Matthew 7

CHAPTER VII

Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. Part III. Chapter 7

The Children of the Kingdom in the Righteousness that Is theirs.

The Judgment is their warning, and thus they attain the Kingdom above.

The development by personal admonitions rests on the background of the judgment.

Matthew 7:1

1 The note of the judgment is struck clearly and strongly in the very first words and thus marks a new part of the sermon. Do not be judging in order that you may not be judged. The very fact of having a righteousness that is far better than that of the scribes and Pharisees might lead the disciples into the vicious fault of the scribes and Pharisees who set themselves up as judges over all others, gloried in their own false holiness, and despised all others (John 7:49). Jesus is not contradicting John 7:24; 1 Cor. 5:12; 1 John 4:1; or the disciplinary judging of the church, 18:17, 18; John 20:23. What he forbids is the self-righteous, hypocritical judging which is false and calls down God’s judgment on itself. The present imperative μὴκρίνετε may mean to resist a course of action or to desist from such a course, R. 890; here it most likely has the former force.

The punctiliar aorist κριθῆτε refers to God’s final judgment; if the judgment of men were referred to, the durative present subjunctive would have been used. Both verbs are neutral, “to judge” irrespective of the verdict rendered. Luke 6:37 adds the parallel regarding adverse judging. The Pharisees acquitted each other and condemned the rest; they were wrong in both their verdicts.

Matthew 7:2

2 Jesus substantiates his command by establishing its fairness and its justice. For with what judgment you judge you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure it shall be measured to you. First two duratives to express our practice of judging and measuring, then two punctiliars (aorists) to state God’s reciprocations. Again both the verbs and their cognate objects are neutral; but neutral only with regard to the false judging and measuring whether this acquits or condemns. God would be unjust if he judged these false judges in any other way (Luke 19:22). The justice of God’s application of the false standard of these judges to themselves is made clearer by the parallel statement regarding the measure with which they measure. That very measure shows their falseness; hence by that very measure God justly condemns them as being false.

Matthew 7:3

3 The whole matter is now illustrated in a personal and most striking way. Jesus addresses the false judge. Now, why dost thou see the sliver in the eye of thy brother but the beam in thine own eye thou dost not perceive? or how sayest thou to thy brother, Hold, I will take the sliver out of thine eye; and, lo, the beam in thine own eye! Hypocrite, first take the beam out of thine own eye and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the sliver out of thy brother’s eye. In real life the suppositions here used are frankly impossible. Nobody could possibly have a piece of timber such as a plank or a beam in his eye.

The same is true regarding a κάρφος, which is more than a “mote” or tiny speck; it is a dried twig or a straw. Who could endure that for a moment? The supposition is intended to be ridiculous: a man with a plank in his own eye seeing a splinter in his brother’s eye and attempting to draw it out. In the interpretation of this parabolic language the eye is often overlooked. The splinter is thought to be some small moral fault, and the beam a fault correspondingly greater. But why are splinter and beam placed in the eyes? why not in other parts of the body?

Jesus is not speaking of faults or sins in general, one being tiny, the other immense, but of moral perception which is slightly wrong in the one man, totally wrong in the other. He who is devoid of all truly moral judgment pretends to aid another who is slightly wrong in his judgment. The very idea is farcical—yet men act thus.

Matthew 7:4

4 Jesus first scored the pretence of the eye with the beam in it seeing the eye with the splinter in it; he next scores the pretence of the eye with the beam in it aiding the eye with the splinter in it. This preposterous idea is carried to its climax. We may say that the man with the beam in his eye will knock out both of the eyes of the other man who has a splinter in his eye. A grand eye specialist he would be! Ἄφες (always singular) is a mere adjunct to the volitive subjunctive ἐκβάλω, R. 430, 931: “hold, I will take out” (compare 3:15). “And, lo,” etc., is an exclamation, hence there is no copula.

Matthew 7:5

5 In the vocative, “Hypocrite!” the Lord’s indignation flares out; on the term see 5:16; 6:2, 5, 16. The aorist ἔκβαλε is peremptory. Again the thought is not that one should first correct his own grave faults before he tries to correct his brother’s minor faults, but that one should clear his own eyes and judgment before he tries to lend aid to another in making some correction in his judgment. The scribes and Pharisees were eye doctors who had beams in their own eyes of which they were not even aware. What they did to the people we can imagine. The disciples are not to trust in their own righteousness and thereby make of it a beam for their eye and then judge others in blind folly.

Matthew 7:6

6 Those who think that chapter seven consists of “miscellaneous subjects” are relieved of finding a connection between v. 5 and 6 and also between the following paragraphs. But we do not believe that in the last third of his great sermon Jesus merely stated a number of disconnected thoughts. The command not to judge others lest we be judged has its obvious limits. This command does not extend to dogs and to swine. They are to be adjudged and treated as such, and we who are to do this judging have nothing to fear from the divine Judge. Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor throw your pearls in front of the swine lest, perhaps, they trample them under their feet and, having turned, rend you.

To the Jew dogs and hogs represent the height of uncleanness. In the Orient the dogs acted as scavengers, and no Jew was allowed to possess swine. The parallelism of the statement shows that one type of men is referred to, not two. These cannot be the Gentiles as such although the Jews called them dogs. Nor can this giving to the dogs refer to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles or to publicans and sinners; for this Jesus himself did and commands his disciples to do. Dogs and swine are those who, after the gospel has been duly preached to them, retain their vicious, filthy nature.

All such the disciples are, indeed, to judge and account as what they are.

“The holy thing” and “your pearls” are also identical, being first viewed as a unit and then as made up of different parts. Jesus has in mind the holy truth of the gospel and the pure and precious doctrines of which this gospel is composed. “To give” and “to throw before” means to expose the gospel and its precious truths to the vicious and vile treatment of such men. The μήποτε clause refers only to the action of the swine which would trample the pure and precious pearls in the mud and then in rage might even turn upon the disciples to rend them for offering nothing that suits swinish taste. The best commentary is found in Paul’s action in Acts 13:45, 46; 18:6; and in the statements in Jude 10–13; 1 Pet. 4:4; Rom. 16:17, 18; Phil. 3:18, 19; 1 Tim. 6:5.

Matthew 7:7

7 Read superficially, this section regarding prayer seems to belong after 6:15. Others conclude that its true place and connection are found in Luke 11:9–13. But why should Matthew patch together heterogeneous sections from various discourses of Jesus and present them as one of the great parts of the Sermon on the Mount? Those who feel that these words regarding prayer belong in this place in the sermon often do not state the reason for their view. Others think that we are to pray for wisdom to carry out the command given in v. 6, or for strength to live righteously in general, or that we are at least to pray for dogs and for swine. These verses are to be connected with v. 1–5, where, in bidding us not to judge others, Jesus bids us to judge ourselves (the beam in thine own eye).

As not to judge others refers only to the splinter and the beam not to the dogs and the swine, so the implied admonition to judge ourselves entails no false self-criticism, no doubt or mistrust of our true relation to God. While we must, indeed, realize that we are evil because of our sinful nature, God has, nevertheless, made us his children and by his grace is ready to bestow upon us all that our poor souls need. Such is his judgment of us now, and such it ever will be.

Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. The imperatives are present tenses, hence iterative: “go on again and again asking, seeking, knocking.” The use of three verbs indicates intensity; and to seek is more fervent than just to ask, and to knock is still more fervent. We ask for what we need; we seek what we earnestly desire; we knock when our desire becomes importunity. Each of these injunctions carries with it a direct and an unequivocal promise which shows how God regards us. Faulty though we are, he is eager to bestow his “good gifts” upon us (v. 11), and this we are never to forget when judging ourselves. The verb αἰτεῖν is used with reference to humble asking, with reference to petition on the part of an inferior when speaking to a superior, and is thus used only with reference to us and never with reference to Christ. “It shall be given” matches “to ask,” and this giving always implies grace. “To seek” means to seek from God, and “you shall find” means that you shall never seek in vain but shall obtain the good gift you desire. “To knock” means to seek entrance into the heavenly house of God; and Jesus assures us of admittance.

Matthew 7:8

8 So necessary does Jesus deem these promises that he not only repeats but also individualizes them. For everyone asking receives; and the one seeking finds; and to the one knocking it shall be opened. God makes no exceptions whatever; “everyone” is a strong incentive. The promises of both verses are general and must be so although Jesus here applies them to our spiritual needs.

Matthew 7:9

9 The individualization in v. 8 leads over into an illustration, which then leads to the application Jesus has in mind. Or, if this seems to you to be saying too much, what man is there of you whom his son asks for bread, will he hand over a stone to him? Or he asks also a fish, will he hand over a snake to him? Ἄρτον is “bread,” A. V., not “loaf,” R. V. The bread was baked in flat cakes, a piece of which might well resemble a flat stone. No human father would treat his son so, handing over a useless stone as though it were bread. The interrogative particle μή expects a negative answer: “he will certainly not hand over a stone to him.” Even among men sonship and fatherhood preclude such a thing.

Matthew 7:10

10 The second “or” merely repeats the first; and καί indicates that the son may ask for something to be eaten along with the bread, which in the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee would most likely be a fish (John 6:9). “He asks also a fish” is an independent statement and not an anacoluthon (R. 1023). The question that follows is also independent, μή again expecting a negative answer. “A snake” may resemble a fish but is unfit to eat. The idea of harmfulness is not implied, for the snake would not be alive, and if it were it would strike the father’s hand even before it struck the son’s. The point of this double illustration is the deception practiced by the father, reducing his fatherhood and thus the sonship of his child to an illusion.

Matthew 7:11

11 If, therefore, you, although you are wicked, know to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in the heavens give good things to those asking him? This argument from the less to the greater is unanswerable. As earthly fathers prove themselves fathers by giving “good gifts” to their children, so “your Father” proves to you that he is, indeed, your Father, and you are, indeed, his children, by giving to you, in answer to your asking, “good things,” ἀγαθά, those that are beneficial to you as children. When Jesus used this illustration in another connection (Luke 11:13) he named the sum and the source of all “good” in the apodosis, namely “the Holy Spirit.” With the concessive πονηροὶὄντες Jesus humbles the disciples. This is the judgment they must learn to pronounce upon themselves. It will keep them from self-righteously judging others.

But when judging themselves thus, their need of the Holy Spirit and of his good gifts, and the assured promises of their Father in filling this need, should keep them in the consciousness of their childhood. By every good, spiritual gift the Father acknowledges them as his dear children (τέκνα), born anew by his grace.

Matthew 7:12

12 All things, therefore, whatever you would that men do to you, thus you also do to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets. We cannot see the difficulties which are found in οὖν, “therefore,” or “accordingly.” Some would refer this connective to all the commands concerning righteousness given in the sermon; some go back to the commands about judging. We are told that there is no connection with the statement about prayer. Cancellation is advocated. But why not let οὖν make the Golden Rule rest on this true judgment that we, although by nature wicked, are yet by grace God’s children, acknowledged as such by our Father who bids us ask the good things we need and grants them to us without fail? The consequence (οὖν) of this must be that, instead of judging others falsely, we shall do to them what we would that they should do to us. We must guard against inserting a limitation into πάντακτλ.; ὅσα is qualitative with regard to the kind of things, R. 732, and the ἵνα clause is the object of θέλητε, while “men” is entirely general.

Rabbi Hillel’s dictum is no more than the voice of selfishness: “What is hateful to thyself do not to thy neighbor; for this is the whole law, and all else is its exposition”; this is the egoism which withholds injury lest it suffer injury in return. Jesus turns this about: “what we would like to have men to do to us, whether they do that to us or not, we are to keep doing (ποιεῖτε, durative) to them.” And we must note that Jesus addresses this injunction to his disciples whom he has just enjoined to realize that they are the Father’s children, receiving his fatherly gifts in answer to childlike prayer. The οὖν is, therefore, highly necessary: first, to be children, proving it by faith and prayer; then, to act as such children in contact with men generally. This, of course, is the second table of the law (love to man); yet we have no reason to ask why Jesus does not also add the first table. He has already added it by all that he has said about “your Father” and about prayer.

That is why he can add: “This is the Law and the Prophets,” οὗτος, masculine, assimilated in gender to the predicate ὁνόμος, R. 704. “The Law and the Prophets” (see 5:17) = the teaching of the Old Testament which Jesus merely restates. Those who separate the Golden Rule from the first table and from our relation to God as our Father by faith in Christ Jesus ignore the Law and the Prophets when they claim that love to our neighbor is enough to admit us to heaven. Only as the second table, resting on the first, is it true of the second that “this is the Law and the Prophets.” Read 1 John 3:14–22. Among the good gifts for which the Father’s children pray daily is the power to overcome the promptings of their flesh so that by grace for Christ’s sake they may love their neighbor (ἁγαπᾶν) with a truly spiritual love and thus heap upon him all the kindness they themselves would like to receive. Christ’s Golden Rule has appealed to many, yet only true believers have understood it and have found the power to translate it into life in an ever-increasing degree.

Matthew 7:13

13 This section (v. 13–23) is not a part of the conclusion but a further and more fundamental elaboration of the judgment that is applied to us and that we must apply to ourselves. First, two negatives show who we are (we will not judge, etc., yet will also not give what is holy to dogs, etc.); next, two positives (we will ask with trust and will do unto others, etc.); and now we have a positive plus a negative (we will enter the narrow portal and will keep away from false guides). Enter in through the narrow portal, because wide is the portal and broad the passage that leads to the destruction, and many are those entering in through it. How narrow the portal and straitened the passage that leads unto the life, and few are those finding it! Let us judge ourselves according to the gate and the way we enter it. We have a choice between only two.

A πύλη is an entrance portal, and the ὁδός is the passageway to which it admits. Both belong to a building and lead to the court from which the rooms are reached. As he did in v. 1, 6, 7, Jesus again begins with an imperative, this time, as in v. 6, an aorist because of the nature of the act; to step into a portal takes but a moment. The emphasis, however, is not on the verb, for the contrast is not between entering or remaining outside. All enter one or the other portal. The emphasis is on “the narrow portal.” And thus, although Jesus addresses the disciples, he may still use the aorist.

To his call, “Enter in!” their response will be, “Lord, we did!” Moreover, the imagery is not that of a multitude still standing before two portals but that of two classes, both of which have entered the one or the other portal.

Jesus does not say what makes the one portal narrow and the other wide. Of course, both passageways are like their portals. He states only to what they lead and leaves it to us to deduce why the one is necessarily narrow, and the other most naturally broad. Contrition, faith, and a Christian life are like a narrow portal and passage. We cannot ride into it with our sins, self-righteousness, false notions, vices, and follies. We could not even get them through the portal.

The broad portal and the spacious passage are different. There we may cart in anything we please. More than abundant room invites us to do so. But this portal and this passage “lead to the destruction,” εἰςτὴνἀπώλειαν, “to utter, final ruination.” In the New Testament this negative term refers to the state after death and the complete loss of the true, heavenly life (ζωή), C.-K. 789. The term never means annihilation, neither does any synonymous term nor any description of what it represents.

Ὅτι states that the reason why we should enter in through the narrow portal is that the other portal and passage are so broad and inviting, they that lead to destruction. And the sad thing is that so many look only at the broad, easy entrance, the spacious passage, and not to what they lead to. And thus they enter. The singular διʼαὐτῆς refers to ἡπύλη as οἱεἰσερχόμενοι plainly indicates; hence we need not cancel ἡπύλη as some texts do.

Matthew 7:14

14 Most of the uncials and many other texts read τί not ὅτι. The latter would add a second reason for entering the narrow portal. The former converts this verse into an exclamation: “How narrow the portal,” etc. The thought is that, no matter how narrow and straitened, this is the portal and the passage that lead “unto the ζωή or life.” As the opposite of “destruction” “the life” here means the blessed existence in heaven. Of course, this “life” begins here in regeneration, but in the present imagery Jesus contemplates the final destinations at which men arrive by means of two portals and two passageways.

Again we have a statement that is loosely attached with καί: “and few are they finding it,” αὐτήν, this portal. The voice is sad that speaks these words. Its very sadness increases the warning. The wide portal need not be found. It stands wide open in the sight of all men and is easily drifted into. The narrow portal, however, is found.

It is like making an astonishing discovery. The fact that such a portal exists men would never even dream, to say nothing of their discovering where this portal opens. But suddenly, here it is before their eyes. This finding is not accomplished by any search of ours; it is wholly by the grace of him who places this portal before us. Our finding it is like the double finding mentioned in 13:44–46; also like the finding recorded in John 1:41–45. The participle οἱεὑρίσκοντες includes a perception of what is thus found, namely that this portal leads to the life.

Those who find thus enter. God’s grace draws them (John 6:44) by its attracting power. The title page of Calvin’s Institutes, published in 1561, bears a picture of the two portals: one narrow with a thornbush in the entrance and a crown over the top; the other broad with a flower in the entrance and flames flaring over the top.

Matthew 7:15

15 A natural transition leads from the portals to the false guides who propose to direct us. The call to enter the narrow portal is at once a warning against entering the wide portal. This warning is expanded, when Jesus now adds: Beware of false prophets, such as come to you in garments of sheep, but within they are rapacious wolves. We have the present imperative προσέχετε (supply τὸννοῦν, R. 477) with ἀπό which means literally: “keep holding your mind from,” i.e., “beware of,” “watch out for.” The ψευδοπροφῆται, “pseudo-prophets,” are sham prophets who pretend to be true prophets of God but are not. The term is formed like “pseudo-Christs,” 24:24: “pseudo-apostles,” 2 Cor. 11:13; “pseudo-teachers,” 2 Pet. 2:1. Some make a difference between these “pseudo-prophets” and others who are “pseudo-teachers.” But the only difference is that prophets announce the divine will while teachers expound and apply it.

Moreover, in the New Testament we find mention of two kinds of prophets: such as received direct revelations from God, Agabus, Acts 11:28; 21:10, Philip’s daughters, Acts 21:9, and especially all the apostles; and all those Christians who acquired and possessed the general gift of prophecy of which Paul speaks at length in 1 Cor. 14 (see the author’s commentary). False prophets of both types are here referred to, but, of course, the latter would appear in far greater numbers. All announce, “This is what God says!” the former add falsely, “He himself told us!” the latter, “The Scriptures say so!” Let us also note that prophesying in the latter sense always accompanies teaching, i.e., explaining the details of the Word.

In οἵτινες the causal idea is combined with the relative: “Beware of false prophets since they are such as,” etc. To be sure, when wolves pretend to be sheep, we ought to beware. These prophets “come to you,” make it their special business to do so, but they only come, they are never sent by God. Much has been written on the phrase “in garments of sheep” but this seems to be the sense: these false prophets, who in reality are fierce wolves, pretend to be gentle, harmless sheep. The supposition that the old Jewish prophets wore sheep pelts as garments (Heb. 11:37) cannot be substantiated, nor that as a rule shepherds wore such pelts. The Baptist had a burnoose made of camel’s hair.

The view that “sheep” refers to Christ’s flock is without support in the context. The ἐνδύματαπροβάτων are not pelts (these would be μηλωταί) but all that sheep have on and thus the appearance of sheep. For the phrase is in contrast with the reality: “but within (ἔσωθεν, R. 548) they are rapacious wolves,” ἅρπαγες emphatically at the end. “Within” refers to their real nature which gives the lie to their appearance. They are “wolves” that are akin to the wolf mentioned in John 10:12, brothers to the grievous wolves of Acts 20:29, described and warned against in Rom. 16:18; Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:4; etc. Some think that Jesus had especially the scribes and Pharisees in mind and regard that as the historical interpretation; but note what Jesus himself adds in v. 21, etc. He is evidently thinking of the future and of all the false prophets that will try to mislead the disciples.

To say regarding any matter, “Thus saith the Lord!” when he did not say thus; or to say, “God did not say so!” when he did, is to utter false prophecy. Some prophets are completely false, others are false in part only, but, alas, false. The innocent appearance of all false prophets is a necessity for them; if they revealed what they really were, all true disciples would flee from them. The innocent appearance of their persons and their prophecy induces many to receive what they offer; but the real nature of what they are in their prophesying always becomes evident sooner or later. Thus the clothing of sheep used by these wolves is conduct and preachment that are ostensibly in harmony with God and with his Word but in reality in conflict with both. This deviation from the divine Word makes all false prophets wolves whose nature it is to rend, tear, and kill, ἅρπαξ, from ἁρπάζω, to seize, snatch at, i.e., in this case with cruel fangs.

Drastically Jesus pictures the destructive effect of all false preaching: it rends and tears the spiritual life like the fangs of a wolf. In spite of this drastic language men persist in considering deviations from the true prophecy (the Word of God as it really is) as being quite harmless.

Matthew 7:16

16 From their fruits you shall recognize them. Do people gather ripe grapes from briars, or figs from thistles? Note both the positive future tense and the compound verb ἐπιγνώσεσθε, “you shall recognize them” as what they actually are. R. 576 calls ἀπό the source, which agrees with ἐκ in Luke 6:44. Commentators are divided in their opinions as to what Jesus means by “the fruits” of the false prophets. Some say, their doctrines; others, their works; still others, doctrines and works combined.

The answer is found in Isa. 8:20; 1 John 4:1; Heb. 13:9; 2 John 9, 11; Matt. 15:9; Titus 1:9–12: the fruits of the prophet are undoubtedly the doctrines he teaches. The fact that his own personal works are not the criterion by which we can without fail judge him is established by 24:24 (“great signs and wonders”); Deut. 13:1–3 (to the same effect); Matt. 23:1–3 (we are to observe what the scribes and Pharisees bid us do, not what they themselves do). True prophets often manifest sins and faults in their lives; false prophets often have the appearance of holiness as a part of their sheep’s clothing. God alone is able to judge men’s hearts and to distinguish hypocritical from genuine works. A prophet’s sincerity is indecisive, many are self-deceived; but their doctrines are just as pernicious as those of conscious deceivers. The argument that the thing to be judged (doctrine) cannot be the criterion by which it is judged (again doctrine) is untenable.

Every prophet appeals to the Word, the Scriptures. That is what makes him a prophet. Those who reject the Word are outside of the church. Thus even the rankest heresies appeal to us to regard them as being the Word. Every prophet, therefore, is judged as to his doctrines by the Word to which he himself is constrained to appeal. To object that common Christians are too ignorant to apply this criterion is unwarranted; for the gift to discern the spirits is ample in the church and takes care of babes and all immature Christians.

The figure found in “fruits” is extended by the double question after the intensifying interrogative particle μήτι. The subject of the plural συλλέγουσιν is indefinite: “Certainly, people do not gather,” etc. A touch of humor lights up the imagery: people going out to a briar patch to gather grapes (σταφυλή, the ripe grapes that make up a cluster; βότρυς is the cluster itself), or to a thistle patch to gather figs! Grapes and figs picture true spiritual food which grows on the Word alone not on the briars and the thistle stalks of man’s own wisdom. Every man who presents false doctrines is to that extent a briar and a thistle.

Matthew 7:17

17 Thus every good tree produces excellent fruits, but every worthless tree produces wicked fruits. A good tree cannot produce wicked fruits, nor a worthless tree produce excellent fruits. The figure now deals with trees only and first presents the undeniable fact and then the undeniable impossibility. Moreover, the double statement is entirely general, being applicable to all men who are either good trees or worthless trees. Of course, in the present connection Jesus has in mind the false prophets. They, however, are judged, not according to some exceptional rule pertaining to them only, but according to the universal rule which applies to all. Thus also, without expressly saying so, all who follow false prophets and their false doctrines may include themselves.

The stress is on the four adjectives, and these are of such a nature as to make the figure of the trees and their fruits entirely transparent. This is especially true regarding the second kind of tree. It, too, produces fruit, perhaps in great abundance (v. 22). Hence in this connection σαπρόν does not mean “rotten” or “diseased.” B.-P. rightly asks: “Do rotten (faule) fish enter a net? do rotten trees bear fruit at all?” The contrast is not drawn between conditions but between kinds; not between sound and healthy trees and others rotting and decayed, but between trees of excellent variety and trees of worthless variety. Both kinds may look grand and fine merely as trees, but the fruit they produce (ποιεῖν, make) invariably reveals what they are worth. When Jesus describes the fruit as being either καλός or πονηρός he really touches the realities which underlie the figure, for these are the adjectives which are used regarding man’s works when they come into judgment before God.

Matthew 7:18

18 It is actually impossible for a tree to bear fruit that is contrary to its constitution and nature. Jesus adds this in order to assure us the more in regard to our ability to judge men in general and false prophets in particular.

Matthew 7:19

19 Moreover, the kind of tree which its fruit proves it to be is vital for the fate of the tree. Every tree not producing excellent fruit is cut down and is thrown into the fire. That is what men do, and God does the same: the tree that produces excellent fruit is kept, the one that has no excellent fruit is consigned to the fire. Here we see that Jesus views all that he says about false prophets, including also their followers (as indicated in the general statements about trees) in the light of the final judgment. “Not producing excellent fruit” defines “wicked fruits”; but in doing so it does more: it states positively that only one kind of fruit avails in the judgment. Hence we now also have the collective singular καρπόν instead of the distributive plural. The fate that awaits the false prophets makes effective the warning against them lest by following them and their doctrine we, too, invite such a fate upon ourselves.

Jesus describes only the two opposites and says nothing about the prophet whose doctrine is vicious only in part. What must be said about his fate is found in 1 Cor. 3:12–15.

Matthew 7:20

20 Therefore, from their fruits you shall recognize them. What is stated only as a fact in v. 16 is here restated as the conclusion to be drawn from the explanations that were added, ἄραγε being illative (R. 1190), and γε adding emphasis. This restatement emphasizes the fact that we are, indeed, to recognize all false prophets as just what they are. As we are able to tell whether a tree is good and worth keeping or bad and fit only for firewood, so we are able to detect every false prophet and to keep away from him.

Matthew 7:21

21 The reference to the judgment is now fully expanded. Not everyone saying to me, Lord, Lord! shall go into the kingdom of the heavens but the one doing the will of my Father in the heavens. The figure of the trees and their fruits is now elucidated by the reality. Therefore also the statement is general, applying to all who would enter the kingdom, taking up v. 17–19. “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’” (R. 752) means that some who address Jesus thus will, indeed, enter the kingdom, some but not all. Mere prodigality in the use of such an address is not a ticket of admission. The two durative present participles λέγων and ποιῶν describe customary actions. “Saying, ‘Lord, Lord!’” means to claim the relation to Jesus that is expressed in the title “Lord.” The duplication is for the purpose of urgency in prayer and in worship.

The title Κύριος may, of course, contain more or less according to the conception of the one who uses it. Like the English word “lord,” it is often little more than our “sir,” a title of respect. But we need not reduce the force of the word in the present connection. These people who so ostentatiously call Jesus “Lord” may mean “divine Lord” and not merely a great human lord. The point is not merely the content of this word as used by them but their claim of a connection which does not exist except in their imagination.

This is evident from the opposite: “doing the will,” etc. This “doing” proves that a real connection with Jesus exists, one which he himself here acknowledges. For “the will of my Father” includes, first of all, repentance and faith (5:6, 25, etc., 48; 6:12, 33; 7:3–11), not the perfection of sinlessness but the righteousness of the remission of sins and thus the power to do works that truly please God. On this gracious, saving will see John 6:29, 39, 40; 1 John 3:23. Therefore Jesus also says, “the will of my Father,” here, for the first time, using this pronoun which pronounces him the Son of the Father. He thus says more than merely “the Father,” i.e., yours; or “God,” which also is general.

With “my Father” he so combines himself with the Father that whoever does this Father’s will is in true and saving relation with him as the Son. With a separate article “in heaven” is joined to “my Father,” emphatically pointing to his heavenly greatness, R. 776. On “the kingdom,” etc., see 3:2; 5:3.

The statement is misunderstood when it is regarded as placing deeds over against words; or when “doing” is restricted to good works. Why would “saying, ‘Lord, Lord!’” not also be a good work? Look also at the great works mentioned in v. 22. A similar misapplication results when saying, “Lord, Lord,” is regarded as a reference to orthodoxy, whether dead or not, over against doing the Father’s will by good works. Nor is the contrast drawn between hypocrisy and sincere religion.

Matthew 7:22

22 This is evident when Jesus now particularizes with regard to the false prophets. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name and in thy name throw out devils and in thy name perform many works of power? Taking the false prophets by themselves, we see how they and all their followers kept saying, “Lord, Lord!” during their life here on earth (v. 21). They made the Lord most prominent not merely by what they said but equally also by all that they did. Jesus says that they will continue this and say, “Lord, Lord!” even “in that day,” which needs no further specification since all know that the final day of judgment is referred to. They will then remind the Lord that they prophesied “in thy name,” the adjective σῷ being more emphatic than the pronoun.

Three times they will repeat this significant phrase. Here, too, (6:9) ὄνομα means “revelation,” that by which the Lord is known and makes himself known to us. On prophesying see v. 15. The sheep’s clothing of all false prophets is this use of the name and revelation of the Lord. Whether they are sincere or not, all their prophesying and their other works are connected with the name and Word of the Lord. All their false doctrines are set forth as being the Lord’s true doctrines.

In all they say and do they will claim to represent him and his Word far more genuinely than the true prophets and disciples of Christ.

Nor do they lack works of all kinds, they even point to great miracles, 24:24, but compare 2 Thess. 2:9–12: “lying wonders.” Many are willing to grant that false prophets are able to drive out devils from persons actually possessed, quoting Mark 9:38–40, and Luke 9:49, etc., where, however, Jesus’ own word shuts out this conclusion. “He that is not against us is for us.” As these are false or lying prophets, however much they use the Lord’s name and revelation, their miracles are lying wonders. The term δύναμις is used with reference to “a work of power,” here including all works that seem to require supernatural power. In 24:24 these are described as being so astonishing that they would deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. But already Deut. 13:1–3 furnishes us the proper safeguard: not the apparent miracle but the Word decides who is a true prophet. When Jesus points to his works in John 10:36, etc., he does so only as these corroborate his word.

Matthew 7:23

23 And then will I confess to them (ihnen unvmwunden erklaeren, B.-P.), Not at any time did I acknowledge you. Be withdrawing from me, you that work the lawlessness. “Confess,” ὁμολογεῖν, is here a frank and full statement. The consternation it will produce is left to the imagination. Ὅτι is recitativum although some regard it as meaning “because,” yet ἀποχωρεῖτε is certainly direct discourse, and it is difficult to assume that we here have a mixture of indirect and direct discourse. The verb γινώσκειν is here used in an intensive sense, noscere cum affectu et effectu, “to know as one’s own,” hence “to acknowledge.” The Lord knew all about these false prophets and their doings but he never knew that they bore any relation to him. Now that they would enter his kingdom of glory he orders them away from himself, whose name and Word they have so long abused. The nominative of the participle is used as a vocative: “you that work the lawlessness.” This command and this address are evidently appropriated from Ps. 6:8.

The abstract ἀνομία matches its opposite δικαιοσύνη (5:6, 21); the latter harmonizes with the divine norm of right (δίκη), the former clashes with it. The present participle ἐργαζόμενοι indicates constant character: “they who always work,” etc. In the public judgment at the last day works are decisive as being the open evidence of the inner relation of the heart. The greatest and most fatal work of lawlessness is to pervert the Lord’s Word in the Lord’s own name and to foist this perversion upon others. That is why the Antichrist is called ὁἄνθρωποςτῆςἀνομίας, “the man of lawlessness,” 2 Thess. 2:3. The result of this central perversion is that all works radiating from this center are likewise perverted.

The ἀνομία does not imply that the law is set aside; it is anomistic and antinomistic to follow the law outwardly without the true spirit of faith and love, 1 Cor. 13:1–3.

In verses 21–23 Jesus does an astonishing thing: he speaks of himself as the Judge and Lord before whom even the false prophets and their followers must appear at the last day. So spoke neither Moses nor any of the prophets including the Baptist. From his lips will come the fateful words of v. 23, which are announced in this sermon in advance. In the expression “my Father” Jesus proclaims his divine Sonship. These final words of the third part of the sermon cast their glorious light over every word that precedes. Read as the utterances of God’s Son and our Judge at the last day, every sentence grows clearer, every command more impressive. No wonder the effect was that which Matthew records in v. 28, 29.

Matthew 7:24

24 The next verses constitute a well-marked and most beautiful conclusion. The imperatives (v. 1, 6, 7, 13, 15) are no longer used; now follows what has been called eine prachtvolle Schlussparabel. Everyone, therefore, whoever hears these my words and does them shall be likened to a sensible man who built his house on the rock; and the rain descended, and the torrents came, and the winds blew, and they fell upon that house, and it did not fall; for it had been founded on the rock. Οὖν connects the conclusion with all that precedes even as Jesus also refers back to “these my words.” Yet the imagery used in the conclusion fits well what Jesus has just said regarding the judgment in the preceding verses. The two ὅστις are indefinite relatives (R. 727): everyone, “whoever” he may be, that hears, etc., is like a sensible man, “whoever” he may be, that builds his house on the rock. The emphasis rests on “these my words,” λόγοι, the substance of what Jesus has said. Both here and in v. 26 the hearing and the doing are clearly distinguished, and since the difference lies in the doing and the not doing, these two become emphatic.

The Word comes to us and thus brings it about that we hear it. Then everything depends on whether we will do that Word, i.e., what it tells us. But this never means that after hearing the Word we step in with our own natural powers and do that Word. That is the case with regard to human words that please us; with our own powers we react to them. But in regard to all truly spiritual requirements we are dead and lifeless, unable to respond. The words of Christ meet this situation; they are spirit and life, carry their own power with and in them, and thus move and enable us to do what they say.

This is their normal effect.

“To do these my words” in and by the power which they themselves bestow is not mere outward compliance with certain requirements. This would only repeat the folly of the scribes and Pharisees, the old error of work-righteousness. To do the words is to let them bring us into the condition described in 5:3–6, which 3:2 expresses by the command μετανοεῖτε, “repent,” and Mark 1:15: μετανοεῖτεκαὶπιστεύετεἐντῷεὐαγγελίῳ, “repent and believe in the gospel.” The essential doing is faith, v. 21 (which see: “doing the Father’s will”), John 6:29, 39, 40; 1 John 3:23. Then will follow the true evidence of repentance and faith indicated in the other beatitudes, 5:7–12, and in the body of the sermon. This doing of the words of Christ is the whole life of faith, including contrition, the confidence of the heart (conversion, regeneration), and the new obedience, all as one grand whole and all in the power of the grace coming to us in the Word as the divine means of grace.

Such a man “shall be likened” really means “shall be made like” the man now described, shall be put in the same class with him. The future tense is often misunderstood and even changed into a virtual present. This is due to the fact that the believer’s present doing and his future fate are separated. Jesus combines the two. There is no special wisdom in building on the rock if it were not for the final outcome when the building withstands the great tempest. The fact that this builder is “sensible” appears in the future, hence the future tense is in place.

We need not set up a definition of wisdom to fit the man here described, for Jesus himself states how and why he is accounted to be φρόνιμος, “sensible.” Whoever (ὅστις) he is otherwise, “he built his building on the rock” (ʼῳκοδόμησετὴνοἰκίαναὐτοῦ, the verb with a cognate object). “The rock,” πέτρα, is the great body of rock formation in a cliff, ridge, or mountain and thus distinct from πέτρος, a piece of rock or a boulder. The sensibleness of this builder lies in choosing the rock for his foundation.

Matthew 7:25

25 The description that follows is highly dramatic and at the same time extremely simple, καί following καί. The rain came down, the torrents arrived, the winds beat upon the house: pluvia, in tecto; flumina, in imo; venti, ad latera, roof, foundation, sides, all were tested. Note the paronomasia in προσέπεσαν and οὐκἔπεσεν; the winds fell against the, house, but it fell not. The brevity is full of power. “It fell not” is an effective litotes for “it stood solidly.” Since this conclusion is a masterly appeal to the hearers and is aimed at their will to become “sensible” like this builder, Jesus once more adds the point in which he showed himself “sensible”: “for it had been founded on the rock” (the augment is absent in the past perfect). But note that “the rock” saves the house; it receives all the credit. The sensible act of the builder is that he saw, when he built, what the rock would do for his house.

It is natural to seek the counterparts for the figurative terms of the simile. The house is best understood as being the man’s life; he built or founded his house means that he grounded and founded his life on the words of Jesus. These words are the rock (note the article already in v. 24). The rock is objective, hence we do not take it to refer to “doing the words,” for “doing” is subjective. This doing is what is meant by “sensible,” the adjective exactly fitting the act of choosing the right foundation. The nature of the rock is indicated in 5:18, it will never pass away.

In λόγοι the substance forms the rock. Hence we may say that the rock is God himself in his Word and his grace, Deut. 32:15, 18; Ps. 18:2; Isa. 17:10; or Christ himself, Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6; 1 Cor. 3:11. The tempest is best taken to refer to the supreme ordeal of death and not merely to the indecisive trials of this life. While one of these may wreck a life that is not built on the rock, it again may not. Death alone is all-decisive.

Matthew 7:26

26 Only a slight change, and the outcome is the very opposite. And everyone hearing these my words and not doing them shall be likened to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the torrents came, and the winds smote upon that house, and it fell; and great was its fall. These words of mine and the hearing of them is the same, but the doing failed to follow. The two participles have the same sense as the relative clauses of v. 24. This man shall be placed in the same class with the ἀνὴρμωρός, who is dull, ignorant, and thus foolish, no matter how sensible he may be in the other affairs of his life: business, family, politics, friendships, etc. For after hearing the words of Jesus, after being told all about the rock and the sand, he built his house, his whole life with all its supreme and eternal interests on nothing but “the sand.” Of course, it was the easier way; the rock was higher up and more difficult to reach than the smooth sand bottom in the valley; and many others also chose the easier site.

But to think of building one’s whole life on sand! It is inexcusable even from the standpoint of common sense; it is no less than criminal folly.

“The sand” is as definite as “the rock.” A simple definition is: all teachings and doctrines that are not “these words of mine.” “All other ground is sinking sand.” Some of these attractive sandy sites, sold constantly by the real estate agents mentioned in v. 15, are extremely popular: merely hearing the Word by church attendance; treating the righteousness that God requires as civil righteousness, work-righteousness, a moral life according to common moral rules; omitting true contrition and relying on historical faith; modernistic faith which alters vital doctrines of the gospel; etc. Sometimes these sandy sites are quite near the rock, the houses built on them may also be very pretentious. All is well while the sun shines. Some of the preliminary floods of adversity and the moderate winds of trouble may be safely endured, adding to the false feeling of security. Of course, sometimes already these lighter tempests cause sad wrecks among the houses on the sand. That is a good thing if it serves to expose the folly and drives men to seek the rock.

Matthew 7:27

27 But the supreme test is the final tempest of death which is described with only one verbal change προσκόπτειν instead of προσπίπτειν. The former is the weaker verb, “to stumble against,” “to strike the foot against,” while the latter means “to fall upon suddenly,” “to strike.” The idea suggested is that the house on the rock withstood all the pounding of the winds and the waters while the house on the sand gave way as soon as the tempest stumbled against its foundation. Καὶἔπεσεν, “and it fell,” is the height of tragedy. The simple aorist records the fact—the direct opposite of the one mentioned in v. 25.

Jesus could not add: “for it had been founded on the sand,” for who can found anything on the sand? He does use a word to impress the full meaning of what he says on his hearers: “and great was its fall,” like a reverberating crash, utter wreck and ruin, swept away by the swirling torrent, the sand on which the structure stood going down in the swollen tide. With this word Jesus closed his sermon. Did a hush fall on the audience? Did they expect Jesus to say something more, to close, perhaps, as he had begun, with the word “blessed”? As the silence deepened, and all understood that the last word had been spoken, and that this mighty warning was the last word, the effect must have been exactly what Matthew records.

Matthew 7:28

28 And it came to pass when Jesus did finish these words, the multitudes were amazed at his doctrine; for he was teaching them as having authority and not as their scribes. The way in which Matthew appends this statement regarding the effect of the sermon by inserting the clause: “When Jesus finished these words,” proves that the sermon was delivered as it is here recorded and that it is not in any part of it a compilation made by Matthew or by someone else. The fact that Luke has portions of it and other similar statements in other connections is not explained by the hypothesis of a compilation on Matthew’s part; for this hypothesis clashes with the fact here set down by Matthew at the end.

“And it came to pass,” καὶἐγένετο, is a Hebrew way of ushering in an important occurrence with a dignified formality. See the discussion in R. 1042. The descriptive imperfect ἐξεπλήσσοντο pictures the scene when Jesus ceased speaking. Matthew’s psychology is correct: as long as Jesus spoke, every eye and every ear were fixed on him in rapt attention, dreading to miss a single word. But when the voice that held them spellbound became silent, the tension was relaxed, and amazement swept over the multitude. The verb is very strong, “to be dumbfounded,” ausser sich gebracht sein. It was the διδαχή, “the doctrine,” of this διδάσκαλος which wrought the amazement, the λόγοι or statements he made, the substance of what he spoke.

Matthew 7:29

29 Matthew becomes even more specific. What shook the minds and the hearts of all these people was the ἐξουσία, “the authority,” “the authoritative power,” of this doctrine. But this is made personal: “he was teaching them as having authority,” as himself beingfilled with authoritative power. The deity of Jesus revealed itself in all that he said, whether he spoke directly regarding himself or not. It came out in overwhelming force in this instance; yet the periphrastic imperfect ἦνδιδάσκων conveys the thought that the present instance was by no means an exception: this was the way in which he kept teaching right along.

The contrast with the teaching of “their scribes” was glaring: “at once erudite and foolish, at once contemptuous and mean; never passing a hair’s breadth beyond the carefully watched boundary line of commentary and precedent; full of balanced inference, and orthodox hesitancy, and impossible literalism; intricate with legal pettiness and labyrinthine system; elevating mere memory above genius, and repetitions above originality; concerned only about priests and Pharisees, in Temple and synagogue, or school, or Sanhedrin, and mostly occupied with things infinitely little. It was not, indeed, wholly devoid of moral significance, nor is it impossible to find here and there among the debris of it a noble thought; but it was occupied a thousand fold more with Levitical minutiæ about mint, and anise, and cummin, and the length of fringes, and the breadth of phylacteries, and the washing of cups, and platters, and the particular quarter of a second when the new moons and Sabbaths began.” Farrar. To this day it is hard to understand the arid dreariness of the old teaching of the scribes. The “talks” given in some of the pulpits of today, based on other subjects than the διδαχή and λόγοι of Jesus, with little meat for the soul, are the continuation of the deliverances of the Jewish scribes.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.