Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 5:20 - 5:48
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_5:20-48
( Mat_5:20-26, the Gospel for the 6th Sunday after Trinity)
21Ye have heard that it was said by [to] 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] 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, 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, ἀðÝëèῃ ] 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, ëüãïò ] 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, and pray for them which [who] despitefully use you, and 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, ôß ðåñéóóüí ]? do not even the publicans [the heathen] so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which [who] is in heaven is perfect.
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., ἐὰí ìὴ ðåñéóóåýóῃ .—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 äéêáéïóýíç 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, ôïῖò ἀñ÷áßïéò .—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 ἐῤῥÝèç 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.
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: êñßóéò , 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 åἰêῆ (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). 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. øֵé÷ָà , empty head! a common term of reproach at the time. (See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.; also Ewald, who derives it from the Aramæan ø÷òà , and renders it blackguard.) 3. From øָ÷ַ÷ , 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, ìùñüò , ðָëִì , indicates the hopeless, helpless fool or atheist (Psalms 14).—Shall be in danger of hell fire, ἔíï÷ïò ἔóôáé åἰò ôὴí ãÝåííáí . 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 ãÝåííá , 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. Originally, âֵּéà äִëֹּí , 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 ἔíï÷ïòἔóôáé 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 ðñῶôïí must be connected with ὕðáãå ).—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, åὐíïῶí , 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, öõëáêÞ , 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 êïäñÜíôçò , quadrans, a quarter of an as, implies that the debt is exacted to the last balance. Meyer suggests that ἕùò , 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, ðïὸò ôὸ ἐðéèõìῆóáéáὐ ôῆò .—“The word ðñüò manifestly indicates the mental object or aim” (Tholuck, p. 208). The statement, therefore, refers to intentional and conscious, not to unintentional desires. 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 óêáíäáëßæåéí 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 ἵíá , which follows, shows that óõìöÝñåé 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, öֶøְåַú ãָּáָø — òֶøåָä , ‘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, ὅò ἂí ἀðïëýóῃ (according to custom), äüôù ἀðïóôÜóéïí (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, ðáñåê ôὸò ëüãïõ ðïñíåßáò .—This exceptional case is not mentioned in Mar_10:11, nor in Luk_16:18; but occurs again in Mat_19:9 ( åἰ ìὴ ἐðὶ ðïñíåßᾳ ), 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 ðáñåêôὸò ëüãïõ ðïñíåßáò . 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 ðáñåêôὸò ëüãïõ ðïñíåßáò —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, ïὐê ἐðéïñêÞóåéò (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, üìüóáé . 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.
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, äֵï äֵï and ìàֹ ìàֹ . 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, ἐê ôïῦ ðïíçñïῦ .—1. Euthym. Zig., ἐê ôïῦ äéáâüëïõ . Similarly Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingle, Fritzsche, Meyer, and others. 2. From the ðïíçñüí , of evil, as a neuter.—The two in so far agree, as Christ uniformly traces all ðïíçñüí , or evil in the world, to the ðïíçñüò . 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 êñéèῆíáé , which follows.
Mat_5:39-42. But I say unto you, Resist not ôῷðïíçñῷ .—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 óôéò óåῥáðßóåé 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. Êñéèῆíáé , litigare, to sue at law.— ×éôþí (coat), the under garment.— ἹìÜôéïí , 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.—’ Á ããáñåýåéí , 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. 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, ðëçóßïí , ìְëַòֲêָ 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 ( ἐðçñåÜæåéí , from ἐðÞñåéá , 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, ôåëῶíáé , 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.
Mat_5:48. Be ye therefore perfect,—in the moral sense, perfectness being your ultimate aim.
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.”]
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?—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 evi