Matthew 5

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Blessed are the peacemakers.” This takes note of the horrible contention and enmity which sin has brought into the world, for where there is no strife there is no need for peacemakers. The world is “living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another” (Titus 3:3): though attempts are often made to conceal this by the cloak of hypocrisy yet it soon peeps forth again in its hideous nakedness, as the history of the nations attests. And let not writer and reader forget the solemn fact that such was once our own sad case, as the opening words of Tit 3:3, declare-“for we ourselves also were.” But on the other hand, our text also brings into view the triumph of God over the Devil: grace has brought in that which even now in measure, and in the future completely, displaces the vile works of the flesh.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness” sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10). The Christian life is one that is full of strange paradoxes which are quite insoluble to human reason, but which are easily understood by the spiritual mind. God’s saints rejoice with joy unspeakable, yet do they mourn with a lamentation to which the worldling is an utter stranger. The believer in Christ has been brought into contact with a source of vital satisfaction which is capable of meeting every longing, yet does he pant with a yearning like unto that of the thirsty hart. He sings and makes melody in his heart to the Lord, yet does he groan deeply and daily. His experience is often painful and perplexing, yet would he not part with it for all the gold in the world.

Matthew 5:5

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:6

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:7

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:8

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:9

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:10

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:11

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 1

THE

The best wine is reserved for the last. The “comfort” of heaven will more than compensate for all the “mourning” of earth.

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Was He patient with the dull-witted? Then if He indwells me, that same disposition, however imperfectly manifested, must be reproduced.

Are my affections set upon things above? Do I meet with the Lord’s people to commune with Him or to be seen of men?

Chapter 4

Matthew 5:12

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 5

THE OFFICE

“Ye are the salt of the earth but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it he salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to he trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

“Ye are the salt of the earth.” These words (and those which follow to the end of Mat 5:13-16) are frequently regarded as being spoken of God’s people at large, but this we think is a mistake. First, because such an interpretation is out of harmony with the immediate context. In our last chapter we called attention to our Lord’s changing of the pronoun in Matthew 5:11 from the “they” in Matthew 5:1-10 to the “ye.” In Matthew 5:10 Christ enumerated the general principle that “blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake,” but in Matthew 5:11 He made particular application to His own ministers: persecution is the usual experience of God’s people, but it is the special portion of His servants. Clear confirmation of this distinction is found in Matthew 5:12, where the maligned ministers of Christ are bidden to rejoice because “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you”-not “the saints,” but the official servants of God.

Thus, the “Ye are the salt of the earth” obviously has reference to those who now occupy the same position as did the “prophets” of old, namely those called of God to act as His mouthpiece and interpret His will. Additional proof is found in what immediately follows, where after further designating them the “light of the world” Christ added, “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid a figure fitly pertinent to the officers of Christ, who are made a spectacle to the world. Finally, what is said in Matthew 5:15 plainly pertains to the ministers of God rather than to their hearers, for the candle on a candlestick again speaks of official dignity, and the giving “light to all that are in the house” is plainly the one man ministering to the many.

Matthew Henry begins his comments on these verses by pointing out, “Christ had lately called His disciples and told them they should be ‘fishers of men’ (Matthew 4:19); here He tells them further what He designed them to be-the salt of the earth and light of the world: that they might be indeed what it was expected they should be.” It is only in recent generations, when the spirit of socialism has invaded the religious realm, that this passage has been promiscuously applied to Christians. The two emblems which Christ here employed are very striking, and their order significant. He resembles His ministers to “salt” to humble them, for salt is cheap, common, and insignificant; to “light” to encourage them, for light is illuminating, conspicuous, elevated.

The passage we are now to ponder forms the second section of our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. In it Christ touches upon the office of the apostles, and therein (according to their measure) that of all His ministers. It was a distinct division of His address, yet there is a manifest relation between it and the last one: only those whom the Lord pronounces “blessed,” whose characters correspond to that which He portrayed in Matthew 5:1-11, are called by Christ to witness publicly for Him. The ministers of God must themselves first be seasoned by the Word: how could they fittingly apply salt to the consciences of others who had never felt the bite of it on their own? The design of these verses, then, is to stir up Christ’s servants to diligence and fidelity in declaring the will of God unto saint and sinner alike.

Thus, the first two sections of this Sermon are closely connected. The coherence of our present portion with the former stands thus: Christ had declared that there is a company on earth upon whom the Divine benediction rests. Anticipating the question, How do they attain to and maintain this felicity by such graces of the Spirit, which fits them for that estate? He answers, the preaching of God’s Word is the principal means to work in the heart those graces to which true happiness is promised. Because this is a high and holy privilege to bring men to this estate, Christ exhorted His ministers unto earnestness in their service by two weighty reasons, drawn from the properties of their work, and propounded by two similitudes.

“Ye are the salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13). “Ye,” that is those whom I have called to be apostles and set apart for the work of the ministry. Ye are “salt,” not literally, yet by resemblance; yet not in regard of their persons, but of their lab ours. They are here likened to “salt”: they were to season souls for God by making them savory in heart and life. From this emblem both ministers and people may learn their respective duties. Ministers are to dispense the Word, both Law and Gospel, in such a way as to express the qualities of salt. Now the properties of salt as applied to raw flesh or fresh meats are principally these: first, it will fret and bite, being of a hot and dry nature; second, it makes meat savory to our taste; third, it preserves meat from putrefaction by drawing out of it superfluous moisture.

Salt is an indispensable necessity of life. It is God’s great antiseptic in a sphere of decay. It is wrought into the very rocks and soil of earth so that the waters filtering through them become purified thereby. It is a necessary element of the blood, which is the life of our bodies. How well suited is it then as a figure of the Truth, by which means the soul is sanctified, for as salt arrests natural corruption, so the Word of God militates against moral corruption. This figure, then, furnishes clear direction to every minister of God as to his manner of preaching.

Since the Word alone be the savory salt whereby souls are seasoned for the Lord, then it ought to be dispensed purely and sincerely. If salt be mixed with dust and rubbish it loses its pungency and efficacy, and if the Word be mingled with levity or exciting anecdotes its power is nullified.

This figure plainly warns the minister of his pressing need of fortitude. It is “salt” and not sugar candy he is to employ: something which the ungodly will be more inclined to spit out than swallow with a smile, something which is calculated to bring water to the eyes rather than laughter to the lips. The minister, then, must not expect faithful preaching to be acceptable and popular. It is contrary to nature for those whose consciences are pricked to be pleased with those who wound them. Christ’s servants must be prepared for their hearers to fret and set themselves against what searches out their corruptions. Such displeasure and opposition is a testimony that their ministry is “salt,” that it has bitten into the depravity of their people. Instead of being discouraged and dismayed they are to perseveres endeavoring to season their congregation more and more with the pure salt of God’s Word.

The hearer also is to receive instruction from this figure. Hereby each one may see what he is in himself by nature: depraved and corrupt, as unsavory flesh and stinking carrion in the nostrils of God, or else what need of salt? How this should humble and cause us to lay aside all pride and self-righteousness. Again, every one must learn hereby to suffer the word of reproof, whereby his secret sins are discovered and denounced. When our conscience is searched we must be willing for salt to be rubbed into it, for mortification precedes salvation. The hearer must give all diligence to be seasoned with this heavenly salt so that the thoughts of his heart, the words of his mouth, and the actions of his life may be acceptable to God (Colossians 4:6). If we sit under the ministry of the Word (oral or written) and be not seasoned thereby our case is doubly evil (Judges 9:45).

“But if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden underfoot of men” (Matthew 5:13). This was brought in by Christ to move His servants unto fidelity and diligence in their ministry by the danger attending the opposite. Infidelity in the ministry is like unsavory salt: ineffectual, worthless, despicable, subject to a fearful curse. This is the great danger of the pulpit: to become men-pleasers, to yield unto the demand for smooth speaking, to tickle the ears of their auditors with novelties. Such preachers become unsavory salt, unprofitable in their ministry, failing to season souls so that they are acceptable to God.

Salt is useless when it loses its virtue and acrimony. Ministers become such when through lack of prayer and continuous study they fail to increase in spiritual knowledge, or when adopting false doctrine they preach error, or when they cease to denounce sin, or when they fail to practice what they preach.

The greatness of the danger attending ministers who become unfaithful and unprofitable is here pointed out by Christ in His words “wherewith shall it [i.e. the salt-cf. Mark 9:50] be salted.” Those who depart from fidelity are very seldom, and then only with great difficulty, recovered and restored. Read what is recorded of the false prophets in the Old Testament and of false apostles in the New and where is there an instance that any repented? The same solemn principle is exemplified in the case of almost all those preachers who have forsaken Protestantism and gone over to Rome. How diligently, then, do ministers need to take to heart that injunction, “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Timothy 4:15-16); and again, “But thou, O man of God, flee these things [cf. Matthew 5:10]; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness” (1 Timothy 6:11).

The unprofitableness of unfaithful ministers is expressed in the words “it is thenceforth good for nothing”: just as unsavory salt is become worthless to season meat, so unfaithful ministers are valueless to God and man. The curse resting upon such is, “it is cast out and trodden under foot of men,” that is, such preachers are condemned both by the Lord and by their fellow men. “Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept My ways, but have been partial in the law” (Malachi 2:9), such was the fate pronounced upon the renegade priests of old. No doubt Christ was here making an oblique reference to the scribes and Pharisees of His day, affirming their unprofitableness and announcing the impending doom of Judaism. Solemn beyond words is this verse, and prayerfully should it be laid to heart by all Christian ministers.

“Ye are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14). Here Christ likens His ministers unto “light,” and that with the object of stirring them up to preach the will of God. It was as though He said, Your position and condition is such that your sayings and doings are open to the cognizance of man, therefore be careful to please God therein. Spiritually the world is in darkness (2 Peter 1:19) and sits in the shadow of death (Matthew 4:16), because in Adam it turned away from Him who is Light. But ministers of the Word carry with them a Lamp of Truth, and by the illumination of their ministry are they to shine upon the benighted souls of men. By their preaching ignorance is to be exposed, that their hearers may be “turned from darkness to light” (Acts 26:18).

By this figure Christ shows how the Word is to be handled: it is to be so applied to the minds and consciences of men that they may be made to see their sins and their woeful wretchedness thereby, then bringing before them the remedy for their misery, which is the person and work of the Lord Jesus; and then to make plain that path of obedience in all good duties to God and men which He requires in the life of a Christian. Preachers may display great homiletical skill and deliver flowery discourses, but only that is true preaching which conveys the light of spiritual knowledge to the heart and leads souls to God. So, too, since the ministers are the light of the world it is incumbent upon all who hear them to raise the blinds of carnal prejudice and open the windows of their souls so that the illuminating message may receive due entrance.

“A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matthew 5:14-15). Such is the case with God’s ministers by virtue of their calling. Christ has denominated His servants “the light of the world,” and they may be inclined to regard themselves as men of some renown, and therefore He informs them with His intent therein. It was not to give them titles of praise, to puff them up, but to acquaint them with the demands of their office: by reason of their high calling they would be public spectacles-heard and scrutinized by men-and therefore it doubly behooved them to see to it that their message was acceptable to God and their walk blameless before men, for if by their fidelity they might “turn many to righteousness,” infidelity would involve souls in eternal destruction.

Hereby God’s ministers must learn not to think it strange if they lie more open to manifold reproaches and abuses of the world than do the rank and file of God’s people, and the more godly their conduct be the more distasteful to the unregenerate. Hence it follows that God’s servants cannot without great sin hide the gifts and talents which He has bestowed upon them, for they are as lighted candles which must not be put under a bushel. That may be done in various ways: by refusing to humble themselves and speak in terms suited to the capacity of the most simple, by refusing to give out the Truth of God, by toning it down through the fear of man. by flirting with the world and adopting its ways.

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). By “so shine” is signified ministerial teaching, whereby God’s will and grace are made known to His people, backed up by a godly example. Seeing that by your calling you are so conspicuous in the world, look well to the holiness of your lives and the fruits of your labours, so that God’s people may not only hear your doctrine but also perceive your good works, and thereby be moved to follow the same, and thus bring honour and praise to the Lord. These two things must never be separated: sound doctrine and holy deportment are ever to be conjoined in a minister. He who teaches to write will give rules of writing to the scholars, and then set before them a copy to follow. God will have men learn His will in two ways: by hearing and seeing (cf. 1 Timothy 4:12).

In regard of this double charge which lies on every minister, his hearers (or readers) must, for their part, remember in their prayers to crave of God that their pastors may be Divinely enabled to preach to them by lip and life. It is striking to note how often Paul required the churches to which he wrote to pray for him in regard of his ministry (see Romans 15:30; 2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 6:19). If, then, the chief of the apostles had need to be prayed for, how much more so the ordinary minister of God! Great reason is there for this, for the Devil stood at the right hand of Israel’s high priest to resist him (Zechariah 3:1). Though he opposes every Christian, yet he aims especially at the minister to cause him to fail, if not in his teaching, then in his conduct.

“That they may see your good works”: your sincerity, fidelity, love, self-sacrifice, perseverance, zeal, etc. “And glorify your Father which is in heaven”: this is the chief though not the whole end of good works-subordinately, they enrich ourselves and benefit our fellows. As regards God they serve, first, as means whereby we give evidence of our homage by obeying His commands. Second, they serve as tokens of our gratitude for all His mercies, both spiritual and temporal, for thankfulness is to be expressed by life as well as lip. Third, they serve to make us followers of God, who hath bidden us to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16) and to put into practice the duties of love to our neighbor. This must be the main aim of the minister: to bring men to glorify God. Though the unregenerate are quite capable of perceiving the minister’s failures, it is only real Christians who can discern his spiritual graces and the fruit thereof, as it is they alone who will glorify the Father because of the same. Probably the Day to come will reveal that few things have evoked so much genuine praise to God as His people’s returning thanks for the piety, integrity, and helpfulness of His servants, who untiringly sought their good.

Matthew 5:13

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 5

THE OFFICE

Matthew 5:14

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 5

THE OFFICE

Matthew 5:15

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 5

THE OFFICE

Matthew 5:16

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 5

THE OFFICE

Matthew 5:17

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 6

CHRIST AND LAW

Matthew 5:17-18

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, hut to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The manifestation of Christ in Israel’s midst was sudden and startling. The first thirty years of His life on earth had been lived in private, and outside His own immediate circle He seems to have attracted little attention. But as soon as He appeared on the stage of public action this was altered: the eyes of all were fixed upon Him and the leaders of the nation were compelled to take notice of Him. His meekness and lowliness at once distinguished Him from those who sought the praise of men. His miracles of healing soon became heralded far and wide. His call to repentance and proclamation of the Gospel (Mark 1:15) made people wonder what was the real character and design of His mission.

Was He a revolutionary? Was it His purpose to overthrow the existing order of things? What was His attitude towards the Scriptures, and particularly to the Law of Moses? Did He disavow their Divine authority? These were questions agitating the minds of men, and calling for clear answers.

Christ’s preaching was so entirely different from that of the Pharisees and Sadducees (which was supposed to be based on the Old Testament), that the people were inclined to imagine His intention was to subvert the authority of God’s Word and substitute His own in its place. Because Christ despised “the traditions of the elders,” the religious leaders supposed Him to be a deceiver, going about to destroy the very foundations of piety. Because He threw far more emphasis upon great moral principles than upon ceremonial institutions, many were ready to imagine that He repudiated the entire Levitical system. Because He was the Proclaimer of grace and the Dispenser of mercy, the “Friend of publicans and sinners,” the idea became current that He was opposed to the Law. The balance of Truth had been lost, and because the Lord Jesus did not echo the prevailing theology of the day, He was regarded as a heretic. Christ had refused to identify Himself with any of the sects of His time, and because He was outside them all, people wondered what was His real attitude to the Law and the prophets.

For a long time past the view had more or less obtained that when the Messiah appeared He would introduce radical changes and entirely overthrow the ancient order of religion. Therefore did Christ here assure the people that so far from being antagonistic to the Old Testament Scriptures, He had come to fulfil them. He strongly disavowed any hostile design in regard to the Word of God, and proceeded to confirm its authority. The verses we are now to ponder begin the third and longest section of the Sermon on the Mount: from Matthew 5:17 to the end of chapter 5, Christ treats of the most important subject of the moral Law, showing its true meaning, which had been much corrupted by the Jewish teachers. First our Lord refuted the erroneous ideas which the people had formed of Him by three emphatic declarations, the force of which we shall now endeavour to bring out.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” (Matthew 5:17). The Old Testament Scriptures were comprehensively summarized under the title, “the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 16:16): thus the first and widest meaning of our Lord’s words is, Suppose not that My mission is to repudiate the authority of Holy Writ; rather is it to establish and enforce the same. This will be the more evident when we examine the verses which immediately follow. The entire record of His ministry furnished clear proof of what He asserted on this occasion. Christ venerated the sacred Scriptures, was regulated by them in all His actions, and definitely set His imprimatur upon their Divine inspiration. No fouler calumny could be laid to His charge than to accuse Him of any antagonism to or disrespect for the Divine oracles.

We must next duly note that Christ did not here speak of “the law and the prophets,” but “the law, or the prophets,” a distinction we are required to weigh and understand, for it presents quite a different concept. The Law and the prophets are not here associated in such a way as to comprise a unity, or as indicating the spirit of the Law by another word. No, the two terms are here put together by the disjunctive particle “or,” and therefore each of them must represent a distinct idea familiar to the Jews. Christ was here referring to the prophets not so much as the commentators upon the Law, but as those who had fore-announced His person, mission, and kingdom. His obvious design, then, was to intimate that the Old Testament in all its parts and elements-ethical or predicative-referred to Himself and was accomplished in Himself.

It is also to be observed that no further reference is made to the prophets throughout this Sermon (let those who have such a penchant for prophecy take due note!), and that from Matthew 5:18 onwards it is the Law which Christ treats of. Before proceeding farther we must next inquire, Exactly what did Christ here signify by “the law”? We answer, unhesitatingly, The whole Jewish Law, which was threefold: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. The ceremonial described rules and ordinances to be observed in the worship of God; the judicial described ordinances for the government of the Jewish commonwealth and the punishment of offenders: the former was for the Jews only; the latter primarily for them, yet concerned all people in all times so far as it tended to establish the moral Law. The moral Law is contained in the Ten Commandments.

While the entire Jewish Law was comprehended by our Lord’s expression “the law,” yet it is clear that He alluded principally to the moral Law, for the subsequent parts of the Sermon refer directly and mainly to it. But we must add that this term here also included the types, the law of sacrifice, and especially the sin-offering; for the question might well be asked, If there had been no real accomplishment of the sacrificial emblems, what then became of all the references in Moses to the propitiatory offerings and to the entire typical system? If Christ had not accomplished them by presenting to God the substance which they shadowed forth, then they would have been an unfulfilled prophecy or pledge, for they manifestly pointed to Him. Christ, then, came to present the reality of which they were the pledge.

“I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). We must now carefully inquire what our Lord here meant by “fulfil.” We understand Him to signify that so far from its being His purpose to annul the moral Law, He had come with the express design of meeting its holy demands, to offer unto God what it justly required-to magnify it by rendering to it a perfect obedience in thought and word and deed; and that so far from despising the prophets His mission was to make good their predictions concerning Himself by performing the very work they had announced He should do. In a word, we regard this statement of Christ’s as a definite declaration that He had entered this world with the object of bringing in a perfect righteousness, which should be imputed to all His believing people. But this vital and glorious truth is now blankly repudiated by some who pose as being orthodox, and therefore they viciously wrest this passage.

Unwilling to admit that Christ rendered to the Law any vicarious obedience on behalf of His people, Socinians contend that the word “fulfil” in this passage simply means to “fill out” or “fill full.” They imagine that in the remainder of the chapter Christ partly cancels and partly adds to the moral Law. Even Mr. Grant, in his Numerical Bible, rendered it “complete,” and in his notes says, “What would the Old Testament be without the New? Very much like a finger pointing into vacuity.” As quite a number of our readers have more or less come under the influence of this error, we deem it necessary to expose such a sophistry and establish the true meaning of Christ’s declaration. In essaying this we cannot do better than summarize the arguments used by George Smeaton.

First, that “usage of language is opposed to such an interpretation which here adopts the rendering ’to fill out’ in preference to fulfil. No example of such a usage can be adduced when the verb is applied to a law or to an express demand contained in the spirit of the law; in which case it uniformly means ’to fulfil.’ Thus it is said, ‘He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law’ (Romans 8:8). The inflexible usage of language rules the sense in such a phrase, to the effect that Christ must be understood to say that He came not to fill out or to supplement the Law by additional elements, but to fulfil it, by obeying it or by being made under it.”

Second, “fill out” is inadmissible as applied to the second term or object of the verb: Christ did not come to fill out or expound the prophets, but simply to fulfil their predictions. Whenever the word here used is applied to anything prophetical, it is always found in such a connection that it can only mean “to fulfil,” and hence we must not deviate from its uniform signification. Third, Matthew 5:18 must be regarded as giving a reason for the statement made in Matthew 5:17. But what sort of reason would be given if we were to render the connected verses thus: “I came to fill out or to supplement the Law, for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in any wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled”?

To these arguments we would add this forcible and (to us) conclusive consideration: the term “fulfil” was here placed by Christ in direct antithesis from “destroy,” which surely fixes its scope and meaning. Now to “destroy” the Law is not to empty it of meaning, but is to rescind, dissolve or abrogate it. But to “fill out” or complete the Law obviously presents no proper contrast with “destroy” or render void. “To fulfil,” then, is to be taken in its prime and natural sense, as meaning to perform what they (the Law and the prophets) required, to substantiate them, to make good what they demanded and announced. Merely to rescue the Law from the corrupt glosses of the Jews and to explain its higher meaning was business which could have been done by the apostles, but to bring in an “everlasting righteousness” no mere creature was capable of doing. Law can only be “fulfilled” by perfect obedience.

If we take “fulfil” here in its widest scope, then we gladly avail ourselves of the compound definition of W. Perkins. First, Christ fulfilled the Law by His doctrine: both by restoring to it its proper meaning and true use, and by revealing the right way in which the Law may be fulfilled. Second, in His person: both by performing perfect and perpetual obedience unto its precepts, and by suffering its penalty, enduring death upon the Cross for His people. Third, in men: in the elect by imparting faith to their hearts, so that they lay hold of Christ who fulfilled it for them, and by giving them His own Spirit which imparts to them a love for the Law and sets them on endeavoring to obey it; in the reprobate when He executes the curse of the Law upon them.

Taking our verses as a whole, we may perceive how that though the Law and the Gospel vary in some respects very widely, yet there is a perfect consonance and agreement between them. Many now suppose that the one is the avowed enemy of the other. Not so. There is a sweet consent between the Law and Gospel, for Christ came to fulfil the former and is the substance of the latter, and therefore are we informed through His chief apostle that “by faith we establish the law” (Romans 3:21), and that when Moses had given the Law unto the people of Israel he offered sacrifices and sprinkled the blood thereof upon the book and the people (Hebrews 9:19-20)-type of the shedding of Christ’s blood and which thus did notify the perfect harmony of the Law and the Gospel.

What that blessed consonance is between the Law and the Gospel no regenerate soul should have any difficulty in perceiving. Let us briefly present it thus. The Law required perfect obedience and pronounced death on the least breach thereof, and does not propose any way of fulfilling the same in our own persons. But the Gospel directs us to Christ, who, as the believer’s Surety, fulfilled the Law for him, for which reason Christ is called “The end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Romans 10:4). And through Christ it is that “the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:4).

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). In these words our Lord advances a conclusive argument for clearing Himself from the false imputation that He had come to destroy the Law, as the opening “For” (following His statement in Matthew 5:17) clearly indicates. His argument is drawn from the very nature of the Law, which is immutable. Since the Law is unchangeable, it must needs be fulfilled-that its Author be vindicated and glorified; and since fallen man was incapable of rendering perfect obedience to it, it was essential that Christ Himself should perform and bring in that everlasting righteousness which God required. Christ’s argument, then, may be stated thus: If the Law be inviolable and for observance eternal, then I could not have come to destroy it. Because the Law is immutable and eternal it necessarily follows that He came not to annul but to accomplish it.

“Verily I say unto you” was a form of speech employed by the Saviour when He would solemnly avouch any weighty truth, propounding it in His own name. Herein He evidences Himself to be the grand “Amen,” the “faithful and true Witness,” the antitypical Prophet, the Divine Teacher of His Church, to whom we must hearken in all things, for He cannot lie. In saying “till heaven and earth pass away”-the most stable of all created objects-Christ affirmed the unchangeableness of the Law, and that this might be rendered the more emphatic He made reference to the minutiae of the Hebrew alphabet, that not so much as its smallest part shall pass from the Law-the “jot” being the tiniest letter, and the “tittle” the smallest curve of a letter.

The ceremonial law has not been destroyed by Christ, but the substance now fills the place of its shadows. Nor has the judicial law been destroyed: though it has been abrogated unto us so far as it was peculiar to the Jews, yet, as it agrees with the requirements of civic justice and mercy, and as it serves to establish the precepts of the moral law, it is perpetual-herein we may see the blasphemous impiety of the popes of Rome, who in the canons have dared to dispense with some of the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18. While the moral law remains for ever as a rule of obedience to every child of God, as we have shown so often in these pages.

Let us learn from Christ’s declaration of the immutability of the Law that, first, the Scriptures are the very Word of God, and therefore a sure resting place for our hearts. A Christian is subject to many doubts of the truth of God’s promises in times of trial and temptation, but this should ever be remembered: not one jot or tittle can pass till all be accomplished. Second, that no part of the inspired Scriptures, still less any whole book of it, can be lost: neither man nor devil can destroy one jot of it. Third, this immutability of the Law shall stand against them for ever. Fourth, Christ’s setting His seal upon the inviolable authority of the Law intimates its perfections: every part of it is needed by us, every sentence evidences its Divine authorship, every precept calls for our loving obedience.

Matthew 5:18

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 6

CHRIST AND LAW

Matthew 5:17-18

Matthew 5:19

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 7

CHRIST AND LAW

Matthew 5:17-20

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

We are not unmindful of the fact that the passage now before us is one which will possess little attraction for the great majority of professing Christians in our degenerate age, and possibly some of our own readers would be better pleased if we superficially summarized its teaching rather than endeavoured to give a detailed exposition of its weighty contents. Those verses which contain God’s promises are far more acceptable in this day of self-pleasing and self-gratification than those which insist upon our obedience to the Divine precepts. But this ought not to be, for the one is as truly a part of God’s Word as the other, and just as much needed by us. If any vindication of our present procedure be required, it is sufficient to point out that the words we are to examine are those of Christ Himself, and He ever sought the glory of God and the good of souls, caring not for either the praise or the criticism of His hearers.

Healthy Christianity can only be maintained where the balance is properly preserved between a faithful exposition of the holy Law of God and a pressing of its claims upon the conscience, and by tenderly preaching the Gospel and applying its balm to stricken hearts. Where the former predominates to the virtual exclusion of the latter, self-righteous pharisaism is fostered; and where the proclamation of the Gospel ousts the requirements of the Law, Antinomian licentiousness is engendered. Daring the past hundred years Christendom has probably heard fifty Gospel sermons or addresses to one on the Law, and the consequence has indeed been disastrous and deplorable: a light and backboneless religion, with loose and careless walking. Therefore when a servant of God is expounding, consecutively, any portion of the Scriptures, and in the course thereof arrives at a passage upon the Law, it is now (more than ever before) his bounden duty to tarry there and press its claims upon his hearers or readers.

Such a verse as the one which is to be particularly before us ought indeed to search all our hearts, especially those of us who have been called by the Lord to His service. Taken at its surface meaning Matthew 5:19, emphasizes the deep importance of obedience to the Divine commandment, and most solemnly warns against disobedience. Yet it is at this very point that modern Christendom errs most grievously, and the pulpit is chiefly to be blamed for this sad state of affairs. Not only do many who pose as ministers of Christ themselves break the commandments, but they publicly teach their hearers to do the same; and this not with regard to the “least” of the Divine precepts, but in connection with the most fundamental of God’s laws. Should these lines catch the eyes of any such men, we trust that it may please the Lord to use the same in convicting them of the enormity of their sin.

Our Lord was on the point of correcting various corruptions of the Law which obtained among the Jews of His day, and He prefaced what He had to say by cautioning them not to misconstrue His design, as though He were opposing either Moses or the prophets, neither of whose writings were at any variance with the kingdom He had come to establish. So far from setting Himself against Moses, He, with the most solemn asseveration, declared the Law to be of perpetual obligation (Matthew 5:18), and such was His regard for it that if anyone posing as a minister in His kingdom should break the least of the Law’s precepts and teach others to make light of it, he should be as little in the eyes of the Lord as the precept was in his eyes (Matthew 5:19); while those practicing and inculcating the Law should have His highest approval.

Our passage begins at Matthew 5:17, in which our Lord made known in no uncertain terms His attitude toward the Divine Law. False conceptions had been formed as to the real design of His mission, and those who were unfriendly toward Him sought to make the people believe that the Lord Jesus was a revolutionary, whose object was to overthrow the very foundations of Judaism. Therefore in His first formal public address Christ promptly gave the lie to these wicked aspersions and declared His complete accord with the Divine revelation at Sinai. Not only was there no antagonism between Himself and Moses, but He had come to earth with the express purpose of accomplishing all that had been demanded in the name of God. So far was it from being His design to repudiate the holy Law, He had become incarnate in order to work out that very righteousness it required, to make good what the Levitical institutions had foreshadowed, and to bring to pass the Messianic predictions of Israel’s seers.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). Well did Beza say upon this verse, “Christ came not to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but to fulfil that in deed which was shadowed by the figures of the Law: by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law; and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to grave in our hearts the force of obedience.” On the dominant word “fulfil,’ Matthew Henry pertinently pointed out, “The Gospel is ‘The time of reformation’ (Hebrews 9:10)-not the repeal of the Law, but the amendment of it [i.e. from its pharisaical corruptions, A.W.P.] and, consequently, its re-establishment.”

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). In these words our Lord affirmed the perpetuity of the Law, insisting that it should never be abrogated. The grass withereth and the flower fadeth, but the Word of God endureth for ever: the Old Testament as much as the New, the Law as truly as the Gospel. The “verily I say unto you” was the solemn asseveration of the Amen, the faithful and true Witness. Everything in the Law must be fulfilled: not only its prefigurations and prophecies, but its precepts and penalty: fulfilled, first, personally and vicariously, by and upon the Surety; fulfilled, second and evangelically, in and by His people; and fulfilled, third, in the doom of the wicked, who shall experience its awful curse for ever and ever. Instead of Christ’s being opposed to the Law of God, He came here to magnify it and render it honorable (Isaiah 42:21); and rather than His teachings being subversive thereof, they confirmed and enforced it.

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). This afforded proof of what Christ had declared in Matthew 5:17-18, for the language He here employed manifestly implies the perpetual and inflexible obligation of the Law throughout the entire course of the kingdom of heaven-this Christian era. Not only so, but the words of Christ in this verse make unmistakably clear the inestimable value which He placed upon the Divine commandments, and which esteem He would strictly require and exact from all who taught in His name: His disapproval falling on the one who slighted the least of the Law’s requirements, and His approval resting on each who by his example and teaching honored the same.

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,” namely the “jot and tittle” of the previous verse-the smallest part of the Law. Weigh carefully the word we have placed in italics: it denotes two things. First, Christ is here illustrating or exemplifying what He had so expressly affirmed in the previous verses and insists that instead of encouraging His followers to disregard the Divine Law He upheld its claims in the most certain manner, for the King Himself would frown upon any of His officers who dared to disesteem its smallest requirements. Second, Christ drew an obvious conclusion from what He had laid down in the foregoing. If the Master Himself came not to destroy the Law but rather to fulfil it, then it manifestly followed that His servants too must keep the commandments and teach others to do the same. It is in this way the ministers of Christ are to be identified: by their following the example which He has left them.

Let us take notice of how what immediately follows the “therefore” clinches the interpretation we gave of the “destroy” and the disputed but simple “fulfil” of Matthew 5:17. To “destroy” the Prophets would he to deny their validity, to repudiate their inspiration, to annul their authority, so that they would then possess no binding power on the people of God. In like manner, to “destroy” the Law is not simply to break it by transgression, but also to abolish it: it is such a destruction as would rob it of all virtue and power so that it would be no law at all. This is why the Lord added, “break one of these commandments and teach men so.” The order is significantly the same in both verses: “destroy . . . fulfil” (Matthew 5:17), “break.. . do and teach them” (Matthew 5:19).

Let us further observe how the contents of this verse establish the definition we gave of “the law” in the preceding verses-a matter on which there has been some difference of opinion among the commentators. We pointed out that, while it is clear from the later parts of the Sermon that Christ alluded principal1y to the moral law, yet in view of the circumstances under which this Discourse was delivered and in view of Christ’s allusion to the “jot and tittle” of the Law, the ceremonial and judicial aspects of it must not be excluded. Throughout this passage “the law” is to be understood in its widest latitude, as embracing the Mosaic Law. This is clear from our Lord’s reference to “one of these least commandments,” for surely we cannot think of the Ten Commandments in such a connection; for they one and all belong to the fundamental statutes of the kingdom

Should anyone demur at what has just been said and insist that “the law” is to be understood as here referring to the Ten Commandments only, we shall not quarrel with him. It may indeed he pointed out, inasmuch as the Divine Decalogue is a unit, and therefore all of its commands possess equal authority, that no part of it can be of slight obligation; yet some parts of it respect matters of, relatively, more importance than do others. Transgressions of the first table are far more heinous than those against the second: to take the Lord’s name in vain is much more sinful than stealing from a fellow creature. So too there are degrees of criminality in offences against the precepts of the second table: to murder is a graver crime than to bear false witness against my neighbor. Thus, while none of the Ten Words is trivial, some respect more momentous objects than the others. Nevertheless, let not the solemn fact be forgotten that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10).

Ere passing on it should be pointed out that the verse now before us also definitely confirms our explanation of the “ye” in Matthew 5:13-16 -a point which is disputed by many of our moderns. When treating of that passage we called attention to our Lord’s change of the pronoun in His second division of the Sermon. In Matthew 5:3-10 the Saviour throughout used “theirs” and “they,” but in Matthew 5:11-16 He employed “ye” and “you.” We insisted that this second section has exclusive reference to Christ’s official servants-the New Testament successors of the “prophets” (Matthew 5:12), for they are, ministerially, the salt of the earth and the light of the world. That Christ continued to have in mind the same class, and was addressing Himself not to the rank and file of His people, but to His official servants, is clear from His “Whosoever shall do and teach them.”

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” The “kingdom of heaven” here, as in the great majority of places, has reference to the sphere of profession. It is wider than the Church which is ‘Christ’s body, for none but the elect of God are members of that. The “kingdom of heaven” takes in all who claim to own the sceptre of Christ, and therefore it includes the false as well as the real, as is clear from our Lord’s parables: the tares growing in the same field as the wheat, the had fish being enclosed in the net with the good; though at the end there shall be a severance of one from the other. This at once removes any difficulty which may be felt over a minister who teaches others to break God’s commands having any place at all therein. This kingdom was announced by Christ’s forerunner (Matthew 3:2), and since that time has been preached (Matthew 11:12).

Two different explanations have been given by the commentators as to the meaning of “he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” First, that one is called “the least” because he is not deemed worth y to have any part at all or any real inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God: this is negated by the Lord’s own words. Second, and strange to say the one adopted by the best writers: this person shall he held in such low esteem by his fellow citizens as to be called by them the least in the kingdom. But we see nothing in our verse which indicates that the reference is to the judgment of men. Personally, we believe something far more solemn than that is in view: the evil minister shall be judged “the least” by the King Himself. Does not our verse look back to, “The ancient and the honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail” (Isaiah 9:15)? It was Christ’s condemnation of the unfaithful servant.

Not only does our present verse solemnly condemn Dispensationalists (who repudiate one of the greatest of all God’s commands: the Sabbatic-statute), but it announces the disapproval of Christ upon another class of errorists. Not a few Calvinists have pitted the Gospel against the Law, and instead of showing the one as the handmaid of the other, have represented them as being irreconcilable enemies. These men have disgraced Divine grace, for they fail to show that grace works through righteousness, and have taken from the Christian his rule of life. Their conception of what Christian liberty consists of is altogether wrong, denying that the believer is under Divine bonds to walk in obedience to the Decalogue. Failing to see that Romans 6:14, has reference to our justification and not our sanctification, they repudiate the moral law, teaching that in no sense are we under its authority. But though such men be held in high esteem by many of the churches, they are the very “least” in the sight of ‘Christ, and must yet answer to Him for engaging in the very practice which He here denounces.

Antinomianism (the repudiation of the moral law as the Christian’s rule of life) is as reprehensible and dangerous as papal indulgences. If on the one hand we need to guard against legality (seeking to keep the Law in order to merit something good at the hands of God), on the other hand there is just as real a danger of dwelling so exclusively on the grace of the Gospel that we lose sight of the holy living required. “Let us then beware equally of Antinomian licentiousness and of pharisaical self-righteousness; these are Scyalla and Charybdis, the fatal rock and whirlpool: most men in shunning the one fall into the other, and we need the Lord the Spirit to pilot us between them. But the clear and full exposition of the holy Law of God, and the scriptural application of it to the heart and conscience, forms one most important preservative from these fatal extremes” (T. Scott).

“But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Note well the order here: “do and teach.” As Paul exhorted his son in the faith, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine” (1 Timothy 4:16): Christ requires integrity of life and soundness of doctrine from His servants. The Lord is both mocked and grievously insulted by ministers who practice one thing and preach another: far better to quit preaching entirely if our lives be opposed to our sermons. Furthermore, there will be no power in the preaching of the man whose own walk clashes with his talk: his words will carry no conviction to the hearts of his hearers-as one quaintly but solemnly said to his minister, “I cannot hear what you say, from seeing what you do.” Finally, a minister cannot with any clearness of conscience and joy of heart teach others their duty, unless he first be a practicer of what he preaches.

Chapter 8

“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). We purpose to expound this verse by supplying answers to the following questions. First, who or what were the scribes and Pharisees? Second, what was the character of their righteousness? Third, what is the nature of that superior righteousness which Christ requires from His subjects? Fourth, how is it obtained? Fifth, how is it manifested? Sixth, wherein does it exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? Seventh, what is signified by “ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven? Eighth, what is the relation of verse 20 to the context?

Before seeking an answer to the above questions, let us point out what a startling effect this statement of Christ’s must have produced upon His hearers. The scribes were the most renowned teachers of the Law, and the Pharisees had the reputation of being the most exemplary models of Judaism; and for our Lord to have solemnly affirmed that such righteousness as they possessed was altogether inadequate for entitling them to an entrance into the kingdom which He had come to set up must have seemed a most radical and startling declaration. The Pharisees were looked up to as those who had attained to the very pinnacle of personal piety, and the common people supposed that such heights of spirituality were quite beyond their reach. Men in general imagined that they could not be expected to equal their attainments. It was a proverb among the Jews that “If but two men were to enter heaven, the one would be a scribe and the other a Pharisee.”

First, who were the scribes and Pharisees? The word “scribe” is a name of office, whereof there were two sorts among the Jews: civil and ecclesiastical. The former were public notaries, registering the affairs of state: such a one was Shimshai (Ezra 4:8). The latter were employed in expounding the Scriptures: such a one was Ezra (Ezra 7:1, Ezra 7:5-6). It was to the latter Christ referred in this Gospel: see Matthew 13:52; Matthew 23:2 -interpreters of the Law of Moses. They were of the tribe of Levi.

The name “Pharisee” betokens a sect, and not an office. They differed from the scribes inasmuch as they formed a code of morals and of ceremonial acts more rigid than the Law of Moses enjoined, basing it on the traditions of the fathers: and were held in highest esteem among the Jews: see Acts 23:6; Acts 26:5. The scribes, then, were the doctors of the Law; the Pharisees professing the purest practice of it.

Second, what was the character of their righteousness, and wherein lay its defectiveness? First, the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was an external one only, consisting of certain outward observances of the Law. They were strict in abstaining from such gross sins as adultery, theft, murder and idolatry; but they made no conscience of impure thoughts, covetousness, hatred, and coldness of heart toward God; and therefore did Christ say unto them, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess,” etc. (Matthew 23:25-28). Second, their observance of God’s Law was a partial one: they laid far more stress upon its ceremonial precepts than upon its moral requirements; and therefore did Christ say unto them, “Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith” (Matthew 23:23). Third, their actions proceeded from unsound principles: self-interest, rather than the glory of God, was their ruling motive. They were forward in fasting, praying at street corners, and giving alms ostentatiously; but it was all done to enhance their reputation among men (Matthew 23:5-7).

Righteousness of soul, purity of heart, the scribes and Pharisees had no regard for. In their religion we have an exemplification of what is the natural persuasion of men the world over, namely, that a religion of external performances will suffice to ensure a blissful eternity. True, there are many who would deny this in words, but in works they substantiate it. They bring their bodies to the house of prayer, but not their souls; they worship with their mouths, but not “in spirit and in truth.” They are sticklers for immersion or early morning communion, yet take no thought of keeping their hearts with all diligence (Proverbs 4:23). Multitudes of professing Christians abstain from external acts of violence, yet hesitate not to rob their neighbors of a good name by spreading evil reports against them. Thousands who would not dare to rob openly, yet misrepresent their goods and cheat their customers; which shows they have more fear of breaking man’s laws than they have of breaking those of God.

Third, what is the nature of that righteousness which Christ requires from His subjects? There are three kinds of righteousness spoken of in the Scriptures. First, inherent, which Adam had when he left the hands of his Maker (Ecclesiastes 7:29), which none possess by nature today. Second, imputed righteousness (Romans 4:6), which is the whole of our justification before God. Third, imparted righteousness (Ephesians 4:24), when God the Spirit makes us new creatures. Most of the older writers concluded that it was the second of these which Christ referred to here in Matthew 5:20, but we are satisfied that this was a mistake. It is true that the sinner’s title for heaven can consist only of the perfect righteousness of Christ being imputed to him upon his believing, yet there must be an experimental meetness for the inheritance of the saints in light as well as a legal right, and this we obtain through our regeneration and sanctification.

We fully agree with Mr. J. C. Philpot when he pointed out on Matthew 5:20, “Christ did not mean an external righteousness wrought out by His obedience to the Law for them, but an internal righteousness wrought out by the Holy Spirit in them. Thus, we read of the inward as well as the outward apparel of the Church: ‘The King’s daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold’ (Psalms 45:13). Two kinds of righteousness belong to the queen: her imputed righteousness is her outward robe, the ‘clothing of wrought gold’; but imparted righteousness is her inward adorning, which makes her ‘all glorious within.’ This inward glory is the new man in the heart, with all his gifts and graces.” This must be so if the Church is conformed to her head, for He was “without spot” externally, and “without blemish” internally.

As this is a point which is much disputed, we must labour it a little further. That righteousness which will bring men to heaven is not a bare imputed one, but an imputed righteousness which is accompanied by an imparted one. Justification and sanctification must never be severed: wherever the former be pronounced, the other (in its fundamental aspect) has already been bestowed. The one concerns our standing before God, the other respects our state in ourselves. Romans 8 is just as vital and blessed a part of the Gospel as is Romans 5, and it is to the irreparable loss of the saint if the one be emphasized to the virtual exclusion of the other. Surely righteousness alone secures for us a standing before God, but evangelical righteousness is the certain proof thereof, and as the tree is known by its fruits so imputed righteousness can be recognized in no other way than by inward righteousness with its effects in the life.

To this writer the simplest and most conclusive way of ascertaining the nature of the righteousness which Christ requires from all who shall have part in His everlasting kingdom is to observe that it is placed in direct antithesis from the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Now as we have pointed out, the defects of the latter lay chiefly in three things. First, their righteousness was wholly an external one, but God requires Truth in the inward parts: “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Second. their righteousness was partial, stressing certain parts of the Law which suited their tastes, while utterly ignoring or nullifying other vital features thereof. The righteousness which God requires is a universal obedience: a living by every word that proceeds out of His mouth. Third, their righteousness issued from a foul spring: instead of keeping the Law from a desire to please and glorify its Giver, their observance of it was only in order to promote their reputation among men.

This superior righteousness, then, consists of an obedience to the Divine Law which would be acceptable to a holy but gracious God. Such an obedience must necessarily spring from the fear of God and love to God: that is, from a genuine reverence for His authority, and from a true desire to please Him. It must comprise a strict conformity to the revealed will of God, without any self-invented and self-imposed additions thereto. It must give particular attention to the “weightier matters of the law,” namely justice, mercy and faith. It must be a sincere and not a feigned obedience, a filial and not a slavish one, a disinterested and not a selfish one. It must be a symmetrical or complete one, having respect to all God’s commandments. Such an obedience will not puff up or encourage self-righteousness, but will cause the one who sincerely aims thereat to walk softly before the Lord, and will produce humility and denying of self.

Fourth, how is this superior righteousness obtained? Not by the strivings of a fallen creature, but by the effectual working of Divine grace. Such an obedience as we have delineated above can only proceed from a heart that is reconciled to God, because “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Now as 2 Corinthians 5:17-18, so plainly teaches us. God’s reconciling us to Himself by Jesus Christ is the immediate outcome of our being made new creatures in Christ. Initially we become partakers of this righteousness at the new birth, when a holy nature is communicated by the Spirit, so that there is now a principle within us which “delights in the law of God” (Romans 7:22) and causes us to “serve” it (Romans 7:25).

Progressively, this inward righteousness is developed as we “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” which is through our using the appointed means and by learning to draw our strength from the Lord. Perfectly, this inward righteousness will only be consummated at our glorification, when we shall be filled with all the fullness of God.

Fifth, how is this evangelical righteousness manifested? Inasmuch as this inward righteousness consists of and proceeds from a new creation to holiness it is known by the fruits it produces. A radical change is affected in the temper and life of its possessor, so that he now loathes and shuns what he formerly delighted in, and loves and seeks after the things he once disliked. It is evidenced by a real hatred of sin and an unfeigned love of God. It is known by the felt antagonism between the two natures in the believer. His indwelling corruptions continually war against this principle of righteousness, so that often he is prevented from doing the good which he desires and strives to perform.

This conflict with the flesh humbles the Christian, causes him to mourn over his sad failures, and to confess he is but an unprofitable servant. Nevertheless, he continues in his efforts to mortify the old man and vivify the new. Another proof of indwelling righteousness is that its possessor has an ever-deepening appreciation of the forbearance of God and an increasing valuation of the precious blood of Christ.

Sixth, wherein does this righteousness “exceed” the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? The superiority of the Christian’s righteousness has already been shown in some detail, but one or two other things may be pointed out in connection therewith. The Christian’s righteousness springs out of love and faith, whereas theirs issued from an evil heart of unbelief. The Christian’s righteousness is the result of his being made a partaker of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), whereas theirs was altogether human. The defects of the Christian’s righteousness are covered by the infinite merits of Christ, whereas theirs has nothing to commend them unto God. Evangelical righteousness-according to the terms of the new covenant-is approved by God, but legal righteousness found no provision in the Sinaitic compact for its acceptance by the Most High. The righteousness of the Christian secures an entrance into heaven, but that of the scribes and Pharisees will exclude them therefrom.

Seventh, what is signified by “Ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven,” which is the Lord’s verdict upon those who possess not this righteousness? In our comments upon Matthew 5:19 we pointed out that this expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” is wider than the Church which is Christ’s body, covering the whole sphere of profession-Christendom; thus including the counterfeit as well as the genuine. But we were careful to qualify that definition by saying this was its meaning in the “great majority of cases.” There are one or two notable exceptions: as for example, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3), where the kingdom of heaven must refer to the kingdom of glory. Such too is the case in our present verse: Christ was speaking of real righteousness, and that alone will secure entrance into heaven.

Eighth, what is the relation of our verse to its context? Let us recall that in the whole of this passage our Lord was engaged in refuting the erroneous conception which had been formed of His mission. His detachment from the religious leaders of His day, His disregard of the “traditions of the elders,” and His proclamation of grace in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-22), had inclined many to regard Him as the opponent of Moses. True, He had come to bring in something new, something vastly superior to that which then obtained in Israel, nevertheless there was no real conflict between Christianity and Judaism: though differing much in incidentals, there is really perfect accord in fundamentals. Alas, that the spiritual unity of the two economies is now so little perceived, yea, is emphatically denied by most of the much-advertised “Bible teachers” of our day.

First, Christ plainly and emphatically declared He had not come to destroy the Law or the prophets, but to “fulfill” them (Matthew 5:17): in what ways He was to “fulfill” them we have endeavored to show. Second, He solemnly affirmed the perpetuity and immutability of the Law (Matthew 5:18), asserting that not the smallest part thereof could pass away till all was fulfilled. Third, He insisted that His own servants must maintain the integrity of the Law, both by practice and by preaching (Matthew 5:19), otherwise they would not receive His approval. Fourth, so far was He from being antagonistic to Moses, He demanded of His subjects a righteousness which surpassed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Hereafter there was not the slightest occasion for any of His hearers to have any doubt of Christ’s attitude toward the Law of God.

It is most important that we perceive clearly our Lord’s design in Matthew 5:20. It was not there His purpose to state the terms on which men might obtain the Divine favour, rather was He describing the character of those who already possessed the same. No doubt many of the multitude which had there flocked around Him supposed-such is poor human nature-that by attaching themselves to His cause they would obtain greater latitude to indulge their lusts: it must therefore have been a real shock for them to learn that the morality and spirituality which was to distinguish the genuine citizens of His kingdom would be of a far more exalted character than that taught by the scribes and exemplified by the Pharisees: He would not regard anyone as His subject unless his righteousness exceeded theirs. Thus, the nature and demand of His kingdom was proof positive that He honored and maintained the Law.

With regard to the relation of our passage to its yet wider context, we may note how that one of the principal designs of Christ throughout this Sermon was to awaken His hearers to feel their deep need of that which alone could satisfy the requirements of a holy God. It was ignorance of the Law which permitted pharisaism to flourish, for they claimed to fulfill it in the outward letter, and consequently Christ here aimed to arouse conscience by enforcing its true import and requirements. It will be found that this Sermon returns again and again to one main idea: that of awakening men to a sense of their wretchedness, and shutting them up to the righteousness of God. That object could only be obtained by a spiritual application of the Law and by enforcing its inviolable exactions: thereby alone could they be prepared to appreciate and embrace the Gospel.

Matthew 5:20

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 7

CHRIST AND LAW

Matthew 5:17-20

Chapter 8

Matthew 5:21

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree 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. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”

The discourse which our Lord delivered on this occasion entirely corresponds with the new era which it marked in the history of God’s dispensations. The revelation from Sinai, though grafted on a covenant of grace (i.e. the Abrahamic: Galatians 3:19 -“added”), and uttered by God as the Redeemer of Israel, was emphatically a promulgation of law. Its direct and formal object was to raise aloft the claims of the Divine righteousness, and meet, with repressive and determined energy, the corrupt tendencies of human nature. The Sermon on the Mount, on the other hand, begins with blessing. It opens with a whole series of beatitudes, blessing after blessing pouring itself forth as from a full spring of beneficence, and seeking, with its varied and copious manifestations of goodness, to leave nothing unprovided for in the deep wants and longing desires of men. Yet here also, as in other things, the difference between the New and the Old Testament is relative only, not absolute. There are the same fundamental elements in both, but these differently adjusted, so as fitly to adapt themselves to the ends they had to serve, and the times to which they respectively belonged.

“In the revelation of law there was a substratum of grace, recognized in the words which prefaced the ten commandments, and promises of grace in blessing also intermingled with the stern prohibitions and injunctions of which they consist. And so, inversely, in the Sermon on the Mount, while it gives grace the priority and the prominence, it is far from excluding the severer aspect of God’s character and government. No sooner, indeed, had grace poured itself forth in a succession of beatitudes, than there appear the stern demands of righteousness and law-the very same law proclaimed from Sinai-and that law so explained and enforced as to bring fully under its sway the intents of the heart, as well as the actions of the life, and by men’s relation to it determining their place and destinies in the Messiah’s kingdom” (P. Fairbairn).

It is with these “stern demands of righteousness” that we are now to be engaged. The transition point is found in Matthew 5:17, though in the verses preceding our Lord had intimated the trend of what was to follow, by likening the ministry of His servants to the nature and action of “salt.” Matthew 5:17-20 contain the preface of all that follows to the end of chapter v. In affirming that He had come to “fulfill” the Law, Christ signified, first, that it was His mission as the faithful Witness of God and the Teacher of His Church to expound the Law in its purity and spirituality, and to rescue it from the corruptions of the false teachers of that day. Second, to exemplify its righteousness in His own conduct by rendering to it a personal. perfect, and perpetual obedience, in thought and word and deed. Third, to endure its curse in His people’s stead.

To understand a discourse, nothing is of greater importance than a clear grasp of its object and design. If this be not definitely understood, then the plainest statements may appear obscure, the most conclusive arguments unsatisfactory, and the most pertinent illustrations irrelevant. A great deal of the obscurity which, in most men’s minds, rests on many passages of the Scriptures is to be accounted for on this principle. They do not distinctly perceive, or they altogether misapprehend, the purpose of the inspired writer, consequently they fail to understand his arguments and true meaning. Considerable misapprehension has obtained in reference to those sections of our Lord’s Sermon which we are about to consider, in consequence of mistakes as to their object or design. Yet there is no excuse for this: by carefully weighing Matthew 5:17-20 the scope of what follows is obvious.

The words of Christ in Matthew 5:17 make it plain that He had not come here to antagonize or annul the Law of God, as they equally exclude the idea that it was His design to replace it with a new law. Is it not strange, then, to find Mr. Darby (in his “Synopsis),” after giving an outline of the contents of the Sermon, subjoining a footnote to verses 17-48 in which he says, “In these the exigencies of the law and what Christ required are contrasted,” which would be to pit the Son against the Father! In Matthew 5:20 the Lord Jesus enunciated a general principle, and from Matthew 5:21 onwards He was engaged in illustration, by varied examples, how and wherein the righteousness of those whom He would own as subjects of His kingdom exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

It should be self-evident that the distinctions which Christ proceeded to draw between what had been said by the ancients on certain points of moral and religious duty, and that which He Himself solemnly affirmed, must have respect, not to the real and actual teaching of the Law and the prophets, but rather to the erroneous conclusions which had been drawn therefrom, and to the false notions founded thereon, which were currently entertained at His advent. It were blasphemy to imagine that Christ was so inconsistent as to contradict Himself on this occasion. After so definitely asserting His entire accord with the Law and the prophets and His own dependence upon them, we cannot believe for a moment that He would immediately afterwards set Himself in opposition to them. This must be settled at the outset if we are to have hearts prepared to weigh what follows.

“The scribes and Pharisees of that age had completely inverted the order of things. Their carnality and self-righteousness had led them to exalt the precepts respecting ceremonial observances to the highest place, and to throw the duties inculcated in the ten commandments comparatively into the background, thus treating the mere appendages of the covenant as of more account than its very ground and basis” (P. Fairbairn). Therefore it was that when He proceeded to expose the inadequacy and hollowness of “the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,” our Lord made His appeal to the testimony engraved on the two tables, and most commonly, though not exclusively, to the precepts of the second table, because He had to do more especially with hypocrites, whose defects might most readily be revealed by a reference to the duties of the second table (cf. Matthew 19:16; Luke 10:25 and Luke 18:18).

The first commandment brought forward by Christ on this occasion was the sixth of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not kill.” All that the Pharisees understood by this was a prohibition of the act of murder; but our Lord insisted that the commandment in its true import prohibited not only the overt act but every evil working of the heart and mind which led to it, such as unjust anger, with contempt and provoking language. Such an interpretation should not stand in need of any argument. The spiritual mind would rightly reason from such a law: if He who desireth truth in the inward parts (Ps. 51) condemns murder, then it is evident we must abstain from all that might lead to that culmination of wickedness; and so it would be discovered that “Thou shalt not kill” really signifies “Thou shalt not hate.”

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:21). To what, or rather to whom, did our Lord refer in His “them of old time”? Certainly not to Moses, nor to His Father, as the plural “them” unequivocally shows. Then to whom? In answering this question, let us also show wherein lay the special need for Christ here to expound and enforce the Law. Unfortunately for the nation, there was ample opportunity for the scribes and Pharisees to corrupt God’s Law, for the rank and file of the people were unable to read the Scriptures in their original tongue. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity they had largely forgotten their own language, and therefore could not read the Hebrew text.

Obviously, it was the duty of the learned to supply the people with a plain and simple translation of God’s Word into the Chaldee or Aramaic. But the proud and selfish rabbis were concerned not with the glory of God and the good of the people, but with the exaltation of their own order. Therefore, instead of preparing a translation which could be read by the masses at large, they were accustomed, in the synagogues, to read off a loose rendering of the sacred text (alleged to be simpler than the original), intermingled with their own explanatory remarks. It was this ancient paraphrase of the Law with the comments of the rabbis that the scribes and Pharisees reiterated, and to which our Lord alluded when He here mentioned “them of old time.”

God’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” was capable of expansion into the widest spiritual meaning, prohibiting all hatred against our fellows. But the scribes and Pharisees restricted it to the bare act of murder as an external crime, as is quite clear from the next verse, where it is referred to as a crime for the consideration of the judicial courts of earth. Thus they were guilty of restricting the scope of God’s command, and by connecting it with earthly courts both suggested to their hearers that only external deeds are sinful, and also removed the very wholesome fear of the judgment to come, when God shall lay bare not only the actual deeds of men, but even their innermost thoughts, and account the murderer in desire and intention equally guilty with the actual slayer of his fellow.

Ere passing on, let us make three remarks. First, how strangely has history repeated itself! If the religious leaders of Israel refused to make a plain translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the speech used by the people upon their exodus from the Babylonish captivity. keeping them in ignorance of the pure Word of God, determining to retain matters in their own hands and exalting their own order; so the papacy (after the desolating persecution of the early Church by the Roman emperors) refused to make an accurate translation of the Scriptures (clinging instead to the faulty rendition of the Vulgate version), corrupting her dupes by the additions, restrictions, and alterations she made to Divine revelation; her present-day prelates and priests reiterating what was said by their predecessors “in old time.”

Second, how worthless is antiquity as such! As there is a class of people who make a fetish of what is modern and despise anything of the past, so there is a certain type of mind which is strongly attracted by the antique and which venerates hoary traditions. But antiquity is no infallible mark of true doctrine, for this exposition of the sixth commandment had obtained among the Jews for centuries past, yet Christ, the great Doctor of the Church, rejected it as false, and therefore the argument which the papists use for the establishment of some of their dogmas and practices drawn from antiquity is of no effect. Equally worthless are the appeals of Protestants to the Reformers and the Puritans unless they can show that their teachings rested upon a clear “Thus saith the Lord.”

Third, how thankful we should be that we have the pure Word of God reliably translated into our mother tongue! To the multitudes of His day Christ said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time”; but to us He can exclaim, “Ye may read what God hath said.” This is a wondrous and inestimable privilege-purchased by the blood-shedding of many of our forefathers-that the Holy Scriptures are no longer confined to the learned and the abbot of the monastery. They are accessible to the unlearned and the poor, everywhere, in simple English. But such a privilege carries with it, my reader, a solemn responsibility. What use are we making of this precious treasure? Do we search it daily, as did the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11)?

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother 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 whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). This is far from being the easiest verse of Matthew v to interpret, and the commentators vary in their explanations of its details; yet its general meaning is plain enough. With His royally authoritative “I say unto you,” the Lord Jesus at once swept aside the rubbish of the rabbis and placed the Law of God before His hearers in all its majesty and holiness, propounding the true interpretation of the sixth commandment. No matter what you may have heard the scribes and Pharisees teach-whether from themselves or from the ancients-it was but the bluntings of the sharp edge of God’s precept. I, the incarnate Son of God, who seekest only the glory of the Father and the good of souls, declare unto you that there are three degrees of hatred, falling short of the actual deed of murder, which expose a man to the judgment of God as a violator of the sixth commandment.

First, “Whosoever is angry against his brother without cause “brother” would be one Jew against another; for us, against a fellow Christian; but in its widest scope, against a fellow man, for by creation all are brethren. It is not anger simply which Christ here reprehends, but unwarrantable and immoderate anger. There is a holy anger, as appears from the example of Christ (Mark 3:5) and the apostolic precept, “Be ye angry and sin not” (Ephesians 4:26). It may be asked, How are we to distinguish godly anger from that which is unlawful? The former proceeds from love or righteousness, has in view the good of him against whom it is exercised, and looks to the glory of God, whereas unholy anger issues from pride and desires the injury of the one against whom it is directed. Anger is lawful only when it burns against sin, and this is equivalent to zeal for the Divine honour.

In His first singling out of unjust anger when expounding the sixth commandment, Christ did hereby teach us in general that whenever God forbids one sin He at the same time forbids all sins of the same kind, with all the causes thereof; and in particular that specific passion from which most murders proceed. Since, then, unjustified and immoderate anger is a breach of the Decalogue deserving of Divine punishment, how diligently and constantly we should be on our guard, lest this headstrong affection break forth, seeking grace to restrain and nip it in the bud. Now in order that we may subdue this lust that it prevail not, lay to heart this commandment which forbids rash anger, and frequently call to mind bow patiently and mercifully God deals with us every day, and that therefore we ought to be likeminded toward our brethren (Ephesians 4:31-32).

The second branch of the sin here condemned is, “whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,” or, as the margin renders it, “vain fellow.” What is here prohibited is that scorn, arising from uncontrolled temper, which leads to speaking contemptuously. All abusive language is forbidden by the sixth commandment, all expressions of malignity issuing from a bitter heart, for as Matthew Henry rightly pointed out, “all malicious slanders and censures are ‘adders’ poison under their lips’ (Psalms 140:3), and kill secretly and slowly.” The Spirit of God refers to Ishmael’s jeering at Isaac as “persecution” (Galatians 4:29), and the same may be said of all bitter speaking. Yea, the prohibition here extends to the gestures of our body-a sneer, the wagging of our head (Matthew 27:29). Therefore are we required to make conscience of every gesture, every casting of the eye (Genesis 4:6), as well as every passionate word.

The third degree of murder mentioned by Christ is censorious reviling or calling our brother a “fool.” It is not the simple use of this English word which renders us guilty of this crime, as is clear from Luke 24:25; 1 Corinthians 15:36. A benevolent desire to make men sensible of their folly is a good work, but the reviling of them from an ungovernable rage is wickedness. With the Jews “fool” (moren) signified a rebel against God, an apostate, so that the one using this term arrogated to himself the passing of judicial sentence, consigning his fellow to hell. This was the very word Moses used (in the plural form) in Numbers 20:10, and for which he was excluded from Canaan. It is to be observed that never once does the Lord designate His people “rebels,” though on several occasions He charges them with being rebellious.

One other thing remains to be mentioned. In the different degrees of penalty mentioned by Christ, He alluded unto the various courts of judgment in vogue among the Jews for punishment, which He applied to the Divine judgment which should fall upon those guilty of the sins He here condemned. And let us say in conclusion, there is no way of escaping the Divine curse upon these sins except by humbling ourselves before God, penitently confessing the murderous passions of our hearts, and the manifestation of the same in gesture and speech; suing for His pardon through the atoning blood of Christ.

Chapter 10

“Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). Christ here drew a practical conclusion from what He had declared in the preceding verses, in which He enforces the duty of preserving Christian love and peace between brethren. First, He held up to view the false interpretation of the sixth commandment given by the ancient rabbis and perpetuated by the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:21). Second, He gave the true meaning of it (Matthew 5:22). And third, He here propounded certain rules of concord between those that be at variance. If even a secret feeling of anger, and much more so a contemptuous or maledictory reproach, constitutes in God’s sight a breach of His Law, and that He will not accept the worship of those guilty of such a crime, we must, without delay, remove every root of bitterness that might spring up and produce so deadly a fruit.

Our Lord here spoke in the language of the dispensation then in force, but the principles He enunciated on this occasion apply equally to Christian ordinances, especially the Lord’s supper: the maintenance of righteousness and amity between one another is indispensable to fellowship with the thrice holy God. “It was the doctrine of the scribes, and the practice of the Pharisees corresponded with it, that anger, hatred, and the expression of these, if they did not go so far as overt acts of violence, were among the minor faults; and that God would not severely judge men for these, if they were but regular in presenting their sacrifices, and observing the other external duties of religion. In opposition to this, our Lord teaches that, according to the righteousness of His kingdom, having one’s mind not subject to the law of justice and love, would render all external religious services unacceptable to God” (J. Brown).

Under the Mosaic law various gifts and sacrifices were presented to Jehovah, some of them being absolutely obligatory, others optional-“freewill offerings.” Broadly speaking, those gifts were of two kinds; propitiatory and eucharistic: the one for obtaining Divine forgiveness, the other as expressions of thanksgiving. Christ alludes here only to the latter, but under it He comprehended all manner of true outward worship, whether legal or evangelistic. The Lord Jesus had not yet offered Himself to God as the great anti-typical sacrifice, and therefore He conveyed His lesson through the terms of the ceremonial law; but we have no difficulty in transferring what He then affirmed unto ourselves. It was as though He said, If thou comest to worship God in any way, either by prayer, hearing His Word, offering sacrifices of praise, or celebrating the Lord s supper, you must live in peace with your brethren, or your worship will be rejected.

It is indeed solemn and searching to ponder the important practical principle which our Lord here enunciated. How deceptive is the human heart, and what numbers impose upon themselves in this matter. But we cannot impose upon that One before whom everything is naked and open. Of old the Jews were guilty of this very thing. “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks. . . .And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear” (Isaiah 1:11-15). Why? “Your hands are full of blood.” While they cruelly oppressed their brethren, the worship they offered unto God was an abomination unto Him. So again in Isaiah 58:5-6, we find Jehovah despising the religious fasts of Israel because they omitted those acts of mercy which He required, and instead were guilty of evilly treating their fellows.

The Lord charged the people with the same sins in the time of Jeremiah: “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely . . . and come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name?” (Jeremiah 7:9-10). Other passages might be quoted, but these are sufficient if we duly lay them to heart. From them we ma y learn that the performance of any outward service unto God is displeasing to Him if it be separated from unfeigned love of the brethren. To serve God acceptably we must perform not only the duties of the first table of the Law, but also those of the second. Make no mistake, my reader, the Holy One abhors all professions of piety from those who make no conscience of endeavoring to live in peace with their brethren.

“Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother bath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar” (Matthew 5:23-24). The words “thy brother hath aught against thee” clearly signify, “If you have done him some injury” or he has cause of complaint (either real or fancied) against you. If you have treated him in some way inconsistent with the fraternal relationship, if he be conscious that you have wronged him, then you must promptly seek to right that wrong, no matter what the cost may be to your pride or interests. It may be that you were guilty of what some would lightly dismiss as “only an outburst of temper,” which you regretted afterwards; nevertheless, peace has been disrupted, and God requires you to do everything in your power to lawfully restore it.

Does not failure to heed this rule go far to explain why the supplications of so many of the Lord’s people remain unanswered? What numbers fondly imagine that so long as they are regular in their attendance at the house of prayer, and maintain a reverent demeanor therein, their petitions will prevail, even though they be at enmity with some of their brethren. Not so; the words of the Psalmist on this are much too pointed to be misunderstood. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psalms 66:18). Before bending the knee in prayer, let us call to mind that we are about to draw near unto Him who is as much the Father of the offended brother as He is ours, and that He cannot receive us while we continue casting a stumbling-block in the way of the other. No worship or service can be acceptable to God while we are under the influence of a malicious spirit.

“Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother.” This means there must be a sincere and penitent acknowledgment of the offence committed and proper restitution made for any injury done, so that by all proper means and reasonable concessions we seek forgiveness from the one offended. “In this case the person, instead of offering his gift, is to go immediately to his brother, and to be reconciled to him; dismissing all malignant feeling from his mind, he is to repair the injury he has done to his brother. If he has deprived him of his property, he is to restore it; if he has calumniated him, he is to do all that lies in his power to counteract the effect of his calumny, and acknowledge his regret for having acted so unbrotherly a part. In this way he is likely to be reconciled to his brother, that is, to be restored to his brother’s favour” (J. Brown).

The question may be raised, What can be done in a case where the one whom I have offended is no longer accessible to me?-one perhaps who has moved to far-distant parts. Answer: every effort must be made to obtain his or her address, and then write them a confession of your fault and your grief for the same, as frankly as though you were speaking to them. But suppose their address be unobtainable? Then in such a case you are hindered by Divine providence and God will accept the will for the deed, if there be a willing mind, providing you have done all you can to right the wrong, and have humbly confessed the same unto God and sought His forgiveness.

It should be pointed out that in this rule concerning reconciliation with an aggrieved brother, the Lord furnished a third direction for the expounding of God’s commandments. First, He showed that under any one sin prohibited in the commandment God forbids all sins of the same kind, with all the causes thereof (Matthew 5:22). Second, that to the breach of any commandment there is annexed a curse, whether it be specifically expressed or not (Matthew 5:22). And now, third, that where any vice is forbidden, there the contrary virtue is enjoined; and on the contrary, where any virtue is commanded, the opposite vice is reprehended. Herein the Divine laws evidence their superiority to human, for man’s laws are satisfied by abstaining from the crime prohibited, though the contrary virtue be not practiced; so long as we abstain from murder, it matters not though we fail to love our brethren. But God requires not only abstention from vice, but also the practice of virtue.

Another general principle is brought out in the verses before us, one which is of considerable importance in the correct interpreting of many New Testament passages, namely that to be “reconciled” to another does not signify so much to cherish kindly feelings towards one with whom we have been offended, as to be restored to the favour of one we have offended. This throws light on such a statement as, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:10), the primary reference in which is to the Redeemer’s propitiating God and obtaining for us His blessing-the same holds good equally of Eph 2:16, and Colossians 1:21. In like manner, “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20) means not only throw down the weapons of your warfare against Him, but, primarily, be restored to His favor.

One other important principle enforced by Christ in our passage is that there are degrees of value in the several duties of Divine worship: all are not equal, but some are more and some less necessary. The highest degree of holy worship is prescribed in the first commandment: to love, fear, and rejoice in God above all, trusting Him and His promises. The second degree is to love our neighbors as ourselves, living in accord with them, and seeking reconciliation when any division exists. The third degree consists of the outward ceremonial duties of God’s worship: and that these are inferior to the other is clear from Christ’s “first be reconciled to thy brother.” Even the outward solemnities of Sabbath keeping are to give place to the works of love. God esteems mercy above sacrifice. Alas, how many today are sticklers for the details of baptism and the Lord’s supper who will not even speak to some of their brethren!

“First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:24). This is far from implying that the regaining of his brother’s esteem is a good work which entitles him to the favour of God. No; the man who rests his hope of the acceptance of his religious services on the consciousness that his brethren have nothing against him is leaning on a broken reed; the only valid ground of hope for the acceptance of either our persons or our worship is the free grace of God. But it means that, when peace has been restored, he must not forget to return and offer his gift; for although God will not receive our worship unless-so far as in us lies-we are on loving terms with our neighbors, yet the performance of our duty to men in nowise frees us from obligation of direct service to God.

“Agree 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. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing” (Matthew 5:25-26). This is one of the passages appealed to by the papists in support of their Christ-insulting dogma of purgatory: that they have to apply to such verses as these in order to bolster up their error shows how hard pressed they are to find anything in the Scriptures which even appears to favour their vile tenets.

The Roman expositors are not even agreed among themselves. Some take the “adversary” to be the Devil, and the “judge” God Himself; but others among them suppose the “adversary” to be God administering His Law, the “judge” they regard as Christ, the “officer” an angel, and the “prison” to be purgatory; “the way the span of our life on earth. Agree with God while thou art in this life, lest thou come before Christ in judgment, and He cause His angels to cast thee into purgatory, and there thou remainest till thou hast made full satisfaction for all thy venial sins. But such a concept utterly ignores the context, where Christ lays down a rule of reconciliation between man and man, and not between God and man. Moreover, such an interpretation (?) pits the Father against the Son. Finally, it denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, making the sinner himself the one who provides satisfaction for his venial sins.

Many Protestant commentators regard Matthew 5:25-26 as a parable which portrays the grave peril of the sinner and his urgent need of believing the Gospel. Injurious conduct toward our fellow men renders us noxious to the wrath of God, who is our Adversary-at-law. We are in the way to the judgment-seat and our time here is but short at best. But a way of reconciliation is revealed in the Gospel, and of this we should avail ourselves immediately. If it be neglected and despised, then we forsake our own mercies, and close the door of hope against us. If we die with our sins unpardoned, then nothing awaits us but a certain judgment, and we shall be cast into the prison of hell, and being unable to offer any satisfaction to Divine justice we must there suffer the due reward of our iniquities for ever and ever. Such a concept may evidence the ingenuity of the commentator, but where is the slightest hint in the passage that Christ was speaking parabolically?

Personally, we see no reason whatever for not understanding our Lord’s words here literally. Christ had exhorted the party doing wrong to seek to be reconciled with his brother, by acknowledging the offence and making reparation according to the injury inflicted. In support thereof, He had advanced the solemn consideration that until this be done communion with God is broken and our worship is unacceptable to Him. Here (knowing how proud and obstinate the human heart is, and how slow men are to yield and submit to this duty) Christ descends to a lower level, and points out another reason why it is highly expedient for the offending believer to put matters right with him whom he has wronged, namely lest the aggrieved one go to law, and this involve him in costly litigation, or even procure his imprisonment.

“Agree with thine adversary” is just the same as “be reconciled to thy brother,” for “adversary” is a general name applied to all persons in common who have a controversy or are at variance with each other. “Agree with” the one you have provoked, seek restoration to his favour, by repairing the injury you have done him. An injured one, or a creditor, might at any time sue him, demanding that his case be tried in a magistrate’s court. While on their way thither, there was still time to come to an amicable agreement between themselves, but once they appeared before the magistrate the matter would pass out of their hands, and be subject to the decision of the court, whose business it is that strict justice be impartially enforced.

The view given above was held by the renowned Calvin, “If in this place the judge signify God, the adversary the Devil, the officer an angel, the prison purgatory, I will readily subscribe to them (the Papists). But if it be evident to everyone that Christ thus intended to show to how many dangers and calamities persons expose themselves, who prefer obstinately exerting the rigor of the law to acting upon the principles of equity and kindness, in order the more earnestly to exhort his disciples to an equitable concord, pray where will purgatory be found?” Matthew 5:26-27 are to be regarded as a warning of what may befall those who heed not the command in Matthew 5:24-25. If we refuse to humble ourselves and strive to preserve peace, we must not be surprised if others deal harshly with us and sue us at law. In closing, it may be observed, that Christ here approves of the magisterial office, his proceeding against the guilty and of imprisonment.

Matthew 5:22

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

Chapter 10

Matthew 5:23

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

Chapter 10

Matthew 5:24

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

Chapter 10

Matthew 5:25

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

Chapter 10

Matthew 5:26

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 9

THE LAW AND MURDER

Are we nourishing our souls thereby? Is our conduct governed by its teaching? If not, double guilt lies at our door.

Chapter 10

Matthew 5:27

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, 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. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, 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. It bath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Let us begin by pointing out once more that the several distinctions drawn by Christ in this discourse between what had been said in ancient times upon a number of matters of moral and religious duty, and what He now affirmed, must have respect not to the real teaching of the Law and the prophets but to the inadequate and erroneous views entertained of their teaching by the rabbis and the false notions founded upon them. After so solemnly and expressly declaring His entire harmony with the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-20), we must regard with abhorrence the idea that Christ, immediately after, proceeded to pit Himself against them, affirming that Moses taught one thing and He quite another. No, in every instance where a commandment is quoted as among the things said in former times, it was the understanding and views entertained thereof against which the Lord directed His authoritative deliverances. It is not the Law per se which is under consideration, but the carnal interpretations of it made by the Pharisees.

It should prove a real help to the reader if he looks upon Matthew 5:20, as the text of this third division of the Sermon, and all that follows to the end of chapter v as an enlargement thereof. That verse enunciated a most important practical truth, and the verses which immediately follow contain a series of illustrative examples of how and wherein the righteousness of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. First, the Law-giver Himself had freed the sixth commandment from the rubbish which carnal men had heaped upon it (Matthew 5:21-26), and now He proceeded to restore the seventh commandment to its true sense and meaning, and therefore to its proper use, purging it from the false interpretation of the Jews. Thus, in the verses which are now to be before us, we have the Saviour contrasting the righteousness of His kingdom with the righteousness of the religious leaders of His day respecting the all-important matter of chastity.

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Matthew 5:27). Again we would carefully note that Christ did not say, “Ye know that God said at Sinai,” but instead, “ye have heard that it was said by them of old time.” This makes it quite clear that He was continuing to refute the injurious traditions which the Jews had accepted from their elders: “them of old time” referring to the ancient teachers-compare our comments on Matthew 5:21. “Thou shalt not commit adultery”; those were indeed the actual words of the Holy Spirit, but the preceding clause makes it plain that our Lord was alluding to them in the sense in which the scribes and Pharisees understood them. They saw in the seventh commandment nothing more than the bare injunction, “No man shall lie with another man’s wife,” and hence they thought that so long as men abstained from that particular sin, they met the requirements of this precept.

The ancient rabbis, echoed by the Pharisees, restricted the scope of the seventh commandment to the bare act of unlawful intercourse with a married woman. But they should have perceived, as in the case of the sixth commandment, that the seventh spoke specifically of only the culminating crime, leaving the conscience of the hearer to infer that anything which partook of its nature or was calculated to lead up to the overt deed was also and equally forbidden, even the secret thought of unlawful lust. That the Pharisees did narrow the meaning of the seventh commandment to the mere outward act of impurity is evident from our Lord’s contrastive exposition of it in the next verse, where He insists that its true intent had a much wider scope, reaching also to the inward affections, prohibiting all impure thoughts and desires of the heart.

Once more we are shown the vast difference there is between the spiritual requirements of a holy God and the low standard which is deemed sufficient by His fallen creatures. The religion of carnal and worldly men is merely political; so far as good and evil affect society, they are in some measure concerned; but as to the honour and glory of God, they have no regard. So long as the outside of the cup and of the platter be clean, they are indifferent to whatever filth may exist within (Matthew 23:25-26). So long as the external conduct of its citizens be law-abiding, the State is satisfied, no matter what iniquity may be seething in their minds. Different far is it with the Judge of all the earth: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). That which the world pays no attention to, God regards as of first importance, for “out of the heart are the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23). It is only “the pure in heart” who shall ever see-commune with and eternally enjoy-God (Matthew 5:8).

In what has just been before us we may see a very real warning against a slavish literalism, which has ever been the refuge into which not a few errorists have betaken themselves. In this instance the Pharisees kept themselves close to the letter of the Word, but sadly failed to understand and insist upon its spiritual purport. Papists seek to justify their erroneous dogma of transubstantiation by an appeal to the very words of Christ, “this is My body,” insisting on the literal sense of His language. Unitarians seek to shelter behind His declaration, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:18), arguing therefrom the essential inferiority of the Son. In like manner, the ancient rabbis took the words of the seventh commandment at their face value only, failing to enter into the full spiritual meaning of them. Let pre-millenarians heed this warning against a slavish literalism or a being deceived by the mere sound of words, instead of ascertaining their sense.

The great Teacher of the Church here supplied us with an invaluable canon of exegesis or rule of interpretation by teaching us that God’s commandment “is exceeding broad” (Psalms 119:96), and that human language becomes invested with a far fuller and richer meaning when used by God than it has on the lips of men. This of itself should be sufficient to silence those who condemn the servants of God when they spiritualize Old Testament prophecies, objecting that they are reading into those prophecies what is not there, and unwarrantably departing from their plain sense. When the Lord Jesus affirmed, “But I say unto you, That whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,” had not the Pharisees as much occasion to demur, and say, “The seventh commandment says nothing about lustful looks: You are reading into it what is not there”?

Ere passing on, a few words need to be said on the special heinousness of this particular crime. Adultery is the breach of wedlock. Even the Pharisees did condemn it, for though they made light of disobedience to parents (Matthew 15:4-6), yet they clamored for the death of the woman guilty of this sin (John 8:4-5). The grievousness of this offence appears in that it breaks the solemn covenant entered into between husband and wife and God, it robs another of the precious ornament of chastity, it defiles the body and ruins the soul, it brings down the vengeance of God upon the posterity, which Job called “a fire that consumeth to destruction” (Job 31:12). “Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). “Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Here we have an exposition of the seventh commandment by the supreme Prophet of God, wherein He reveals the height, depth, and breadth of the spirituality of the Divine Law. That commandment not only forbids all acts of uncleanness, but also the desire of them. The Pharisees made it extend no farther than to the outward and physical act, supposing that if the iniquity was restricted to the mind, God would be indifferent. Yet their own Scriptures declared, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psalms 66:18), and Christ here made it known that if a man allows himself to gaze upon a woman till his appetites are excited and sexual thoughts are engendered, then the holy Law of God judges him to be guilty of adultery and subject to its curse; and if he indulges his licentious imagination so as to devise means for the gratification thereof, then is his guilt that much greater, even though providence thwart the execution of his plans.

Our Lord here declared that the seventh commandment is broken even by a secret though unexpressed desire. There is, then, such a thing as heart adultery-alas, that this is so rarely made conscience of today. Impure thoughts and wanton imaginations which never issue in the culminating act are breaches of the Divine Law, All lusting after the forbidden object is condemned. Where the lascivious desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of the act so far as the heart is concerned, for there is then lacking nothing but a convenient opportunity for the crime itself. He who weighs the spirits judges the going out of the heart after that which is evil as sin, so they who cherish irregular desires are transgressors of the law of impurity.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” ft is not an involuntary glance which constitutes the sin, but when evil thoughts are thereby prompted by our depraved natures. The first step and degree, then, of this crime is when lust stirs within us. The second stage and degree is when we deliberately approach unto-a feeding of the eye with the sight of the forbidden fruit, where further satisfaction cannot be obtained. Then if this lust be not sternly mortified, the heart swiftly becomes enthralled and the soul is brought into complete bondage to Satan, so that it is fettered by chains which no human power can break. Such was the deplorable condition of those mentioned by the apostle, “Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin” (2 Peter 2:14).

Well did Matthew Henry point out, “The eye is both the inlet and the outlet of a great deal of wickedness of this kind; witness Joseph’s mistress (Genesis 39:7), Samson (Judges 16:1), David (2 Samuel 11:2). What need have we, therefore, with holy Job, to ‘make a covenant with our eyes’ (Job 31:1) to make this bargain with them: that they should have the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the works of God, provided that they would never fasten or dwell upon anything that might occasion impure imaginations or desires; and under this penalty, that if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears. What have we the covering of our eyes for, but to restrain corrupt glances and to keep out defiling impressions?” How much sorrow and humiliation would be avoided if such wholesome counsel was duly laid to heart and carried out in practice.

By clear and necessary implication, Christ here also forbade the using of any other of our senses and members to stir up lust. If ensnaring looks be reprehensible, then so much more unclean conversation and wanton dalliances, which are the fuel of this hellish fire. Again, if lustful looking be so grievous a sin, then those who dress and expose themselves with desires to be looked at and lusted after-as Jezebel, who painted her face, tired her head, and looked out of the window (2 Kings 9:30)-are not less, but even more guilty. In this matter it is only too often the case that men sin, but women tempt them so to do. How great, then, must be the guilt of the great majority of the modern misses who deliberately seek to arouse the sexual passions of our young men. And how much greater still is the guilt of most of their mothers for allowing them to become lascivious temptresses.

As looking to lust is here forbidden, so by proportion are all other like occasions unto adultery. The reading of books which make light of immodesty and indecency, and that cater to those who relish the suggestive and questionable, are therefore prohibited. So too is the use of light and wanton talk and the jesting about loose morals: “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting” (Ephesians 5:3-4). Many who are given to this think it a trifling matter, but in reality they are double offenders, for not only have they a wanton eye, but a lascivious tongue also. In like manner, promiscuous dancing and mixed bathing are most certainly condemned by the seventh commandment, for in both there is additional provocation unto lust.

How solemnly do these words of Christ in Matthew 5:28, condemn us, for even though (by preserving grace) our bodies have not been defiled by the outward act of adultery, yet who can say “My heart is clean”? Who is free from a wanton eye, from evil desires, from impure imaginations? Who can truthfully affirm that he has never been guilty of questionable jesting and unchaste conversation? Must we not all of us lay our hands upon our mouths and condemn ourselves as offenders in the sight of God? Surely we have ample cause to humble ourselves beneath His mighty hand and acknowledge our breach of the seventh commandment. And if our repentance and confession be sincere, shall we not be doubly on our guard against a repetition of these sins, seeking to avoid temptations and taking heed of every occasion which may incite us?

Surely it is evident that if our hearts be honest before God we cannot do less. Yea, shall we not with increased earnestness pray, “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken Thou me in Thy way” (Psalms 119:37)?

Again, if the lust of the heart be adultery in the sight of God, then with what diligence and care should we respond to that injunction, “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1); that is, labour to keep our hearts and minds as pure as our bodies. Unless they do so Christians themselves will be deprived of a comforting assurance of their personal interest in the love of God, for when they defile their minds by harboring impure thoughts the Spirit is grieved, and withholds His witness to our sonship. Nay, if we truly realize that the Holy One has taken up His abode within our hearts, must we not put forth every effort to keep the guest-chamber clean? As the best way to keep down weeds is to plant the garden with vegetables and flowers, so the most effective means of excluding from the mind those foul imaginations is for it to be filled with thoughts of spiritual things, to have our affections set upon things above. If we give God His proper place within, Satan will be defeated.

We feel that we cannot do better in closing this article than by quoting here the salutary counsels of another: “To temptations to impurity in some of its forms we are commonly exposed, and it requires constant vigilance to avoid falling before some of them. There are a few advices which, on this subject, I would affectionately urge on the attention of the young. Be on your guard against loose and unprincipled companions. ‘Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.’ It is impossible to associate intimately with the profligate without danger. Abstain from the perusal of books tainted with impurity. These are scarcely less mischievous-in many cases they are more so-than the company of the wicked. The deliberate perusal of such books is a plain proof that the mind and conscience are already in a deeply polluted state.

Keep at a distance from all indelicate and even doubtful amusements-I allude chiefly to theatrical amusements-where the mind is exposed, in many instances, to all the evils at once of depraved society and licentious writing. Seek to have your mind occupied and your affections engaged with ’things unseen and eternal.’ Habitually realize the intimate presence of that God, who is of purer eyes, than to behold iniquity. Never forget that His eye is on your heart, and that ‘all things are naked and opened’ to Him: and, as one of the best and most effectual methods of mortifying your members which are on the earth-crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts-“Seek the things which are at God’s right hand.’ Never tamper with temptations, but flee youthful lusts” (J. Brown).

Chapter 12

From what has been before us in Matthew 5:21-26, and still more so from the searching and pride-withering declaration of Christ in verse 28, we may perceive again how deeply important is a right understanding of the Divine Law, and what fatal consequences must inevitably follow from inadequate and erroneous views thereof. It is at this point, more than anywhere else, that the orthodoxy and helpfulness of the preacher must be tested, for if he fails here-in his interpretation and enforcement of the strictness and spirituality of the Decalogue-the whole of his teaching must necessarily be fundamentally faulty and injuriously misleading. This is evident from the method followed by Christ in His first public sermon. No matter how deplorable and general be the failure of the modern pulpit, let it be said emphatically that all of us are bound and must yet be judged by the holy Law of God, and no repudiation thereof, no modifying of its high demands by unfaithful preachers, can n any wise justify our disobedience to God’s commands.

“Whilst we therefore view the strictness, spirituality, and reasonableness of the precepts which we have been reading, as expounded by our Divine Teacher; let us impartially compare our past and present lives, our tempers, affections, thoughts, words, and actions, with this perfect rule; then we shall find every self-confident hope expire, and plainly perceive that, ‘by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God’; then will Christ and His salvation become precious to our souls. Whether we look to our conduct towards those who have injured us, or those whom we have offended; towards our superiors or inferiors, relatives, friends, or servants; the state of our heart or the government of our passions; to what we have or what we have not done; we shall see cause for humiliation and need of forgiveness; and when we consider that we must be made holy according to this standard, in order to the enjoyment of God and heaven; we shall as evidently perceive our need of the powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, and learn to value the ordinances of God, through which that sacred assistance is obtained” (T. Scott).

“And if thy right eye offend thee, 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” (Matthew 5:29). In this and the following verse our Saviour furnishes heavenly instruction for the avoiding of those offences against which He had just spoken. It is supplied by Him in the way of answer to a secret objection to the exposition He had given of the seventh commandment, wherein He had condemned adultery of heart. Corrupt human nature would be ready to at once murmur, It is impossible to be governed by so exacting a law, it is a hard saying, who can bear it? Flesh and blood cannot but look with pleasure on a beautiful woman, and it is inevitable that there should be lusting after so attractive an object. What, then, shall we do with our eyes, if an unchaste look be so evil and fatal? It was to just such risings up of the depraved heart against the spiritual requirements of a holy God that Christ here made reply.

“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee.” Here again the language of Christ is not to be taken at its proper sense, i.e. it is not to be understood literally. One of the rules in expounding Scripture is that where the literal sense of a verse is against any of the commandments of the Law, then its words must be regarded figuratively, for obviously one part of the Word must not be made to contradict another. Now just as the seventh commandment not only prohibited the physical act of adultery, but also all mental impurity, so the sixth commandment not only forbade the taking of life, but also reprehended any deliberate maiming of either our own body or that of our neighbor. Therefore, no man can without sin pluck out his eye or cut off his hand.

By the “eye” we are to understand, first, the eye of the body, yet not that only but any other thing that is dear to us-the “eye” being one of the most precious of our members. The word “offend” does not here signify to displease, but to hinder: the reference is to anything which occasions us to commit this sin, whatever would cause us to stumble. Thus the figure is easily interpreted: whatever in our walk or ways exposes the soul to the danger of unholy desires must, at all costs, be abandoned. There must be the uncompromising excision of everything hurtful to the soul. To pluck out the right eye means that we are to rigidly restrain and strictly govern our senses and members, deny ourselves, even though it involves present hindrance, financial loss, and personal pain. No matter how pleasant and dear the presence and use of certain things be to us, yet if they are occasions of sin they must be relinquished and avoided.

Since the Lord Jesus so pointedly condemned unlawful desires and the exercise of impure imaginations, then it is our bounden duty to suppress and disallow them, to strive earnestly against the same, to subdue the lusts from which they spring. Though the senses and members of our bodies be the instruments of evil, yet the sin itself proceeds from the lusts of our hearts, and if they be subdued, if every idolized object be renounced within, then there will be no need either to flagellate or mutilate our bodies. On the other hand, if we crucify not the flesh with its affections and lusts, the mere plucking out of an eye or the cutting off of a hand will profit the soul nothing. The root of sin lies much deeper than the physical: “cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also” (Matthew 23:26). Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good (Matthew 12:33).

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, etc. (Colossians 3:5), not the mortification of our physical “members,” but the appetites and passions of the soul. This expresses the same idea as our Lord was propounding. But the subjugation of sexual appetites, the obtaining of victory over such strong desires of the heart, is no easy matter, especially in cases where both constitution and habit have united to enslave in these sins. No, the mortification of such lusts cannot but be attended with most painful exercises and the sacrifice of what has been delighted in and held dear. Nevertheless, though it be as painful as the plucking out of an eye, it must be done. We are obliged to choose between mortification and damnation, and therefore the strongest corruptions are to be mastered and all that is within us brought into subjection to God and subordinated to the eternal good of our soul.

It is to be observed that this is one of many passages in the Gospels in which we find the Son of God making definite reference to a future state. How often did He refer to the resurrection of the body, and of a hell into which the wicked shall be cast! He was continually bringing these things to the attention of men and pressing them upon their serious and solemn consideration. No flesh-pleasing sycophant was He: the glory of God and not the praise of men was ever the object before Him. And herein He has left an example to be followed by all whom He has called to be officers in His kingdom; not to lull to sleep by “smooth speaking,” but to declare “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Romans 1:18). If men and women could be persuaded to weigh with due deliberation the vast importance and endlessness of eternity, and the brevity and uncertainty of this life, they would cease trifling away so many of their swiftly passing hours and prepare to meet their God.

“For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Christ here emphasizes the fact that lustful looks and wanton dalliances are so disastrous and destructive to the soul that it is better to lose an eye than to yield to this evil and perish eternally in it. This, as we have pointed out, is in reply to the objection that heart adultery is something no man can prevent, that it is beyond his power to resist temptations to gaze with longing eyes upon an attractive woman. Rightly did Matthew Henry point out: “Such pretences as these will scarcely be overcome by reason, and therefore must be argued against with the terrors of the Lord, and so they are here argued against.” Alas, that this powerful deterrent to evil and incitement to holiness is so rarely made use of in our degenerate times, when little else than honey and soothing-syrup is being handed out from the pulpit.

Different far was the course followed by the chiefest of the apostles. When he stood before Felix, he “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,” and we are told that the governor trembled (Acts 24:25): but what is there in modern preaching-even that known as “Calvinistic”-which is calculated to make sin-hardened souls to tremble? Little wonder that the rising generation defy their parents with such impudence, when their elders are unrestrained by fear of the hereafter. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord [in the previous verse he had spoken of the judgment-seat of Christ], we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11), said the apostle, and so will every faithful servant of God today. Ministers of the Gospel are required to conduct their hearers to Sinai before they lead them to Calvary, to make known the “severity of God (Romans 11:22) as well as His goodness, to declare the reality and awfulness of hell as well as the blessedness of heaven; and if they do not so, then they are unfaithful to their trust, and God will require at their hands the blood of their hearers” (Ezekiel 33:6; Acts 20:26).

“And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, 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’s (Matthew 5:30). This is the same exhortation as was before us in the preceding verse, the same stern and startling argument to restrain us from the sin of heart adultery. Nor is this to be regarded as a needless multiplying of words, for such repetitions in the Scripture have a particular use, namely to signify that things thus delivered are of special importance and worthy of our most careful observation and obedience. There is indeed a slight variation, and what strikes us (though the commentators seem to have missed it) as a designed gradation. As the “eye” was a figure of what is dearest and most cherished by us, so the “hand” is to be understood as what is most useful and profitable. Many have wondered why our Lord did not mention the plucking out of an eye last, as being the severer loss of the two; but it must not be overlooked that He was not here addressing a company of the rich and learned, but the common people, and to a laboring man the loss of the right hand would be a far more grievous deprivation than the loss of an eye!

Nor is it to be overlooked that Christ was here more immediately speaking to His own disciples. This well may startle some today, yet as Andrew Fuller rightly pointed out: “It is necessary for those whom the Lord may know to be heirs of salvation, in certain circumstances, to be threatened with damnation, as a means of preserving them from it.” Such passages as Romans 11:18-20; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:26-30; are addressed to believers! “Mature reflection on our situation in this world will reconcile us to that self-denying and painful, mortification of our sins to which we are indispensably called; we shall see tender mercy crouch under the apparent harshness of the requirement; that our safety, advantage, and felicity are consulted; and that the grace and consolations of the Spirit will render it practicable and even comfortable. And would we be preserved from gross iniquities, our hearts must be kept with all diligence, and our eyes and all our senses and faculties forbidden to rove after those things which lead to transgression: the strictest rules of purity and self-denial will be found, by experience, the most conducive to true and solid comfort while in this world.” (T. Scott).

By these exhortations, then, the Lord Jesus teaches us that we must keep a strict watch over the senses and members of our body, especially the eye and the hand, that they become not the occasions of sinning against God: “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Romans 6:13). We must use our sight in obedience to God. “Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee” (Proverbs 4:25): that is, we are to order our sight according to the rule of the Word, for that is the way wherein we are to walk. The necessity of heeding this Rule appears from many solemn examples. Eve’s looking on the forbidden fruit, contrary to the Divine commandment, was the door of that sin into her heart. Ham was cursed for looking upon his father’s nakedness (Gen. 9); Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back toward Sodom (Gen. 19); over fifty thousand men of Beth-shemesh were slain for looking into the ark of the Lord against His revealed will (1 Sam. 6). Do not these cases tell us clearly that before we look at anything we should pause and ask whether the same will be for God’s glory and our good?

Again, these exhortations of Christ teach us plainly that we must seek diligently to avoid all the occasions of every sin, though it be most painful to ourselves and attended with great temporal loss. As one old writer expressed it: The fallen nature of man is like unto dry wood or tow, which will quickly burn as soon as fire touches it. As mariners at sea set a constant watch to avoid rock and sands, so should we most warily avoid every occasion to sin. Self must be denied at all costs, constant watch kept over the heart, the first risings of corruption therein suppressed, temptations to sin shunned, the company of those who would be a snare unto us avoided. So there must be a constant seeking unto God for His grace, that we may be enabled so to walk in the Spirit that we will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.

The task unto which the Lord Jesus here calls us is that of mortification, the putting to death of our evil lusts. That this is a most unwelcome and painful work, He warns us by the figures He employed. Unto those who object that the keeping of their hearts free from unlawful desires and lustful imaginations is a task utterly beyond their powers, Christ replies: If as you say it is impossible, if there be no other way of governing your appetites [which, blessed be God, through His grace, there is], then pluck out and cut off your offending members rather than use them to the eternal undoing of your souls. Who is there among us who would not consent to the amputation of a gangrened limb, no matter how painful the operation and heavy the loss, if persuaded that this was imperative in order for life itself to be preserved? Then why refuse painful mortifications which are essential to the saving of the soul? When tempted to shrink therefrom, seriously consider the only other alternative-in hell both body and soul will be tormented for ever and ever.

Not only must there be the uncompromising avoidance and refusal of all that is evil, but we must abridge ourselves in or totally abstain from things lawful in themselves if we find they are occasions of temptation to us. “Take a familiar illustration. A person is fond of wine; it is agreeable to his taste; it is useful in refreshing him after severe exertion. But he finds that this taste has seduced him into intemperance; he finds that there is constant danger of its doing so. He has fallen before the temptation again and again. What is such a person’s duty? According to our Lord, it is obviously to abstain from it entirely-on this plain principle, that the evil he incurs by abstaining, however keenly felt, is as nothing to the evil to which the intemperate use of wine subjects him, even everlasting punishment in hell: and to make this abstinence his duty, it is not necessary that he should know that he will fall before his temptation: it is enough that he knows that, as he has repeatedly fallen before it, he may fall before it again” (John Brown).

Chapter 13

Most writers regard Matthew 5:32-33, as forming a separate subdivision of our Lord’s sermon, but really it belongs to the same section as Matthew 5:27-31, treating of the same subject and reprehending the same sin, though a different aspect thereof. Under the general head of adultery occurred another evil, namely the use and misuse of divorce, concerning which the Law of Moses had been grossly corrupted. Having shown the strictness and spirituality of the seventh commandment, Christ here took occasion to condemn the lax views and practices which then obtained in connection with the annulment of marriages. The Jews had fearfully perverted one of the political statutes of the Law, so that divorces were granted on the most frivolous pretences, and it was this our Lord here condemned. Thus, in reality, He was continuing to restore the seventh commandment to its proper place and perfections.

In the passage which is to be before us, we are supplied with a further illustration of the vast superiority of the righteousness of Christ’s kingdom over the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. There is an invariable outworking of the principle that where spirituality wanes morality also deteriorates. All history bears witness to the fact that when vital godliness is at a low ebb, the sacred institution of marriage is held in light esteem. It is both solemn and sad to behold an exemplification of the same in our own times; as the claims of God are less and less regarded by those of high and low estate alike, the holy obligations of wedlock are gradually whittled down and then increasingly disregarded. When a country, avowedly Christian, begins to tamper with the institution of marriage and make more elastic its divorce laws, it is a certain proof of its ethical decadence.

Even those with only a smattering of ancient history are aware of the fact that in the last few decades before the fall of both the Grecian and Roman empires, marriage was held in such low esteem that it was a common thing for the women to keep tab on their divorces by the number of rings worn on their fingers. It may be replied, They were heathen peoples. True, but what our moderns would term “highly civilized.” Moreover, human nature is the same the world over, and when the fear of God is lost moral corruptions quickly abound. It was not otherwise with the favored nation of Israel, as a glance at the prophets will show. The case of the woman in John 4, to whom our Lord said, “Thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:18), is not to be regarded as an exception. but rather as symptomatic of a disease which had spread widely through the nation.

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement” (Matthew 5:31). The original statute on this matter is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. But so perversely had that injunction been interpreted, that one of the leading schools of theology (that of Hillel) taught that a man might put away his wife for any cause. In the Apocryphal writings we read: “The son of Sirach saith, If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, give her a bill of divorce, and let her go” (Sir 25:26), which is one of many definite indications that the Apocrypha was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Josephus also wrote: “The law runs thus: He that would be divorced from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there are, let him give her a bill of divorce.” He also confessed that he himself put away his wife after she had borne him three children, because he was not pleased with her behavior.

Moses had indeed been Divinely directed to allow divorce in case of uncleanness, for the prevention of yet worse crimes. But that which had been no more than a temporary concession was changed by the Pharisees into precept, and a so interpreted as to give license to the indulging of their evil and selfish desires. And yet, hypocrites as they were, they made a great parade of obeying Moses with regard to the “bill of divorcement.” The Talmudical writings, though they took little trouble to describe the justice of divorce, were rigidly definite with regard to the form of the bill, insisting that it must be written in twelve lines, neither more nor less. Such is ever the folly of those who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Let us now consider a few details in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The first thing we notice is the kind of statute there given. It was not a moral but a political or civil one, for the good ordering of the state. Among such laws were those of tolerance or permission, which did not approve of the evil things concerned, but only suffered them for the prevention of greater evil-as when the sea makes a breach into the land, if it cannot possibly be stopped, the best course is to make it as narrow as possible. Such was the law concerning usury (Deuteronomy 23:20), permitting the Jews to exact it of a stranger, but not to exercise it towards a brother; similar too was the law regulating polygamy (Deuteronomy 21:15). These laws tolerated what God condemned, and that for the purpose of preventing greater evils.

Such was the Mosaic law for divorce: not approving of the giving of a bill of divorce for every trifling cause, but permitting it for the sake of preventing greater misery and crime. For instance, if a man took a strong and rooted dislike to his wife and wished to be rid of her, he would be likely to ill-treat her, until she was in danger of her very life. This law of divorce, then, was granted so as to remove the temptation for a hard-hearted husband to commit murder Divorce is always a deviation from the original marriage institution, consequent upon human depravity. In this instance if a man found that in his wife-something short of adultery, for that was to be punished by death-which made her repulsive to him, he was permitted to divorce her. But this was not to be done verbally and hurriedly, in a fit of temper, but after due deliberation. A “bill of divorcement” had to be legally drawn up and witnessed, making the transaction a solemn and final one.

Second, we may note the strictness of this law. The man only was permitted to give this bill of divorcement; neither here nor anywhere else in the Old Testament was this liberty granted unto the wife. If this strikes us as being unjust or unduly severe, two things are to be taken into consideration. First, in the case of a husband being guilty of immorality, the wife could bring it to the notice of the magistrate, and relief was then afforded her by her guilty partner suffering the death penalty. Second, this statute was expressly designed for the prevention of violence and bloodshed, to protect the weaker vessel; it being taken for granted that the man could protect himself if his wife should attack him.

Third, a brief word now upon the force and effect of this law. It made the bill of divorcement, given for the stipulated cause, to be regular before men, and marriage thereafter lawful in human courts (Deuteronomy 24:4); and whichever guilty party under such a divorcement married again, committed adultery (Matthew 19:9). Now this law the Pharisees had grossly perverted. They taught that it was a “commandment” (Matthew 19:7), whereas Moses only gave a permission-as the language of Deu 24:1, plainly denotes. So too they taught that for any cause (Matthew 19:3) a man could divorce his wife and thereby be free from her before God, and therefore at liberty to marry another.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Here Christ refutes the corrupt interpretation of the scribes and Pharisees, and positively affirms that divorce is permissible only in the case of that sin which in God’s sight disannuls the marriage covenant, and even then it is only allowed, and not commanded. Many have understood (being misled by the meaning of the English word) the “saving for the cause of fornication” to refer to this sin being committed before marriage and concealed by her till afterwards, arguing that only a married person can be guilty of “adultery.” This leads us to raise the point, Do the Scriptures make any real and definite distinction between fornication and adultery? And we answer, No. True, in Matthew 15:19, and Galatians 5:19, they are mentioned separately, yet in Revelation 2:20-22, they are clearly used interchangeably, while in Ezekiel 16:25-28, the wife of Jehovah is said to commit both sins.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Something higher than the laws of man must govern and regulate those who fear God. The laws of all “civilized” countries sanction the practice of usury, but the Word of God condemns the same. The laws of our land are open for men to go to court at the first, upon every light occasion, without seeking for some means of agreement. But those who do so are guilty before God, notwithstanding the liberty given them by our political statutes. In like manner, human laws permit divorce for “incompatibility” of disposition, “mental cruelty” and various other things; but the Law of God condemns such licentiousness. Papists allow divorce for religious reasons, appealing to “every one that hath forsaken . . .father or mother, or wife. . . for My name’s sake” (Matthew 19:29), but in that place Christ refers not to divorce at all, but to a separation caused by imprisonment, banishment, or death.

Marriage is not a mere civil thing, but is partly spiritual and Divine, and therefore God alone has the power to appoint the beginning, the continuance, and the end thereof. Here the question is likely to be asked, What of the innocent party where a divorce has taken place: may such a one marry again with Divine sanction? To the writer it seems strange that, though there is a decided consensus of agreement, yet all Christians are not one on this matter. In seeking the scriptural answer to the question, let it first be borne in mind that infidelity on the part of either husband or wife annuls the marriage covenant, the man and woman being no longer “one flesh,” one of them having been adulterously united to some other. Divorce goes yet farther, for it legally dissolves and removes the marriage relation. We are therefore in hearty accord with the Westminster Catechism of Faith which declares: “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead” (Chapter 24, section 5).

In his excellent piece, “Of Marriage after Divorce in Case of Adultery,” John Owen pointed Out that to insist that divorce simply secures a legal separation but does not dissolve the marriage relation would bring in a state harmful to men. God has appointed marriage to he a remedy against incontinence (1 Corinthians 7:2), but if innocent parties lawfully divorced may not marry again, then they are deprived of this remedy and debarred from this benefit. If the divorced person has not the gift of continency, it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief; yet on the supposition of the objector he sins if he marries again, yea is guilty of the horrible crime of adultery. Is not this quite sufficient to expose the untenability of such an anomaly?

Again, can we suppose for a moment that it is the will of a righteous God for an innocent person to be penalized the remainder of his or her earthly life because of the infidelity of another? Surely the very idea is repugnant to all who are really acquainted with the Divine goodness and mercy. Why, if an innocent man upon a divorce is not then at liberty to marry again, he is deprived of his right by the sin of another, which is against the very law of nature; and on such a supposition it lies within the power of every wicked woman to deprive her husband of his natural right. The right of divorce in case of adultery, specified by Christ, for the innocent party to make use of, is evidently designed for his liberty and relief; but on the supposition that he may not again marry, it would provoke a snare and a yoke to him, for if thereon he has not the gift of continence, he is exposed to sin and judgment.

But apart from these convincing considerations, the Word of God is plain and decisive upon the matter. In Matthew 5:32, Christ lays down a general rule, and then puts in an exception thereto, the nature of which exception necessarily implies and affirms the contrary to the general rule. The general rule is: Whosoever putteth away his wife causeth her to commit adultery, and he who marrieth her becometh guilty of the same crime. The “exception” there must be a contrary, namely that the innocent party in the divorce may lawfully marry again, and the one marrying him or her is not guilty of adultery. But that is the only exception. 1 Corinthians 7:15, has been appealed to by some as warranting re-marriage in the case of total desertion: but that passage is quite irrelevant, teaching no such thing. The verse refers to an unbelieving husband deserting a believing wife: in such case (says the apostle) she is not “bound” to pursue her husband and demand support, nor to go to law on the matter; rather is she to follow a course of “peace.” The verse says nothing whatever about her being free to marry again; nay, 1 Corinthians 7:39 of the same chapter says “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.”

In Matthew 19:9, Christ declared, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Here again it is evident that the plain sense of these words is: He who putteth away his wife for fornication and then marrieth another is not guilty of adultery. In such a case the bond of marriage has already been broken, and the one so putting away his guilty wife is free to marry again. When our Lord condemned the putting away and marrying again for every cause, the exception He made of “fornication” clearly allows both divorce and re-marriage, for an exception always affirms the contrary unto what is denied in the rule, or denies what is affirmed in it. (Condensed from Owen, who closes his piece by saying, “This is the constant practice of all Protestant churches in the world.”)

Prevention is better than cure. Even a temporary separation should be the last resource, and every possible effort made to avoid such a tragedy. Marriage itself is not to be entered into lightly and hurriedly, but once the knot is tied, each party should most earnestly consider the relationship which has been entered into and the serious importance of its duties. If love rules, all will be well: unselfishness and forbearance are to be mutually exercised. If the husband gives honour to his partner as unto “the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), and the wife see to it that she render unto her husband “due benevolence” (1 Corinthians 7:3), much needless friction will be avoided. Let them bear with each other’s infirmities, study each other’s dispositions, and seek to correct each other’s faults.

Above all, let them often together draw near unto the Throne of Grace and seek God’s blessing on their married life. The holier their lives, the happier they will be. Nothing is more honoring to God than a home which bears witness to the sufficiency of His grace and shadows forth the union which exists between Christ and His Church.

N.B. Our purpose in adverting (above) to the writings of John Owen was not because we felt our case needed the support of any human authority, hut in order that our readers might know what was taught and practiced by the godly Puritans.

Matthew 5:28

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 5:29

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 5:30

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 5:31

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 5:32

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 11

THE LAW AND

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” These words of our Lord are too plain to he misunderstood. “According to this law, adultery is the only sufficient reason of divorce. He who for any other cause puts away his wife, is to be held an adulterer if he marry another woman; and she, by marrying him, commits adultery; while, at the same time, he becomes the guilty occasion of adultery, if the woman, who is still his wife, marry another man; for in this case she commits adultery as he also who marries her” (J. Brown). No matter how unscriptural be the laws of the land in which we live, or lax the sentiments and practices of the public today, nothing can possibly excuse anyone flying in the face of this express declaration of the Son of God-repeated by Him in Matthew 19:9.

Matthew 5:33

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 14

THE LAW AND OATHS

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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 Nor by the earth; for it is His footstool neither by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

The subject which is now to engage our attention is hardly one that is likely to appeal very strongly to the average reader, probably because it treats of matters which rarely engage his mind. Yet the very fact that the Lord Jesus gave the same something more than a passing notice in His first formal Sermon should indicate to us that it is one which we cannot afford to ignore. The Son of God did not waste time on trivialities nor make public deliverances on technicalities devoid of practical value. No, rather did He concern Himself with vital matters that directly affected the glory of God and concerned the eternal welfare of immortal souls. It is therefore a slighting of His honour and impugning of His wisdom if we refuse to attentively weigh and prayerfully consider His teaching on the subject of oaths. Nor is this the only occasion on which He brought it to the notice of His congregations; as we shall see, in Matthew 23, He returned to the theme and spoke at great length thereon.

Someone has said, “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise,” but such a silly statement savors more of insanity than perspicuity and prudence. Blissful ignorance is often highly dangerous, and in connection with the things of God, fatal. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6) said the Lord of old. True, knowledge itself will not always deter from sin, but often it serves as a salutary restraint. It is much to be feared that millions of the present generation, who are guilty of the crimes which Christ here condemned, are totally ignorant of their wickedness in this matter. Nothing is more prevalent today, among all classes, than cursing and swearing, and it is high time that both the pulpit and the press sounded a loud and solemn warning thereon.

The deep importance of our subject may further be intimated by pointing out that it is essentially bound up with a right understanding and observance of the third of the ten commandments. It is therefore basic and vital, for the curse of God rests upon all transgressors of His Law. If the reader will take the trouble to examine a good concordance on the words “oaths,” “swear” and “vow,” he may be surprised to find how many scores of passages there are speaking thereof. Finally, when it is seen that the rightful taking of an oath is an act of worship, we may then more clearly perceive the momentousness and value of our present inquiry, for it deeply concerns us all to be scripturally regulated on anything which has to do with the worship of God, and it behooves us to spare no effort in seeing to it that our worship be performed in a manner which will meet with Divine approval and acceptance.

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth; for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). This time we propose to make only a few expository and explanatory remarks on our passage, and then devote the remainder of our space unto a topical treatment of the whole subject.

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.” It is almost ludicrous to see what shifts many of the commentators have put themselves to in their efforts to identify this statement of Christ’s with one or more of the Mosaic statutes, ending with the confession that His actual words cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament, and supposing that He here epitomized the teaching of the Law thereon. Such confusion is inexcusable, and such an explanation most unwarrantable. The fact is that our Lord does not here refer to the Divine precepts at all, but instead to the Jews’ perversion of them. He pursues identically the same order in these verses as He had followed in the preceding sections. First, He mentions the pharisaic corruption of the Divine Law, and then sets forth the character of that righteousness which He requires from the citizens of His kingdom on the matter under discussion.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). Here is the original and fundamental law concerning oaths, with which we may also link “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His name” (Deuteronomy 6:13). Thus an oath was a solemn appeal to the dread name of Jehovah, which, by awaking the spirit of the swearer to a consciousness of the awe-inspiring presence and cognizance of the Most High, gave all its sanctity and power to it. And then, when anyone had so sworn, there was the solemn warning that the Lord would not hold him guiltless that took His name in vain. Thus it is quite clear that Israelites were permitted to swear by the name of the Lord, but having once done so they must not change their minds nor in any way fail to keep their promises.

It is striking to note that when the Psalmist delineated the character of him who was fitted to “abide in the Lord’s tabernacle” and “dwell in His holy hill” (i.e. commune with God and enjoy His presence for ever), one of the marks specified was “He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not” (Psalms 15:1-4): that is, who at no cost will go back upon his sworn word. It is therefore obvious from these passages that the Mosaic law had a strong tendency to check the practice of oath-taking and to restrict the same unto solemn occasions. The interested reader may also consult such passages as Exodus 22:11-12; Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 5:19-21.

But the Jewish doctors had found ways of perverting the Divine statutes, and the Pharisees had perpetuated and added to their corruptions. From the language used by Christ on this occasion we have no difficulty in ascertaining the nature of their errors and evil practices. First, it is clear from Matthew 5:33 that they had unwarrantably restricted the Mosaic precepts upon oaths to the single prohibition against perjury. They drew the wicked inference that there was no evil in any oath, at any time, provided a man did not forswear himself. Thus they opened wide the door for men to multiply oaths on any matter and every trivial occasion.

Not only was perjury severely condemned by the Mosaic law, but any vain and needless use of the name of God in our ordinary communications was strictly prohibited. No man ought voluntarily to take an oath unless it be a matter of controversy and the contention cannot he settled without it: “For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife” (Hebrews 6:16). But the Pharisees had so wrested the law they taught that so long as men swore truthfully as to matters of fact, and performed their vows in case of promise, all was well. They seem to have had no conscience of swearing lightly. In order for an oath to be lawful, it requires not only that the affirmation be true and the vows performed, but that such a mode of affirmation or vowing be necessary.

Second, it is equally plain from Christ’s words in Matthew 5:34-36 that the Jews had wrested the third commandment by inventing the idea of swearing by the creature. Aiming to ingratiate themselves with men by pandering to their corruptions-for it is ever the way of all false teachers to accommodate the Truth to the blindness and lusts of their dupes-the scribes devised a means whereby men might swear without the guilt of perjury although they swore never so falsely; and this was to swear not by the name of God, hut by the heavens or the earth, by Jerusalem or the temple. They made a distinction between oaths: according to them, some were binding, others were not-the obligation of an oath depending upon the nature of the object by which the person swore (Matthew 23:16).

It is not difficult to see why such a device was resorted to by the leaders, or why it should be so popular with their followers. The Law was very definite, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His name” (Deuteronomy 6:13). To swear in the name of the Lord was ordained not only for the placing of a solemn bridle upon fallen man’s proneness to lying, but also to restrain the act itself unto serious matters and important occasions. Hence, this invitation of swearing by some inanimate object removed the very awe with which an oath should be invested and surrounded. Yet one can readily perceive how easily those hypocrites could cloak their wickedness-pretending such veneration for God that His name must not be used by the people. Philo taught, “It is a sin and a vanity presently to run to God or the Maker of all things, and to swear by Him: it is lawful to swear by our parents, by heaven, and the stars.

Third, it is equally obvious from our Lord’s words in Matthew 5:37 that the Jews had been encouraged and permitted to make use of oaths lightly and commonly in their ordinary conversation. This would logically and inevitably follow upon the second evil to which we have just referred, for such a device was not only dishonest and demoralizing in itself, but it was sure to bring about an utter disregard of the third commandment, for since such oaths (where the name of God was omitted) would be lightly esteemed, men would be inclined to resort unto oaths upon any matter or occasion. “With the exception of oaths by the gold of the temple and by the sacrifices of the altar-which, for some selfish or superstitious reason, they held to be binding-they appear to have thought that to swear by any created thing was of very little consequence, involved no obligation, and might be done in common conversation without sin” (J. Brown).

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King” (Matthew 5:34-35). In these verses and in the two which immediately follow our Lord inveighs against the erroneous teachings and corrupt practices of the scribes and Pharisees. Let it be clearly understood that all of the things prohibited by our Saviour in this Sermon were in themselves and also by virtue of the Law of God antecedently evil and unlawful. Most certainly He is not here pitting Himself against any of the Mosaic precepts; rather was He restoring them to their original place, purity and power. It was the pharisaic veil of religious hypocrisy which Christ rent asunder, exposing the corruptness of their traditions and denouncing the soul-ruining sins into which the great body of people had been drawn.

Let any of the immediately preceding sections of this Sermon be considered, and it will at once be found that the particulars there mentioned by Christ were things which were wrong in themselves, and declared so in the positive Law of God. Was it not gross wickedness to be angry with a brother without cause, and to call him “raca and fool”? Was it not exceedingly sinful to look upon a woman so as to lust after her? In like manner, what is here prohibited by Christ in His “Swear not at all” is not the legitimate taking of an oath in law courts, nor even between man and man so as to end a controversy; but rather that which was directly opposed to the Mosaic statutes, yet practiced and supported by the false interpretations of the Law by the Pharisees.

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” This injunction of Christ’s supplies another example of the need for careful interpretation of the language of Scripture. Not a few good men have been misled here by the mere sound of words, failing to ascertain their real sense. By taking the prohibition absolutely, instead of relatively, they have certainly erred. This verse also shows us the importance of comparing scripture with scripture, for it is quite clear, not only from the Old Testament but from many passages in the New, that in certain circumstances, and when they are ordered by the rules of God’s Word, oaths are lawful, yea, necessary-we shall discuss this at more length in our next (D.V.). But we do not have to go outside the bounds of our present passage to find that Christ did not intend His prohibition to be taken without any limitations. He Himself qualified it, first, by forbidding us to swear by any creature; and second, by reprehending all oaths in our ordinary conversation.

Had H is “Swear not at all” meant that He here forbade all oaths, in any form and under every circumstance, it was needless to add anything more, and in such a case what is found in the next two verses would simply be a multiplying of words to no purpose. Instead, Christ proceeded to amplify and explain His prohibition, and at the same time expose the sophistry of the Pharisees’ devices and show wherein lay the sinfulness of the same. They had invented a method which they supposed would clear the oath-taker from incurring the guilt of breaking the third commandment, and that was to swear by some creature, instead of doing so in the sacred name of the Lord God. This it was which Christ was here reproving, and in so doing He once more discovered to us the exceeding “breadth” of the Divine commandments (Psalms 119:96).

“Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.” Here Christ made it plain that by no subtle subterfuge can men escape the solemn responsibility of an oath. Though they may omit mentioning the fearful name of God, yet let them know that His is the name of Creator and Owner of all things, and therefore it is invoked in all the works of His hands. If men swear by “heaven,” as the Pharisees recommended, let them duly bear in mind that that is God’s “throne,” and so it is really Himself that they summon as a witness to their integrity. If men swear by “the earth,” that is God’s “footstool,” and he who swears by it swears by the God whose footstool it is; if by “Jerusalem,” that was the capital, the seat of His worship.

“Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black” (Matthew 5:36). A swearing by any creature necessarily implies an appeal unto God Himself, because of its relation to Him. The whole universe is the Lord’s and therefore to swear by any part of it is a reference to its august Maker and Ruler. If we swear by our “head” that too has been given us by God, and is His far more than it is ours. God has made it and has the sole disposing of it-a statement easy of proof, for you are incapable of changing the color of a single hair on it! An oath by your head, if it have any meaning at all, is an oath by the universal Proprietor.

Every oath, because it is an oath, is an ultimate reference to Deity. Man’s inability really to change the color of his hair is here brought in by Christ to demonstrate that he has no power over his head. If man has no power over the least creature (a hair!), then how unlawful and ridiculous it is for him to swear by any creature!

“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:37). In these words Christ makes further amplification of His “Swear not at all,” and lays down an important rule which is binding upon all. “Your communication” means your everyday dealings with your fellows, particularly your own common speech or conversation. Thousands of things are true, which yet it would be profaning the name of God to swear to. Christ was not here referring to judicial transactions at all, but to the ordinary intercourse of men with each other. “He did not censure His followers for what was said before a magistrate, but for what passed in their ordinary communications: that is, light and unnecessary oaths. This was a sin so prevalent among the Jews that even Christians who were called from among them stood in need of being warned against it (James 5:12) (Andrew Fuller).

“Swear not at all . . . but let your communications be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” In its particular application to His own people, Christ here struck at the root of the special evils He was now condemning, by demanding from His followers veracity in every word. It was as though He said, I not only forbid you to swear falsely, but to swear at all-in your common speech. What need should there be for you to swear?-you who are disciples of Him who is “the Truth”! As the followers of the Holy One, you must speak the truth in every utterance of your lips. Your character and conduct are to be such that all acquainted with you have the assurance that your word is your bond. If your communications are “yea” in the promise and “yea” in the performance, then there will be no need for you to appeal to God in witness of your veracity. Alas that the standard now set by the vast majority of professing Christians is so very far beneath this, and that the word of many of them is often worth less than that of those who make no profession at all. “Whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil”: that is, savoring of an oath; or even extravagant avowals in our ordinary conversations are sinful in the sight of God.

Chapter 15

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). In the preceding article we gave an exposition of these verses, in which we showed how our Lord here condemned the wicked devices of the scribes and the evil practices of the Pharisees and their followers. Now we propose to treat the subject topically, for there is real need today for a scriptural enforcement of the whole subject.

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). This is the fundamental precept of God upon the matter of oaths, and the scope of its prohibition and the range of its meaning are far more extensive than is now commonly supposed. “Thy commandment is exceeding broad” (Psalms 119:96), declared David of old, and clearly was it made manifest in Christ’s teaching. Those who have followed us closely in the previous chapter will remember that in this Sermon the Saviour has furnished us with some most important and invaluable rules for interpreting the ten commandments. First, that when God forbids one sin He at the same time prohibits all sins of the same kind, with all the causes and occasions thereof. Second, that to the breach of any commandment there is annexed a curse, whether it be expressed specifically or not. Third, that where any vice is condemned the opposite virtue is enjoined.

When God said, “Thou shalt not kill,” He not only prohibited the overt deed of murder, but also condemned every evil working of heart and mind which had a tendency to lead up to it: all hatred, anger, provoking language or gestures. When He said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” He not only forbade the actual act of immorality, but also all unlawful lustings and desires, all impure thoughts and imaginations. In like manner, when He said, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” He not only reprehended the vile sin of using any of His sacred titles in cursing, He not only prohibited the crime of perjury, but He also forbade us both to swear by any of His creatures or take any unnecessary oaths, as well as condemned all extravagant expletives.

Scholars tell us that an oath in the Hebrew is called shebuah, and that there are two things observable about it. First, that the verb “to swear” is used only in the niphal-a passive conjugation-which implies that we should be passive in swearing; that is, we should not take an oath unless called upon to do so, or at least unless circumstances morally oblige us thereunto. Most significantly the Hebrew word is taken from a root that signifies “seven,” which perhaps implies that it should be taken before many witnesses, and seven being the sacred and complete number, the name of an oath may be derived from it because it is appointed to put a complete end to differences. The Greeks called it horkos, most probably from a root signifying “to bind or strengthen,” for by an oath a man takes a bond on his soul which cannot be loosed ordinarily. The Latin juro and jus jurandum are plainly derived from “jus,” that is “right and law.”

Let us now consider, first, the nature of an oath. An oath is a religious and necessary confirmation of things doubtful by calling God to be a Witness of truth and a Revenger of falsehood. That it is confirmation is clear from Hebrews 6:16, where the Holy Spirit expressly affirms the same. That it is a religious confirmation appears from the fact that it is a part of Divine worship, God Himself being invoked therein: in Isaiah 19:18, “swear to the Lord of hosts” is used for the whole of His worship. It must be a necessary confirmation, because any oath is unlawful which concerns only trifling matters or things which need no solemn settlement. That God is called in both as Witness and Revenger is self-evident, because therein consists the form and all the force of an oath. The one who thus swears acknowledges the Divine perfections, appealing to Him as the God of truth and the hater of lies.

Properly speaking, then, in an oath there are four things. First, a formal asseveration of the truth, which should always be spoken even when no oath be taken. Second, a confession of the omnipotent presence of the thrice holy Lord God, whereby we do most solemnly acknowledge Him as Witness, Judge, and Revenger of falsehood. Third, an invocation whereby God is called upon to bear witness to our conscience that what we swear to is nothing but the truth. Fourth, an imprecation, in which the swearer asks God to be the Revenger of all lies, binding himself to Divine punishment if he swear falsely. Therefore it clearly follows that an oath is not to be lightly entered into, that one is not to be taken at all except in matters of real importance, and that it must be taken in the most solemn manner, otherwise we violate the third commandment and are guilty of the awful sin of taking the holy name of the Lord God in vain.

Second, the design of an oath consists in a solemn confirmation of what we affirm or deny by a religious invocation of the name of God, as One that knoweth and owneth the truth. So far as God is thus invoked in an oath, it is part of His worship, both as required by Him and as ascribing glory to Him. When a man is admitted under oath he is, as it were, discharged from an earthly tribunal, having betaken himself to the Lord as the only Judge in the case. By what particular expression this appeal unto God and invocation of Him is made is not absolutely necessary unto the nature of an oath to determine. It is sufficient that such expressions be used as are approved and received signs of such an invocation and appeal among those that are concerned therein. The placing of one hand upon a copy of God’s holy Word while we are being sworn in appears to us eminently desirable, while the other hand might well be raised toward heaven; but the kissing of the Book afterwards strikes us as both needless and unsuitable.

Third, a word now upon the qualifications or characteristics of lawful oaths. These are clearly expressed by the prophet, so that nothing needs to be added to them, and nothing must be taken from them. “Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness” (Jeremiah 4:2). “Truth” is required in it, in opposition unto guile and falsehood; for where this obtains not, God is called to be Witness unto a lie, which is to deny His very being. It must be “in judgment” we swear: not lightly, not rashly, not without a just and sufficient cause. There must be discernment and careful discretion in exercise, both in connection with the thing in question which is to be confirmed, and also of the solemn nature of an oath and of the issue of the same. “In righteousness” we must swear, namely that it be equity which we wish to confirm, tending to the glory of God and the good of our fellows.

When the above qualifications are complied with and where matters are in controversy among men and the peace of human society in general or particular depends upon the rightful determination of them, it is meet and p roper for a believer, being lawfully called, to confirm the truth which he knows by the invocation of God, with the design of putting an end to strife. Oath-taking is a part of the natural worship of God, which the light of nature leads unto. This is evident from the example of the Lord Himself, who at sundry times took an oath both before the Mosaic law (Genesis 22:16) and afterwards. Now it is obvious that if men had not had from the light of nature an understanding of the legitimacy and obligation of an oath, this would have had no significance for them and would have been of no use to them.

In earliest times God often enlightened and more fully instructed men by His own example. In compliance therewith we find that those who walked the closest with Him, centuries before the giving of the Law at Sinai, did solemnly swear one to another when occasion did require it, and when they were legitimately warranted in so doing. Thus Abraham swore to Abimelech (Genesis 21:23-24), and required an oath to be taken by his servant (Genesis 24:8-9). In like manner Jacob swore with Laban (Genesis 31:53). And so too Joseph swore to his father (Genesis 47:31). Let it be duly noted that these instances had no respect unto the legal institutions of Moses, and therefore there is no reason to think there would be anything in the Gospel which condemned such a practice today.

One would think the above was quite simple and clear, but alas, such is man that he will discover difficulties where none exist and twist and wrest the plainest statement. Though the great majority of professing Christians have rightly understood and acted upon the teaching of Scripture on this subject, there have been a number that err therein. The Society of Friends and a few others consider that the New Testament expressly forbids the use of any oaths. They appeal to Christ’s saying, “Swear not at all” and to “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your Yea be yea; and your Nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (James 5:12), supposing these passages prohibit us swearing under any circumstances whatever; and therefore they refuse to bear witness upon oath even when called upon to do so by the rulers of the land.

It is evident that the verse quoted from James is derived from and has respect to the words of our Saviour in Matthew 5:33-37, it being an exhortation inculcating His precept and directions on the same matter. The same answer will therefore serve both places, nor will it be at all difficult to expose and refute the errors based thereon. First of all, it must be pointed out that there is nothing in the essential nature of an oath which can make it criminal, or it would never have been enjoined by Divine authority (Deuteronomy 6:13). An oath is simply an appeal to the Omniscient One (who searches the heart and is the great Governor of the world, punishing fraud and falsehood) as to the truthfulness of our testimony and the sincerity of our promises. As this is a dictate of the light of nature no mere change of dispensation could make right to be wrong.

Second, the prophecy of Isa 45:23, belongs and is expressly applied to believers in the New Testament. “I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear”-see Romans 14:11. This had respect to what God had of old prescribed (Deuteronomy 6:13). This now, says the prophet, shall in the days of the Gospel be observed throughout the world, which certainly could not be the case if it were unlawful to swear under any circumstances by that holy Name. In like manner Jeremiah predicted concerning the calling and conversion of the Gentiles under the new covenant, “It shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of My people, to swear by My name, The Lord liveth . . . then shall they be built in the midst of My people” (Jeremiah 12:16). But that could he no direction or encouragement to converts of the Gentiles if it be unlawful for them to swear and if it be not their duty when duly called upon.

Third, as we have fully shown in our exposition of Mat 5:33-37 (in the previous chapter), Christ was there condemning only those oaths which were contrary to the Law, prohibiting things which were essentially evil in themselves. It was the errors of the Jews He was exposing, the wicked perversions of the Pharisees He was refuting. That this must be the right way of understanding our Lord’s teaching in this passage appears plain from the principles which He had laid down so emphatically at the beginning of this section of His Sermon: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). If oaths pertain to “the law” or “the prophets” (and they did?, then it most certainly was not Christ’s purpose to annul them. The Giver and Fulfiller of the Law is not also its Destroyer.

Fourth, in the matter of judicial oaths Christ Himself has left us an example (which we should follow- 1 Peter 2:21), for when He stood before the Sanhedrin, though He had previously refused to answer either His accusers or the high priest, He immediately responded to Caiaphas when he said, “I adjure Thee by the living God” (Matthew 26:63-64). Fifth, Paul, the greatest of the apostles, confirmed his testimony again and again by calling God for a Witness (2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Phi 1:8; etc.). In such passages he most solemnly swears to the truth of his own affirmations concerning himself and his sincerity therein (cf. Romans 9:1). It was not respecting any doctrine he taught that he did swear to, for it needed no confirmation of an oath, deriving as it did all its authority and assurance from Divine revelation. But it was concerning his own heart and purpose, whereof there might be some doubt, and. when it was of great concern to the Church to have the Truth emphatically stated.

Sixth, Hebrews 6:16, tells us, “For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.” In this verse Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, addressing the holy brethren who are “partakers of the heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1), not only urges the common usage of mankind, but lays down a certain maxim and principle of the law of nature,, whose exercise was to be approved among all. And if the practice thereof had not been lawful unto those to whom he wrote, namely Christians, those who obeyed the Gospel, then he had exceedingly weakened the whole design of his discourse there concerning the oath of God, by shutting it up with this instance, which could be of no force to them if it were unlawful for them to practice the same or have an experience of its efficacy. Finally, if oaths had become unlawful under the New Testament, then God would not have continued their use in any kind, lest His people be encouraged to act contrary to His command. But He did so, commissioning an angel to “swear by Him that liveth for ever and ever” (Revelation 10:4-6).

From what has been before us in Matthew v, we may perceive the importance and need of heeding two particular rules when interpreting Scripture. First, that universal affirmations and negations are not always to be universally understood, but are to be limited by their occasions, circumstances, and the subject-matter treated of. Things expressed in universal language must be regarded according to the thing in hand. Thus, when the apostle declared, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by a I means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22), if his language were taken without limitation it would signify that he became a blasphemer to blasphemers, etc., whereas his statement must be restricted to things indifferent and innocent, in which he yielded to the weakness of others. In like manner, when Christ said, “Swear not at all,” His obvious meaning (according to what follows) is swear not blasphemously, needlessly or by any mere creature.

Second, it is a rule of real use in the interpreting of Holy Writ that when anything is prohibited in one passage, but allowed in another, not the thing absolutely considered is spoken unto in either case, but rather some particular mode, cause, end, or reason is intended. So here, in Matthew 5:34, swearing is forbidden, whereas in other passages we find it is allowed and that examples thereof are proposed unto us. Wherefore it cannot be swearing absolutely that is intended; but evil and needless swearing is condemned by the one, and swearing in right causes or for just ends is approved in the other.

Nor is the taking of an oath to be restricted to law courts only (Exodus 22:11), and the instances of Paul and his epistles prove otherwise. In certain cases private oaths, between man and man, are perfectly legitimate. “Boaz was a private person, who confirmed by an oath his promise of marriage to Ruth (Rth 3:13). Obadiah was a private person, a righteous man, and one that feared the Lord, who declared with an oath the fact of which he wished to convince Elijah (1 Kings 18:10). I can find, therefore, no better rule than that we regulate our oaths in such a manner that they be not rash or inconsiderate, wanton or frivolous, but used in cases of real necessity” (John Calvin). The awful solemnity of an oath appears from 1 Kings 8:31-32. So too we should duly lay to heart the fearful judgments of God which came upon Israel of old when they were guilty of breaking the third commandment (Jeremiah 5:7-9; Zechariah 5:4).

Matthew 5:34

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 14

THE LAW AND OATHS

Chapter 15

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). In the preceding article we gave an exposition of these verses, in which we showed how our Lord here condemned the wicked devices of the scribes and the evil practices of the Pharisees and their followers. Now we propose to treat the subject topically, for there is real need today for a scriptural enforcement of the whole subject.

Matthew 5:35

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 14

THE LAW AND OATHS

Chapter 15

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). In the preceding article we gave an exposition of these verses, in which we showed how our Lord here condemned the wicked devices of the scribes and the evil practices of the Pharisees and their followers. Now we propose to treat the subject topically, for there is real need today for a scriptural enforcement of the whole subject.

Matthew 5:36

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 14

THE LAW AND OATHS

Chapter 15

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). In the preceding article we gave an exposition of these verses, in which we showed how our Lord here condemned the wicked devices of the scribes and the evil practices of the Pharisees and their followers. Now we propose to treat the subject topically, for there is real need today for a scriptural enforcement of the whole subject.

Matthew 5:37

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 14

THE LAW AND OATHS

Chapter 15

“Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, 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: Nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37). In the preceding article we gave an exposition of these verses, in which we showed how our Lord here condemned the wicked devices of the scribes and the evil practices of the Pharisees and their followers. Now we propose to treat the subject topically, for there is real need today for a scriptural enforcement of the whole subject.

Matthew 5:38

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 16

THE LAW AND

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

In what is now to be before us we may perceive once more the deep importance of observing the scope of a speaker or writer, of ascertaining the meaning and relation of the context, before attempting to expound a passage. We will not enlarge any further here upon this, having already done so in the introductory paragraphs of one or more of the preceding chapters. It is failure at this very point which has resulted in some commentators of renown quite missing the force of our present portion. They suppose that our Lord here announced a higher standard of spirituality than Moses did, that He introduced a more merciful code of conduct than that which was required during the Old Testament economy. Yet, incredible as it may sound, these same men insist that other verses in this very chapter do not belong to us at all, but pertain only to some “Jewish remnant” of the future.

It does seem strange that men who have no slight acquaintance with the letter of Scripture should err so flagrantly. Yet nothing is more blinding than prejudice, and when a pet theory is allowed to dominate the mind everything is twisted and forced to conform to it. Surely it is perfectly plain to every unbiased soul that, as the same God is the Author of old and new covenant alike, there can be no vital conflict between them, that the fundamental principles underlying the one and the other must be and are in full accord. If those who are so desirous of being looked up to as men who “rightly divide the word of truth” would cease their grotesque efforts to illustrate what they suppose are “dispensational distinctions,” and would rather seek to display the wondrous and blessed unity of the Old and New Testaments, they would be rendering a more profitable service and God would be far more honored.

A few of our own readers imagine that in our contending for the doctrinal and practical unity of the entire Scriptures we confound two of its principal objects and subjects, and deny that there is any radical difference between the Law and the Gospel. This is quite an unwarrantable conclusion. Yet do not such mistakes have their roots in the supposition that the Gospel is peculiar to the New Testament? But we ask, Does the Old Testament contain nothing more than typifications of the Gospel in the ceremonial law and predictions of it in the prophecies of Isaiah? Surely it does. Galatians 3:8, tells us expressly that the Gospel was preached unto Abraham, and Hebrews 4:2, insists that it was proclaimed unto Israel in the wilderness.

Does not the whole of Hebrews 11 make it very plain that the Old Testament saints were saved in precisely the same way and on exactly the same ground as we are? Assuredly it does.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:28-42). Christ is not here pitting Himself against the Mosaic law, nor is He inculcating a superior spirituality. Instead He continues the same course as He had followed in the context, namely to define that righteousness demanded of His followers, which was more excellent than the one taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees; and this He does by exposing their error and expounding the spirituality of the moral law.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Matthew 5:38). These words are found three times in the Pentateuch. They occur first in Exodus 21, a chapter which opens thus, “Now these are the judgments.” The word “judgments” signifies judicial laws. The statutes recorded therein were so many rules by which the magistrates were to proceed in the courts of Israel when trying a criminal. The execution of these statutes was not left to private individuals, so that each man was free to avenge his own wrongs, but they were placed in the hands of the public administrators of the law. This is further borne out by the third occurrence of our text in Deuteronomy 19, for there we read, “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition . . . and thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:18-21).

A century or so ago such verses as those last quoted were made the object of bitter attacks both by atheists and infidels, but today not a few who profess to be Christians denounce them as inhuman. In this flabby age, when sentiment overrides principle, the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth strikes many as being cruel and barbarous. We shall not waste time in replying to such rebels: in due course the Lord Himself will deal with them and vindicate His honour. Nor is there anything in His Holy Word which requires any apology from us: rather does it strengthen our faith when we find so many caviling at its contents. Nevertheless, there may be a few of the saints who are somewhat disturbed by the barking of these dogs, so for their sake we would call attention to one or two details.

First, this Divinely prescribed rule was a just one: “And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour: as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Leviticus 24:19-20). What is more equitable than an exact quid pro quo? Surely it is a most elementary and unchanging principle of sound jurisprudence that the punishment should be made to fit the crime-neither more nor less. So far were the ancients in advance of our moderns that we find a heathen owning the righteousness of such a law: “But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me” (Judges 1:6-7). If it be objected that in this Christian era justice is far more tempered with mercy than was the case in Old Testament times, then we would remind the objector that “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7) is found in the New Testament. “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matthew 7:2) are the words of Christ Himself.

Second, this Mosaic statute was a most merciful one. It is to be observed that in Exodus 21, both before and after the rule recorded in Exodus 21:23-25, legislation is given concerning the rights of “servants” or, as the word really means, “slaves.” If their masters, out of brutality or in a fit of rage, maimed them, then the magistrates were required to see to it that they in turn should be compelled to take a dose of their own medicine. Who can fail to see, then, that such a law placed a merciful restraint upon the passions of the owners and made for the safeguarding of the persons of their slaves. Moreover, this statute also curbed any judge who in righteous indignation at the cruel injury of a slave was inclined to punish his master too severely: he was not allowed to demand a life for an eye, or a limb for a tooth!

Third, such an arrangement was a beneficent one for society as a whole, for this law applied not only to masters and servants but to all Israelites in general. It was designed to protect the weak against the strong, the peaceful from lovers of violence. It was a wise and necessary means for preserving law and order in the community. This is clear from the closing verses of Deuteronomy 19: “Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you” (Deuteronomy 19:19-20). The fear of punishment-providing that punishment be severe and summary-would deter the passionate and vicious. Thus, so far from this law being a cruel and barbarous one, it was a most just, merciful and beneficent one, calculated to remove “evil” and produce that which is good.

Ere passing on let it be pointed out that this law of judicial retaliation ought to be upon our statute books today and impartially and firmly enforced by our magistrates. Nothing would so effectually check the rapidly rising tide of crimes of violence. But alas, so foolish and effeminate is the present generation that an increasing number are agitating for the abolition of capital punishment and the doing away with corporal punishment, and this in the face of the fact that in those countries where capital punishment is most loosely administered there is the highest percentage of murders, and that as corporal punishment is relaxed crimes of brutal violence are greatly increasing. Those who have no regard for the persons of others are very tender of their own skins, and therefore the best deterrent is to let them know that the law will exact from them an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

“No man needs to be more merciful than God. The benefit that will accrue to the public from this severity will abundantly recompense it. Such exemplary punishment will be warning to others not to attempt such mischiefs” (from Matthew Henry’s comments on Deuteronomy 19:19-21). Magistrates were never ordained of God for the purpose of reforming reprobates or pampering degenerates, but to be His instruments for preserving law and order, and that by being “a terror to the evil” (Romans 13:3). The magistrate is “the minister of God,” not to encourage wickedness, but to be an “avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4). Let it not be forgotten that Christ Himself affirmed of the judge who refused to “avenge” the poor widow of her adversary that he was one “who feared not God neither regarded man” (Luke 18:2).

Of course we do not expect to carry all our readers with us, and we shall be rather surprised if we receive no letters condemning us for such “harshness.” But let us point out what we are firmly convinced are the causes of the moral laxity and the immoral sentimentality which now so widely prevails. We unhesitatingly blame the pulpit for the present sad state of affairs. The unfaithfulness of preachers is very largely responsible for the lawlessness which is now so rife throughout the whole of Christendom. During the last two or three generations thousands of pulpits have jettisoned the Divine Law, stating that it has no place in this dispensation of grace. And thus the most powerful of all restraints has been removed and license given to the lusts of the flesh.

Not only has the Divine Law been repudiated, but the Divine character has been grossly misrepresented. The attributes of God have been perverted by a one-sided presentation thereof. The justice, the holiness, and the wrath of God have been pushed into the background, and a God that loves everybody thrust into the foreground. In consequence, the masses of church-goers no longer fear God. For the past fifty years the vast majority of pulpits have maintained a guilty silence on Eternal Punishment so that few now have any dread of the wrath to come. This logically follows from the former, for no one needs to stand in any terror of One who loves him.

The repercussions have been unmistakable, drastic, and tragic. Sickly sentimentality regulated the pulpit until it dominated the pew, and this evil leaven has so spread that it now permeates the whole nation.

Conscience has been comatose: the requirements of justice are stifled: maudlin concepts now prevail. As eternal punishment was repudiated-either tacitly or in many cases openly-ecclesiastical punishments were shelved. Churches refused to enforce sanctions, and winked at flagrant offences. The inevitable outcome has been the breakdown of discipline in the home and the creation of a “public opinion” which is mawkish and spineless. School-teachers are intimidated by foolish parents, so that the rising generation are more and more allowed to have their own way without fear of consequences. If some judge has the courage of his convictions and sentences a brute to the “cat” for maiming an old woman, there is an outcry raised against him.

But enough. Most of our readers are painfully aware of all this without our enlarging any further: but few of them realize the causes which have led up to it-an unfaithful pulpit, the denial of eternal punishment, the misrepresentation of God’s character, the rejection of His Law, the failure of the churches to enforce a scriptural discipline, the breakdown of parental authority.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” This Divine statute, like those which were before us in the previous sections, had been grossly perverted by the scribes and Pharisees. They had wrested its purport and design by giving it a false application. Instead of confining it to the magistrates in the law courts, they had made the statute a promiscuous one. The Jewish leaders had so expounded this precept as though God had given permission for each individual to take the law into his own hands and avenge his own wrongs. They intimated that it allowed each person to take private revenge upon his enemies: if thy neighbour smite thee and destroyeth one of thine eyes, then go thou and do likewise to him. Thus a spirit of resistance was cherished and the act of retaliation condoned.

Should it be asked, How came it that the scribes and Pharisees so glaringly wrested this law which was manifestly designed for the guidance of magistrates only? we would point out first that it is a natural opinion that a man may avenge himself in private when wrong has been done to him personally; second, answerable thereto there is a very strong desire for revenge in everyone’s heart by nature; and as the Jewish leaders sought to ingratiate themselves with the people rather than to please God, they pandered to this evil lust. In this we may see the workings of the Devil; for in all ages his policy has been directed to the overthrowing of the Divine order. The great enemy of God and man has ever sought to move corrupt leaders, both civil and religious, so to temper things to the depraved inclinations and popular opinions of the people that true piety may be overthrown.

Perceiving the earthly-mindedness and materialistic outlook of the Jews, the Devil moved their teachers to dream about a Messiah who should dispense mundane rather than spiritual blessings, so that when Christ came preaching salvation from sin and exhorting men to lay up treasure in heaven, they despised and rejected Him. The Italians had ever been greatly addicted to sorcery and idolatry, as ancient writers testify; and though God vouchsafed them the true Gospel at the beginning of the Christian era, yet the Devil, knowing their natural disposition to superstition, soon corrupted the Truth among them, so that in a short time their church abounded as much in idolatry as ever they did when they were heathen. The like malicious tactics has the Devil used among Protestants, for when he was unsuccessful in corrupting doctrine in the mouths of its leaders, he has greatly weakened it among the rank and file, by causing them to receive in their hearts only that which accords with their evil proclivities.

It is at this very point that the true ministers of God stand out in sharp contrast with the Devil’s hirelings. The latter are unregenerate men, with no fear of God in their hearts. “They are of the world, and the world heareth them” (1 John 4:5). They trim their sails to the winds of public opinion. They accommodate their preaching to the depraved taste of their hearers. Their utterances are regulated by a single motive: to please those who pay their salaries. But the servants of Christ shun not to declare all the counsel of God, no matter how distasteful and displeasing it may be to the natural man.

They dare not corrupt the Truth and refuse to withhold any part of their God-given message. To glorify their Master and be faithful to the trust He has committed to them is their only concern. Consequently, they share, in their measure, the treatment which was meted Out to Him.

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). In this verse and the three which follow Christ confutes the false application which the scribes had made of the Mosaic statute, and it is in this light that His exhortations here must be understood. To say He is exhorting His followers absolutely to a passive endurance of any and every injury they may receive at the hands of wicked and unreasonable men is to give a meaning to our Lord’s words which the context does not warrant, and which other passages and important considerations definitely forbid. That which He was refuting was the taking of private vengeance on those who wrong us. Further proofs in support of this must be left for our next.

Chapter 17

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). In order to properly understand and rightly apply this injunction due regard must be paid to its context, and the whole interpreted in harmony with the general Analogy of Faith, otherwise we are in imminent danger of making Scripture to contradict itself. As we sought to show in our last, Christ was not here repealing an important Mosaic statute and substituting in its place a milder and more merciful rule for His followers to observe, but was (as in the preceding sections of His Sermon) refuting an error of the scribes and reprehending the evil practice of the Pharisees. They had given a promiscuous application to a judicial regulation for the use of magistrates, a regulation which placed strict bounds upon the punishment to be meted out unto those guilty of deeds of maiming.

The statute pertaining to magistrates only had been given a general application, so that the people were allowed to take the law into their own hands, each individual being free to avenge his wrongs privately, which not only condoned but encouraged the spirit of malice and revenge. It was in view of this wicked perversion of the Divine Law that our Saviour said “Resist not evil.” More literally it is “Resist not the evil one,” that is, the evil individual who has injured you. Resist not: think not of taking the law into your own hands, requiting the adversary as he has done to you. Cherish not against him the spirit of revenge, but be actuated by nobler principles and more spiritual considerations. Such is plainly the general purport of this precept: its particular implications must now be considered.

Even Mr. F. W. Grant (a leader among the “Plymouth Brethren”) agreed that, “The righteousness of the law of course remains righteousness, but it does not require of any that they exact for personal wrongs. There is no supposition of the abrogation of law or of its penalties. The government of the world is not in question, but the path of disciples in it.

Where they are bound by the law, they are bound, and have no privileges. They are bound, too, to sustain it in its general working, as ordained of God for good. Within these limits there is still abundant room for such practice as is here enjoined. We may still turn the left cheek to him that smites the right, or let the man that sues us have the cloak as well as the coat which he has fraudulently gained: for that is clearly within our rights. If the cause were that of another, we should have no right of this kind, nor to aid men generally in escape from justice or in slighting it. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness, or identify themselves with indifference to the rights of others” (The Numerical Bible).

“Resist not evil.” That which Christ here forbade was not the resisting of evil by a lawful defence, but by way of private revenge. Public reparation is when the magistrate, according to the justice and mercy of the Divine Law, sentences an evil person who has injured his fellow. Private revenge is when those who are not magistrates take matters into their own hands and retaliate against those who have wronged them. The former is clearly permitted, for an apostle declared the magistrate is “the minister of God” for executing judgment upon evil-doers, the same apostle as expressly forbids retaliation: “Recompense no man evil for evil” (Romans 12:17).

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.” There are many who err in supposing that such a precept as this is peculiar to the New Testament. A comparison of the two Testaments will show that identically the same rule of duty obtained in both economies. “if thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head” (Proverbs 25:21-22); Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head” (Romans 12:20). Rightly did one of the older writers say, when commenting upon this passage in Proverbs 25, “The law of love is not expounded more spiritually in any single precept either by Christ or His apostles than in this exhortation.” Its obvious meaning is, seize the moment of distress to show kindness to him that hateth thee.

Living in a sinful world, we must expect to meet with injustices and unprovoked injuries. How, then, are we to conduct ourselves under them? The answer is, first, God forbids us, both in the Law and in the Gospel, to recompense evil for evil. The taking of private revenge, either inwardly or outwardly, is expressly prohibited. “Say not thou [no, not even in thine heart] I will recompense evil” (Proverbs 20:22). I must not so much as allow the thought that some day I shall have an opportunity to get my own back: I am not even to hope it, still less resolve the same. The Christian should not desire or determine anything which he cannot in faith ask God to assist him in; and most assuredly he would have no ground whatever to expect the Lord to help him in the execution of a malicious revenge.

We may not requite evil for evil in thought, word, or deed to those who mistreat us, but rather suffer injury and refer our cause to Him who is the Judge of all the earth. Because this duty goes against our natural inclinations, let us mention one or two persuasives thereto. First, it is the expressly revealed will of God for us, and His commands are not grievous. Second, vengeance belongeth unto the Lord, and if we take it upon ourselves to avenge our wrongs privately, then we rob Him of His right. Third, Christ has left us an example that we should follow His steps, and “When He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously” (1 Peter 2:23); yea, when He was cruelly and unjustly crucified, He prayed for His persecutors. Finally, Christ has plainly warned us that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will God forgive ours (Matthew 6:15).

But now we must face the question of how far this precept “Resist not evil” is binding upon us. Is it to be regarded absolutely? Does it recognize no limitation and make no allowance for exceptions? Is the Christian passively to endure all wrong? Here is where we must seek guidance from the Analogy of Faith, or in other words, ascertain the teaching of collateral passages. If this be done, it will be found that while our text enunciates a principle of general application, it is not a universal one. To deduce from it the doctrine of unlimited non-resistance to evil is to pervert its teaching, and to exalt the letter above the spirit; just as to insist that the plucking out of a right eye which offends or the cutting off of an offending right hand (Matthew 5:29-30) must be understood and obeyed literally, would be to miss entirely our Lord’s meaning in those verses.

First, the teaching of Christ elsewhere manifestly forbids us to understand “Resist not evil” in an unqualified and universal sense. He gave explicit directions to His disciples concerning their duty toward those who wronged them: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:15-17). Now that is very definite resistance to evil: it challenges the wrong done, examines the offence, and punishes the wrong-doer. There are more ways of resistance to evil than the employment of physical force.

Second, the idea of an unqualified non-resistance to evil is contrary to the example of Christ. He resisted evil, attacked wrong-doers, and when smitten did not turn the other cheek. When He went up to Jerusalem and found His Father’s house turned into a house of merchandise and a den of thieves, He made a scourge of small cords and cast out of the temple both sheep and oxen. He scattered the money of the desecrators and overthrew their tables (John 2:13-17). On another occasion He drove them out, stopped the service, and refused to let any man carry a vessel through the temple (Mark 11:15-17). That was not passive resistance, but vigorous aggression.

In the judgment-hall of Caiaphas one of the officers struck the Saviour with his hand, but instead of turning the other cheek Christ challenged the smiter (John 18:22-23). He did not answer force with force and return blow for blow, but He exposed and rebuked the wrong.

Third, were we to offer no resistance whatever unto injuries inflicted upon us, no matter what their nature, or who their perpetrators, then we should fail in supporting and co-operating with the Divine ordinance of the magistrate, and be guilty of abetting evildoers. The magistrate is God’s lieutenant, His minister for vindicating the oppressed and punishing criminals. Under certain circumstances it would be our bounden duty to seek the protection and help of the officers of the law, for they are one of God’s means for preserving order in the community. If it be right for me to bring an offending brother before the church-the well-being of the church requiring that it should be purged if he be rebellious; then by what principle can it be wrong for me to summon a law-breaker before the magistrate, in cases where the good of the community obviously requires it?

“This command of our Lord, illustrated by the examples He brings forward, plainly does not forbid us to defend ourselves when we are in danger. To do so is one of the strongest instincts of our nature, the law of God written on our hearts. But with regard to personal injuries, when there is no hazard of life, as in the case specified, it is our duty to repress resentment and to abstain from violence. In like manner, there are cases in which it is plainly a man’s duty to avail himself of the protection which the law gives to property. Justice to his creditors, to the public, to his family, may require him to defend his estate, though even this must not be done under the impulse of private revenge. But we ought to have resort to the tribunals of justice only when the cause is important and the call urgent; we are to prosecute our claims with humanity, moderation, and a spirit of peace; we are to be content with reasonable satisfaction” (John Brown).

When the injury received is a personal and private one it is the Christian’s duty to bear it in the spirit of meekness, so long as by so doing he is not encouraging evil-doers and thereby rendering them a menace to others. If I am walking on the pavement and a drunken motorist mounts the curb, knocks me down, and then drives off, it is plainly my duty to take the number of his car, report the offence to the police, and if required bear witness in the court. So too when a wrong is done to others for whom we are responsible, resistance becomes a duty. If a man’s child is in peril at the hands of some human fiend, is he to stand by and see it outraged or murdered? Did not Abraham, the friend of God and the “father of all them that believe,” arm his servants, smite those who had taken his nephew prisoner, and free him (Genesis 14:14-16)?

As we have so often pointed out in these pages, every truth of Scripture has a balancing one, and it is only by heeding the same that we are preserved from going to an unwarrantable extreme. Examples of those guilty of lopsidedness, not only in doctrine but in practice, are numerous. As there are those who put to false use Christ’s “Swear not at all” (Matthew 5:34), so there are not lacking others who place an unjustifiable interpretation upon His “resist not evil.” They suppose that in this dispensation of grace it is the will of God that His children should allow the principle of grace to regulate all their actions. But certainly it is not God’s will that the principle of grace should override and swallow up all other principles of action. The requirements of justice and the demands of holiness are also to be honored by the Christian. Here too grace is to reign “through righteousness” (Romans 5:21) and not at the expense of it.

The same rule applies to other matters. Abstention from going to law is a sound rule of life. It is a man’s wisdom, generally speaking, to keep free of litigation. The apostle condemned the Corinthians because they took their contentions before the civil courts. But is a man, is a Christian, never to resort unto law? What right have we to enjoy the social and civil privileges of a community if we ignore its obligations? Even though we may forgive an offence against our property, have we no responsibility to our neighbors? If I corner a burglar in my house am I at liberty to turn loose upon society one who will plunder its property and imperil its security? There are times when it is the clear duty of a Christian to hand a law-breaker over to the law.

But exceptions do not nullify a rule, rather do they prove it. Care must be taken, then, lest in turning from the letter we lose the spirit of those precepts. “Resist not evil” is a plain command of Christ’s and as such it is binding upon us. His follower is to be a man of peace, meekness, enduring wrong, suffering loss, accepting hardship, full of compassion and simple faith. A contentious spirit is evil: to be ever wrangling and always on the defensive is not Christian. Going to law as a rule is neither seemly nor wise. But all of that pertains to the negative side: as we shall yet see, there is a positive one too.

Good must be returned for evil, for only by good can evil be overcome. Our business is not the punishment of sinners, but the desiring and seeking after their salvation. Such was the life of our Lord, and such also must be ours.

The very fact that the Lord Jesus here designated the evil-doer “the evil one” makes it clear to us that it is the characteristic of an evil man to inflict injury upon others. The giving of this title to the wrong-doer gives us to understand that if we retaliate in the same wicked spirit then we necessarily place ourselves in the same class to which he belongs. We are therefore to suffer wrong patiently. There are but two classes in the world, the good and the evil, and it is the mark of the former that they do good unto all. They who do evil evidence their likeness to the evil one; whereas the prosecution of that which is good is Godlike. If we set ourselves to do harm unto others, either by word or deed, we are in the sight of God evil men: such are usurers and extortioners, profiteers, fraudulent traders, those engaged in any enterprise which subverts morality, underminers of health, Sabbath breakers. The Christian, then, must separate himself from all such callings, and (though it entails a smaller salary) engage in that which is pleasing to God.

Although by nature fallen men be likened unto untamed beasts and fierce animals, resembling the “wild ass’s colt” (Job 11:12), the lion, the leopard, the wolf, the cockatrice (Isaiah 11:6-8), whose nature it is to hurt and devour other creatures, yet when God in His infinite mercy is pleased to work in them a miracle of grace, bestow upon them spiritual life and reconcile them to Himself, then they lay aside their enmity and ferocity and live in peace with one another, so that the ancient saying is fulfilled: “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain” (Isaiah 11:9). It is a property of Christ’s kingdom that His subjects shall “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks” (Micah 4:3)- weapons of bloodshed being transmuted into instruments of usefulness. When men are truly converted, they lay aside malice and wrath and become the doers and promoters of good. This was notably exemplified in the case of Paul, who, from a fierce persecutor, was transformed into a preacher of the Gospel of peace.

Chapter 18

The section of our Lord’s Sermon which we are now considering has been misunderstood and wrested by not a few, fanatics attributing to it a meaning which is flatly contradicted by other passages. For this reason we deemed it necessary to enter into a detailed examination of its terms. Two chapters have already been devoted thereto, but as these appeared in the 1939 volume (Studies in the Scriptures), it is requisite for us to present a brief summary of the ground therein covered, that new readers may the better grasp what we now write. First, it has been shown that Christ is not here repealing a Mosaic statute and substituting in its place a more merciful and spiritual rule, but that He was engaged (as in the previous sections of this Sermon) in refuting a serious error of the scribes and Pharisees and in presenting the high requirements of the Law.

The words, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Matthew 5:38), occur three times in the Pentateuch. They enunciated one of the judicial laws which the Lord gave to Israel. That law was prescribed solely for the guidance and use of magistrates. Its design was threefold: to protect the weak against the strong, to serve as a salutary warning unto evil-doers, to prevent the judge from inflicting too severe a punishment upon those guilty of maiming others. As such it was a just, merciful and beneficent law. If the principle of this statute-the infliction of corporal punishment on those convicted of crimes of violence-was universally and strictly enforced today, it would make this world a much safer place to live in. But this law had been greatly perverted by the Jewish leaders, for instead of confining it to the magistrates they had made a general application of it, teaching that it gave to each person the right to avenge his wrongs privately; and thereby they fostered the spirit of malice and condoned deeds of violence.

“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39). This signifies that we are forbidden to take the law into our own hands, and requite an adversary as he has done to us: nobler principles and spiritual considerations are to actuate us. Nor is this precept in any wise peculiar to the New Testament: such passages as Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29; Proverbs 25:21-22, expressly prohibit the taking of private vengeance. Our Lord, then, was continuing to press the high requirements of the moral law. It is to be duly noted, however, that neither the Law nor the Gospel requires from us an unqualified and universal non-resistance to evil. There are times when an ignoring of wrongs done to us or of injuries inflicted upon us would obviously be a failure to perform our duty.

We must never connive at the guilty escaping from justice nor in the slighting of it. Righteousness is to mark us in all our ways.

Graciousness and lawlessness are widely different things. Though gladly willing to forgo our own rights, we must not neglect the rights of others by turning loose on society those who would imperil its security. When a brother trespasses against us he must be challenged and not winked at: if he be unreasonable and impenitent, the matter must be brought before the Church: should he still prove to be defiant and rebellious, then he is to be punished by being disfellowshipped (Matthew 18:15-17). Christ Himself resisted evil in the temple, when He found His Father’s house had been turned into a house of merchandise and a den of thieves (John 2:13-17). The office of the magistrate is a Divine ordinance, and we are morally bound to support and co-operate with it. Notwithstanding, we must never appeal to the law in a spirit of malice and revenge, but only because God has appointed and the good of society requires it.

But, on the other hand, exceptions do not nullify a rule, rather do they serve to prove it. In turning from the strict letter of the precept, we must beware of losing its spirit. The disciple of Christ, the Prince of peace, is to be a man of peace, meekly enduring wrong, patiently suffering loss, accepting hardships graciously. Not only are we to refrain from the act of retaliation, but even the desire itself must not be allowed, for God requires holiness of heart as well as of life. All malice and bitterness, wrath and clamor, evil speaking and unkind gestures are to be put off; and bowels of mercy, compassion, and long-suffering put on-anything less is a falling short of the Christian standard. Not only are we to refrain from returning evil for evil, but we must return good for evil, blessing those who curse us and praying for those who despitefully use us.

In what immediately followed, Christ amplified His “Resist not evil” by three examples, wherein He shows how men are to behave themselves when they are wronged. First, “But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Under these words are expressed all injuries done to men’s bodies, not only by words and blows, but also in the contempt of their persons, which is intimated by the reference to the “right cheek.” Usually, men strike with the right hand and the blow falls on the left cheek, so that if the right cheek be smitten it is commonly with the back of the hand-a blow of contempt, which is even more provoking of retaliation than one given in anger. Nevertheless, says Christ, even such a blow must not be returned, for the taking of private revenge is strictly prohibited. Let the old saying be remembered: it takes two to make a quarrel-though the aggressor be guilty of provocation, yet it is the second party who gives consent to a quarrel if he hits back.

“But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. There has been some controversy in certain quarters as to whether or not these words are to be considered literally. The question may be answered more readily by asking, Are they to be regarded absolutely or comparatively? Obviously, it must be the latter. First, were we to turn the other cheek to the smiter we should be tempting him unto sin, by inviting him to repeat the offence, which is manifestly wrong. Second, the example of Christ Himself refutes such an interpretation, for when He was smitten upon the cheek He did not turn the other unto the smiter.

Third, the second half of this verse must not be detached from the first. Resist not evil: no matter how provoking be the occasion: revenge not thyself, but rather “give place unto wrath” (Romans 12:19). Rather than be guilty of malice and violence, be willing to submit to further insults.

Our Lord certainly did not mean by these words, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” that we should court further wrongs, or that in all cases we must meekly submit to such without any kind of resistance. When He was smitten before the high priest, He did not return blow for blow, but He did remonstrate against it. In so doing Christ was not actuated by a spirit of retaliation, but of justice to His own character, and what He said had a tendency to convict the offender and the assembly. This precept is expressed in the strongest possible form to teach us that we must not render evil for evil, but rather suffer wrong, and submit to a repetition of an injury rather than go about to avenge ourselves. It is the principle rather than the act which is inculcated, yet in certain circumstances a literal compliance would be right, which instead of disgracing us would raise us in the esteem of the godly.

Christ here condemned the common practice of fighting and quarrelling. Even though sorely provoked by another, He will not allow us to strike back. There is nothing to intimate that He disallowed the apostles from carrying swords for self defence, but as soon as Peter drew his to resist the officers who came to apprehend Him in the garden, He bade him sheathe it again. In like manner, this precept reprehends the challenging unto a duel, and also the acceptance of such: better be dubbed a coward by our fellows than disobey and displease the Lord. If it be said that it is a disgrace to show the white feather, the reply is that it is true grace to abstain from sinning. Mark it well that a slap in the face is a vastly different thing from life itself being endangered: where that is the case, flight or calling for the help of the law is our duty; yea, we must seek to defend ourselves rather than be killed.

“And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also” (Matthew 5:40). The first example cited by Christ concerned insults to our persons, this one has to do with wrongful attacks upon our possessions. It sets forth another characteristic of evil men, namely to prey upon the goods of their fellows, either privately or under cover of the law. Such a one was Zacchaeus, before his conversion, for he had enriched himself by “false” or fraudulent methods (Luke 19:8). But know thou, that all who resort to what are called “tricks of the trade,” all who trade upon the ignorance of their fellows by means of “shady” devices, all who are successful in the courts as the result of employing crafty lawyers, are-no matter what be their reputation for shrewdness in the world-in the sight of God evil men; and therefore the Christian must have no fellowship with such.

It is to be duly noted that this second example respects one of a trifling character. As the former concerned not the severance of a limb by the sword, but only a slap in the face, so this relates not to the seizure of our property but merely the loss of a garment. Unless this be duly noted, we are likely to miss the force of our Lord’s exhortation and make an entirely unwarrantable application. That which Christ here condemned was not the legitimate use of the courts, but the going to law over mere trifles. The doing so evidences a contentious spirit and a heart that is anxious for revenge, which ill becomes a Christian, as the apostle shows in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; yet it is all too common a practice among men in general. Rather than enter into litigation over the loss of a coat-the costs entailed in such a procedure often being more than the purchasing of a new garment-far better to suffer the loss of it.

“In cases of great importance, other duties may require him to avail himself of the protection of the law: justice to his creditors, and to the public, and even to his family, may require him to defend his estate and to give a check to the exorbitancy of unreasonable men; and a Christian may prosecute a criminal out of love to public justice, though not from private revenge. Yet there will generally be men of the world enough to deal with such depredators; and a disciple of Christ will seldom have occasion to waste his time or lose his temper about them” (Thomas Scott). Thus, on the one hand we must guard against anything which would encourage evil in the wicked; and on the other, conduct ourselves as those whose affections are set upon things above. Divine wisdom and grace are necessary if we are properly to preserve the balance here.

The ruling of our own spirit is far more important than the clothes which we wear. The preservation of inward tranquillity is of greater price than a coat or a cloak. Here our Lord teaches us to set lightly by our temporal goods, that our time and strength may be devoted to the concerns of eternity. Nothing more surely unfits us for the pursuit of holiness than a heart which is resentful at and contentious with others. Angry passions and the workings of a spirit of revenge disqualify us for the worship of God. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the graces which we particularly need to learn of Christ. Though there may be cases where duty requires us to take legal action against one who defrauds us, yet this must be our last resort, for it is extremely difficult to handle pitch without the fouling of our garments.

“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain” (Matthew 5:41). The actual reference is to public transport service. The Roman troops had power to requisition able-bodied men. Marching through a district, they could compel men to act as porters or guides within a certain area or limit: an illustration of which we have in the case of Simon of Cyrene being compelled to bear the cross of Christ (Mark 15:21). Such service was not popular: often the demand was inconvenient as well as laborious, and was apt to be rendered in a reluctant and complaining spirit. Christ’s command is that even when service is constrained and unreasonable, it should never be performed in a sullen and slavish spirit; but cheerfully and in excess of the demand.

Happily there remain but few occasions when we are impressed into the service of the State. But in every life there are circumstances that force to unwelcome tasks; every man has duties which are undertaken not of choice but of necessity; they should be performed readily and cheerfully.

This third example cited by Christ, in which He forbids us to resist evil, has to do with the deprivation or curtailment of our personal liberties. It is a case where superiors are guilty of wrongdoing to their inferiors, wherein the injured one is prohibited from making resistance by way of private revenge. That which is inculcated is the abuse of authority and how the offended are to conduct themselves under the same: rather than give way unto bitter resentment, we must patiently bear the injustice, and even be ready to suffer the repetition thereof. The prohibition here made by Christ condemns all private reviling of the laws of the land, the railing of servants against what they deem to be unreasonable in their masters, and the refusal to pay our just dues.

In the example now before us we have noted a third kind of wickedness in evil men, namely those in positions of power and authority wronging those who are under them, by infringing on their personal rights and unjustly curtailing their liberties. Those who are guilty of charging exorbitant rents, overworking their employees, robbing them of their Sabbath rest, and of grinding the faces of the poor, are-no matter what their rank, wealth and honour in the world-evil men in the sight of God, and as such they will meet with the due reward of their iniquities in the Day to come. It is for this reason, among others, that we are forbidden to resist or retaliate: in due time the Judge of all will right every wrong, and make it manifest to the whole universe that “the triumphing of the wicked is short.”

“In reference to personal liberty there can be no doubt that, next to the blessings of a good conscience and the hope of eternal life, it is one of the most valuable privileges. Every Christian and every man should be ready to do much and suffer much, in order to secure it and retain it for himself and others. Yet at the same time, he will not only patiently submit to every necessary burden and constitutional restraint, but in obedience to our Lord’s precept he will bear much of the insolence of men-dressed up in a little brief authority-overlook many stretches of power, and endure even a variety of acts of oppression, rather than have recourse to violence and tumult” (J. Brown).

“Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away” (Matthew 5:42). This supplies a further illustration of that noble and generous spirit which the righteousness of Christ’s kingdom requires of its subjects. That righteousness will not only deter them from standing on every point of individual rights, but it will incline them to do good unto others. Interpreting this precept in the light of its setting, it sets forth the positive side of our duty: not only does Christ forbid men to requite evil for evil, but He commands them to return good for evil. It is better to give unto those who have no claims upon us and to lend unto those who would impose upon kindness, than to cause strife by a selfish or surly refusal. Our possessions are to be held in stewardship for God and at the disposal of the real need of our followers.

Unto those who object against the limitations we have placed upon the other precepts and the exceptions that have been pointed out, we would earnestly beg them to attend very closely to this one. Surely it is self-evident that the application of this particular injunction is strictly qualified. No one with any real acquaintance of the Scriptures can suppose that Christ here imposed an indiscriminate charity as a Christian duty: that we are to give or lend to every one who asks. One of the growing curses of modern life is the ill-advised charity of those who allow their sympathies to run away with them. Lending is to be done “with discretion” (Psalms 112:5). The apostolic principle is, “That if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10): it is no part of duty-either of the individual or of the State-to maintain in idleness those who are too lazy to work. If the following passages be carefully pondered, the will of God for us in this matter may be readily perceived: Proverbs 3:27; 1 Corinthians 16:2-3; 2 Corinthians 8:13-14; Ephesians 4:28; 1 John 3:17.

Matthew 5:39

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 16

THE LAW AND

Does not the whole of Hebrews 11 make it very plain that the Old Testament saints were saved in precisely the same way and on exactly the same ground as we are? Assuredly it does.

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

We must never connive at the guilty escaping from justice nor in the slighting of it. Righteousness is to mark us in all our ways.

Matthew 5:40

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 16

THE LAW AND

Does not the whole of Hebrews 11 make it very plain that the Old Testament saints were saved in precisely the same way and on exactly the same ground as we are? Assuredly it does.

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

We must never connive at the guilty escaping from justice nor in the slighting of it. Righteousness is to mark us in all our ways.

Matthew 5:41

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 16

THE LAW AND

Does not the whole of Hebrews 11 make it very plain that the Old Testament saints were saved in precisely the same way and on exactly the same ground as we are? Assuredly it does.

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

We must never connive at the guilty escaping from justice nor in the slighting of it. Righteousness is to mark us in all our ways.

Matthew 5:42

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 16

THE LAW AND

Does not the whole of Hebrews 11 make it very plain that the Old Testament saints were saved in precisely the same way and on exactly the same ground as we are? Assuredly it does.

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

We must never connive at the guilty escaping from justice nor in the slighting of it. Righteousness is to mark us in all our ways.

Matthew 5:43

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE

“Ye have heard that it bath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say Unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which 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. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:43-44). Few sections of the Sermon on the Mount have suffered more at the hands of expositors than has this one. Most of them, through failure to attentively weigh and rightly understand the whole context, have quite missed the scope of our passage. In consequence of such failure our Lord’s design in these verses has been misapprehended, the prevailing but erroneous idea being held that they set forth the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant over that which obtained under Judaism. Many have wrongly defined its principal terms, giving too restricted a meaning both to “neighbor” and “love.” Ludicrous indeed are the shifts made by some in the endeavors to harmonize their interpretation of these verses with the theological system to which they are committed.

How widely the commentators differ among themselves, and how ambiguous and unsatisfactory are their explanations will appear from the following quotations-taken from their remarks on “Love your enemies.” “We cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; for are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men; we must take notice with pleasure of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuity, good temper, learning, moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. We must have a compassion for them, and a good will toward them” (Matthew Henry). That seems to us about as clear as mud. First, this eminent author virtually tells us that we cannot love an enemy: then he affirms we must respect any good qualities we can discern in them: and closes with the statement that we should wish them well.

Much to the same effect are the reflections of Thomas Scott, for though he begins by asserting it as a Christian duty to love our enemies, to regard them “with benevolence, to return good works and kind wishes to their revilings and imprecations, and beneficent acts to their injuries,” yet he spoils this by adding: “As however there are various favors which He bestows only on His people, so our peculiar friendship, kindness and complacency must and ought to be restricted to the righteous; yea, gratitude to benefactors and predilections for special friends consist very well with this general good will and good conduct toward enemies and persecutors.” Here again we are left wondering as to what our Lord really meant when He bade us “love your enemies.”

Andrew Fuller sought to cut the knot by having recourse to the subtleties of the schoolmen, who insisted there are two different kinds of love, both in God and in man-wherein they confounded mere kindness with love. This writer said, “Much confusion has arisen on this subject from not distinguishing between benevolence and complacency. The one is due to all men, whatever be their character, so long as there is any possibility or hope of their becoming the friends of God; the other is not, but requires to be founded on character” (On love to enemies). The substance of which is that the love we exercise unto the enemies of God is of a totally different order from that which we bear to His children.

Stranger still is the method followed by the renowned John Gill in his effort to explain away Christ’s injunction that we must love our enemies. “I apprehend, the love with which Christ exhorts His people to love their enemies is not to be understood quoad affectus (as respecting the internal affections of love): I cannot believe that Christ requires of me that I should love a persecutor as I do my wife, my children, my real friend, or brother in Christ; but quoad effectus (as to the effects), that is, I am required to do these things as they lay in my way and according to my ability, as a man would do to his neighbor whom he loves; that is, feed him when he is hungry, and give him drink when thirsty” (from Truth Defended).

The explanation given by Mr. Gill is the worst of them all, for it contains a most serious error, implying as it does that outward compliance with God’s requirements will be accepted by Him even though the one spring from which all such actions must proceed be inactive. It is not the outward appearance, but the heart, God ever looks at. Now “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10), and love is essentially a thing of the heart. Love is the fulfilling of the Law because love to God and to man is all that it requires. Real obedience is nothing more and nothing less than the exercise of love and the directing of it to what God has commanded.

Strictly speaking, there is no ground for the distinction commonly made of internal and external obedience: all true obedience is internal, consisting in the exercise of love, and external obedience is simply the expression thereof. Consequently, external conformity to the Divine commands which proceeds not from love-holy affections-is worthless “dead works.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy” (Matthew 5:43). As we have passed from section to section of Matthew 5, we have warned against and sought to repudiate the widely held mistake that Christ was here setting up a more spiritual and merciful law than the one which had been given at Sinai. In the verse just quoted we have additional proof, clear and conclusive, that our Lord was not engaged in pitting Himself against the law of Moses, but rather that He was concerned with the refuting and rejecting of the deadly errors of the Jewish teachers. The Pentateuch will be searched in vain for any precept which required the Israelites to entertain any malignity against their foes: thou shalt “hate thine enemy” was a rabbinical invention pure and simple.

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18): such was the original commandment. Now our Lord was not referring to this Divine statute at all, but to the Pharisees’ perversion of the same. True, they quoted the actual words, “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” but they misunderstood and misapplied them. The lawyer’s question to Christ, “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29), asked in order to “justify himself,” revealed the error of the party to which he belonged, as our Lord’s answer thereto made plain the scope of the term over which they stumbled. The Jewish rabbis restricted the word “neighbour” to friends or those closely related to them: to those of their nation and particularly those who belonged to their own party.

The term “neighbour” is used in the Old Testament in a twofold manner: a wider and more general, and a narrower and more specific. In its common usage it includes anyone with whom we may come into contact, having respect unto our fellow men. In its specific sense it signifies one who is near to us by ties of blood or habitation. But anyone who searches the Scriptures should have been left in no uncertainty as to the Spirit’s meaning. “Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold” (Exodus 11:2): the reference here is to the Egyptians among whom Israel then lived. “Strangers,” equally with “neighbours,” are represented as the proper objects of such love as we bear to ourselves, and that, in the very chapter where the command to love our neighbour is recorded: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him; but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

So far from the Divine injunction, “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” being restricted to those who are amiable and friendly toward us, in more than one passage in the Law even an adversary in a law-suit is described as a neighbour: “When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judged between one and his neighbour” (Hebrew of Exo 18:16). Hence the inference which the Pharisees should have drawn from the Divine statute would be, “Thou shalt love all men, even those who are seeking to injure thee.” When God prohibited His people from bearing false witness against their neighbours, and when He forbade them coveting the wife of a neighbour (Exodus 20:16-17), the prohibition must of necessity be understood without any limitation. Thus, the commandment to love their neighbours, properly understood, bade them to love all mankind.

As, then, this Divine precept commanded the Israelites to love all men, it most certainly prohibited the harboring of a malignant spirit against anyone. But not only did the Jewish rabbis unwarrantably restrict the injunction to love their neighbours, but they also drew from it the false and wicked inference “and hate thine enemy.” How excuseless was any such conclusion appears from the fact that the command to love their neighbours was immediately preceded by the prohibition, “thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people” (Leviticus 19:18), while Leviticus 19:34 bids them to love as themselves any stranger living in their midst. To cherish any ill feeling against any enemy was directly opposed to both the letter and the spirit of the morality of the Law: no such sentiment was expressed in any form of words.

How utterly opposed to the Law itself was this evil conclusion of the rabbis will appear from the following scriptures. “If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him” (Exodus 23:4-5). “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth; lest the Lord see, and it displease Him” (Proverbs 24:17-18). “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21). Nor were these unqualified precepts in any wise annulled by the special instructions Israel received through Moses and Joshua to destroy the wicked inhabitants of Canaan, for in so doing they were acting as the executioners of the righteous judgments of God, upon those who were so corrupt and vile that they were a public menace. Nor were they bidden to hate those miserable wretches. No foundation, then, was laid in those extraordinary judgments on the Canaanites for the general principle that hatred to enemies is lawful.

It may be objected to what has been pointed out above that there are some passages which seem to make against our contention. For example, we find David saying, “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies” (Psalms 139:21-22). Upon these verses we may remark that first we must distinguish sharply between private and public enemies. The former is one who has done us some personal injury: even so, we must not hate him or retaliate.

The latter is one who is in open and inveterate revolt against God, a menace to His cause and people: even so, though we righteously hate his evil cause and sins, we must not his person. So in the above passage, it was the public enemies of Israel and of God whom David hated.

From what has been before us we may see in the case of the rabbis two abuses of the Scriptures, dangerous and disastrous abuses, against which every teacher of the Word must most diligently guard, namely misinterpretation and the drawing of seemingly logical but false inferences. How necessary it is that terms of Holy Writ should be rightly defined, and what labour is demanded from the teacher (often the patient examination of scores and sometimes of hundreds of verses to discover how the Spirit has used a particular term) in order to achieve this; otherwise he is very liable to be guilty of causing error to pass muster for the Truth. Doubly solemn is that exhortation, “My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Greek of Jam 3:1).

Again, from what has been before us we may discover an infallible mark of a false teacher: he is one who deliberately panders to the corrupt inclinations of his auditors, adapting his message to their perverted inclinations, wresting the Scriptures so as to secure their approbation. The teaching of the scribes and Pharisees was: Jews are required to love and do good unto their brethren after the flesh, but they are not only permitted, it is their bounden duty to cherish bitter enmity against the Gentiles. Such a doctrine was only too agreeable to the malignant and selfish principles of fallen human nature, and accordingly we find the Jews generally acted under its influence. “They readily show compassion to their own countrymen, but they bear to all others the hatred of an enemy” (Tacitus); while Paul describes them as “contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak unto the Gentiles that they might be saved” (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16).

Finally, we may behold here the fruit of false doctrine, namely evil communications corrupting good manners. The Jews have ever been a people marked by strong passions-loving their friends fervently and hating their enemies intensely; and from the Pharisees’ corrupting of the law of God so as to make it square with the prejudices of their disciples, the most evil consequences followed. Erroneous beliefs necessarily lead to erroneous conduct, for “as a man thinketh in his heart so is he.” This principle is horribly exemplified in Romanism: their evil practices resulting from their false traditions. Thus, they regard their “places of worship” as more holy than any other buildings, and consequently many of the deluded papists never-engage in formal prayer except when they enter one of their “churches” or “cathedrals.”

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies.” From all that has been before us it should be quite plain that our Lord was not, in these words, pitting Himself against any Mosaic precept, nor even making an addition thereto: rather was He purging that Divine statute from the corruptions of the scribes and Pharisees, and revealing the scope and high spirituality of God’s precepts. The love which the Divine Law demands is something vastly superior to what we call “natural affection”: love for those who are nearest to us by ties of blood is but a natural instinct or feeling-found in the heathen, and in a lower degree among the animals. The love which the Divine Law requires is a holy, disinterested, and spiritual one. This is unequivocally established by the fact that our Lord linked inseparably together, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart” and “thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37-39)-our neighbour must be loved with the very same love that God is.

“But I [God incarnate, the Giver of the original Law] say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). In these words Christ does three things. First, He expressly refutes the error of the scribes and Pharisees, who restricted the term “neighbour” unto friends and acquaintances, and shows that it is so all-embracive as to include “enemies”: verily, God’s command is “exceeding broad” (Psalms 119:96). Second, He bluntly repudiates their evil teaching that an enemy is to be hated, affirming the very opposite to be the Truth, insisting that God commands us to love even those who hate and injure us. Third, He makes crystal clear what is signified by “love,” namely a holy, inward, and spiritual affection, which expresses itself in godly and kindly acts. Thus we are assured beyond any shadow of doubt that the moral law is of Divine origin, for who among men had ever conceived such a precept as “love for enemies”?

Chapter 20

Strictly speaking, the contents of the last six verses of Matthew 5 contain a continuation of the same subject dealt with in the section immediately preceding them (Matthew 5:38-42). There, we saw our Lord taking up the important matter of the Law and retaliation; here, He deals with the same theme, though from a different angle. There, He treated more especially with the negative side, declaring what the subjects of His kingdom must not do when they are provoked by personal affronts and private injuries: they are not to resist evil. But here, He takes up the positive aspect, stating what His followers must do unto those who hate and persecute them, namely return good for evil, love for hatred. So far from being overcome with evil, the Christian is to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:20).

It will therefore be seen that in this concluding section of His exposition of the moral law our Lord reached the climax in His showing how far the holiness required of His subjects exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees: as Christ had taken up one commandment after another, He had made clear the vast difference which separated the one from the other. They had systematically distorted each precept that concerned man’s relations with his fellows-lowering the Divine standard and narrowing its scope so as to comport with the depraved inclinations of their followers. Count after count the Saviour had preferred against them: over against which He had set the elevated and inexorable spirituality of God’s requirements. The contrast is radical and revolutionary: it is the contrast between error and truth, darkness and light, corruption and holiness.

First, Christ had exposed their perversion of the Divine statute, “Thou shalt not kill,” and had revealed how far beyond their representations this requirement extended (Matthew 5:21-26). Second, He had condemned their unwarrantable whittling down of the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and had shown that it reached to the very thoughts and intents of the heart (Matthew 5:27-32). Third, He had rebuked their wicked tampering with the injunction, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and had affirmed that all unnecessary oaths of whatsoever kind were thereby prohibited (Matthew 5:33-37). Fourth, He had shown how they had corrupted the magisterial rule of “an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38-42). And finally, He dealt with their vile corruption of the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 5:43-48).

In our last chapter we intimated that the commentators are all at sea in their understanding of Christ’s “But I say unto you, Love your enemies”: they failed to see that His purpose was to reinforce the requirements of the Moral Law. The “Moral Laws” we say, not merely the Mosaic Law, but that which God originally implanted in man’s very nature, to be the rule of his being. The requirements of that original Moral Law (renewed at Sinai), are summed up in two things: first, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37), that is, thou shalt esteem and venerate Him supremely, delight thyself in His excellency superlatively, honour and glorify Him constantly.

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:39). Here are three things. First, the duty required: “thou shalt love.” Second, the ground or reason of it: because he is “thy neighbour,” that is thy fellow man, of the same order and blood as thyself. Third, the standard by which love to our neighbour is to be regulated: “as thyself,” which defines both its nature and its measure. Such a requirement presupposes that we have a right temper of mind: an upright, impartial, benevolent temper, even to perfection, without the least tincture of anything to the contrary. This is self-evident, for without such love we shall not, we cannot, love our neighbour in a true light, nor think of, nor judge of, nor feel toward him exactly as we ought. A wrong temper, a selfish, uncandid, censorious, bitter spirit, will inevitably give a wrong turn to all our thoughts and feelings unto him.

What is it to love our neighbour as ourselves? Our love to ourselves is unfeigned, fervent, active, habitual and permanent: so ought to be our love unto our neighbour. A regular self-love respects all our interests, but especially our spiritual and eternal interests: so ought our love unto our neighbour. A regular self-love prompts us to be concerned about our welfare tenderly, to seek it diligently and prudently, to rejoice in it heartily, and to be grieved for any calamities sincerely: so ought our love unto our neighbour prompt us to feel and conduct ourselves with regard to his welfare. Self-love makes us take unfeigned pleasure in promoting our welfare: we do not think it hard to do so much for ourselves: we ought to have just the same genuine love to our neighbour, and thereby prove “it is more blessed to give than to receive.”

The kind of love which God requires us to have for our neighbour is therefore vastly superior to what is commonly called human compassion, for this is often found in the most lawless and wicked of men; it takes not its rise from regard to the Divine authority or respect for God’s image in our fellows but springs merely from our animal constitution. The same may be said of what men term good nature: just as some beasts are better tempered than others, so some humans are milder, gentler, humbler than their fellows, yet their amiability is not influenced by any consideration for the commands of God. The same may also be said of natural affection. Some of the most ungodly cherish warm affection to their wives and children, yea, make veritable idols of them-working and toiling day and night for them-to the utter neglect of God and their souls. Yet all this affection to their children does not prompt them to strive for their spiritual and eternal welfare. It is but natural fondness, and not a holy love.

Now let it be dearly grasped that our Lord’s purpose, in the last six verses of Matthew 5, was to purge this great and general commandment of the second table of the Law-“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”-from the corrupt interpretations of the Jewish teachers and to restore it to its true and proper meaning. And as was His method in the previous sections, Christ here specifies first the error of the rabbis, and then proceeds to enforce the rightful application of the Divine precepts. Their error was twofold: first, the unwarrantable restricting of the term “neighbour” to those who were friendly disposed towards them; second, the drawing from it of the false and wicked inference that it was lawful to hate their enemies. How closely modern Christendom approximates to degenerate Judaism in this respect we must leave the reader to judge.

Having shown, again and again, what our Lord was engaged in doing throughout the whole of this part of His Sermon (Matthew 5:17-48) let us now point out His evident design in the same. To make this the more obvious, let the reader endeavour to place himself among Christ’s audience on this occasion and imagine that it was the first time he had ever heard such teaching. As he listened carefully to Christ’s emphatic and searching words, “I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20), as he pondered His “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:22), as he weighed His “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28), what would be the effect produced upon him?

Face that question fairly and squarely, my reader. Had you stood on the slope of that mount and listened to Him who spoke as never man spoke-for He was God incarnate-the Lawgiver Himself now interpreting and enforcing the demands of His holy, just, and spiritual Law; as you honestly measured yourself by such pure and exalted requirements, what had been your reaction? Had you not been obliged to hang your head in shame, to acknowledge how far, far short you came of measuring up to such a heavenly standard, to own that when weighed in such a balance you were found woefully wanting, yea, that you were lighter than vanity? If you were honest with yourself, could you say anything less than that such a Law utterly condemned you at every point, that before it you must confess yourself to be guilty, utterly undone, a lost sinner?

And then as you listened to the passage we have now reached and heard the Son of God affirm, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44), how had you felt? Would you be filled with resentment and exclaim, Such a request is impracticable and absurd. Why, I instinctively, automatically, inevitably, resent ill treatment and feel ill-will against those who hate and injure me. I cannot do otherwise: no efforts of mine can reverse the spontaneous impulses of my heart: I cannot change my own nature? Again we ask, would the attentive weighing of this demand “Love your enemies” evoke the angry retort, Such a requirement is preposterous, it is an impossibility, no man can obey it? If so, you would be but furnishing proof that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7).

Hearken now unto the final demand made by Christ in this connection: “Be ye therefore perfect,” and so that there should not be the slightest room for uncertainty, He added “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Do you say that this is too high for us to reach, that such a standard is unattainable by flesh and blood? We answer, It is the standard which God Himself has set before us, before all men. It was God’s standard before the Fall, and it is His standard still, for though man has lost his power to comply, God has not lost His right to require what is due Him. And why is it that man is no longer able to meet this righteous demand? Because his heart is corrupt: because he is totally depraved. But that in no wise excuses him: rather is it the very thing which renders him thoroughly guilty and his case inexcusable.

Cannot the reader now perceive clearly the design of Christ in here pressing upon His hearers the exalted spirituality of the Divine Law and the inexorableness or immutability of its requirements? It was to shatter the vain hopes of His hearers, to slay their self-righteousness. Of old it had been said, “But who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner’s fire” (Malachi 3:2), which was then receiving its fulfillment, as the preceding verse (concerning John the Baptist) shows. If the heart of a fallen man was so corrupt that he could not love his enemies, then he was in dire need of a new heart. If to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect was wholly beyond him, and wholly contrary to him, then his need of being born again was self-evident.

After all that has been before us none should be surprised to learn that during the past fifty years there has been such a strong and widespread effort made to get rid of the flesh-withering teaching of this part of our Lord’s ministry. Those professing to be the towers of orthodoxy and the most enlightened among Bible teachers have blatantly and dogmatically affirmed that “the Sermon on the Mount is not for us,” that it is “Jewish,” that it pertains to a future dispensation, that it sets forth the righteousness which will obtain in “the millennial kingdom.” And this satanic sop was eagerly devoured by multitudes of those who attended the “Second Coming of Christ” conferences, and was carried by them into many of the “churches,” their pastors being freely supplied with “dispensational” literature dealing with this fatal error. Slowly but surely this evil leaven has worked until a very considerable and influential section of what passes as orthodox Christianity has been poisoned by it.

The fundamental error of those men claiming to “rightly divide the word of truth” is their opposition to and repudiation of the Law of God: their insistence that it is solely Jewish, that the Gentiles were never under it, and that it is not now the believer’s rule of life. Never has the Devil succeeded in palming off for the Truth a more soul-destroying lie than this. Where there is no exposition of the Moral Law and no presssing of its righteous demands, where there is no faithful turning of its holy and searching light upon the deceitful heart, there will be, there can be, no genuine conversions, for “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). It is by the Law alone we can learn the real nature of sin, the fearful extent of its ramifications, and the penalty passed upon it. The Law of God is hated by man-religious and irreligious alike-because it condemns him and demonstrates him to be in high revolt against its Giver.

Knowing full well the detestation of their hearers for the Divine Law, a large percentage of those who have occupied the pulpits during the past few decades have studiously banished it therefrom, displacing it with “studies in prophecy” and what they designate as “the Gospel of the Grace of God.” But the “gospel” preached by these blind leaders of the blind was " another gospel” (Galatians 1:6): where there is no enforcing the requirements of the Law, there can be no preaching of God’s Gospel, for so far from the latter being opposed to the former, it “establishes” the same (Romans 3:31). Consequently, the “churches” became filled with spurious converts, who tram p led the Law of God beneath their feet. And this, more than anything else, accounts for the lawlessness which now obtains everywhere in Church and State alike.

So far from the Gentiles never having received the Law of God, the apostle to the Gentiles expressly declares, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Romans 3:19). What could possibly be plainer? Even if the “every mouth” did not signify all without exception, it must at the very least mean all without distinction, and therefore would include Jew and Gentile alike. But as though to remove any uncertainty, it is added, “all the world,” that is, the entire number of the ungodly. However much the wicked may now murmur against God’s Law, in the day of judgment every one of them shall be silent-convicted and confounded. Before the Divine tribunal every sinner will be brought in guilty by the Law, to his utter confusion and eternal undoing. However far they may have previously succeeded in an attempt at self-extenuation or in vindicating themselves before their fellows, when they shall stand “before God” their own consciences will utterly condemn them.

Then how vitally important, how absolutely essential, it is that the Law should be plainly and insistently enforced now. Nothing is more urgently needed today than discourses patterned after our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. It is the bounden duty of His servants to press upon their hearers the Divine authority, the exalted spirituality, the inexorable demands of the Moral Law. Nothing is so calculated to expose the worthlessness of the empty profession of modern religionists. Let them be informed that nothing less than loving God with all their heart and strength, and to love their neighbours as themselves, is required of them, and that the slightest failure to render the same brings them in guilty, and thus exposes them to the certainty of everlasting woe; and either they will bow in self-condemnation before the Divine sentence or they will come out in their true colors and rail against it.

Then see to it, preachers, that you faithfully set forth the unchanging requirements of the thrice-holy God. Spare no efforts in bringing your congregations to understand what is signified in loving God with all the heart, and all that is involved in loving our neighbours as ourselves. How otherwise shall they be brought to know their guilt? Unless they are made to feel how totally contrary to God is their depraved nature, how shall they discover their imperative need of being born again? True, such preaching will not increase your popularity, rather will it evoke opposition. But remember that the Saviour Himself was hounded to death, not for proclaiming the Gospel, but for enforcing the Law! Even though you be persecuted, yours will be the satisfaction of knowing your skirts are clear from the blood of your hearers.

Chapter 21

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain an the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). For a right understanding of this most important verse it is highly essential that it be not divorced from what is recorded in Matthew 5:43-44. As we have shown at length in the last two chapters, our Lord’s purpose in the last six verses of Matthew v was to purge this great and general commandment-“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”-from the corrupt interpretations of the Jewish teachers, and to restore it to its true and proper meaning. That love which the Moral Law demands is something vastly superior to what we term “natural affection,” which is found in the most godless, and in a lesser degree even in animals. The love which the Divine Law requires is a holy, pure, disinterested and spiritual one-exemplified perfectly by Christ. Such a love the unregenerate have not.

In these pages we have often affirmed that God’s design in regeneration is to bring us back unto conformity with His holy Law. Therein we may perceive the beautiful harmony which exists between the distinctive workings of each of the three Persons in the blessed Trinity. The Father, as the supreme Governor of the world, framed the Moral Law as a transcript of His holy nature and an authoritative expression of His righteous will. The Son, in His office as Mediator, magnified the Law and made it honorable by rendering to it a personal, perfect and perpetual obedience, and then by voluntarily enduring its curse in the stead of His people. who had broken it. The Holy Spirit, as the Executive of the Godhead, convicts the elect of their wicked violation of the Moral Law, slaying their enmity against it, and imparting to them a nature or principle the very essence of which is to delight in and serve that Law (Romans 7:22-25).

Originally, the Moral Law was imprinted upon the very heart of man. Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), which, among other things, signifies that they were morally conformed unto their Maker. Consequently, the very “nature” of unfallen man caused him to render loving and loyal obedience to his King. But when he fell, this was reversed. The “image” of God was broken and His “likeness” was greatly marred, though not completely effaced, for, as the apostle points out, the heathen which had not the Law in its written form “did by nature [some of] the things contained in the law,” and thereby they “showed the work of the law written in their hearts,” their conscience being proof of the same (Romans 2:14-15). At the Fall, love for the Divine Law was supplanted by hatred, and submission and obedience gave place to enmity and opposition.

Such is the condition of unregenerate man the world over: he is a rebel against the Most High, trampling His commandments beneath his feet. For this very reason he needs to be born again, that is, be made the subject of a miracle of grace wrought in his heart. At conversion he is “reconciled to God”: his hostility against Him has received its death-wound and he throws down the weapons of his warfare. The new birth is a being “renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Colossians 3:10): it is a new creation, a creation “in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). Thereby the regenerate recover that which they lost in Adam-a nature which is in harmony with the Divine will. At the new birth God makes good that promise, “I will put My laws into their mind and write them in their hearts” (Hebrews 8:10): putting His laws in our mind means effectually applying them unto us, writing them in our hearts signifies the enshrining of them in our affections.

What is the character of that righteousness which Christ requires from the subjects of His kingdom-a righteousness which excels that practiced by the scribes and Pharisees? It is conformity in heart and life to the Moral Law of God. What evidence do Christians give that they have been born again? Why, the fact that they now walk “in newness of life.” Wherein lies the proof that they are now reconciled to God? In their heartily responding to His revealed will. How may we identify those who have been renewed by the Spirit?

By seeing displayed in them the features of the Divine image. What is the fruit of God’s putting His laws into our minds and writing them in our hearts? Surely, our running in the way of His commandments. Whereby shall the world take knowledge of us that we have been with the Lord Jesus? By seeing that we have drunk into His spirit and by our producing that which rises above the level of mere nature, which can issue only from a supernatural spring.

Now it is of this very thing that Christ speaks here in Matthew 5:45 : “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good,” etc. First, let it be pointed out, “that ye may be the children of your Father” certainly does not denote “that ye may become” such: no, they were already His regenerate people, as is clear from Christ’s contrasting them with the world-“What do ye more than others?” (Matthew 5:47). “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” denotes “that ye may thereby approve yourselves so, that ye may manifest yourselves to be such.” Lest this interpretation appear somewhat strained, we refer the reader to a parallel case in 2 Corinthians 6: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18). Those exhortations were addressed to “saints” (2 Corinthians 1:1), and the promise was that upon their compliance therewith God would manifest Himself as a Father unto them and they would give proof of being His sons and daughters.

Because it is against the nature of fallen man to love his enemies, therefore our Saviour here encouraged His followers unto the exercise of such heavenly conduct by pressing upon them the benefit therefrom: by so doing they would give demonstration that they were the children of God. A similar inducement had been held out by Him in an earlier section of this Sermon, when He said to the officers of His kingdom, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). It is not sufficient that we profess ourselves to be the children of God: our works must declare it. If we have to wear some button or badge on the lapel of our coats so as to evidence we are Christians, that is a poor way of doing so-we must by our “good works” glorify God (1 Peter 2:12), we must “show forth” His praises in our daily lives.

The force of the first half of Mat 5:45 is clearly established by what follows: “For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Children resemble their parents: there is an identifying likeness between them. The character and conduct of God in this connection are well known: His providences declare His benignity. Not only does God bear with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, but He bestows upon them many favors. So far from making a distinction in this matter, He disburses temporal blessings among the just and the unjust alike. As the Gospel of Luke expresses it, “He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” (Luke 6:35). Therein He sets His people an example to follow, hence the force of the apostolic injunction, “Be ye therefore followers [imitators] of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath given Himself for us” (Ephesians 5:1-2).

From this reason or inducement here given by Christ to enforce His exhortation in Matthew 5:44, we may perceive what are the things in which Christians should principally employ themselves, namely in those things in the doing of which they may obtain evidence that they are the children of God. How many Christians there are who lament their lack of assurance. And in most cases this is not to be wondered at. If they are so zealous in serving self rather than Christ, if they run so greedily after the things the world is absorbed with, how can it be otherwise? There is an inseparable connection between Romans 8:14 and Romans 8:16 : we must be led of the Spirit (and not resist His motions) if we are to have Him bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. We must be more diligent in cultivating supernatural fruit if we would have clearer evidence of a supernatural root-dwelling within us.

Ere passing on, let us note how Christ here spoke of the common gifts of God in creation and providence: “He maketh His sun to rise.” It is not simply “the sun”: it is His sun and not ours. It is His by creation and His by regulation, making it go forward or backward as He pleases. The Lord is the sole Author and Governor of this heavenly body, for He continues to give it being and determines its power and virtue. The same thing is equally true of every other creature in heaven, earth, or sea. In like manner He “sendeth the rain” on its specific mission: He has appointed where and when it shall fall, so that “one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered” (Amos 4:7). Finally, note the terms by which Christ designates those who are the friends of God and those who are His enemies: good and just, evil and unjust-the first term relating to character, the second to conduct.

“For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” (Matthew 5:46). In this and the following verse Christ propounded another reason to persuade His disciples and hearers to love their enemies, the force of which is only apparent when we understand who the “publicans” were. The “publicans” were those officers who collected taxes and tributes, rates and rents from the Jews for the Roman emperor, to whom the Jews were then in subjection. Some of the most degenerate of the Jews undertook this wretched work for the money they could get out of it. From Luke 19:8, it appears that the publicans resorted to injustice and oppression in order to fatten their own purses, and consequently they were the most hated and despised of all people (Matthew 9:11; Matthew 11:9). Yet (says Christ), even these publicans, though devoid of conscience, would love those who loved them; and if we do no more, what better are we than they?

It is not that Christ here forbids us to love those who love us, but rather that He is condemning a merely carnal love: for one man to love another simply because he is loved by the other is nothing else than a man loving himself in another. In order to love our neighbour rightly and in a manner acceptable to the Lord, we must heed the following rule: all the commandments of the second table must be obeyed from the same principle as those in the first table, namely love to God. Parents are to be honored in God and for God, “Children obey your parents in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), and my neighbour must be loved in God and for God, even though he be my enemy. Why? Because he is as truly God’s creature as I am, and because God has commanded me to love him. That must be the ground of our obedience, though from other respects our love may increase for our neighbour.

“For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye?” In this question Christ emphasizes a principle which it is our wisdom to heed in the ordering of our lives, namely that we give ourselves especially to the doing of those things to which is attached the promise of God’s reward. To make this the more forcible and impressive let us ask, What was it that moved Moses to refuse to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, which caused him to forsake the treasures of Egypt and to suffer affliction with the people of God? The Holy Spirit has told us: it was because he had “respect unto the recompense of the reward” (Hebrews 11:25-26). But how little is this truth believed in and the principle acted on today, or why so much trifling away of our time? What reward can they look for at God’s hand who give themselves up to “the pleasures of sin?”

“And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans the same?” (Matthew 5:47). Christ’s drift in these words is the same as in the previous verse, the design of such repetition being that this weighty truth may be fixed the more firmly and deeply in our minds. We are so slow in performing the duties of love, particularly unto our enemies, that the duty of it needs to be pressed upon us again and again. If He who spoke as never man spoke saw well to repeat Himself frequently, His under-servants need not hesitate to do the same. Not only are we to pray for those who hate and injure us, but we are to greet them when they cross our path. How wrong then deliberately to pass a brother on the street and treat him as though he were an utter stranger to us!

Nor do the words, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 John 1:10), militate to the slightest degree against what has just been said. It is personal or private enemies that Christ had in view, whereas 2 John 1:10 refers to those who are the open enemies of God.

“What do ye more than others?” What a searching question is this! And note well the precise form of it. It is not “What know ye more than others,” or “what profess ye more than others?” or even “what believe ye more than others?” but “what do ye more than others?” Yet care must be taken that this inquiry be not perverted. If on the one hand it is of first importance that the Gospel trumpet gives forth no uncertain sound when proclaiming the cardinal truth of justification by faith, yet it is equally essential to make it plain that saving faith always identifies itself by the works which is produces. Justification before God is by faith alone, but it is not a faith which remains alone. Saving faith is not a life. less, inoperative and sterile thing, but a living, active, fruit-producing principle. And it is by the fruit which a saving faith produces that it is distinguished from the worthless and unproductive faith of the empty professor.

Saving faith is the gift of God. It is a supernatural principle inwrought by the Holy Spirit at the new birth. And this faith is evidenced by its fruits. It is a faith which “worketh by love” (Galatians 5:6). It is a faith that “purifieth the heart” (Acts 15:9). It is a faith that “overcometh the world” (1 John 5:4).

And since those who are the favored subjects of this faith have more than others, they ought to do more, they can do more, yea, they will do more than the unregenerate. The thing which above all others has brought the cause of Christ into such general contempt in the world is because millions of those claiming to be His followers do not do more, but often considerably less, than many who make no such profession: they are less truthful, less honest, less unselfish, less benevolent. It is not what we say, but how we conduct ourselves, which most impresses the ungodly.

Christ has good reason to require more from His disciples than He does from the children of the wicked one. They profess more, but unless their profession be supported by facts, verified by works, then it is a vain and hypocritical one: dishonoring to the Saviour, a stumbling-block to His people, and an occasion of blasphemy to His enemies. They are more than others. They are loved with an everlasting love, redeemed at infinite cost, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then should they not produce more than others? “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.” It is certain that Christians can do more than others. Said the apostle: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phi 4:13). A supernatural principle indwells them, the love of God has been shed abroad in their hearts, the all-sufficient grace of God is available to them, and all things are possible to him that believeth. “What do ye more than others?” Answer this question in the presence of God.

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). From all that He had said, Christ now drew this excellent consequence, exhorting His followers to perfection in all the duties of love. “Be ye therefore perfect” is the unchanging requirement of the Law, “even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” is the exalted standard which the Gospel presents to us. The moral excellency of the Divine character is the copy and rule set before us, and nothing short of that is to be our sincere, ardent and constant endeavour. Though such an aim is never fully realized in this life, yet we must say with Paul, “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus” (Phi 3:12). In view of such a confession by the eminent apostle, how baseless and absurd is the pretension of those claiming to have already reached sinless perfection. The fact is that the closer we walk with God, the more will it work in us self-abasement and humiliation and not self-complacency and pride.

Matthew 5:44

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Matthew 5:45

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Matthew 5:46

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Matthew 5:47

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Matthew 5:48

An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount

Chapter 19

THE LAW AND LOVE