answers to its name, that to which belong the blessings and the promises. Into that Church none enter who are content with an outward conventional standard of righteousness. All who strive after a high standard, sooner or later, in spite of wanderings and mistakes, find their way into it (Mat_25:34; Joh_7:17).
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 Matthew only. The verse from "except" to the end…
Matthew only. The verse from "except" to the end is quoted verbally in Justin Martyr ("Trypho," as being in "the Memoirs." For I say. So far from you my disciples (ver. 13) being right in despising any of the commands contained in the Law, they are all to be specially honoured by you; for your righteousness (i.e. the righteousness you show in observing them; there is no thought hero of the imputed righteousness of Christ) must far exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees; otherwise there is no entrance for you into the kingdom of heaven. But wherein lay the superiority of the righteousness which the disciples were to have? Did our Lord mean that his disciples were to painfully toil through the various enactments, ceremonial and other, of the Law as the scribes and Pharisees did, only with more serious and earnest purpose than they? That were in the ease of many scribes and Pharisees hardly possible. For notwithstanding our Lord"s occasional denunciations, many of them were men of the severest earnestness and the deepest conscientiousness, e.g. Gamaliel and Saul of Tarsus. Our Lord must refer to the Law otherwise than as a system of enactments. His thought is similar to that of his words addressed to Nicodemus, (Joh_3:5) where he says that change of heart evidenced by public profession (cf. Rom_10:10) is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. (cf. also Mat_18:8) So here; while the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, even when joined to earnestness of purpose, nevertheless consists in the observance of external rules, there is a higher principle in the Law, by observing which a higher righteousness can be attained. Christ points, that is to say, away from the Law as a system of external rules to the Law in its deeper meaning, affecting the relation of the heart to God (cf. further Weiss, "Life," 2:147). Shall exceed; rather, shall abound still more than. The statement is not merely comparative, but implies an abundanceeven (cf. 1Th_4:10) in the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The Jewish spirit reckons up good actions as producing in many cases even a superfluity of righteousness. But the righteousness which Christ"s disciples must have needs to be still more abundant. The righteousness; omitted in the Greek (Westcott and Herr) by condensation. The scribes and Pharisees. The most learned (scribes) and the most zealous (Pharisees) in the Law (cf. Nosgen) are here placed in one class (twn grammatewn kai Farisaiwn). Ye shall in no case ; Revised Version, in no wise. "The emphatic negative ou mh is not elsewhere so rendered in the Authorized Version. The previous versions have in this place simply. ye shall not," following the Vulgate,. non intrabitis" (Humphry) Enter into the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Mat_18:3 Mat_7:21) A much stronger statement than that of ver. 19, though some would identify the two. There Christ was comparing one disciple with another; hero his disciples with non-disciples. "Such a relaxing for yourselves and others of the commandments will set you low in the true kingdom of obedience and holiness; but this of having a righteousness so utterly false and hollow as that of the scribes and Pharisees will not merely set you low, but will exclude you from that kingdom altogether (ver. 20); for while that marks an impaired spiritual vision, this marks a vision utterly darkened and destroyed" (Trench, "Sermon on the Mount").
The righteousness of the kingdom.
Read full note →
Antinomianism is unchristian. If Christianity is to be found in the teachings of Christ, Christianity does not relax the moral Law. On the contrary, it elevates and strengthens that Law. We cannot make a greater mistake than to suppose that the grace of Christ means a certain easy treatment of men, any diminution of duty, any release from the obligations of right. It is not a pardon of the past with indifference as regards the future. It is forgiveness as a foundation and preparation for a new and better life. More is expected of the Christian than of the Jew, of the convert than of the sinner.
I IN WHAT RESPECTS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES. Israel was most famous for the holiness of her religion and the righteousness of her Law; the scribes were the trained teachers of the Law, skilled in making the most of it; the Pharisees were the professed examples of highest obedience to the Law. Yet Christ expects his disciples not only to be better than publicans and sinners; there is no hope for them unless their righteousness surpasses that of the official teachers and the professed saints of Judaism. Consider in what respects this is looked for.
1. In reality. The revered teachers and examples of Israel, as a class, were not good men at all. The teachers did not walk in the strict path they pointed out to others; the examples were but theatrical pretenders. Christ called them "hypocrites." But Christ is true and real. He expects a genuine righteousness. He will not endure the mockery of a character that professes what it does not perform.
2. In depth. The righteousness of Judaism, even when genuine, was too external. It consisted too much in deeds of the hands, too little in thoughts of the heart. But Christ looks for inward righteousness the pure heart. He forbids hate as murder, and lust as adultery.
3. In positiveness. The Law dealt largely with negatives. Its refrain was, "Thou shalt not." The righteousness of later Judaism was chiefly a matter of restraints. This is always the case in a stiffened, formal system. But Christ expects a positive goodness, a spirit of living energy in religion love and its outflowing activity of service.
II WHY THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE OF THIS HIGH CHARACTER. It may seem that Christ is binding a heavy yoke on the shoulders of his disciples. Is this consistent with his gracious promises and gospel invitations? Consider the reasons for such a requirement.
1. The blessedness of righteousness. This was clearly set forth in the Beatitudes. If it is good for a man to be righteous, it is no hardship that Christ should require a lofty standard; for this means a higher joy.
2. The obligations of light. Christ was a Light revealing a fuller righteousness, teaching it in his words, illustrating it by his conduct. It is reasonable that he should expect more from those who enjoy the privilege of his light than from those who have not received it. We may forgive in the night a stumbling which is unpardonable in broad daylight. Christians are expected to be better than heathens, better even than Jews, because they know more of God"s will and how to fulfil it.
3. The encouragements of grace. The Law cannot secure righteousness; the gospel can do this. Christ brings to us a God-made righteousness, and he gives us the power to be all that he expects of us. (Rom_3:21, Rom_3:22) His demand is only that we will not frustrate the working of his grace in us. W.F.A.
The better types of righteousness.
"Shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees." How one righteousness can be thought of as exceeding another does not at once appear. We may apprehend it, if we duly consider this distinction. Heart-righteousness must, in every age, be the same thing; but practical righteousness, finding expression in conduct and relations, does go by an ascending scale, and does vary in different ages and nations.
I A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE SPACE IT COVERS. A ritual religion, such as formal Mosaism was, covers a precise and limited area. Its righteousness could be clearly defined. It bore relation to the prescribed acts of homage and worship; and even if it concerned itself with man"s private life and relations, its sphere was only conduct; it consisted in formal obedience to specified rules. This is illustrated in the confidence of righteousness expressed by the young rich ruler, when he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." The space his righteousness covered was very limited. Within its limits Mosaic righteousness stiffened until it became a mere ceremonialism, which could be kept up along with personal indulgence, and immorality. Men could honour God with their acts, and disgrace him by their lives. And then the Jehovah-prophets were sent, to awaken a moral life, and reveal the true sphere of righteousness. Still, a righteousness may be estimated according to the limits of its sphere. The Christ-righteousness demands the entire life and relations. Right every day and everywhere.
II A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE DEPTH TO WHICH IT GOES. "They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth." In this line set, in strong contrast, the righteousness of a characteristic Pharisee and the righteousness of a characteristic Christian. Granted that both are equally diligent in worship and outward obedience, what do we find if we go below the surface? Cain and Abel were alike "righteous" in bringing their thank-offering; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! David and Solomon were both "righteous" in attending to Jehovah"s temple; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! Christ"s righteousness is the highest type; it begins within and flows through all the life and relations. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Your righteousness shall exceed.
Mat_5:20
Your righteousness shall exceed.
Read full note →
An exceeding righteousness
I. What is the nature of the righteousness God accepts from us? It is a righteousness in excess of the most scrupulous moralist.
1. A Christian righteousness exceeds a natural or Jewish in that it is positive and not negative.
2. All other righteousness does the orders of God: this does His will. Here lies the greater part of the Christians obedience-in doing what he knows will please, though it was never laid down.
3. The motive is different.
4. As the moving power is within, so the righteousness is first an inward righteousness.
5. No wonder that such an inner righteousness when it is wrought out, goes very deep, and soars very high. It does not calculate how little it can do for God, but how much.
6. The righteousness of Christ is the exceeding righteousness; in this only can we stand before a holy God.(J. Vaughan, M. A.)
Righteousness.
I. What is that righteousness which must fail if relied on for entrance to the kingdom of heaven, Much in it that was good but only external. It was heart-deficiency.
II. The righteousness which will of necessity be effectual Exceed it-
1. In regard to its source.
2. In its quality.
(1) It must be spiritual.
(2) It must be evangelical righteousness; not by the works of the law.
(3) It must be a moral righteousness, possessed as well as imputed.
(4) It must be an essential righteousness, as essential as the air we breathe.
Address those whose righteousness does not come up to the standard of the Scribes and Pharisees; those who are trusting in the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees; those who through grace have found the effectual righteousness. (G. Fisk, LL. B.)
The Pharisees righteousness excelled by that of the Christian
I. It must differ from that of the Pharisee.
1. The seat of righteousness. Both Pharisee and Christian look alike in their conduct; the latter from the heart.
2. The righteousness of the Pharisee is limited by the narrow rule of sectarianism, that of the Christian is wide as the Word of God.
3. The righteousness of the Pharisee is at fault in its source. Its beginning and end is self. Christ is our righteousness.
II. It excels.
1. In the object of its faith.
2. In enabling the Christian to reach heaven. (W. D. Harwood.)
The Christian righteousness
The sense it which it must surpass them:-
I. In kind.
II. In spirit.
1. Not of mere outward zeal for the law, but of inward conformity.
2. Not of servile fear, but of filial confidence.
3. Not of religious pride, but of devout humility.
III. In aim, not to be seen of men.
1. This will rectify our judgment of righteousness.
2. Animate our pursuit of righteousness.
3. Brighten our prospect of righteousness (2Ti_4:8). (Prof. Griffith, M. A.)
Necessity of evangelical righteousness
I. The nature of that righteousness which distinguished the Scribes and Pharisees. Was, according to Gods law, extensive, connected with great devotion, self-denial, liberality, and zeal.
II. The nature of that righteousness necessary to our entering the kingdom of God. Ours must exceed theirs in its origin, nature, extent, end, effects. The revelation of this righteousness is given in Gods blessed Word. It is obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who is made unto us, wisdom, etc. The purity of the Divine law, etc., render this righteousness necessary. (Dr. Burns.)
Gospel righteousness
I. The righteousness of the pharisees.
1. Orthodox.
2. Popular.
3. Moral.
4. Zealous.
II. Its defectiveness.
1. Superstitious.
2. Servile.
III. The righteousness commanded.
1. Personal.
2. Through faith.
3. Originating in love. (W. W. Whythe.)
Love more than regard for a mere rule
Now, no man can develop a true manhood who does not love the things which he does. No man ever does anything that marks him as masterly except it be done by a certain inspiration into which the whole soul enters. A man that paints, hating his business, never is an artist, and never can be one. A man that is a teacher, and hates teaching, making drudgery of it, can never be an inspirational teacher. A man that is a true workman in any sphere must work by a stimulation which comes from the actual enthusiasm of loving the thing done. A man that obeys moral laws without loving them is like a man who walks within the walls of a penitentiary. (Beecher.)
The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.
I. What it was. It consisted in-
1. A speculative knowledge of the truth and doctrines of religion.
2. A scrupulous observance of the forms of religion.
3. A freedom from scandalous sins.
II. Its defectiveness and insufficiency.
1. The righteousness here spoken of is insufficient for justification.
2. It is insufficient as the evidence of a justified state. It fell short in three respects.
(1) It was altogether external.
(2) It was partial in its requirements.
(3) It left its followers under the unrestrained influence of spiritual pride.
3. How delighted we should be that our righteousness does exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. (E. Cooper.)
Morality the gate to spirituality
There are several kinds of religion.
1. There is the religion of simple technical observances.
2. There is a religion of conduct, or morality.
3. There is the religion of spirituality: this contemplates God and ignores mans needs.
4. There is the religion of morality and spirituality. Right conduct springing from right motives. Let us look at the nature and value of morality.
I. Morality may be defined as conformity to the laws of our condition. The laws of the body, the law of fellowship, civil laws.
II. The advantages of morality.
1. It is the gateway of spirituality.
2. All the things that come within the range of morality are good in themselves.
3. It has a tendency to educate men.
4. When men try to place themselves in conformity to the law of morals they put themselves in a line in which they will be illumined and carried to a higher Christian experience.
5. We must not suppose that morality is a substitute for the higher forms of religion.
6. It must not be a mask for self-indulgence.
7. Morality relates especially to this life, but religion to eternity, as fully realized in immortal existence.
Mere morality does not go far enough
A man builds him a house two stories high; but money fails, and he does not put on any roof. What is he going to do now? Live in it? He cannot live in it. It is good as far as it goes, but good for what? Until somebody can put a roof on it, and close it in, it is not good to live in. Honesty is a good thing. Kindness and neighbourliness are good things. Care for the laws of life is a very good thing. If this was all of our life, if these external and bodily relationships represented the sum total of all our existence, all that we should want would be morality. But we live again. (H. W. Beecher.)
A shipmaster wants to anchor. He throws out his anchor, and puts out his cable, and comes within about twenty feet of the bottom. It is not any longer. What is it good for? It is good as far as it goes; but it does not go far enough to touch the bottom, and therefore it is not good for anything. (H. W. Beecher.)
Exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees
What is it to enter the kingdom of heaven? It involves leaving the kingdom of evil. There is no admission to it without righteousness.
I. Describe the righteousness of the Pharisees.
1. They were celebrated for their knowledge. As Scribes, they were acquainted with the Scriptures.
2. In religious matters they were particular and earnest. Always at temple, earnest at prayer.
3. They were wonderfully generous. They gave tithes of all they possessed.
4. They were held in high esteem by their fellow-countrymen.
5. Can you hope to excel them? Out of Christ you cannot.
II. How then is it possible to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Two ways:
1. By works.
2. By faith. No thoroughfare along the first way. In natures loom we cannot weave a better righteousness. Christs righteousness exceeds; as the sunlight exceeds the glimmer of the glow-worm. (Thomas Spurgeon.)
The measure of righteousness
I. The Scribes represent those who are formalists in the treatment of Gods Word.
II. The Pharisees, the formalists in religious life. (Dean Alford.)
Faith in Christ the only way of righteousness
Will you try to imagine that just in front of you there is roaring the great cataract of Niagara? Now, there are two ways of getting over the cataract. What are they? asks one. Well, do you see that thin airy looking bridge, which in the distance seems like a spiders web, which has been flung athwart the torrent? That is the suspension bridge of Niagara, and that is one way across, and the best way too. There is another way-the way that poor foolhardy Captain Webb went-right through the breakers. You may say that he did not get across. No; but it was his fault that he went that way, for it was not a way after all. And there are two ways to cross the cataract of sin and the avalanche of Gods wrath. One way is the bridge of salvation which God, in mercy, through the blood and sacrifice of Christ, has flung right across the mighty stream. Its buttresses are eternal power and everlasting love, and feeble as it looks it is strong enough to bear creation. There is another way, and there thou shalt battle with the flood thyself, and stem the breakers in thine own strength, and dash thyself against the stones, and sink to rise no more. Any man in his senses would choose the simplest path, the way that everybody else goes. (T. Spurgeon.)
Well to have a standard of self-measurement
I have sometimes seen, at athletic sports, how, when one has jumped the long jump, an opponent, another competitor in the jump, will come and look how far his rival has jumped, and mark the place; and I see him go away, with rather dejected head, as he sees what his rival has accomplished, and wonders whether he can do as much, and wonders much more whether he can exceed that wondrous jump. Now, I want to show you how far the Scribes and Pharisees jumped; and then I have to tell you that you have to jump farther than they did. (T. Spurgeon.)
The kingdom of heaven,
Here, as elsewhere in the Gospels, designates that spiritual society which Jesus came on earth to found. The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was at fault because they placed righteousness in what a man does, irrespective of what he is, and though practising many things which might be called virtues, yet they did so from outward considerations. The results springing from these false principles were:
I. Divorce of religion from common life.
II. Overlaying of the spirit of Gods law by the letter.
III. Ostentation in the performance of their so-called religious duties, and uncharitable judgment of others. Pharisaism is a form of righteousness that is not extinct among us. (Dr. W. M. Taylor.)
Here we have two things to consider:
I. What was the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees?
II. How far that is to be exceeded by the righteousness of Christians.
I.
(1) The Pharisees obeyed the commandments in the letter, not in the spirit. They minded what God spake, but not what He intended; they were busy in the outward work of the hand, but not careful of the affections and choice of the heart. This was just as if a man should run on his masters errand, and do no business when he came there.
(2) The Scribes and Pharisees placed their righteousness in negatives; they would not commit what was forbidden, but they cared little for the included positive, and the omissions of good actions did not much trouble them.
(3) They broke Mosess tables into pieces, and gathering up the fragments, took to themselves what part of duty they pleased, and let the rest alone.
II.
(1) When it is said our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, we must do all that lies before us, all that is in our hand; the outward work must be done, and it is not enough to say my heart went right, but my hand went aside.
(2) Our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, by extension of our obedience to things of the same signification. Whatever ministers to sin, and is the way of it, it partakes of its nature and its curse.
(3) Christs commandments extend our duty, not only to what is named, and what is not named of the same nature and design, but that we abstain from all such things as are like to sins. Of this there are many. All violences of passion, prodigality of our time, doing things unworthy our birth or profession, aptness to go to law, misconstruction of the words and actions of our brother, easiness to believe evil of others, willingness to report the evil we hear, indiscreet and importune standing for place, and other things prohibited by the Christian and royal law of charity. (Jeremy Taylor.)
1. It was a righteousness of the outward letter rather than of the inward spirit. They washed their hands, but not their hearts.
2. Another defect in their righteousness was its narrowness and partiality. Gods commandment is exceeding broad; condemns anger as well as murder.
3. It contented itself too much with mere abstinences and negatives.
4. They mutilated the laws proper unity, reversed the principle that failure in one point makes guilty of all, and considered it enough to keep the law in general.
5. It leaned more on the blood in the veins than on thorough obedience in the life. They were of Jacob.
6. Their greatest defect was their self-sufficiency. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
A man should not be content with morality when spirituality is possible
A man should not live in a hovel when he can live in a house. A man is not content to live in a house when he can live in a mansion. And no man, I think, would live in a mansion when he could live in a palace. So no man is living rightly or honourably who demands of himself no more than morality requires. (Beecher.)
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 20. Your righteousness shall exceed. The righteousness of the…
20. Your righteousness shall exceed. The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees has just been referred to (see Matt. 3:7). They claimed to be the teachers and examples of righteousness, but they lacked the humble spirit of true obedience.
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.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain 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 How strongly this feature is brought out by the…
How strongly this feature is brought out by the contrast:
v. 20. For 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.
Read full note →
Not in the teachers of the people as they were then acknowledged, but only in Himself there would be the perfect realization of teaching and doing. The scribes were the accepted teachers of the Law, and many of them were members of the sect, or party, of the Pharisees. The chief accusation which Christ brought against these people is recorded in many passages of the Gospels; See Mat 23:1-39. The feature of their doctrine and life was this, that they set aside the great for the little, the divine for the sake of the traditional. The result was a slavish observing of externals, which gave them a great show of piety before the people, an impression which they were very careful to nourish. So far as the great majority of these sectarians was concerned, their hearts were far from true piety and righteousness of the heart, which seeks, in true love of one’s neighbor, to do the will of God in word and deed. Whenever such is the case, there is no faith, and therefore no idea of entering into the kingdom of heaven.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 5:20 unless your righteousness is better: Jesus’ disciples must…
5:20 unless your righteousness is better: Jesus’ disciples must have the substantially new kind of righteousness that Jesus teaches and makes possible (illustrated in 5:21-47 and summed up in 5:48); it is both quantitatively and qualitatively distinct. Just as Jesus is greater than the Temple (12:6) and Jonah (12:41), so the righteousness of his followers far outstrips that of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees (see 3:7-9).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.