Matthew 5

SOME NOTES INTRODUCTORY TO THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

FOR WHOM IS THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT INTENDED?

Jesus laced this message with open declarations and not-too-hidden suggestions of His absolute authority and deity. He promised blessings, breathed warnings and encouraged faith. all on the basis of Who and What He was. Those non-believers or shallow disciples who were in His audience would receive no encouragement from His words, if they did not accept the always present, underlying premise which gives coherency to His words: His right to say what He was saying. Jesus is not merely passing out deliciously sweet propaganda pieces, palatable to any and every appetite. In fact, there is much in the Sermon that is quite unacceptable to those who still think they have a right to judge Jesus by picking and choosing from among His teachings. A simple test might quickly demonstrate this truth: ask some out-spoken admirer of Jesus, who pretends to base his ethics on the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, whether he considers the other cheek policy (Cf. Matthew 5:39) to be a valid ethic for the modern age. Or, listen for his description of those whom he considers to be well off in this world. If he differs with Jesus, he is placing himself above Jesus by retaining the right to reject the Lord’s authority. Point him to Jesus-’ conclusion to the Sermon.

Certainly Jesus addressed His words to those whose light of faith had only begun to burn and, consequently, needed intelligent attention. On the other hand, Jesus needed to reveal the nature of true righteousness, even if its high standards threaten to discourage the beginner’s faith. Again, He must be so crystal clear that such grand concepts as He must deliver shall be accessible to the simplest follower and yet forever high enough to challenge the most advanced disciple to keep climbing. Addressing hypocrites who confided in their own goodness, He must unmask them, leaving them no cover.

Just because His disciples (cf. Matthew 5:1; Luke 6:17; Matthew 8:1) were in the majority does not mean that the Sermon must have meaning only with reference to them. To be sure, the life techniques He describes are meant only for those who accept His point of view and way of thinking, but the infinitely high morality He demands is intended to bring the smug and self-satisfied to their knees, crying, Lord, what must I do to be saved? Thus, Jesus left the door open to all who would enter the kingdom of God, while frankly letting the worldlings know what they could expect to find under God’s rule.

IS THIS THE SAME SERMON AS RECORDED BY LUKE?

Plummer (Luke, 176, 177) has already plumbed the question to its depth and his fine observations are worthy of notice:

The relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because the materials are insufficient for a final decision ,.,

Any preacher repeating a carefully prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put his points in the same order.,,

3. Nor does it follow that those portions which Luke gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered as parts of a continued discourse. The fact that Luke meant to record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the similar words in this discourse.

For the purposes of this study, we will be using them together as one sermon to be commented upon, in order to draw attention to all that Jesus said and meant upon a subject raised, If they are really two different sermons, they are yet for each other the finest of parallel passages.

THE DEITY OF CHRIST IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

Here are some suggestions for further study, which indirectly imply or openly state that unique relations that Jesus of Nazareth shared with the Father, a relation that was shared by no other man, If Jesus be the final, once-for-all revelation of God, these important details, which form an integral part of the Sermon on the Mount, lift it beyond the reach of those who would pick and choose from it those parts which please them or which fit into their preconceived systems. Jesus-’ claims and implied authority, if vindicated by the proper credentials, give Him the right to reveal what man could not discover by the exercise of his reason or of his sense or by testimonies from the wisdom and experience of the ancients. Thus, those who would think themselves wise to reject certain portions of this Sermon are basically rejecting Jesus, for His importance to humanity is wrapped up in what He said and did. But what did He say?

1. Jesus demonstrated an absolute authority greater than Moses. (Cf. Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-28; Matthew 5:31-34). You have heard what the Law of God said to the fathers, but I say to you. Moses could not pretend any authority but what he received from God, while Jesus speaks with an authority that is inherent in His being and essential to His nature. His was a standard greater than that of Moses (Matthew 5:48), because He went straight to the heart of the man, converting that first, and did not judge merely outward acts. His judgments upon man’s heart are more far-reaching than any law, which punishes only external sins, ever could be; hence, Jesus exercised an authority greater than any law-giver. But Moses-’ law was given him by God; so, when Jesus raises the standards, He presumes to put His hands upon God’s law? Those wide-awake critics in His audience who heard these words cited above, must have been rocked back on their heels as they exclaimed, Who does he think he is? That is God’s law with which he is tampering! That is exactly the right question, since its answer must be: He must think that He is God, for only God can change the law!

2. Jesus demonstrated CE knowledge of things that only God could know for certain. (Cf. Matthew 5:3-12; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11; Matthew 7:21) He knew with absolute assurance exactly what God would do when man seeks to do things Jesus-’ way or else when he refuses to do so. With unerring foreknowledge of final outcomes, Jesus explains what sort of life really leads to true happiness. He lays bare the futility of hypocrisy, because it cannot reach any goal beyond immediate applause.

3. After picturing the heart of man as He sees it, He boldly declares Himself to be the Judge of the world (Matthew 7:21-23) upon whose word the eternal fate of men depends (Matthew 7:24-27). The Master expressed Himself in such a way as deliberately to separate Himself from the human race, even though elsewhere He identified Himself with it in other ways. (e.g. John 5:27) In the Sermon, Jesus never refers to God as our Father but always refers to Him as your heavenly Father, with the single exception when He spoke of God as my Father (Matthew 7:21) with such force as to distinguish Himself as the Judge of the ages. (The cases of your Father are Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11. The only our Father is the address to a prayer for use by Jesus-’ disciples, Matthew 6:9).

4. Jesus-’ own sinless life underlies the ethic He presents for the imitation of others. Though He preaches moral perfection, there is not even the slightest hint of a confession of personal weakness or failure, For instance, were Jesus conscious of any sin, only the basest hypocrisy could have allowed Him to proclaim Himself the very fulfilment of the law and prophets. (Matthew 5:17)

5. Jesus puts persecution in His name on the same plane with that suffering known by those mighty men who spoke for God. (Matthew 5:10-12) The prophets were persecuted for their devotion to God; Christians are to endure it because of their devotion to Jesus. The implication is clear*: Jesus is identifying service to Him with service to God.*

6. Jews claims that His words are the Rock upon which the life can be securely built to withstand any tempest. (Matthew 7:24-27) Upon Jesus you either make or break yourself, for He is the great stone of stumbling and rock of offence (Isaiah 8:14) and the crushing stone (Luke 20:17-18) or else the chief cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16; cf. 1 Peter 2:3-8). How are we to understand Paul’s interpretation of the mighty Rock in the wilderness? (Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 with Deuteronomy 32:3-4; Deuteronomy 32:15; Deuteronomy 32:18; Deuteronomy 32:30-31)

Indeed, how could Jesus, with almost every breath presume in one way or another to be the Son of God, the world’s Savior and Judge and infinitely superior to the greatest lawgiver and somehow quite separate from the rest of the race, without incurring the charge of madness in the extreme, were He not what He pretended to be? Were Jesus the Son of God, He could not properly speak with less authority than that which is essential to His nature. Examining therefore each of the above suggestions or declarations of Jesus’ deity, one is led to the single conclusion, consistent with His entire life and vindicated by His super-natural credentials, that He was indeed God come in human flesh to reveal the mind of God. (Remember John 1:1-14; John 1:18; John 3:11-13; Hebrews 1:1-3)

At this point, the admirer of Jesus must make a moral decision:

EITHER he must reject Jesus for having violated His own ethic by deliberately pretending to be what in fact He was not. For in this case, His moral precepts are corrupted, just as the source pollutes all that flows from it. OR he must accept Jesus’ moral sanity and render Him the worship due only to God. He must o k y Jesus, finding in Him perfect consistency between the doctrine He taught and lived, and His claims as vindicated by His mighty acts.

JESUS-’ PURPOSE FOR PREACHING THIS SERMON

What is Jesus trying to accomplish by preaching this message? Usually, the best way of determining what an author or speaker meant to achieve is to listen for his own declaration of intention. But in the case before us, this method fails us, since Jesus does not expressly declare His design. So we must search among His words and what few historical circumstances are available to us, to ascertain His motives.

Among the historical circumstances there is seen a definite need for such a sermon as this. At this point in Jesus-’ ministry it is becoming urgently important that Jesus define His ideals and objectives to correct the hazy, confused or mistaken concepts of His followers. With regard to the concerned, confused and jealous religious leaders, He must declare His basic position and indicate His plans. He must relate Himself to the law and the prophets.

Among His words, certain ideas keep repeating themselves from various angles. He makes passing references to the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:2; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 6:33; Matthew 7:21) and to righteousness (Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:33). Another great emphasis is the recurring use of the expression your Father (Matthew 5:16; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:3; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:26; Matthew 6:32; Matthew 7:11), which, like a symphonic melody keeps singing the love of God and invites the disciple to come alive to this royal relationship. And, more than by mere allusions, He describes the true nature of righteousness and its infinite importance to entrance into God’s kingdom. The composite sketch that emerges from Jesus-’ bold, swift strokes is that of an ideal disciple or a man saturated with the Kingdom point of view. The first two Chapter s of the Sermon are dedicated almost entirely to Jesus-’ discussion of man’s heart, his attitudes and his motivations.

Out of this information arise two questions:

Is Jesus forecasting who would really be happy in His messianic kingdom, in such a way as to attract those whose hearts were truly seeking God’s will and, at the same time, repel those who would not really want to submit themselves to His rule? There are many who would not be happy in Jesus-’ service even if they could get into it. Is Jesus describing what kind of man will really find fulfilment?

Or, is Jesus laying down conditions for entrance into the kingdom, or perhaps, listing some of the requisite qualities which must characterize every citizen of the kingdom? While inquiring sinners are not referred to any declaration of this sermon as a term of pardon ((3, Acts 2; Acts 8; Acts 9; Acts 10 etc.), yet most of the Beatitudes point to the only frame of mind in which a man can be converted to the Lord. Further, all of Jesus- language contains descriptions of the true righteousness, which His interpreters, the apostles, worked into requisites for vital power and joy in the kingdom.

The Master is probably doing something of both. However, there are several distinct goals that He is NOT at all trying to reach, goals which many of His expositors have mistaken for His goals.

I. JESUS IS NOT PRESENTING AN ETHICAL CODE WHICH MAY BE DIVORCED FROM HIS DEITY AND CONSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO COMMAND THESE IDEALS.

Some individuals and organizations feel that they can replace the Church by incorporating the teaching of the Sermon into their philosophy without a necessary belief in Jesus or a significant loss of moral vigor to reach these ideals. It is to the disgrace of the Church that they do sometimes practice some of these principles more consistently than do they who belong to Christ. There have been great men who have served humanity, who were full of altruistic and self- giving service, and who come from different, if not opposite, religious dogmas. The world, on the basis of its acquaintance with such men, is inclined to suggest that the ethics of Jesus-’ sermon could also be extracted from its religious context and be practiced with just as much meaningful success as those great non-Christians. The great damage done to Jesus-’ ethical standard by those who share this opinion is that they try to apply Jesus-’ teaching to society en masse, rather than to the converted individual, as did Jesus. Any attempt to apply the standards of Christian holiness to any society other than Christian individuals serves only to destroy the standards and fail in the attempt to apply them to the world in general, and reduce Christianity to a harmless theory unworthy of further serious consideration. Such a use ignores Jesus- wisdom and His capacity to reveal the proper viewpoints which direct suffering humanity’s steps to the true happiness.

The frame of reference in the Sermon is that of saints who have surrendered their will, emotions, intellect and conscience to Jesus as Lord and Master of all of life and, thus, they share the Kingdom point of view. The Sermon is directed against all wise men of earth who would praise Jesus as reformer, –great teacher, man ahead of his time, and yet would unashamedly reject His deity on subjective grounds. These are but damning Him with faint praise, if they stop short of His DEITY! Recall how Jesus handled Nicodemus when that learned doctor called Him Teacher come from God. Jesus challenged whether that night visitor actually received Him as the revealer of God or not! One can hardly read the lines of the Sermon without being ever conscious of the divine authority of the One who preached it. One cannot excise this theme without slicing the Sermon to shreds.

II. JESUS DOES NOT INTEND THE SERMON TO BE A FULL, FINAL REVELATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MESSAGE

The Sermon is not the gospel, for it has nothing in it about a redeeming cross or a risen Savior. Paul declares (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) that the essence of the gospels lies in what God has done through Christ in His death. burial and resurrection. The religion of Jesus is a message of fact to be believed, not merely some ethics to be practiced. If a handful of rules scissored from three memorable Chapter s were the condensation of all that Jesus had to offer to mankind, why should He have had to go to the cross and endure that bitter rejection by His race? How much simpler it would have been to have returned immediately to heaven after preaching this Sermon! But this Sermon could not be the gospel: the death of Jesus for my sins is good news! May not Paul’s warning (Galatians 1:8-9) be interpreted in this fashion? Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than the redemptive act of Jesus, whether they bring the divine standard in the Sermon on the Mount or the Mosaic Law or whatever, let him go to hell! Certainly, it is not the Sermon in you which is the hope of glory, but CHRIST in you. (Galatians 4:19; Colossians 1:27-28)

In fact, the Sermon is not good news at all. The more we study it, the worse news it becomes. Opening our heart to Jesus-’ words, we suddenly realize that we are hypocrites at best and unspeakably vile at worst. The Sermon examines the vile, impure heart of man in the light of God-s holiness and that light is painfully bright as it searches out !he exceeding sinfulness of man and condemns the darkness in him. To the outsider, this Sermon is LAW, law that is far more perfect than that of Moses, far more stringent, harsh and demanding. It is an ideal that must produce despair of attainment.

But this is the very goal that Jesus means to attain. Only when man is broken by that perfect standard will he be willing to come to Jesus for healing and filling. For the insider, the disciple, it is not law in the sense of a code to be legalistically or heartlessly applied. It is, rather, a vivid description of the new type of human nature which will arise in us, even though the Sermon itself does not touch upon the exact method by which this nature comes into being. This latter task would be left to the apostles to accomplish. So it is not in any way intimated that Jesus had given a complete statement of His message in this one Sermon.

III. JESUS DID NOT PREACH A UNIQUELY NEW ETHIC.

Partial parallels have been thought to have been found to practically all His teaching in the writings of the Greek philosophers, the oriental thinkers and the Hebrew prophets. Granted this possibility, someone might draw the wrong conclusion that, therefore, there is

nothing new or revealed by Jesus, and, as a consequence, we can do without Him, provided we follow all the sage precepts ever transmitted by Jesus and other men. No greater mistake could be made, for, as Edersheim (Life, I 526) observes,

The new teaching, to be historically true, must have employed the old forms and spoken the old language. But the ideas underlying the terms equally employed by Jesus and the teachers of Israel are, in everything that concerns the relation of souls to God, so absolutely different as not to bear comparison.

To this, Marshall(Ethics, 8) adds,

From the religious point of view, however, it would be disconcerting rather than otherwise if there were no parallels anywhere to the ethical insight of Jesus, for in that case we would have to conclude that, apart from Jesus, God had left Himself without witness. But where is the ethical teacher, in Greece, Palestine or India, who can supply parallels to that ethical insight at every point? The newness is to be found in the unique combination of ethical precepts which Jesus presents, a combination which has no parallel anywhere; it is not seen in particular exhortations but in the absolute intensity of His ethics.. Jesus supplied, not so much new ethical precepts, as a new direction to the ethical life of man, and invested it with a new power. His concern was not to formulate a new moral code but to lead men into such a new relationship with God that they would be endowed with power to do the good they knew.

If there be a unique freshness about the ethics of Jesus, it is to be found in its revolutionary approach to the usual problems which all ethical systems must touch, such as personal, family and social relations. The Lord drives home the absolute indispensability of heart purity and thorough-going righteousness, as contrasted to mere concern with externals.

IV. NOR DID JESUS BRING ANOTHER LAW OF CHRISTIAN CONDUCT.

As has been intimated above, the Sermon has the same effect as law to the non-disciple whose imperfection it cannot but condemn. The Master’s demands for absolute perfection even as your Father in heaven is perfect, are so rigid and exacting that worldlings and unthinking Christians reject Jesus and His ideals. Such Christians would deny their own Lord to be a Teacher qualified to reveal the mind of God concerning the true nature of man and righteousness, and they impugn His wisdom by criticizing His ideals as impracticable, either because they seem to be too exalted for everyday application or because they seem too unrealistic in a world ruled by force. But there are three inescapable facts which respond to this shallow reasoning:

Jesus offers unimpeachable credentials as to His identity and His right to reveal these standards which the unaided mind of man is incapable of originating and which he is unqualified to judge.

The objection that the Christian ideal is so lofty that human nature can never attain it is no argument that it is unusable or must be modified before it can be practicable. Jesus, while living in this human nature, did practice what He preached! By so doing He proved His ideals quite practicable to all who live in human flesh. Not only that but He also demolishes our fabric of self-justifications for our failures to measure up. (Romans 8:1-4) Again, a man’s ideals must always exceed his reach, else what good are ideals? Ideals, by their very definition, are needed to keep men morally sensitive, conscientious and stretching to reach the heights.

But the religion of Jesus is not one of struggling up the never-ending stairway toward perfection, but one of taking the elevator of justification by faith. by which one arrives instantly at perfection imputed to him by virtue of his relation to Jesus. It is a religion of regeneration and arising out of death. burial and resurrection and of being empowered by God-s own Holy Spirit. Of course, Jesus-’ teaching seems to be unworkable by men as they are, but He plans to remake them through conversion.

Everything Jesus teaches is impossible unless He can put His Spirit into us and remake us from within. Apart from Jesus, therefore, we can do nothing! (Cf. John 15:5) Apart from Him, we cannot live these rules!

At the other extreme, there are people who completely undervalue the Sermon’s ideals, Many a man thinks he lives the golden rule, for example, just because his philosophy is live and let live. Some may imitate Jesus part of the way, for purely selfish reasons: Honesty is the best policy-good for business, you know. Jesus did not intend that the blazing glory of His Light should be filtered down into a fifteen-watt slogan of rather harmless and dubious application. these show only a gross ignorance of what Jesus said and meant, for he who can study the Sermon without suffering distress of conscience had better reexamine his conscience. If the natural man can hear this Sermon without its producing despair in himself, either he has no conscience or else had paid no attention. If used as a Christian moral code without Jesus, the Sermon becomes the harshest of laws, condemning man and leaving him hopeless. That glib shallow assertion of the rich young ruler must be changed to: None of these things have I kept from my youth up: God be merciful to me, a sinner! Only Jesus can provide the power to reach these impossible goals.

The Sermon is not another rigid discipline like that of Moses. The Beatitudes, for example, express God’s gracious mercy to the imperfect. Marshall (Ethics, 101) notes,

Jesus must never be regarded as a second Moses, a new Lawgiver, drawing up a code of rules to be rigidly observed by all His disciples. To think thus is to relapse into the very -legalism-’ which He condemned. -Instead of framing laws, He stated principles and made them so few and broad that no one could overlook them. -’ Jesus-’ concern was not to -legislate,-’ to prescribe rules and regulations for every situation in life (for casuistry was foreign to His spirit and genius), but to lead men into the Kingdom of God, that is, to bring men under the rule of God, freely accepted as the rule of God, freely accepted as the rule of their lives.. So the moral imperatives of Jesus are not -laws,-’ they aim at making explicit the ethical ideals and principles which are implicit in that new relationship to God into which a man enters when the Kingdom is established within him.

V. JESUS INTENDED TO DESCRIBE RIGHTEOUSNESS

If, then, Jesus did not intend to reveal a novel, unique, ethical code that could be divorced from His authority, nor hoped to cram into these few words the whole Christian message, nor set up a law greater than that of Moses, of what value is the Sermon on the Mount to the disciple for whom it was intended? In what relation to these rules does the Christian stand? God loves us too much to let us go on with trashy ideals. Jesus came not only to save man but to reorient him toward new life ideals. Jesus wants to make man as beautiful as God wanted him to be when He first thought of him. He intends for us to take these rules as clues as to how those who count themselves as citizens of His kingdom will act. The rules are not the Law all over again, but they are rather the effect of Christ living in us. They are not the legal cause of a moral effect. The rules help us to guard against self-complacency which assumes: I am good enough. I know enough. I love and give enough. The lessons of Jesus-’ Sermon lead us to the single conclusion that we must acknowledge that we are His DISCIPLES and that we must keep learning. Our Savior and God is still above, ahead and beyond us!

RADICAL REQUISITES OF REAL RIGHTEOUSNESS

What is the essence of that righteousness which Jesus is teaching? What kind of character does His demand require? How does one get to be that kind of person?

A.

Not a daring demand of due deserts for doing duty.

True fellowship of God is enjoyed on the basis of faith in His mercy, not on the basis of the perfection, or any degree thereof, to which one might attain by keeping law. (See notes on Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:7) The right way to keep law is to begin with a perfect knowledge of every area of its application and to adhere consistently to all of its requirements, This is why man just cannot be justified by law, since he starts out ignorant and forgetful, and, as an expected consequence, he cannot keep it consistently, Paul quotes several prophets with devastating effect:

There is none righteous, no, not one, No one understands, no one seeks for God. ALL have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; No one does good, not even one.

There is no fear of God before their eyes, (Romans 3:10-18)

So, God has concluded all under the condemnation of sin, that He might show mercy to everyone,

Apparently, not even God Himself could write a law which at once would be a sufficient standard of righteousness conformable to His own character and at the same time be the standard which any (not to say, every) man could meet. Paul is not inventing a hypothesis contrary to fact when he declares, Verily, if there had been given a law which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by law. (Galatians 3:21) So it was God’s purpose, in giving His Law to the Israelites, to show for all time and to all nations the futility of trying to be righteous, or, to attain absolute righteousness, on the basis of law.

The basic failure of law to be a description of true righteousness lies in its tendency to standardize people at the same level of growth in righteousness, rather than to promote unlimited growth toward perfection. ALL that law can accomplish is list certain acts which ought to be the expressions of right attitudes, But how can any law truly regulate attitudes? For instance, how could Leviticus 19:18 be applied or enforced by law? Law just cannot control character merely by limiting conduct; the character must be recreated from within. But the will of Christ describes an ideal so much higher than any human or fleshly standard that man might choose, that the soul instinctively cries out, How can I get to be that way?

B.

It is a dedication of desires

True righteousness is a matter of motives, character, desires and attitudes as well as conduct. But some might ask, If a Christian is not under law, how is he to be controlled? Our conduct may be controlled by the slightest wish of Jesus, if our motives have been changed and our character regenerated. It then becomes sufficient to know what Jesus said and what He meant by it. As Christians, we have the benefit of all the instructions of Christ and His apostles, who revealed the very mind of God to us. Anything in the New Testament which illuminates the will or character of Jesus leads us, and it does not need to be stated in the imperative mood with penalties stated for disobedience. Thus, even without specific and detailed laws, we have a means of knowing what God would have us do. No law could ever have the authority for us as much as the gentlest suggestion from Jesus! Thus, it is quite mistaken to consider the new covenant writings, i.e., the New Testament, as a prison for curtailing the activities of the reborn man within the walls of a legalistic system. Rather, all that Jesus said, when applied in the spirit of Jesus (in the way He meant it), becomes both our highest control and our deepest motivation. If any church has to make laws for itself, it confesses its own failure to convert men to Jesus!

Those passages which seem to suggest that a Christian is somehow under law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), or guided by the royal law, the law of liberty (James 1:25) or judged by it (James 2:8; James 2:12) on the basis of failure to keep the whole law in every point-’-’ (James 2:9-11), are but illustrations of the principle of the need for salvation by grace and become a description of the principle which controls the Christian. They cannot be construed so as to contradict the great truth: Ye are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14) Paul (1 Corinthians 9:21) means only that he is not without a principle of control as a Christian, but is simply controlled by Jesus; he cannot mean that as a Christian he is trying to be justified by law.

C. It has a dynamic drive for deeds and development

The real dynamic of true righteousness may be found in the implications of the following descriptive phrases:

Dead men cannot sin, because they are free from the reach of law (Romans 6:3-11; Galatians 5:24) and, paradoxically, they must not sin, since their sinful desires died too. By dying, we have already accepted our own damnation and our release from that judgment.

A new creature, reborn, regenerated from the dead (Galatians 6:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Titus 3:5; John 5:3-5). Now we are not mere men because we have become Jesus Christ on earth. (Galatians 2:20; Romans 8:9; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:22-23)

Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17)

Christ in you; every man perfect in Christ (Colossians 1:27-28); having the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:1-11). A Christian sins, not against law for he is not under it, but when his thoughts and actions are out of harmony with the mind of Christ.

Fruit of the Spirit; no law against such character (Galatians 5:22-23; Galatians 5:25)

According- to Jesus, then, out of the converted heart of a regenerated man will naturally come those attitudes and actions which please God. Therefore, in His viewpoint, religion and ethics, worship and service, piety and deeds, or faith and righteousness must all be the same thing. Each of these ideas must express merely slightly differing viewpoints of the same thing, the product of regeneration in the heart, Jesus constantly refused to distinguish between them since there can be no double standard of worship offered God and service rendered mankind.

Rea! righteousness amounts to admitting that we do not possess it. If we are to be really righteous, we must admit God’s righteous sentence against our sins and admit that our guilt deserves His condemnation. Further, we must recognize that our self-righteousness has kept us from doing His will. (Cf. 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 3:1-10). We must place our hope in Christ’s victory and be released from the necessity of self-defence against a relentless legal code. In short, we must be saved by His grace, not merely by our knowledge of certain doctrines. Our faith is not so important in what it can do for God at this point as in what it is willing to receive from God. The righteousness that Jesus expects is not to be found, therefore, in merely outward circumstances or in external observances or even in the acts of religious service which we perform for God, but rather in the entire transformation of our character until it mirrors perfectly. the character of God!

THE REASONABLENESS OF THE REDEEMER’S REWARDS FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS

Is it a serious ethical defect in the teaching of Jesus that He offers rewards as inducements to faithfulness in His service? Jesus did not hesitate to guarantee the magnificence of the prize to those persecuted for His sake (Matthew 5:10-12), or the security of remuneration (misthos) to those who receive prophets, righteous men, apostles and little children for what they represent (Matthew 10:40-41; Mark 9:41), nor does He shrink from threatening the faithless with a reward suited to them (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 7:27). It is regarded almost as an axiom in the modem world that to associate the idea of reward with virtue is to fabricate a base, unworthy ethic. Is Jesus, by His mention of these positive and negative rewards, encouraging the idea that godliness is simply the best policy or that prudence dictates virtue, not for the sake of goodness, but for selfish ends arrived at by selfish calculation? Is duty for duty’s sake and virtue of no ulterior motives-’-’ the final statement of the only valid ethic?

While it is right to refuse to be enticed to be good by the hope of some present material bonus or to be blackmailed into a virtuous life by fear of some physical punishment, yet the mere mention of some reward or punishment do not thereby render unworthy an ethical system, since those who preach this doctrine of duty for duty’s sake are seeking some reward in an appropriate amount of happiness ensuing from their application. Otherwise, would they not cease to hold this opinion? Ah action by which nothing is achieved is futile, else good men would ask themselves whether any virtue were worth the effort. Let us examine Jesus-’ idea of rewarding faithfulness, to see the validity of His ethic for today’s life. Jesus idea of rewards.

I. DEMONSTRATES THE FINALITY AND IMPORTANCE OF CHOICE

Marshall, citing Taylor, (Challenge, 204) notes:

It is the supreme assertion of the conviction that choice is real and that everything is staked on the quality of our choice. If happiness depends on character and character is genuinely made by our choice, we cannot refuse to contemplate the possibility that character, and with it happiness, may be lost beyond the power of recovery by sufficient persistence in choosing evil and sufficient indolence in choosing good.

Indeed, the choice means everything! To every man Jesus freely and generously offered all the treasury of God on the condition that they choose to be His disciples. But His disciples are to be remade man, for, without His Spirit working in them, they would only be frustrated by His demands. Jesus has no fear that such a disciple would try to make a claim upon God for rewards proportionate to the man’s piety, since, as far as the disciple is concerned, the need to put God in debt to him does not exist. Jesus-’ disciple stands in a different relationship to God: he has already been justified on the basis of his faith in God’s grace. The choice of that new life and position before God is all-important, since it finally leads to ultimate happiness. Needless to say, its contrary is also equally true.

An adequate concept of grace must repudiate the suggestion that man can make a claim upon God for a reward calculated upon the basis of so much work, so much reward. Jesus-’ parable on the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) warns the apostles specifically and all disciples in general against the wrong spirit involved in asking Jesus What shall we have? (Cf. Matthew 19:27). Jesus-’ intent is to place the apostles in positions of great honor (Matthew 19:28) and to bless richly any follower (Matthew 19:29). Such rewards as these are not exactly proportioned to the work done, but are established by the free choice of the Giver. The reward does have some relation to the work done, but it is received because God promised it, not because it is earned. Then too, there is the disciple’s confession after he has labored to the very limit for his Master: I am an unworthy servant: I have only done what was my duty. (Luke 17:7-10) Note that only a disciple of Jesus could afford to say this, for those who have not chosen Jesus must defend their own righteousness as a worthy servant.

Seeming exceptions to this rule, that the choice of salvation by grace rules out the necessity of this-for-that rewarding, are those verses which suggest positively (as, Matthew 10:41-42; Mark 9:41) and negatively (as, Luke 6:37-38) that man will be blessed or condemned measure for measure. However, this rigid justice describes how God could act and not necessarily how He will. God is always better than His promises, but the disciple must not presume.

Rather than lay emphasis upon calculated or quantitative remuneration (so many good deeds for so much reward), Jesus confers qualitative rewards. The inducements which Jesus offers possess certain qualities that are perfectly suited to the character of the receiver, not quantities satisfying to his greed. Only highly moral and spiritually minded people will enjoy what Jesus offers: the kingdom of heaven, consolation and courage, satiation with righteousness, the vision of God, the privileges of God’s sons (Matthew 5:1-12), becoming truly great (Matthew 20:25-28), gaining one’s own soul (Matthew 16:24-27). These are not the kinds of reward that appeal to the selfish and calculating. The question, according to Jesus, should be not how much? but what kind? Seeming exceptions to study: Matthew 19:27-30; the effect of the story upon the hearers: Matthew 25:14-46; 1 Corinthians 3:8; 1 Corinthians 3:14-15.

Further, Jesus-’ idea of rewards.

II. CONDEMNS ALL HYPOCRISY

How perfectly hypocritical is the sinner who hopes that he can be good enough often enough to buy Gad, i.e. by doing a certain number of good deeds purchase those rewards that he could not otherwise expect. Were he starting from a solid base of impeccable righteousness, perhaps he might have been able to start earning, and thus put God in debt to him. (Cf. Romans 4:4) But God has declared every man under the condemnation of their sins so that He might have mercy upon all. This is why Jesus scorned the popular pharisaic righteousness which would make God a debtor to some sinner because of his supposedly accumulated treasury of merit. (Cf. Luke 18:9-14)

Jesus soundly condemned all pious practices inspired by the hope of some immediate reward, for instance, the praise of men. These did not seek God’s praise or reward, (John 5:42-44; John 12:42-43) and so would not receive any more than they sought. He counselled men to do good to their fellows without expecting to receive some sort of recompense from them (Luke 14:13 ff; Luke 6:27-38), for God rewards such conscious selflessness (Luke 6:35).

Therefore, before Jesus may be criticized for offering an ethic which seems to glorify virtue for ulterior motives, His abhorrence of hypocrisy must be weighed into the conclusion. He rewards no hypocrites who would serve God for ulterior motives!

Last, Jesus-’ idea of rewards and punishments.

III. SHOWS ITSELF PSYCHOLOGICALLY SOUND

While virtue at its highest is unconscious of itself, man rarely breathes that rarified air! The idealists may want man to do good for its own sake without seeking further reward, but this desire scarcely touches the common man as he actually is. To man as he is, a goodness which achieves DO end beyond itself is meaningless and futile, God could require that men practice it, but He could be ill-assured of their doing so. But man is just not made that way. He responds most readily to desirable promises and refrains from doing those things which bring him the prospect of pain or punishment, It is to this actual nature of man that Jesus addresses Himself. It may be well for the idealists to wish that man were quite different so that they could rule no acts as having moral worth unless done freely out of an utterly uncalculating goodness of heart. Nevertheless, Jesus begins with man where he is and takes him where he ought to be. But how does Jesus propose to bring man out of all that is ignoble and corrupting in the world, and help him to become a partaker of His own divine nature? How does He arouse in us that courageous spirit that keeps trying to answer His call to His own glory and excellence? By knowledge alone? By some unreachable ideals only? No, He has granted to us His precious and very great promises that though these incentives perfectly adapted to our real nature we might be spurred to act rightly, that is, act ethically. (2 Peter 1:3-4) Unblushingly, the apostles make the same appeal: Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward. (2 John 1:8)

REVIEWING THE SERMON IN OUTLINE FORM

The Occasion: Jesus probably ordained the Twelve to be apostles (Matthew 5:1 a; Mark 3:13-19 a; Luke 6:12-16) and preached to a vast multitude (Matthew 5:1 b, Matthew 5:2; Luke 6:17-20).

Theme: The Wise and Godly Man

A. The Character and Blessings of the Wise and Godly Man (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20 b - Luke 6:26)

B. The Mission of the Wise and Godly Man (Matthew 5:13-17)

C. The Relation of the Wise and Godly Man to the Law (Matthew 5:17-48; Luke 6:27-36)

1. His attitude toward the Standard (Matthew 5:17-20)

His attitude toward Anger or Hate (Matthew 5:21-26)

His attitude toward Lust (Matthew 5:27-32)

His attitude toward Truth (Matthew 5:33-37)

His attitude toward Personal Vindication (Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-31)

His attitude toward Perfect Love (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:32-36)

D. The Religious Motives of the Wise and Godly Man (Matthew 6:1-18)

1. His basic motive (Matthew 6:1)

2. His motivation for doing others good (Matthew 6:2-4)

3. His motivation in prayer (Matthew 6:5-15)

4. His motivation for fasting (Matthew 6:16-18)

E. The Wealth and Worries of the Wise and Godly Man (Matthew 6:19-34) Luke 6:43-45)

1. His attitude toward earthly treasurers (Matthew 6:19-21)

2. His attitude toward his own dedication (Matthew 6:22-24)

3. His attitude toward the necessities (Matthew 6:25-34)

F. The Dangers Facing the Wise and Godly Man (Matthew 7:1-27; Luke 6:37-49)

1. The danger in harshly criticizing others (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42)

2. The danger in failing to discern important differences (Matthew 7:6)

3. The danger in failing to recognize God-s provision (Matthew 7:7-11)

4. The danger of missing God’s basic standard of conduct (Matthew 7:12)

5. The danger of choosing the wrong way of life (Matthew 7:13-14)

6. The danger of being led astray by false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20;

7. The danger of self-deception (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46)

G. The Wisdom of the Wise and Godly Man in Obeying Jesus (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49)

The Impact of Jesus-’ Message (Matthew 7:28 to Matthew 8:1)

Matthew 5:1-2

CHAPTER FIVE Section 11. JESUS PREACHES THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

(Parallels: Mark 3:13-19 a; Luke 6:12-49)

TEXT: 5:1, 2

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:

and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What do you suppose to have been Jesus’ impression of this (Cf. Matthew 9:36)

b.

What was Jesus trying to accomplish by preaching this message?

c.

Why would it be important for Jesus to make the bold, almost shocking statements that are seen in this sermon? For whom were these words intended? the masses? the religious leaders? the disciples? enormous crowd of followers from near and far?

d.

How do you think that each group would react to what He said?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Then Jesus came down from the mountain top with His newly selected apostles and stood on a level place on the mountain where was a large concourse of His disciples and great numbers of people from Jerusalem and Judea and from the seaboard area of Tyre and Sidon. These all had come to listen to Him and to be cured of their diseases. Those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured; and everyone in the crowd was trying to touch Him, because power went out from Him and cured them all

After He had taken His seat, His disciples came up to Him and gathered around to listen. He looked over His audience, opened His mouth and began to address them.

NOTES

Matthew 5:1 Seeing the multitudes. Here is the Speaker sizing up His audience. Jesus had eyes that really perceived, for He was looking beyond the surface. He saw not merely a multitude to teach: He saw individual cases, real problems. (Give some thought to these passages: Matthew 4:18; Matthew 4:21; Matthew 8:14; Matthew 8:18; Matthew 9:2; Matthew 9:9; Matthew 9:36; Matthew 14:14; Mark 10:14; Mark 12:34; Luke 7:13; Luke 13:12; Luke 17:14; Luke 18:24; Luke 19:5; Luke 21:1-2) Onto what mountain in Galilee (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 8:5; Luke 7:1) He went up, nobody knows, although it was quite possibly within easy walking distance of Capernaum, assuming that He healed the centurion’s servant on the same day. His choice of a tall hill may have been to obtain the best acoustics for this open-air meeting. There are no true mountains in Galilee: there are many hills which could easily fit the idea of the Greek word (oros; see Matthew 5:14 where the same word is translated hill), none of which is over 3000 foot altitude, But since the area around the Sea of Galilee Isaiah 682 feet below sea level and the Esdraelon Plain of lower Galilee lay at sea level or a little above, any tall hills in Galilee look like mountains.

Matthew 5:2 His disciples came to him. This cannot mean that only His disciples heard the sermon, since there were crowds who heard Him through to the end (Matthew 7:28). They were not merely a crowd of disciples, for there followed Him from the site of the Sermon great crowds. (Matthew 8:1; cf. Luke 6:17-19) When he had sat down, as would any oriental teacher, probably upon some eminence clearly visible to the audience, His disciples arranged themselves on the ground at the Master’s feet. Opened his mouth and taught them, saying. By means of this seeming redundancy, Matthew gives the distinct impression that he is recording one single address, delivered on a specific occasion. (Cf. Matthew 7:28 - Matthew 8:1) Yet, many scholars assume that he has collected here isolated sayings from many occasions, on the basis of the fact that Luke does record some of these remarks as having also been said under different circumstances. But let us permit Matthew, who was present (Cf. Luke 6:15), tell his own story about what Jesus said, to us who were not there.

Matthew 5:3-12

A. THE CHARACTER AND BLESSINGS OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN

(Parallel: Luke 6:20-26)

TEXT: 5:3-12

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled,

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God,

10. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness-’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you,

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a. Why do you suppose Jesus began this sermon this way? b. Why does Jesus describe this type of character as blessed? c. Is there any difference between the Wise and Godly Man and heathens who share some of these qualities? If so, what?

d. What is the antithesis in Jesus-’ mind as He lists each of these qualities? This is one of the best ways to discover what He meant. e. What is the relationship between the salvation by grace of very undeserving sinners and the receiving of rewards on the basis of certain qualities one possesses, or on the basis of suffering for Jesus-’ sake? If a man is saved without any regard to his personal merits (Romans 3:19-26; Ephesians 2:8-9) just because he accepted God’s gracious offer, how is it possible to harmonize the idea of rewards?

f. Why is it always a mistake to overestimate one’s sense of worthiness? The Pharisees thought that THEY, if anybody, should be the first to enter the kingdom, due to their obvious righteousness, But Jesus describes a character completely different from theirs. Where did they go wrong? (Cf. Romans 12:3; 2 Corinthians 10:7-18)

g. Why do you suppose the meek, the gentle, courteous, unassuming people are usually more highly esteemed than the selfish, calculating status-seekers? h. In what way are the Beatitudes the description of an ideal Christian? i. Summing up the rewards promised in the Beatitudes, what is the great reward Jesus is promising? Would you say that this reward would satisfy? j. Is it possible for the natural man, that is, one who is not a disciple of Jesus, to be all that the Beatitudes require? How is it possible for the Christian to be everything that Jesus mentions here?

k.

Since each of the Beatitudes mentions an attitude of heart, how does Jesus intend that these Beatitudes shall be understood and applied?

l.

What are the real motives for my actions? Are there two motives behind each of my good deeds: the reason I want others to know, plus my real motive? What makes me do what good I do to others?

(1) Is it hope for financial gain or reimbursement (Cf. Acts 24:24-26; Luke 9:57-58)

(2) Is it applause, thanks or praise that I seek? (Colossians 3:22; John 5:44; John 12:43; Luke 17:7-10; Matthew 23:5-7)

(3) love of self display (3 John 1:9; Matthew 6:1-18; Luke 14:7-11; Luke 11:43)

(4) Maintaining my social respectability? (Matthew 16:1; Matthew 21:23; Luke 14:12-14; John 11:48; John 12:43)

(5) To gain a sense of superiority over others who would not stoop to such a humble task?

(6) Self-righteous pride? (Cf. Luke 18:9-14)

(7) Hopes of national glory? (Matthew 16:21-22; John 6:14-15)

m.

Is self-defence or the defence of one’s family, one’s country or of a threatened portion of fellow humans forbidden to the peacemaker? Must the peacemaker allow the basest, most brutal men rule the world by beatings, torture chambers and mass execution?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

How well off are you who know that you are poor in spiritual things, as well as materially (Luke 6:20): the kingdom of God is yours!

How blest are those who know what sorrow means, because they are in a position to receive consolation and courage!

Happy are those of a gentle spirit, who claim nothing of their own rights, for the whole earth will belong to them!

Blessed are you who are hungering and thirsting for that character which is God’s own righteousness: you shall be fully satisfied!

How happy are you that weep now, for you are going to laugh!

How blest are they who show mercy to others, for they will have mercy shown them!

Happy are those whose hearts are pure, those who are completely sincere, for they shall see God!

Happy are those who work to produce peace in human society, peace between God and man and peace with man himself: these will be known as God-s sons.

How blest are they who have suffered persecution for the cause of righteousness! The kingdom of God belongs to such as they.

Indeed what happiness will be yours when men hate you and turn you out of their company, when you suffer insults and persecution, when they slander you and despise all that you stand for, because you are loyal to the Son of man! Accept it with gladness and rejoicing, for your reward in heaven will be magnificent. This is the way men persecuted God’s spokesmen, the prophets, before your time.

But alas for you who are rich, for you are in little position to receive further comfort! (Luke 6:24)

How miserable are you who have all you want, for you can only return to hunger! (Luke 6:25)

A curse on you who are laughing now, for you will learn sorrow and tears! (Luke 6:25)

Woe to you when everybody is saying nice things about you, for that is exactly the manner in which their fathers treated the false prophets! (Luke 6:26)

NOTES

Matthew 5:3 Blessed. In the introductory notes, see the special study: Jesus-’ Purpose. The word (makarios) denotes: happy, blessed, fortunate and connotes: well off, thriving, prosperous, in good condition. Sometimes the word describes a pleasant state of feeling, on the part of the person thus described. But it will be seen that Jesus is talking about happiness from His ideal point of view. The conditions that Jesus represents as blessed are those which his listeners had always considered as curses. Thus, He clearly intends to surprise and whet their interest with these unexpected lightning bolts from heaven. The beatitudes are paradoxes in that they declare as being truly well off the man who, from the ordinary point of view and perhaps in his own opinion, seems to be most unfortunate. But Jesus refers to man’s true well-being which can often be opposed to his apparent well-being. This surprising opening of His sermon secured to Jesus the attention to the whole message! Though these beatitudes are flat contradictions of the common world view, they demonstrate themselves in actual practice to be unquestionably true.

In saying where true happiness lies, Jesus is not suggesting that either pleasure or pain arc the true criteria of right and wrong. Rather He emphatically insists that the ultimate results of right-doing are ultimately pleasant, while those of wrong-doing are finally painful, even though the intermediate plight of the godly man may be torment and trouble and the case of the wicked nothing but sumptuous comfort. These blesseds are another of Jesus-’ attempts to get man’s eye off the glamor and glitter of this age that blinds him to the more concrete realities of the Kingdom of God in its practical aspects for this age as well as its promised delight in eternity. Jesus wastes no time: beginning by contradicting all points of man’s basic philosophy, or world-view, He lays down the challenge, Whose world is real? He immediately marks Himself a blind fool, at worst, or an idealistic dreamer, at best, if He cannot really see beyond the limits of this epoch and declare with divine authority the true outcomes of the contradictory ethics of this world-life. While many of the beatitudes have present joys attached to them, yet most of them have double intent that reaches beyond this life. But flatly contradicting the common world-view, Jesus is announcing: Only my world is real. That human world-view is mistaken which declares as happy the rich, the oppressors, the proud, the arrogant, the self-centered, the fully satisfied! How beautifully James (James 3:13-18) makes this point!

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let his good life give practical proof of it by deeds wrought with the meekness born of wisdom. But if there is bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast or deny the truth, for this is not a wisdom that comes down from above. Rather, it is earthbound, physical (as opposed to spiritual) and diabolical. For wherever you find jealousy and selfish ambition, you will also have disorder and all kinds of evil practices. But, on the other hand, the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, rich in mercy and good fruits, straightforward and unhypocritical.

He merely seconds Jesus-’ remarks by stating that true wisdom lies in being everything Jesus described in these beatitudes.

From the first word of the beatitudes to the last resounding illustration, Jesus-’ message draws black-and-white contrasts between the true nature of the expected Kingdom and true righteousness, and the popular expectations and views arising out of the Mosaic system and the Pharisaic philosophy.

The most striking contrast with the Mosaic system can be seen by remembering how important the rite of circumcision is to any adequate concept of the system. (Cf. Acts 15; Romans 2:25-28; Romans 4:9-12; Galatians 5:3-6; Ephesians 2:11-12; Colossians 2:11-13) But circumcision is completely ignored by Jesus as completely incongruous with the entire plan of God for His kingdom. No Jew could have imagined the Messiah’s leaving out such a beatitude as: Blessed are the circumcised, for no uncircumcized persons shall enter the kingdom of heaven, Not one external rite is ever brought forward. Jesus-’ silence is most

significant.

But the most remarkable collisions occurred when Jesus-’ religion collided with the current views of the Pharisees, Before raising the standard of acceptable righteousness to the level of absolute perfection (Cf. Matthew 5:48; Romans 13:8-10), far beyond the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus pronounced as blessed at the very outset those who were not perfect: the spiritually bankrupt, the mourning, the humble, those hungering for righteousness. The Lord could just as easily have said, BLESSED ARE THE SINNERS, for they shall see God, receive mercy, enter the Kingdom and be called God’s sons, Such a beatitude, while completely expressive of the genius of Christianity, yet might have scandalized the audience because of its apparently contradictory nature. This beatitude shocks because it refutes all other religions which bless those fortunate few who have struggled up an endless number of steps toward perfection by the strength of their own moral energies. But Jesus, in blessing the imperfect, destroys all hope for the self-righteous. Here Jesus is teaching the doctrine most offensive and unacceptable to the world: good men are going to hell, but wicked wretches God can save! (Study Revelation 3:17-18) A man is never so well off as when he admits to himself that he is poor, blind, naked, destitute and morally wretched, because only then can he learn what God can do with him.

Blessed are the poor, not only in spirit but also in purse! (Cf. Luke 6:20) Woe to you that are rich! (Luke 6:24) Jesus well knew that it would not be wealth as such that would hinder the entrance of the rich into His kingdom, but its religio-ethical effects upon their character. (Cf. Matthew 19:16-30; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 12:13-21; 1 Timothy 6:6-10; 1 Timothy 6:17-19) But naked poverty as such does not automatically bring the destitute into the kingdom either. However, actual poverty, sorrow and hunger have real religious and ethical effects upon the poor, if they be taken as opportunities for the exercise of internal virtues. Jesus is not pronouncing a blessing upon an economic situation where people have not enough food to eat or are forced to live in slums. Rather, He encourages those in that unfortunate condition to be assured that they ARE the objects of God’s concern. Both Matthew and Luke emphasize this extreme destitution by not using the usual word for a poor man (penes or penichros) who is so poor that he must struggle to exist on his scanty daily wage. Instead they use a word (ptochos) which may mean simply poor, but commonly signifies dependent upon others for support. It speaks of one deeply conscious of his need.

This opening salvo fired by Jesus at one of the most popular expectations of the Jews, that in the messianic kingdom all would be wealthy, must have dumfounded the audience, They had learned to think that wealth was the peculiar demonstration of God’s blessing and favor. Here, however, Jesus is exclaiming, The highborn, the wealthy, the privileged are not necessarily the favorites of God. Nor do they have first rights to the kingdom before others. Too often they are oppressors, exploiters, worshippers of mammon, proud, idle, vain, self-indulgent, self-centered, cruel and callous. (Note James 2:1-7; James 5:1-6) To those of this character God’s Kingdom is closed! Even if genuinely good people, the rich have the temptation to put their wealth before their allegiance to Jesus. (Cf. Matthew 19:16-22) Here and there Jesus found a Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), a Joanna (Luke 8:3), or a Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57) who were willing followers, but more often than not the rich proved to be His enemies (Luke 16:14) and oppressed His followers (James 2:6; James 5:1-6).

James puts this beatitude in these terms: Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like the flower of the grass he will pass away. (James 1:9-10) By putting it this way, James emphasizes the spiritual relationship of wealth and poverty upon man’s spiritual welfare. This explains why Jesus said (according to Matthew), Blessed are the poor in spirit. The man who is really well-off in Jesus-’ estimation is he who knows that he is spiritually bankrupt. He has plumbed the depths of his heart and found nothing there that had any real value. This man has reached his own point of despair: he has realized his own utter helplessness, Only he can be helped who knows that mere things are quite incapable of bringing him happiness and security. How deep is the poverty of soul of the rich man when he must face the sudden realization that he has no treasure in heaven and is not rich toward God. But wealth tends to hide from the rich man his true spiritual condition to the point that he will never come to Jesus for the true wealth. This explains Jesus-’ warning, Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation, you have all that you are going to get! (Luke 6:24)

** For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. **Jesus is trying to GIVE away the Kingdom to those who want it on His terms (cf. vv. 10, 20). But His terms demand that all comers admit their deep spiritual poverty and their dire need of His wealth (Luke 12:32-34), their need to start all over by receiving from Him (John 3:1-5). This way, proud, self-righteous spirits would not be at all suited for the kingdom (Matthew 18:3-4; Mark 10:15), In fact, look who accepted the gospel: people who realized their destitute condition and were ready to listen to the Lord and accept His gracious help on His terms. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26 ff) This is the beginning of faith and the power behind true repentance.

Matthew 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn. The ability to mourn is a mark of character, Remember Peter after he denied Jesus (Matthew 26:75); Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:35); Jesus in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37-38); Isaiah and Jeremiah at the sins of Israel (Isaiah 22:4; Jeremiah 9:1; Lamentations) and countless others. Men mourn because they have loved deeply and lost, Woe to him whose heart is so selfish that it is incapable of feeling grief! The tearless eye and the thoughtless heart are themselves causes for deep mourning. This explains Jesus-’ gladness to see a man weep. (Study Ezekiel 9:3-6; Amos 6:6)

Within what frame of reference does Jesus pronounce this blessing? The whole impact of the Sermon commands the merely interested to become Jesus-’ disciples, if they would enjoy the true righteousness and the happiness He offers. Therefore, the two keys which open this blessing to our understanding are the recognition of the true origin of sorrow and the recognition of the true source of the blessing. Sin causes all grief, by one means or another, among both disciples and non-disciples alike. That is, mourning might be animated by the recognition of sin in one’s self or by the shock of what it does to God and one’s fellows. It could be the heartbreak, the shattered dreams that come from the sins of others. But hopeless, unrelieved grief will never find comfort, only death. (Cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10 b; 1 Thessalonians 4:13) Further, the grief or mourning that is meant must be understood in a sense consistent with Jesus-’ ethic. It cannot be the frustrated distress of the man too old or sick to continue his revelry, nor the anguish of the robber who learns that he overlooked more than he stole, nor the shabby penitence of the man who got caught in the act of some sin but cares little about the moral consequences of his deed.

Jesus offers Himself and His message (cf. Matthew 11:28-29) as the only true source of hope and blessing to those who grieve. It may well be that they have yet no adequate concept of the true cause of their grief nor of a remedy for its comfort. But before Jesus will relieve them, He incites in their soul the consciousness of sin and the deep need to repent. Out of their encounter with Jesus will come such earnestness, such eagerness to clear oneself, such indignation and alarm, such zeal and correction of sin that the sorrowing will put themselves in a correct position to be comforted by Jesus. Those who fail to regard sin rightly will also have little regard for Jesus-’ method of dealing with the sorrow.

Another paraphrase of this word of Jesus might be: Blessed are those who are ripped and torn by their struggles with human sorrow, for they are in a position to be encouraged. It is not the man who lives in a state of constant joy or receives all of this world’s comforts that can know what true strengthening is.

They shall be comforted! This was Jesus-’ business (Isaiah 61:1-2), for He came to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. (Cf. James 4:9) Not all the comfort is realized in the next world (Revelation 7:17; Revelation 21:3-4), but is intended to empower us to face this one. Comforted (paraklethesontai) does not mean that the sorrowing shall be anesthetized to the point that they will not feel their suffering or pain. Rather, it means that they will be strengthened, braced up, encouraged or cheered up to face the situation worthily as a disciple of the Lord.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep! (Luke 6:25 b) This is the other side of the coin. There were undoubtedly clever ones who sought their amusement in ridicule of Jesus and His followers. There were others who would not take Jesus seriously, but they would not get the last laugh! (Note Psalms 2, esp. Psalms 2:4; Psalms 37:12-13) Then there are those who are so shallow of character as to have no conscience. They cannot feel it in them to mourn about anything. To them, life is one grand comedy of laughs. Nothing is to be taken too seriously. The tragedy is that these clowns will mistake the one serious issue of all of life: what to do with Jesus.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek. Other translations for meek (praus) are gentle, humble, considerate, unassuming, courteous. It indicates that forbearance and consideration for others that is willing to waive its rights if by so doing the good of others can be advanced, Obviously, it is the opposite quality to arrogance and violence which seek to dominate others because of an insatiable drive for power that is willing to crush any and all opponents in the drive to realize that goal. Men are haughty and proud because of what they think themselves to be, or because of what they think that they by rights must possess, Thus, they think it one of the necessary sacrifices of the struggle to trample upon the heads of others in their race for control. But men who are truly meek already know that they are poor spiritually and have little reason thus to presume. This beatitude, a paradoxical shocker, carries this message: not the violently self-assertive but the considerate and unassuming will finally have possession of the earth! To the humble man who is wise enough to see it, Jesus is pronouncing the end of the competition in that futile social climbing where the selfish elbow their way to gain their rightful place in the sun.

But the meek are not weak by any means! To hold one’s emotions in check while the rest of one’s society battles its way to the top in that heady contest, is not child’s play. Often more strength is required to stay out of these rivalries than to join.

This word of Jesus does everything but cheer the hopes of those fierce nationalists who were itching for Roman blood in the realization of their dreams of a messianic kingdom that would proudly dominate the entire non-Jewish world. But even the cooler heads could not envision any other interpretation of the old prophets than this: Blessed is my people Israel: for they shall dominate the earth by right of inheritance. The Gentiles were created merely to serve Israel.

O the wisdom of Jesus-’ words!-’ Has it not ever been true that the most enduring power over men’s hearts has been gained by serving them in that selfless help that frees the oppressed and raises the fallen? What masterful sway Jesus holds over men today just because He chose not to rule the world by cold steel and an iron fist! He chose rather the path of gentle courtesy and unselfish giving and how many would not joyfully accept the plundering of their property or public abuse and affliction for His sake? Jesus was meek (Matthew 11:29), and the earth became His to rule. (Philippians 2:5-11; Ephesians 1:19-22)

But meekness does not always require the surrender of one’s rights. Jesus and Paul both asserted their rights, without trampling upon those of others. (Cf. John 18:19-23; Acts 16:37; Acts 22:25 ff) Other examples are Paul’s not demanding a salary (1 Corinthians 9:1-18; 2 Corinthians 11:7-10); Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4); Stephen before that council (Acts 7); and, Moses as he stood before Pharaoh and before Israel (Exodus 4 to the end of Moses-’ life; Numbers 12:3).

Those who fall heir to the earth are and always have been those that God could teach. Without real humility a man cannot learn, since the prerequisite of learning is the admission of one’s own ignorance. For other study of meekness compare: Romans 12:3; Romans 12:10; Romans 12:12; Romans 12:16-21; 2 Corinthians 10:1; Galatians 5:22-23; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Titus 3:2; James 1:21; James 3:13; 1 Peter 3:4; 1 Peter 3:15-16; 1 Peter 5:6.

For they shall inherit the earth. If earth (gen) be translated land, the beatitude better adapts itself to the Jewish association of ideas. A study of Psa 37:9; Psalms 37:11; Psalms 37:22; Psalms 37:29; Psalms 37:34 will demonstrate that this phrase is almost a proverbial expression for the highest of blessings, although, literally, any Jew would quite readily and rightly have understood it to mean the promised possession which was the land of Palestine. (Cf. Genesis 15:7-8; Genesis 28:4; Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 20:24; Deuteronomy 16:20; Psalms 25:13; Psalms 69:36; Isaiah 57:13; Isaiah 60:21; Isaiah 65:9; Ezekiel 33:23-29) But only the blindest would fail to see that the whole tenor of such Psalms emphasized the truth that man’s highest joys are realized only in God’s presence. This means that man must be ready to move with God from His revelation of a –promised land, which might mean a small tract of land on the eastern Mediterranean coast, to His revelation of a promised earth. (2 Peter 3:13) So, as Jesus makes this announcement of the true and appropriate disposition of the Father’s goods, He holds out no hope for the crass, carnal dreams of the majority of His people. Yet He justified to the letter the keen spiritual insight of the true Israel.

How do the meek inherit the earth?

1. They enjoy it more fully in this life. Why?

a. Because, more than any others, they enjoy whatever God sends. The wicked, in their rush to possess, usually miss or overlook the best of this world, or else, having seen it, they refuse to pay the price to gain it, or having gained it, they are miserable,

b. Because their character guarantees to them a greater measure of peace and stability. Their calmness allows time for better judgment, their contentment assures their safety under law, and their sense of justice builds confidence.

c. Because they are stable of character, they can become the wise advisors to rulers who listen, (Cf. Daniel and his three friends, Daniel 1-3; Daniel 6:1)

They will inherit the new earth. (2 Peter 3:13) This promise means the end of the present competition with the greedy, the cruel, the proud and the selfish, for all that they sought to amass for themselves for eternity will finally be the true possession of the humble.

The irony is complete: they who struggle most feverishly, in the end lose it all, while they who cheerfully, generously and humbly seek the good of others inherit it all!

Matthew 5:6 **Blessed are they who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness. **Observe the present participles (peinontes, dipsontes) for they probably express a continuing, constantly-felt longing. Jesus challenges our real desire for goodness: Are you so intensely and sharply pained by your need of true righteousness that you would die unless you get it? Just how badly do you want to be righteous? (See Matthew 13:44-46) Such questions criticize our satisfaction with partial goodness, half-way accomplishment and partly-kept promises to be good. Jesus cannot leave men in peace if He is to convert them. The self-sufficient, the smugly self-complacent and the self-righteous are the only people on earth beyond the help of God. Jesus bestows the favor of God upon those who are bitterly dissatisfied with themselves, discontent and broken by their sense of need for righteousness. A full man feels no need to eat or drink (Luke 6:25). This is why Jesus expressed His horror of that self-contentment that inevitably deals a death blow to any possibility of development or improvement. A man’s moral health and personal righteousness really depend upon whether he thinks himself to have arrived at a satisfactory perfection: if he has arrived, he has not! A classic example to study: Luke 18:9-14.

They shall be filled. Here is a hint at the most basic doctrine of Christ’s religion: justification by faith. If righteousness be so desired as hunger and thirst seek their respective satisfactions, then the seeker’s imperfections and need for righteousness are confessed. Such a tormenting hunger for a right character or right standing before God must, by its nature, admit the faulty character and dangerous position of those thus tortured. This beatitude also hints that the blessing of filling comes from without and is unconnected with the relative merits of the recipient. How can that man who is already righteous in his own eyes, already filled and perfected by his own strength. find joy in Jesus-’ promise? God is glad to impute righteousness to the man who comes to Him for filling (Romans 4:23-25; Romans 5:1-11), but he who thus comes will be one humbled by his continuing and increasing sense of need.

Paradoxically, this beatitude promises satisfaction in a matter in which satisfaction seems impossible: can we ever get to be righteous enough? But Jesus promises satisfaction, not satiation which destroys interest or desire. Since, elsewhere in the Sermon, Jesus defines and illustrates the true righteousness of God, that may reflect back on this beatitude, suggesting that Jesus means here: Those who seek my kind of righteousness will actually find it. He who trusts himself to my leadership will arrive at his destination, which, if he follows the best of modern scholarly opinion on the subject, he will never see! Jesus Himself is God’s answer to our deepest need for righteousness. We must come to Him as empty pitchers to a full fountain to be filled. God’s ability to supply always exceeds our demand, but He supplies in proportion to our demand. Thus, God judges us by the dreams that drive us, quite as much as by our few accomplishments. If we keep our zest for godly living, our enthusiasm for being His and doing His will, He will see to it that we have the strength and opportunity to be truly righteous, and best of all, His forgiveness when we fail. Thus, His filling is in a large measure based upon our putting ourselves in a position to be filled.

There is a sense in which it might be said that the entire world is hungering and thirsting for righteousness because of its obvious need. But the world is not blessed until it comes to Jesus (John 4:13-14; John 6:27 ff; John 7:37-39; Romans 10:1-4) who is all the righteousness that is needed (1 Corinthians 1:30).

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful. What a contradiction of the dreams of the Jewish freedom fighters whose aspirations offered little mercy to the enemy! How this dashed the plans of the self-aggrandizing who sought prestige, wealth and power at the expense of others! How this unmasked the hypocrisy of those who show mercy only to friends or family but are basically unsympathetic to human needs beyond the limited circle of those who can easily reciprocate this mercy! (Luke 10:25-37)

Again, this beatitude tends to shake the self-confidence by delivering God’s sentence against every concept of heartless legalism. The man who regards his relationship to God as a matter of piling up merit by doing a certain number of religious acts with a view to his purchase of heaven, may well be treating his fellow man with that same, exacting, pound-for-pound justice, Is it not a structural weakness of the extremely pious also to be utterly pitiless in their dealings with others? At least the self-righteous tend to show this fatal defect of being exceedingly critical of others who have not arrived at their superior standard, so critical to the point of considering it as rendering service to God to show no mercy to them! (Cf. Matthew 18:21-35; John 16:2; James 4:11-12; also Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7).

But God condemned all unmercifulness, because it assumes a position of absolute righteousness and perfect justice, a position which a sinner does not occupy, An unmerciful sinner is just a hypocrite. Unmercifulness shows itself in partiality (Luke 6:32-37; James 2:1-13), selfish orthodoxy (James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:16-18) and harsh judgment (Matthew 7:2).

Service most pleasing to God is not merely outward ritual, in which the unmerciful legalist may pride himself, but godlike dealing with our weak, sinful fellow humans. God commanded certain rituals to enable sinners to partake of His merciful forgiveness. But by these rituals God has always intended that man should learn to BE merciful. Any religionist, who can be unmerciful with those who have not his same apprehension of the rituals or his understanding of the doctrines or his own religious stature, possesses a FALSE religion, according to Jesus. (Matthew 9:9-13; Matthew 12:1-14) It should be no wonder that Jesus views deeds of true mercy to others as done (or not done) to Himself (Matthew 25:34-46; cf. Proverbs 19:17).

How does mercy itself?

By gentleness with sinners (Hebrews 4:14 to Hebrews 5:3; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 5:32), or with those who Christian convictions are different (Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 1 Corinthians 10:23 to 1 Corinthians 11:1), or with those whose religious tenets are wrong (2 Timothy 2:24-26), or with those whose religious connections are merely different (Mark 9:38-41; Acts 11:19-24; Acts 9:26-28)

By helpfulness to those who need help (Psalms 41:1-3; Psalms 37:21; Psalms 37:25-26; Luke 6:34-36; Luke 6:38; Luke 10:37; Luke 14:12-14; Acts 11:27-30)

By forgiveness (Proverbs 19:11; Genesis 50:17-21; Numbers 12:1-13; Matthew 18:15-35; Luke 17:3-4; Acts 7:60)

Can you think of other ways in which we can be merciful?

But beware of substitutes for Christian mercy! Godly mercy cannot mean connivance with sin. Mercy becomes only sentimental softness or careless indulgence when it ignores justice. Justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive. (Cf. Matthew 23:23; Romans 3:23-26) Christian mercy must justly condemn sin in order to save the sinner. The most merciful act one can do for a sinner is to cause him to acknowledge his sin, break his heart and lead to repent. Analyze Nathan’s strategy when he compassionately applied the divine scalpel to David-s heinous sin. (2 Samuel 12:1-15) Mercy that slurs over the cruelty and the wrong which men afflict on others, as things merely to be forgiven and forgotten, is a grotesque, immoral caricature of the genuine thing. Christian mercy involves compassion for the sinner, but severity to the sin.

Another substitute for Christian mercy is mere pity, that natural tenderness of heart which may be but an unreasoning impulse. Christian clemency is actuated by principle, not merely emotion, and must be just. Because mercy is the right hand of love, it always seeks intelligently to do what is in the other person’s best interest, fully knowing that they may be ungrateful and selfish, unjust and evil (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35).

For they shall obtain mercy from God and their fellows. Showing mercy to others tends to awaken the same spirit in them, stimulating them to be lenient. The merciful man does good to his own soul; but he that is cruel troubles his own flesh. (Proverbs 11:17) Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry, but shall not be heard. (Proverbs 21:13) The unmerciful cannot expect but the same treatment in return. (Luke 6:32-38)

The stunning truth of Christianity which makes it a unique religion is that, according to Jesus, God lets man determine the rigor with which the standard is to be applied! God will deal with us just as we would treat others. (Matthew 7:2; Matthew 6:12; Matthew 6:14; Matthew 10:40-42; Matthew 18:35; Matthew 25:31-46; cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18; 2 Samuel 22:26; Psalms 112:4-6; Psalms 112:9) There is absolutely no way for man to be merciful to God. Man must show himself compassionate, lenient, generous and forgiving to his peers, God will mitigate or intensify the demands of absolute justice with the individual on the basis of his conduct in this very matter with his fellows. What a terrible prospect of merciless judgment faces him who has shown no mercy! But to him who has been merciful, even the unchanging demands of perfect justice bow to the mercy of God. (James 2:13) For the delight of your spiritual life and a model of devotional excellence, ponder that great hymn to the mercy of God, Psalms 103.

This beatitude is another hint at the grace of God. Jesus speaks as though men are going to NEED mercy, suggesting that none will really be able to earn their right to God’s kingdom. Happy is that man who admits .to himself that he is a sinner and never arrogates to himself the position of unrelenting Judge, but is continually liberal with his compassion, intelligent with his leniency, ready to forgive, for God enjoys forgiving that kind of man.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart. Whether the Jews caught the point of the beatitude may be questioned, but a moment’s reflection reveals that Jesus is attacking all purely external religion. He is combatting the most cherished ideas of the Pharisees and cannot help but arouse their antagonism by such speech. These are fighting words which will be repeated with increasing intensity and frequency. (Cf. Matthew 5:20; Matthew 6:2-18; Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 12:33-37; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 23:1-36) Ceremonial purity, secured by numerous washings, by avoiding contact with certain contaminating objects such as corpses and non-Jews, by abstinence from certain foods, does not qualify for fellowship with God anyone whose HEART is contaminated! (Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 21:3; Proverbs 27; 1 Samuel 15:22; I Psa. 51:16-17; Isaiah 1:11-20 Micah 6:7-8) Those who shall be permitted a ready audience of the King Himself, are not those who punctiliously perform but those who are personally pure. (Psalms 15:1-5; Psalms 24:3-6; Proverbs 22:11) Jesus-’ challenged to His and any age is simply: HOW very badly do you want to see God? Are you willing, then, to open up your inmost thoughts, your best-hidden desires, your secret designs for the inspection of God? How happy is that man who so lives that at any moment he could bare his heart to the eye of God without shame. Who is willing to pay this price to enter the kingdom? Jesus is keenly interested in the quality of a man’s inmost being. (Cf. Matthew 5:28; Matthew 6:21; Matthew 13:1-9; Matthew 13:18-23; Matthew 15:8; Matthew 15:18-19; Mark 3:5; Mark 11:23; Luke 16:15; Luke 21:34)

But the corruption and filth of the human heart does not permit such an exposure to those who are honest with themselves. We often have two motives behind each of our good deeds: the one we want others to know and the real one by which we profit from the deed. And, try as we might, we cannot quite succeed in living on that level where all our actions exactly represent our true desires. But Jesus did not leave man to grovel in his impurity, for He provided the means by which man can be reborn (John 3:3-5; Titus 2:14; Titus 3:5) and become a completely new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). By cleansing the heart by faith. Jesus arrives at a moral condition that no legal system, governing merely external conduct, could produce. (Cf. Acts 15:9; 1 Peter 1:22). Jesus aims His teaching at the selfish sentiments, the distorted conscience and the obstinent will, for everything else emanates from these sources. (Proverbs 4:23; Matthew 12:34-37; Matthew 15:8; Matthew 15:18-19) (Cf. Psalms 51; John 15:3; 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:22; Titus 1:15; James 1:27;

Happy is the man whose heart has been cleansed! Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 9:14)

How does purity of heart manifest itself?

Chastity of a mind so clean that lust cannot live (Matthew 5:28)

Basic honesty so well-known that oaths are unnecessary (Matthew 5:33-37) and worship and service becomes real (Matthew 6:1-18)

Intelligent love so perfect that hate, anger, contempt (Matthew 5:22 ff), personal retaliation (Matthew 5:39-42) and partiality (Matthew 5:44-48) have no place in the pure heart.

Singleness of mind so completely confident of God’s provision that worry and materialism are impossible (James 4:8; see notes on Matthew 6:19-24)

It is that singleness of mind and purpose that owns only one Master (Matthew 6:22-24)

In short, it is that freedom from all thoughts, motives and intentions

behind conduct that defile man and cut him off from God’s fellowship.

For they shall see God. (Cf. Hebrews 12:14; 1 John 3:2-3; Revelation 22:4; Psalms 51:7-11) Faith and a regenerated heart help man to see God (Ephesians 1:17 ff; Romans 5:1 ff; 2 Corinthians 3:12 to 2 Corinthians 4:6). We see only what we are able to see. By keeping our heart pure, we are now training ourselves to see God, or else if we refuse to submit to this discipline, we shall never be able fully to see Him.

This proposition is historically true: only those, whose hearts were bent upon doing God-s will, saw God in Jesus. The rest did nor. Yet, any who saw Jesus should have seen God. (John 10:30; John 14:9) Why did the rest fail to see Him? Because they already had their minds made up about what God had to be, say and do, So when God came walking among them in the person of Jesus, they frankly did not recognize Him. They had been unwilling to submit to God-s will, for they really served sin (John 8:31-47). Thus, they heard no echoes of the Father’s voice in the tones of Jesus, because they did not really know the Father. (John 5:38-47; John 7:17)

What Jesus declares rings true psychologically: those who have not spent the whole of their life energies seeking God-s approval, would not be happy to see Him anyhow. Even admission into the presence of our glorious and holy God would be hellish torment to those whose hearts are contaminated. Therefore, God, in banishing the wicked from His presence forever, is but mercifully conceding them their last wish! The impure in heart shall not see God.-’-'

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers. To those arrogant Jews who expected God’s Messiah to wage war, leaving all Gentile nations grovelling subjects of Israel, this beatitude must have come as a shock. Those who secretly nourished the hope that Jesus would help them realize all their fiercely nationalistic ambitions against the world must have felt keenly disappointed. (Note John 6:14-15) Jesus clearly announces a spiritual kinship to God which is not a question of nationality, social standards, economic position or bloodline descent. It is a matter of spiritual likeness to God. (Romans 8:14; Romans 15:33; Matthew 5:44-45) God’s sons are not the warlike, yearning to assert their political supremacy over the rest of the world, but those who labor to create peace. Observe that Jesus said peacemakers, nor peace lovers. He wants His disciples to be active promoters of peace, not merely peaceable men. The peacemaker does not fold his hands, but he rolls up his sleeves. (Hebrews 12:14)

This beatitude is a trumpet-call to war, however to battle on quite another front than the usual one. Jesus is challenging the deepest commitment and the basic sincerity of each disciple: Are you willing to stick your neck out, to get involved in the troubles of others, to risk the loss of your personal tranquility? Are you so convinced of the value of human brotherhood that no cost is too high to bring about justice and peace in any situation where men strive with their fellows? The Lord is appealing to man’s fighting heart, that hero in the soul of each of us, to get involved in this warfare for peace.

But Jesus-’ peace corps volunteers are those who share His worldview and seek the peace on His terms. This means fighting with spiritual weapons against SIN (James 4:1-5), the real cause of strife, bitterness, hate and war. (Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Corinthians 10:2-5) It means waging war not upon mere ignorance but rather ignorance of God (Hosea 4:1-2; Hosea 4:6), not upon mere poverty of purse but poverty of soul. It means not merely to seek to bring about an absence of hostilities, but to teach men to love one another. It cannot mean anesthetizing men into tranquil self-satisfaction in sin; it must mean bringing rebels to their knees before God, seeking to be reconciled to Him on His terms. In His peacemaking mission, Jesus lost His life (Ephesians 2:14-17) and, in the strife against sin, His disciple may not expect to fare any better (Hebrews 12:2-4; Matthew 10:34 ff). Obviously, the Christian cannot make his peace with the world without risking his peace with God (James 4:4), so he must not seek a peace at any price. Rather, he must sow for a harvest of righteousness. (James 3:18)

Jesus does not hereby justify mere pacificism, for this usually means opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose, or that attitude of mind which opposes all war and advocates settlement of every international dispute entirely by arbitration. He is, first of all, discussing His ideal disciple, not establishing rules for international control of nations or power-groups who do not acknowledge His authority. For Jesus-’ disciple to refuse to take part in an aggressive war is in perfect accord with Jesus spirit here expressed. But Satan still commands enough powerful forces in the world to threaten world domination at the expense of the rest of humanity. For the Christian to adopt a policy of opposition to war with those tyrants who would suppress all opinions but their own, is to betray the rest of humanity into their hands. Paul, on the other hand, defends the right of governments to use force to maintain a just order; this he does on the basis of the declaration that God Himself has given that right (Romans 13:1-7). Not one centurion was instructed to forsake the army to demonstrate the reality of his faith in Jesus or the genuineness of his repentance (Matthew 8:5-13; Acts 10, 11); likewise for the common soldiers (Luke 3:14). Even the attempt to arbitrate every international dispute by use of the conference table often fails, because of the unchangeable desire of one power to rule the world. The difficulty with idealistic pacifism is that it naively assumes that all men are inspired by the same high ideals. Is it loving one’s neighbor to stand idly by doing nothing while another hacks him to pieces? (See notes on Matthew 5:38-48) Peacemaking, considered on the state or international level, is basically beyond the scope of this beatitude for two reasons: first, true peace on earth is impossible where sin reigns; second, the only effective means of removing sin is by conversion through the gospel of Jesus, and this can be applied only at the level of the individual, If the morality of Jesus, which He aimed at the individual, be applied on the level of unconverted society, the result will be disastrous: the structure of society will be destroyed by the unconverted who take advantage of the non-resistance offered by the rest of society, and the ethic of Jesus (thus wrongly understood and applied) will be either reduced to an ineffective whisper, or else laughed off the human stage as completely unworthy of further consideration.

How does one go about making peace?

He must first be a man in whom bitterness and strife cannot dwell and, in consequence of his character, a man whom men can trust to be fair. (Luke 6:35; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 3:13-17)

Then he can bridge the distance between the antagonists. (Matthew 18:15-35; Philippians 4:2-3; Philemon; Ephesians 2:11-18)

He can heal the break by rebuilding the human concern for one another. (Cf. Acts 7:26; Romans 15:25-31; 2 Corinthians 9:12-14)

He must be thoroughly impartial: perfectly just in seeking and removing the cause of estrangement but thoroughly merciful with the persons involved. (Galatians 2:11 f; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:1-10)

For they shall be called sons of God. Just as God got involved in the sin, pain, misery and strife of this wicked race, even so those who lay down their lives to make peace wherever their influence extends, will be recognized by the very spirit and image of their Father which they bear. So regardless of all their pretences to orthodoxy, warring factionists, by the very nature of the case, disprove their claim to be sons of God. If Jesus means the phrase sons of God according to the Hebrew idiom which means like God, then actual sonship, that relationship to God brought about by faith in Jesus (John 1:12-13), is not necessarily and immediately broken by such hatefulness. However, continued bitterness, unforgiven grudges and factional infighting do actually destroy that former connection with the Father. For the present, Jesus is saying, he who claims to be a son of God must act like God. (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35)

On the other hand, if Jesus meant sons of God in the sense that is developed in the New Testament, He is describing one of the essential characteristics of such a son, without which none can claim to be one of God’s children. (Other passages illustrating this concept: Romans 8:14-21; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:5-7; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 5:1; Ephesians 5:8; Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 12:5-8; 1 John 3:10; 1 John 5:1-2).

5: 10-12. Because these three verses present basically the same beatitude, the various parts will be considered together with their parallels. This beatitude reinforces or puts character into those chat precede it, by warning that our humility must not degenerate into a cringing, submissive slavery, or our peacemaking abased to compromise of our convictions, nor our meekness lowered to sinful compliance. By these surprising paradoxes, Jesus is daring one to be His disciple whatever the cost.

Moral, if not physical, suffering is to be expected by the genuinely good man. Jesus pronounces as the truly happy those who are so anchored to their character or convictions that they cannot be bribed, cajoled or threatened into surrender of principle. To accept persecution, as a necessary sacrifice involved in standing for what one deems right, means that he has a conscience that is unyielding and exacting. Jesus has no use for the spineless, careless man without a conscience, for nobody can count upon him! The religion of Jesus is for the poor in spirit, the sorrowing, the meek and merciful, yes,- but these must be stout-hearted men who have the moral stamina to stand for the cause of Jesus.

The Jews expected the Messiah to bring total victory in the wars preceding the establishment of the universal reign of David over the world. They expected that even the lowliest Jewish citizen should rule many Gentiles. Those who were pinning their nationalistic hopes to Jesus-’ campaigns must have received this last beatitude with hurt surprise and chagrin. Here are the first major indications of Jesus-’ royal road to glory: His servants will suffer. What a warning lies just below the surface: Count the cost! How badly do you wish to be mine? I will be asking you, my friend, to be the conscience of the world, to praise where there is good and to condemn its wickedness. The world cannot agree with my judgment as to the nature of true righteousness, and you, my dear follower, as you represent this standard, will be caught in the cross-fire of these two standards. Jesus challenges the heroic in men, but He would have them be realistic, (Cf. Matthew 10:16-39; Matthew 16:24-27; Mark 10:28-30).

But what sort of suffering does Jesus mean? Persecution begins as a talking war of reproach (Matthew 5:11), or insults heaped upon the disciple of Jesus, with a view to curbing him socially, trying to intimidate him into abandoning his position, Another line of attack will be slander: all manner of evil said against you falsely. Luke (Luke 6:22; Luke 6:26) uses these terms: Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!, ,, Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets. The Christian must remember that praise is another form of social control and must be evaluated, The praise of the unqualified judge is no guarantee of true worth; rather, it merely indicates that he who has won it has not risen above the standard of him who gives it. Jesus-’ servant must keep his head clear to be able to discern the true source of the praise he seeks or of the criticism he fears. (Matthew 10:26-33; Luke 12:4-5)

Where could persecution strike? Sometimes this oppression is religious, while at other times it attacks the social life of the disciple. Almost always it cuts into the family and home life, severing the nearest and dearest connections the disciple knows. (Cf. John 16:2; 2 Timothy 3:12; Hebrews 10:32-39; Hebrews 12:4; Hebrews 13:3; Hebrews 13:13; 1 Peter 1:6-9; 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 2:19-21; 1 Peter 3:14-18 a; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 Peter 5:9-10) The apostles got a taste of this during Jesus-’ ministry, but they felt its full force after He had gone, (Acts 4; Acts 5:17-42; Acts 7; Acts 9; Acts 12 etc. 2 Corinthians 4:7-12; 2 Corinthians 6:8-10; 2 Corinthians 11:23-33; John 15:18 to John 16:4)

What is the cause for which Jesus-’ servants must face suffering?

For righteousness-’ sake. The term righteousness must be interpreted in this context and in the larger framework of the New Testament, not forced to cover every civil rights cause that the unconverted, moved by humanitarian principles, might suggest, however just might be their particular plea. While those causes often seek proper ends in justice for minority or underprivileged groups, yet the righteousness Jesus is talking about involves faith and obedience to Him! (John 5:22-23; John 6:28-29; John 8:24; John 8:31-32; John 3:35-36) Righteousness, as Jesus intends it, is the very character of God required as the standard of judgment of the world and bestowed upon believers. In its practical manifestation, for which the follower of Jesus must be ready to suffer, it becomes equivalent to Christianity. (Note 1 Peter 3:14-18; 1 Peter 4:12-19) But why would the world persecute men for doing right? Because the world hates the conscience-like effect of the Christian life and testimony, for they must condemn the worlds sins. (Cf. John 3:20; John 7:7; John 15:18-21)

For my sake. What sublime originality! Jesus calls men not simply to suffer for conscience-’ sake or only for sake of convictions or because of life’s ordinary trials, but for my sake. There is a wide psychological difference between devotion to abstract principles or an impersonal cause, devotion to a Person. (Cf. Philippians 3:4-10; 1 Peter 4:13) Jesus does not say to rejoice when men separate you from their company because of your own folly or your own personal notions, but when they do it because you are MY disciple! No man can stand this loneliness and reviling for a creed, cause or conviction, but he can for Jesus! A man must be prepared to be lonely when he decides for His discipleship and chooses to know Jesus-’ love alone.

For my sake puts the right emphasis on one’s suffering. For denouncing oneself to the Roman magistrates who were enforcing the persecutions, merely to seek martyrdom, is a selfish act. That is suffering for the unwholesome desire for suffering and death. or perhaps it is an escape mechanism to terminate the uncertainties of this life, a coup de grace to put an end to further Christian testimony that could be given! Again, those who receive persecution, because they cram their religious convictions down the throats of their neighbors, do not glorify Jesus, since their manners essentially differed from those of the Master.

Further, Jesus multiplies the sources of encouragement needed for the hours of persecution ahead: Remember God’s servants the prophets! **For so persecuted they the prophets who were before you. **The world has always persecuted those who spoke to it in the name of the Lord. It seems that every age kills its own prophets, while building memorials to the prophets of former generations. (Note Matthew 23:29-36; Acts 7:51-53; 2 Chronicles 36:12; 2 Chronicles 36:15-16; James 5:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:15; Hebrews 11:32-38) Two striking lessons stand out:

1. The Christians are to bolster their courage in the knowledge that they will be treading the steps of God’s mightiest, most fearless spokesmen of the past, and thus, they will be participating in God’s crucial testimony to a degenerate age as they add their voices to the announcement of God’s judgment, But the underlying implication is clear that Jesus, in placing His people on a par with those Old Testament worthies, is identifying service to Him with service to God. Their service to God not only resembled the suffering of the prophets (Matthew 5:12), but also was to involve powerful preaching (Matthew 5:14-16; Matthew 10:26-28) and a salutary influence upon their society (Matthew 5:13).

2. The Christians would be facing the same prejudices, the same perversity, impenitence, pride and the same deeply-entrenched and corrupt religious and political leaders. hey would face the same heartless, brutal force which stops at nothing to withstand the truth. Christians, like the prophets, would be unarmed, not using the ordinary weapons employed to force one’s will, being able only to promote the truth by the demonstration of the Spirit and God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 10:3-6) But one can take a lot more punishment if he is sure he is part of a movement greater than himself. To see, with the eyes of faith. the unflinching prophets standing beside one as he faces his persecutors, is to draw upon sources of courage deeper than oneself. Jesus is saying, -When you suffer for me, you never stand alone as you give your testimony: the prophets have stood right where you stand.

The only way of enjoying the smiles of one’s age seems to lie in playing false to one’s God. (Luke 6:26)

Perhaps the only reason Jesus does not offer His own example at this time (for thus they will do to the Son of man), is that the resurrection had not yet occurred, giving power to His comforting words. Besides, His audience at this stage of their spiritual development might have been too scandalized. After the empty tomb, the apostles could shout to Christians, surrounded by fearful, relentless persecution, Remember Jesus! (2 Timothy 2:8; Hebrews 12:2-3)

The almost unbelievable part of this beatitude is the nature of its exceeding great reward. Jesus said, Blessed are ye! Rejoice in that day and be exceeding glad: leap for joy! (Luke 6:23) The blessing goes two ways:

Uninhibited joy in the kingdom of heaven now. This is not a morbid longing for or seeking persecution which makes pain and suffering ends in themselves to be sought at the expense of the cause of righteousness. In fact, happiness is very elusive in that it cannot be sought without being lost in the search. According to Jesus, true joy exists only when we seek God-s purposes. After all, is this not the essence of God’s kingdom on earth? (Cf. John 5:11; John 16:22; John 16:24; John 17:13; Acts 5:40-42; Philippians 4:4; cf. Philippians 1:12-14; Romans 5:1-11) The devil has no happy old men, because all their lives they have sought happiness by evading the very service that brings the only real joy

The great reward in heaven for eternity. See article: The Reasonableness of the Redeemer’s Rewarding of Righteousness. (Cf. 2 John 1:8; Revelation 11:18; Revelation 22:12)

What is the lesson here? Jesus-’ words make us reflect: how long has it been since we felt the sting of hate-filled words aimed at us because we are Christian, Why is there little persecution experienced by the Church today? Could it be partly that the principles of Jesus have received such universal acknowledgement as being the right principles, even if so rarely practiced, that the world has been rendered more favorable or more tolerant toward Christians and Christianity? If so, this might hold the forces of evil at bay for a time. Or could the relative absence of persecution be due EO the Church-s growing lukewarm to its own message? I, as a Christian, could enjoy more comfort if I were more indifferent. But Jesus says, Happy are the persecuted for my sake! If this language strikes the modern reader as extravagant, it is because of the great difference between the twentieth century philosophy and God’s will, and between the few glowing embers of modern Christianity contrasted to the roaring forest fire that was first century discipleship. How must this difference be accounted for? Most tend to measure the amount of happiness in their lives by the extent to which they escape trouble and suffering. But the only salvation from such a delusion is the realization that true happiness means being conformed to the image of God’s Son who met His death on a cross! (Study 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4; Colossians 1:24; Romans 8:29; Philippians 1:27-30)

FACT QUESTIONS

Who are the spiritually poor? the spiritually rich?

How can mourning bring comfort?

What is the true cause of all sorrow? the true source of its comfort?

What kind of character is meek? Tell several ways in which the meek man is shown to be such.

What is the kingdom of heaven? How is this a particularly rich blessing to the poor in spirit?

What kind of comfort does Jesus promise to those who mourn? What does the word comfort mean, as Jesus used it here?

In what ways will the meek inherit the earth? What earth?

What makes a man hunger and thirst after righteousness? Explain this figure of speech and its implications.

What is implied in the phrase they shall be filled, with reference to righteousness? How will they be filled? What has this to do with the great doctrine of God’s grace?

10. Who are the merciful? Name some of the ways in which Christian mercy shows itself.
11. From whom do the merciful obtain mercy?

Show how mercifulness contrasts the legalistic spirit.

13. Name two attitudes often mistaken for Christian mercy.
14. Who are the pure in heart?
15. How does heart purity contrast with merely external religion? with good works done for public notice?
16. What is the difference between peaceful men and peacemakers?

What kind of man must the peacemaker be?

18. How does one go about making peace?

19. Does Jesus justify pacifism movements that do not share His views?

20. Why should the peacemakers that Jesus was talking about be called sons of God? What d e s it mean to be called a son of God?

21. Jesus pronounces happy those who are persecuted for what two specifically named causes? (Matthew 5:10-11)

22. Why does Jesus bring up the prophets who were before you?

23. Name the two precious rewards that Jesus holds out for those suffering for His sake

24. Justify Jesus-’ offering rewards to encourage people to seek God’s kingdom and righteousness and suffer for Jesus-’ sake.

25. Name each of the eight beatitudes, showing how each contradicts the popular views of Jesus-’ day. How do they likewise refute those of our day?

26. Name the eight great rewards that indicate the true happiness of those bearing the named characteristics.

Matthew 5:13-16

B. THE MISSION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TEXT: 5:13-16

13. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.
14. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.
15. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house.
16. Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

How is it possible for us to do our good works before men, that they may see them, and, at the same time, do it in such a way as not to lose our reward from our Father? (See Matthew 6:1-18)

b.

What would be the condition of the world without the influence of Christians and the Church? One would not be committing the fallacy of formulating a hypothesis contrary to fact, if he: (1) examines those societies where Christ’s will is unknown or ignored; (2) bases his answer upon the condition of the world before Jesus came; or, (3) upon God’s infallible judgment which in itself is based upon perfect knowledge of man’s actions and motives. (Romans 1, 2; Eph. Ephesians 2:1-3; Ephesians 2:11-12; Ephesians 4:17-19; Ephesians 5:3-12)

c.

What do you think would be the impact upon Jesus-’ Jewish audience made by the words earth and world in the phrases: Ye are the salt of the earth. the light of the world-'?

d.

Who really gets the credit for the things we do?

PARAPHRASE

You are the world’s salt: you stand in the same relation to the world as does salt to meat which is decomposing, But if salt becomes insipid or tasteless, how is its saltiness to be restored or the meat to be preserved? That is, if you lose your power to preserve from moral corruption, how could you restore that lost power? And how would the world, in that case, be preserved from corruption, decay and death? Just as insipid salt is thus useless and deserves to be thrown out on the streets to be trampled by men, likewise, you too would be morally good for nothing to God, and would deserve all the contempt that men could heap upon you,

You are the world’s light. It is impossible to hide a city built on a hilltop. When a lamp is lit, it is not put under a peck-measure, but on a lampstand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. And you, like the lamp, must shed light among your fellows in such a way that when they see the good you do, they may praise your heavenly Father.

NOTES

Jesus has indicated the character and blessings which fall to the wise and godly man in God’s kingdom, He proposes to make of His disciples something as great as the prophets. (See Matthew 5:12) Now He describes another facet of their ideal character and something of their work as well as the influence they are to have upon the world.

Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth. Jesus maintains as undeniable fact that His disciples are this salt. Whether or not they will serve effectively in that capacity, as good salt preserves meat from spoiling, will depend upon the flavor of their discipleship; however, there is no escaping the fact that they, because of their relationship to Jesus, are already this salt. Ye: this is spoken to a group of peasants, unlettered fishermen, small town folk. without reputation or standing, members of a small, haughty, exclusive, hated race. For the moment, Jesus looks at His disciples not as they were then, but at what ideally they could become and do to their society, He was trying to get them to see in themselves the ability to transform the moral tone of their age! By calling them the salt of the earth. He set before them the most positive, far-reaching program imaginable: preservation of the world from destruction! Of the earth is another hint of the universality of Jesus-’ gospel, because it looks beyond the confines of one small people to all the nations under God-s loving care.

Ye are the salt is an unexplained metaphor. It must be asked, therefore, what those points of nature or function might be which are common both to the disciple and to salt. We see that:

1. Salt preserves from decay. This is a tacit but implicit judgment regarding the earth: the actual condition of society is rottenness and corruption, a judgment verified elsewhere. (Romans 1:18-21; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:17-19; Ephesians 4:22) But salt does not preserve by acting upon itself: it preserves that which needs its influence by being brought into contact with every inch of that which will corrupt without it. Jesus-’ disciple is of little value to the community as long as his influence remains boxed up in a church building or monastery. The contact of the spiritual salt must be scattered so as to affect every part of the decomposing neighborhood. The monastic tendencies of those Christians, who have no Christ-like influence outside the four walls of the local meeting place of the Church, drastically fails Jesus at this point. (Note Jesus-’ example and reasoning: Matthew 9:10-13; Luke 15; Luke 19:1-10.)

2. Salt produces its effect secretly but surely without furious Fanfares and earth-shaking commotion. Jesus wants a man whose personal purity CONTROLS the moral tone of any group in which he happens to be, or by whose presence in a given situation he defeats the corruption of the morals of others. This corruption shows itself in the lowering of the standards of honesty, diligence in work, conscientiousness just as much as in the corruption of the ethics of physical chastity. Every saint of God must be a walking conscience whose conduct, character and conversation bring God’s law right into the evil society, whose seriousness of purpose points solemnly to the reality of the judgment. Basically, Jesus-’ people must be anchorlike conservatives who hold the line against the corrupting bacteria of every purportedly new theology and new morality. Not only is Christians-’ gospel vigorously opposed to that which contradicts God-s revealed theology and morality, but also their very presence in the world tends to make intellectual cowards of the innovators until these latter can gain the upper hand, since men have tended to acknowledge the Christian morality as right even if unwilling to live it. But Jesus has other plans for winning the battle through energetic evangelism and conservation of the gains. (Matthew 28:18-20; Colossians 1:27-29)

3. Salt retains its value only if it maintains its distinctive character, If the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? This is an ominous warning of the doom of the degenerate disciple, for Jesus speaks of one who has truly possessed this inner reality of regenerate power but has lost it, A problem arises regarding the second part of Jesus-’ rhetorical question: wherewith shall WHAT be salted? the earth? or the salt itself?

a. If the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted? God wishes to use you to save this world from its headlong plunge into moral rottenness and destruction, but if your moral stamina be exhausted, with what other means could He save it? (Cf. Ephesians 3:9-10) This interpretation suggests the impossibility for a corrupt Church to have any significant effect to stop the world’s forward rush into final moral dissoluteness. No other gospel can substitute God’s plan of redemption in Christ; likewise, no social uplift organization can fill the gap left by a degenerate Church.

b. If the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall its saltiness be restored? Modern, purified salt does not lose its quality; hence, some would suggest that Jesus is saying that, just as it is absurd that salt should lose its flavor and therefore it would be impossible to restore its saltiness, so, you, my disciples, cannot lose your preserving power. But Jesus was describing salt that His hearers knew only too well. Who among them had not at one time or another bought some of that salt native to Palestine? It came chiefly from the crystals gathered from the residue of evaporated water taken from the Dead Sea, It is said that this salt changes its flavor because of the presence of salts other than sodium chloride, actually losing its saltiness and worth through exposure to the sun and rain. At that point it might look like salt, but it fails to do what good salt does. This fact suggests the not unlikely interpretation of Jesus-’ question: Once lost, salt’s distinctive character and usefulness cannot be restored, A degenerate disciple, or any group of them, is of no use to God and cannot be restored to their former character unless they repent and turn to Him who constituted them salt in the first place. This exception is an important difference between the literal and spiritual salt, since the former cannot repent. Jesus is not teaching the impossibility of repentance on their part, but the impossibility of another’S renewing them to their original state. (See Hebrews 6:4-6 with which compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-8; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11)

As a practical result, this latter interpretation contains the former, since any disciple or congregation, having irremediably lost their power to save the world through faithlessness or refusal to repent, cannot be substituted with something which is not salt, and the world remains lost. The lesson is clear: God-s plan to use good salt to preserve the earth in righteousness has been thwarted by every case of savorless salt. And what is it yet good for? Nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men! Here is the tragedy of uselessness: the catastrophe hides in the fact that the degenerate disciple does not even sense his failure before men and his uselessness to God. (Cf. Samson, Judges 16:20) Luke reports (Luke 14:34-35) this same figure of speech used by Jesus here, but adds this interesting detail: It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill; men throw it away. Many things which have become corrupt or decomposed are useful for making fertilizer to throw on the land. But savorless salt is not even of this much use in that it destroys fertility wherever it be thrown. The only place left for it is the roadway where fertility is no problem. Not only useless but also contemptible are those Christians who continue to maintain the forms of godliness but have long ago lost their power. Such a Church deserves to be downtrodden by the heel of men who have not been fooled by her hypocrisy and she will finally be cast out in shame by the very God whose name she claimed to uphold. (Matthew 13:41-42; Luke 13:6-9; Revelation 3:1 b, Revelation 3:8; Revelation 3:15) The fraudulent, faithless Church or individual member who refuses or neglects his duty to labor to preserve the morality of the community or else is too cowardly or hesitant to meet the great moral issues of the day, not only is contemptible in the eyes of the world, but also undermines future efforts of genuine Christians! Not only is this a failure which is bad enough in itself, but it is a failure which embarrasses the valiant efforts of others.

In view of this fatal moral breakdown which concludes so tragically both in the thwarting of God’s determination to use THAT Church or THAT Christian to influence the world, and in the loss of that Church or member as well as the world they were supposed to save, let us briefly notice some of the warning signals of salt losing its savor:

1. When there is a loss of distinction between the Christian and the world he is supposed to save, then real, serious deterioration has begun to set in. This is the chameleon character which is more and more controlled by the environment rather than that clear, courageous ethical sense that sets the pace in terms pleasing sometimes only to God. (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15:33) That self-dedicated separation unto God, which is holiness of the highest quality, begins to fade out as more and more evidences of agreement with the world crop up here and there.

2. When we find a Church or Christian that maintains the forms of religion but basically possesses no vital force of internal godliness, then we have encountered savorless salt. These are people who look like Christians, but do not do what Christians are supposed to do. (2 Timothy 3:5; Titus 1:16)

3. Because the purpose of salt is to preserve from corruption every inch of that with which it is brought into contact, a growing indifference toward Christ’s first love, the saving of mankind by the preaching of the gospel, is indication of deterioration. (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 19:10; John 12:47; Revelation 2:4-5)

Other commentaries also mention the seasoning power of salt which renders food more palatable, but the figure breaks down with the question: palatable to whom? To God? If so, how did He make out with so little salt before Jesus scattered the sons of the kingdom throughout the earth? To mankind in general? But mankind is not the eater but the meat! To the Christian? But he is the salt. Jesus-’ meaning probably revolves around the idea of preservation only.

Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. Christ Jesus Himself is the only true Light of this world. (John 8:12; John 9:5; John 12:35; John 12:46; Matthew 4:16) His disciples, according to Jesus-’ metaphor here, do not merely reflect His light, but burn as lamps lit from His fire. (John 12:36; Philippians 2:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8; cf. Romans 2:19) However, we differ from the literal clay lamps filled with oil (Matthew 5:15) in that we are able to grow more into His likeness and reflect His glory (2 Corinthians 3:17 to 2 Corinthians 4:6). What do Christians and light have in common?

Light makes sight possible in the darkness. Darkness is often used in the NT to mean:

a.

Ignorance which is the lack of opportunity to learn, or the failure to see connections between possessed knowledge and its practical expression: Matthew 4:16; Luke 1:79; John 9:39; 1 John 2:11.

b.

Moral perversity which refuses to admit truth which condemns it: John 3:19-20; John 9:41; John 12:37-43; Matthew 6:23; 1 John 2:8-11.

c.

The state resulting from ignorance and unwillingness to learn the truth: Luke 22:53; John 1:5; Acts 26:18; Romans 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Colossians 1:13; I Pet. 8:9; 1 John 1:5-6.

Some of these passages fuse the concepts, as does Ephesians 4:17-19 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. Some people are in the dark because they are ignorant (Romans 10:14-17), more because they wilfully ignore the light (Romans 10:1-3), but all are in the dark without Jesus. Therefore, the light that is intended to illuminate this darkness is primarily the revelation of God Himself seen in the face of Jesus; secondarily, the disciples of Jesus who are being changed into His glorious likeness from one degree of brilliance to another, becoming thus His kind of light and capable of illuminating as did He. (2 Corinthians 3:18 to 2 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 12:2; 1 John 3:2-3; 2 Peter 1:3-4) As long as He was in the world, Jesus was the Light of the world (John 9:5; cf. John 1:4-14), but in His absence He has chosen to enlighten the lost by the testimony of His written word carefully proclaimed by the word and consistent lives of His followers.

The Christian’s opportunity to be a teacher of the world lies in his pointing men to Jesus. But to do this he will have to expose men’s sins causing them to see their profound need of the Savior. (Ephesians 5:3-13) Notwithstanding the obvious necessity to expose man’s true nature to him, he just does not enjoy the ghastly picture that the Christian draws of him, The gospel calls evil and worthless almost everything that the worldly man thinks valuable. The world-man can react in one of three ways: he can humble himself and accept his condemnation and be saved to walk in the light too, or he can ignore the gospel claims if the Church is not too insistent and the exposure of his sins minimal, But if the blazing glory of God radiates from the life of one man of God, disclosing the worldling-s wickedness and hypocrisy for all to see, he may smash back at the light, hating the Christian and all that he stands for, doing all in his power to get that light turned off, This may be the very reason why Jesus said Blessed are the persecuted for my sake before He said You are the world’s light. Jesus is the Light of the world and our identification with Him may get us killed too.

2. But light cannot help if not placed in a prominent position. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. This is just a truism based upon the ancient concept of civil defence, The city and the hill have no particular significance except as the one serves to make the other visible. ALL Jesus means by this is that the Christian, by the attitudes he shows, by his actions that give meaning to his confession and by his faithful testimony to the gospel, will be a man who stands out in a crowd, Jesus declares: You just cannot hide the obvious! Matthew 5:15 Neither do men light a lamp and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. (A popular expression with Jesus: Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16; Luke 11:33) The word bushel (modios) refers to a grain measure somewhat equivalent to our peck measure. At any rate, it is not intended for hiding lighted lamps! On a bill. on the stand: these phrases bespeak the most advantageous position for performing this greatly needed service. There is no secret discipleship here! To many who would retain much of their life for their own use, this glaringly public confession of Jesus Christ would certainly be regarded as one of the distinct disadvantages of His service. But Jesus will have nothing of covert discipleship. He knows that we are tempted to pretend not to be salt, so as not to irritate the rotting, selfish flesh around us, for such annoyance will mean persecution for us. It is a temptation to scurry about searching for anything that will hide our light, or to wish that our city were not so clearly visible. Here Jesus gently urges His hearers to count the cost of discipleship, for it will mean being in the public eye either for good or for ill. Later He will begin to put the pressure on. (Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 8:38; Luke 14:25-35)

But why must the disciple stand out so publicly even if it means he will be an easy target for abuse? So that lost men may look up and see a Christian standing firm against the storm of life’s uncertainties, take courage and rejoice that righteousness and true life are yet to I be had. Why stand? Because some might repent and be saved because of the unadulterated Christian witness of one godly man who dared to stand. Why stand? Because in the message of Christ Christians have wisdom that is indispensable for solving humanity’s greatest questions.

Matthew 5:16 Even so let your light shine before men. Paul observes that anything we do is conspicuous to someone whether we wish it so or not. (1 Timothy 5:24-25) Therefore this is not a question of parading our virtues for men’s admiring notice nor a conscious effort to display one’s self. If the lampstand and the lamp had personality, their every effort and final purpose would not be to present themselves as the best of their kind, but humbly to give the light every advantage to shine brilliantly. But the museum of human history is quite cluttered with the wrecked lives of men and institutions who could not resist the temptation of self-glory. What motives will save the Lord’s devotees from the .same peril?:

The realization that the world, to which we are the light of God, is LOST and grovelling in its darkness. Out of this grasp of the situation will arise so sincere a concern for men’s souls that it will permeate our prayers, conduct and conversation and will give us that courageous humility that makes us truly helpful to men without seeking our own glory. Further, if we see the world through Jesus-’ eyes as it really is: dishonest, corrupt, fickle and incapable of permanent satisfaction, then we will not seek its praise. Rather, we will tend to see through its hollow applause.

The true motive of our actions must be that men may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven. This means simply that the goal of our deeds must be to get them to glorify God because of what they see us do. We will need no bell-ringing or trumpet-blowing to call attention to our religion. Just the sheer novelty of a man practicing exactly what he preaches immediately focuses the world’s gaze upon him. People usually begin an immediate and critical inspection of his life to see if- he really is all that he would have them become. The world is quick to sense hypocrisy and selfishness in those who profess devotion to the Master. (Study John 3:21; 1 Timothy 4:12-16; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:1; Titus 2:5 b, Titus 2:7-8; Titus 2:10; Titus 2:14; Titus 3:8; Titus 3:14) And what if they see the opposite of what is pretended? (Romans 2:17-24) Peter expresses this exhortation so well:

As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God-s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who utters oracles of God; whoever renders service, as one who renders it by the strength which God supplies; in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen, (1 Peter 4:10-11)

Study Jesus-’ method as He let His light shine before men, because when He did His good deeds, God got the glory. (Matthew 9:8; Matthew 15:31; Mark 2:12; Luke 5:25-26; Luke 7:16; Luke 13:15; Luke 17:15-18; Luke 23:47) The apostles caught this same spirit (Acts 4:21; Acts 11:18; Acts 21:20; Galatians 1:24), for what they did caused men to return spontaneous praise and thanks to God.

Men might never during their earth-life give God the glory for His power to make such men as these Christians, but the final day of vindication will reveal all and God will be glorified, (1 Peter 2:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 1:10-12) Sometimes one’s good conduct serves to silence the slander of those who would discredit the Church and her message. (Cf. Titus 2:7-8) But this must never turn us aside from the one goal of Jesus, the one important task of man, the ultimate joy of the Church and the consummation of the ages: seeking to turn everything to the glory of God our Father. (John 15:8; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:9-11; 1 Peter 2:9)

FACT QUESTIONS

List the three metaphors Jesus used to express the mission or work of the truly wise and godly man.

Show how each metaphor expresses some phase of the Christian’s character or work.

Is it possible that salt should lose its savor? How does a knowledge of Palestinian life help answer this question?

What is implied about the nature of the earth that makes salt so necessary to its preservation?

What is stated and meant about the Christian who has lost savor?

How may this same meaning be applied to the church in the same condition in a given geographical area?

What is the meaning of the bushel?

What is the connection between a city set on a hill and a lamp put on the stand?

What is implied about the nature of the world that makes light so necessary to its illumination?

10. State Jesus-’ meaning given in these three metaphors without mentioning either salt, light or* city.*

Matthew 5:17-20

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW (Matthew 5:17-48)

1. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE STANDARD, TEXT: 5:17-20

2. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

3. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

4. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

5. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Describe the righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees and which secures one a place in the kingdom.

b.

Quote several NT Scriptures which state plainly our relation to the Law.

c.

Discuss the relationship between true righteousness in fellowship with God and the keeping of laws. Could God produce righteousness in man by law? What makes you think so? Can true righteousness even be described in a code of regulations for conduct? How is conduct controlled in a Christian without his being regulated by law?

d.

What did the law accomplish? What will the Sermon on the Mount accomplish if it too is used as a law or code of conduct without the supernaturally-revealed redemption that is available in Jesus-’ death and resurrection?

e.

Is the law of any use for Christians today? If so, what use is to be made of it? If the lofty ideals of this Sermon serve to produce the same effect as the law, why did Jesus preach it? Is He laying just another burdensome law upon His disciples that demands absolute perfection? If not, what is the difference?

f.

By His reference to one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till all things be accomplished, was Jesus thereby guaranteeing the accuracy of the Old Testament text? Is this a positive declaration that OT is verbally inspired down to the smallest part of the very letters which comprise it?

g.

Why was it so important that Jesus deny His intent to annul the law and prophets?

h.

What do you think is the basis for the distinction Jesus makes between those who shall be called least and those who shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven?

i.

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus speaks of those who break commandments and teach others so, and of those who shall do and teach them, as being considered in some way in the kingdom of heaven. Now, to what does Jesus refer by that phrase: in the kingdom? Does He mean a time or a place or a dispensation or what?

j. Why should we get all stirred up about seeing to it that our piety surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees? What if it does not?

k. Who would call them great or least in the kingdom? (Matthew 5:19)

PARAPHRASE

Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets, for my intention is not to destroy the effect of their witness but to fulfil them to the fullest extent. For truly I say to you that heaven and earth would sooner disappear than that the smallest letter or even a part of a letter pass from the Law until all that must be fulfilled have been fulfilled. The man who breaks or even relaxes the force of one of the minor commandments and teaches others to do so, shall be least esteemed in the kingdom of God, whereas he who practices and teaches them shall be considered great in God’s kingdom. For I tell you that unless your religion is a far better thing than that of your theologians and the Pharisees, you will never even make it into God’s kingdom!

NOTES

I. THE OBLIGATION TO THE OLD

Matthew 5:17 **Think not that I came. ** Why was it necessary for Jesus to open this section of His message with this denial? Were some inclined to suppose that Jesus was coming to destroy the Law and prophets?

Yes, some viewed the law as an intolerable burden either because of a lack of the spirit of loving obedience to the Father’s will (Cf. Isaiah 28:15; Amos 8:5), or because of personal painful, awareness of sin they might have been caused to hope for greater leniency upon sin in the messianic kingdom. To these Jesus needed to uphold God’s unvarying standard that condemns all sin, humbling the former to unqualified repentance while pointing the latter to a righteousness based upon something other than harsh, legal justice.

Yes, the jealous religious leaders, their confidence shaken by Jesus-’ unconventional but obviously true religion and widespread popularity, probably suspected His previous preaching of possessing revolutionary implications which could destroy the existing order and all their carefully-worded interpretations of the Law and prophets. They had so thoroughly confused their traditional interpretations with God’s original revelation, that to attack the one was to -put the other in doubt. They mutter fearfully, He’s taking the Law into His own handsand the prophets too! To this He is answering, Do not worry about me or what I might do to the Law of God or to His prophets!

In the beatitudes Jesus had contradicted practically every dearly-held tenet of the scribes and Pharisees. In this present section He will make some sweeping criticisms of the OT Law. Because the popular confusion of the voice of the Pharisees with the voice of God, in the minds of His hearers, Jesus would appear to destroy that for which the Pharisees officially stood: the Law and prophets themselves. This denial, therefore, is a most-needed premise to His revolutionary preaching which follows.

I came not to destroy (kataluein) i.e., to do away with. abolish, annul, make invalid, repeal, ruin, bring to an end, defeat, (Amdt-Gingrich, 415) As some of these meanings may appear to be mutually contradictory when applied to the Law, we must determine what Jesus regards as the antithesis or opposite of what Me means by destroy, In Jesus’ mind, the antithesis of destroy is fulfil. Thus, He did not come to ruin, to bring to an end by defeating the purpose of the Law or prophets, but rather to fulfil them,

Should a pretender to the Messiahship intend to nullify the predictive types in the Law or the predictions of the prophets, how could he ever appeal to their words, as correctly representing God’s message relevant to that generation, to justify his claims to be the true Messiah? Again, if Jesus had categorically rejected the Law and repealed it before fulfilling its standard, how could He claim to save men from its guilt and from their responsibility to justify themselves through perfect fulfilment of its standard? God gave the Law and the prophets to indicate the true nature of sin. (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:13) This is why the Law must remain in force: it has been established as the standard against which those will be judged who will not accept God’s leniency through faith in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:31; James 2:9-11), However, to those who surrender their struggle to be good enough by whatever code, to them who are willing to believe Jesus, ONLY TO THEM He becomes the end of the Law (Romans 10:3-4). The unrelenting, unforgiving Law will stand up at the judgment to condemn all who do not believe Him. (Romans 2:12). (See below on Matthew 5:18.)

I came to fulfil (the law and the prophets). I am the exact meaning of all that God intended to say in the Old Testament! is Jesus’ bold, thrilling claim. Whoever reads the OT without seeing the mighty figure of Christ Jesus, just has not understood what he reads. (Cf. Acts 8:30-35) Just how did Jesus fulfil the Jewish Scriptures?

Jesus fulfilled the Law’s purpose to demonstrate the standard of righteousness by showing Himself to be the perfect Man and all that God had in mind when He originally gave the Law, (Matthew 3:15; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26-28; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 8:46)

Jesus fulfilled the Law’s purpose to declare the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Romans 7:13) by living as a Man above sin, thus condemning all sin that men commit (Romans 8:3), thus dissolving all the rationalizations they offer to justify their sinning.

Jesus fulfilled the Law’s righteous sentence by receiving in his own body the execution of the death penalty (1 Peter 2:24; Galatians 3:13).

Jesus fulfilled the Law’s patterns and predictions of the new covenant. He used the Law by pointing to the purpose behind its true history, to its types and prophecies as having exact fulfilment either in Himself or in His messianic rule. (Cf. Luke 4:21; Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-47; 2 Peter 1:19) Some of its predictions find fulfilment in the Church; others in all that Christ will yet do until the consummation of God’s plans at the end of time. (Acts 3:20-21)

His standard of righteousness requires of His disciples all that was really essential in the Mosaic code (Matthew 22:34-40). Thus, the spirit and substance of the Law and prophets will be in effect: love for God and man. This is the real meaning of all of Gods will given at any time.

The preceding five points picture Jesus-’ attitude toward the OT Law as one of complete support and dedication to its true intent. It is also true that. :

He considered the Old Testament’s message as binding in its true, original form upon those to whom it had been given. (John 10:35; Matthew 5:18-20; Matthew 8:4; Matthew 19:16-20; Matthew 22:35-40). To Jesus, faithfulness to God’s Word is NOT secondary. God does care about what men do with the revelations He gives them of His will.

He constantly corrected the Pharisaic concepts and corruptions of the Law and misunderstandings of the prophets, which nullified the force of God’s will (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 12:1-14; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 23:1-36). To the strict orthodox Jew of the time, service to God was a matter of keeping thousands of man-made rules and regulations handed down from the ancients. These traditions were confused with Gods Law which they were intended to clarify, and, more often than not, they contradicted its true intent.

Consequently, He viewed as of no consequence the human regulations added by tradition, He cared nothing about the ritual handwashings (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:1-5) or the traditional definitions of what constituted work on the sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2; Matthew 12:9-10).

Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the Law and prophets to the full extent that God had intended.

As stated above, Jesus COULD NOT break by defeating the true intention of the OT without also undermining His own position and mission. To render vital and valid Jesus-’ salvation from sin, the Law must continue in force to describe and condemn sin. But this cannot mean that Jesus, not having destroyed the Law, could not therefore abrogate, repeal, annul, abolish or render it invalid after He had fulfilled it. (See in Matthew 5:18) Neither does fulfilling the Law mean to perpetuate its force upon those saved by grace and faith. Though kataluein, as indicated above, may mean both repeal and break the force of, yet Jesus did the former and could never do the latter. By His intention to fulfil the Law and prophets, He admitted its God-given authority in full, By His design to set it aside, having completely fulfilled its requirements, He is not failing to acknowledge its importance and authority for those to whom it was given. Rather, He is upholding the Law as a principle of judgment, valid for those who are not willing to be clothed in His righteousness. Nevertheless, His fulfilling the Law was His preparation to abrogate it altogether for those who accept Him.

Jesus did NOT mean that EVERY law of God is binding upon Christians and that the whole of it should be obeyed without regard to important differences in the persons involved. ALL of God’s commands are not addressed to all the race. While it is true that all of God’s revealed will, directed to a specific group such as the Jews, the Christians, or the world at large, must be faithfully obeyed by that group, yet it cannot and must not be considered obligatory for those to whom it was not given by God.

Nor by His claiming to fulfil the law, does Jesus mean to give the true meaning of it, or complete what was lacking in the deep, spiritual content or merely reveal all that is implicit in Moses-’ system. Some hold that Jesus raised the Mosaic standard to spiritual perfection, leaving thus intact Moses-’ morality with Jesus-’ more rigid requirements added besides, This could not be His meaning, as the prophets clearly understood the Law to require heartfelt righteousness that motivated men to love and good works because of their faith in God.

See, for examples, Isaiah 1:11-20; Isaiah 33:14-16; Isaiah 51:1-9; Isaiah 52:11; Isaiah 55; Isaiah 57:1-2; Isaiah 58; Isaiah 59; Isaiah 64; Isaiah 66:1-5; Jeremiah 7:1-7; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 10:12; Joe 2:12-14; Amos 5:10-15; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:8; Habakkuk 2:4; Zechariah 7:9-12.

Moses-’ Law was already directed to men’s hearts! (Deuteronomy 4:8; Deuteronomy 4:29; Deuteronomy 5:29; Deuteronomy 32:46; Psalms 37:31; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 119:11; Psalms 119:172; Psalms 19:7-14) Jesus came not to give His disciples another law, the same in kind as the Mosaic system, but to give them a new nature which could help them to rise to moral heights unapproachable under law.

II. THE OMINOUS OVERTURE TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE OBSOLETE

Matthew 5:18 The Law does not here refer only to the Torah, i.e. merely the legal requirements, but also the prophets who are its God-sent interpreters. Jesus means the Law in its broader sense of every part of the OT, prophecy and command.

To paraphrase Jesus another way: The Law and prophets mean more to me than all the destiny of the universe! Every little item in them will be carried out.

According to Jesus, there are two points that must be reached before even the smallest part of the total Law could be forgotten:

1. Till heaven and earth pass away, How does Jesus intend this?

a.

Literally? Until the end of time? This interpretation seems to overlap the second point to be reached. (See 2 below.)

b.

Proverbially? It would be easier for the universe to crumble than for God-s Law and prophets to fail of their intended purpose and fulfilment. Compare Luke’s wording, Luke 16:17. According to Jesus, The Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); i.e. it applied to those under its authority and could not be abrogated or annulled by them or by anyone without God’s express mandate.

Till all things be accomplished, i.e., until God’s purpose for giving them had been fulfilled, Since God’s purpose is fulfilled in Jesus and His Church, some of the details my yet be in the process of completion clear down to the end of time. Certainly, God’s judgment against sinners who reject Jesus will be upheld by God’s unchanging Law, for the vindication of God-s righteousness at the last day.

But with reference to believers, all things have already been (actually or potentially) accomplished by Jesus, for He set in motion, either in His life, message, suffering, glorification, Church or His glorious reign, all those principles which would accomplish all of God’s OT predictions and standards. No wonder Paul shouts to the Greco-Jewish world, God is the source of life in Christ Jesus, whom He has made to be our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification and redemption! (1 Corinthians 1:30) look at all Jesus did! (Romans 3:21-26; Romans 5:1-11; Romans 7:4; Romans 9:1-11; Romans 9:32; Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:24-47; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Galatians 3:13; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:3-14; Ephesians 3:8-12; Colossians 1:12-23; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 2:10)

During His ministry, Jesus hinted at the complete abrogation of the Law (See Mark 7:19 in contrast with Leviticus 11; John 4:21 contrasted with Deuteronomy 12:1-32). But after He had accomplished all things that were written in the Law and prophets that required fulfilment (Luke 24:25-27; Luke 24:44-48; Acts 3:18; Acts 3:22-26; Acts 13:17-40; Acts 26:22), Jesus, whose very Spirit inspired their writings (1 Peter 1:10-11; 1 Peter 3:18-20), could do with them as He chose. What He actually did is revealed in long treatises on this subject: Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, with much clear teaching in 2Corinthians 3; Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2.

Feel the impact of these specific, revealing texts: Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:10; Acts 15:28; Romans 3:19-23; Romans 6:7; Romans 6:14; Romans 7:4; Romans 7:6; Romans 8:1-4; Romans 10:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:1-14; Galatians 2:16-21; Galatians 3:10-11; Galatians 3:21; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 5:1-4; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:14-15; Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 7:12; Hebrews 7:18-19; Hebrews 8:1-12; Hebrews 9:15-17; Hebrews 10:1-4; Hebrews 10:9.

Having fulfilled the Law perfectly, Jesus abolished it. The man who is justified by faith in Jesus has no relationship to the Law and must never try to justify himself before God by ANY law!

But why bring up the question of a Christian’s relationship to the Law in a discussion of Jesus-’ relation to it? Simply because of the great and lasting harm that has been wrought in the Church because of the misconceptions that so many have about what Jesus actually did to the principle of law. Textually deprived of the Mosaic Law by such passages as those cited above, men have sought to write thousands of other laws whereby they might be able to justify themselves and judge others. Some have even viewed the NT Scriptures as another law, somehow higher arid better than that of Moses, but nevertheless, law. But by saying, I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil,-’-’ does Jesus mean to uphold forever a system which His own apostles will later declare invalid and incapable of ever making man right before God?

**Not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law: **the Law shall most certainly stand (Greek double negative: ou me parelthe) This is the obvious meaning of Jesus-’ allusions to the smallest Hebrew letter, the jodh, and to the little stroke of the pen that would differentiate one Hebrew letter from another of similar appearance. In our alphabet the tittle would make the difference between, for example, c and e or between G and C. Jesus means, simply, the most minimal part of the Law, and not the verbal inspiration of the smallest part of the very letters that comprise the OT.

One important reason for this conclusion is the absence of the original autograph copies to whose letters this interpretation would refer. The written form of the Law and prophets which would have existed in Jesus-’ time would have been either in Hebrew copies made from the long-lost originals, or else in copies of translations made from the copies of the originals. Today, it is a gigantic task to compare available Hebrew manuscripts with their early translations to arrive at the most nearly perfect reproduction of the original wording. But no editor could truly say that his edition of the Hebrew Bible is verbally inspired down to the smallest letters or parts of letters.

What does the Law accomplish that makes it so important to Jesus?

In the work which it accomplished in preparation for Jesus-’ coming:

a.

The Law preserved law and order for a time until God-s purposes for the Jewish people could reach fruition. It was intended to provide an outward control of their conduct, even if it could not convert their lawless hearts, (Cf. 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Galatians 3:19; Galatians 3:23-25; Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:33; Jer. 34:40)

b.

The Law and the prophets, whose works explained God’s true intent in the Law, identify the Savior and His system.

c.

The Law furnished a vocabulary and a thought framework (Acts 3:17-25; Acts 8:35; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:16-41) for Jesus-’ revelation of God and His salvation.

In the function it continues to carry out:

a.

The Law condemns sin by showing the heinous nature of rebellion against God and the dire need of salvation on some other basis than law. (Romans 5:20; Romans 7:7-14; Galatians 3:10; James 2:10)

b.

The Law, by its inability to give life and righteousness, demands a different arrangement of a new covenant. (Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 8:7; Hebrews 10:1-4; Galatians 3:21) It shows for all ages the incapacity of law, as a principle of giving right-standing with God, to make men right.

c.

The Law, not having been abrogated for those who reject Jesus-’ cross, provides the standard of condemnation. (Romans 12:15; Galatians 5:3-4; James 2:8-13; Acts 13:39)

III. OBEDIENCE IS OBVIOUSLY OBLIGATORY

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break. Therefore announces the first practical application of the principle that God’s Law and prophets must have complete fulfilment, Matthew 5:17-18. Break (luen) has about the same breadth of meaning as kataluein, destroy of Mat 5:17 (Arndt-Gingrich, 485). However, Jesus refers not so much to that open disobedience or unblushing defiance of God’s government as to all the compromising and shrewd evasion of the force of God’s commands by those who profess to serve God, There are many ways to loose or untie (luein) one from his obligation to the Law: through ignorant or wrong interpretations, by deliberate manipulation of the Law for selfish or ulterior motives, by cunningly devised rationalizations and justifications adopted as a means of escaping the guilt of violation. This subtle spirit of disobedience seeks to realize its desires just like the openly sinful, but it always maintains a cloak of respectability and superficial piety, continually stretched to cover every act. This is the same attitude toward God-s will that keeps a person from rendering wholehearted allegiance and service to God and satisfies him with external piety that passes for purity.

One of these least commandments. Who said that some commands are less important than others? The Pharisees? Jesus? If so, what did they mean?

The Pharisees were experts at this sort of dodging moral responsibility by demoting commands of supreme and essential importance so that they might be ignored as trivial offences, while giving top priority to clearly secondary issues. (See Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 23:16-23) In this case, Jesus may be admitting their terminology while condemning their use of it. If so, He is indicting them with encouraging people to presume that little disobedience to God is unimportant, or that violation of less important commands was only a trivial matter.

However, even if Jesus were not accommodating His language to Pharisaic distinctions to make His point, yet it is quite true that there are weightier matters of the law that dwarf all the rest by comparison. (Matthew 23:23; cf. Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:1-12) While anything Gal commands is obligatory to those of whom He requires it, Jesus does not view every command as of the same importance. For instance, the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic code would be considered of certainly less importance than love, justice, mercy and faith. (Cf. Matthew 9:13; Matthew 22:34-40)

Though the Christian must not view his relation to God as a legal contract, yet for those in Jesus-’ audience who so view it, He reminds that the authority of the Law is defied just as much by the violation of a least commandment as by a greater one. (James 2:8-11) By this fact all are damned as sinners and must be saved by God’s grace! (Romans 1-3)

**He shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. **The kingdom does not refer to that kingdom of glory where the saints will see the Father’s face, but that kingdom a b u t which Jesus has already taught much in Galilee (Matthew 4:17; Matthew 4:23) and would yet explain more clearly (Matthew 11:11-14; Matthew 13:1-52; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 16:28) which found its immediate and practical application in the Church. Jesus-’ expression regards two viewpoints:

The present condition of His hearers in view of the future. Men who show little reverence for the present revelation of God, as represented in the Law and prophets, would have the same disregard for further revelation brought in the kingdom by the Messiah. (Cf. Luke 16:27-31; John 5:38-47) If you act this way now, before the kingdom comes, your habits of disobedience will not easily be laid aside and will carry over with you into that epoch when the kingdom becomes a reality.

The future attitudes in the kingdom considered as already realized. After the Church becomes a reality, those members who regard God-appointed commands as non-essentials and neglect them and urge others to follow suit, will be the least esteemed in the kingdom. Though they had entered the kingdom by accepting Christ, they might be slighting His authority on some questions. (Matthew 28:20; Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27)

Who will be making this judgment? They shall be called least by whom? Jesus here declares His own verdict: In my kingdom I will consider those who do this as nobodies, as teachers who do not know what they are talking about. Christians, following their Lord’s sentence, must evaluate would-be leaders on the same basis. (Cf. 1Ti. 1:-20)

Why is this judgment necessary? Because those who hold that some of God’s commands can be ignored with impunity, are fundamentally eroding the conscience and undermining God’s authority or right to command. Any unconscientiousness in small matters opens psychological doors to indifference toward greater, (Cf. 1 Timothy 1:5-6; 1 Timothy 1:19)

Observe carefully the emphasis and order Jesus uses as He describes insignificance or greatness in the kingdom: (1) Whosoever vitiates a small part of God’s revelation and (2) teaches men so. (1) Whosoever practices and (2) teaches. The practice usually and quite naturally precedes the teaching. Psychologically, it could not be otherwise. No teacher is capable of convincing others of that of which he himself is not the first example. (Cf. 1 Timothy 4:6-7; 1 Timothy 4:11-16) Jesus will have much to say about the hypocrites who try to teach while not having the character they expect from others. The truly great, in Jesus’ holy eyes, are those who do and teach. But greatness in the kingdom is measured by conscientiousness, not punctiliousness, in regard to its least commands. Jesus is not blessing that strict devotion to forms and ceremonies which He condemns in the Pharisees.

Rather, He encourages that heart which eagerly does anything God says and joyfully urges others to follow suit, to seek true greatness by continuing to obey just as they are already doing. (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 4:9)

IV. THE ORDER TO OUTSTRIP THE OFFICIAL ORTHODOXY

Matthew 5:20 Unless you are better men than the orthodox theological doctors demand, you will not make it into my kingdom! Sin and transgression do matter: righteousness in my kingdom is no secondary issue. In fact, it is so important that entrance is prohibited to those who are no closer to God than the most religious people you can think of!

Your righteousness is your view about what you think constitutes true righteousness. This, in turn, affects your dedication to God and modifies your character. One’s attitude toward God’s standards is reflected in his character and conduct and incisively affects his obedience. This would naturally come to the mind of the thoughtful. But another series of steps must be taken before Jesus-’ revelation of the true nature of righteousness will be complete:

Men are just not good enough, on the basis of legal justification, to merit entrance into the Kingdom. (Romans 2:12; Romans 3:9-23; Romans 11:32; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 5:3-4; Galatians 6:13)

Only Jesus fulfilled the Law’s demands, thereby providing God’s gracious opportunity for men to be declared righteous on the basis of faith in Him. (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 3:24-26; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:10; Ephesians 2:8-9)

Man must surrender, therefore, his struggle to be good enough to satisfy God’s Law, and he must accept Jesus-’ righteousness as his.

Imputed righteousness is valid only where the faith is real. (Romans 1:17; Romans 11:20-23)

Faith is only. genuine where the conduct demonstrates its vitality. (James 1:22-25; James 2:14-26; Galatians 5:6)

Imputed righteousness is only of value to the man whose whole being is transformed and made truly good by God-s Spirit working from within, rather than God-s Law coercing him from without. (Romans 6:12-22; Romans 7:6; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Galatians 4:19; Galatians 5:18; Philippians 1:27; Colossians 1:27-28) (Romans 4:5 to Romans 5:1; Romans 6:1-11; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:4-16)

The man who depends upon his personal goodness, established on the basis of so many good works and so much obedience to law, is damned. (Romans 3:19-20; Romans 3:31; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:7-24; Romans 10:1-4; Galatians 3:10; Galatians 5:4)

Therefore, imputed righteousness is the only righteousness which truly excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, but it must be backed by a righteous character which responds to God’s grace, These tremendous concepts are uniquely Christian and probably would have never crossed the mind of man had not Jesus and His apostles taught them. But they are absolutely necessary, logical conclusions if one uses as a point of departure perfect fulfilment of the Law and the prophets, (Matthew 5:17-18) or the very perfection of God Himself (Matthew 5:48).

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes were the acknowledged expounders of the Law because of their particular familiarity with its contents as the men of letters (grammateus) of that day. Their life-work consisted in the study and interpretation of the Law: they were the lawyers (Cf. Matthew 22:35 with Mark 12:28; Luke 11:52-53). They were the rabbis, the cream of Jewish scholarship in that period. (Cf. Matthew 2:4; Matthew 7:29; Matthew 9:3; Matthew 12:38; Matthew 15:1; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:10; Matthew 21:15; Matthew 23:2 ff; Mark 12:35; Mark 12:38 ff) The Pharisees were that Jewish party which professed scrupulous adherence to all the legal requirements of the Law as interpreted by the scribes. But why bring them into the argument? They made a valuable point of reference, since, in the eyes of the people and especially in their own sight, they were the very models of righteousness. As such, they represented the strictest type of Judaism. Not only that, but they also picture for us the strictest legal interpreters of the highest moral law known to man. They should therefore be the purest among men; at least, this was their own ideal. This declaration of Jesus must have hit hard, since all were agreed: If a Pharisee or a scribe be not the first to enter the kingdom, who would? Here again, Jesus contradicts the popular concept, not only of His day, but of every age: Unless your religion excels that of the best men on earth you know, the doors of the kingdom are closed to you!

But what was the so-called righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees? Surely Jesus does not accept their own estimate of themselves. Their religiosity and real character may be learned from these suggestive passages: (Matthew 23; cf. Matthew 9:11; Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:1-45; Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 16:1-12; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 21:33-45; Luke 12:1; Luke 15:2; Luke 16:14; Luke 20:45-47) From these we see their:

Ostentatious piety and frequent hypocrisy.

Punctilious regard for ceremonial law.

Frequent, monstrous neglect of moral law.

Consequent harshness in judging others.

Contempt for the masses of the people; partisan zeal; pride. (Cf. John 7:48-49)

Convenient evasions and distinctions used to satisfy their conscience in matters of duty whereby they would have been bound by the Law to obey.

Miserable failure in attaining the righteousness which God expects in those who would enter His kingdom (Romans 10:1-3). At least theoretically, it is possible to satisfy the demands of law, so that man can say, I have discharged my duty to the Law, but it is impossible to satisfy the claims of love that go far beyond the requirements of any law.

In short, their righteousness was LEGAL. But that was its fault, and that very attitude toward God’s standard produced the aberrations listed above. The tragedy lies in their apparent sincerity in supposing that such conduct constitutes true piety. They were satisfied with the superficial. Point for point, our religion must be far superior to this: it must emanate from a pure heart; render humble, useful service; demonstrate loving, conscientious obedience in all things; possess a fear of God and a consciousness of one’s own imperfections; be merciful and moderate; and, really love men.

But if Jesus refers not to their actual and practical impiety revealed in the above seven points, then He is taking them at their ideal as exponents of any and all legal systems, and declares that His disciples must possess a righteousness that surpasses the righteousness demanded by law. This surpassing righteousness obviously must be imputed to the sinner on the basis of his faith in Jesus.

Ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. In the strongest language possible (Greek double negative emphatic: ou me eiselthete) Jesus denies entrance into the kingdom to those of the same brand of religion as the Jewish leaders. But here a problem arises: is He demanding moral and spiritual maturity before one may become a citizen of His kingdom? May only the absolutely perfect enter there? Two answers are possible:

It would not have taken much for almost any sincere Jew to be a far better man than the conventional rabbi, as described above. In fact, Jesus found expressions of true faith that ran deep (Matthew 8:10-12; Matthew 11:7-15; Matthew 11:25; Matthew 13:16; Matthew 13:51-52; Matthew 15:21-28; Matthew 16:13-19; Matthew 19:13-15), deeper understanding of the nature of real righteousness (Matthew 12:28-34), and love stronger than fear (Mark 15:43-45; Luke 7:36-50; John 19:25-26). Thus, any humble disciple of Jesus, whose mind was open to teaching and could be brought to repentance, already possessed a far superior religion than his leaders. (Psalms 119:98-100) According to this interpretation, Jesus is not requiring absolute perfection but only a heart relatively more righteous or more genuinely dedicated to God than the heart of the theologians.

Only the absolutely perfect may enter Jesus-’ kingdom, This would keep us all out, unless Jesus can remake us! But that is exactly what He intends to do through our new birth and regeneration. It is no longer a question of taking the infinitely long stairway to ultimate perfection, on which we are always imperfect at any point. Rather, we may take the elevator of Christ-s righteousness clear to the top and be considered perfectly righteous from the very beginning of our new life in Christ! (Romans 8:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:10)

Verses 21-48 are but illustrations how Jesus-’ disciple may rise infinitely higher than the piety of these petty scholars. But there is by no means agreement among the commentaries regarding Jesus-’ purpose for giving these illustrations.

JESUS-’ PURPOSE

What does Jesus intend to accomplish in these following verses? (Matthew 5:21-48)

A. TO CORRECT POPULAR FALSE INTERPREI-‘ATIONS OF THE LAW?

Not a few commentators do not hesitate to declare that Jesus is distinguishing the false and inadequate though popular teachings of the scribes regarding the meaning of the Law from its true meaning. Thus, the positive declarations made by Jesus (Matthew 5:21-48) only reveal the true implications of each legal precept treated, This view suggests that Jesus is expounding what God intended for the Israelites to understand when He gave each precept and prohibition to them at the beginning. By logical extension, any wise and godly Hebrew could have arrived at the same understanding of the Law expressed by Jesus in this Sermon on the Mount. In fact, many of the Proverbs attest such an understanding. In this case, what is Jesus revealing that is really unique and new? Again, is it always necessary or even possible to prove that Jesus is objecting to some erroneous interpretation or mistaken application popular among the scribes? (See Notes on Matthew 5:21; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:31; Matthew 5:33; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:43 which offer the opposite conclusion.) The view of the commentators assumes that Jesus COULD NOT be drawing a contrast between His standard and the Law of Moses without, first, contradicting His declared purpose not to defeat the purpose of the Law and prophets (Matthew 5:17-18), and, second, appearing to contrast His teachings with the moral principles of His Father or correcting God. In regard to the first objection, see above on Matthew 5:17-18; as to the second, see below under letter B. Further, is Jesus the exponent of merely legal righteousness and not rather of fulfilling and surpassing righteousness?

The basis for this opinion that Jesus corrects the scribal misinterpretations of the Law, as offered by many commentators, is the introductory phrase He uses to open His examples: Ye have heard that it was said. It is argued that since His usual manner of citing the Law is It is written, therefore, what He cites in Matthew 5:21-48 could not be the Law, but must be only what was said, i.e. the oral traditions of the elders and rabbis. But this opinion seems to be weak at the following points:

This opinion, followed even by many who are usually capable of distinguishing the covenants, seems to be motivated by an over-weighing desire to retain the moral law of God as a standard for justification. To demonstrate the existence of the moral law of God, they cite certain precepts of the Mosaic system upon which Jesus comments. Thus, they suppose that Moses-’ ethics, as interpreted by Jesus, to be the epitome of real righteousness. But Jesus claims to be presenting a concept of morality that far surpasses the highest legal ideals.

2. The introductory phrase (ye have heard that it was said) may just as easily refer, not to the late scribal authorities, but to those ancient patriarchal mores which preceded the Mosaic legislation and were regulated or modified by it or simply included in it. (Cf. John 7:22):

a.

Laws regarding murder and punishment were known to the ancients (Cf. Genesis 4:14-15 with Numbers 35:19, Genesis 9:5-6).

b.

God’s revelation against sexual sins such as adultery was known (Genesis 12:10-19; Genesis 20:2-18; Genesis 26:7-11; Genesis 39:9).

c.

The basic philosophy behind swearing and oaths was already formed before the Law (Genesis 14:22-23; Genesis 21:22-31; Genesis 24:2-9; Genesis 47:29-31; Genesis 50:24).

d.

Retaliation arising from a sense of wounded family honor was practiced (Genesis 34:1-31) or arising from a sense of human value (Genesis 4:14-15).

e.

Love of one’s neighbor was shown in practical oriental courtesy (Genesis 18:1-8; Genesis 19:1-3; Genesis 23:1-16) as well as concern for others (Genesis 18:16-33).

Further, the suggestion that It is written is Jesus-’ usual formula for introducing a citation (18 times not counting synoptic duplications) proves nothing about Jesus-’ habits, since these are learned from the evidence, which also contains other modes equally clear. (Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:3-8; Matthew 13:14; Matthew 15:4 [Mark 7:10], Matthew 15:7; Matthew 19:4-5; Matthew 19:18-19; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 21:16; Matthew 21:42) Certainly Jesus said It is written many times, even in the synoptic parallels of some of these passages cited, but what does this prove about His meaning in those passages in which He does not? Does it prove that these latter texts are not, therefore, scripture? Or does it prove that He is not citing Scripture when He said Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time? No.

Even though Edersheim (Life, I, 538) and others affirm that the expression they of old corresponds perfectly to the rabbinic appeal to those that had preceded, the Zeqenim or Rishonim (the elders or the ancients), yet these same Hebrew words may refer equally well to those which preceded even Moses-’ day, or else to those -who were his contemporaries to whom he spoke. For example of Zeuenim, see Genesis 50:7; Exodus 3:16; Exodus 3:18; Exodus 4:29 etc. Joshua 24:31; for Rishonim, see Deuteronomy 19:14; Leviticus 26:45.

Then it is said that the illustrations (Matthew 5:21-48) are indications as to how Christian righteousness supersedes the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 5:20) But the view taken in this study is that such a position is inadequate if it only correct the false or inadequate interpretations of the Law and somehow leave the Law intact. We should rather take the illustrations (Matthew 5:21-48) as indications as to how Christian righteousness goes beyond all legal ideals of which the Mosaic code is the chief example. If Jesus-’ ideal goes beyond that of Moses, it certainly supersedes that standard of the rabbis.

B. TO REVEAL TRUE (AS CONTRASTED TO LEGAL) RIGHTEOUSNESS?

In this view, He proceeds to contrast the old time views of morality, as represented in the true teaching of the Mosaic Law, with the true righteousness as represented in His message. Far from contradicting Moses or correcting God or causing one of the minutest points of the Law to fall, Jesus-’ contrast, indicated in the phrase but I say unto you, means, Do not suppose that all of righteousness is bound up in Moses-’ Law and interpreted by the prophets. For real righteousness is a much higher standard, a more far-reaching ethic than that dictated by God to Moses for the exigencies of a primitive people. Yes, God still hates murder, adultery, divorce, false swearing and partiality, but there is more to what constitutes sin than just that. Moses-’ Law could not possibly touch the actual disposition of the heart like the searching judgments I am about to announce. True righteousness not only fulfils the requirements of Moses and the prophets clear to the limit of their intended meaning, but also so far excels them that you will be able to see revealed the perfections of the very character of God Himself! (Cf. Matthew 5:48) The standard that I am presenting condemns as sin those wicked heart motives which never emerge as visible deeds. I want to show you that a man is not truly pure until he never desires to do a forbidden thing!

FACT QUESTIONS

Discuss Jesus-’ relation to the Old Testament and His attitude toward it. What use did He make of the OT? Cite His statements about it. Was He superior or inferior to its institutions? Explain His purpose to destroy, fulfil or abrogate it.

What is the distinction in Jesus-’ mind between destroying the law and prophets and fulfilling them? In what ways would it be possible to destroy them?

What are the jot and the tittle? What does He mean by them? In what way fulfil them?

Does Jesus contemplate the actual destruction of heaven and earth as the time when the minutest particulars of the law would finally cease to be in force and all things would be accomplished?

What are those things that must be accomplished?

Have they been completed yet, as far as the Christian is concerned? If so, how or when?

Have they been accomplished yet, as far as the world is concerned? If so, how and when?

Describe the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees and show point by point how our righteousness must exceed it.

Who made the distinction between one of these least commandment and those which by implication are greater? Jesus? the Pharisees? Explain your answer.

Matthew 5:21-26

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW 2. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD ANGER OR HATE, TEXT: 5:21-26

21. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
22. but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.
23. If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,
24. leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Must a Christian deplore all forms of taking human life? Why?

b.

Must a Christian support the punishment of crime, even if it means the death penalty to the criminal? Why?

c.

Can Jesus-’ principle (hate in the heart equals the act of murder) be applied to society in general? If so, how? If not, why?

d.

Does Jesus-’ principle remove the necessity of law for the Christian?

e.

Does His principle remove the necessity of law for the unconverted?

f.

Is it ever right to be angry? What is the difference between what is called righteous indignation and that anger here condemned by Jesus?

g.

What happens to men who allow themselves to be controlled by anger or hate?

h.

Is there any kind of order intended in Jesus-’ description of the three sins? (anger, racah, fool) What makes you think so?

i.

Who is capable of judging these heart motivations that do not lead to outward, observable sin?

j.

By His phrase: but I say unto you, is Jesus proceeding to reveal the real intent of Moses-’ law as one which condemned the heart’s motivations as well as the outward act? Or, is He proceeding to reveal the nature of true righteousness as contrasted to the standards God gave through Moses? Explain your answer.

k.

Why, do you suppose, did Jesus word His encouragement to be reconciled in these words: and there you remember that your brother has something against you? Show His wisdom in dealing with human nature as it is.

l.

Why is it so important to settle out of court?

PARAPHRASE

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, -Do not commit murder-’ and -Anyone who murders shall be answerable to the court. But I say to you that if anyone harbors malice against his brother, he must stand trial in court! Whoever heaps contempt upon his brother, must answer for it to the Sanhedrin! If anyone so much as says, -You stupid fool!-’ he shall have to answer for it in Gehenna’s fiery pit!

So, if you are presenting your offering at the great altar in the temple, and if at that moment of confessing your sins upon the head of that animal, you remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your sacrifice right there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother, Then come back and present your gift.

Come to terms quickly with your opponent at law while you are going to court with him, lest he turn you over to the judge and he, in turn, deliver you to the guard who will throw you into the prison. Believe me, you will never get out of there till you have paid up in full!

SUMMARY

While the Law condemns only murder, Jesus condemns the heart’s motives which flare up in selfish anger, scorn and reviling speech. One can go to hell for what he thinks, not merely for what he does, Reconciliation with an offended brother is more important than any act of worship. It is better to be reconciled and settle out of court.

NOTES

1. HARBORING HATRED IN THE HEART

Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard both from your parents (Luke 6:6-9) and from the public reading of the Law and prophets (cf. Acts 15:21) **that it was said **by God through Moses and the prophets. Some suppose that Jesus-’ primary reference is to the scribal interpretations, but Jesus does not quote one in this entire section. Jesus is citing the Law as spoken to the ancients and makes no allusion to the relatively recent concepts of the rabbis that had arisen since the last of the great prophets and before John the Baptist. Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13) This precept covered only murder with malice, not just any form of killing, since capital punishment was meted out to the murderer. Nor was this command a prohibition of war, since God deputized Israel to execute His justice upon many wicked nations. (Deuteronomy 7; Deuteronomy 20:10-18) Nor did this prohibition keep God from scourging Israel when they had sinned away their days of grace, by bringing the murderous hoards of enemy armies. (Deuteronomy 28) Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. This is no scribal or traditional interpretation as some assume, but a quite correct summation of several laws, since, historically, the judgment of a local court had to decide the acquittal or death sentence. (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17; Leviticus 24:21)

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you: see on Matthew 5:20 Jesus-’ Purpose. Jesus rises majestically above the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who could only cite some ancient Jewish scholar, or at best, Moses himself, to verify the orthodoxy of their teachings. Jesus-’ word surpasses that of the greatest Lawgiver of the ages.

**In danger of the judgment… council. hell of fire. **These three tribunals, before which a man is liable to render account, are:

1. The local municipal court made up of the town elders (Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 19:11-13; Numbers 35:15-32; Joshua 10:1-9; 2 Chronicles 19:4-7).

2. The Sanhedrin, or supreme court, which heard cases in Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 17:9-13; Deuteronomy 19:15-21[?]; 2 Chronicles 19:8-11)

3. God’s fiery hell. He is the only One who can destroy soul and body in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5). Gehenna is a word with a terrible history, being the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom or valley of Hinnom (2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31-32; Jeremiah 19:1-13) By the time of the NT era, the phrase had come to mean the place of final, eternal punishment. (Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:47-48; Luke 12:5; James 3:6)

But why would Jesus list three separate courts of unequal jurisdiction as having to hear cases where no crime has been committed? Lenski (218, 219) suggests that Jesus is satirizing the casuistic method of the scribes and Pharisees. But more probably He is speaking ironically and satirizing the necessarily casuistic method of all law. This is obvious from the sheer impossibility for any human court to execute such judgments as are called for by sinful heart motives, such as selfish anger which is allowed to boil slowly in one’s heart. What court on earth could call witnesses to testify regarding a man’s very thoughts that never produce specific acts which the Law has defined to be sin?

Even the Mosaic Law condemned hatred (Numbers 35:20-21; Leviticus 19:14; Leviticus 19:17; Deuteronomy 19:4-13; Deuteronomy 25:3), But as will be seen from these passages, the hater could not be touched until he committed open violence.

Because men cannot rightly judge motivation, it becomes obvious that Jesus regards God as the only qualified judge before whose court men must stand.

Having seen that there is no necessary gradation in the courts before which the sinner must stand, since God is the Judge of all sin, it may be asked if there is an ascending order intended by those sentiments which bring the man into judgment. Some see the following order as representing an increasing intensity and consequently heavier liability:

1. Silent, harbored anger that is allowed to fester without expression;

Railing speech, slanderous epithets, contempt, despising;

Bitter reproach or invective probably involving cursing.

These may be good interpretations of anger, racah and fool, but does Jesus intend us to understand that sins may be thus graded as to their seriousness and consequent punishment?

True, punishment will be meted out in varying degrees, according to the differing degrees of guilt. (Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47-48; Luke 23:34; Acts 17:30; Romans 2:9; Romans 3:26; Romans 5:13; Romans 7:13; Romans 14:23; Ephesians 4:18) This lightens the responsibility for no one, since these passages teach the most exact weighing of knowledge, opportunities and motives. Judgement therefore is not to be varied on the basis of the relative seriousness of the sins committed, but on the basis of the quantity of light against which any sin was committed.

NO, Jesus-’ purpose in mentioning three kinds of negative human passion is not to distinguish greater and lesser sins and clarify their respective punishments with a view to making better lawyers of His disciples. After all, He does not exhaust the list of all possible negative outbursts which would represent the various possible infractions of the law. Rather, He utilizes the language familiar to His day, rapidly firing three examples that will render as vivid and emphatic as possible the idea that all forms of hatred are sinful because they are out of harmony with His spirit.

Every one who is angry with his brother. Anger is an important emotion, significant because of what man can do with it, and what it can do with the man. God infused into man this ability to be angry in order to provide him emotional force against evil. ISBE notes (3113) that a man who is incapable of being angry at sin is at the same time thereby adjudged to be incapable of having a real love for righteousness. For instance, haw can, we look upon man’s inhumanity to his fellows without indignation? How could we really be concerned for the least, the last and the lost unless we had the capacity for anger at that which reduces them to what they are? So thought-provoking and soul-searching is this injunction of Jesus that a scribe, while copying the manuscript of Matthew, inserted after the word angry the expression without cause. But He probably did not say it and the addition has been eliminated from all the versions based upon the oldest, best manuscripts. Even so, the unmodified word of Jesus refers to an improper anger which admits the reality of an anger that is quite in order:

1. Proper Anger:

a.

The wrath of God: Deuteronomy 6:15; Deuteronomy 29:22-28; Psalms 7:9-17; Psalms 78:38; Nahum 1:2-8; John 3:36; Romans 1:17; Romans 2:5-9; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 5:6;Colossians 3:6; Hebrews 12:29; Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 10:31; 1 Peter 1:17; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 11:18; Revelation 14:9-11; Revelation 14:19; Revelation 19:15. Compare these passages which show God-s reluctance to become angry: Psalms 103:8; Psalms 30:5; Psalms 145:8; Nehemiah 9:17; Joe 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Micah 7:18; Nahum 1:3.

b.

Jesus-’ Anger: Psalms 2:12; Mark 3:5

c.

Proper human anger: that quality inherent in a noble character which is stirred deeply about human wickedness. (Exodus 32:19; Numbers 16:15; 1 Samuel 11:6; 1 Samuel 20:34; Nehemiah 5:6; Psalms 97:10; Proverbs 8:13; Amos 5:15; Romans 12:9; Ephesians 4:26.) It is this latter passage of Paul that warns of the danger inherent in anger: while angry a man could very well sin against his neighbor. Even justifiable anger might lead one to commit unjustifiable acts which are to be condemned. So Jesus warns us of.

Improper Anger (See Special Study on Temptations, Matthew 4:1-11, under A Matter of Desire.) If anger be the emotional expression of a basic drive (desire or instinct) to preserve self or preserve whatever is considered worthy, then it can be harnessed and used as a power for g d by an intelligent choice to be motivated by another more impelling drive or desire. For example, if I love people, even though I am angry with them, how can I sin against them? Conversely, without this intelligent, willed control, I face the situation which excites my anger and begin to lash back, trying to punish those who have thus excited me, My selfish sense of injury masters me, Depending upon the intensity of the excitement, I strike out in words or blows or even hope to kill the object of my anger which has now become a furious rage verging on madness. If I love myself more than others, when angry with them, how can I keep from sinning against them?

What does the Bible say about this kind of anger? See Genesis 4:5-6; Numbers 20:10-11(?); Numbers 35:20-21; Leviticus 19:14; Leviticus 19:17; Deuteronomy 19:4-13; Deuteronomy 25:3; Psalms 37:8 esp. in context; Proverbs 15:1; Proverbs 15:18; Proverbs 16:32; Proverbs 19:11; Proverbs 19:19; Proverbs 21:14; Proverbs 27:4; Proverbs 29:22; Proverbs 30:33; Luke 9:51-55; Romans 12:19; Galatians 5:19-20; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; Titus 1:7; James 1:19-20.

Thus, to the complacent soul that confidently purrs, Oh, but Jesus, I-’ve never killed anybody! Jesus shows that God-s views with respect to human life are so demanding that even selfish anger is to be punished, Whether it be that malicious hatred that explodes in passionate violence or smolders in coals of hate, waiting for the moment to retaliate, all selfish anger is condemned,

But how can the conscientious soul tell the difference between holy and unholy anger? Seek to learn the true origin and the final purpose of the anger in question:

1. What is its origin?

a. Pride, self-realization? b. Desire to injure the object of the anger? c. Enraged selfishness? d. love of righteousness? e. Hatred for sin? f. Zeal for the honor of God and His kingdom?

2. What does this anger make you want to do?

a. Seek the injury of the person or thing that has excited you? b. Seek only the good of him against whom the anger is directed?

Do we have anyone for whom we cannot give thanks?

Angry with his brother. To ask Who is my brother? is to play the cunning legalist, seeking to evade the force of Jesus-’ strong words. It is the same as asking And who is my neighbor? (Luke 10:29), for who would dare frame such a question if his heart were full of love for any of God’s creatures? (Cf. Matthew 5:43-47) Who could prove that Jesus uses it to mean only the son of your father, or anyone of your same religious society-’-’? Like it or not, we are all sons of Noah and that makes us brothers.

Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca. Raca is an Aramaic word of contempt or scorn. Fool usually receives two interpretations, either of which could probably be right:

According to the Greek idea (more), it means you empty-headed so-and-so, and is a criticism of one’s intellectual capacity or alertness.

According to a similarly-pronounced Hebrew word (moreh), it judges his moral character: you damned rebel.

Both attitudes are condemned as arising out of ungoverned anger. Note that a merely superficial avoidance of the word fool is not the command, since both Jesus (Luke 11:40; Luke 12:20; Luke 24:25), Paul (1 Corinthians 15:36; Galatians 3:1) and James (James 2:20) all use words which connote fool or foolish one. Rather, He proscribes the derogatory contempt that is usually implied in those terms. The principle is the same in evil speech as in murder: the evil heart is the source (Matthew 15:18-19), and if an evil heart comes up with other words than raca or fool, that despising, slanderous reproach felt in the heart is just as severely condemned by the Lord!

See with what emphatic language the sages warned against an unruly tongue and perverse speech, and how they praised kind and helpful words: Proverbs 4:23-24; Proverbs 6:12; Proverbs 10:11-14; Proverbs 10:18-21; Proverbs 10:31-32; Proverbs 11:9; Proverbs 12, 13; Proverbs 12:18; Proverbs 13:3; Proverbs 14:17; Proverbs 14:29; Proverbs 15:1-2; Proverbs 15:4; Proverbs 15:18; Proverbs 15:28; Proverbs 16:32; Proverbs 17:9; Proverbs 20, 27, 28; Proverbs 18:13; Proverbs 19:11; Proverbs 20:3; Proverbs 21:23; Proverbs 22:24-25; Proverbs 25:8; Proverbs 19:20; Proverbs 19:22.

Jesus tests not merely the consistency of our outward conduct with some laws, but the very nature of our HEART! Our heart motives must be beyond the censure of God. Jesus gives us fair warning: You will be judged on MOTIVES, not merely upon your deeds. What is in your heart will overflow in your actions. What your heart dictates, you really are, Your very motives must be so pure and right that right deeds follow, (See Matthew 7:16-20) Jesus desires to alter the main-spring of our actions. This standard of judgment is so rigid that we must not be all surprised to hear Jesus say to the best of the best men: You must be born again!

Finally, Jesus is not expounding the meaning of the Sixth Commandment, saying that: it is also broken by anger, spite, hate and contempt, Rather, His new revelation that covers this basic area of human relationships is intended to fulfil and go entirely beyond the Sixth Commandment with more stringent judgments than that good commandment could require. Before, one only suffered for murdering; now, one goes to hell just for hate! (John 3:15; Revelation 21:8)

II. HASTEN TO HEAL A HURT WHICH HINDERS HOLINESS AND HARMONY

Matthew 5:23 If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar. Jesus uses language of that dispensation then in force, but His principle applies to all forms of true, outward worship however it might be offered to God, whether in prayers, offerings, the Lord-s Supper, hymn singing or whatever. Thy gift is not specific here, since no Jew was to appear before God with empty hands (Deuteronomy 16:16-17). But the awe inspiring ceremony of presenting an unblemished animal to a holy God was calculated to remind the sinner of his unholiness. This unholiness is most practically felt in the treatment of One’s fellows. The personal tension of the worshipper at the moment of his sacrifice could easily call to mind those disharmonies and struggles in his life that made such sacrificing necessary. Perhaps while laying his hands upon the head of the animal (Leviticus 1:4; Leviticus 3:2; Leviticus 3:8; Leviticus 3:13), he might be praying a prayer of confession of sins, similar to the confession made by the high priests (Leviticus 16:21), and in this solemn moment the worshipper recalls that his brother has something against him.

Aught against thee: mark that wording! There is no room here for self-justifications, rationalizations or excuses, Many suppose that Jesus-’ exhortation is addressed to the offender as if he were truly guilty, but the question of rightness or wrongness in this grievance does not enter the question. Jesus deliberately avoided the decision as to who was right in the grievance or whose fault it was. He knew that men do not seek reconciliation and forgive each other because of pride. Pride is selfishness, exhibited in the self-justifications: He started it! I-’m in the right and no apologies are necessary on my part! But this disposition to claim one’s right to himself is the essence of all sin. So the Lord says, You might as well not sacrifice so long as that disposition rules you. You both might have been wrong and you on your part need to forgive him! If you have not forgiven him, how can you expect God to forgive you? What good would another sacrifice do? Personal repentance may often have to precede a willingness to forgive the brother. It is even impossible to pray well unless one has shown a readiness to forgive and seek reconciliation with an offended brother. (Cf. Mark 11:25-26) If events should prove that the offended brother had no objective case against the offender, in which case worship was yet hindered until a settlement of the matter was reached, how much more is worship vitiated and reprehensible if the offender wronged him wilfully and had not yet righted the situation!

THIS IS THE MOST VITAL PRINCIPLE OF TRUE RELIGION: worship is not acceptable to God from any worshipper who harbors basic disobedience to any of God’s commands in his heart! (1 Samuel 15:22; Psalms 40:6-8; Psalms 66:18; Psalms 51:16-17; Proverbs 15:8; Proverbs 21:27; Isaiah 1:11-15; Isaiah 58:5-6; Isaiah 66:1-4; Jeremiah 6:16-20; Jeremiah 7:9-10; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; Mark 12:33; Romans 15:5-6; 1 John 2:9; 1 John 3:17; 1 John 4:20) Reconciliation, as a supreme duty, becomes more important than all acts of worship, since continuing grudges, envy, malice and secret hatreds break that all-important relationship with God. Only the pure in heart can truly worship God.

But how often the status quo is allowed to remain as days become years without one step being taken to reconcile brothers at odds with one another! (Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; James 3:9-10; Matthew 18:7-14; Luke 17:1-4) How can two elders, for instance, pray together at the Lord’s table when they refuse to speak to each other any other time? How can worship continue uninterrupted when two congregations of the church of Christ mutually excommunicate each other over nothing more serious than the scripturalness of one loaf on the Lord’s table? How can a lady worship her God, if she knows that another’s pride has been wounded and jealousy aroused by her receiving an honor rightly belonging to the other? How can brethren who use musical instruments in their praise of God hope to please Him if they have not sought diligently to be reconciled to their brethren who hold this very practice against them?

Matthew 5:24 **Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. **The priest would certainly understand your necessity and sympathetically see to it that your animal is taken care of until your return, (Hebrews 5:1-4) First be reconciled to your brother at whatever cost to your pride or interests; make it right with him! Barnes (54) helpfully suggests:

If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to have been paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon.

Do not lightly dismiss a small burst of temper which hurt him, even though you might have afterwards regretted it. If the matter has not yet been healed, go to him, acknowledge your regret for having acted in so unbrotherly a manner.

If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation.

Do all in your power, and all that you ought to do, to have the matter settled. Jesus explains the proper procedure later (Matthew 18:15-18).

Then, having done all possible to be reconciled, do not hold the matter as a further hindrance to your worship, even if he refuses to be conciliated. Then come and offer thy gift. Mere fraternal peace does not produce automatic acceptance with God: His orders must be obeyed, His sacrifices offered. Performance of our duty toward out fellows does not release us from responsibility to please Him according to His wishes. Merely living according to a high morality by always doing what is in the best interest of our neighbor can never excuse one for not being baptized or refusing some other obedience.

III. HURRY TO HALT THE HAZARD OF A HORRIBLE HUMILIATION

Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him. This is always sound advice: it is always best to settle out of court, The brief allusion of Jesus here to a threatening lawsuit that ends disastrously for one party has been quite variously interpreted:

Allegorically. Some see God as the adversary; others, the devil or Jesus. Some regard God as the judge, while Jesus becomes the adversary. The prison becomes hell from which final restoration can, in the view of some, or cannot, in the view of others, be realized after the inexorable rigors of divine justice against the hardened and impenitent sinner have been sufficiently satisfied. (Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid.)

Some see a relation intended by Jesus between God-s judgment on hatred harbored in the heart (Matthew 5:22), the suggestion that God judges sacrifices unsatisfactory until reconciliation is made (Matthew 5:24), and the judge from whose final judgment there is no escaping (Matthew 5:25-26). But in the absence of a clear statement from Jesus, who could prove that this is His meaning?

But is it really necessary to interpret this illustration allegorically? Jesus gives no clue that He thus intends it to be understood. While Luke (Luke 12:57-59) records this same story in another connection which might have overtones of God’s final judgment, yet this is no necessary indication that Jesus so intended the story in this context, nor that He could not use a well-turned illustration to suggest various conclusions as their need and situation demand.

Literally, Jesus is giving a piece of sound, practical advice by coming down to a lower level or argument: If your proud, obstinate hearts block your seeking reconciliation with an offended brother, because you are unmoved by the higher motives of loving concern for your adversary enough to settle with him by peaceful means, then I will talk a language you can understand. Do not let your pride blind you to the possibility that he could take you to court over your differences -nor to the ever-present chance that you might lose your case in court! So, if you refuse to seek reconciliation with your adversary until the matter goes to the judge, you have foolishly squandered your precious freedom and lost your brother too! The business of a judge is meting out perfect justice and you will get what is coming to you. You will have time in your jail cell to regret what could have been avoided by your humbly seeking a peaceful solution with your offended brother before he became your accuser-at-law!

Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing. Debtor’s prisons were not uncommon, (Cf. Matthew 18:23-25) Also the Law awarded damages to be paid to the wronged party in any question (Exodus 21:18 to Exodus 22:15), If payment of such debts or damages were not forthcoming, the court could hold a man in prison until full payment be made. How this payment would be made while in prison is not mentioned here, since the point of Jesus-’ story is simply that there is no time to be lost: it is always best to settle quarrels out of court. Elsewhere Jesus tells how some debts were resolved. (Matthew 18:24-25; Matthew 18:34) Consider Solomon’s similar advice: Proverbs 6:1-5.

FACT QUESTIONS

What basic truths underlie the OT prohibition of killing?

Did the OT command Thou shalt not kill, prohibit the death penalty?

Did the command prohibit war?

4,

Show the relationship between Jesus- prohibition of hate and His commanding perfect love (Matthew 5:43-48)

Define hate showing its relation to love.

Define anger showing its relation to hate.

List several Biblical passages which demonstrate the wrath of God, the anger of Jesus, and the proper anger of the wise and godly man.

Did Jesus say, Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause? Prove your answer.

To whom was it said, Thou shalt not kill? Who said it? When?

10. What is the meaning of Gehenna? What is the history behind the word? What does it mean as used throughout the NT?
11. What is the general import of the words: racah, moreh or fool?
12. Describe the Jewish service at which the individual worshipper brings his gift for offering.
13. Express in your own words the vital principle of true religion that is implied in Jesus-’ instructions about reconciliation with an offended brother.
14. What is the exact wording of Jesus-’ statement of the nature of the dissension between two people? What is the psychological bearing of the wording upon the person addressed by Jesus?
15. What acts of practical righteousness must precede acceptable
16. What does Jesus mean by mentioning the legal case which ends worship? badly for one of the parties?

Matthew 5:27-32

C. THE RELATION OF THE WISE AND GODLY MAN TO THE LAW 3. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD LUST. TEXT: 5:27-32

27. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29. And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and nor thy whole body be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
31. It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Is it possible for man to appraise and appreciate the physical and moral beauty of a woman without intent or desire to lust after her?

b.

How do men of our generation rebel against Jesus-’ judgments and make lust easier for others?

c.

How does Jesus intend His striking imperatives, concerning tearing out the right eye and cutting off the right hand, to be understood and applied? How did the apostles teach and apply the same lesson?

d.

How could divorcing one’s wife, unless she has been unfaithful, make her an adulteress? (Matthew 5:32)

e.

How does Jesus intend this whole teaching on the subject of adultery and divorce to be applied: as the law of the State? as the law of the Church? or merely as a principal of individual conduct?

f.

How does Jesus intend the exception for unfaithfulness-’ to be understood and applied? Is Jesus tacitly urging divorce upon one whose partner has proven unfaithful? Does adultery automatically break the marriage tie?

g.

Since the usual punishment under the Mosaic law against adultery was the death of the adulterers, would a divorce be necessary after that sentence was carried out? What, if anything, does this fact suggest about the state of morality in that age to which Jesus addressed His dictum on divorce?

h.

Is Jesus revoking (or setting aside) the Law on the question of what constitutes adultery when He condemns the sin of the heart?

i,

How does purity of heart strengthen the home and human society?

j.

In what way is divorce contrary to God’s plan for man?

k.

What constitutes sincere repentance of the sin of adultery: (1) in the case of an undivorced, unfaithful married person? (2) in the case of a wrongly divorced person who has remarried? (that is, one who has remarried while his former mate is still living)

l.

Is adultery, committed under any condition, the unforgiveable sin?

m.

Does Jesus-’ teaching on marriage, divorce, adultery and remarriage cover every possible human case? If so, how? If not, what are His disciples to do when they find a case not exactly dealt with in the NT? Are they to make rules where the Lord made none? How are they to apply the rules He did give? If you think that Jesus-’ teaching does not cover every possible case, why, accordingly, did not Jesus intend to deal with every imaginable possibility?

n.

If the marriage bond is broken (in the sight of God) by a divorce on the basis of unchastity, are the two individuals yet married in any sense? If they are no longer married in any sense, are they eligible as such to marry?

o.

How does the rejection of unchanging standards erode morality, even if it does not openly encourage immorality?

p.

How can one keep himself unspotted from the world (cf. James 1:27), when there is so much that tempts all about him?

q.

Why must Christians vigorously oppose immorality in all forms?

PARAPHRASE

You have heard that it was said, -You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that whomever looks at a woman with a desire for her has already committed adultery with her in his imagination.

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you! It is better that you lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go to hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better that you lose one member of your body than that your whole body go to hell.

It was also said, -Whoever divorces his wife must give her a proper certificate of divorce.-’ But I say to you that every man who divorces his wife, except on the ground of her unchastity, is making her to commit adultery. Whoever marries a woman thus divorced also commits adultery.

SUMMARY

Not merely the external act of adultery is condemned before God, but also the more far-reaching lust that smolders beneath an outward decency. Even the most precious and justifiable and useful habit, association or pleasure that carries with it a seduction threatening one’s purity of heart, must be mercilessly excised from one’s life. Unchastity is the only valid reason for divorce; any other excuse opens doors for adultery.

NOTES

I. A SEARCHING AND SOBER SEX STANDARD

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said. Even though the phrase to them of old time does not appear, yet it may easily be added, inasmuch as the law against adultery was certainly known before the Mosaic Law (Cf. Genesis 39:9), and was merely codified by it as a moral principle against any act that destroys the sanctity of the marriage and family. The Law against adultery (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18) only intended voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another than her husband, while the commandment against coveting (Exodus 20:17) actually mentions a longing desire for thy neighbor’s wife. If Jesus were merely correcting false or inadequate interpretations of the Law, He could have simply cited the ignored tenth commandment. Yet the Law could punish only the act (Leviticus 18:20; Leviticus 20:10-20), being impotent to touch the sinful desire, However, the death penalty required for the punishment of adultery should cause one to reflect upon the terrible nature of this sin.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, What Jesus is about to declare is a hard-won personal decision, not only the most searching judgment of God. Jesus had faced this question of personal desires under another form and conquered (Matthew 4:3-4). Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her: this is not a look of evaluation, admiration or affection, but of lusty desire. Both Job (Job 24:15; Job 31:1-4; Job 31:9-11) and Solomon (Proverbs 2:9; Proverbs 2:16-19; Proverbs 5; Proverbs 6:23 to Proverbs 7:27; Proverbs 23:26-28) saw the connection between the lust of the heart and eyes and the act of adultery. But only Jesus could declare and enforce a judgment unknown in the Mosaic Law: **he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. **By forbidding the lusting look, Jesus prevents the adulterous act. Here is the true cause of adultery: sexual desire that smolders beneath an outward decency, impure thoughts and lewd imaginations represent a subtle rebellion against God’s design for the purity of human love. Jesus attacks licentiousness and lust in the heart, because they represent the true, corrupt character of the man even though they have not yet come forth as actual deeds. Though such thoughts are safely hidden from human censure, they are glaringly obvious to the eye of God! Already in his heart: Jesus-’ point is that the impure heart has already decided upon a course of action which the body would execute upon the first combination of favorable circumstances, Peter (2 Peter 2:14 a) describes this kind of person as having eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. Paul puts it (Titus 1:15): To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. He who looks to lust is using just one means to stimulate his corrupt emotions, since pictures, books and filthy conversation arouse and feed lust just as much as the actual presence of the woman. The brazenly assured half-truth that nobody can be punished simply for desiring a woman with his eyes is severely condemned. What a man thinks he IS, and, on that basis, Jesus judges him!

Jesus has already provided the effective antidote for this temptation: Blessed are the PURE IN HEART. (See notes on Matthew 5:8) He would have us be completely sincere, so single of purpose, so unadulterated that we have no conflicting desires. We have no business harboring an emotion the conclusion of which we see to be sin! If we actually love every woman with that intelligent desire to do what is always in her best interest, how can we corrupt our heart with desires to sin against her?

II. A SEVERE, SWIFT SURGERY OF THE SUGGESTIVE AND SINISTER

Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye or thy right hand causeth thee to stumble. Jesus-’ word is to be taken figuratively but seriously. If He be interpreted merely in a literal sense, sheer irrelevancy results. Jesus rejected a purely literal construction of phrase like this when He refused even to make His disciples wash their hands merely to remove ceremonial defilement (Matthew 15:20). Since a wicked heart produces sin, the purification must take place there. (Study Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 to appreciate this concept.) Anything as seemingly defensible, precious or useful to us as these parts of our body had better be surrendered than permit them to destroy our soul! Many good things can so often be the enemy of the best: for example, any habit which could be a seduction, any possession that could become an obsession, any association or any pleasure that could be the cause of sin is a mortal enemy of our soul. **Pluck it out. cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish. ** How did the apostles understand and preach this impossible demand of Jesus? Paul (Colossians 2:10-23) teaches that mere austerity is of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh, even though it seems to promote rigor of devotion, self-abasement and severity to the body. The reason offered is that not merely one portion of the M y is to be made to suffer, but rather the whole man must be crucified and buried! (Matthew 16:24-26; Romans 6:3; Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Galatians 5:24; 1 Peter 2:11) Only perfect self-denial can overcome the powerful insistence of a lusty imagination. No cost must be thought too high to pay to avoid the gratification of wicked passions. No restraint is too drastic nor self-discipline too severe to avoid using the body for sinful purposes. Better maimed than damned! But so to act is to expose oneself to the solicitous cries of well-meaning neighbors and to be thought a fool for so harshly limiting oneself.

Some assume that Jesus is responding here to an objector whose demurring from His harsh judgment (Matthew 5:28) might be stated, But, Jesus, where can you draw the line between looking at a woman to

appreciate her physical beauty and the place where that admiration becomes lust? If Jesus is responding to such a question, then His answer may be paraphrased thus: If your looking at a woman or touching her causes adulterous thoughts to rise in your heart, do not look at her! Take your hands off her! How intensely practical this word of Jesus! He knew how irresistible is that sexual tension when excited and tantalized by a look or a caress.

What can break the spell of this sensual enravishment and bring reality back into focus? Nothing less than the live possibility that thy whole body be cast into hell! Hell awaits the offender: what an incentive to immediate and uncompromising obedience! How this reality restores one-s perspective! Later, Jesus also emphasizes the entrance into life, to stimulate a positive refusal to indulge one’s desires, (Matthew 18:8-9; cf. Romans 8:18) Fear is a proper motive. (Cf. Acts 24:25; Romans 1:18; Romans 11:20; Romans 11:22; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 6:7-8; Hebrews 10:26-31) When tempted to shrink from the self-discipline demanded

by the Lord, think of the alternative!

What are some applications of Jesus-’ judgments against immorality?

1. Young people who are not married are forbidden to act as if they were! lovers may not make their own rules, but must obey Jesus.

2. The Biblical view of purity contradicts the readily-accepted axiom of modern advertising: Sex sells, (Ephesians 5:3-12) Though successful in selling, it has also succeeded in relaxing a proper sense of modesty and purity.

3. Dressing to arouse sexual appetite is forbidden, (Matthew 18:7-9; Romans 14:13 to Romans 15:3 a)

4. Those of seemingly irreproachable moral integrity who think nothing of seeking their erotic entertainment in socially-approved ways also should feel the Lord-s censure. Some socially acceptable means are risque comedy, licentious books, adults only movies. One must examine his motives for participation in such things: does he do it with an eye to criticize by God-s standards, or to satisfy an idle curiosity, or to indulge a secret sensuality?

5. Sophisticated sex, the view that the pleasures of sex are perfectly harmless, inconsequential and may be freely enjoyed outside marriage without any sense of sin or shame, is a false view of man. That sophistication which glorifies illicit relations associated with the new morality or free love is not harmless and morally unobjectionable, but is contemptible, damnable and worthy of the most vigorous opposition. While it may not be absolutely possible to prove such relations to be wrong by philosophical reasoning, the objective standard which damns this way of thinking stands upon the authoritative word of Jesus.

Can you think of other applications? Let us beware not to be hypocritical as we seek to apply Jesus-’ word, as if we ourselves were not affected by those overpowering forces of our age which would portray so many forms of sexual perversion as exciting and entertaining. (1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:1 b)

What can save us from the all-pervasive sexuality of this era?

Thorough knowledge of God’s Word regarding this problem, with a view to answering temptations that certainly will arise. (1 Corinthians 6:9-20; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 7; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Hebrews 13:4) This constant reflection upon what God has provided to lead us into life and godliness as well as upon the attractions of His precious and very great promises, will show the way of escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion (2 Peter 1:3-4). This habitual choice of truth and righteousness reinforces the conscience, making the right decision easier when the temptations present themselves. (Philippians 4:8) Monasticism, or refusing to look upon a woman at any time, is no way to overcome the adulterous look, since refusal to think a b u t a forbidden desire is the best way to find the mind most securely fixed upon it. Only positive thought which fills the mind with the view-point of God can cast out adulterous sentiments.

The expulsive power of a new affection leaves no room for the lust of the eyes (1 John 2:15-16) which contradicts that new love. The intelligent choice to love one of the opposite sex, even as God has loved them, destroys the power of lust. This is true moral vision: the ability to see a man or woman, not as the means of satisfying one’s lust, but as one whom we may love to the point of sacrificing one’s self for their highest good.

The purifying power of hope, (Cf. 1 John 3:3) No sane man will risk his eternal security by momentarily dallying with a temptation when he knows that his salvation depends upon unwavering faithfulness.

Positive action helps to break the spell of some allurement, Sometimes flight is best. (Genesis 39; 2 Timothy 2:22) Plunging into the service of others does not allow time for that idleness in which the self-indulgent imagination may seek satisfaction.

III. A SUBTLE AND SERIOUS SUBVERSION OF SOCIETY

Matthew 5:31 Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. (See also Matthew 19:1-9) In these few words Jesus practically cites all of the Mosaic legislation on the subject, (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Observe that the only divine law that ever spoke on the subject of divorce did not command it. Divorce was merely tolerated as representing men’s yet unconverted hearts (Matthew 19:8) and was regulated to prevent grosser inhumanities.

The reason Jesus connects His teaching about divorce with His instruction about adultery is that there is an unavoidable moral connection. When any society sinks to such a level that complete freedom of divorce for any excuse permits as many husbands or wives in quick succession as desire may crave, any command not to commit adultery becomes a farce.

God hates divorce (Malachi 2:13-16), because one thus deals treacherously with his companion, the wife of his youth; because one breaks the covenant he made with her before God; and because he thus shows his basic inhumanity by casting her out and compelling her to sob out her troubles alone at God’s altar. This heartbreak, loneliness, shame and often destitution caused by easy divorces caused God to reject the worship of the Jews (Malachi 2:13 b). Compare notes on Matthew 5:23. God also hates divorce because it goes against the nature both of the institution of marriage and of man himself (Matthew 19:1-9).

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you. For the full Christian teaching, compare Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-17. Were Jesus merely clearing the rubbish of human traditions from the ancient Law against adultery, as many assume, in order to show its deep and true spiritual meaning and restore the Seventh Commandment to its proper observance, then why does not Jesus restore also the death penalty for unchastity, rather than suggest that a woman divorced for any cause is made to be (or made to appear to be) an adulteress when she marries another? The OT Law against adultery was clear in its definition of the death penalty to the adulterers. (Cf. Deuteronomy 22:22; Leviticus 20:10) But He is not defending the Law, as misinterpreted by the scribes and Pharisees. Rather, He is picturing true righteousness which is always a greater standard than legal righteousness. Jesus here completely removes the necessity for the Law, by establishing a principle that thoroughly fulfils the intent of the Law.

The Law seemed to permit divorce for any cause. (Matthew 19:3) The rabbis could not agree upon the exact intent of the phrase: if the wife does not find favor in his eyes, because he has found in her something shameful. (Cf. Deuteronomy 24:1) Hilll’s school interpreted it in the widest and most lax manner possible: literally for any cause. Shammai adhered more strictly to the spirit of the law, his interpretation being wantonness, lasciviousness, lewdness as the shameful things that the husband must find in his wife before he may divorce her, although he did not include actual adultery since that was punished by death. A rabbi Akiba even allowed the finding a more desirable woman as ample justification for divorcing the present wife. Such a lowering of the moral standards of marriage probably affected the question of unfaithfulness to the point that even adultery became so commonplace that it was regarded as an inconvenient and embarrassing social mistake, rather than high treason against the family. As a result, the ancient Law seemingly was not carried out, as many commentators suggest. (Cf. Hosea 4:14; John 4:18; Luke 7:36-50; Matthew 21:32) However, to assert that the Jews did not have the right to execute the death penalty proves nothing, since they exercised the penalty when their conscience was sufficiently aroused. (Cf. John 18:31 with Acts 7:58-59; Acts 26:10; note John 7:1; John 7:19; John 7:25; John 8:59; John 10:31-33) The story of the adulteress brought to Jesus (John 7:53 to John 8:11) is inadmissible as evidence because of the adequate manuscript testimony against it. (See Butler, John, Vol. II, p. 42)

Every one that putteth away his wife. maketh her an adulteress. Here the principle is stated regarding only the man, but it is reversible (Mark 10:12). Because Jesus made only one exception to the general rule, His rule may be stated as above: Anyone who divorces his wife for any other excuse makes her an adulteress. But questions immediately arise: how or in what sense does he make her an adulteress? Is she really considered by God to be an adulteress or is she only falsely stigmatized as such by those who know of her divorce? The phrase, translated by the ASV maketh her an adulteress, (poiei auten michheuthenai) is made difficult by the fact that the last word is a passive infinitive in form, The question for the translators is whether the infinitive must be translated passively or whether it is the usual Greek translation for an active Hebrew verb. The difference in meaning which results from the varying translation may be expressed as follows:

Actively: (he causes her) to commit adultery or to be an adulteress, Because a woman, divorced for just any excuse, is not really divorced in God’s view, her practical necessity to remarry in order to be supported would force her to commit adultery, since she was really ineligible to remarry. Is this practical necessity her personal responsibility?

Passively: (he causes her) to be adulterated or defiled by her sexual contact with another, when she was not really (in God’s sight) divorced from her husband, even though this other be recognized by the society to be her new husband. The Law (Deuteronomy 24:4) speaks of this second union as defilement. Another possible passive translation is offered by Lenshi: (he causes her) to be stigmatized as an adulteress when in fact she is not, her divorce being on quite other grounds, The mere fact that she was divorced might give rise to suspicion of adultery, even though the public reason was some triviality. Thus, she would bear the suspicion or stigma of having been an adulteress.

Thus it will be seen that neither construction necessarily views the woman as guilty. Both view her as the unfortunate victim of a vicious system which subjects her to the caprice of her husband. What is unequivocally clear is that the stigma of adultery is related to her remarriage.

In regard to the man who shall marry her when she is put away, the same translational difficulty exists due to another middle-passive Greek verb (moichatai), which carries with it the same difficulties of interpretation. Is he really an adulterer or only stigmatized as such? Yet, the fact that Matthew (Matthew 19:9 twice) and Mark (Mark 10:11-12 twice) seem to use the verb with active force, while Luke’s parallel (Luke 16:18) uses an undoubted active verb (moicheuei), points to the conclusion that the man who marries an improperly divorced woman commits adultery and is personally guilty of sexual relations with a woman who, as God views the question, was the wife of another. Legal permission granted by a State for any cause other than unfaithfulness does not justify taking advantage of such permission.

Let us compare the various elements in Jesus-’ teaching:

*Matthew 5:32

Matthew 19:9

Mark 10:11-12 *

but I say unto you that (1) every one that putteth away his wife

And I say unto you, (1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

And he saith unto them, (1) Whosoever shall put away his wife,

(2) saving for the cause of fornication,

(2) except for fornication,

(2)

(3) maketh her an adulteress

(3)

(3)

(4)

(4) and shall marry another, committeth adultery:

(4) and marry another, committeth adultery against her:

(5) and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(5) and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(5)

(6)

(6)

(6) and if she herself put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 merely repeats elements 1, 4, 5.

Obviously, the man who thus divorces his wife for relatively trivial reasons does so with a view of remarrying. According to element 4, he sins against his former wife, in that he was not really (in God’s sight) divorced from her and he sins against his new wife, since he was not eligible to marry her. Thus, he involves four people in adultery by his selfish divorce: his former wife, himself, his new wife, and his former wife’s new husband.

The one exception to the general rules described above is clearly stated twice by Jesus (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9): except for the cause of fornication. Fornication (porneia) is a general word used to mean any kind of unlawful sexual relations, whether prostitution, unchastity, whoredom or premarital intercourse, The Law (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) assumed the possible case of premarital infidelity, but death. not divorce, resolved the question, as in the case of marital infidelity (Deuteronomy 22:22), But Jesus unequivocally teaches that a person may divorce his mate because of their unfaithfulness, This, and only this, divorce is valid before God: such a couple is no longer married in any sense.

But is this exception offered as a recommendation that those whose mate betrays them SHOULD divorce them, or is it offered as a concession under intolerable conditions, so that those whose mate betrays them MAY divorce them? Since pardon and complete reconciliation are not inconceivable, Jesus-’ exception is a concession, Although a partner who seeks sexual satisfaction outside his marriage has certainly sinned, his mate is not automatically exonerated for his conduct or attitudes that may have driven his formerly faithful mate to seek illicit satisfactions, In other words, is divorce, even for the cause of marital unfaithfulness, the best answer to the unfaithful consort’s problem? The cause of the unfaithfulness may partially be found in the so-called innocent party, although, of course, not necessarily. The sin of adultery does break the marriage vow of the adulterer, but not of the other partner; hence, the marriage union is not yet severed. The union may only be ended by death or divorce, neither of which has yet occurred. The injured mate has the right but not the obligation to terminate the marriage in divorce. If he is satisfied with the genuineness of the adulterous partner’s repentance, the marriage may be continued. Forgiveness is not unlikely nor impossible.

Because of the heavy emphasis that Jesus gives to the idea that the remarriage of improperly divorced mates to others causes adultery, we are stimulated to ask, What of the person whose divorce from his mate is recognized by God as valid? May he remarry? For this question the Lord has left no answer. If we may be permitted to solve the problem by human reasoning, we would conclude: the couple in question are really divorced, hence, married in no sense and, therefore, eligible to marry. This conclusion is valid as much for the guilty as for the innocent, since there can be no sense in which one party is married while the other is not. Yet, this is a human conclusion: Jesus did not say so.

Jesus is revealing ideals which will render adultery and divorce impossible: remove lust from the heart and adultery becomes impossible; when adultery is eliminated, divorce becomes unnecessary. The Law did not nor could not take adequate account of the sin in the heart. Therefore it had to legislate against certain external acts in order to eliminate worse. The language of Jesus is as far from legal terminology as could be imagined especially in dealing with all sides of every case. This feature renders difficult a legalistic application of Jesus-’ teaching, since He chose not to say more. Many questions are left to human wisdom:

What constitutes repentance in regard to the sin of adultery?

a.

Divorcing one’s wife who was not really divorced from her first husband? What about children of her second marriage?

b.

Divorcing one’s second wife, because not really divorced from the first? Must one return to the first wife?

c.

Must the first wife divorce her second husband in order to return to her first? Would God approve of such a return, when He once called it an abomination? (Deuteronomy 24:4)

d.

Must unlawful (from God’s viewpoint) marriages be broken up as evidence of repentance?

e.

Or, does repentance consist of refusing to commit further adultery (or refusal to divorce one’s present mate) without changing the past mistakes?

Since God has revealed no specific means whereby repentance of adultery may be demonstrated, is the confession of this sin to God enough to assure one’s conscience that God has forgiven the sin? Then, if God has truly forgiven the sin, how does He then regard the formerly illegitimate marriage? The marriage, presumably legal in the eyes of society, has continued perhaps for years until the individual was led to repentance. Does 1 Corinthians 7:24 apply?

If an act of adultery causes divorce and the adulterer was later forgiven by God, would God permit him (or her) to remarry after that? Would one be truly penitent if he sought another mate?

The very complexity of such questions and the uncomplicated nature of the Lord’s revelation by which we are to decide these problems, should help us to see in what spirit He intends that we shall take His Word on the subject. He has revealed enough to keep us out of these entanglements; so little to get us out, And though His silence be regarded by the legalist as an inadequacy, yet the fact that Jesus did not go into great detail is most significant, In this problem, as in all other moral issues, He laid down broad guidelines within which His disciple must make his own moral judgments. He has not fettered His followers with multitudinous rules, details and cases, Instead, He provides in us the new nature that abhors all that is connected with adultery and divorce, Should we find ourselves involved in such a situation, however, we are left free to decide, in harmony with all His other principles, how best to arrive at the most equitable, most merciful solution for our given case, Thus, without detailed laws, He controls us by His Spirit which He puts in us.

Let it be closely observed that these controls will work only in him to whom Jesus addressed these words, that is, the disciple, They cannot be applied to society in general without the loss of that controlling, motivating moral vigor found only in faithful discipleship to Jesus.

FACT QUESTIONS

Where is the OT Law on divorce located? (give book, chapter, verse)

What was the common application of this law, as interpreted by the Jews?

What significant difference does Jesus-’ instruction make in that law?

What is fornication? How does Jesus use that word in this context?

What is the difference between adultery and fornication usually noted in other contexts?

What was the OT penalty meted out against those guilty of adultery? Solve the discrepancy between this law and the situation to which Jesus aimed His judgment,

What are the great, abiding principles which underlie all that Jesus teaches concerning marriage, the family, divorce, and adultery?

List the other NT passages which give teaching or helpful information on the questions of marriage, divorce and adultery.

Explain how a man, who divorces his otherwise faithful wife, is condemned by Jesus, since he maketh her an adulteress (Matthew 5:32). Is she really an adulteress, or merely and falsely stigmatized as such? Or both? Explain your answer. Does she become an adulteress by having to marry again in order to sustain her life?

10. On the basis of your answer to the previous question, explain how a man who marries the divorcee committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32) Is he falsely stigmatized as an adulterer because he married a woman thought to be an adulteress (when in fact she was not), or, is he really an adulterer because he married a woman ineligible for marriage (since, in fact, her divorce for any cause from her former husband was no divorce at all)?

11. What breaks the marriage bond?

Matthew 5:33-37

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW 4. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD TRUTH. TEXT: 5:33- 37

33. Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34. but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;
35. nor by the earth. for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of -the great King.
36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Why should one avoid the use of oaths as much as possible?

b.

What are some modern means of evading the responsibility for being truthful?

c.

How may we oppose the use of oaths which obviously profane the name of the Lord? What are some effective ways to react to another’s profane swearing, in such a way as to register the solemnity in which we hold an oath. the majesty in which we revere God, the sacredness with which we regard every word, as well as our suspicion of all who feel that their feeble word cannot stand alone without the deception of a false oath? How may we do this so as to be truly helpful to him who swears habitually, casually, and thus, profanely? (Cf. Colossians 4:6) Self-righteous indignation will only close his mind.

d.

Why is it particularly important that Jesus-’ disciple be careful about what he says?

e.

How does lack of sincerity profane God’s name when invoked in an insincere oath?

f.

How does insincerity in swearing affect one’s relations with others?

g.

How far should Jesus-’ prohibition (Swear not at all-’-’) be taken? Is it an absolute prohibition of all oaths, swearing, pledges, vows, etc.? Or is it relative, referring only to frivolous and hypocritical ones? Or both?

h.

HOW does the example of Paul and Jesus help us to understand whether we are permitted to swear?

i.

Is the taking of a solemn oath to assume a public office hereby forbidden?

j,

What is the relation of the teaching of Jesus to the Mosaic Law, as to how that relationship reveals itself in this context? Is Jesus abrogating the Mosaic permission to swear? Is He revealing a higher standard?

PARAPHRASE

Another thing you have heard that was said to the ancients was, -You must not perjure yourself by swearing falsely, but you must hand over to the Lord what you have promised with an oath.-’ However, I tell you, do not use an oath at all. Do not back up your word by saying, -By heaven ,. .-’, for that is God-s throne, or by saying, -By the earth. -’, for that is His footstool, nor -By Jerusalem. -’) for Jerusalem is the city of God, the Great King. Do not even swear by your own head, since you cannot turn a single hair white or black (to demonstrate the truth of your affirmations)! Let your word be a plain -Yes-’ or -No.-’ Anything beyond this proceeds from an evil desire to deceive.

SUMMARY

The Law of Moses required that men abide by that to which they bind themselves by their oath. Jesus counsels against all oaths as basically unnecessary when a simple affirmation is sufficient, as basically evil, when the desire is to deceive.

NOTES

I. THE SUBTLE SACRILEGE OF SPECIOUS SWEARING

Matthew 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time: Apparently, Jesus uses this formula to indicate that what He is about to say is not an exact quotation of any one law, but rather a correct summation of several laws. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. The basic principle to which Jesus refers in this summary of the Mosaic legislation is the use of God’s name to guarantee the inviolability of some promise made to Him, or to attest the truth of one’s word by appeal to Him to witness. This principle responds to a psychological need of man for such guarantees:

The inner truthfulness of the speaker cannot be verified on other grounds (except by his generally-known character).

The assumption that no one would have the temerity to back a false statement by so solemn an appeal to the Deity as an oath.

The prevalence of falsehood in common speech creates suspicion concerning all words not thus guarantee by an oath.

The Mosaic Law, in governing the use of oaths, regulated them negatively: Exodus 20:7 prohibited the employment of the name of God for unworthy objects, as in swearing in the ordinary business of life; Leviticus 19:12 prohibited swearing by the Name in order to cover fraud, thus profaning God’s Name. It also governed oaths by positive regulations: Deuteronomy 6:13 commanded that oaths be made in the Name of God as evidence of loyalty to Jehovah on the same level with fearing and serving Him; Deuteronomy 10:20 commands oaths in His Name as a manifestation of true reverence towards God; Deuteronomy 23:21-23 teaches to pay what is vowed to God, lest the broken oath be considered sin; it is not sin if one does not vow; Numbers 30:2 requires any oath to be kept. Therefore, the Jews were permitted to take oaths in the Name of God, but He could not permit men to use His Name falsely or irreverently without punishment, God considered swearing as a necessary measure until men’s false hearts could be converted and satisfied just to tell the truth without backing it up with oaths, In certain cases, the Law even required oaths (Exodus 22:11; Numbers 5:19).

For a fuller understanding of the use of oaths in actual practice, the following Scriptures may help: Genesis 14:22-24; Genesis 24:2-9; Genesis 24:37; Gen. 32:50, 53; Genesis 47:29-31; Genesis 50:5; Genesis 50:25; Judges 8:19; Judges 21:5; Romans 1:17; Romans 3:13; 1 Samuel 1:26; 1 Samuel 17:55; 1 Samuel 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:3; 1 Samuel 20:17; 1 Samuel 25:26; 2 Samuel 2:27; 2 Samuel 3:9; 2 Samuel 3:35; 2 Samuel 11:11; 2 Samuel 15:21; 2 Samuel 19:23; 2 Kings 2:23-24; 2 Kings 18:10; 2 Kings 2:2; 2 Kings 6:31; Ezra 10:3-5; Jeremiah 4:2; Jeremiah 12:16; Jeremiah 29:22-23; Jeremiah 38:16; Jeremiah 42:5; Amos 8:14, Note that a number of the examples precede the Law. Swearing was used in the commonest affairs of life, some trivial, However, such common swearing arises more from that religious attitude which reveals itself in every facet of life, than from a careless one. Originally, the oath was the truest, most natural expression of a man’s conviction of a right awe of God. With the passing of the fervency of the convictions, there arises that contemptible familiarity with sacred things that is seen in frivolous, hypocritical swearing.

We should certainly expect to find NT examples of oaths rightly taken. God swore by Himself (Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 3:18; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 6:13-18; Hebrews 7:20-21; Luke 1:73; Acts 2:3 O; Cf. Deuteronomy 32:40). Jesus confessed under oath to being the Christ, God’s Son (Matthew 26:63-64). Paul often called God to witness to the truth of his affirmations (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:3; see also Acts 18:18). God will send His angel to sweat (Revelation 10:5-6). Thus, whatever Jesus may command in regard to swearing must be interpreted in light of these examples which throw light on how His word was intended.

Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all. What is Jesus-’ intention behind this prohibition? To forbid all oaths, judicial and otherwise, or only common, profane wearing? Jesus is not giving a corrected interpretation of the Law, since, as we have seen, the Law commanded swearing by the Name of God. (Deuteronomy 6:13). His counsel, which requires such common truthfulness, soars so high above the concepts of the Law that even the oaths permitted therein would become unnecessary. Nor is He abrogating the legal permission until He establishes His kingdom of truth in the heart.

Jesus is not MERELY correcting scribal interpretations and evasions, although He does this. To illustrate the compelling need for His infinitely more satisfactory principle of personal integrity, He uses the abuses to which swearing, even ideally, is prone.

Jesus-’ general purpose, running through this whole discourse on the nature of true righteousness, as opposed to legal righteousness, is to reveal a heart rectitude which is unconditionally and consistently observable in the simplest, outward acts. This injunction (Swear not at all.) is at least relative to the nature and motive of the oath. A solemn affirmation to convince those who are unable to know one’s genuine, inner truthfulness, is permitted. Any oath or confirmatory additions to one’s simple word are forbidden if intended to deceive the hearer, or if the user does not feel absolutely pledged to truth and faithfulness by his simple promise! What irony: those that need oaths are forbidden to use them, while those that can best use them do not need them!

Before examining the specific examples of the oaths which are proscribed by Jesus, let us see His wisdom in counselling His followers to steer clear of all oaths. Why should one not swear?

Because of what human swearing does to God:

a.

It calls upon Him to be witness to, to justify, or to guarantee the truthfulness of relatively unimportant declarations. This borders on presumption.

b.

It often profanes His holy Name to the level that it becomes unworthy of respect, since it calls upon God to witness what is later discovered to be false. Those who call a curse upon themselves if what they say is not true, are daring God to act in a way dictated by their whim.

Because of what swearing does to the one who swears:

a.

The necessity to guarantee the veracity of some declaration by means of an oath immediately puts in question the truthfulness of all other statements not made under oath.

b.

Swearing tacitly justifies lying when not under oath. since it destroys the sanctity of every word. We must not weaken the obligation for speaking the truth. by rendering our simple affirmation somehow less sacred than our oath.

c.

Because rash or wrong vows must be broken when inconvenient or impossible circumstances render their fulfilment absurd or illegal, they become a useless binding of the conscience. The failure to fulfil the vow or oath becomes a demoralizing kind of perjury, (See Leviticus 5:4-6) However, some promises must be broken (cf. Jephthah, Judges 11:30-34; Herod, Matthew 14:7), although the ideal is to keep an oath at one’s personal damage (Psalms 15:4).

Because of what swearing does to others: Careless, unnecessary, frequent and hypocritical taking of oaths practically destroys any respect for oaths and proceeds to undermine the highest bonds of faith and truth among men.

Swear not at all is Jesus-’ criticism of all the perversions of God-s permissive legislation, created by the rabbis because they honored certain oaths and ignored other cleverly-worded promises they did not intend to keep. (See Matthew 23:16-22) Their sophistry had developed into the fine art of evasion! The obligation to honor an oath. according to their verdict, depended upon the nature of the object by which one swore: if they swore by something created, it was not necessarily binding and might be simply forgotten for convenience. If the oath was sworn by the dread Name of Jehovah God, the oath was binding. This mode of reasoning probably began simply to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name. Substitutes were put for God’s Name which were understood to mean it, But sweating by something other than by God removed also the very awe for a God of truth and justice with which an oath was to be invested. Then, the corruption set in where men refused to honor certain specially-worded vows or promises. Thus, a superstitious show of carefulness for the Divine Name had corroded into sophistries that justified iniquity. The very substitutes for God-s Name became, by definition, not binding. Jesus exposes the fallacy: these non-binding substitutes are meaningless unless they have real reference to God. You swear by heaven, but that is God’s throne (Isaiah 66:1)! You vow by the earth. thinking to avoid His throne, but that is His footstool (Isaiah 66:1)! You Cannot even swear by Jerusalem for it is His capital and the seat of His worship (Psalms 48:3; Psalms 48:8). Thus, there is no real way to keep God out of your smallest transactions. God is Owner of the universe and all in it, even the smallest part, yes, even the hair of man’s head. You cannot even swear by your head, because God made that too and He alone possesses the power to make your hair white or black: mention even a hair in an oath and you automatically bring into the question the great Governor of the universe!

What are some modern examples which represent the same evasive reasoning of the scribes? The list could be as long and spiced as human history itself. Lord have mercy! Lord -‘a-’ mercy! or simply Lord. Mercy! Merciful heavens! or simply Heavens! are common blasphemy, because they are uttered as an unintended appeal to God for His assistance in a trivial difficulty. These, like My Lord; began as a sincere expression arising out of a deep religious consciousness, but they are degenerated, like Hallelujah! and praise the Lord! -‘I, into meaningless interjections. God bless you or simply, … bless you (after sneezes, of all things!) is just as vulgar in the mouth as God damn you! or simply -I… damn! or the adjectival form goddam(ned). ALL bywords, which are intended to bypass God-s Name but which usually bear the same initials and the same moral responsibility, are likewise condemned by Jesus. The dodge that such interjections are not swearing is invalid, as they would have no meaning otherwise. Such evasion smells of Pharisaic hypocrisy that whined, I did not use God’s Name, but I swore by the Temple! The use of such interjections is indefensible on two grounds. First, they are usually used as emphatic explosions to impress the hearer with the sincerity or truthfulness of the speaker (Cf. Hell yes! You-’re damn-’ right! Heavens no!), and as such partake of that nature of oaths from which most of them are historically drawn or for which they are lately substituted. Second, they, being thoughtless, do not reflect that sacred responsibility for every word spoken (Matthew 12:33-37) and may be judged as being more than the simple affirmation (or negation) required by Jesus (Matthew 5:37; cf. James 5:12). The exact terminology does not matter: if the interjection or additional confirming partakes of the nature of an oath but does not carry with it the solemnity of an oath. it stands condemned on the same grounds as the thoughtless, unintended oaths of the Jews.

II. THE SOLEMN SACREDNESS OF SIMPLE SPEECH

Matthew 5:37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Simply to tell the truth is quite adequate. The disciple of Jesus is not to honor his word merely because it is supported by an oath. but because

it is sustained by an integrity of character that will honor any and every commitment. (Study 2 Corinthians 1:12-23 for an excellent example of both personal integrity and oath-taking.) Blessed are the pure in heart, for their word is as good as their most solemn pledge. A man’s personal integrity is but another word for the quality of his heart, But if the heart be basically false, dishonest, unjust and polluted, the mouth cannot but reveal that condition (Matthew 12:33-37). This man must resort to oaths to guarantee his affirmations, for what other assurance of his truthfulness could he present, if his generally- known lack of integrity could not support it?

Jesus is saying, Make your life so transparently pure that your simplest statement Is easily accepted as valid by your obvious sincerity. Live your whole life under oath! (Colossians 3:17) Make your simplest declarations in the full knowledge that God witnesses them and holds you accountable for them. Consequently, all your words must be holy and This may explain the frequent swearing of Paul (cited above). he was so profoundly obligated before God to tell the truth that he stepped into the witness-stand, almost without realizing it, by calling God to be his Arbiter.

Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Let your speech be exactly what it pretends to be. A yes should mean yes; no should mean exactly that. If you mean maybe or perhaps, then, avoid equivocation by saying so. Thus, one’s plain words are pledged by all his character and religion. When a Christian speaks, everyone should know exactly for what he can be counted upon and where he stands. There can be no trick words or evasions which take away personal responsibility for what is said, in order to keep God out of the question. Whatsoever is more than these is of the evil (one). ALL such frivolous oaths and unnecessary supporting additions, even the necessity for vows, finds its basic origin in evil and the father of lies.

Why?

Because oaths are usually required because of a habitual lack of veracity in the speaker and the common desire to obscure inconvenient or embarrassing truth.

Because oaths are used in an evil society in which lying is common.

Christian participation in the common vice certainly will not hasten the day when all men will have learned merely to speak the truth. By this expression, Jesus does not intend to proscribe all oaths, for oaths themselves are not evil (see on Matthew 5:33), but He is merely admitting that His high ideal of personal integrity will not be sufficient always to allay the suspicions of others. James (James 5:12) gives another valid reason for speaking simply: lest you fall under condemnation.

III. SUGGESTIONS FOR SINCERE SWEARING AND SPEAKING

A.

If you must swear, swear properly. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:2) lists four characteristics with which any oath must be invested:

Swear in truth. only attestation or support of what is really true. Never link God-s holy Name with what is false.

Swear in justice, only in a just cause worthy of God-s Name, never lightly or rashly, but for a sufficient cause that actually requires an oath for confirmation to end the argument.

Swear only in righteousness or personal integrity, never with intent to deceive by hypocritical piety and mock solemnity.

Swear only by God-s Holy Name and by nothing else. If something is so important that an oath must be given, it is worthy of God’s Name; if not, it is not important enough to merit an oath. To seek substitutes for His Name is evasive and hypocritical.

B.

If you would cure the habit of inordinate swearing:

Seek a right knowledge of the majesty of a holy God who will not let go unpunished him who takes His Name uselessly.

Reverence Him with all your heart, so that any wrong use of W s Name becomes a shock to your conscience. In a society where profane swearing is common, this shock gets dulled and must be continually sharpened by constant contact with God Himself.

Live so sincerely and openly and so truthfully that no one would dream of asking you to give an oath to back up your everyday assertions. Dedicate your whole life to telling just the truth.

Reserve your oaths, vows or swearing for the most solemn occasions.

C. If you would apply Jesus-’ counsel to your own life, remember:

Careless and thoughtless use of God’s Name is all the more damnable because it implies that kind of selfishness which cares more for self than for God’s holiness, The excuse that the oath is meaningless (I did not mean anything by it) carries with it a very serious confession that the speaker holds God in such contempt that he may throw around God’s Name with impunity. Profanity is nothing but making common and vulgar (profane) what must be regarded with reverence,

Exaggerated assertions which tend to lend a false impression are proscribed as inconsistent with simple, truthful speech.

3,

Idle or hypocritical promises, that ate not intended to be kept, are exposed as lying.

4,

Inattentive prayers, in which God is addressed but in which there is no real concentration of thought and in which the mind is allowed to wander over the entire range of immediate interests with only an occasional nod at God, are words which are as empty as meaningless oaths.

Praying to be seen of men in order to deceive them into believing that he who prays is a man of extraordinary piety, when in reality he is like those whom he seeks to impress, is condemned.

Mechanical prayers, which repeat words that once expressed fervent and real convictions but have since cooled into inattentive, indifferent and idle invocations of God’s Name, may be avoided by returning to simple words that accurately represent one-s true sentiments.

To put it another way: Putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another ,., Let no evil come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 4:29)

FACT QUESTIONS

What fundamental principle forms the basis of Jesus-’ summary of the OT Law on swearing?

Summarize the basic teaching of the OT on swearing.

Explain the reasons why men require and give oaths.

Give at least five examples of oaths in the OT, telling who gave the oath. what the oath was supposed to guarantee as true, and the formula used.

List five NT oaths, telling who spoke under oath. what the oath was supposed to guarantee as true, and the formula used (if stated).

What fundamental principle, essential to the very heart of Christianity, underlies Jesus-’ advice to keep all speech simple, that is, without confirming affirmations such as oaths?

Give one example of a Christian who maintained unfailing personal integrity, yet also bound himself under vows and oaths.

God commanded Israel to swear only by His Name. By what process of reasoning did the Jews arrive at swearing by so many other things, to the point that they absolutely refused to name God’s Name?

What is the basic principle behind Jesus-’ argument that swearing by heaven, the earth. Jerusalem, etc., missed the very point that the Jews aimed to reach by their circumlocutions?

10. Show how whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
11. What are the basic rules for making a proper oath. according to Jeremiah? Are these rules helpful in our day?

Matthew 5:38-42

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW 5. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD PERSONAL VINDICATION.

(Parallel: Luke 6:27-31)

TEXT: 5:38-42

38. Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39. but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.
42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Is the law of retaliation (Matthew 5:38) an ethical principle? If so, in what way? If not, what is the ethical principle behind it which makes it necessary?

b.

According to Jesus, what is ethically wrong with the desire to avenge one’s honor, one’s person or one’s family? Why would He urge His disciples not to resist an evil doer?

c.

Why would Jesus specifically mention thy right cheek and not thy left or say simply thy cheek? (Luke 6:29 uses this latter form) What might be significant about its being the right?

d.

How can one prepare for such an insulting attack in such a way that his first reaction will be that studied self-control with which Jesus challenges His followers? Can you think of other insults (other than a slap on the cheek) which require self-discipline to keep from retaliating? How does one turn the other cheek, for instance, when he has been slighted? only insulted verbally?

e.

Must Jesus-’ words be taken literally, i.e. must one actually offer the other cheek in order to obey the Lord?

f.

What does the meek surrender of one’s right to fight for his petty claims reveal about that man’s character?

g.

Is it ever right to go to law? If not, why not? If so, under what conditions?

h.

How does going the second mile make him, who is generous in this way, morally superior to him who compelled him to go the first mile?

i.

From your general knowledge of the NT, provide some general rules which help to interpret and apply Jesus-’ challenge to give to him that asks you, and from who would borrow turn not away.

j.

Is it never right to refuse any gift asked by anyone? Under what conditions would it be wrong to refuse? Under what conditions would it be right to refuse? What ethical principles decide the difference between these two conditions?

k.

Show the practical wisdom in Jesus-’ sage advice offered in these four illustrations (Matthew 5:33-37).

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

You have heard that is was said, -An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.-’ But I say to you, Do not defend yourself against him who wrongs you. Rather, if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left one too. If a man wants to sue for possession of your tunic, let him have itand your robe as well! If anyone impresses you into the public service to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks something of you, and do not turn your back upon him who wants to borrow something from you. Even if a man takes away something of yours, do not demand its return. You must learn to treat men according to the same standard you want used in their treatment of you.

SUMMARY

The Mosaic Law limited retaliation to exact punishment measured according to the wrong done. Jesus completely abolishes that spirit of self-vindication which makes such a law necessary, giving four examples: 1. Do not retaliate against insults. 2. Surrender your right to litigate over trifles. 3. Help generously more than is asked. 4. Return good for evil by intelligent liberality.

NOTES

HOW TO MEET EVIL AND OVERCOME

I. The Law’s Way, Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. This is not the language of human scribal interpretations of God’s legislation, but the very punitive muscle of Mosaic law itself. Jesus is not quoting any popularization of this law, which degrades it to justify personal revenge, as so many commentators assume. He cites the Law itself. Study the various applications of this precept in Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:17-21; Deuteronomy 2-21. The purpose of the legal precept was threefold:

To protect the rights of persons and property by an equitable judicial settlement. It meant the end to the excesses involved in blood-bath vengeance to clear personal or family honor.

To discourage personal revenge by providing a rule intended to govern the decisions of the judges. (Cf. Deuteronomy 19:18) The Law was a real limitation of vengeance and the beginning of mercy, for to the vindicator it said, You may retaliate thus far and no farther!-’-’

To create a mentality of fear to lose a member because of one’s own heedless passion which could strike out the eye of another. Thus, in effect, both men’s eyes are saved.

Barclay (Vol. I, 162) raises the interesting question whether this law were ever literally carried out, He answers no, since it might involve the reverse of justice by involving the exchange of that which had relatively more value than that for which it was exchanged: a bad eye for a good one, etc., Thus, monetary value was placed by the Jews upon the injury and value payment was made rather than literal retributive damage, (Cf. Exodus 21:29-30 to see the justice of such an application: of how much more worth is a man than an ox?)

However the application of the precept might have been, so long as he, whose eye or tooth had been knocked out, retaliated against his attacker by exact and legal measure, the letter of Moses-’ law was satisfied. No doubt some prostituted this judicial rule of thumb into a justification for getting their private revenge without due course of law, but Jesus does not bring up this side of the question. He deals only with the ethical principle which requires that this law be on the books.

Jesus does not criticize the rule itself as used by magistrates. Rather, He sets out to eliminate completely the need for it. The rule is not an ethical principle for personal conduct, since it is a mere punitive rule expressing quite another ethical principle which motivates it and gives it meaning. The real ethical principle back of the rule is the protection of personal or family honor or integrity, and perhaps a sense of justice which requires blood for blood retaliation. But this ethical principle is much too low for Jesus. The Lord would show men a higher, more worthy ethic than this primitive tribal ethic of self-revenge.

II. The Lord’s Way, Matthew 5:39-42 Do not resist him who is evil. This principle has caused no little difficulty for those who have not stayed to hear Jesus out, since it seems to urge absolute non-resistance of all evil persons. But..,

The principle must be interpreted in context: Jesus illustrated exactly what He meant by it. The context demands that it be taken as a contrast to the law of retaliation.

It must be interpreted in harmony with Jesus-’ other teachings which urge resistance of evil, even of evil men. (Galatians 2:5; Galatians 2:11; Titus 1:9-13; cf. 1 Corinthians 5, 6 in which Paul urges resistance of evil and forbids litigation,) This is seen especially in the impact of Jesus-’ own influence which produced the most effective moral resistance to evil the world has ever seen His apostles state that clearly (Ephesians 6:11; Ephesians 6:13-14; Hebrews 12:4; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9) His purpose for coming into the world was to attack openly and relentlessly Satan and all those representing his interests (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8; cf. Matthew 12:28-29). Jesus-’ personal example shows how He intended this teaching. He vigorously cleansed the Temple two times of its graft and corruption (John 2:11 ff; Matthew 21:12-13). He bitterly and uncompromisingly exposed the personal hypocrisy of the religious leaders as well as the evil inherent in the system of religion that they upheld. (Cf. Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 16:1-12; Matthew 23; Mark 12:38-40)

3. This principle must be applied to the individual, to whom Jesus addressed it, and must not be applied to states or nations or even to sub-groups within society that do not possess His point of view.

Marshall (116) correctly observes: In this passage, then, Jesus-’ thought is concentrated on the question of non-vindictiveness in personal relations. ALL other considerations, obligations, circumstances and needs, are for the moment, left out of account. The question of the maintenance of public law and order is not envisaged; that is something which was simply taken for granted.

Luke (Luke 6:27-31) and Leviticus (Leviticus 19:18) connect, by contrast, the desire to take vengeance on the one hand, and on the other, love for one’s neighbor even if he be an enemy: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; I am Jehovah. Although the Law itself commanded such high ideals, it was powerless to enforce them in practical ways. While the Law checked this vindictive passion, Jesus shows His disciples how to rise even above the expectations of the Law. He plans to abolish the desire to seek vengeance altogether.

A. BY REFUSING TO RETALIATE (first illustration of the principle)

Matthew 5:39 b But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. This is a question of one’s honor, not a defence of his life, a fact which is established by two reasons: first, this refusal to seek vengeance is in contrast to the cited law of retaliation which would have rewarded the stricken the opportunity to smite his attacker on his right cheek, Second, the actual form of attack is that of the most insulting contempt, but not an attempt to kill. Thy right cheek, as you face your usually right-handed attacker, will be slapped with the back of his right hand, No higher insult could be imagined in almost any society, Yet, Jesus forbids that personal vindictiveness, that unwillingness to forgive that takes the law into its own hands and retaliates, He would remove from the heart that anger, resentment and hate that demands to get even. This- He does before the fact, so that the shock and pain of the attack may not catch the disciple unaware and unprepared to react in this most unworldly sort of self-control. Usually words proceed such physical violence and no disciple should fail to heed that inner warning of the impending spiritual crisis. Thus, in place of that desire to revenge self at all costs against whatever threat, Jesus places nobler motivations and considerations, the chief of which is love for that enemy, (Cf. Luke 6:27-29) Only this kind of active love, which treats the enemy as oneself, is capable of enduring all things. (1 Corinthians 13:7) It is almost, if not entirely, impossible to be a peacemaker while seeking revenge. (See on Matthew 5:9) While it is true that God will wreak vengeance upon them that do not know and obey Him (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), yet the wrath of man cannot pretend to dispense such perfectly righteous justice. (Cf. James 1:19-20)

Yes, Jesus- rule is humiliating, because we may be taken for spineless cowards if we do not hit back, Such patient meekness is contemptible in the eyes of the world. Jesus-’ rule is impossible for the natural man, whose reflexes are taught to resent and resist every threat to his person or honor. Only God can make it possible to act like Jesus when we are under fire, Jesus-’ rule is painful there may be that second blow! But we must rather risk that second injury than sin by revenging the first.

When applying Jesus-’ exhortation, let it be recalled that He Himself did not literally turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23), but rebuked His smiters, challenging their right to do so. Paul (Acts 23:3) rebounded in fiery indignation, challenging the mockery of justice that ordered him slapped. But never once did they retaliate with that terrifying, destructive power within their grasp, (Matthew 26:52-53; Luke 9:51-55; Acts 13:6-12.)

B. BY RELINQUISHING ONE’S RIGHT TO RESIST (second illustration)

Matthew 5:40 **And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. This is a question of property or possessions, not an involvement of conscience or life. Thy coat would be better translated tunic, or that inner garment over which the cloak, or heavy outer robe was worn. For maximum effect, Jesus is probably assuming that the person He addresses has the legal right to both the tunic and the robe in the question at law. This latter could not be taken even overnight as a pledge from a poor man (Exodus 22:26-27), because it was such an important item of clothing. Jesus advocates that His followers be ready to give up without litigation even that which, by law, could not be taken. Considered from the point of view of the expenses involved, giving up a full change of clothes is a trifle compared to the relatively higher costs of long litigation. From the ethical standpoint, that meek surrender of one’s right to fight for his possessions bespeaks an unselfishness and dignity that rises above petty claims. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8; Hebrews 10:34)

This, however, is no prohibition of seeking justice through the courts, since defending one’s rights by law may also be necessary and right for serious and truly important cases. (Cf. Acts 16:35-39; Acts 22:25-29; Acts 25:10-11) Jesus-’ prohibition intends to discourage that selfish preoccupation with holding possessions that fails to look beyond self to see the true needs of one’s opponent. That opponent is selfish too, else he would not be after your tunic. How else can he be taught to be altruistic than by a first-class example of magnanimity in the very one whom he would defraud? Deep love and true concern for him who would wrong you must take precedence over your just rights and claims. Thus, Jesus is not completely forbidding His followers to go to court for any cause, but rather is challenging their motives for so doing. He does not question the right to go to law, but the motive. To accomplish some higher goal of love, one right a Christian has is that of not insisting on his rights.

Blessed are the meek for the whole earth belongs to them! Why should they haggle over one tunic and a robe? (See on Matthew 5:5)

C. BY RENDERING REQUESTED RELIEF WITHOUT RANCOR

Matthew 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. This compulsion of which Jesus speaks is a historic allusion to the right of those in government service, whether postal couriers or occupation soldiers or others, to impress anyone into service to help them carry forward their own mission. (Cf. Matthew 27:32) Naturally, such impressment would be galling to a subject people as well as inconvenient and fatiguing. Going that mile (1000 paces) might mean shouldering a soldier’s baggage, To the hypersensitive, punctilious Jew this defiling contact with a Gentile would also be a forced self-contamination.

And what does Jesus say about this contaminating, oppressive, hateful service demanded by foreigners? What a shock must have been registered in the audience when He challenged their discipleship to the core: Do twice as much as is asked of you! Comply cheerfully in excess of the demand. No sullen, complaining spirit here! Considerate helpfulness is the key: no compulsory work which necessarily limits your freedom is to be resented or done hatefully, even if it is Roman work to be done.

While this exhortation of Jesus may be a third illustration of the general principle, Resist not him who is evil, yet Jesus seems to be moving away from a strict interpretation of him who is evil in this and the next illustration. The evidence, that He is not following a strict outline which closely demonstrates the principle, may be seen by interpreting the principle more generally: Do not seek to protect your selfishness or pride in any personal relation with him who would stimulate either. Taken in this latter sense, the general principle is adequately clarified by all four examples. Thus, whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile is not necessarily someone who evilly forces you to work, but He means anyone who lays some obligatory service upon you. Humanly we react against this obligation and constriction of our liberties. We react without reflection upon the needs, both immediate and relative as well as eternal and absolute, of him who thus forces us to work. Nor do we regard seriously enough what results in his life our reaction will produce. What kind of business, domestic, national or international relations would result if Jesus-’ word were taken seriously? (Study some of the apostles-’ suggestions for applications: Ephesians 6:5-8; Philippians 2:14; Philippians 4:5; Titus 3:2; James 3:17; 1 Peter 2:18 f; Romans 12:20) What if God and Jesus had not gone the second mile with US? What is this but mercy? If so, does not this exhortation (go with him two) become a specific example of how we may be merciful? We have thus turned a bit of servitude, in which we were the subordinates, into a showing of mercy, in which we are the kings! The foregoing three examples have explained the principle from a negative standpoint: do not seek revenge, do not litigate, do not render grudging service; and from a positive doubling formula: be willing to suffering again, surrender more and help twice as much as is asked. The following example follows the Hebrew poetic parallelism, giving two closely-related positive exhortations. (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:15)

D. BY READINESS TO RESPOND WITH RESOURCES (fourth illustration)

Matthew 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. This exhortation of Jesus must be considered within the frame of reference in which it was given, The Law had commanded this kind of open-handed generosity to be directed to any countryman who, being impoverished, was no longer able to sustain himself without help. (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 25:35-46; Deuteronomy 15:7-15; Deuteronomy 23:19-20) It is within this merciful helpfulness ordained by the Lord that Jesus urges this open-hearted response. Him that asketh thee and him that would borrow, accordingly, refer to those whose need is real and known or obvious. (Cf. Luke 6:32-36 to catch this spirit of ready helpfulness.) Jesus encourages this liberality to respond to genuine needs: widows and orphans (James 1:27), an unfortunate (James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:17), or someone really hungry, cold, ill-clad, sick or in prison (Matthew 25:35-45), Sometimes gainful employment is the most honorable help to give; other times, food, clothing, etc., according to the need. (See Acts 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-28; Romans 15:31; 2 Corinthians 8, 9; Ephesians 4:28; Galatians 6:10, for wider application.)

Jesus-’ rule must never be interpreted so as to encourage laziness, shiftlessness or greed. Note 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 where the practical expression of disorderliness is shameless laziness and is worthy of practical excommunication. Paul soundly condemns those busybodies who try to go around work, (periergadzomenous) and urges that they be not fed. Jesus-’ rule must also be applied consistently with our other duties and obligations. (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12) We are not commanded to dole out. daily sustenance to him who will not work, for it would make him a thief to take that to which he has no right.

So how shall Jesus-’ teaching be applied?

Do not refuse to give: what or how you will give may have to be decided according to many factors, by you must not close your heart.

Consider the receiver of the gift: is he a fraudulent beggar or a man in real need? Can you always tell the difference? Better to help a fraud now and then than miss Jesus disguised as one of the least of His brethren!

Consider the kind of gift to be given. Should it be according to his request or according to his real need? Sometimes there is an important difference between these. Is it always possible to know another’s real need? Sometimes employment for a wage could restore a man’s self-respect like no hand-out ever could. Other men might be saved from poverty by a gift disguised as a loan. Will the gift contribute to his delinquency by encouraging him to continue begging when he could and should work? Or will it really result in the recipient’s best interest by making him a better man?

Give as secretly as possible. (Matthew 6:2-4) Sometimes the slightest breath of publicity would humiliate the recipient beyond recall, and cause him to hate his benefactor.

CONCLUSION

Plummer (Luke, 185) has caught the spirit of Jesus behind each of these four precepts:

What is the spirit? Among other things this:-that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our property must never be a personal matter: so far as we are concerned we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to withstand and even to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and protect society; not because of any personal animus, It is right also to withhold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in order to check idleness and effrontery; not because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery whatever is demanded or taken from us. love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because compliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering. In every case, however, we ought to be willing to part with what may be lawfully given to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive for refusing.

Jesus is picturing in these four vivid strokes of the brush how He intends for His disciple to master his own h e m by keeping himself free from those natural emotions which too often lead to sin. (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Peter 2:21-24; cf. Isaiah 50:6; Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29)

Certain psychological advantages may be found in Jesus-’ counsel. To offer one’s cheek in a spirit of magnanimity to receive that second insult should touch the heart of the adversary, if he has any conscience at all. In this vivid expression of obvious self-control he ought to be able to see who IS really the bigger man, and be caused to be ashamed of himself for offering the insult. It takes two to make a fight: what can one do if the other refuses him fight? Again, the willingness to endure wrong may cause a legal adversary to reconsider his own rights in a case, but much depends upon how Jesus-’ disciple shows his refusal to push his claims. The adversary might suppose that he did not have a case anyway and therefore dropped his claims. Though a disciple must risk losing face as well as some property, yet may honorably point out his reasons for believing himself to be in the right and waive his right in favor of the opponent. Considerate helpfulness while doing an unwelcome task should show who is truly the bigger man, the more generous, more longsuffering, more patient in every way, The benefit may fall upon the next man impressed into service, and he may be treated with like consideration, but so what?

Naturally, no moral advantage is gained by a calculating use of Jesus-’ principles, such as giving in to an adversary in order to placate him, with a view to retaining both tunic and robe, or offering to go two miles with a view of shaming the officer into refusal, or turning the other cheek in order to humiliate the insulter for striking such an easy target. This calculation with a view to defending one’s selfish pride contradicts outright all that Jesus is teaching here. The Master is trying to get us to stop pampering our selfishness and to crucify it in these practical ways.

FACT QUESTIONS

Summarize the entire Mosaic legislation on retaliation and give several different examples of its application which are offered in the Law itself.

Was this law intended for private, personal application by the individual seeking revenge? Who, according to the Law, was to see that the precept was executed properly?

What was the purpose of this law of retaliation?

Does Jesus criticize the law of retaliation when used as a rule for execution by magistrates? If so, what about it does He criticize? If not, what is the point of the four illustrations He gives which explain what He considers to be in contrast with it?

List all the various factors which bear upon the interpretation of Jesus-’ principle: Do not resist him who is evil.

What is the one point common to all four illustrations, which explains the true meaning of Jesus-’ principle?

7,

List the four illustrations, showing the relation of each to the principle they illustrate.

Did the Law of Moses forbid seeking private revenge (without recourse to law) and bearing a grudge?

Is the frame of reference for Jesus-’ first illustration of His principle a question of life and death? Does Jesus-’ exhortation take into account the problem of self-defence against an attempt to kill?

10. Did Jesus turn the other cheek when slapped? Did Paul? Did they retaliate in any way?
11. Could the robe (cloak) be taken by law? What is the ethical force of Jesus-’ advice regarding it?
12. Does Jesus prohibit a Christian’s going to court to defend some cause he deems truly important? Prove your answer.
13. What is the historic connection involved in the phrase compel thee to go one mile? (Who compelled? Why? Why one mile? etc.)

Matthew 5:43-48

C. THE WISE AND GODLY MAN IN RELATION TO THE LAW

6. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD PERFECT love. (Parallel Luke 6:32-36)

TEXT: 5:43-48

43. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:

44. but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;

45. that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

46. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47. And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same?

48. Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

What happens to men when they allow themselves to hate?

b. What is the basis for the distinction we make between those whom we call enemies and those whom we call friends? Is this a proper distinction? c.

What kind of enemy does Jesus have in mind: personal? national? just anyone who is hostile to us?

d. How should Jesus-’ teaching be applied with reference to one’s national enemies? If a man is not sure that his nation has a just cause in war, should he allow himself to be made part of its army? If he is reasonably sure that his nation has a just cause, how should he treat or regard those who will be enemy soldiers? e.

Is it possible to like someone who is personally hostile to us and is trying his best to thwart our every design? Is it possible to love him? What is the difference?

f.

Is it possible to say that love is the perfect law? What makes you think so? What do you mean by law here?

g. Are laws themselves ethical principles, or are there ethical principles behind the laws which cause them to be written? h.

What is the relationship between the principle of love and laws, as these latter are found in any code of law?

i.

If a person be governed by love, does he need to be governed by law? If not, why not? If so, what is the function of the law in this case?

j.

Is it possible that the word perfect, as used by Jesus (Matthew 5:48), produce very different effects in those who hear it? In other words, how would the sinner react to this demand? How may the disciple respond to it?

k.

How does the standard of Jesus surpass all standards known to man?

l.

How does Jesus make it possible to grow into such a standard?

m.

Are you absolutely perfect yet? If not, what provisions are made for your perfection? What if you die in that imperfect condition?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

You have heard that it was said, -You shall love your neighbor your enemies: do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse and hate your enemy,-’ But I say to you who will really listen, love you, pray for those who insult and persecute you, in order to act like your heavenly Father. Yes, do good and lend, expecting nothing in return. You will have a rich reward and you will be truly sons of the Most High. He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. He makes His sun rise on the evil as well as on the good people, and sends His rain on the just and unjust alike. Be compassionate just like your Father is merciful.

For if you love those who love you, what thanks could you expect? Do not even tax collectors and sinners do as much? And if you greet only those within your own circle, what more are you doing than others? DO not even the pagans do that much? And if you return good deeds only to those who do good to you, what virtue is there in that? For even sinners do the same thing. And if you lend only to those from whom you expect to get it back, what is extraordinary about that? Even sinners lend to each other, to get back the same amount in full.

You, therefore, are to be perfect-as perfect as your heavenly Father is!

SUMMARY

A summary of practical Jewish morality revealed an ethically inadequate lovelessness and partiality, although it had seemed perfectly rational. But God’s personal mercifulness undoubtedly ignores such spurious justifications and distinctions, since He blesses even those who spite Him in every way. Sectarian selfishness and calculating courtesies are typical of those who make no pretences to knowledge or service of God. But Jesus expects nothing less than the perfection of God as a standard for His disciple.

NOTES

I. AN ANCIENT ADAGE AMENDED

A. THE ANCIENT ADAGE

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. The first phrase is as old as the Law itself and is left unchanged by the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18) There is no point in mentioning Jesus’ omission of as thyself since His correction (Matthew 5:44-48) takes no notice of the omission. Jesus is not quoting a popular Pharisaic tradition which omits this measurement of love. Rather, as He quotes it, the first phrase balances more neatly the second phrase which He intends to correct.

Hate thine enemy. While this is not a direct precept of the Mosaic Law, it is a true representation of its practical application. Though there were precepts enjoining love for the individual foreigner sojourning in the land (Leviticus 19:33-34) and civil rights and courtesies equal to those due any native Hebrew, nevertheless the fear of contamination by idolatry, through any kind of social contact with their surrounding pagan neighbors, caused the Jews to heed those commands which enforced their separatism. (Exodus 23:20-33; Exodus 34:11-16; Numbers 31; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Deuteronomy 7:16; Deuteronomy 10:10-18; Deuteronomy 23:3-6) True, they often compromised these instructions, but their being reprimanded for these failures, which threatened to erase their distinctiveness, helped to create that attitude inherent in the commands themselves: show your enemies no mercy: destroy them entirely. Further, in the same context with the precept to vanquish their enemies completely is found expressed God’s own attitude of strict retribution, almost as if to provide Israel an example for imitation (see Deuteronomy 7:9-11), even as Jesus offers God’s example in the present section as an example for imitation of His mercy. In the one case, Israel’s religious instinctiveness was at stake; in this case, it is not, Rather, impartial love is the question, and the purpose for Israel’s separatism is already realized and needs no further protection, Perfect love is more capable of preserving religious separation than any amount of warring against one’s enemies, even though this latter expedient was necessary to prepare that primitive people for the coming of Jesus who could reveal such love. Nevertheless, godly men, living under such laws, felt this hatred. (Cf. Psalms 18; Psalms 35; Psalms 55:8-15; Psalms 59; Psalms 69:18-27; Psalms 137:7-9; Psalms 139:21-22) And they practiced it. (Cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1-3)

This is not to deny the totally unjustifiable distortions of God’s intent for such legislation, God never intended that Israelites should detest or refuse to love a personal foe. Rather, kindness and practical generosity were to be used toward him. (Exodus 23:4-5; Proverbs 24:17-18; Proverbs 25:21; cf. Notes on Matthew 5:21)

Is not such hate also the natural outgrowth of self-righteousness which so strictly identifies itself with the cause of righteousness that the self-righteous cannot conceive of God’s plans as having any expression except through him and his group? This is the we-are-right-let-those-who-disagree-with-us-go-to-hell spirit seen in all sectaries just as much in the orthodox and faithful as in the terrorists and false teachers.

B. THE AMENDMENT

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you. Far from pampering the prejudices of His audience, which grovelled under the Roman yoke, having known one oppressor after another since the beginning of the great captivities, Jesus shows Himself the true Patriot. He offers them the only way to improve relations with ANY enemy, personal or national. This word of love must have aroused resentment in some who had unusually bad relations with tax collectors and Roman soldiery. How these words would have stung on the ears of those who were just living for the day when they personally might draw Roman blood and drive the hated occupation army out of Palestine!

But this word enemy covers the whole realm of those who oppose one: personal antagonists, business competitors, political opponents, social rivals. This is evidenced in the Law by the more or less personal relations between the antagonists, which would have permitted deeds of kindness to him. (See Exodus 23:4-5; Proverbs 24:17-18; Proverbs 25:21) The fact that Jesus places the emphasis on loving our enemies, rather than upon loving our neighbors, should remind us that that hateful quality in some of our neighbors which makes them our enemies must not cause us to forget that they are, after all, neighbors to love. Jesus is not saying that our enemies are somehow not our neighbors, merely because He does not identify the two here, since He does identify them elsewhere. (Luke 10:29-37)

At first view, what Jesus commands seems impossible due to the many misconceptions of the meaning of the word love. What is this love which Jesus requires?

Clear examples, which explain His meaning, are offered immediately in this context:

a. Pray for those who persecute you. No man can honestly pray for another and continue to hate him; rather, he will try to understand his enemy’s real need and the reasons which make him that way. Such magnanimity must necessarily destroy rancor and desires to retaliate.

b. Impartial generosity (See on Matthew 5:45)

c. Social courtesy (See on Matthew 5:46)

d. Readiness to reconcile; refusal to hold in contempt (Matthew 5:21-26)

e. Refusing to hate a member of the opposite sex by lusting after them (Matthew 5:27-30)

f. Destroying enmity for one’s society by resisting the temptation to create a situation which would undermine it (Matthew 5:31-32)

g. Rejecting false, deceiving oaths by simple honest speech (Matthew 5:33-37)

h. Returning good for evil (Matthew 5:38-42). Luke’s parallel (Matthew 6:27-34) actually mixes these applications with the precept, making just one integrated section where Matthew has two.

Thus, Jesus-’ meaning is exemplified in these examples of actions, deeds and attitudes, and not merely through a sentiment.

2. Other examples of loving one’s enemies:

a. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

b. Jesus on the cross (Luke 23:34)

c. Stephen being martyred (Acts 7:60)

d. David spared Saul’s life (1 Samuel 24, 26)

So we see, even before examining the word love itself we have before

us a clear concept of its meaning intended by the Author, derived from the examples He gives of its manifestation. he exact meaning of Jesus-’ word (agapate) must be gathered from the context in which He uses it, due to the interchangeability of the two Greek words usually used to express this relationship between persons.

For studies in agape and philia and their verbs agapao and phileo, compare Amdt-Gingrich, pp. 4-6, 866, 867, where their interchange is noted, But see Butler, John, II 454-456 and Hendriksen, John, 11, 494-500, where excellent reviews of the differences are given.

From the way Jesus illustrated what He means, we learn:

3. What Jesus does NOT mean. He does not intend just a natural compassion or good-naturedness, a natural affection or fondness. Nor can He imply a blanket, general love which takes in wholesale an enemy nation, or the whole corrupt political machine, or an entire religious denomination, but rather He intends a love for the individual, detached from the movement he represents. It is not a tender sentiment similar to that which binds us to our nearest and dearest. It is not something that we cannot help, because Jesus commands us to do something about it. This love commanded is not an ethical principle for application by society en masse, but by the individual, since it was to the latter that He addressed it. Nor does Jesus mean that love must ignore criminal actions and refuse to discipline due to a pretended love for the unscrupulous, undisciplined and criminal.

4. What Jesus DOES mean: by the word love He intends a purposeful, intelligent, comprehending love which cannot ignore the hatefulness and wickedness of the enemy, but seeks in every way to free him from the sin which blinds and binds him to those passions that drive him to be what he is. This love commanded is a matter of the will, a victory over that which comes instinctively even to publicans and sinners. This love is something that we have to will ourselves into doing, not an emotion that comes to us unbidden. This love is a determination of the mind expresses itself in invincible good will to all men alike by always doing what is in the best interest of each. Jesus insists that each disciple take His fiat seriously as a basis of their personal relationships.

Is not this love the empowering ethical principle that motivates all of the impossible demands of Jesus? Not only does this love far surpass the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, but it raises the standard so far above all law, especially that of Moses, that it touches the perfect character of God! Instead of this precept being a mere lovely theory, it is practical to the last degree, because it puts every motive to the test, challenges every action and rejects automatically all conduct that would be a violation of love. This latter feature is accomplished without any recourse to that inferior conduct motivation or moral control known as law. Thus, Jesus is revealing a means of conduct control that for its excellence far surpasses any and all legal systems, It is superior because the constraints of love must bring about a complete moral transformation in man by causing him to re-examine his entire character and bring it into line with the demands of his love.

Conversion, then, is not so much a miraculous process as it is a rational introspection into one’s heart to determine wherein the individual is not loving God and his fellows, and a thorough-going determination to act conscientiously according to the dictates of this true love. God’s part in conversion, therefore, is His provision of the key that unlocks this whole series of conversions in every area of life. The key is simply His own love which stimulates us to love (1 John 4:7-21). In other words, Jesus is saying, love God and your neighbor perfectly, and everything else will take care of itself. Who needs rules to force him to act, whose heart is entirely converted by the very ethical motivation -that requires such rules be written for the ethically unmotivated?

But the original command of God was: –love your neighbor (and Jesus says this means our enemy too) AS YOURSELF. What a standard! HOW far-reaching! How do we express this self-love? Our love for ourselves is unhypocritical, ardent, active, habitual and constant. It respects our interests, is tenderly concerned about our welfare, takes genuine pleasure in promoting our success and happiness: we just cannot do enough for ourselves! $!The test, then, of our love for the other fellow is not merely our fondness for him, but the trouble we are willing to take and the sacrifices we are prepared to make for his benefit. Luke (Luke 6:31) inserts the golden rule right in the middle of his account of this section, thereby suggesting that the acid test of love is deeds, not merely sweet sentiments. Twice he quotes Jesus as saying, love your enemies and do good, ,. (Luke 6:27; Luke 6:35; cf. Romans 12:17-21)

Should someone object that the cost of love is too high (1 John 3:16), the cost of hatred is even greater! (1 John 3:15) He who would shut out his neighbor’s need from his heart, likewise shuts out the love of God!

II. THE ALMIGHTY, AN ACKNOWLEDGED AUTHORITY ON ALTRUISM

Matthew 5:45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. This is the first reason Jesus urges us to love our enemies: that we might be like God. God is the very author and example of this outgoing love of others. (Romans 5:5-8; 1 John 4:7-12) Our pattern and measure of love is to be no less than His!

Love that you may be sons expresses the purpose of our loving those who certainly do not love us. The word be (genesthe) might be translated become, thus suggesting that this love is, in the final analysis, the only real means of growing into the image of the Son of God (cf. Romans 8:29), and this recalls Matthew 5:9 where those who imitate God will be called His sons. (See notes there) The central idea is this: moral likeness proves one’s true parentage. (Contrast John 8:39-47) To the Jews present that day, the phrase sons of your Father would have been readily grasped in its general Hebraistic sense of likeness or chief characteristic. (See Gesenius, 126) Accordingly, Jesus is saying, love that you may be like God, or godly, godlike. However, Jesus-’ word must not be construed to mean that one may become a son of God merely by the exercise of some brand of neighborly love which bypasses regeneration! Truly, such impartial loving as Jesus expects is impossible without regeneration. Though this love is the ready test of sonship, yet one is not necessarily a son if he ignores the father’s instructions for becoming a son. (Cf. Galatians 3:26-27)

The honest man, whose conscience has been stabbed by Christ’s message and who feels keenly his own imperfection, will be reminded that God did truly bless him even in his sinfulness. Such a disciple will be motivated to bless and help men, especially his enemies, loving them as God had first loved him. This is Gods reason for continuing to bless even those who by their continued impiety dare Him to destroy them. His goodness could melt their stubborn hearts, causing them to repent (Romans 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:12-17). Thank God that He does not bless us on the basis of our capricious and relative goodness! Thus, ours is to be a perfect interest in people that is closely identified with God’s concern for them. (Cf. Ephesians 4:31 to Ephesians 5:1)

III. THE ABSURDITY OF ACT’ING ACCORDING TO AVERAGE ATITITUDES

Matthew 5:46-47 See the PARAPHRASE/HARMONY for Luke’s significant additions here. Jesus’ second reason for loving the unlovely and unloveable, is that refusal to do so is conduct no better than that of the worst of men. That choice to love only those who are beautiful, desirable, and who will reciprocate love, is nothing but that same cruel, callous, calculating partiality practiced by any hypocrite! James (James 2:1-17) drives home the heinous injustice of partiality.

Publicans, Gentiles: Luke in this place says simply sinners while Matthew, writing more to a Jewish standpoint, mentions two classes which to Jews were sinners without equals. The publicans were the collectors who did the foot-work, actually gathering the Roman taxes’ for their Roman bosses. To a subject people like the Jews, not only the taxes to support their rulers, but also these mercenaries who collaborated with their conquerors to collect the money, would be hated and despised as traitors to their people. The stigma attached to the profession naturally precluded the accepting the occupation by any good men who had any regard for the good opinion of their countrymen. Obviously, this left the office to those who had less self-respect to lose and no reputation to protect and often few principles. Considered as traitors as well as grafters, they were regarded as entirely out of fellowship with God. (Cf. Luke 3:12-13; Luke 19:1-9; Luke 15:1-2; Luke 18:9-14) On Gentiles see on Matthew 5:43 to grasp this purely Jewish allusion.

What reward have you?. What do you more than others ? These rhetorical questions are calculated to call His hearers to make a personal judgment, or perhaps to call attention to His judgment intimated in His question: If one loves and salutes only his most intimate friends and family, he is acting just like those whom he would class as flagrant sinners, Worse yet, he is sharing their sin of partiality, Here the Master exposes the proud snob for the hypocrite he really is, since he would probably claim to love all men and yet he would rationalize such party loyalty as would salute only its own clique, clan of club. Party spirit and clan loyalty have been scored by the apostles as well. (Galatians 5:20; Jude 1:19; 1 Corinthians 1-4) That unhypocritical love which embraces even the repulsive and hateful really goes beyond these average attitudes and actually does more than others. (Romans 12:9; 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 6:5-9; Philippians 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:22) Christian love must be unlike human love which is often no more than a self-interested affection. In other words, we must never let our natural likes and dislikes become the rule of our life or the test of our love, since real love carries us into the lives of those for whom we have no natural affinity. To break the force of our clannish habits, let us begin to associate with men, not because they are congenial to us or agree with us, but because they need our compassion and understanding, Let us cultivate those outside out group. (Cf. Luke 5:27-32; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 14:12-14; Luke 15:1-2; John 4:1-42)

Salute was a word loaded with connotations of friendship, acceptance and fellowship, just as the oriental salutation was a vigorous personal contact consisting of a cordial embrace, a kiss on both cheeks and inquiries about the welfare of each member of the other’s family. Thus, Jesus IS asking quite a bit more than a simple good morning of His disciples: if you are only cordial with your little circle, what do you do that is so different?

In this admonition, Jesus, having shown the weakness of such distinctions that selfishness must create, now corrects the absurdity of thinking that one could really live in love and yet show practical favoritism. Edersheim (Life, 11, 237) observes:

That question, -Who is my neighbor?-’ has ever been at the same time the outcome of Judaism (as distinguished from the religion of the OT), and also its curse. God had separated Israel unto Himself by purification and renovation - and this is the original meaning of the word -holy-’ and -sanctify-’ in the Hebrew. They separated themselves in self-righteousness and pride-and this is the original meaning of the word -Pharisee-’ and -Pharisaism-’.. Before we sit in harsh judgment on these Jews, let us remember how often professing Christians have restricted the circle of Christian love until it embraces no more than pagan love, i.e., those who love us and salute us.

IV. ASPIRING TO ATTAIN THE ABSOLUTE

Matthew 5:48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus-’ idea of real religion or true righteousness is to make us like God, nothing else or nothing less! McGarvey puts it right: though it be impossible for such sinners as we to reach this perfection yet anything short of it is short of what we ought to be. In fact, one sure rule to remember must be: if you think you have arrived at this perfection, you have not. The closer we approach the perfection of God and thus the more intimate grows our knowledge of the Father, the more we will be humbled and dissatisfied with our accomplishments.

But what is Jesus driving at? Surely He must know that we could not struggle up to the heights of that far inferior standard of Moses-’ Law, and if THAT were too difficult for us, how could He expect us even to begin thinking about aiming for God’s perfection? We must cry out in dark despair, Lord, be merciful to me, the sinner that I am! But this was exactly His point: to bring us to our knees asking Him what we must do. (See introduction to the Sermon) Carver (81) raises that important philosophical problem: Could we follow Jesus as we do if He had for us any lower standard of morals and ethics than perfection, if He could be content until He has made us true sons and daughters of His perfect Father? Probably not, for we would ever suspect that there yet remain a final answer above and beyond Jesus, however satisfied we might be with His good standards. But being brought up face to face with THIS standard, we may rest assured that there are no higher standards, and it is with TH.IS one that we have to deal, decide, do or die!

HOW TO BE PERFECT

Let us, however, not permit our despair of ever reaching such an exacting standard to become an excuse for ignoring Jesus as an unrealistic dreamer whose schemes for human moral improvement as unworkable. Let us remain at least long enough to hear Him explain His idea.

A. BY LOVING PERFECTLY

Interpreting Jesus-’ word in context, we see that Jesus is saying something very simple and yet so profound: He who loves like the heavenly Father loves, is thoroughly equipped to grow into absolute perfection. He who loves, needs no other rules or standards, for he will always act in the best interest of his neighbor, friend or enemy. To love consistently is to be perfect.

This interpretation harmonizes with the propositions of the Apostles, Whoever practices obedience to His message really has a perfect love of God in his heart. (1 John 2:5 CBWilliams) No one has ever seen God; yet if we practice loving one another, God remains in union with us, and our love for His attains perfection in our hearts. (1 John 4:12 CBW; Cf. 1 John 4:17-18) One’s faith is perfected by what he does (James 2:22), if it is a faith which works through love (Galatians 5:6). Only intense love can hold a man steadfast in trials and thus be perfected (James 1:2-4). And, most important of all, no law is capable of making anybody perfect (Hebrews 7:19; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1; cf. Romans 2:12; Romans 3:29; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:20; Romans 8:3). ALL law must render man imperfect in his own eyes and frustrate his attempts to be perfect. Perfect loving, on the other hand, has in it the seed-germ capable of making man entirely perfect.

By commanding men to be perfect, Jesus DID mean them to be sinless, since the essence of sin is lovelessness. There is no moral perfection but where perfect love has made sin impossible. Sins, by definition, are those acts which express man’s selfishness and his failure to love his neighbor or his God at some given point of contact. Sin is not only or merely transgression of the law (1 John 3:4; Romans 3:20 etc.), although it is this too, but is more the refusal to love (1 John 3:11-18; 1 John 4:9; 1 John 4:17-21). Laws are but the muscles of love, given to punish those who are unable or unwilling to be governed directly by love. Laws merely describe and forbid unethical behavior, but the behavior itself is sin because, in one way or another, it disobeys the dictates of love. Contrarily, love is the fulfilling of any law. (Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; Galatians 6:2) True righteousness IS love and as such is not subject to law; rather, love is the maker of laws where they are necessary. (Galatians 5:22-23) ALL standards of right and wrong will be perfectly fulfilled by the man who always does what is in the best interest of his neighbor, i.e. loves him completely. This is the genius of Christianity and the very reason why Jesus refused to spell out in detail what constitutes true righteousness, lest men mistake His word for another law! By just commanding love, He covered the whole gamut of human relations like no detailed law could ever do.

B. BY BEING DECLARED PERFECT

Thus, the very admission that we do not love as we should, condemns us for our imperfection. How can God admit anything less than perfection? God has solved this dilemma by choosing to declare perfectly righteous those who will believe Jesus, depend entirely upon Him, and thus regard His perfection as their own. (Romans 8:1-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Ephesians 2:6; Philippians 3:8-9; Colossians 1:12; Colossians 1:22; Colossians 1:28; Colossians 2:10) Thus, all that is imperfect in the Christian is judged to be perfect, because it is viewed as perfected by the perfection of Christ. This is only possible because of the disciple’s position in Christ. This perfection of the Christian is a judicial declaration, quite irrespective of his personal maturity. This declaration is entirely based upon the Christian’s dependence (faith) upon Jesus to be his righteousness, sanctification, justification and redemption. (Hebrews 10:14)

C. BY GROWING UP INTO THE STANDARD

Teleios, the word translated by our word perfect, can mean all that our word signifies, i.e. absoluteness, the highest degree of excellence. Yet is means more. (See Arndt-Gingrich, 816, 817) Perfection is obviously relative, relative to the goal, end, purpose or aim (telos) sought. Something is perfect when it accomplishes the purpose for which it was planned. Thus, teleios is used to describe persons of full age, full-grown, mature, adult (1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:13-16; Hebrews 5:14) and, by extension, it describes those who are spiritually mature (Philippians 3:15; Colossians 4:12). It was also a technical term of the ancient mystery religions, which refers to him who had been initiated into the mystic rites. To this latter class may belong such passages as: 1 Corinthians 2:6; Philippians 3:15; Colossians 1:28, where the translation would be the initiate, the insider. Then, teleios has at least four other instances (Matthew 19:21; James 1:4 b; James 3:2; perhaps Colossians 4:12) of the absolute idea of full moral development to the highest degree of excellence. Which of these four ideas describes Jesus-’ meaning in this text? That depends upon who is listening to Him.

1. To the Outsider: If Jesus is talking to the sinner, endeavoring to drive him to practical despair of ever being good enough, then Jesus means for the sinner to be shaken by that word perfect in all of its harsh absoluteness, The man of the world must understand the futility of trying to justify himself before God by any kind of standard less than perfection, The outsider would not have it in him to reach such a lofty norm, Assuming that God is so loving and impartial as to bless him even when he is yet a sinner (Matthew 5:45), he could safely conclude that this God also has a means of salvation from this inexorable ,justice, and come to Jesus seeking answers.

2. To the Insider: If Jesus intends His teaching to be a guide to righteousness for all future generations of His disciples, then He may mean maturity, adulthood, as understood in .the relative sense. No teleios adult would admit to being absolutely perfect in every quality that, together with other qualities, renders him teleios, and yet he is teleios, adult or mature, To the Christian, then, perfection or maturity is not a terrifying, impossible standard, since Jesus has revealed His secrets for arriving there. Jesus- secret power to transform men into the image of God, a secret only to those who refuse to see it, is the influence of that all-encompassing command: love your neighbor as yourself. Out of such love flows all those deeds that may be called righteousness.

Jesus-’ ideal is neither an impossible not an impractical ethic, Rather it is the bloodstream of the New Testament. (Study Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:6; Philippians 3:7-17; 1 Timothy 1:5) As an ideal, Jesus must require absolute perfection (in degree); as a practical expectation, Jesus may look for a growing perfection (in kind) which has in it the capacity to transform man into God’s likeness.

FACT QUESTIONS

Locate the OT Law of love, cited by Jesus. (book, chapter, verse)

Explain the rise of the axiomatic exhortation to hate one’s enemy. Did God command such hate? What divine commands might lead to this conclusion? Did God intend for a Jew to bear personal grudges or hate a personal opponent? Prove your answer.

Did godly men in the OT hate their enemies? Prove it.

What information may be drawn from the context, that helps to understand the meaning of the word love, as Jesus intended it?

List the two examples, positive and negative, given by Jesus as examples of how we should and should not love.

Why does Matthew bring up publicans and Gentiles? What is the Jewish viewpoint regarding these two groups?

Who were the publicans?

What does perfect mean, as used by Jesus? What else could it mean?

9. What other NT passages use the word perfect, which throw light on Jesus-’ meaning?