Matthew · Chapter 5

V. 1. And seeing the multitudes-At some distance, as they were coming to him from every quarter.

He went up into the mountain-Which was near: where there was room for them all.

His disciples-not only his twelve disciples, but all who desired to learn of him.

Verse 1. And seeing the multitudes] Touv oclouv, these multitudes, viz. those mentioned in the preceding verse, which should make the first verse of this chapter.

He went up into a mountain] That he might have the greater advantage of speaking, so as to be heard by that great concourse of people which followed him. It is very probable that nothing more is meant here than a small hill or eminence. Had he been on a high mountain they could not have heard; and, had he been at a great distance, he would not have sat down. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 5:14”.

And when he was set] The usual posture of public teachers among the Jews, and among many other people. Hence sitting was a synonymous term for teaching among the rabbins.

His disciples] The word maqhthv signifies literally a scholar. Those who originally followed Christ, considered him in the light of a Divine teacher; and conscious of their ignorance, and the importance of his teaching, they put themselves under his tuition, that they might be instructed in heavenly things. Having been taught the mysteries of the kingdom of God, they became closely attached to their Divine Master, imitating his life and manners; and recommending his salvation to all the circle of their acquaintance. This is still the characteristic of a genuine disciple of Christ.

12.

(2,) The character and duty of Christ’s disciples, who, being possessed themselves of his holy and happy religion, are exhorted to impart it to others, and obey his irrevocable law, 13-20.

(3,) An exposition of the principal precepts of the moral law, and a vindication of them from the corrupt glosses of the scribes and Pharisees, particularly with respect to murder, 21-26: uncleanness, 27-32: swearing, 33-37: retaliation, 38- 42: and love to mankind, 43-48.

NOTES ON CHAPTER 5.

Verses 1, 2. And seeing the multitudes — A vast concourse of people assembled from all parts to attend him, some with their sick to obtain cures, for he never rejected any who applied to him; some out of curiosity to see his miracles, and hear his extraordinary doctrine; some with a design to find fault and censure; and some, doubtless, to hear and be edified by his discourses, which seldom failed to make a deep impression on those who had any share of good sense or true piety: — the Son of God, beholding such a vast multitude of men, bewildered in the darkness of ignorance, and lost in sin and wretchedness, had compassion on them, and feeling in himself a strong desire to give them more particular instruction than he had yet done in the infinitely important matters of religion; that he might deliver what he had to say to them on this most momentous subject, with more convenience to himself and advantage to them, he went up into a mountain — Which afforded room for all, and where, addressing them from an eminence, he could be seen and heard by great numbers. And when he was set — After the manner of the Jewish doctors, who, to show their authority, were wont to sit when they taught; his disciples came unto him — To be instructed by him as a teacher come from God. By his disciples here, not only those strictly so called, viz., the twelve, who were afterward chosen to be his apostles, are intended, but as many of the multitude as were willing to learn of him. And he opened his mouth — A phrase which, in the Scriptures, generally denotes the solemnity of the speaker, and the importance of what he delivers, and here signifies that he uttered the following weighty truths with great seriousness and earnestness. And taught them — As the great prophet and lawgiver of his church, the one way to present and future happiness, at the same time that he corrected those false notions of the Messiah’s kingdom which so generally prevailed, and which he foresaw would prove of destructive tendency to those who continued to be governed by them. Observe, reader! Christ thought it as lawful to preach on a mountain as in a synagogue; nor did his disciples doubt the lawfulness of hearing him wherever he thought fit to speak. Our Lord, it must be observed, pursues the most exact method in this divine discourse; describing, 1st, viz., in this chapter, the nature, excellency, and necessity of inward holiness; 2d, chap. 6., that purity of intention which must direct and animate our outward actions to render them holy; 3d, cautioning us against the grand hinderances of religion, and pointing out the chief means of attaining it: Matthew 7:1-20; and, 4th, making an application of the whole, Matthew 7:21-28.

Verse 1. Seeing the multitudes, assembled from six provinces to see and to hear the great, the promised prophet, who had opened his ministry with glorious miracles. But our Saviour looked upon them, not for distinction of dress and rank, these being vain in the eyes of heaven: he looked for those whom the world overlook, he looked for his Father’s image in the crowd, the poor in spirit, the mourners, and the meek.

1. That it opens the Fourth Period of our Lord’s history. (See Synopsis.) The Qualification is complete with the temptation, Matthew 4:11; the history of the Preparatory preaching of repentance is scantily given by Matthew 4:12-25. It includes preaching, miracles, and the completion of the college of the Twelve Apostles. All things were now ready for laying the broad summary of the principles of the Gospel dispensation.

1 Christ beginneth his sermon in the mount: 3 declaring who are blessed, 13 who are the salt of the earth, 14 the light of the world, the city on a hill, 15 the candle: 17 that he came to fulfil the law. 21 What it is to kill, 27 to commit adultery, 33 to swear: 38 exhorteth to suffer wrong, 44 to love even our enemies, 48 and to labour after perfectness.

CHAPTER 5. Verse 1. And seeing the multitudes, &c. — Here both the multitudes, and his disciples, are mentioned distinctly as his auditors. Probably his disciples sat in a semicircle at his feet, as was customary with the disciples of the Jewish doctors. “The master,” says Maimonides, “sits in the chief place, and the disciples before him in a circuit, so that they all see the master, and hear his words.” The general audience were at some distance; for it is evident from some passages in this discourse, such as, “Ye are the salt of the earth;” “Ye are the light of the world,” that it was immediately addressed to his disciples as nearest to him, and separate from the rest. But Christ publicly showed what those doctrines were, to the knowledge and practice of which he was training up his more intimate followers, and for the publication of which to others he was thus qualifying them. It may throw some light upon our Lord’s taking upon himself the office of a public teacher, a circumstance which excited no surprise, and was in fact in itself nothing new, to remark, that any man skilled in the law appears to have had the right to become a doctor or teacher of it, to such disciples as chose to attend his discourses; and these disciples not only attended him at some usual place of teaching, but followed him from place to place, doing him honour as their instructer.

At what exact period of our Lord’s ministry the sermon on the mount was delivered, we have no particular account. The place was near Capernaum, and the time early, but subsequent to the calling of several of the apostles, and after his fame had spread throughout Palestine, as stated in the preceding chapter. In the synagogues of Galilee he had delivered many discourses on the subject of his “kingdom;” and the effect had been that many now openly professed to be his disciples. That his sermon on this occasion was one continued discourse, and not, as some have supposed, a collection of fragments, delivered at different times, is manifest both from the introductory, and the concluding remarks of the evangelists: “Multitudes” follow him to the mountain; they listen, and express their astonishment when he had “ended these sayings;” and when he was “come down from the mountain great multitudes” still follow him. We must therefore conclude that all which St. Matthew has inserted between these historical remarks as “the sayings” of our Lord, were at that time delivered consecutively. The very expression also, he opened his mouth and taught them saying, is only used to indicate the commencement of a solemn and lengthened discourse. It was a phrase frequent among them, as a notice that they were about to deliver something weighty and deliberate, “I will open my mouth in a parable,” Psalms 78:2Psalm 78:2. So also Virgil, finem dedit ore loquendi, “he finished speaking with his mouth.” On this Divine sermon we may remark generally, that it not only explains and inculcates the most important truths, but that it has frequent reference to those religious errors which the Jewish doctors of different sects had spread among the people, to the perversion of the meaning of the sacred writings, and the destruction of practical piety. Hence Lightfoot well observes, though somewhat too strongly, “To the explanation of this discourse is required quick and ready versedness in the records of the Jews; for Christ hath an eye and reference to their language, doctrines, customs, traditions, and opinions, in almost every line.”

Christ shows first who are the truly blessed, or rather happy persons, makarioi, that is, in what the true felicity of man consists; a subject of great debate among heathen sages, whose opinions as to the chief good of man were almost equally numerous and contradictory. “To this point,” says one, “three hundred sects of philosophers have taught as many different ways; but to us one alone is fully sufficient.” On this subject, also, the Jewish teachers, seconded by their own proud and carnal hearts, had fatally misled the people, though their own Scriptures contained most explicit and infallible declarations on this subject. They might indeed have learned from David that “blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered; the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile,” expressions which are to be taken to exclude all from true felicity who stand not in this relation of friendship with God, and who had not, been in heart purged from sin. But they placed happiness in wealth and worldly distinctions, and religion in superstition, and ceremony; which generated pride in a fancied holiness, ands blind confidence in an external covenant relation to God as the seed of Abraham, Our Lord opens quite contrary views, and makes the true felicity of man to arise from the moral state of his heart, and shows that it is entirely independent of outward circumstances. All the beatitudes must therefore be interpreted spiritually, and not under those low views in which they are placed by some commentators, who seem little to understand the whole bearing of this discourse, or the true character of Christianity itself, THE SOLE OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO BRING THE HEART OF MAN BACK to God, and to renew it in righteousness and true HOLINESS, in order to restore happiness to the INDIVIDUAL, and to the WORLD.

V. 2. And he opened his mouth-A phrase which always denotes a set and solemn discourse; and taught them-To bless men; to make men happy, was the great business for which our Lord came into the world. And accordingly he here pronounces eight blessings together, annexing them to so many steps in Christianity. Knowing that happiness is our common aim, and that an innate instinct continually urges us to the pursuit of it, he in the kindest manner applies to that instinct, and directs it to its proper object. Though all men desire, yet few attain, happiness, because they seek it where it is not to be found. Our Lord therefore begins his Divine institution, which is the complete art of happiness, by laying down before all that have ears to hear, the true and only true method of acquiring it. Observe the benevolent condescension of our Lord. He seems, as it were, to lay aside his supreme authority as our legislator, that he may the better act the part of: our friend and Saviour. Instead of using the lofty style, in positive commands, he, in a more gentle and engaging way, insinuates his will and our duty, by pronouncing those happy who comply with it.

12.

(2,) The character and duty of Christ’s disciples, who, being possessed themselves of his holy and happy religion, are exhorted to impart it to others, and obey his irrevocable law, 13-20.

(3,) An exposition of the principal precepts of the moral law, and a vindication of them from the corrupt glosses of the scribes and Pharisees, particularly with respect to murder, 21-26: uncleanness, 27-32: swearing, 33-37: retaliation, 38- 42: and love to mankind, 43-48.

NOTES ON CHAPTER 5.

Verses 1, 2. And seeing the multitudes — A vast concourse of people assembled from all parts to attend him, some with their sick to obtain cures, for he never rejected any who applied to him; some out of curiosity to see his miracles, and hear his extraordinary doctrine; some with a design to find fault and censure; and some, doubtless, to hear and be edified by his discourses, which seldom failed to make a deep impression on those who had any share of good sense or true piety: — the Son of God, beholding such a vast multitude of men, bewildered in the darkness of ignorance, and lost in sin and wretchedness, had compassion on them, and feeling in himself a strong desire to give them more particular instruction than he had yet done in the infinitely important matters of religion; that he might deliver what he had to say to them on this most momentous subject, with more convenience to himself and advantage to them, he went up into a mountain — Which afforded room for all, and where, addressing them from an eminence, he could be seen and heard by great numbers. And when he was set — After the manner of the Jewish doctors, who, to show their authority, were wont to sit when they taught; his disciples came unto him — To be instructed by him as a teacher come from God. By his disciples here, not only those strictly so called, viz., the twelve, who were afterward chosen to be his apostles, are intended, but as many of the multitude as were willing to learn of him. And he opened his mouth — A phrase which, in the Scriptures, generally denotes the solemnity of the speaker, and the importance of what he delivers, and here signifies that he uttered the following weighty truths with great seriousness and earnestness. And taught them — As the great prophet and lawgiver of his church, the one way to present and future happiness, at the same time that he corrected those false notions of the Messiah’s kingdom which so generally prevailed, and which he foresaw would prove of destructive tendency to those who continued to be governed by them. Observe, reader! Christ thought it as lawful to preach on a mountain as in a synagogue; nor did his disciples doubt the lawfulness of hearing him wherever he thought fit to speak. Our Lord, it must be observed, pursues the most exact method in this divine discourse; describing, 1st, viz., in this chapter, the nature, excellency, and necessity of inward holiness; 2d, chap. 6., that purity of intention which must direct and animate our outward actions to render them holy; 3d, cautioning us against the grand hinderances of religion, and pointing out the chief means of attaining it: Matthew 7:1-20; and, 4th, making an application of the whole, Matthew 7:21-28.

2. The entire sermon was delivered by our Saviour at one time. We say this because Olshausen and others have conceded, contrary to Matthew’s plain purpose, that he has here gathered together a summary of the teachings of our Lord given forth at various times. According to that hypothesis, it is difficult to see how there was any Sermon on the Mount. Our Lord did no doubt, at various times, inculcate the same great truths, even in the same language, upon different audiences. Doubtless he reiterated many a time the same lesson. He was teacher as well as preacher; and what teacher does not repeat to his immature pupils the same principles, even to a weariness? “Why do you repeat that thing twenty times to that child?” was a question put to Mr. Wesley’s mother. “Because nineteen times will not do,” was the wise answer. Expressions in this sermon are repeated in Matthew 12:33; 15:14; (comp. Luke 6:39;) 18:8, 9; (comp. Mark 9:43-47.) So the Lord’s prayer is again not only uttered, but formally taught to the disciples at their own request. Luke 11:2-4. Matthew’s express words, that he opened his mouth and taught them saying these things, as well as his closing remark, that he ended these sayings, certainly affirm that this entire sermon was in substance delivered at that time. That the record is not indeed completely full, is apparent from the fact that Luke supplies some things omitted by Matthew, although, in general, Luke’s is much the briefest report of the discourse.

V. 3. Happy are the poor-In the following discourse there is,

1. A sweet invitation to true holiness and happiness, Matthew 5:3-12.

2. A persuasive to impart it to others, Matthew 5:13-16. 3. A description of true Christian holiness, Matthew 5:17; 7:12. (in which it is easy to observe, the latter part exactly answers the former.) 4. The conclusion: giving a sure mark of the true way, warning against false prophets, exhorting to follow after holiness.

The poor in spirit-They who are unfeignedly penitent, they who are truly convinced of sin; who see and feel the state they are in by nature, being deeply sensible of their sinfulness, guiltiness, helplessness. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven-The present inward kingdom: righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, as well as the eternal kingdom, if they endure to the end. Luke 6:20.

Verse 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, &c.] Or, happy, makarioi from ma or mh, not, and khr, fate, or death: intimating, that such persons were endued with immortality, and consequently were not liable to the caprices of fate. Homer, Iliad i, 330, calls the supreme gods, qewn makarwn, the ever happy and IMMORTAL gods, and opposes them to qnhtwn anqrwpwn, mortal men.

tw d~ autw marturoi estwn

Prov te qewn makarwn, prov te qnhtwn anqropwn.

“Be ye witnesses before the immortal gods, and before mortal men.” From this definition we may learn, that the person whom Christ terms happy is one who is not under the influence of fate or chance, but is governed by an all-wise providence, having every step directed to the attainment of immortal glory, being transformed by the power into the likeness of the ever-blessed God. Though some of the persons, whose states are mentioned in these verses, cannot be said to be as yet blessed or happy, in being made partakers of the Divine nature; yet they are termed happy by our Lord, because they are on the straight way to this blessedness. Taken in this light the meaning is similar to that expressed by the poet when describing a happy man.

FELIX, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas:

Atque metus omnes et inexorabile FATUM

Subjecit pedibus; strepitumque Acherontis avari!

Virg. Geor. ii. v. 490.

Which may be thus paraphrased:-

“Happy is he who gains the knowledge of the first cause of all things; who can trample on every fear, and the doctrine of inexorable FATE; and who is not terrified by death, nor by the threatened torments of the invisible world!”

Poor in spirit] One who is deeply sensible of his spiritual poverty and wretchedness. ptwcov, a poor man, comes from ptwssw, to tremble, or shrink with fear. Being destitute of the true riches, he is tremblingly alive to the necessities of his soul, shrinking with fear lest he should perish without the salvation of God. Such Christ pronounces happy, because there is but a step between them and that kingdom which is here promised. Some contend, that makarioi should be referred to, pneumati, and the verse translated thus: Happy, or blessed in spirit, are the poor. But our Lord seems to have the humiliation of the spirit particularly in view. Kingdom of heaven.] Or, twn ouranwn, of the heavens. A participation of all the blessings of the new covenant here, and the blessings of glory above. See this phrase explained, Clarke’s notes “Matthew 3:2”. Blessed are the poor! this is God’s word; but who believes it? Do we not say, Yea, rather, Blessed is the rich?

The Jewish rabbins have many good sayings relative to that poverty and humility of spirit which Christ recommends in this verse. In the treatise called Bammidbar Rabbi, s. 20, we have these words: There were three (evils) in Balaam: the evil eye, (envy,) the towering spirit, (pride,) and the extensive mind (avarice.)

Tanchum, fol. 84. The law does not abide with those who have the extensive mind, (avarice,) but with him only who has a contrite heart. Rabbi Chanina said, “Why are the words of the law compared to water? Because as waters flow from heights, and settle in low places, so the words of the law rest only with him who is of an humble heart.” See Schoettgen.

Verse 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit — The word makarioi, here rendered blessed, properly means happy, and it may be better to translate it so, because our Lord seems to intimate by it, not only that the dispositions here recommended are the way to future blessedness, but that they immediately confer the truest and most noble felicity. As happiness was the great end to which the wisest philosophers undertook to conduct their hearers, and as it is our common aim, and an object to the pursuit of which we are continually urged by an innate instinct, our Lord, whose great business in coming into the world was, to make mankind happy by making them holy, wisely and graciously begins his divine institution, which is the complete art of happiness, by pointing out the necessary connexion it has with holiness, and inciting to the latter by motives drawn from the former. In doing this we cannot but observe his benevolent condescension. He seems, as it were, to lay aside his supreme authority as our legislator, that he may the better act the part of our friend and Saviour. Instead of using the lofty style in positive commands, he, in a more gentle and engaging way, insinuates his will and our duty by pronouncing those happy who comply with it. And, in order to render his hearers more attentive, he proposes his doctrine in certain paradoxical dogmas, which, at first sight, may seem false to such as judge by appearance, but which, when attentively considered, are found to be most true. Indeed, as an old writer remarks, “All the beatitudes are affixed to unlikely conditions, to show that the judgment of the word and of the world are contrary.” By this expression, the poor in spirit, Grotius and Baxter understand those who bear a state of poverty and want with a disposition of quiet and cheerful submission to the divine will; and Mr. Mede interprets it of those who are ready to part with their possessions for charitable uses. But it seems much more probable that the truly humble are intended, or those who are sensible of their spiritual poverty, of their ignorance and sinfulness, their guilt, depravity, and weakness, their frailty and mortality; and who, therefore, whatever their outward situation in life may be, however affluent and exalted, think meanly of themselves, and neither desire the praise of men, nor covet high things in the world, but are content with the lot God assigns them, however low and poor. These are happy, because their humility renders them teachable, submissive, resigned, patient, contented, and cheerful in all estates; and it enables them to receive prosperity or adversity, health or sickness, ease or pain, life or death, with an equal mind. Whatever is allotted them short of those everlasting burnings which they see they have merited, they consider as a grace or favour. They are happy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven — The present, inward kingdom, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, as well as the eternal kingdom, if they endure to the end. The knowledge which they have of themselves, and their humiliation of soul before God, prepare them for the reception of Christ, to dwell and reign in their hearts, and all the other blessings of the gospel; the blessings both of grace and glory. For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy, I dwell in the high and holy place: with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15; 66:2. And those in whom God dwells here shall dwell with him hereafter.

Ver. 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit. These characters are justly noticed first, because they most of all feel their need of a Saviour. They renounce their sins, lay their boasting in the dust, and come as mendicants to the house of mercy. Here the rich man identifies himself with the poor, with the most abject and weak, and the learned man leaves the pride of science behind. They renounce all confidence in an arm of flesh, in vows and resolutions. These are the men who are heirs of promises, who experience an instantaneous conversion, and rush into the kingdom of heaven by the violence of faith and prayer. Their cry is, “Pour into our hearts such love towards thee, that we loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises which exceed all that we can desire.” Coll. 6. after Trinity. Then the kingdom of heaven is opened in their heart. Luke 17:21. Romans 14:17. God has chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom.

3. As this sermon was delivered upon the occasion of inaugurating the twelve apostles, so we may call it his Inauguration Sermon. It was delivered mainly to the inner circle of his apostles; yet, indirectly, for the benefit also of the listening multitudes. He taught his apostles what they must teach; and he thereby gave to the multitudes a check by which they could test the genuineness of the apostolic preaching. So the word of God should be in the hands of the people, that they may decide whether the preachers utter its truths.

Verse 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit. — Not the poor in opposition to the rich, for it is manifestly one great object of our Lord to call off the attention of his hearers from outward circumstances as necessarily connected with true felicity; nor those, as Grotius has it, “poor in mind,” that is, patiently and contentedly poor, as though our Lord were no more than a heathen teacher of the advantages of contentment. Poverty of spirit signifies the same thing as humility, considered in a religious sense; or, at least, it is the principle of humility, and so may be the character of men of widely different conditions, as to external rank, and excludes the notion of Campbell, and others subsequent to Grotius, who resolve it into that disposition which accommodates itself without murmuring to poor circumstances. There are many such contented persons who have no pretence at all to spirituality of mind; and how that should form any special qualification for “the kingdom of heaven,” such writers fail to show. Our Lord evidently alludes to Isaiah 66:2, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor,” or lowly, “and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” — Poverty of spirit implies a penitential sense of our guilt as sinners, and a deep conviction of our unworthiness and natural imbecility in all things relating to our salvation, accompanied by an entire dependence upon God for counsel, strength, and grace. It is the root of all true faith or trust in God; the exciting cause of that devotional habit which expresses itself in earnest, constant breathings after intercourse with him, and the exertion of his influence upon us; and it excludes all religious pride and boasting, for which the Jews, through their want of true humility, were so often reproved by Christ.

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. — Such were the only persons in a suitable state of mind to receive the new dispensation of truth and mercy introduced by Christ, and with this preparation of mind they would infallibly embrace it, with its spiritual benefits here and its rewards hereafter; for the kingdom of heaven established by Christ being spiritual, it comprehends both grace here, and glory hereafter. This beatitude is not to be confined to those to whom the Gospel was first preached. “The kingdom of heaven” is always “among” many who enter not into it for want of true poverty of spirit. To receive Christianity as a Divine institution, and, from a sense of our danger and necessity, to press, in the earnestness of prayer, and the vigorous actings of faith, into the personal experience of its spiritual blessings and future hopes, are distinct things; and through this lowly gate of humility only can we enter. The order of grace, as above stated, is, — “REPENT ye, and BELIEVE the Gospel.” Then comes that true “blessedness” which flows from the establishment of that kingdom of God in our hearts, which, is “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

V. 4. They that mourn-Either for their own sins, or for other men's, and are steadily and habitually serious.

They shall be comforted-More solidly and deeply even in this world, and eternally in heaven.

Verse 4. Blessed are they that mourn] That is, those who, feeling their spiritual poverty, mourn after God, lamenting the iniquity that separated them from the fountain of blessedness. Every one flies from sorrow, and seeks after joy, and yet true joy must necessarily be the fruit of sorrow. The whole need not (do not feel the need of) the physician, but they that are sick do; i.e. they who are sensible of their disease. Only such persons as are deeply convinced of the sinfulness of sin, feel tho plague of their own heart, and turn with disgust from all worldly consolations, because of their insufficiency to render them happy, have God’s promise of solid comfort. They SHALL BE comforted, says Christ, paraklhqhsontai, from para, near, and kalew, I call. He will call them to himself, and speak the words of pardon, peace, and life eternal, to their hearts. See this notion of the word expressed fully by our Lord, Matthew 11:28, COME UNTO ME all ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Verse 4. Blessed [or happy] are they that mourn — Namely, for their own sins and those of other men, and are steadily and habitually serious, watchful, and circumspect; for they shall be comforted — Even in this world, with the consolation that arises from a sense of the forgiveness of sins, peace with God, clear discoveries of his favour, and well-grounded, lively hopes of the heavenly inheritance, and with the full enjoyment of that inheritance itself in the world to come.

Ver. 4. Blessed are they that mourn, and grieve for all their sins, for the afflictions and miseries of human life, and who weep with those that weep. The Messiah is appointed to preach good tidings to the meek, to appoint unto them that mourn, interior beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, and the garments of praise, the white clothing worn on the Hebrew festivals, for the spirit of heaviness. God has a brilliant climax of consolations for souls that are depressed. He will remove their sins, and inspire them with the joys of remission; yea, with all consolation in Christ Jesus. He will deliver them in the day of trouble, and cause their sickness to prepare them for higher enjoyments of glory; and no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

4. Here remark, that our Lord did not, in direct word, term himself Messiah; but he assumed that position of authority which implied his Messiahship, and prepared the minds of the people to form a true conception of what the Messiah should be. For, first, he takes a position higher than Moses, speaking in his own name as if with an authority to supersede the founder of the first dispensation. And, second, he describes the kingdom of God with such traits as to imply that this new dispensation was to be wholly unlike the worldly and warlike kingdom which popular opinion expected. The multitudes still desired the Messiah which Satan proposed in the temptation, (Matthew 4:9-11.) The world and Satan agreed in their Messiah; but God and Christ agreed in the Messiah of a very different nature. To banish from the popular mind its spurious conception of a Messiah, with his worldly, warlike, diabolical kingdom, is a main purpose of this sermon. Its whole train of blessings, its whole body of doctrines and precepts, are for the true subjects of the divine kingdom. Its woes, its prohibitions, its refutations are against the tempers, practices, and doctrines of the partisans and expectants of the kingdom which Satan suggested to Christ.

Verse 4. Blessed are they that mourn, &c. — This on the first view appears paradoxical; nor is it to be explained by referring the mourning and the subsequent comfort merely to outward things as their cause. There is, indeed, no blessedness in being plunged into afflictions to have the comfort of being ultimately relieved from them. This “saying” of our Lord may be taken,

1. To refer to that inward distress which the recollection of our offences against God produces in a contrite heart. It implies, however, tenderness as well as alarm; it regards sin against God in his characters of goodness and love, as well as those of majesty and justice; and hence that loathing of it, and those strong struggles to get free from its bondage, which characterize a genuine repentance. Such mourners are pronounced blessed by our Lord, not in reference to their present state, which is one of wretchedness; but to the “comfort” of the Holy Ghost which shall assuredly follow. To all such is promised the remission of sins, and the pledge of adoption in the abiding presence and solacing influence of “the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.” From true poverty of spirit proceeds this holy mourning, as from its principle.

2. It may also respect the afflictions of good men, considered in reference to those moral ends which we know from the doctrine of providence, as it is taught by our Lord and his apostles, the sufferings of such persons actually accomplish under Divine direction. The “comfort” however, in such cases, is not always the removal of afflictive circumstances. These may remain, and yet the promise of Christ shall stand firm. That consolation arises from the instruction and correction which sanctified troubles administer under the influence of grace; the special supports which are given in answer to prayer; the refining of the affections of the soul from remaining earthliness; and the stronger and more lively anticipations of that eternal rest where there shall be “no more pain, nor tears, nor death.”

V. 5. Happy are the meek-They that hold all their passions and affections evenly balanced.

They shall inherit the earth-They shall have all things really necessary for life and godliness. They shall enjoy whatever portion God hath given them here, and shall hereafter possess the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Verse 5. Blessed are the meek] Happy, oi praeiv, from raov, easy, those who are of a quiet, gentle spirit, in opposition to the proud and supercilious Scribes and Pharisees and their disciples. We have a compound word in English, which once fully expressed the meaning of the original, viz. gentleman; but it has now almost wholly lost its original signification. Our word meek comes from the old Anglo-saxon meca, or meccea, a companion or equal, because he who is of a meek or gentle spirit, is ever ready to associate with the meanest of those who fear God, feeling himself superior to none; and well knowing that he has nothing of spiritual or temporal good but what he has received from the mere bounty of God, having never deserved any favour from his hand. For they shall inherit the earth.] Or, thn ghn, the land. Under this expression, which was commonly used by the prophets to signify the land of Canaan, in which all temporal good abounded, Judges 18:9, 10, Jesus Christ points out that abundance of spiritual good, which was provided for men in the Gospel. Besides, Canaan was a type of the kingdom of God; and who is so likely to inherit glory as the man in whom the meekness and gentleness of Jesus dwell? In some good MSS. and several ancient versions, the fourth and fifth verses are transposed: see the authorities in the various readings in Professor Griesbach’s edition. The present arrangement certainly is most natural: 1. Poverty, to which the promise of the kingdom is made. 2. Mourning or distress, on account of this impoverished state, to which consolation is promised. And 3. Meekness established in the heart by the consolations received.

Verse 5. Blessed [or happy] are the meek — Persons of a mild, gentle, long-suffering, and forgiving disposition, who are slow to anger, and averse from wrath; not easily provoked, and if at any time at all provoked, soon pacified; who never resent an injury, nor return evil for evil; but make it their care to overcome evil with good; who by the sweetness, affability, courteousness, and kindness of their disposition, endeavour to reconcile such as may be offended, and to win them over to peace and love. For they shall inherit the earth — Whatever happiness can be enjoyed here below shall be their portion. They may not indeed be advanced to honour or affluence; nor can they expect to be without troubles in this fallen world, subjected as it is to vanity and misery for the sin of man; but the calamities of life, and the various afflictions and trials which they meet with, being received with a quiet spirit, a resigned, patient, and contented mind, are hardly felt, while the blessings of Providence, through the gratitude they feel for them, are tasted and enjoyed in all their sweetness and comfort.

Ver. 5. Blessed are the meek, as David says, for they shall inherit the earth. Psalms 37:11Psalm 37:11. This is the opposite grace of the high, the proud, and revengeful temper of belligerent spirits. It gives the good man a dignity and an ascendency over his angry brother, by all the calm of self-possession. He disdains revenge, and overcomes evil with good.

The word hwn[ gnanevah, mansuetudo, meekness is of constant

occurrence in the old testament for the character of the righteous, and invariably designates meekness, humility, poverty, and affliction. It is the association of every virtue, and every excellence in the christian temper. The name is often joined with words of similar import, as in Zephaniah 3:12. “I will leave a humble and a tender people in the midst of thee, and they shall trust in the Lord.” The spirit of this beatitude is, that God will be the consolation, defence, and avenger of his people. He will arise to save the meek of the earth. Psalms 86:9Psalm 86:9. He will also bless them with length of days, as is abundantly promised in the holy scriptures. Exodus 20:12. 23:28. Isaiah 55:22. Jeremiah 35:19. 2 Timothy 4:8.

5. The central IDEA of the discourse is the establishment of the new dispensation as the kingdom of God on earth. Of that kingdom God is king, but God as FATHER; so that this dispensation is both kingdom and family; and by coming under its dominion, we become not only subjects, but children. Christ, as first-born, is visible king; and all we are, with and under him, brethren, and under God, the Father-king. God, as our sovereign Father, is mentioned expressly some fifteen times, besides other phrases of paternity, and numerous allusions to our childlike relation. Matthew 5:16; 6:1, 4, 6, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21. § 36. — SERMON ON THE MOUNT

1. Seeing the multitudes — Gathered together, doubtless with the understanding that a great discourse was to be uttered. As Luke informs us, he had spent the night previous in the Mount in solitary prayer. In the morning he called and formally chose his twelve apostles. Luke says he then walked down with the twelve to the level plain, or “table-land.” There it was that the mighty multitudes met him; from Tyre and Sidon north, from Judea and Jerusalem south, they had assembled in vast volume. He had prepared authority for his teachings by countless miracles. The loving multitudes pressed upon him, for power went forth out of him to heal them. At this point Matthew’s history commences, beginning with the opening words of this verse: seeing the pressing multitudes he went up into THE (not A, as in our translation) mountain.

What mountain this was is not said by either evangelist. Tradition, however, has selected a mount, which has been called from the event, “The Mount of Beatitudes,” which is thus beautifully described by Stanley, a writer not remarkable for ready credulity for tradition: “The undulating table-land, which skirts the hills of Galilee on the east, is broken by a long low ridge rising at its northern extremity into a square shaped hill with two tops, which give it the modern name of ‘the Horns of Hattin,’ Hattin being the village on the ridge at its base. This mountain or hill — for it only rises sixty feet above the plain — is that known to pilgrims as the Mount of the Beatitudes, the supposed scene of the ‘Sermon on the Mount.’ The tradition cannot lay claim to any early date; it was in all probability suggested first to the Crusaders by its remarkable situation. But that situation so strikingly coincides with the intimations of the Gospel narrative, as almost to force the inference that, in this instance, the eye of those who selected the spot was, for once, rightly guided. It is the only height seen in this direction from the shores of the Lake of Gennesaret. The plain on which it stands is easily accessible from the lake, and from that plain to the summit is but a few minutes’ walk. The platform at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds precisely to the ‘level place’ (topou pedinou) to which He would ‘come down’ as from one of its higher horns to address the people. Its situation is central both to the peasants of the Galilean hills and the fishermen of the Galilean lake, between which it stands, and would therefore be a natural resort both to ‘Jesus and his disciples’ when they retired for solitude from the shores of the sea, and also to the crowds who assembled ‘from Galilee, from Decapolis, from Jerusalem, from Judea, and from beyond Jordan.’ None of the other mountains in the neighbourhood could answer equally well to this description, inasmuch as they are merged into the uniform barrier of hills round the lake; whereas this stands separate, ‘the mountain,’ which alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the exception of the one height of Tabor, which is too distant to answer the requirements.”

From this description we see that there are, in the locality, three grades of elevation above the ordinary level of ground. First, the “table-land;” second, the broad area on the hill-top; from which rise, third, the “Horns.” We rather suppose that Jesus spent the previous night of devotion in one of the “Horns;” his inauguration of his apostles is upon the level hill-top; whence he descends with the twelve and meets the multitude upon the “table-land,” or level plain of Luke. Had we Luke’s account alone, we should infer that the sermon was delivered upon the “tableland,” which is, indeed, a part proper of “the Mount.” But from Matthew’s words, “seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mount,” we learn that Jesus led up the multitudes from the “table-land to the broad level upon the hill.” This he doubtless did for the high symbolic reasons that induced the choice of Sinai, Gerizim, Ebal, and Zion for scenes of sublime inaugurations. Herein it will be seen that we differ from Stanley in our identifying the “level plain” (topau pedinou) with the “table-land,” rather than with the level “hill-top.” This view completely conciliates the preparatory statements of the three evangelists.

When he was set — The Jewish rabbi sat in delivering instruction to his pupils. Disciples came — And formed the inmost circle of auditors.

2. Opened his mouth — The phrase expresses the importance of the utterance. The Orientals, especially the Hindoos, when narrating the commands or precepts of some god, hero, or teacher, use the phrase, he opened his mouth, as a formula of high dignity. They use for the word opened, not the ordinary term for opening a door, but the term that designates the opening or expanding of a flower. Saying — This word implies that the following is a substantial summary of his discourse. The discourse itself has been treated too much by commentators as a mere series of sentiments and maxims, with little plan or symmetry as a whole. If we mistake not, there exists a true order of parts, not formally announced or artificially studied, but naturally arising from the true position of the discourse. Tholuck and Stier have both given plans of the discourse, founded on their own analyses. My own plan differs wholly from either, being, as I conceive, more simple, true, and accordant with the position of the sermon as a platform amid surrounding religious systems. The discourse, as a programme of the principles of the New Testament dispensation, is clearly distinguishable into three parts, and the following may be given as its outline:

PLAN.

I. CHRISTIAN PIETY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM IRRELIGION. Matthew 5:3-16.

1. Nine benedictions upon humility, penitence, meekness, aspirations after goodness, mercy, purity, peacemaking, and holy suffering for righteousness’ sake. 3-12.

2. Woes pronounced upon contrary traits. Luke 6:24-26.

3. Active duties enjoined upon the blessed ones. 13-16. II. CHRISTIAN PIETY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDAISM. Matthew 5:17; 6:19.

1. Is the completion of pure Judaism. 17-20.

2. Distinguished from degenerate Judaism, in regard to (1.) angry passions, (2.) sexual purity, (3.) oaths, (4.) conciliation, (5.) moral love, (6.) sincerity in alms, prayer, and fasting. Matthew 5:20-6:18.

III. CHRISTIANITY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM GENTILISM. Matthew 6:19-7:27.

1. Supreme trust in God our provident Father. Matthew 6:19-34.

(1.) The earth-treasures must not come into competition with the heavenly treasures. 19-23.

(2.) The world-god must not stand in competition with our heavenly Father. 24-34.

2. Supreme reverence for God as our adjudging Father.

Matthew 7:1-27.

(1.) Usurp not his place as Judge. Matthew 7:1-6.

(2.) Confide in his more than earthly paternity. 7-12.

(3.) Enter the narrow way to him, avoiding all false guides. 13-20.

(4.) Profession no assurance before his judgment-bar. 21-23.

(5.) We stand or fall in judgment, only by obedience to Christ’s words. 24-27.

I. CHRISTIAN PIETY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM IRRELIGION.

The Nine Benedictions, 3-12.

3. Blessed — The Gospel opens with a blessing, again and again. There are more than the sacred seven. There are the thrice three; the well rounded nine benedictions. How many were the woes which solemnly echoed to them we know not; for Matthew omits them, and Luke gives them, perhaps, incompletely. This word blessed conveys not an opinion or a prayer, as human benedictions do, but a sentence or a decree. Such things are blessed, not because he says they are merely, but because he makes and pronounces them so. It is an anticipation of that final, “Come ye blessed,” which he will pronounce upon his judgment throne. Our Lord here truly speaks with authority, as the one who will be the final judge of human destiny.

Blessed means not merely happy, as even Mr. Wesley renders it. As happiness is higher than pleasure, so blessedness is higher than happiness. Blessedness is more truly divine. It is the more than happiness produced by God’s sunshine in the soul.

Poor in spirit — The spirit is the immortal nature in man; and especially the moral part of the human soul wherewith a man is religious and receives and communes with the Divine Spirit. He whose spirit the Gospel finds already supplied and falsely rich with something else than the Gospel, cannot receive the Gospel. If the spirit be full and satisfied with some false religion, or pride, or earthly good, or moralism, it has no room or receptivity for the Gospel, and no blessing from Christ. So the outright, self-conscious sinner, morally poor in fact and poor in spirit, is often more likely to receive the Gospel than he who has something that is not religion in the place of religion. Blessed, then, is he who has a receptive vacancy, a poverty, real and felt, for the Gospel.

Kingdom of heaven — A very bountiful filling up of the vacuity. The pauper shall be a king; his empty box shall be filled with royal treasures.

4. They that mourn — Of course all the terms are to be understood as within the sphere of religion. The mourning is not secular, but religious grief — penitence. As sin is the only essential evil, so this mourning is for sin. And for sin the only comfort is forgiveness and divine favour. Penitence is a blessed receptivity of the true blessedness.

5. The meek — Who are placidly ready, without pride or captiousness, to receive the good. They shall inherit the earth — Rather, the land. As Israel were to enjoy the promised land below, so the true Israel shall enjoy that land of which the earthly land was typical.

Verse 5. Blessed are the meek. — Meekness implies the absence of all irascible and malignant passions, and is the fruit of regenerating grace. It is a state of the soul produced by the habitual and supreme influence of prudence and benevolence. It is, therefore, patient of sufferings, and forgiving of injuries; and, however contrary the natural constitution of the mind may be to this affection, it is the certain effect of the Holy Spirit’s influence, fully received, to produce it in all who seek it. The example of Christ specially enforces this temper, in which strength and loveliness are so strikingly combined, upon his followers, and it is carefully enjoined in the writings of his apostles as an essential branch of true religion; for in the Christian system doctrines and external ordinances are regarded only as MEANS to the attainment of good principles, benevolent affections, and rightly ordered words and actions, and have no other value assigned them; a circumstance which always distinguishes true Christianity from its own corrupted forms, and from all the systems of Jewish and Gentile superstition. Meekness was little regarded as an element of practical piety among the Jews; though sometimes praised by their writers, and strongly urged in their Scriptures. For this reason, as well as to inculcate it upon all his followers, our Lord gives it an eminent place in this discourse, which formally unfolds the principles and characters of his religion. For they shall inherit the earth. — Gh, here rendered earth, often means, in Scripture, the land of Judea. Those seem to err who confine this promise to the calm and placid enjoyment of life, which meekness of spirit tends to promote. This is undoubtedly true, as well as that a meek spirit often creates friends and secures advantages. But far below the meaning of our Lord are these earthly views. The language of the promise is taken from the promises made to the Jews, that they should inherit the land of Canaan, but from the time of Abraham, Canaan was invested with a typical character, and represented to the faith and hope of spiritually-minded Jews, the great inheritance of heaven. That was “the land afar off,” where “the King” was to be seen in his “beauty,” or, in other words, where a more glorious display was to be made of the majesty and worship of God, than in the temple of Jerusalem, even while God himself dwelt there, and all the pomp of the Levitical worship was observed. To the meek, therefore, the inheritance of the heavenly Canaan is here promised; and none but the meek shall inherit it; for without this essential branch of “holiness, no man shall see the Lord.” A beautiful contrast may also be remarked in this passage. The Jews came into possession of the land of Canaan through deeds of blood and force of arms; but the Christian warfare is not carnal but spiritual; and patience, humility, gentleness, and charity, are the arms by which we urge our way into the inheritance of heaven. Nor was our Lord’s use of the phrase, “inheriting the earth,” in the sense of enjoying future felicity, at all out of the common way of speaking among the Jews. Maimonides, following earlier authorities, interprets “inheriting the land for ever, in Isaiah 60:21, in a figurative sense, as referring to the happiness of a future state; and perhaps there was floating in Plato’s mind some notion of terrestrial things being, in some respects, the types and emblems of heavenly ones; he calls heaven, “as it were the TRUE EARTH,” wv alhqwv gh.

Ah! what is death? ‘Tis life’s vast shore,

Where vanities are vain no more;

Where all pursuits their goal obtain,

And life is all retouch’d again.

GAMBOLD.

V. 6. They that hunger and thirst after righteousness-After the holiness here described.

They shall be satisfied with it.

Verse 6. They which do hunger and thirst] As the body has its natural appetites of hunger and thirst for the food and drink suited to its nourishment, so has the soul. No being is indestructible or unfailing in its nature but GOD; no being is independent but him: as the body depends for its nourishment, health, and strength upon the earth, so does the soul upon heaven. Heavenly things cannot support the body; they are not suited to its nature: earthly things cannot support the soul, for the same reason. When the uneasy sensation termed hunger takes place in the stomach, we know we must get food or perish. When the soul is awakened to a tense of its wants, and begins to hunger and thirst after righteousness or holiness, which is its proper food, we know that it must be purified by the Holy Spirit, and be made a partaker of that living bread, John 8:48, or perish everlastingly. Now, as God never inspires a prayer but with a design to answer it, he who hungers and thirsts after the full salvation of God, may depend on being speedily and effectually blessed or satisfied, well-fed, as the word cortasqhsontai implies. Strong and intense desire after any object has been, both by poets and orators, represented metaphorically by hunger and thirst. See the well-known words of Virgil, Æneid iii. 55. ---------Quid non mortalia pectora cogis,

Auri sacra FAMES!

“O cursed hunger after gold! what canst thou not influence the hearts of men to perpetrate?” How frequently do we find, inexplebilis honorum FAMES-SITIENS virtutis-famæ SITUS, the insatiable hunger after honour, a thirst for virtue, thirst after fame, and such like! Righteousness here is taken for all the blessings of the new covenant-all the graces of the Messiah’s kingdom-a full restoration to the image of God!

Verse 6. Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness — That, instead of desiring the possessions of others, and endeavouring to obtain them by violence or deceit; and instead of coveting this world’s goods, sincerely, earnestly, and perseveringly desire universal holiness of heart and life, or deliverance from all sinful dispositions and practices, and a complete restoration of their souls to the image of God in which they were created: a just and beautiful description this of that fervent, constant, increasing, restless, and active desire; of that holy ardour and vehemence of soul in pursuit of the most eminent degrees of universal goodness which will end in complete satisfaction: For they shall be filled — Shall obtain the righteousness which they hunger and thirst for, and be abundantly satisfied therewith.

Ver. 6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness — all the righteousness which is of God by faith, and which he has promised to rain down upon the earth, as he once rained manna on the camp of Israel. Isaiah 45:8. This is the proper food of the soul. It is Christ, the true bread, who came down from heaven. For this bread we must hunger, for this fountain we must thirst. The two metaphors are very impressive. When we are hungry we desire food; when we are thirsty we desire drink. Nothing will do but food for the hungry, nothing but water for the faint. Gold is despised for bread. The desire of food to the hungry encreases to fever and burning heat; and the oppressed will use all endeavours to obtain meat. To offer the hungry riches and honours, is to mock at their miseries. The sensations of hunger constantly pursue them; and they die, if food be not afforded. — The promise more than supplies their wants; they shall be filled — filled with all joy and peace through believing. The good Shepherd will lead them to green pastures, and make them to lie down beside the still waters. Psalms 23:2Psalm 23:2. They shall be fed with all the superabundance of the gospel feast. Isaiah 55:2. John 7:37.

6. Hunger and thirst. — Here is something more than mere vacuity, or penitence, or tranquil readiness. It is an ardent longing — a holy appetite for all that is right and good. Filled — The Gospel can fill the largest desire for the true good.

Thus far has Jesus, in the act of propounding his Gospel, pronounced preparatory blessings on those who are variously ready to receive it. Four benedictions are thus conferred on a proper receptiveness of heart. He next pronounces two benedictions on positive traits of character; the one being a natural virtue sanctified by grace, the other a gracious state wrought by piety.

Verse 6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst, &c. — Here the strong desires of the mind are represented by the appetites of the body, a metaphor common in all languages. Righteousness is to be taken in the sense of holiness; which consists in the entire renewal of the soul after the image of God; which cannot be obtained without vehement desires, prayers, and efforts, and with which all those shall be abundantly satisfied who thus seek it. In them there shall be no lack of any virtue to complete the full and mature character of a true Christian. Desires so strong to be delivered from all sin, and to be endued with all moral excellences, must necessarily produce constant and earnest prayers to God for the renewing influences of his grace; but as God worketh in man “to will and to do,” that he may be encouraged to “work out his own salvation,” so in proportion to the sincerity with which we seek to obtain and to preserve a truly righteous state of heart, will be the diligence we shall use in all those means which God has appointed for the mortification of sin, the resistance of temptation, and the exercise of our virtues. Some writers, observing that diyaw in classical writers governs a genitive caste, suppose an ellipsis of dia before dikaiosunhn, and so take the passage to be a declaration of the happiness of those who suffer hunger and thirst for the sake of righteousness; which would, however, make it the same benediction as that in verses 10 and 11. But in Hellenistic Greek diyaw is found followed with an accusative, as in the text; instances of which occur in the Septuagint, the Wisdom of Solomon, in Philo and Josephus.

V. 7. The merciful-The tender-hearted: they who love all men as themselves:

They shall obtain mercy-Whatever mercy therefore we desire from God, the same let us show to our brethren. He will repay us a thousand fold, the love we bear to any for his sake.

Verse 7. The merciful] The word mercy, among the Jews, signified two things: the pardon of injuries, and almsgiving. Our Lord undoubtedly takes it in its fullest latitude here. To know the nature of mercy, we have only to consult the grammatical meaning of the Latin word misericordia, from which ours is derived. It is composed of two words: miserans, pitying, and cor, the heart; or miseria cordis, pain of heart. Mercy supposes two things: 1. A distressed object: and, 2. A disposition of the heart, through which it is affected at the sight of such an object. This virtue, therefore, is no other than a lively emotion of the heart, which is excited by the discovery of any creature’s misery; and such an emotion as manifests itself outwardly, by effects suited to its nature. The merciful man is here termed by our Lord elehmwn, from eleov, which is generally derived from the Hebrew lyj chil, to be in pain, as a woman in travail: or from lly galal, to cry, or lament grievously; because a merciful man enters into the miseries of his neighbour, feels for and mourns with him. They shall obtain mercy.] Mercy is not purchased but at the price of mercy itself; and even this price is a gift of the mercy of God. What mercy can those vindictive persons expect, who forgive nothing, and are always ready to improve every advantage they have of avenging themselves? Whatever mercy a man shows to another, God will take care to show the same to him. The following elegant and nervous saying of one of our best poets is worthy of the reader’s most serious attention:- “The quality of mercy is not strained;

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed;

It blesseth him who gives, and him who takes:

‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes

The throned monarch better than his crown.

It is an attribute of God himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God’s,

When mercy seasons justice.--------

Though justice be thy plea, consider this,

That, in the course of justice, none of us

Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy.--------

Why, all the souls that are, were forfeit once:

And he who might the ‘vantage best have took

Found out the remedy. How would you be,

If He who is the top of judgment should

But judge you as you are? O! think on that;

And mercy then will breathe within your lips,

Like man, new made.

How shalt thou hope for mercy, rend’ring none?”

In the tract Shabbath, fol. 151, there is a saying very like this of our Lord. “He who shows mercy to men, God will show mercy to him: but to him who shows no mercy to man, God will show no mercy.

Verse 7. Blessed [or happy] are the merciful — The tender-hearted, compassionate, kind, and beneficent, who, being inwardly affected with the infirmities, necessities, and miseries of their fellow-creatures, and feeling them as their own, with tender sympathy endeavour, as they have ability, to relieve them; and who, not confining their efforts to the communicating of temporal relief to the needy and wretched, labour also to do spiritual good; to enlighten the darkness of men’s minds, heal the disorders of their souls, and reclaim them from vice and misery, from every unholy and unhappy temper, from every sinful word and work; always manifesting a readiness to forgive the faults of others, as they themselves need and expect forgiveness from God. The merciful, says Erasmus, are those “who, through brotherly love, account another person’s misery their own; who weep over the calamities of others; who, out of their own property, feed the hungry and clothe the naked; who admonish those that are in error, inform the ignorant, pardon the offending; and who, in short, use their utmost endeavours to relieve and comfort others.” They shall obtain mercy — When they most need it. As they deal with their fellow-creatures, God will deal with them. He will incline men to show them mercy and deal kindly with them in this world, and he himself will grant them mercy and loving kindness in the day of final accounts. And since the best and happiest of mankind may need even the former, and inasmuch as all will want the latter, this is surely a strong and powerful argument to persuade us to show mercy to men, in any and every way in our power, that both God and men may show mercy to us. Add to this, that, were there no other inducement, the comfort and satisfaction arising from a disposition that renders us so like our heavenly Father, might, one would suppose, be sufficient to prevail with us to endeavour, especially in this instance, to imitate Him who, being touched with the feeling of our infirmities, was daily employed in relieving them, and even took them upon himself, continually going about doing good, and at last giving up his life to ransom ours.

Ver. 7. Blessed are the merciful, who possess a kind and feeling disposition, emanating from the love of God shed abroad in the heart. HE is good to all, sending his rain on the just, and on the unjust; and he teaches his children to do the same. It is their province to heal the wounded mind, to give bread to the hungry, and employ the poor. All these good offices are feasts of charity, in which the benevolent taste the pleasures of a God. — To them the promise is sure; they shall obtain mercy. God will pardon, and will cover all their sins, but not as debts for alms. Unto the upright there arises light in the darkness. Job had been eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame; and the Lord lifted up his head above all his sore afflictions. Job 29:42. To real christians, who are ever distinguished by charity, the Lord promised the riches of the gentiles. Isaiah 54:3. And where poverty attends the saints, that promise is sure to all: they shall be rewarded at the resurrection of the just. Psalms 4:3Psalm 4:3.

7. Blessed are the merciful — Mercy is the exercise of benevolence toward the unfortunate or guilty. It may and does exist as a natural quality in the human heart. It is an approvable trait which has survived the fall. We must here distinguish between a virtue and a piety. A virtue may exist in unregenerate nature. It is an excellence. Nor is it, like some excellences, as beauty of person, elegance of manners, strength of intellect, taste for literature, a mere neutral excellence; for as a moral excellence it is in itself superior to any of these. Moral virtues stand as good by themselves, as approved by man, and even, in a sense, approved by God; inasmuch as even to God himself they are better than their absence, or their opposite instead.

But all mere virtue is defective unless the sanctifying grace of God brightens and heightens it to piety. For (1.) it is in itself defective, not being as perfect as it should be. (2.) Being defective, it cannot receive the unqualified favour of God. (3.) Virtues not heightened to piety may be used to wicked ends, as Absalom used his own justice, amiableness, and beauty to win Israel to rebellion. (4.) Mere unregenerate virtues cannot atone for our sins of countless multiplicity. They cannot stand in the place of the Redeemer; nay, they may ruin us by inducing us to make these a substitute for him.

Verse 7. Blessed are the merciful, &c. — The exercise of mercy to others is often enjoined by our Lord with the strongest emphasis, and he enforces it by the highest example, that of God our heavenly Father; by the utter inconsistency of a selfish, obdurate disposition with the profession of his religion; and by the fearful menace of mercy being withheld from us if we deny it to others. To be merciful, implies a sympathizing regard to the miseries of others; liberality in relieving their distresses according to our utmost power; the ready forgiveness of offences, and the remission of obligations due to ourselves when the parties are unable to discharge them. And often, as to outward things, even is the promise fulfilled, that the merciful shall obtain mercy from God, in the gracious interpositions of his providence, and in the forgiveness of our sins. The latter is doubtless included in “obtaining mercy;” and though we cannot plead the exercise of mercy to others as giving us any claim upon so undeserved a blessing, yet thereby we remove out of the way that which would be an insuperable obstacle to the exercise of the mercy of God as to our own delinquencies and violated obligations.

V. 8. The pure in heart-The sanctified: they who love God with all their hearts.

They shall see God-In all things here; hereafter in glory.

Verse 8. Pure in heart] In opposition to the Pharisees, who affected outward purity, while their hearts were full of corruption and defilement. A principal part of the Jewish religion consisted in outward washings and cleansings: on this ground they expected to see God, to enjoy eternal glory: but Christ here shows that a purification of the heart, from all vile affections and desires, is essentially requisite in order to enter into the kingdom of God. He whose soul is not delivered from all sin, through the blood of the covenant, can have no Scriptural hope of ever being with God. There is a remarkable illustration of this passage, quoted by Mr. Wakefield from Origen, Contra Cels. lib. vi. “God has no body, and therefore is invisible: but men of contemplation can discern him with the heart and understanding. But A DEFILED HEART CANNOT SEE GOD: but HE MUST BE PURE WHO WISHES TO ENJOY A PROPER VIEW OF A PURE BEING.” Shall see God.] This is a Hebraism, which signifies, possess God, enjoy his felicity: as seeing a thing, was used among the Hebrews for possessing it. See Psalms 16:10Psalm 16:10. Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption, i.e. he shall not be corrupted. So John 3:3: Except a man be born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God, i.e. he cannot enjoy it. So John 3:16. He that believeth not the Son, shall not SEE life, i. e shall not be put in possession of eternal glory. The Hindoo idolaters vainly boast of what the genuine followers of Christ actually enjoy-having the Divine favour witnessed to their souls by the Holy Spirit. The Hindoos pretend that some of their sages have been favoured with a sight of their guardian deity.-See WARD’S Customs.

Probably our Lord alludes to the advantages those had, who were legally pure, of entering into the sanctuary, into the presence of God, while those who had contracted any legal defilement were excluded from it. This also was obviously typical.

Verse 8. The pure in heart — Those whose hearts are purified by faith; who are not only sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood of Jesus, but cleansed by the Spirit of God from vain thoughts, unprofitable reasonings, earthly and sensual desires, and corrupt passions; who are purified from pride, self-will, discontent, impatience, anger, malice, envy, covetousness, ambition; whose hearts are circumcised to love the Lord their God with all their hearts, and their neighbours as themselves, and who, therefore, are not only upright before him, but possess and maintain purity of intention and of affection in all their designs, works, and enjoyments; serving him continually with a single eye and an undivided heart. They shall see God — Namely, in the glass of his works, whether of creation, providence, or grace, here, and face to face hereafter: they shall have fellowship with him in his ordinances, and shall endure as seeing him that is invisible, while they walk by faith on earth, and shall be admitted to the most perfect vision and complete enjoyment of him in heaven.

Ver. 8. Blessed are the pure in heart. A clean heart is the mother of every virtue. David expresses the same sentiment in Psalms 24:3Psalm 24:3. “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart.” This purity implies a new creation of the inner man, the renewal of a right spirit within us. It is the putting off of the old man, and the putting on of the new. It is a resurrection with Christ to newness of life, the awaking up of the soul into the divine likeness, which alone can prepare us for the vision of God. The words of John are of similar import: “we know that we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” What a change is sanctification, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Let our prayer be, Create in me a clean heart, oh God, and renew a right spirit within me. Psalms 51:10Psalm 51:10. Let us expect it instantaneously, that the Lord would destroy the man of sin by the breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming. Here is a beautiful climax of graces, rising from poverty of spirit to purity of heart.

8. Blessed are the pure in heart — Here is a trait of character which God’s Spirit can alone produce. This is sanctification. It may exist in different degrees. It may be partial; it may be complete. Even when complete, it may, in this world, coexist with many an error of judgment, and many a defect of temperament. Yet it enables us to live without offending God, so as to maintain for us the permanent undiminished fulness of the divine approbation. And when the heart is clean, the eye is clear. When purity makes us like God, then can we realize and see his countenance. The eye of the pure spirit beholds the pure Spirit. Through the beams he shed down upon us, we can look up and see the face that shines. In the light of his smile we behold his smile. So the pure in heart shall see God.

Verse 8. Blessed are the pure in heart. — Here again our Lord, according to the spirit and intent of his whole discourse, turns the attention of his hearers from those outward purifications which the more superstitious Jews, and especially the Pharisees, so carefully preached, and the importance of which they so greatly exaggerated, to the purification of the HEART. In that lies the true fountain of evil; and there the sanctification of man must begin and be completed. This purity of heart respects the intention, in opposition to religious hypocrisy; and so consists in the simple, unmixed desire to please God in all things: it implies, also, the extirpation of all unholy desires, imaginations, tendencies, and affections. But this cannot be a negative state only; the absence of all evil is necessarily the presence of all good. Hence, in this condition of mind, truth becomes the clear light of the judgment, and the exact rule of conscience; the will is rendered cheerfully submissive to Divine authority; God is loved “with all the heart, and mind, and soul, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves;” and “whatsoever things are” externally, and in their outward, practical manifestation, “true, whatsoever things are” honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise,” the root of all, if they are real, and not simulated virtues, is a pure heart; a nature, to use St. Paul’s words, “sanctified wholly;” to effect which entire sanctification of man is the peculiar and glorious work of the Holy Ghost, through the Gospel. For they shall see God. — This is not merely to enjoy his favour and special protection here and hereafter, as the phrase is taken by some to import. It has a larger meaning; and must be interpreted by other scriptures. Moses “endured, as SEEING Him who is invisible;” that is, he had respect to the power and faithfulness of a present God, and was thus preserved from fearing the wrath of Pharaoh. David had respect to God, setting him always “at his right hand,” and thus, through his trust in him, was not “moved,” not agitated or oppressed, by his troubles. We have also the phrases of “walking in the light of God’s countenance,” and of “his face being turned toward the objects of his favour;” both of which imply intimate and gracious intercourse between God and his people. An habitual regard to the invisible Creator and Preserver in his visible works, and the recognition of his agency, and a right understanding of his purposes, both in judgments and in mercies, are also acts by which we are said to see God; and rightly to understand the Gospel of Christ, and so to love the truth which it reveals, and habitually and affectionately to meditate upon it, is called “beholding with unveiled face the glory of the Lord.” In all these respects the pure in heart see God on earth; and the more fully and habitually so, as their purity becomes more perfect. The promise, however, chiefly respects a future life. To see God, as he manifests himself to the glorified spirits of the redeemed in heaven, has from the beginning been the crowning hope of good men, and formed their noblest conception of future felicity and glory. Thus Job, “In my flesh shall I SEE God;” and of the man that “walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly,” Isaiah says, “Thine eyes shall SEE THE KING in his beauty.” — Concurring with these views, and with special reference to these very words of our Saviour, St. John has the following glowing passage: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall SEE HIM AS HE IS. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” Those who would confine the purity of heart spoken of in this verse to purity of intention, would not greatly err, if they extended the notion as far as Bernard, who defines purity of intention to consist “in directing all our actions to the honour of God, the good of our neighbour, and the preservation of a good conscience.” But how vast how complete a change in man’s moral nature does all this necessarily suppose! a change only to be accomplished by the great power of God, “working in us that which is well pleasing in his sight, that we may be perfect in every good work to do his will.”

V. 9. The peace makers-They that out of love to God and man do all possible good to all men.

Peace in the Scripture sense implies all blessings temporal and eternal. They shall be called the children of God-Shall be acknowledged such by God and man. One would imagine a person of this amiable temper and behaviour would be the darling of mankind. But our Lord well knew it would not be so, as long as Satan was the prince of this world. He therefore warns them before of the treatment all were to expect, who were determined thus to tread in his steps, by immediately subjoining, Happy are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. Through this whole discourse we cannot but observe the most exact method which can possibly be conceived. Every paragraph, every sentence, is closely connected both with that which precedes, and that which follows it. And is not this the pattern for every Christian preacher? If any then are able to follow it without any premeditation, well: if not, let them not dare to preach without it. No rhapsody, no incoherency, whether the things spoken be true or false, comes of the Spirit of Christ.

Verse 9. The peace-makers] eirhnh, peace, is compounded of eirein (eiv) en, connecting into one: for as WAR distracts and divides nations, families, and individuals, from each other, inducing them to pursue different objects and different interests, so PEACE restores them to a state of unity, giving them one object, and one interest. A peace-maker is a man who, being endowed with a generous public spirit, labours for the public good, and feels his own interest promoted in promoting that of others: therefore, instead of fanning the fire of strife, he uses his influence and wisdom to reconcile the contending parties, adjust their differences, and restore them to a state of unity. As all men are represented to be in a state of hostility to God and each other, the Gospel is called the Gospel of peace, because it tends to reconcile men to God and to each other. Hence our Lord here terms peace-makers the children of God: for as he is the Father of peace, those who promote it are reputed his children. But whose children are they who foment divisions in the Church, the state, or among families? Surely they are not of that GOD, who is the Father of peace, and lover of concord; of that CHRIST, who is the sacrifice and mediator of it; of that SPIRIT, who is the nourisher and bond of peace; nor of that CHURCH of the Most High, which is the kingdom and family of peace. St. Clement, Strom. lib. iv. s. 6, in fin. says, that “Some who transpose the Gospels add this verse: Happy they who are persecuted by justice, for they shall be perfect: happy they who are persecuted on my account, for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted.”

Verse 9. The peace-makers — Those who are themselves of a peaceable temper, and endeavour to promote peace in others: who study to be quiet, and, as much as in them lieth, to live peaceably with all men: who are so far from sowing the seeds of discord between any of their fellow-creatures, that they both studiously avoid contention themselves, and labour to extinguish it wherever it prevails, laying themselves out to heal the differences of brethren and neighbours, to reconcile contending parties, and to restore peace wherever it is broken, as well as to preserve it where it is. They shall be called the children of God — That is, they are and shall be owned by God as his genuine children, by reason of their great likeness to him: for he is the God of peace and love, and is in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their trespasses to them. And, being his children, they are his heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ; and, as they suffer with him, so shall they be glorified together. They shall, in due time, be children of the resurrection, shall receive the adoption, the public declaration and manifestation of their adoption, and the glorious fruit of it, viz., the redemption of their bodies from death and corruption.

Ver. 9. Blessed are the peace-makers. Being reconciled to God, and having in their own breasts the peace that passeth all understanding, they want to see the whole church of one heart, and of one soul. They exhort brethren that are aggrieved to forget the things that are behind, and reach forward to gain purity of heart. Like Paul, they say to party men, in the circles of religious society, “If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels of mercy, fulfil ye my joy — be of one accord, and of one mind.” If they cannot succeed, they will try to steal away a brand from the fire, that the unhallowed flame may become extinct for want of fuel. When factions shall subside, all men will account persons possessed of this temper, the children of God.

9. Peacemakers — A triad of benedictions will now be pronounced on Christian doings. Let us be excused for the quaintness of saying, that of these nine benedictions four are pronounced upon Christian receptivities; two upon Christian positivities, and three upon Christian activities. The three activities on which he will now pronounce benedictions are peace-making, the endurance of persecution the endurance of false reproach.

Peacemakers, in the simple and natural sense, are those who seek to remove quarrels and hates, and to produce kindly affections between men. They are good. Though unregenerate men, these men are herein blessed. How much better than mere indifference; how immensely better than the truly devilish opposite. Even if, for other sins and for the defectiveness of this virtue, the peacemaker be not saved from hell, from what depths of hell may he not be saved!

But the true peacemaker is Christ himself, who first reconciles God and man. And then, by shedding the Spirit of the God of peace into men’s hearts, he brings them to peace. And this is the real basis of all true peace. And he is the true peacemaker who endeavours to lay this basis. He is the true Christian peacemaker who endeavours, like Christ, to plant the divine spirit of peace in men’s hearts. And the promise here accordingly is, that as they are herein like Christ the Son of God, so they shall be called the children of God. So we have a family consisting of the God of Peace, the Prince of Peace, and the sons of peace.

All who truly seek to spread the Gospel, who endeavour to establish the reign of right and truth, who seek to reduce the contentiousness of even the Church, and to bring the imperfect Christianity of the age to a more loving tone, are peacemakers. On the other hand, the mere zealots for party and sect, the partisan politician, the warlike statesman, the glory-loving hero, the duellist, the oppressor, are reverse characters, for whom a counter woe is implied.

Yet the true peacemaker does not seek peace by a compromise with sin. That is a false peace which is made with the devil and sin, and is a true discord and war against good and God. Christ, the true peacemaker, was a terrible denouncer of iniquity.

Verse 9. Blessed are the peace-makers. — This is equivalent to oi poiountev thn eirhnhn, persons who, being themselves of a pacific disposition, exert themselves as to others to allay strifes, reconcile enmities, prevent wars and tumults, and to preserve society in harmony and charity. There is in this a tacit reproof of the factious and quarrelsome spirit of the Jews, and also of that eagerness to be led to war, in order to obtain the supremacy over other nations under the banners of their expected military Messiah, which was so much indulged by their greatest zealots. Now, however, the true Messiah speaks to them in his own appropriate character, as the Prince of peace, and declares that only the lovers and makers of peace are regarded as the children of God, and therefore the subjects of his kingdom: another indication to them of its purely spiritual nature; a character which it must retain to the end of time, unless the essential principles of Christianity are to be changed; a subject which ought to be well considered by those among ourselves, who indulge the Jewish dream of a visible and political reign of Christ. The reign of Christ is internal; it governs the hearts of men, and by them shall govern the world in tranquillity; when all, or the majority of our race shall have become subject, in their principles and affections, to its influence. So far as it now extends, its effect is to produce a pacific temper, and to harmonize the otherwise jarring elements of human society. We see this exemplified in pious families, and in those religious societies which retain most of their primitive simple heartedness, and most respect the rule of Christ, “to love one another.” These are delightful portraits, though in miniature, of the ultimate effect of the religion of peace and charity upon larger communities, and finally upon all nations.

For they shall be called the children of God. — To be called the children of God may be regarded as a Hebraism for to be the children of God; or the sense is, they shall be emphatically entitled “the children of God,” who is “the God of peace.” Thus St. Paul: “Be ye therefore followers of God as dear CHILDREN, and walk in love,” Ephesians 5:1, 2. All the children of God are lovers and promoters of peace; and those who are of a contrary disposition have no right to invest themselves with that high title, or to consider themselves as a part of the family of God.

V. 10. For righteousness' sake-That is, because they have, or follow after, the righteousness here described. He that is truly a righteous man, he that mourns, and he that is pure in heart, yea, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution, 2 Timothy 3:12. The world will always say, Away with such fellows from the earth. They are made to reprove our thoughts. They are grievous to us even to behold. Their lives are not like other men's; their ways are of another fashion.

Verse 10. They which are persecuted] dediwgmenoi, they who are hard pressed upon and pursued with repeated acts of enmity. Parkhurst. They are happy who suffer, seems a strange saying: and that the righteous should suffer, merely because they are such, seems as strange. But such is the enmity of the human heart to every thing of God and goodness, that all those who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution in one form or other. As the religion of Christ gives no quarter to vice, so the vicious will give no quarter to this religion, or to its professors.

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.] That spiritual kingdom, explained Matthew 3:2, and that kingdom of glory which is its counterpart and consequence.

Verse 10. For righteousness’ sake — Or for the sake of Christ and a good conscience; that is, 1st, for their steady belief and profession of, and adherence to any article of Christian faith; 2d, for their performance of any duty, which they owe to God, their neighbour, or themselves, or for their obedience to the commands of God; 3d, because they cannot be prevailed on to own that to be an article of the Christian faith, or any part of Christian duty, which God hath not declared to be such; for, since this cannot be done without making profession of a lie, or pretending to believe what we see no reason to believe, to suffer on this account is evidently to suffer because we will not play the hypocrite, and give the lie to our own consciences; and therefore this, in Peter’s language, is to suffer from conscience toward God. Yea, since this cannot be done, but we must own another teacher, lawgiver, and author of our faith, besides the Lord Jesus, our sufferings for refusing to do this are truly sufferings for Christ’s sake, and such as make us happy sufferers. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven — In a peculiar sense, as hell belongs especially to hypocrites, Matthew 24:51. And they shall receive an eminently great reward there, on account of their sufferings, and in proportion to them, Luke 6:23. And no wonder, for as their state on earth, under these persecutions, renders them conformable to their Head, and to the holy prophets and apostles, so shall they hereafter be conformed to them in glory.

Ver. 10-12. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. We are all agreed to persecute robbers and evildoers; but who in this age of science would persecute another for righteousness? When a man, whose eyes are opened, is making his escape from hell, and trying to gain heaven, all will clear the way, and wish him God speed. Such is the theory of human nature, but the practice is otherwise; all men will oppose his flight. Every conversion Satan accounts to be desertion. Formerly, a million of christians must be thrown to the lions, and otherwise destroyed, because they worshipped not the gods; latterly, a million more must be burned, because they bowed not to the idolatries of papal Rome. — But rejoice, oh suffering saints, for the kingdom of heaven is yours. Rejoice, for your fiery trials shall purify you as gold in the furnace, and make you meet for the great reward in heaven. Rejoice the more, for your sufferings identify you with the prophets and noble army of martyrs, who have already marched through the flames to glory.

10. Persecuted for righteousness — Let us not suppose, however, that peacemakers in this world will always enjoy peace from men. In maintaining truth and right, and all those principles which truly make for the peace and blessing of the world, they will find room for the most heroic firmness, and for the bravest activity. They will find they have blows to take, and sufferings to endure. The scourge, the prison, and the stake have been their fate. But here is a benediction that can pay them for all And doubtless these simple words have, in all ages, consoled the sufferers for Christ in dungeons, under the rack, and amid the flame. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven — To the persecutor belongs the kingdom of hell, but to the true sufferers for Christ belongs the kingdom of heaven. The persecution named in this eighth benediction seems to consist rather of bodily tortures and martyrdoms. Hence the reward is the glorified kingdom of God. In benediction first, the kingdom of God below — a present reward for a present want — is promised; but in benediction eighth, the kingdom of glory is the martyr’s reward.

Verse 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. — The Pharisees and others looked for applause on account of their “righteousness;” and they acquired it in proportion to the opinion entertained of their sanctity. The righteousness of Christ’s disciples was to expose them to obloquy and to persecution; yet the one was external and hypocritical, the other real and universal. He only that perfectly knew the human heart could predict, and that in an age when every appearance of extraordinary piety commanded a deeply respectful deference, that in the case of his disciples the highest religious attainments should render them the more odious, and expose them to every form of insult and cruelty which malignant ingenuity could invent. The true reason was, that their righteousness “exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees;” exceeded it as the result of penitence, humility, trust in God, and the renunciation of all the secret evils of the heart; and exceeded it in its uniform and universal practical character. It was therefore a standing reproof of that righteousness which consisted chiefly in formality and hypocrisy. And as the very charity of the Gospel bound those who received it to endeavour to remove the delusions of those who trusted in “the form of godliness, but denied its power,” it was felt to be intrusive, troublesome, and provoking to bad and deceived men. These are the causes which have ever made the religion of Christ, when fully explained and earnestly enforced, the object of the hatred of the world. The religion of the superstitious and self-righteous consists with pride, worldliness, and many other vices, the mortification of which is required by true Christianity. Hence, hatred of the truth itself naturally transfers itself to those who advocate it, and disturb the carnal security of others by a faithful and zealous exhibition of its reproving light. If any one thinks that the case is much changed in the present day, let him enforce upon all he meets with the spiritual nature and obligations of Christianity, and he will not fail to discover that still “the carnal mind is enmity against God.” The word rendered persecute, as Grotius well observes, is of forcible and extensive meaning. The Latin, persequi, does not express its force, which is rather to be taken in the sense of vexare, exagitare. We are not, therefore, with Beza, to confine it to the forensic sense, as persequi judicio; for it has not only been at the tribunals of tyrants that Christians have suffered persecution, but in the various forms of private malignity, and tumultuous popular commotion. It may also be remarked, that the most violent persecutors have been found among superstitious and fanatical men, who have themselves made great pretensions to some kind of sanctity. Antiochus Epiphanes was a fanatical idolater; the Jewish scribes and Pharisees pursued our Lord and his disciples with unrelenting bitterness; “trusted in themselves that they were righteous.” Several of the Roman emperors who distinguished themselves most against the primitive Church were blind in their attachment to the popular religion; and popery and Mohammedanism would have been less cruel had they been less superstitious and self righteous.

For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. — Good men, in seasons of persecution, often enter most deeply into the experience of Christianity. It is only by maintaining the vigour of these graces, that they can maintain the ground on which they are exposed to attacks so constant and rude; and their immediate reward is a more intimate fellowship with God, and richer internal consolations. “As our afflictions abound our consolations abound.” In this sense the kingdom of heaven may be truly said to be theirs, who are “persecuted for righteousness’ sake;” though our Lord ultimately refers, as in the twelfth verse, to the rewards of another life. Among the crowns of heaven the martyr’s crown is the most glorious. Hence the strong exhortation, “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.”

For so persecuted they the prophets, &c. — If gar be taken in its most common import as a causative conjunction, then the reason for this joy of the persecuted disciples of Christ, as drawn from the case of the prophets, is, that as those venerable persons, notwithstanding their persecutions, were then enjoying the high rewards of heaven, the disciples were assured that the same felicities and honours would as certainly follow their sufferings for the same cause. But if gar be taken as a particle of affirmation, then the intention of Christ was to remove all surprise from the minds of men, that the teachers of his religion should be hated and injured solely on that account. The answer to this tacit objection, therefore, is, As the holy prophets were persecuted by bad men, so bad men will always be disposed to hate and persecute my holy and zealous disciples The former sense is, I think, to be preferred.

V. 11. Revile-When present: say all evil-When you are absent.

Verse 11. When men shall revile you, and persecute] The persecution mentioned in the preceding verse comprehends all outward acts of violence-all that the hand can do. This comprehends all calumny, slander, &c., all that the tongue can effect. But as diwkein, which we render to persecute, is a forensic term, and signifies legal persecutions and public accusations, which, though totally unsubstantiated, were the means of destroying multitudes of the primitive Christians, our Lord probably refers to such. No Protestant can think, without horror, of the great numbers burnt alive in this country, on such accusations, under the popish reign of her who is emphatically called Bloody Queen Mary.

Verses 11, 12. Blessed are ye — My true and faithful followers, when men shall revile you — Shall unjustly and injuriously reproach you; and say all manner of evil against you falsely — This both the Jews and heathen did with respect to the first Christians, and this the Papists have done with regard to the Protestants: for my sake — Because you believe in, love, obey, and follow me. Rejoice, &c. — Let not this load of infamy and oppression discourage and cast you down, but rather rejoice and be exceeding glad, or, exult with triumph, as the original word, agalliasqe, may be properly rendered. For great is your reward in heaven — Such a patient and cheerful suffering of persecution for Christ in this life, will certainly be rewarded with the glory and blessedness of the life to come. The reward, however, will not be of debt, but of grace; for our light and momentary afflictions are not worthy to be compared with the eternal and exceeding weight of glory. For so persecuted they the prophets, &c. — Who, long before your time, were the messengers of God to this very people. Indeed, persecution has been the portion and the proof of the most eminent saints in all ages.

Ver. 10-12. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. We are all agreed to persecute robbers and evildoers; but who in this age of science would persecute another for righteousness? When a man, whose eyes are opened, is making his escape from hell, and trying to gain heaven, all will clear the way, and wish him God speed. Such is the theory of human nature, but the practice is otherwise; all men will oppose his flight. Every conversion Satan accounts to be desertion. Formerly, a million of christians must be thrown to the lions, and otherwise destroyed, because they worshipped not the gods; latterly, a million more must be burned, because they bowed not to the idolatries of papal Rome. — But rejoice, oh suffering saints, for the kingdom of heaven is yours. Rejoice, for your fiery trials shall purify you as gold in the furnace, and make you meet for the great reward in heaven. Rejoice the more, for your sufferings identify you with the prophets and noble army of martyrs, who have already marched through the flames to glory.

11. Revile… persecute… say all manner of evil against you falsely — In this benediction it is the endurance of persecution of character, the martyrdom of reputation, by revilings and calumny, which is blessed. Opposed to this is the woe pronounced upon “you when all men shall speak well of you.” The reward is promised in the following verse.

V. 12. Your reward-Even over and above the happiness that naturally and directly results from holiness.

Verse 12. Rejoice] In the testimony of a good conscience; for, without this, suffering has nothing but misery in it.

Be exceeding glad] agalliasqe, leap for joy. There are several cases on record, where this was literally done by the martyrs, in Queen Mary’s days.

Great is your reward in heaven] In the Talmudical tract Pirkey Aboth, are these words: “Rabbi Tarpon said, The day is short: the work is great: the labourers are slow: the REWARD IS GREAT: and the father of the family is urgent.”

The followers of Christ are encouraged to suffer joyfully on two considerations. 1. They are thereby conformed to the prophets who went before. 2. Their reward in heaven is a great one. God gives the grace to suffer, and then crowns that grace with glory; hence it is plain, the reward is not of debt, but of grace: Romans 6:23.

Verses 11, 12. Blessed are ye — My true and faithful followers, when men shall revile you — Shall unjustly and injuriously reproach you; and say all manner of evil against you falsely — This both the Jews and heathen did with respect to the first Christians, and this the Papists have done with regard to the Protestants: for my sake — Because you believe in, love, obey, and follow me. Rejoice, &c. — Let not this load of infamy and oppression discourage and cast you down, but rather rejoice and be exceeding glad, or, exult with triumph, as the original word, agalliasqe, may be properly rendered. For great is your reward in heaven — Such a patient and cheerful suffering of persecution for Christ in this life, will certainly be rewarded with the glory and blessedness of the life to come. The reward, however, will not be of debt, but of grace; for our light and momentary afflictions are not worthy to be compared with the eternal and exceeding weight of glory. For so persecuted they the prophets, &c. — Who, long before your time, were the messengers of God to this very people. Indeed, persecution has been the portion and the proof of the most eminent saints in all ages.

Ver. 10-12. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. We are all agreed to persecute robbers and evildoers; but who in this age of science would persecute another for righteousness? When a man, whose eyes are opened, is making his escape from hell, and trying to gain heaven, all will clear the way, and wish him God speed. Such is the theory of human nature, but the practice is otherwise; all men will oppose his flight. Every conversion Satan accounts to be desertion. Formerly, a million of christians must be thrown to the lions, and otherwise destroyed, because they worshipped not the gods; latterly, a million more must be burned, because they bowed not to the idolatries of papal Rome. — But rejoice, oh suffering saints, for the kingdom of heaven is yours. Rejoice, for your fiery trials shall purify you as gold in the furnace, and make you meet for the great reward in heaven. Rejoice the more, for your sufferings identify you with the prophets and noble army of martyrs, who have already marched through the flames to glory.

12. Rejoice and be exceeding glad — This verse may be most easily explained by reversing the order of its clauses. As your sufferings associate you with the prophets which were before you, so like their’s your reward in heaven is great; therefore Rejoice, etc.

2. Woes pronounced upon the opposite characters.

To three of these benedictions, St. Luke’s report of the discourse contains three counter woes. They are so presented as to suggest that Luke reports but a part, and that our Lord uttered an antithetic woe for each benediction. Luke (Luke 6:24, 25) pronounces a woe upon the rich and the full; that is, upon those who have made this world’s goods, or some other satisfaction, a substitute for the Gospel grace and blessedness. Their case we have sufficiently explained in our comment on verse 3. Luke 6:25: Woe unto you that laugh — in opposition to the penitents of verse 4. The evil of sin makes no impression upon their revelling merriment; or instead of mourning for sin, they drown the commencing grief with laughter, and perhaps riot. Christ pronounces upon them WOE; a word in which grief and authority in him are combined, and in which future sorrow and vain weeping are predicted for them.

Luke 6:26: Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you — This woe stands opposed to the blessed, spoken of those who are reviled for righteousness’ sake in verse 11. The phrase all men (like the term the world) is used to distinguish the great ungodly mass as opposed to the righteous few. The phrase alludes to the fact that, in Jewish history, the mass of the nation — the all men — reviled the prophets, and persecuted the righteous few. Woe to that preacher who wins applause by whitewashing sin.

3. Duties enjoined upon the blessed ones, 13-16.

Thus far we have in Matthew benedictions. We have now commands or injunctions. The blessed ones are compared to salt, and to light; as the former, they must purify and preserve; as the latter, they must illuminate.

V. 13. Ye-Not the apostles, not ministers only; but all ye who are thus holy, are the salt of the earth-Are to season others. Mark 9:50; Luke 14:34.

Verse 13. Ye are the salt of the earth] Our Lord shows here what the preachers of the Gospel, and what all who profess to follow him, should be; the salt of the earth, to preserve the world from putrefaction and destruction. See Clarke’s note on “Leviticus 2:13”. But if the salt have lost his savour] That this is possible in the land of Judea, we have proof from Mr. Maundrell, who, describing the Valley of Salt, speaks thus: “Along, on one side of the valley, toward Gibul, there is a small precipice about two men’s lengths, occasioned by the continual taking away of the salt; and, in this, you may see how the veins of it lie. I broke a piece of it, of which that part that was exposed to the rain, sun, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, YET IT HAD PERFECTLY LOST ITS SAVOUR: the inner part, which was connected to the rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof.” See his Trav., 5th edit., last page. A preacher, or private Christian, who has lost the life of Christ, and the witness of his Spirit, out of his soul, may be likened to this salt. He may have the sparks and glittering particles of true wisdom, but without its unction or comfort. Only that which is connected with the rock, the soul that is in union with Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit, can preserve its savour, and be instrumental of good to others.

To be trodden underfoot] There was a species of salt in Judea, which was generated at the lake Asphaltites, and hence called bituminous salt, easily rendered vapid, and of no other use but to be spread in a part of the temple, to prevent slipping in wet weather. This is probably what our Lord alludes to in this place. The existence of such a salt, and its application to such a use, Schoettgenius has largely proved in his Horæ Hebraicæ, vol. i. p. 18, &c.

Verse 13. Ye — Not the apostles, not ministers only; but all who possess and manifest the graces spoken of in the preceding verses, and are truly holy and righteous; are the salt of the earth — Appointed to be the means of preventing or curing the growth of that corruption which prevails in the world, and of seasoning men’s minds with wisdom and grace. But if the salt have lost its savour — Or, be grown insipid, and therefore want seasoning itself, wherewith shall it be salted — By what means can its lost virtue be restored? The word mwranqh, rendered have lost its savour, has peculiar strength and beauty, and is literally, be infatuated, or, grown foolish, “alluding,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to the common figure, in which sense and spirit are expressed by salt.” It is thenceforth good for nothing — It is wholly useless, and left to be thrown out of doors, and trampled on by men as the common dirt in the streets: “thus worthless and contemptible will you, my disciples, be, even in the most eminent stations, if you lose your character for real and vital religion.” The following passage of Mr. Maundrell, quoted by Dr. Macknight, illustrates our Lord’s supposition of salt’s losing its savour. In the valley of Salt, near Gebul, and about four hours’ journey from Aleppo, there is a small precipice, occasioned by the continual taking away of the salt. “In this,” says he, “you may see how the veins of it lie; I brake a piece off it, of which the part that was exposed to the rain, sun, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, yet it had perfectly lost its savour. The innermost part, which had been connected to the rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof.”

Ver. 13. Ye are the salt of the earth, by the good savour of your life, and by the incorruptible word of truth. By your love and zeal, you are called to season the world, and to preserve it from putrefaction. Such was the covenant of salt, which God made with Israel. 2 Chronicles 13:5. But if the minister shall have lost the unction of his ministry, and the spiritual savour of a good conversation, he is like insipid salt, good for nothing but the dunghill. Other things when degenerate may be of some value, but salt in that state is nothing worth. God will spue the lukewarm minister out of his mouth. Revelation 3:16.

13. Ye — This must have been addressed especially to the apostles, who doubtless formed the front circle immediately around our Lord. Indeed, verse 12 seems to show that the benedictions were addressed to them. Yet the multitudes, as listeners, were entitled to appropriate their share. Salt of the earth — The earth, the living world of men, is like a piece of meat, which would putrify, but that the grace and Gospel of God, like salt, arrests the decay, and purifies and preserves it. The apostles, and in their degree all Christians, are the substance and body of that salt. They are the substance to which the saltness inheres. Salt have lost its savour — If the living body to which this gracious saltness inheres doth lose that quality, whereby shall the quality be restored? Wherewith shall it — shall what? — be salted? — The it refers to the solid salt which has lost its saltness or savour. What, alas! shall ever resalt that savourless salt? The Christian is the solid salt, and the grace of God is his saltness; that grace is the very salt of the salt. Now this solid salt is intended to salt the world with; but, alas I who shall salt the salt? This question the Saviour answers by pronouncing it unanswerable. It is thenceforth good for nothing — This shows that it is the savourless salt which needs the salting. And this strong answer shows, too, that in the case supposed, the saltness is not almost, but completely gone. Not a particle of the grace of God remains, or the loser would not be quite good for nothing. Nor is it to be rightly viewed as a mere abstract possibility, which God secures shall never happen, but a practical matter, which may be believed to happen often and ordinarily. Surely the Antinomian dogma that assures the Christian that God secures him from losing divine grace, cannot stand before this warning passage. Trodden under foot of men — The symbol of utter perdition. Our Lord’s allusion to salt that has lost its savour is not without a foundation in natural fact. Salt does lose its saltness by chemical decomposition. But we are inclined to think (with Schoettgen) that the allusion is to the bituminous salt from Lake Asphaltites, which was strewn over the sacrifices at the temple in order, by its fragrant odour, to neutralize the smell of the burning flesh, and which, when spoiled by exposure to sun and atmosphere, was cast out upon the walks to prevent the feet from slipping. Dr. Thomson (vol. ii, p. 44) says: “Indeed, it is a well-known fact that the salt of this country, when in contact with the ground, or exposed to rain and sun, does become insipid and useless. From the manner in which it is gathered, much earth and other impurities are necessarily collected with it. Not a little of it is so impure that it cannot be used at all and such salt soon effloresces and turns to dust, not to fruitful soil, however. It is not only good for nothing itself, but it actually destroys all fertility wherever it is thrown; and this is the reason why it is cast into the street. There is a sort of verbal verisimilitude in the manner in which our Lord alludes to the act: ‘it is… cast out’ and ‘trodden under foot;’ so troublesome is this corrupted salt, that it is carefully swept up, carried forth, and thrown into the street. There is no place about the house, yard, or garden, where it can be tolerated. No man will allow it to be thrown on to his field, and the only place for it is in the street, and there it is cast, to be trodden under foot of men.”

Verse 13. Ye are the salt of the earth. — This is undoubtedly spoken of the true disciples of Christ. Salt furnishes metaphor, both to profane and sacred writers, to express the qualities and effects of wisdom, truth, and goodness. The particular property of this mineral which is here referred to is its resistance to putrefaction. In the midst of that which is corrupt it preserves its own purity; and it diffuses its own influence through the mass of several substances, and communicates to them its own incorruptibility. Thus the character and the public influence of true Christians are each forcibly represented. The earth signifies, not the land of Judea, as in verse 5, but the whole world. This is made evident by what follows, which is but the same idea placed under another aspect: “Ye are the light of the world,” referring to the sun, which gives light to all nations. Christianity, exemplified, maintained, and diffused by the disciples of Christ, was designed for the illumination and salvation of all mankind. Thus our Lord, even at this early period, taught that the benefits of his mission were not to be confined to the Jews only; a subject, however, which was not as yet fully apprehended by his hearers, though in perfect accordance with the prophecies of their own Scriptures.

But if the salt have lost his savour. — We have no indigenous salt of this description; but the salt of Judea was the rock or fossil salt, or else that left by the evaporation of salt lakes on the borders of the Dead Sea. Both these kinds of salt were apt to lose their pungency. Maundrell in his travels broke off a piece of salt from a rock, and found that externally, through exposure to the atmosphere, it had become tasteless; but the inner part, where it had been joined to the rock, retained its savour. Schoettgen has shown that considerable quantities of salt were used in sacrifice, and that when any part of it had been found tasteless, it was thrown upon the floor of the court of the temple. This, however, better explains a similar passage in Mark 9:49, 50: “Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good,” &c, where the use of salt in the sacrifices is expressly referred to. Here the general qualities of good salt to preserve and to communicate its own incorruptibility are those referred to; and whether in the temple, or in domestic use, if any portion of salt was found to have lost its saltness, it would, as a matter of course, be thrown away, and so be trampled under foot. The savourless salt represents those who have lost the vital influence of piety. Neither does their conversation savour of the things of God; nor do their conduct and spirit exert a sanctifying influence upon others. Their profession may remain; the doctrines of Christ may still generally be held; all the external signs of piety may be exhibited by them; but the spirit, the PUNGENCY, is gone. The dry and sapless branch, and the tasteless and unsavoury salt, are their proper emblems. And as the salt which had lost its savour was rejected from those nobler uses for which it had become unfit, and cast upon the ground to be trodden under foot, so the disowning of unfaithful disciples by Christ, and their degradation and punishment, are thus strongly represented for the admonition of the careless. The expression, “wherewith shall it be salted,” appears not to have been rightly understood by those interpreters who think that it imports that the savour of grace can never be regained, and that therefore the case of hopeless apostates is represented under this figure. It was rather the intention of our Lord to impress his disciples with the sin and danger of being USELESS to mankind, through the neglect of personal and influential piety. “Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall IT,” that is, the earth, “be salted?” or purified. To be useless, is, in fact, to be injurious; and he who neglects his own salvation is a hinderance to many others. Thus is his guilt aggravated. — Mwrainw answers to the Hebrew word lpt, which signifies both unsavouriness and a fool; that is, a man destitute of both wisdom and goodness.

V. 14. Ye are the light of the world-If ye are thus holy, you can no more be hid than the sun in the firmament: no more than a city on a mountain-Probably pointing to that on the brow of the opposite hill.

Verse 14. Ye are the light of the world] That is, the instruments which God chooses to make use of to illuminate the minds of men; as he uses the sun (to which probably he pointed) to enlighten the world. Light of the world, µlw[ rn ner olam, was a title applied to the most eminent rabbins. Christ transfers the title from these, and gives it to his own disciples, who, by the doctrines that he taught them, were to be the means of diffusing the light of life throughout the universe.

A city that is set on a hill] This place may receive light from the following passage in Maundrell’s Travels. “A few points toward the north (of Tabor) appears that which they call the Mount of Beatitudes, a small rising, from which our blessed Saviour delivered his sermon in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew. (See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 5:5”.) Not far from this little hill is the city Saphet, supposed to be the ancient Bethulia. It stands upon a very eminent and conspicuous mountain, and is SEEN FAR and NEAR. May we not suppose that Christ alludes to this city, in these words of his, A city set on a hill cannot be hid?” p. 115. Quesnell remarks here: “The Christian life is something very high and sublime, to which we cannot arrive without pains: while it withdraws us from the earth, and carries us nearer heaven, it places us in view, and as a mark, to the malice of carnal men.”

Verses 14, 15. Ye are the light of the world — The effect of light being to make things manifest, Ephesians 5:13, and to direct us in the way in which we are to walk; the import of this metaphor is, that Christ had appointed his disciples in general, and his apostles and the other ministers of his gospel in particular, to enlighten and reform the world, immersed in ignorance, sin, and misery, by their doctrine and example; and so to direct their feet into the way leading to life and salvation. Christ, it must be observed, is in the highest sense the light of the world; the original light, the great light, who, like the sun, hath light in and from himself; but the ministers of his gospel are, in an inferior sense, lights of the world also, for the angels of the churches are said to be stars, Revelation 1:20; and holy persons are children of the light, 1 Thessalonians 5:5. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid — As if he had said, If you do not hide this light from mankind, but cause it to shine forth in your doctrine and practice, it will be so clear and resplendent as not possibly to be hid, any more than a city set on a hill. The Church of Christ is often called the city of God, and it must be here observed, that his people are not here merely compared to a city, but to a city upon a hill; so that all our Saviour has in view in mentioning a city here, is the conspicuousness of one so built. It is as much as if our Saviour had said, You had need be wise and holy, for your conversation can no more be hid than a city that is built upon a hill, and is obvious to every eye. Neither do men light a candle — Or lamp rather, as lucnon, signifies. Indeed, candles were not used at that time in Judea for lighting their houses; consequently, the word lucnia, here and elsewhere in the New Testament, translated candlestick, means a lamp stand. The purport of this verse is, you, my apostles and disciples, ought to consider for what end I have communicated my light to you. It may be illustrated by that which men have in view when they light up a lamp in a room, which is, to give light to all those who are in it; for as they do not use to light it up that they may then hide it under a vessel, so I have not communicated my truth or my grace unto you merely for your own use, but for that of others. The word modion, should be here rendered, not a bushel, but a corn-measure, for they had no such measure as a bushel. Indeed, the measure mentioned by the evangelist is so far from answering to our bushel, that it was as little as our peck. It is true, indeed, that as nothing here depends on the size of the measure, any measure of capacity might well enough suit the evangelist’s observation; yet a translator, as Dr. Campbell observes, ought not, even indirectly, to misrepresent the customs of the people he speaks of, or alludes to. Observe, reader, what our Lord says of John, He was a burning and shining light, is applicable both to every true minister of Christ, and to every true Christian: every such a one is not only a burning light, a person burning with love to God, and zeal for his glory, and love to mankind, and zeal for their salvation; but also a shining light, communicating his light to others, both by instruction and a holy conversation.

Ver. 14. Ye are the light of the world, by the glory of the gospel, by purity of example, by the excellence of the christian temper, by the radiance of an immortal hope. The glory of a good man’s countenance shines with the image of God.

14. Ye — Apostles, and indeed all Christians — are the light of the world — For how dark the world would be without a Christ, a Gospel, a Holy Spirit, and a Church! Yet the Christian is not like the sun, self-luminous, but borrows his rays, like the moon, from a primal source. Or rather he is like the candle, mentioned below, deriving light, yet putting forth vigour to produce light. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid — So the Church of God should be as a central and elevated city, visible to all the world. Some think the allusion is to the small city of Safed, which stood on a hill, so visible at the mount of Beatitudes that the Saviour might have pointed to it. The allusion may have been to Jerusalem, which stands upon heights, and is the emblem of the Church.

Of Safed Dr. Thomson (vol. i, p. 420) says: Maundrell, Jowett, and others, throw out the hint that this was the city set on a hill, which could not be hid; and if that greatest of sermons was preached on the horns of Huttin, or near them, as tradition affirms, and if any particular city was referred to, there would be plausibility enough in the suggestion. These ancient parts of the castle render it all but certain that there was then a city or citadel on this most conspicuous “hill” top, and our Lord might well point to it to illustrate and confirm his precept. The present Hebrew name is Zephath, and may either refer to its elevation like a watch-tower, or to the beauty and grandeur of the surrounding prospects. Certainly they are quite sufficient to suggest the name. There lies Gennesaret, like a mirror set in framework of dark mountains and many-faced hills. Beyond is the vast plateau of the Hauron, faintly shading with its rocky ranges the utmost horizon eastward. Thence the eye sweeps over Gilead and Bashan, Samaria and Carmel, the plains of Galilee, the coasts of Phoenicia, the hills of Naphtali, the long line of Lebanon, and the lofty head of Hermon, a vast panorama, embracing a thousand points of historic and sacred interest. Safed is truly a high tower, on which to set the watchmen of Zion. My aneroid makes it 2650 feet above the Mediterranean. Tabor looks low, and Huttin seems to be in a valley.

Verses 14, 15. Ye are the light of the world, &c. — In these verses we have three metaphors, which, equally with the former, are intended to impress the disciples of Christ with their duty to the world in general. They are all public, not merely private characters; they are to communicate, as well as to receive; and to consider themselves bound, by their very profession, to extend as far as possible the light and influence of their religion; they are therefore called, “the light of the world,” in allusion to the sun; “a city set upon a hill;” and are farther compared to the house lamp, which was lighted in the evening, in every family in the common apartment. Perhaps there is here a reference to the threefold duty obligatory upon every true Christian, as a public character, to the world, to his country, and to his family. The sun gives light to all the nations of the earth; and upon every Christian the obligation lies, according to his ability, to promote, by his prayers, his exertions, and his liberalities, the extension of the kingdom of Christ throughout the whole earth. The CITY set upon the hill alluded to, might be Jerusalem; for, whether this sermon was delivered in sight of the metropolis or not, we see from the constant references made in the Psalms to its lofty situation, that this was always an association in the mind of a Jew when he spoke of Jerusalem. It was the city “whose foundation was in the holy mountains.” As the tribes were in the habit of going up to the great festivals, the lofty situation of Jerusalem, seen at great distances, would become matter of familiar remark. Josephus describes the distant view, crowned with its magnificent temple, and the rays of the sun reflected from its marble towers, as peculiarly striking. So conspicuous ought the Church of Christ to be in every nation in which it is planted; and so prominent in all its holy institutions, for the noblest of all patriotic purposes, the maintenance of the authority and influence of religion among all orders of the State. The family LAMP, placed upon its stand, and giving light to the family, seems to indicate the duty of domestic piety and zeal. Their houses were illuminated all night long by lamps placed upon a large stand, or, as our translation calls it, a “candlestick,” fixed in the ground; from which the smaller lamps were lighted, which were to be used in the other apartments. Such is the office of the head of every Christian family, “to give light to all that are in the house,” by his instructions and example.

V. 15. Nay, the very design of God in giving you this light was, that it might shine. Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16; 11:33.

Verse 15. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel] A bushel modiov:-a measure both among the Greeks and Romans, containing a little more than a peck English. From some ancient writers we learn, that only those who had bad designs hid a candle under a bushel; that, in the dead of the night, when all were asleep, they might rise up, and have light at hand to help them to effect their horrid purposes of murder, &c. See Wetstein, Kypke, Wolf, &c.

Verses 14, 15. Ye are the light of the world — The effect of light being to make things manifest, Ephesians 5:13, and to direct us in the way in which we are to walk; the import of this metaphor is, that Christ had appointed his disciples in general, and his apostles and the other ministers of his gospel in particular, to enlighten and reform the world, immersed in ignorance, sin, and misery, by their doctrine and example; and so to direct their feet into the way leading to life and salvation. Christ, it must be observed, is in the highest sense the light of the world; the original light, the great light, who, like the sun, hath light in and from himself; but the ministers of his gospel are, in an inferior sense, lights of the world also, for the angels of the churches are said to be stars, Revelation 1:20; and holy persons are children of the light, 1 Thessalonians 5:5. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid — As if he had said, If you do not hide this light from mankind, but cause it to shine forth in your doctrine and practice, it will be so clear and resplendent as not possibly to be hid, any more than a city set on a hill. The Church of Christ is often called the city of God, and it must be here observed, that his people are not here merely compared to a city, but to a city upon a hill; so that all our Saviour has in view in mentioning a city here, is the conspicuousness of one so built. It is as much as if our Saviour had said, You had need be wise and holy, for your conversation can no more be hid than a city that is built upon a hill, and is obvious to every eye. Neither do men light a candle — Or lamp rather, as lucnon, signifies. Indeed, candles were not used at that time in Judea for lighting their houses; consequently, the word lucnia, here and elsewhere in the New Testament, translated candlestick, means a lamp stand. The purport of this verse is, you, my apostles and disciples, ought to consider for what end I have communicated my light to you. It may be illustrated by that which men have in view when they light up a lamp in a room, which is, to give light to all those who are in it; for as they do not use to light it up that they may then hide it under a vessel, so I have not communicated my truth or my grace unto you merely for your own use, but for that of others. The word modion, should be here rendered, not a bushel, but a corn-measure, for they had no such measure as a bushel. Indeed, the measure mentioned by the evangelist is so far from answering to our bushel, that it was as little as our peck. It is true, indeed, that as nothing here depends on the size of the measure, any measure of capacity might well enough suit the evangelist’s observation; yet a translator, as Dr. Campbell observes, ought not, even indirectly, to misrepresent the customs of the people he speaks of, or alludes to. Observe, reader, what our Lord says of John, He was a burning and shining light, is applicable both to every true minister of Christ, and to every true Christian: every such a one is not only a burning light, a person burning with love to God, and zeal for his glory, and love to mankind, and zeal for their salvation; but also a shining light, communicating his light to others, both by instruction and a holy conversation.

15. Light a candle — Or lamp. Candlestick — Or lampstand. House — The world, or circle of your acquaintance. The Christian should, like a lamp, shed divine light upon all in reach.

Neither do men light a candle — Men light candles; God has lighted you for his candles to the world. Men are not so foolish as to light a candle to be covered up, so God is not so unwise as to light you for concealment. You are lighted that you may illuminate. A bushel — In Greek the bushel, with the definite article, to indicate that he refers to a measure ordinarily in use. It was the modius, a measure really containing about a peck.

Verses 14, 15. Ye are the light of the world, &c. — In these verses we have three metaphors, which, equally with the former, are intended to impress the disciples of Christ with their duty to the world in general. They are all public, not merely private characters; they are to communicate, as well as to receive; and to consider themselves bound, by their very profession, to extend as far as possible the light and influence of their religion; they are therefore called, “the light of the world,” in allusion to the sun; “a city set upon a hill;” and are farther compared to the house lamp, which was lighted in the evening, in every family in the common apartment. Perhaps there is here a reference to the threefold duty obligatory upon every true Christian, as a public character, to the world, to his country, and to his family. The sun gives light to all the nations of the earth; and upon every Christian the obligation lies, according to his ability, to promote, by his prayers, his exertions, and his liberalities, the extension of the kingdom of Christ throughout the whole earth. The CITY set upon the hill alluded to, might be Jerusalem; for, whether this sermon was delivered in sight of the metropolis or not, we see from the constant references made in the Psalms to its lofty situation, that this was always an association in the mind of a Jew when he spoke of Jerusalem. It was the city “whose foundation was in the holy mountains.” As the tribes were in the habit of going up to the great festivals, the lofty situation of Jerusalem, seen at great distances, would become matter of familiar remark. Josephus describes the distant view, crowned with its magnificent temple, and the rays of the sun reflected from its marble towers, as peculiarly striking. So conspicuous ought the Church of Christ to be in every nation in which it is planted; and so prominent in all its holy institutions, for the noblest of all patriotic purposes, the maintenance of the authority and influence of religion among all orders of the State. The family LAMP, placed upon its stand, and giving light to the family, seems to indicate the duty of domestic piety and zeal. Their houses were illuminated all night long by lamps placed upon a large stand, or, as our translation calls it, a “candlestick,” fixed in the ground; from which the smaller lamps were lighted, which were to be used in the other apartments. Such is the office of the head of every Christian family, “to give light to all that are in the house,” by his instructions and example.

V. 16. That they may see-and glorify-That is, that seeing your good works, they may be moved to love and serve God likewise.

Verse 16. Let your light so shine] Or more literally, Thus let your light shine, outw lamyatw to fwv. As the sun is lighted up in the firmament of heaven to diffuse its light and heat freely to every inhabitant of the earth; and as the lamp is not set under the bushel, but placed upon the lamp-stand that it may give light to all in the house; THUS let every follower of Christ, and especially every preacher of the Gospel, diffuse the light of heavenly knowledge, and the warmth of Divine love through the whole circle of their acquaintance.

That they may see your good works] It is not sufficient to have light-we must walk in the light, and by the light. Our whole conduct should be a perpetual comment on the doctrine we have received, and a constant exemplification of its power and truth.

And glorify your Father] The following curious saying is found in Bammidbar Rabba, s. 15. “The Israelites said to the holy blessed God, Thou commandest us to light lamps to thee; and yet thou art the, Light of the world, and with thee the light dwelleth. The holy blessed God answered, I do not command this because I need light; but that you may reflect light upon me, as I have illuminated you:-that the people may say, Behold, how the Israelites illustrate him, who illuminates them in the sight of the whole earth.” See more in Schoettgen. Real Christians are the children of God-they are partakers of his holy and happy nature: they should ever be concerned for their Father’s honour, and endeavour so to recommend him, and his salvation, that others may be prevailed on to come to the light, and walk in it. Then God is said to be glorified, when the glorious power of his grace is manifested in the salvation of men.

Verse 16. Let your light — The light of that doctrine which you receive from me, and the light of your holy conversation, so shine before men — Be so evident and apparent unto men, that they may see your good works, and glorify, &c. — That is, that seeing your good works they may both praise God for sending such a religion into the world, and also, embracing your faith, may imitate your holy example, or may be moved to love and serve God as you do, and thereby to glorify him. Here then our Lord tells us, in plain words, what he intended by the comparison before mentioned.

16. Let your light shine — While you indulge no ostentation to win applause for yourself, it is your duty so to manifest the clearness of your good works as that men may honour the Gospel. And glorify your Father — Do nothing to glorify yourself, but everything to get glory to God by honouring the Gospel. The illumination of the candle is not for itself, but for the master whose house it illumines.

Men should not wish their donations to a Church or to a charity to be published, for the reputation of it, but in order that the Gospel should have the credit of it, and that others may be influenced to like liberality by the example.

II. CHRISTIAN PIETY DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDAISM, Matthew 5:17-6:19. The Saviour next proceeds to show the relations in which his GOSPEL stands to the previous dispensation, as being the fulfilment and confirmation of true Judaism, and the reformation of degenerate Judaism.

1. Christianity the completion of pure Judaism, 17-20.

Verse 16. Let your light so shine, &c. — This would be better rendered, “So let your light shine.” As no one putteth a lamp under a bushel, modion, a measure, to hide its light, so let your light shine before men that they may see your good works, — both the truth, of which you are to be the teachers and advocates, and all those holy works which become this truth, and commend it.

And glorify your Father, &c. — To glorify God here does not merely signify to give praise to him, but along with that to confess the truth and Divine origin of a religion teaching such truths, and raising men to so high characters of holiness, and under these views and impressions to embrace it.

V. 17. Think not-Do not imagine, fear, hope, that I am come-Like your teachers, to destroy the law or the prophets.

I am not come to destroy-The moral law, but to fulfil-To establish, illustrate, and explain its highest meaning, both by my life and doctrine.

Verse 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law] Do not imagine that I am come to violate the law katalusai, from kata, and luw, I loose, violate, or dissolve-I am not come to make the law of none effect-to dissolve the connection which subsists between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives regulated by its moral precepts; nor am I come to dissolve the connecting reference it has to the good things promised. But I am come, plhrwsai, to complete-to perfect its connection and reference, to accomplish every thing shadowed forth in the Mosaic ritual, to fill up its great design; and to give grace to all my followers, plhrwsai, to fill up, or complete, every moral duty. In a word, Christ completed the law: 1st. In itself, it was only the shadow, the typical representation, of good things to come; and he added to it that which was necessary to make it perfect, HIS OWN SACRIFICE, without which it could neither satisfy God, nor sanctify men. 2dly. He completed it in himself by submitting to its types with an exact obedience, and verifying them by his death upon the cross. 3dly. He completes this law, and the sayings of his prophets, in his members, by giving them grace to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbour as themselves; for this is all the law and the prophets.

It is worthy of observation, that the word rmg gamar, among the rabbins, signifies not only to fulfil, but also to teach; and, consequently, we may infer that our Lord intimated, that the law and the prophets were still to be taught or inculcated by him and his disciples; and this he and they have done in the most pointed manner. See the Gospels and epistles; and see especially this sermon on the mount, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this meaning of the word gives the clear sense of the apostle’s words, Colossians 1:25. Whereof I am made a minister, plhrwsai tov logon tou qeou, to fulfil the word of God, i.e. to teach the doctrine of God.

Verse 17. Think not that I am come to destroy — To abrogate, annul, or repeal, (which seems to be the meaning of the word katalusai, here,) the law or the prophets — As your teachers do. It is manifest from the following discourse, that our Lord principally spake of the moral law, several of the precepts of which he afterward explains and vindicates from the corrupt glosses of the scribes and Pharisees. For, as to the ceremonial law, though he also came to fulfil it, as the great antitype in whom all the types of it had their accomplishment; yet he came to abrogate and repeal it, blotting out and nailing to his cross the hand-writing of ordinances, as the apostle speaks, Colossians 2:14. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil — He fulfilled in himself all those predictions of the prophets which had been uttered Concerning the Messiah, and he explained, illustrated, and established the moral law, in its highest meaning, both by his life and doctrine; and by his merits and Spirit he provided, and still provides, for its being effectually fulfilled in and by his followers. Our Lord has taught us, that all the law and the prophets are comprehended in these two precepts, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c., and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Matthew 22:40. St. Paul also informs us, that he who loves his neighbour as himself, hath fulfilled the law, Romans 13:8; and Galatians 5:14, that all the law is fulfilled in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; this love of our neighbour being only found in those who first love God, and being closely connected with, and indeed never separated from, the love of God. Now our Lord was manifested in the flesh, and made a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, that he might give us such a demonstration of his love, and the love of the Father to us and all mankind, as might produce in us those returns of love to God and man, which God should be pleased to accept as the fulfilling of the law. Therefore we read, Romans 8:4, That God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

Ver. 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. Because our Saviour degraded the traditions of the elders, the pharisees insinuated that he sought to destroy the law. But here he magnifies the moral code as the eternal rule of obligation, refusing at the same time to fetter his disciples with the ecclesiastical trammels of rabbinical polity. He illustrates its perfection in the love of God and of all mankind. In the Munster Bible, a work distinguished by rabbinical literature, it is noted, “that there is no text in the new testament more revolting to the jews than this. — Why so? was not Christ made under the law, and circumcised the eighth day? Did he not, like Moses, resolve the law into two grand articles, the love of God, and of our neighbour? Matthew 22:37, 40. Has not Hosea said, Pietatem volui, et non sacrificium; scientiam Dei magis quàm holocausta? I will have piety and not sacrifice; the knowledge of God, rather than burnt-offerings? Has not Isaiah said, To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings, and the fat of beasts. Wash you, make you clean, make you a new heart? Have not Jeremiah, chap, 31., and Ezekiel, chap. 36., declared that God would make a new and better covenant with the house of Israel? “I spake not to your fathers — concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” Jeremiah 7:23, 24. Is it not apparent then from these sentences, that in the time of the Messiah the future worship of God should be in spirit and in truth. And is it not equally apparent, that the Messiah would absolve us from the law of legal sacrifices, and write his law on our inward parts; for circumcision is that of the heart?”

17. Think not — The crowds who came to the great gathering at the Mount had their thoughts. What will this great Jesus do? Will he destroy the law by letting all commandment go, and fulfil the prophets by a great and glorious kingdom? Or will he wholly destroy Moses, and set the Old Testament at naught? Our Lord gives them a powerful think not. Believe not, O ye people, whatever I may say of your elders as false interpreters, that I for a moment disparage Moses. Think it not, whatever your false shepherds may hereafter charge against me. Nor think ye, my disciples, who are to preach my doctrines, that while ye must rend away the false interpretations of the doctors, ye must overthrow the foundations laid by God’s ancient word.

It is remarked by Alford that rationalism generally commences by doubting the Old Testament. Paley had said before him, that infidels generally endeavour to wound the New Testament through the Old. Indeed, in the second century a half Christian, Marcion, endeavoured wholly to abandon the Old Testament, and retain Christianity wholly separate. And as these words of Christ were in his way, he altered the text and made it read, “What think ye? That I have come to fulfil the law or the prophets? I have come to destroy, but not to fulfil.”

I am come — Not I am born. He is the great Comer. He has come for a work, and what that work is he will now pronounce. By so doing he answers the question, Art thou He that should come?

The law, or the prophets — The Law and the Prophets was a customary phrase for the whole Old Testament. See Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40. But the Law and the Prophets are here viewed not as merely separate books of the Old Testament. Law, as God’s commandment, and prophecy, as God’s promises or threatenings for the future, are blended in the whole Old Testament. The law Christ fulfils not only by his own obedience and atonement, but by perfecting its obedience in his saints, and executing its penalty upon the impenitent. The prophecies he fulfils not only in his own life and sufferings, but in the establishment, glory, and perpetuity of his kingdom.

The law, as requiring the Mosaic ritual and the Jewish state, was fully accomplished, and both ceased at the required time. So that Christ does not require any obedience to the peculiarities of the Old Testament in the New. On the other hand, the Old Testament remains divinely sanctioned by Christ as the first volume to the New. Its law was God’s law; its prophets were God’s prophets. So that no one can strike at one Testament without striking at the other.

Destroy the law… but to fulfil — The ceremonial law, consisting of types and shadows, would be fulfilled in the Anti-type, Christ. The moral law, which requires man to do right, and only right, and which is mainly embodied in the Decalogue, is perpetual. Prophets — They are not destroyed, but their authority is forever established by the fulfilment of all their predictions. Christianity, therefore, is not the destruction, but the completion of Mosaicism. A greater than Moses carries the work of Moses to an honourable consummation.

Verse 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, &c. — On this declaration so many great theological consequences depend, that it is highly important for us rightly to understand its import. The word rendered to destroy, signifies, primarily, to loose, to dissolve; and, when applied to a law, means to abrogate or annul. “The law” is used in two leading senses in the New Testament; for the whole Mosaic institute, and for the moral law, by way of eminence, the law whose substance is found in the ten commands “written and engraven on stones,” and enforced in the writings of the prophets. The context so clearly confines our Lord’s meaning to this moral law, that, had it not been for the occurrence of the word plhrwsai, to fulfil, in this passage, one of the senses of which is to accomplish, no one probably would have extended our Lord’s meaning to the ceremonial law, and to the prophecies in their strict sense as predictions; both of which were truly fulfilled in him; the former, by supplying the antitype to the type; the latter, by accomplishment. This word, however, also signifies, to perfect, or complete. The Greek fathers explain it by filling up a vessel to the brim, which was before but partially filled; and the completion of a picture previously sketched. This idea fully accords with what follows; for our Lord first, in the most solemn manner, asserts the continued obligation of the moral law, by declaring that “whosoever should break one of these least commandments, and should teach men so, should be called least in the kingdom of heaven;” that is, be rejected from it; which could only be spoken of the moral law; for as to the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law, his inspired apostles ultimately taught their followers to disregard them entirely. Secondly, he proceeds to give a more spiritual and extensive meaning to many of the moral precepts than we find explicitly contained in any part of the Old Testament; and thereby showed that all the precepts of the law, even those which he does not specify, were to be understood as controlling the inward thoughts and desires of the heart; and thus he perfected or filled up the revelation of the moral law; and by this act he placed himself on an equality with the original Lawgiver. By the prophets we are also to understand, not those writings of the prophets which contained predictions of future events, and especially, of the future Christ, though most evidently accomplished in and by him; but those PRECEPTIVE parts of their writings, in which the moral law was enforced, and other injunctions of a moral kind founded upon, or suggested by it. That our Lord does not confine his expositions strictly to the law of the ten commandments is plain, from his selecting other points out of the juridical institutions of the Jews, (such, however, as have a manifest moral character and influence,) and either explaining or enlarging their sense, or else restraining them from misapplication. Such are those respecting divorce, swearing, and judicial retaliation. As to several other moral topics on which he dwells, such as almsgiving, ostentatious praying, covetousness, &c., they are also frequently adverted to in the reproofs and exhortations of the prophets; and these are placed by our Lord so manifestly upon their true principles, and exhibited in so strong a light of simple, searching truth, and so sanctioned by promises and threatenings, that he may most emphatically be said to have perfected the moral law, as it appears in the prophets also, and thus to have presented to us a revelation of “the will of God,” as to “our sanctification,” more complete than was ever before given to mankind. He does not formally reenact the ancient law, but he lays down its perpetual obligation; he teaches us to go more deeply into its meaning as a law, not merely for the regulation of the conduct, but the government of the heart. Both on this occasion, and at various times through the course of his ministry, he ADDED also many particular precepts. It is of the same law of which our Lord speaks, and with evident reference to his words in this passage, that the Apostle Paul says, “Do we then make void THE LAW through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law,” Romans 3:31. where he changes the term to complete or perfect, for that of “to establish,” because it was the province, not of the servant but of the master, who was in fact the lawgiver himself, to COMPLETE what was lacking in the former revelations of the law of God to man, by authorized exposition, and by additions standing upon the same right of the speaker to command, and the same obligation of the hearer to obey. This view of our Lord’s meaning renders quite irrelevant much criticism which has been expended upon the text when it is understood to comprehend the ceremonial law, to which our Lord indeed makes no allusion in the discourse which follows, and therefore cannot be supposed to have had any reference to it here. Dr. Marsh’s attempt to prove that our Lord did not abolish even the Levitical law of Moses, or the outward forms of the Jewish religion, but left them to take their course, as not worthy his attention; whatever merit it may have, it has nothing to do with the text before us, which respects not the law of ceremonies, and affords therefore no illustration of it. There is, indeed, an important sense in which Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law; that is, its types, in his own person; for in his passion he realized them as fully as he accomplished the prophecies. Still this is not the point to which the text has respect; for by fulfilling the law of figures and shadows, he dissolved its obligations for ever; whereas, by fulfilling in the sense of perfecting or completing the moral law, he established it for ever.

V. 18. Till all things shall be effected-Which it either requires or foretells. For the law has its effect, when the rewards are given, and the punishments annexed to it inflicted, as well as when its precepts are obeyed. Luke 16:17; 21:33.

Verse 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven] In the very commencement of his ministry, Jesus Christ teaches the instability of all visible things. “The heaven which you see, and which is so glorious, and the earth which you inhabit and love, shall pass away; for the things which are seen are temporal, proskaira, are for a time; but the things which are not seen are eternal aiwnia, ever-during,” 2 Corinthians 4:18. And the WORD of the Lord endureth for ever.

One jot or one tittle] One yod, (y,) the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. One tittle or point, keraia, either meaning those points which serve for vowels in this language, if they then existed; or the seraphs, or points of certain letters, such as r resh, or d daleth, h he, or j cheth (as the change of any of these into the other would make a most essential alteration in the sense, or, as the rabbins say, destroy the world.) Or our Lord may refer to the little ornaments which certain letters assume on their tops, which cause them to appear like small branches. The following letters only can assume coronal apices, x tsaddi-g gimel-z zain- n nun-c teth-[ ayin-v shin. These, with the coronal apices, often appear in MSS. That this saying, one jot or one tittle, is a proverbial mode of expression among the Jews, and that it expressed the meaning given to it above, is amply proved by the extracts in Lightfoot and Schoettgen. The reader will not be displeased to find a few of them here, if he can bear with the allegorical and strongly figurative language of the rabbins. “The book of Deuteronomy came and prostrated itself before the Lord, and said: ‘O Lord of the world, thou hast written in me thy law; but now, a Testament defective in some parts is defective in all. Behold, Solomon endeavours to root the letter yod out of me.’ (In this text, Deuteronomy 17:5. נשים hbry al lo yirbeh, nashim, he shall not multiply wives.) The holy blessed God answered, ‘Solomon and a thousand such as he shall perish, but the least word shall not perish out of thee.’”

In Shir Hashirim Rabba, are these words:

“Should all the inhabitants of the earth gather together, in order to whiten one feather of a crow, they could not succeed: so, if all the inhabitants of the earth should unite to abolish one y yod, which is the smallest letter in the whole law, they should not be able to effect it.”

In Vayikra Rabba, s. 19, it is said: “Should any person in the words of Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is dja achad, ONE Lord, change the d daleth into a r resh, he would ruin the world.” [Because, in that case, the word rja achar, would signify a strange or false God.]

“Should any one, in the words of Exodus 34:14, Thou shalt worship no OTHER, rja achar, God, change r resh into d daleth, he would ruin the world.” [Because the command would then run, Thou shalt not worship the ONLY or true God.]

“Should any one in the words of Leviticus 22:32, Neither shall ye PROFANE wlljt techelelu, my holy name, change j cheth into h he, he would ruin the world.” [Because the sense of the commandment would then be, Neither shall ye PRAISE my holy name.]

“Should any one, in the words of <19F006>Psalm 150:6, Let every thing that hath breath PRAISE, llht tehalel, the Lord, change h he into j cheth, he would ruin the world.” [Because the command would then run, Let every thing that hath breath PROFANE the Lord.] “Should any one, in the words of Jeremiah 5:10, They lied AGAINST the Lord, hwhyb beihovah, change b beth into k caph, he would ruin the world.” [For then the words would run, They lied LIKE the Lord.]

“Should any one, in the words of Hosea, Hosea 5:7, They have dealt treacherously, hwhyb beihovah, AGAINST the Lord, change b beth into k caph, he would ruin the world.” [For then the words would run, They have dealt treacherously LIKE the Lord.] “Should any one, in the words of 1 Samuel 2:2, There is none holy AS the Lord, change k caph into b beth, he would ruin the world.” [For then the words would mean, There is no holiness IN the Lord.]

These examples fully prove that the mia keraia of our Lord, refers to the apices, points, or corners, that distinguish b beth from k caph; j cheth from h he; and r resh from d daleth. For the reader will at once perceive, how easily a k caph may be turned into a b beth; a h he into a j cheth; and a r resh into a d daleth: and he will also see of what infinite consequence it is to write and print such letters correctly. Till all be fulfilled.] Or, accomplished. Though all earth and hell should join together to hinder the accomplishment of the great designs of the Most High, yet it shall all be in vain-even the sense of a single letter shall not be lost. The words of God, which point out his designs, are as unchangeable as his nature itself. Every sinner, who perseveres in his iniquity, shall surely be punished with separation from God and the glory of his power; and every soul that turns to God, through Christ, shall as surely be saved, as that Jesus himself hath died.

Verse 18. For verily I say unto you — This expression, whereby our Lord often prefaces what he is about to say, always imports the great importance, as well as certain truth of it. Till heaven and earth pass away — Till the whole visible frame of nature be disjointed and dissolved, one jot or one tittle — “The word iwta, which we render jot, undoubtedly answers to the Hebrew letter y, jod, whence the English word here seems to be derived, and which, being the least letter of the alphabet, might properly be used proverbially on this occasion. Keraia, which we render tittle, properly signifies one of those little ornamental curvatures or flourishes, which, when Hebrew is elegantly written, are generally used at the beginning and end of a letter, and sometimes at the corners too. I think it might well have been rendered, not the least letter, or stroke, &c., and so much the rather, as jot and tittle, in English, signify the same.” — Doddridge. Shall in no wise pass from, the law — Or, from the prophets, till all be fulfilled — Till all things which the law requires, or the prophets foretel, shall be effected. This seems to be the literal translation of the original words, ewv an panta genhtai: for the law has its effect when its sanctions are executed, as well as when its precepts are obeyed. And the predictions of the prophets have their proper effect and confirmation, when they are accomplished. Some, however, understand the words as meaning, till the end, or, consummation of all things shall come, or, till the heavens and the earth shall pass away, or be destroyed. The meaning of our Lord’s words, according to this interpretation, is, that there is nothing in the universe so stable as the truths contained in the moral law, and nothing so certain as the fulfilment of the predictions of the prophets: the heavens may fall, and the whole frame of nature be unhinged, nay, every part of it may be dissolved; but the rules of righteousness, and the declarations of the divine word, with their sanctions, shall remain immutable and eternal: for the word of the Lord endureth for ever, 1 Peter 1:25. Our Lord therefore proceeds, in the two next verses, to command his disciples, on the severest penalties, to enforce, both by their doctrine and example, the strict observation of all the moral precepts contained in the sacred writings, and that in their utmost extent.

Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you. This, though AMEN in the original, is an oath, and it corresponds with the oath which so frequently occurs in the old testament: “As I live, saith the Lord.”

One jot. It seems to mean the Hebrew letter, y yod; and in Lightfoot, the Gemarists of Jerusalem say, that Solomon attempted to suppress it in Deuteronomy 17:5. “Thou shalt not multiply many wives.” One tittle. A little dash at the head of Hebrew letters, where there existed any danger of reading one letter for another, many of them being nearly similar to another letter in that alphabet. This similarity has occasioned much variety of opinion in the reading of many texts in the old testament.

18. For verily — Very emphatic is our Lord in removing all thought that he annuls, instead of fulfilling, the law. He repeats his I am come; he adds a verily I say unto you, and asserts the infinite value of every point of the law. Verily is the same in the original as our word Amen, and it was a solemn so let it be. As the Hebrews used it for a solemn confirmatory close, the Christian Church has retained it for the same purpose. Heaven and earth — As Stier remarks, the heaven here is not the heavens of verse 12; as the earth here is not the earth promised in verse 5. Heaven and earth as they now are, are transitory. They shall pass away. One jot or one tittle — Our Lord proceeds to show that, so far from destroying or dishonouring the law, he would magnify it even beyond their Pharisaic teachers, who divided its precepts into the weightier and lighter classes, the former of which must be kept, while the latter might be slighted. He taught, on the contrary, that the slightest point of God’s law is of limitless obligation and imperishable completion. The jot was the yod, (y,) the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. The tittle was the term for the point by which very similar Hebrew letters (as for instance, Resh r and Daleth d) were distinguished from each other. As many Hebrew words and letters were very similar, a slight change would often very greatly vary the sense. So the Jewish writers had many curious remarks; such as the following, which we quote from Clarke on the passage: “In Vayikra Rabba, s. 19, it is said: Should any person, in the words of Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is dja achad, ONE Lord, change the d daleth into a r resh, he would ruin the world.” [Because, in that case, the word rja achar, would signify a strange or false God.]

“‘Should any one, in the words of Exodus 34:14, Thou shalt worship no OTHER, rja achar, God, change r resh into d daleth, he would ruin the world.’ [Because the command would then run, Thou shalt not worship the ONLY or true God.]

“‘Should any one, in the words of Levit. 22:32, Neither shall ye PROFANE, wlljt techalelu, my holy name, change j cheth into h he, he would ruin the world.’ [Because the sense of the commandment would then be, Neither shall ye PRAISE my holy name.]”

Our Lord here, of course, uses the names of the Jewish characters figuratively, to indicate the smallest point in the moral force of the law. Till all be fulfilled — There is twice a till in this verse, rendering the meaning slightly obscure. The sense briefly is, Not the slightest principle of the law shall fail of accomplishment while the world stands.

Verse 18. For verily I say unto you, &c. — Amhn is most frequently used in a PRECATIVE sense, as at the end of prayers, and then it signifies so let it be; and is therefore rendered genoito, fiat, by the LXX. In introducing a discourse, as here, and on many other occasions, by our Lord, who often repeats it, it is solemnly AFFIRMATIVE of the truth and importance of what follows, and has the sense of the Greek alhqwv, the word used by St. Luke, and of our verily. An idle opinion has obtained among a few commentators, that the word amen, as employed by our Lord, has somewhat of the nature of an oath; to which they appear to have been led by observing it stated in Jewish writings, that he that says amen to an oath is equally bound with him that more formally makes it, and by the use of this word takes the oath upon himself. However casuistry might determine that question, is another consideration; but amen would, in that case, be used in its precative sense, and not as a mere affirmative, which is the case whenever it is employed by our Lord as introductory to any of his sayings; and to make him affirm them in the form of an oath, is as uncritical as it is repulsive.

Till heaven and earth pass. — This is a proverbial expression to signify, through all time; to the end of the world.

One jot or one tittle. — One iwta, iota, a Greek letter, which answers to the Hebrew y jod, the smallest of their alphabet. The “tittle,” keraia, was with the Hebrews the slight mark at the angle of some of their letters, distinguishing them from others similar in form, as b from k; d from r; and so the meaning is, that not the smallest part of the law should be abolished; for the Jews, as Lightfoot remarks, use jod, their smallest letter, to express a short precept of their law.

Till all be fulfilled. — Ewv an panta genhtai, till all things be done, or accomplished. Till the law, through the grace of the Gospel, has effected its original purpose, to subject men to the dominion of God. That it is the end of the Gospel, and a glorious display of its grace, to restore the dominion of the law over renewed minds, cannot be doubted by any who enter truly into the meaning of the words of St. Paul, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULFILLED IN US, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” Romans 8:3, 4. Thus, the authority of the law, and willing and entire obedience to it, are established over the fully regenerated on earth; and still more perfectly shall its holy rules, and their absolute obedience, be established for ever in heaven, among the glorified redeemed; while the same authority shall be manifested in the punishment of the obstinately disobedient over whom its awful majesty, and the eternally binding character of its penalty, DEATH, shall be established for ever. This DOUBLE fulfilment or completion of the ends of law is mentioned in the succeeding verses.

V. 19. One of the least-So accounted by men; and shall teach-Either by word or example; shall be the least-That is, shall have no part therein.

Verse 19. Whosoever-shall break one of these least commandments] The Pharisees were remarkable for making a distinction between weightier and lighter matters in the law, and between what has been called, in a corrupt part of the Christian Church, mortal and venial sins. See Clarke on “Matthew 22:36”.

Whosoever shall break. What an awful consideration is this! He who, by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force and meaning, shall be called least-shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse.

Verse 19. Whosoever therefore shall break — Shall himself transgress in his practice, or pervert and weaken by his doctrine, one of these least commandments, and teach men so — Shall direct or encourage men to do the same, or shall teach them, either by word or example, that the obligation of these commands is dissolved; he shall be called — Or, shall be accounted one of the least, and unworthiest members in the kingdom of heaven — Or, Church of the Messiah, and shall soon be entirely cut off from it, as unfit for so holy a society, and shall have no part in the church triumphant. “There is in the text a figure, which the rhetoricians call meiwsiv, diminution, often elegantly used to convey a strong idea. Thus, Galatians 5:21, They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God, that is, shall be severely punished.” — Macknight. But whosoever shall do and teach them, &c. — Whosoever shall himself carefully practise these precepts of the law, and other parts of the divine word, and shall inculcate their universal obligation, shall be greatly rewarded.

Ver. 19. Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, least in the estimation of men; for though no divine precept can be called small, yet every one is not of equal weight and importance, judgment, mercy, and faith being “the weightier matters of the law.” The Lord strikes here at all accommodating preachers; at Rome, in her distinctions between mortal and venial sins; at all who build with wood, hay, and stubble. Let us be exact in the smaller as well as in the greater duties, knowing that all who trifle with the law shall be of no account in the church.

19. Whosoever — Our Lord farther shows his reverence for the law by guarding its least requirement with highest penalties. These least commandments — Contained in the Old Testament. Teach men so — As many of you may have feared that I or my disciples were about to do, in the new kingdom. Our Lord therefore is here laying down principles affecting the teachers whom he is to send forth. Shall teach men so — If to violate, with purpose, a known law of God is a dangerous sin, how much deeper the danger of teaching others to sin! Least — Many of the best commentators understand this as signifying that he shall be excluded. Yet such, surely, is not its exact meaning. Clearly to be least IN the kingdom of heaven is far less than shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Our Lord’s phrase here is adopted by him for the purpose of the antithesis — the violator of the least shall himself be least. Such mercy is shown to the case of erring man, in whom mistake may mingle in the interpretation of God’s laws, even when he would be a wise teacher, that our Lord uses a sentence which may imply, and yet does not absolutely express, exclusion. Such a man’s reward is terribly cut down; he is scarce if at all saved. Nothing but a state of repentance for all sin, known or unknown, can avail him. Great — The true observer and teacher of the law in its completeness shall be a star of brightest lustre in the firmament of heaven. Our Lord here clearly illustrates the truth of different degrees of future reward.

Verse 19. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, &c. — One of the least of these commandments would have been a clearer rendering. Whosoever shall break any commandment of God, great or small, that is, wilfully, and presuming that Christianity has set him free from the obligation to obey the moral law, which is adopted by Christ as the law of his dispensation, and as it is explained and enforced by him. And shall teach men so, under whatever pretence of exalting Christ and his righteousness, Antinomian teachers may contemn the law, and deny its obligation upon Christians as a rule of holiness. He shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. He shall be deemed unworthy to be ranked among the subjects of my kingdom. Those commentators (and they are not a few) who take “the kingdom of heaven” here to mean the Christian Church, understand the phrase, “to be least in that kingdom,” in the sense of not being esteemed in it. This is the view of Campbell, who follows many others But what, then, we may ask, does our Lord mean when, in the very next verse, he declares that except our righteousness shall even exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven? The visible Church on earth cannot, therefore, be intended; and we must refer the words to a future state into which that kingdom which Christ set up on earth extends. To be “the least in the kingdom of heaven,” is only a softened form of expressing a strong truth, which yet, when rightly conceived, only serves to heighten the impression. So it was understood by Chrysostom; and this sense is necessarily attached to it by verse 20. Beside this, our Lord is evidently addressing himself to his disciples, and speaking of those who, under that character, would contend that their Master came to annul, or render indifferent, the moral law, — a heresy which has been, in fact, so frequent and so fatal in the Church, that one might expect our Lord, in his perfect prescience of the future, to set up a barrier against it. Into his Church on earth, such persons have unquestionably often “entered;” but our Lord declares that into his heavenly kingdom they shall not enter. Those also who think that there is in the words a reference to the violation of the precepts of the law by the Pharisees, under the influence of their corrupt traditions, appear to be in error. They are misled by the notion of Lightfoot, that reference is made in “every line” of this sermon to the perversions of the Jews; which is not true as to every part of the discourse, though it holds good in some. Were this theory to be applied throughout, it would but darken, and not illustrate this Divine discourse. With respect to the Pharisees, it is indeed indubitable, that, with great reverence and zeal for the law, that law was frequently violated by them; “they made it void by their traditions;” and what Maimonides says, was probably applicable in our Lord’s time, “that the sanhedrim held, that it had power, for the time present, to make void an affirmative command, and to transgress a negative one, in order to turn many to their religion; or that, in order to prevent many of the Israelites from stumbling at other things, they might do whatever present circumstances rendered necessary.” Thus, he adds, “The former wise men say, A man may profane one Sabbath in order to keep many Sabbaths.” They therefore acted on the principle of doing evil that good might come; which has been the dishonest source of great moral corruption in Churches. Much more might be added in illustration of this, as to the Jews; and it indeed proves, that a detestable and delusive method of dealing with matters of conscience very generally prevailed among their leading sects, which was afterward copied by the teachers of corrupt Christian Churches, and was especially perfected by the order of Jesuits in the Church of Rome. This “deceivableness of unrighteousness” is inseparable from a systematized superstition; and to all such cases the monitory and reproving words of the text may be justly applied. By all persons of this description some of the commandments of God, at least, are violated; and the very principle which leads to that prevents a spiritual and real observance of the others. Such violaters of the law cannot, therefore, “enter the kingdom of heaven,” that is, they cannot be saved; for although the rhetorical figure, meiwsiv, is used, “shall be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven,” yet the plain import is, that they shall be found so little, so “lightly esteemed,” though in their own imagination great saints, so contemptible and base, as to be wholly excluded when Christ “shall come to be our Judge.” Still, however, the direct and primary reference of the text is to the Antinomian heresy, those persons being certainly intended, as the scope of the passage shows, who receive Christ under the notion that he came to annul the obligation of the moral law upon his disciples, and TEACH this fatal notion.

V. 20. The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees-Described in the sequel of this discourse.

Verse 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed] perisseush, Unless your righteousness abound more-unless it take in, not only the letter, but the spirit and design of the moral and ritual precept; the one directing you how to walk so as to please God; the other pointing out Christ, the great Atonement, through and by which a sinner is enabled to do so-more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, who only attend to the letter of the law, and had indeed made even that of no effect by their traditions-ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This fully explains the meaning of the preceding verse. The old English word is [Anglo-Saxon], right-wiseness, i.e. complete, thorough, excellent WISDOM. For a full explanation of this verse, see Luke 18:10, &c.

Verse 20. For, except your righteousness shall exceed — Gr. perisseush, shall abound more than the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees — Than that which is apparent in their lives, or even required in their precepts, as is described in the sequel of this discourse, as highly as they are generally esteemed; ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven — That is, into the kingdom of glory after you die, or be owned by the Son of man as his subjects while you live. It is justly observed by Dr. Doddridge here, that this must have greatly surprised Christ’s hearers, if the proverb, which has since prevailed, was in use then; namely, that “if but two men were to enter into the kingdom of heaven, one of them would be a Pharisee and the other a scribe.” It appears from what follows, the Pharisees affirmed that only the outward action was commanded or forbidden in the law, and that they interpreted all its precepts accordingly. On this principle, they boasted of having performed every thing that was required of them. Nay, they were so arrogant as to think they could do even more than was required. This pernicious morality, destructive of all virtue, Jesus loudly condemned, as was fit, in the beginning of his ministry.

Ver. 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, which was distinguished by severities of fasting, of prayers, and of almsgiving, in all of which christians come greatly short, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Those men were like the splendid sepulchre in their outward walk, but within, their heart was a charnel house of sin. Like Noah, surrounded with a deluge of woes, we must fly to the ark for safety, and become heirs of the righteousness of God by faith. The gospel old way is, repentance, faith, and holiness, that all the fruits of righteousness may follow the entire regeneration of our nature. Deuteronomy 6:25. Romans 3:21. 10:3, 5.

20. For I say unto — By way of illustration of the terrible danger of making void God’s law. Exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees — These not only violated the spirit of the law, but often both letter and spirit, and systematically taught men so. They could not be even the least within the kingdom; they were excluded from it. They, with all the ancient fathers of their tradition, had lowered the power of God’s law, as Jesus proceeds to show in the following verses.

2. Christianity distinguished from degenerate Judaism, Matthew 5:20-6:18.

(1.) In regard to angry passions:

In interpreting much that follows, it is important to understand that corporeal and earthly objects are often made to stand as symbols for spiritual ideas. Sometimes the entire sentence is constructed with a series of such symbols; as, for instance, verse 25. A true interpretation will reduce the figurative to the literal, by substituting the idea symbolized for the symbol. Having prepared his way by showing that he does not oppose but fulfil the pure Judaism, the Teacher now proceeds to reject and condemn the false glosses and traditions heaped upon Moses, which the people had heard from the Jewish doctors.

Verse 20. Except your righteousness shall exceed, &c. — Here the Pharisees are brought in for the sake of illustration. So far are Christ’s disciples from being allowed to break any commandment, though accounted the least, their righteousness is to exceed even that of the Pharisees, who were the advocates of the perpetual obligation of the law, though on wrong principles, and greatly extended its strictness. It is to exceed or to abound more than theirs in UNIVERSALITY: they violated some of the commands; we are to keep them all. And it is to exceed theirs in depth, having its root in a renewed heart, and controlling the very thoughts: for the Pharisees did not extend the law of God to the thoughts; so that with them evil desires and purposes were not sinful, if they did riot express themselves in overt acts, even though this were prevented by mere circumstances, and not by conscience and self denial. Several proofs of this have been collected from their writings; of which Kimshi’s comment upon Psalms 66:18Psalm 66:18, may be given as a pregnant instance. The words of David are, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me;” that is, says this unblushing interpreter, “He will not impute it to me for sin; for God does not look upon an evil thought as sin, unless it be conceived against God and religion;” meaning, unless it be either blasphemous or idolatrous; for these only were excepted. It was to this lax view of the obligation of the law, no doubt, that our Lord alludes, when he charges the Pharisees with making clean “the outside” of the vessel only. This part of the discourse, therefore, forms an appropriate introduction to that spiritual exposition of the intent and obligation of the Divine law which follows.

The scribes. — For an account of the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees see note on Matthew 3:7. The scribes were either civil or ecclesiastical. The former were keepers of registers, genealogies, and muster rolls, copyists of various writings, and were remarkable for fine writing. They were of various degrees of rank, just as amanuenses, secretaries, and registrars are among us. The scribes, who were employed merely in civil offices, and who used the art of writing as a profession, do not appear to be mentioned in the New Testament. The ecclesiastical scribes are supposed at first to have been chiefly employed as copyers of the law and the other sacred books, on which great pains and care was bestowed. Afterward they became instructers of the people in the written law, and public readers of it. During our Saviour’s ministry they were looked up to as the most qualified expounders both of the law and the prophets, and were of great influence and authority among the Jews. “Scribes,” “doctors of the law,” and “lawyers,” were only different names for the same persons. They were public teachers, and had disciples, and were, for the most part, of the sect of the Pharisees. See note on Matthew 2:4. Ye shall in no case enter, &c. — “In no case,” ou mh, an emphatic negative, signifying, not at all, not by any means. See note on verse 19.

V. 21. Ye have heard-From the scribes reciting the law; Thou shalt do no murder-And they interpreted this, as all the other commandments, barely of the outward act.

The judgement-The Jews had in every city a court of twenty-three men, who could sentence a criminal to be strangled. But the sanhedrim only (the great council which sat at Jerusalem, consisting of seventy-two men,) could sentence to the more terrible death of stoning. That was called the judgment, this the council. Exodus 20:13.

Verse 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time] toiv arcaioiv, to or by the ancients. By the ancients, we may understand those who lived before the law, and those who lived under it; for murder was, in the most solemn manner, forbidden before, as well as under, the law, Genesis 9:5, 6.

But it is very likely that our Lord refers here merely to traditions and glosses relative to the ancient Mosaic ordinance; and such as, by their operation, rendered the primitive command of little or no effect. Murder from the beginning has been punished with death; and it is, probably, the only crime that should be punished with death. There is much reason to doubt, whether the punishment of death, inflicted for any other crime, is not in itself murder, whatever the authority may be that has instituted it. GOD, and the greatest legislators that have ever been in the universe, are of the same opinion. See Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Marquis Beccaria, and the arguments and testimonies lately produced by Sir Samuel Romilly, in his motion for the amendment of the criminal laws of this kingdom. It is very remarkable, that the criminal code published by Joseph II., late emperor of Germany, though it consists of seventy-one capital crimes, has not death attached to any of them. Even murder, with all intention to rob, is punished only with “imprisonment for thirty years, to lie on the floor, to have no nourishment but bread and water, to be closely chained, and to be publicly whipped once a year, with less than one hundred lashes.” See Colquhoun on the Police of the City of London, p. 272.

Verses 21, 22. Ye have heard — Namely, from the scribes reciting the law, that it was said by them of old time, or to the ancients, as erreqh tiov arcaioiv, might be properly rendered. Thou shalt not kill — Words which they interpreted barely of the outward act of murder; and whosoever shall kill — Or be guilty of that act, shall be in danger of, or, obnoxious to the judgment — To understand this, it is necessary to observe, that the Jews had, in every city, a common court of twenty-three men, which, before the Roman government was established in Judea, had the power of life and death, so far as its jurisdiction extended, and could punish criminals with strangling or beheading. This was called the judgment, and the meaning of the clause is, that such a criminal should be capitally punished in the common courts of judicature. But I say unto you — Which of the prophets ever spake thus? Their language was, Thus saith the Lord. Who hath authority to use this language, but the one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy? Whosoever is angry with his brother — With any child of man, for we are all brethren; without a cause — Or further than that cause warrants; shall be in danger of the judgment — Shall be liable to a worse punishment from God than any that your common courts of judicature can inflict. It must be observed, that the word eikh, here rendered without cause, and which might properly be translated rashly, or inconsiderately, is wanting in some old versions and manuscripts, and, it seems, ought not to be inserted, being “utterly foreign to the whole scope and tenor of our Lord’s discourse. For if he had only forbidden the being angry without a cause, there was no manner of need of that solemn declaration, I say unto you; for the scribes and Pharisees themselves said as much as this. Even they taught men ought not to be angry without a cause. So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man raca, or fool. We ought not, for any cause, to be angry at the person of the sinner, but at his sin only. Happy world, were this plain and necessary distinction thoroughly understood, remembered, and practised.” — Wesley. Raca, means a silly man, or an empty, worthless fellow. Kene, vain man, used James 2:20, seems to be a translation of it; for, as Jerome observes, it is derived from the Hebrew, rick, which signifies vain, or empty. Shall be in danger of the council — In the Greek, sunedrion; “a word which the Jews adopted into their language, and giving it a Hebrew termination, sanhedrim, appropriated it to their supreme council, whose business was to judge in the most important affairs; for instance, in all matters relative to religion, as when any person pretended to be a prophet, or attempted to make innovations in the established worship. This court could, while the republic lasted, inflict the heaviest punishments; particularly stoning, or burning, with melted lead poured down the throat of the criminal, after he was half strangled.” — Macknight. Whosoever shall say, Thou fool — Or, Thou graceless, wicked villain: so the word fool generally signifies in Scripture: for as religion is the highest wisdom, vice must be accounted the extremest folly: the meaning here is, Whosoever shall break out into open revilings and reproaches against any man, shall be in danger of hell fire — Enocov estai eiv geennan tou purov, shall be obnoxious to a gehenna of fire, that is, by a common figure of speech, “obnoxious to the fire of the valley of Hinnom,” obnoxious to a degree of future punishment, which may fitly be represented by that fire. Of the valley of Hinnom, called also Tophet, see notes on Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; Isaiah 30:33. It was the scene of the detestable worship of Moloch, that horrid idol of the Ammonites, to which the Israelites burned their children alive as sacrifices. “In later times, continual fires were kept in this valley for burning the unburied carcasses and filth of the city, that, being thus polluted, it might be unfit for the like religious abominations. The Jews, from the perpetuity of these fires, and to express the utmost detestation of the sacrifices which were offered to Moloch in this valley, made use of its name to signify hell. Hence our translators have given Tophet, or gehenna, its metaphorical meaning in the present passage, whereas it ought rather to have had its literal signification. For our Lord, intending to show his hearers that the punishment of causeless anger, contemptuous speeches, and abusive names, shall, in the life to come, bear a proportion to the guilt that is in these sins; and finding no name in the language of men by which those different degrees of punishment could properly be expressed, he illustrated them by the punishments which the Jews were acquainted with.”

Ver. 21. Thou shalt not kill. The Greek foneuw, as the Hebrew xtr, Exodus 20:13, is to murder by malice and revenge. So also is the Gothic of Ulphilas. Therefore every emotion of anger must be suppressed, and the heart opened to the love of God and man, the only healer of moral evil.

21. Ye — The apostles primarily, the people inferentially. Have heard — Not ye have read in the law, but ye have heard from the elders. Our Saviour is not setting himself up as an opponent, though a superior, of Moses. He is only disburdening Moses of the load of long-standing misinterpretations, and bringing out the law in its own purity. By them of old time — By the founders of Rabbinical traditions, which the scribes and Pharisees are now inculcating, and by which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Thou shalt not kill — The words Thou shalt not kill, are the words of Moses; and at first sight it might appear that our Lord was reproving Moses as being too lax. But this is a very mistaken view. Our Lord does not here so much quote the commandment in the decalogue, as the bald and verbal repetition of it by the rabbies of old, who recited its letter devoid of the spirit. (See note on verses 31, 32.) They confined the criminality to the external act, without tracing the act to the temper in the heart, and so condemning the evil in its root. Shall be in danger of the judgment — To the proper legal verdict and sentence in the case.

Verse 21. Ye have heard that it was said — Some of our principal commentators think that Christ did not here intend to give a more spiritual and extensive exposition of the law of Moses, but only to correct those false glosses, which, on the authority of their traditions, the scribes and Pharisees had put upon these precepts. But if our Lord had principally referred to such traditions, he would scarcely have used the phrase, “of old time,” because, at the farthest, such traditions could only have sprung up subsequently to the close of the order of prophets, who, while they continued, were the inspired and acknowledged expositors of the law. These two views are not, however, in opposition to each other. The law was always understood spiritually by spiritual men; and allusions to its office to regulate the whole heart, as well as the conduct, often appear in the Psalms and the writings of the prophets; but, till our Lord entered upon his office as the great Teacher of the law, the import of those of its precepts which forbade certain outward acts, considered as equally prohibitory of the evil principles and affections which tend to produce them, was never so expressly, and with such authority, laid down as the law of heaven. It was the absence of this express manner of stating the import of these commands which gave occasion to those wretched casuists in the Jewish Church, who separated morals from their principles, to adopt and teach such interpretations as quite destroyed the obligations of internal holiness. Our Lord, therefore, at one and the same time, refutes their misleading doctrines, maintains the original spirituality of the decalogue, gives to his explicit exposition of it the force of the original law, by a formal enunciation of its meaning, and branches it out into more particular precepts; so that by this means, as above stated, he fulfilled or completed it.

By them of old time. — Rather, TO them of old time, according to the fathers and the ancient versions; that is, to the Israelites, who received the law from Sinai; erreqh being always joined to a dative case, Romans 9:12; Galatians 3:16, &c. So also the Greek fathers understood the passage.

Shall be in danger of the judgment. — Liable to the punishment which the law inflicts upon murder. Our Lord joins the prohibition of the crime of murder in the moral law, with its penalty in their juridical law, which also was delivered “to them of old time.”

V. 22. But I say unto you-Which of the prophets ever spake thus? Their language is, Thus saith the Lord. Who hath authority to use this language, but the one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Whosoever is angry with his brother-Some copies add, without a cause-But this is utterly foreign to the whole scope and tenor of our Lord's discourse. If he had only forbidden the being angry without a cause, there was no manner of need of that solemn declaration,

I say unto you; for the scribes and Pharisees themselves said as much as this. Even they taught, men ought not to be angry without a cause. So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches, that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man Raca, or fool. We ought not, for any cause, to be angry at the person of the sinner, but at his sins only. Happy world, were this plain and necessary distinction thoroughly understood, remembered, practised! Raca means, a silly man, a trifler.

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool-Shall revile, or seriously reproach any man. Our Lord specified three degrees of murder, each liable to a sorer punishment than the other: not indeed from men, but from God. Hell fire-In the valley of Hinnom (whence the word in the original is taken) the children were used to be burnt alive to Moloch. It was afterward made a receptacle for the filth of the city, where continual fires were kept to consume it. And it is probable, if any criminals were burnt alive, it was in this accursed and horrible place. Therefore both as to its former and latter state, it was a fit emblem of hell. It must here signify a degree of future punishment, as much more dreadful than those incurred in the two former cases, as burning alive is more dreadful than either strangling or stoning.

Verse 22. Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause] ~o orgizomenov&eikh, who is vainly incensed. “This translation is literal; and the very objectionable phrase, without a cause, is left out, eikh being more properly translated by that above.” What our Lord seems here to prohibit, is not merely that miserable facility which some have of being angry at every trifle, continually taking offence against their best friends; but that anger which leads a man to commit outrages against another, thereby subjecting himself to that punishment which was to be inflicted on those who break the peace. eikh, vainly, or, as in the common translation, without a cause, is wanting in the famous Vatican MS. and two others, the Ethiopic, latter Arabic, Saxon, Vulgate, two copies of the old Itala, J. Martyr, Ptolomeus, Origen, Tertullian, and by all the ancient copies quoted by St. Jerome. It was probably a marginal gloss originally, which in process of time crept into the text.

Shall be in danger of the judgment] enocov estai, shall be liable to the judgment. That is, to have the matter brought before a senate, composed of twenty-three magistrates, whose business it was to judge in cases of murder and other capital crimes. It punished criminals by strangling or beheading; but Dr. Lightfoot supposes the judgment of God to be intended. See at the end of this chapter.

Raca] hqyr from the Hebrew qr rak, to be empty. It signifies a vain, empty, worthless fellow, shallow brains, a term of great contempt. Such expressions were punished among the Gentoos by a heavy fine. See all the cases, Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15: sec. 2.

The council] sunedrion, the famous council, known among the Jews by the name of Sanhedrin. It was composed of seventy-two elders, six chosen out of each tribe. This grand Sanhedrin not only received appeals from the inferior Sanhedrins, or court of twenty-three mentioned above; but could alone take cognizance, in the first instance, of the highest crimes, and alone inflict the punishment of stoning.

Thou fool] Moreh, probably from hrm marah, to rebel, a rebel against God, apostate from all good. This term implied, among the Jews, the highest enormity, and most aggravated guilt. Among the Gentoos, such an expression was punished by cutting out the tongue, and thrusting a hot iron, of ten fingers breadth, into the mouth of the person who used it. Code of Gentoo Laws, chap. 15: sec. 2. p. 212.

Shall be in danger of hell fire.] enocov estai eiv thn geennan tou purov, shall be liable to the hell of fire. Our Lord here alludes to the valley of the son of Hinnom, הנם yg Ghi hinom. This place was near Jerusalem, and had been formerly used for those abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews had caused their children to pass through the fire to Molech. A particular place in this valley was called Tophet, from tpt tophet, the fire stove, in which some supposed they burnt their children alive to the above idol. See 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 7:31, 32. From the circumstances of this valley having been the scene of those infernal sacrifices, the Jews, in our Saviour’s time, used the word for hell, the place of the damned. See the word applied in this sense by the Targum, on Ruth 2:12; <19E012>Psalm 140:12; Genesis 3:24; 15:17. It is very probable that our Lord means no more here than this: if a man charge another with apostasy from the Jewish religion, or rebellion against God, and cannot prove his charge, then he is exposed to that punishment (burning alive) which the other must have suffered, if the charge had been substantiated. There are three kinds of offences here, which exceed each other in their degrees of guilt. 1st. Anger against a man, accompanied with some injurious act. 2dly. Contempt, expressed by the opprobrious epithet raka, or shallow brains. 3dly. Hatred and mortal enmity, expressed by the term moreh, or apostate, where such apostasy could not be proved. Now, proportioned to these three offences were three different degrees of punishment, each exceeding the other in its severity, as the offenses exceeded each other in their different degrees of guilt. 1st. The judgment, the council of twenty-three, which could inflict the punishment of strangling. 2dly. The Sanhedrin, or great council, which could inflict the punishment of stoning. And 3dly. The being burnt alive in the valley of the son of Hinnom. This appears to be the meaning of our Lord. Now, if the above offences were to be so severely punished, which did not immediately affect the life of another, how much sorer must the punishment of murder be! Matthew 5:21. And as there could not be a greater punishment inflicted than death, in the above terrific forms, and this was to be inflicted for minor crimes; then the punishment of murder must not only have death here, but a hell of fire in the eternal world, attached to it. It seems that these different degrees of guilt, and the punishment attached to each, had not been properly distinguished among the Jews. Our Lord here calls their attention back to them, and gives then to understand, that in the coming world there are different degrees of punishment prepared for different degrees of vice; and that not only the outward act of iniquity should be judged and punished by the Lord, but that injurious words, and evil passions, should all meet their just recompense and reward. Murder is the most punishable of all crimes, according to the written law, in respect both of our neighbours and civil society. But he who sees the heart, and judges it by the eternal law, punishes as much a word or a desire, if the hatred whence they proceed be complete and perfected. Dr. Lightfoot has some curious observations on this passage in the preface to his Harmony of the Evangelists. See his works, vol. ii., and the conclusion of this chapter.

Verses 21, 22. Ye have heard — Namely, from the scribes reciting the law, that it was said by them of old time, or to the ancients, as erreqh tiov arcaioiv, might be properly rendered. Thou shalt not kill — Words which they interpreted barely of the outward act of murder; and whosoever shall kill — Or be guilty of that act, shall be in danger of, or, obnoxious to the judgment — To understand this, it is necessary to observe, that the Jews had, in every city, a common court of twenty-three men, which, before the Roman government was established in Judea, had the power of life and death, so far as its jurisdiction extended, and could punish criminals with strangling or beheading. This was called the judgment, and the meaning of the clause is, that such a criminal should be capitally punished in the common courts of judicature. But I say unto you — Which of the prophets ever spake thus? Their language was, Thus saith the Lord. Who hath authority to use this language, but the one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy? Whosoever is angry with his brother — With any child of man, for we are all brethren; without a cause — Or further than that cause warrants; shall be in danger of the judgment — Shall be liable to a worse punishment from God than any that your common courts of judicature can inflict. It must be observed, that the word eikh, here rendered without cause, and which might properly be translated rashly, or inconsiderately, is wanting in some old versions and manuscripts, and, it seems, ought not to be inserted, being “utterly foreign to the whole scope and tenor of our Lord’s discourse. For if he had only forbidden the being angry without a cause, there was no manner of need of that solemn declaration, I say unto you; for the scribes and Pharisees themselves said as much as this. Even they taught men ought not to be angry without a cause. So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man raca, or fool. We ought not, for any cause, to be angry at the person of the sinner, but at his sin only. Happy world, were this plain and necessary distinction thoroughly understood, remembered, and practised.” — Wesley. Raca, means a silly man, or an empty, worthless fellow. Kene, vain man, used James 2:20, seems to be a translation of it; for, as Jerome observes, it is derived from the Hebrew, rick, which signifies vain, or empty. Shall be in danger of the council — In the Greek, sunedrion; “a word which the Jews adopted into their language, and giving it a Hebrew termination, sanhedrim, appropriated it to their supreme council, whose business was to judge in the most important affairs; for instance, in all matters relative to religion, as when any person pretended to be a prophet, or attempted to make innovations in the established worship. This court could, while the republic lasted, inflict the heaviest punishments; particularly stoning, or burning, with melted lead poured down the throat of the criminal, after he was half strangled.” — Macknight. Whosoever shall say, Thou fool — Or, Thou graceless, wicked villain: so the word fool generally signifies in Scripture: for as religion is the highest wisdom, vice must be accounted the extremest folly: the meaning here is, Whosoever shall break out into open revilings and reproaches against any man, shall be in danger of hell fire — Enocov estai eiv geennan tou purov, shall be obnoxious to a gehenna of fire, that is, by a common figure of speech, “obnoxious to the fire of the valley of Hinnom,” obnoxious to a degree of future punishment, which may fitly be represented by that fire. Of the valley of Hinnom, called also Tophet, see notes on Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; Isaiah 30:33. It was the scene of the detestable worship of Moloch, that horrid idol of the Ammonites, to which the Israelites burned their children alive as sacrifices. “In later times, continual fires were kept in this valley for burning the unburied carcasses and filth of the city, that, being thus polluted, it might be unfit for the like religious abominations. The Jews, from the perpetuity of these fires, and to express the utmost detestation of the sacrifices which were offered to Moloch in this valley, made use of its name to signify hell. Hence our translators have given Tophet, or gehenna, its metaphorical meaning in the present passage, whereas it ought rather to have had its literal signification. For our Lord, intending to show his hearers that the punishment of causeless anger, contemptuous speeches, and abusive names, shall, in the life to come, bear a proportion to the guilt that is in these sins; and finding no name in the language of men by which those different degrees of punishment could properly be expressed, he illustrated them by the punishments which the Jews were acquainted with.”

Ver. 22. Raca. This is a Hebrew word which occurs in Judges 11:3, and is left untranslated in all the versions, except in Judges. Montanus reads it vacuo, which agrees with cenoo, rascal, dunce, or soft head. In my copy of Erasmus’s critical annotations, printed at Antwerp, 1538, there is a long note comprising glosses of the fathers on this word. All allow it to be an interjection of indignation.

Whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. thn geennan tou purov, the fire of Gehenna. The Hebrews wrote, ayg gi, valley, and Hinnom, the name of a man. Joshua 15:8. It is said that the jews who burned their children there, should themselves be burned there. Jeremiah 7:32. This fire is a figure of the fire of hell. The valley was the place below Jerusalem, where the idolatrous jews burnt their children in the huge belly of the idol Moloch. This was God’s highest curse of infatuation on that people. See 2 Kings 22. The judgment of the synagogue might punish the first offence, the council or sanhedrim might punish the second; but here is the punishment of Gehenna, which God alone can inflict. So Dan Heinsius illustrates this word, which often occurs. This most learned man was made counsellor of the state by Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, and knight of the order of St. Mark by the republic of Venice. Edit. Cantab. 1640. — The Chaldee on Isaiah 31:9, and the LXX read, “The Gehenna of eternal fire.” Such is the sense of Tophet in Isaiah 30:33, Jeremiah 19:12, 13, and of Gehenna in ver. 30, and in Mark 9:42-48.

22. But I say unto you — Our Lord here uses the Ego, I, with great emphasis. All the traditions of the whole generation of rabbies are to be as nothing before the declarations of this majestic I. Angry with — Since all murder is rooted in the angry passion, all unholy anger is incipient murder. His brother — That is, any one. The term does not signify a blood relative, but is used in conformity with the custom of calling all Israelites brethren. Without a cause — Rashly or vainly. It implies all feeling inconsistent with love, or a desire to bring about mild justice and reformation. Some have indeed supposed, without good grounds, that the words without a cause are spurious. But, first, there is such a thing as a righteous anger, (Mark 3:5; Ephesians 4:25; James 1:19,) which is not only not forbidden, but commanded. 1 Samuel 3:13. And, second, there is the anger for just cause, which in its due measure is just. It is the feeling implanted in our nature which requires our right when wronged; which seeks the reformation of our injurer, and the reparation of our wrong. In default of these it justly demands the infliction of penalty. Raca — A Syriac word signifying blockhead. Our Lord here does not refer to the mere pronunciation of the word; but to its utterance as the outward symbol of an inner malignant purpose to destroy a man’s just reputation for intellect. Fool — In Scripture the fool is an impious fellow, a stupid atheist, a man defective intellectually, because depraved morally. It stands here as the symbol for a malignant purpose in the heart to destroy the just moral reputation of a man. Here, then, are three sins of the heart: 1. Wrath; 2. A hostility to one’s intellectual rights; and 3. A destructiveness toward one’s moral character, (the two last indicated by symbols,) rising in grades above each other. For these three grades of sin our Lord pronounces three grades of punishment. He indicates the grades symbolically; and, as before remarked, the meaning is obtained by translating the symbol into its literal. The judicature of the earth stands as an emblem of the judicature of heaven. And the adjustment of the degree of penalty by man to the degree of crime, is paralleled by the adjustment by God to the degree of wickedness, of the penalties of a future world. The symbolical terms here used are, 1. Judgment; 2. Council; and 3. Gehenna of fire; that is, death, 1. by sword; 2. by stoning; and 3. by burning. This will appear by the following explanation: 1. The judgment was the penalty of civil crimes, passed by the lower courts, liable to appeal, and it could amount in capital cases to execution by sword. 2. The council was the Sanhedrim, or court, or senate of seventy-two, (established under the Maccabees,) which decided questions of war and peace, as well as the higher crimes of false prophets, etc. These were cases of spiritual treason, and the severer capital penalty of stoning to death was inflicted. 3. Last was the giving over the dead body to the horrible valley of Hinnom. Upon this see note on Matthew 10:28.

The amount of the entire verse, then, is this: Not merely bodily killing, but the mental impulse and purpose, which are the root of all murder — whether it be mental murder of the body, of the intellectual reputation, or of the moral honour — are to be punished according to their aggravations in the high Court of Heaven. Our Lord here conceptually frames a code of divine retribution above, as parallel to the codes of earthly criminal law. That our Lord did not here lay down rules for human courts is plain. For, first, he was no legislator for human jurisprudence; second, anger cannot be proved or tried by human law; and third, no human court ever hurt a person for saying Thou fool.

It follows, therefore, here, 1. Our Lord here does, in opposition to Universalism, threaten a penalty for sin in a future world. 2. That penalty is strictly judicial, and not a mere natural consequence of sin. It is a positive infliction by the hand of divine justice. 3. The degree of intensity (not the duration) of that punishment is adjusted to the grade of the sin.

Verse 22. But I say unto you. — Here our Lord expressly assumes the character of a lawgiver, not as a delegated servant, but as having an original inherent authority to command; “but I say;” &c. This, surely, is not the style of a mere man, and can only be justified on the ground of his true and proper Divinity, of which, indeed, it is a powerful proof. Thus, though in this discourse, as St. Basil observes, “GOD WITH MAN delivered not his law amidst the terrors of Sinai, the sound of a trumpet, and circling fire; but mildly and gently, as possessing the same nature as those to whom he delivered it;” yet, amidst all this lowliness, the concealed majesty breaks forth; and this manner of speaking, so different from that of human teachers, was felt, though not yet fully understood by his hearers, who were “astonished at his doctrine;” because he taught them as one having AUTHORITY, and not as the scribes.

Angry with his brother. — By brother our Lord means ANY ONE, any human being. By the term brother the Jews understood only an Israelite; and by “a neighbour,” a proselyte, in opposition to a Samaritan or a heathen: and as our Lord taught, in the parable of the good Samaritan, that all men were neighbours, so here the very reason and principle of the precept shows that he regarded all men as brethren; thus destroying all those distinctions of a false casuistry among the Jews, to which they resorted, in order to justify their selfishness, bigotry, and malevolence. Without a cause. — Although eikh is wanting in the Vulgate, and in two Greek MSS.; yet as the Syriac, and also all the other Greek MSS. have it, the majority of critics, following Chrysostom, and all the earliest fathers, both Greek and Latin, retain it. The reason why some have been disposed to reject a word which has so weighty an evidence in its favour, as apart of the pure text, appears to have arisen from refined notions concerning anger. Eikh, rendered by us without cause, signifies lightly, or intemperately, sine modo, as Grotius says, as well as sine causa. It is, indeed, necessary to the perfection of the precept to comprise both ideas; since persons who are rashly angry are often so without cause, and also often carry it beyond the measure when a real grievance has been sustained. The intention of our Lord was obviously to inculcate self- command, the complete subjection of the passion of anger to REASON and to CHARITY; and he therefore condemns all that excess which violates the rules of each. But the passion itself is not sinful when thus governed. It is then the warm repulsion of whatever is injurious and unworthy, in word or deed, by a pure and honourable mind, but accompanied by no malignity against the offender, and along with which the spirit of forgiveness is maintained. Hence anger is attributed to our Lord; and we are exhorted to be “angry and sin not:” plain proofs that the existence of this passion may consist with the highest moral state of the mind, and that it is not to be destroyed in the Christian, but sanctified.

Shall be in danger of the judgment. — That is, shall be guilty of a capital offence, and liable to capital punishment, which the Jewish courts of twenty-three had anciently the power to inflict. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, — vain, worthless fellow, a term of great contempt among the Jews, except when used in solemn religious reproofs, — shall be in danger of the council; that is, the sanhedrim, which had the power of inflicting death by stoning, a still more aggravated form of punishment. Whether at this time the power of life and death had been taken away from the great council by the Romans or not, as we know it was at the time of our Lord’s condemnation, they had still the power of declaring that by their laws a criminal “ought to die;” so that the allusion still held good. But whosoever shall say, Thou fool, a stronger word man raca, and which implied a higher degree of anger, and that of a more malignant character, as importing a charge of moral turpitude, of wicked and reprobate principle, shall be in danger of hell fire, the severest punishment of all. Gehenna, the word used here by our Saviour, is compounded of two Hebrew words, signifying the valley of Hinnom, which is a part of the valley which bounds Jerusalem, where in ancient idolatrous times children were offered to Moloch, an Ammonite deity, and consumed by fire. The place was therefore called Tophet, which signifies, “a loath-some abomination.” To this place, afterward, the refuse and offal of Jerusalem was carried, and consumed by perpetual fires. It is doubtful whether the Jews in our Lord’s time punished malefactors by burning; but in some cases this was enjoined by the Mosaic law: and the passage before us makes it probable that this was not then a punishment wholly unknown, though unfrequent.

The intention of our Lord in comparing the degrees of punishment to be inflicted upon sinful anger to the different capital punishments of the Jews, simply putting to death, then death by stoning, and in the third degree by burning, is obvious. He speaks figuratively; for no temporal punishments of the kind he mentions were inflicted upon anger by the Jews, and so his hearers were not obnoxious to them; but he teaches us, that intemperance and malevolent anger is such an offence as excludes men from heaven, and renders them liable to future punishment; and that, according to the degree in which it may be indulged, and the injury it may prompt those who unhappily subject themselves to its influence to inflict upon others, either by exposing them to contempt, or blighting their moral character, or by any other means, it shall be visited with proportionate punishments, even to that which is most extreme. So necessary is it for us to acquire and maintain an entire government over this dangerous clement of our nature.

V. 23. Thy brother hath aught against thee-On any of the preceding accounts: for any unkind thought or word: any that did not spring from love.

Verse 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift] Evil must be nipped in the bud. An unkind thought of another may be the foundation of that which leads to actual murder. A Christian, properly speaking, cannot be an enemy to any man; nor is he to consider any man his enemy, without the fullest evidence: for surmises to the prejudice of another can never rest in the bosom of him who has the love of God in his heart, for to him all men are brethren. He sees all men as children of God, and members of Christ, or at least capable of becoming such. If a tender forgiving spirit was required, even in a Jew, when he approached God’s altar with a bullock or a lamb, how much more necessary is this in a man who professes to be a follower of the Lamb of God; especially when he receives the symbols of that Sacrifice which was offered for the life of the world, in what is commonly called the sacrament of the Lord’s supper!

Verse 23. Therefore, &c. — “Because men are very apt to fall into rash anger, and to express their anger by contemptuous speeches and abusive names, fancying that there is no sin in these things, or but little, and that the compensation may easily be made for them by acts of devotion, Jesus declares that atonement is not to be made for these offences by any offerings, how costly soever, and therefore prescribes immediate repentance and reparation as the only remedies of them. He insisted particularly on reparation, assuring us that, unless it be made, God will not accept the worship of such offenders, being infinitely better pleased with repentance than with sacrifices, or external worship of any kind, how specious soever those duties may appear in the eye of vulgar understandings. Vain, therefore, is their presumption, who fancy they can make amends for yet more gross acts of injustice, by acts of devotion.” — Macknight. If thou bring thy gift to the altar — However costly and free; and there rememberest — What thou didst not recollect before; that thy brother hath aught against thee — On any of the preceding accounts, for any reproachful or unkind word, or injurious action: do not content thyself with a secret, and, it may be, a deceitful purpose that thou wilt hereafter accommodate the affair, but bring it to an immediate issue. Leave there thy gift before the altar — In the hands of those that are ministering there: for neither thy gift nor thy prayer will atone for thy want of love and injurious conduct, but these will make thy devotions and oblations an abomination before God. Go thy way — Do not lay aside thoughts of worshipping God, because thou art not in a proper state, but prepare thyself for his worship without delay. Be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift — Which thou mayest then cheerfully hope God will accept at thy hand. Philo, (de Sacrif., p. 844,) explaining the law of the trespass- offering, tells us, “That when a man had injured his brother, and, repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it, (in which case, both restitution and sacrifice were required,) he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon.” This greatly illustrates the text, especially considering that our Lord supposes, in this case, not a trespass-offering, but a voluntary gift, presented before the altar; and yet declares that this will not be accepted while there is a consciousness of having wronged a brother, and not made him reparation.

23. Therefore — As an inference drawn from the severe penalties affixed in the last verse to all injuries, even in purpose, committed by us against another. If thou bring thy gift to the altar — The image is taken from the sacrifices of the Old Testament. It stands as a symbol for all drawing nigh to God under the new dispensation. Our bringing our gift is the presentation of any worship or service to God. Rememberest — In that state of recollectedness and self-examination which true worship implies. Hath aught against thee — Aught, or anything, that is, of any of the injuries specified in the last verse. Observe, our Lord is not referring to the case where we are angry, because some one hath injured us. It is the case in which we have injured another, and have made no proper reparation.

Verse 23. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift, &c. — Severe as our Lord’s condemnation of sinful anger may appear, he here opens a way of escape from its consequences to those who have been guilty of it. No gifts at the altar are acceptable to God, or available to the worshipper, without penitence and charity. This was first levelled against the formalists of the time, who regarded the mere acts of worship and ceremonial service as in themselves meritorious; but we are to remember there, that is, before the altar, whether our brother has any thing against us; which supposes a habit of examination into the state of our hearts and our past conduct, when we approach God; and if an honest conscience suggests the charge of any offence against a brother, leave there thy gift, thy sacrifice or offering, before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother; that is, reconcile thyself to him, as the verb signifies; use every means to render him propitious to thee; and seek his forgiveness by due acknowledgment and reparation of the offence.

V. 24. Leaving thy gift, go-For neither thy gift nor thy prayer will atone for thy want of love: but this will make them both an abomination before God.

Verse 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar] This is as much as to say, “Do not attempt to bring any offering to God while thou art in a spirit of enmity against any person; or hast any difference with thy neighbour, which thou hast not used thy diligence to get adjusted.” It is our duty and interest, both to bring our gift, and offer it too; but God will not accept of any act of religious worship from us, while any enmity subsists in our hearts towards any soul of man; or while any subsists in our neighbour’s heart towards us, which we have not used the proper means to remove. A religion, the very essence of which is love, cannot suffer at its altars a heart that is revengeful and uncharitable, or which does not use its utmost endeavours to revive love in the heart of another. The original word, dwron, which we translate gift, is used by the rabbins in Hebrew letters דורונ doron, which signifies not only a gift, but a sacrifice offered to God. See several proofs in Schoettgen.

Then come and offer thy gift.] Then, when either thy brother is reconciled to thee, or thou hast done all in thy power to effect this reconciliation. My own obstinacy and uncharitableness must render me utterly unfit to receive any good from God’s hands, or to worship him in an acceptable manner; bat the wickedness of another can be no hinderance to me, when I have endeavoured earnestly to get it removed, though without effect.

24. Before the altar — Not upon the altar. Proceed not so far as to lay thy sacrifice before God. Interrupt the service and go thy way. First be reconciled — By making the proper reparation. Then come and offer thy gift — For not till then will thy sacrifice be holy, or thy prayer accepted. Our Lord here implies, first, that the aught against thee is a just complaint for a real wrong. No one can be supposed unacceptable to God because a captious and slanderous man assails him with charges. And, second, the reconcilement required is not to be measured by the overbearing demands of an unreasonable person; but what we, in an exchange of cases, would justly think our rightful due.

We may here remark, 1. That the enclosure within the railing around the pulpit is properly called the chancel. But as the place where our sacred service and self-consecration are performed, it is not without Scripture reason sometimes styled the altar. 2. The advice of our Lord to clear our minds of every unholy feeling is all important. Spiritual blessings, outpourings of divine influence, revivals that do not melt away our feuds and quarrels, are of very doubtful character. 3. Yet we would caution any person from giving up the habit or form of prayer because he is conscious of not living consistently with his prayer. Let our prayers continue until they make our sins cease, and do not continue sin and let it make prayer cease.

V. 25. Agree with thine adversary-With any against whom thou hast thus offended: while thou art in the way-Instantly, on the spot; before you part.

Lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge-Lest he commit his cause to God. Luke 12:58.

Verse 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly] Adversary, antidikov, properly a plaintiff in law-a perfect law term. Our Lord enforces the exhortation given in the preceding verses, from the consideration of what was deemed prudent in ordinary law-suits. In such cases, men should make up matters with the utmost speed, as running through the whole course of a law-suit must not only be vexatious, but be attended with great expense; and in the end, though the loser may be ruined, yet the gainer has nothing. A good use of this very prudential advice of our Lord is this: Thou art a sinner; God hath a controversy with thee. There is but a step between thee and death. Now is the accepted time. Thou art invited to return to God by Christ Jesus. Come immediately at his call, and he will save thy soul. Delay not! Eternity is at hand; and if thou die in thy sins, where God is thou shalt never come.

Those who make the adversary, God; the judge, Christ; the officer, Death; and the prison, Hell, abuse the passage, and highly dishonour God.

Verse 25. Agree, &c. — Here our Lord enforces the preceding exhortation, from the consideration of what is reckoned prudent in ordinary quarrel and law-suits. “In such cases, wise men always advise the party that has done wrong to make up matters with his adversary while it is in his power, lest the sentence of a judge, being interposed, fall heavy on him. For the same reason, we, who have offended our brother, ought to make it up with him, while an opportunity of repentance is allowed us; and that though our quarrel should have proceeded to the greatest lengths, lest the sentence of the Supreme Judge overtake us, and put reconciliation out of our power for ever.” With thine adversary quickly — With any against whom thou hast thus offended; whiles thou art in the way with him — Going with him to a magistrate; or, instantly, on the spot; before you part. Lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge — To be tried before him; and the judge, deciding the cause against thee, deliver thee to the officer of the court, to keep thee in custody till satisfaction be made, and thou be cast into prison — Not being able to discharge an account enhanced with so many additional articles of expense. Thou shalt by no means come out thence — Be released out of prison; till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing — For thy antagonist, when he has got thee at such an advantage, will be more rigorous in his demands than before. And surely, if by impenitent wickedness thou makest thyself the prisoner of the divine justice, thy case will be yet more deplorable and hopeless. Understanding the words in a figurative sense, which is, partly at least, intended by Christ here, the prison is taken for hell, out of which the unrelenting sinner can never come, according to our Lord’s declaration, because he can never be able to make that satisfaction. “Lord, we are all the debtors, and, in one sense, the prisoners of thy justice, and of ourselves were most incapable, not only of paying the uttermost farthing, but even of discharging the least part of the debt! We bless thee for that generous Surety who has taken and discharged it for us; and by the price of whose atoning blood we are delivered from the chains of darkness, and are translated into the glorious liberty of thy children.” — Doddridge. What has hitherto been said refers to meekness; what follows, to purity of heart.

Ver. 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly. If this be wise in vexatious lawsuits, how much more with regard to the great Judge, before whose bar the impenitent shall be condemned, and delivered to the tormentors, and cast into the prison of hell. Delays in religion, though common, are nevertheless the most destructive sins of the soul.

25. Adversary — A plaintiff at law, to whom a debt or payment of penalty is due. While thou art in the way with him — An allusion to the Roman law, by which the plaintiff himself seized the defendant, and drew him before the court for trial. So in Luke 12:58, it is, “When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way.” Our Lord here counsels a compromise on the way. Officer — Who executes the penalty.

The whole is a symbolical representation of divine judgment, as is shown by the next verse, in which justice without mercy is inflexibly declared. The Adversary stands for our offended God. Quickly and the way stand for the brief period of our probation The Judge is the Son of man at his coming. The officer is the judicial angel. Matthew 25:31. The prison is hell. Sentiment, repair every wrong before divine justice inflict punishment to the utmost.

Verse 25. Agree with thine adversary, &c. — Here our Lord does not introduce a new subject, as some have thought, and exhort debtors to a speedy settlement of their accounts, or the making pecuniary compensation for injuries, which would have been foreign to his purpose; but he enforces the necessity of offering satisfaction to an offended brother: an allusion to the practice of prudent men, who hasten to satisfy the demands of their creditor, or to propitiate accusers, lest they should be exposed to fine, and, in default of that, to arrest and imprisonment. As a creditor or an injured man may hastily enforce the law upon a careless debtor or culprit, so the anger of God may suddenly break forth against him who has injured and offended another, and thus broken the Divine law as interpreted by our Lord, unless he gain his brother by confession and restitution. Be in haste to be at peace with all mankind. The process here described seems best illustrated, not from purely Jewish, but from foreign customs, which, during the reign of Herod the Great, were largely introduced. There is in this, says Hug, a direct view to the Roman law de injuriis, according to which the complainant, with his own hand, dragged the accused before the judge, without magisterial summons, in jus rapit; yet, according to which, on the road, an agreement, transactio, remains open to him; but should not this be accomplished, the MULCT instantly awaits him: which if he does not discharge, he is cast into prison until its liquidation. Antidikov, rendered adversary, is a plaintiff in a suit at law. While thou art in the way with him, signifies, as you are going with him to the magistrate. (See Luke 12:58.) The farthing was two leptahs or mites; the value of the farthing, quadrans, a Roman coin, was about three halfpence.

V. 26. Till thou hast paid the last farthing-That is, for ever, since thou canst never do this.

What has been hitherto said refers to meekness: what follows, to purity of heart.

Verse 26. The uttermost farthing.] ksdranthn. The rabbins have this Greek word corrupted into scnwydrq kordiontes, and qyrcnwq, kontrik, and say, that two twcwrp prutoth make a kontarik, which is exactly the same with those words in Mark 12:42, lepta duo, o esti kodranthv, two mites, which are one farthing. Hence it appears that the lepton lepton was the same as the prutah. The weight of the prutah was half a barley-corn, and it was the smallest coin among the Jews, as the kodrantes, or farthing, was the smallest coin among the Romans. If the matter issue in law, strict justice will be done, and your creditor be allowed the fulness of his just claim; but if; while you are on the way, going to the magistrate, you come to a friendly agreement with him, he will relax in his claims, take a part for the whole, and the composition be, in the end, both to his and your profit.

This text has been considered a proper foundation on which to build not only the doctrine of a purgatory, but also that of universal restoration. But the most unwarrantable violence must be used before it can be pressed into the service of either of the above antiscriptural doctrines. At the most, the text can only be considered as a metaphorical representation of the procedure of the great Judge; and let it ever be remembered, that by the general consent of all (except the basely interested) no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of any doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls.

26. Paid the uttermost — See on chap. 18:30. Farthing — About two fifths of a cent.

(2.) Christian law of sexual purity.

V. 27. Thou shalt not commit adultery-And this, as well as the sixth commandment, the scribes and Pharisees interpreted barely of the outward act. Exodus 20:14.

Verse 27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old] By the ancients, toiv arcaioiv, is omitted by nearly a hundred MSS., and some of them of the very greatest antiquity and authority; also by the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, and Sclavonian versions; by four copies of the old Itala; and by Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Hilary. On this authority Wetstein and Griesbach have left it out of the text.

Verses 27, 28. Ye have heard, &c. — Jesus now proceeds in his sermon to the seventh commandment, the true interpretation of which he gives us. Thou shalt not commit adultery — This, as well as the sixth commandment, the scribes and Pharisees interpreted barely of the outward act. But I say unto you, &c. — The command extends not only to unchaste actions and words, but even to looks, and the very thoughts of the heart: for whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her — Whosoever cherishes or indulges unchaste imaginations, desires, and intentions, hath committed adultery with her, &c. — Hath been guilty of a violation of this commandment, which was intended to forbid the corrupt inclinations of the heart, and all irregular desires, as well as the pollution of the body.

27. Not commit adultery — The same principles are applied to the seventh commandment as are used in the preceding paragraph to elucidate and disencumber the sixth. Actual adultery is traced to the lust in the heart. The hidden crime is viewed as the essential crime of which the external act is the manifestation.

Verse 28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her] epiqumsai authn, earnestly to covet her. The verb, epiqumew, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. thv epiqumhsei gunaikov

massagethv anhr, misgetai adewv, Raphelius, on this verse, says, epiqumein hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundæ flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.

Hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.] It is the earnest wish or desire of the soul, which, in a variety of cases, constitutes the good or evil of an act. If a man earnestly wish to commit an evil, but cannot, because God puts time, place, and opportunity out of his power, he is fully chargeable with the iniquity of the act, by that God who searches and judges the heart. So, if a man earnestly wish to do some kindness, which it is out of his power to perform, the act is considered as his; because God, in this case, as in that above, takes the will for the deed. If voluntary and deliberate looks and desires make adulterers and adulteresses, how many persons are there whose whole life is one continued crime! whose eyes being full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin, 2 Peter 2:14. Many would abhor to commit one external act before the eyes of men, in a temple of stone; and yet they are not afraid to commit a multitude of such acts in the temple of their hearts, and in the sight of God!

Verses 27, 28. Ye have heard, &c. — Jesus now proceeds in his sermon to the seventh commandment, the true interpretation of which he gives us. Thou shalt not commit adultery — This, as well as the sixth commandment, the scribes and Pharisees interpreted barely of the outward act. But I say unto you, &c. — The command extends not only to unchaste actions and words, but even to looks, and the very thoughts of the heart: for whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her — Whosoever cherishes or indulges unchaste imaginations, desires, and intentions, hath committed adultery with her, &c. — Hath been guilty of a violation of this commandment, which was intended to forbid the corrupt inclinations of the heart, and all irregular desires, as well as the pollution of the body.

Ver. 28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her. Human laws extend only to the actions of men; the divine law reaches to the heart. Inward purity, as in ver. 8, requires us to put away idle thoughts, lascivious habits, immodest pictures, and to burn all novels, written by profligate and ruined characters.

28. Looketh… to lust — Where the will consents, and the volition permits the sensual feeling. Yet not every glance of admiration or desire, cast upon the beauty of one of the opposite sex, is here condemned. Such affections are planted in our nature for pure and beneficial purposes. Not even the recognition of the superior attractions of another man’s wife, or another woman’s husband, is transgression. Indeed, the sentiment of pleasure arising from beauty of persons around us, may be as pure as the pleasure of surveying pictures. A sweet voice is justly pleasant to the ear, a graceful manner to the taste, a fair form or face to the eye. But when from a sentiment it becomes a sensation, the danger commences. If the sensation be volitionally permitted, there is guilt. If nothing but opportunity were wanting to the guilty act, the adultery of the heart is fully committed. God, who sees the heart, holds the hidden man guilty.

Verse 28. Whoso looketh upon a woman. — That the guilt of secret inclinations to sin was concluded from the letter of the law, by the ancient Jews, appears from many passages in the Old Testament, and from the manifest strugglings and prayers of the pious against all “secret sins.” The law prohibiting adultery would therefore be understood to prohibit also all impure desires; but it was now explicitly enacted, so to speak, by the great Lawgiver himself, that THE DESIRE OF SIN IS SIN; and that he who indulges that desire comes under the penalty of the law as certainly as he who commits an outward violation of it. It was the more necessary to declare this, because of that delusive casuistry on the subject of moral duties, which had been adopted by the Jewish teachers, before alluded to. Outward acts alone with them were reputed sinful, not thoughts and desires, or even intentions of evil, as before stated. In that respect they fell below the heathen moralists themselves: —

Nam scelus intra se tacitum qui cogitat ullum,

Facti crimen habet.

JUVENAL.

“For he who conceives any secret wickedness within himself has the guilt of the deed.” But against all such attempts weaken the import of the laws of God, whether by the Pharisees or by corrupt and subtle Christian teachers, our Lord erects this impassable barrier. He requires from his disciples such a purity of heart as shall lead them to abstain, not only from all gross acts of impurity, but from the indulgence of irregular thoughts; and thus, by this salutary law, man is guarded against the very first step to pollution. Alexander the Great, when he ordered some of his soldiers to be put to death for adultery, was able to enforce his severity in this respect, with this noble declaration, that, for his own part, he had not suffered himself to see the wife of the conquered Darius, his prisoner, nor so much as to think of seeing her; nor had he permitted her beauty to be the subject of conversation in his presence. Bishop Porteus, on this precept of our Lord, justly remarks, “This is wisdom, this is morality, in its most perfect form; in its essence, and in its first principles. Bad thoughts quickly ripen into bad actions; and if the latter only are forbidden, while the former are left free, all morality will soon be at an end.”

V. 29, 30. If a person as dear as a right eye, or as useful as a right hand, cause thee thus to offend, though but in heart.

Perhaps here may be an instance of a kind of transposition which is frequently found in the sacred writings: so that the 29th verse may refer to 27, 28; and the 30th to ver. 21, 22. Matthew 5:29, 27, 28, 30, 21, 22 As if he had said, Part with any thing, however dear to you, or otherwise useful, if you cannot avoid sin while you keep it. Even cut off your right hand, if you are of so passionate a temper, that you cannot otherwise be restrained from hurting your brother. Pull out your eyes, if you can no otherwise be restrained from lusting after women. Matthew 18:8; Mark 9:43.

Verse 29. - 30. Pluck it out-cut it off] We must shut our senses against dangerous objects, to avoid the occasions of sin, and deprive ourselves of all that is most dear and profitable to us, in order to save our souls, when we find that these dear and profitable things, however innocent in themselves, cause us to sin against God.

It is profitable for thee that one of thy members] Men often part with some members of the body, at the discretion of a surgeon, that they may preserve the trunk, and die a little later; and yet they will not deprive themselves of a look, a touch, a small pleasure, which endanger the eternal death of the soul. It is not enough to shut the eye, or stop the hand; the one must be plucked out, and the other cut off. Neither is this enough, we must cast them both from us. Not one moment’s truce with an evil passion, or a sinful appetite. If you indulge them, they will gain strength, and you shall be ruined. The rabbins have a saying similar to this: “It is better for thee to be scorched with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a devouring fire in the world to come.”

Verses 29, 30. If thy right eye offend thee — If any person or thing, as pleasant and as dear to thee as thy right eye, should be a stumbling-block in thy way, and an occasion of thy falling, or should be a means of insnaring thee, and leading thee into sin, pluck it out — With inexorable resolution: that is, give up and part with the beloved object. For it is profitable for thee — It will be to thine advantage, that one of thy members should perish — To suffer an apparent temporary loss of pleasure or profit, rather than that thy whole soul and body should perish eternally, which yet would be the fatal consequence of thy indulging a favourite lust. And if thy right hand offend, or insnare thee — Though it be so useful and necessary a part, do not spare it, but immediately cut it off and cast it from thee — “The greatest part of Christ’s auditors were poor people, who lived by their daily labour; and to these the loss of a right hand would be a much greater calamity than that of a right eye: so that there is a gradation and force in this passage beyond what has generally been observed.” — Doddridge. There is an allusion, in both instances, to the practice of surgeons, who, when any member of the body happens to be mortified, cut it off, to prevent the sound part from being tainted. And the meaning of the passage, stripped of the metaphor, is this: By the force of a strong resolution, founded on the grace of God, deny thyself the use of thy senses, though ever so delightful, in all cases where the use of them insnares thy soul. Turn away thine eye, and keep back thy hand from the alluring object. This, says Chrysostom, is a most mild and easy precept. It would have been much more hard, had he given commandment to converse with and look curiously on women, and then abstain from further commission of uncleanness with them. Upon the whole, we learn from these two verses, that the salvation of our immortal souls is to be preferred beyond all things, be they never so dear and precious to us; and that, if men’s ordinary discretion teaches them, for the preservation of their bodies, to cut off a particular member, which would necessarily endanger the whole body, it much more teaches them to part with any thing which would prevent the salvation of their souls.

29. Offend thee — Seduce thee, entrap thee to sin; for such is the meaning of the word offend in the Greek. Eye… members… body — Symbolical terms again. We have a corrupt inner system; a depraved hidden man, within the outer man, with all its members, eye, hand, and foot, in which resides our appetency for sin. And yet it is ourself, and cannot be cast into perdition without taking the whole being. Now if this corrupt eye seduce us to adultery, if the itching palm contract theft, if the foot tend to blood, let spiritual amputation be performed. This may bring the whole corrupt man to health. One of thy members perish — The adventurous figure is boldly carried out. It is as if some bystander had endeavoured to push our Lord’s simile into absurdity by saying, If we amputate as you advise, we should go to heaven maimed. Our Lord virtually replies, Very well; better go to heaven maimed, than to hell whole.

The sentiment, therefore, is — affections and lusts for forbidden objects must be sacrificed at whatever expense of feeling.

Upon this passage Roberts remarks, “This metaphor is in common use to this day; hence people say of anything which is valuable, ‘It is like my right eye!’ ‘Yes, yes, that child is the right eye of his father.’ ‘That fellow forsake his sins! never; they are his right eye.’“

Verse 29. If thy right eye offend thee, &c. Skandalizein, which is usually rendered, in our version, to offend, is from skandalon, a stumbling block, which being placed in the way causes a person to stumble or to fall. By Suidas it is explained, A TRAP. Whatever, therefore, becomes an occasion of our FALLING from a state of purity into sin; whatever would lead us into criminal ENTANGLEMENTS of our consciences and affections, must be resolutely renounced, at the expense of every sacrifice, however painful or costly. Joseph, with respect to Potiphar’s wife, is an instance of this kind of sacrifice: he chose to hazard a bad woman’s fury and its consequences, and he meekly sustained them in a long imprisonment, rather than desecrate himself by sin. The metaphors of cutting off the right hand and eye, are probably taken from surgery, when a mortified member must be exscinded to save the whole body; and they strongly teach us a rigid, and if necessary, a painful self-denial, in order to escape guilt, and its punishment. See note on Mark 9:48.

V. 29, 30. If a person as dear as a right eye, or as useful as a right hand, cause thee thus to offend, though but in heart.

Perhaps here may be an instance of a kind of transposition which is frequently found in the sacred writings: so that the 29th verse may refer to 27, 28; and the 30th to ver. 21, 22. Matthew 5:29, 27, 28, 30, 21, 22 As if he had said, Part with any thing, however dear to you, or otherwise useful, if you cannot avoid sin while you keep it. Even cut off your right hand, if you are of so passionate a temper, that you cannot otherwise be restrained from hurting your brother. Pull out your eyes, if you can no otherwise be restrained from lusting after women. Matthew 18:8; Mark 9:43.

Verse 29. - 30. Pluck it out-cut it off] We must shut our senses against dangerous objects, to avoid the occasions of sin, and deprive ourselves of all that is most dear and profitable to us, in order to save our souls, when we find that these dear and profitable things, however innocent in themselves, cause us to sin against God.

It is profitable for thee that one of thy members] Men often part with some members of the body, at the discretion of a surgeon, that they may preserve the trunk, and die a little later; and yet they will not deprive themselves of a look, a touch, a small pleasure, which endanger the eternal death of the soul. It is not enough to shut the eye, or stop the hand; the one must be plucked out, and the other cut off. Neither is this enough, we must cast them both from us. Not one moment’s truce with an evil passion, or a sinful appetite. If you indulge them, they will gain strength, and you shall be ruined. The rabbins have a saying similar to this: “It is better for thee to be scorched with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a devouring fire in the world to come.”

Verses 29, 30. If thy right eye offend thee — If any person or thing, as pleasant and as dear to thee as thy right eye, should be a stumbling-block in thy way, and an occasion of thy falling, or should be a means of insnaring thee, and leading thee into sin, pluck it out — With inexorable resolution: that is, give up and part with the beloved object. For it is profitable for thee — It will be to thine advantage, that one of thy members should perish — To suffer an apparent temporary loss of pleasure or profit, rather than that thy whole soul and body should perish eternally, which yet would be the fatal consequence of thy indulging a favourite lust. And if thy right hand offend, or insnare thee — Though it be so useful and necessary a part, do not spare it, but immediately cut it off and cast it from thee — “The greatest part of Christ’s auditors were poor people, who lived by their daily labour; and to these the loss of a right hand would be a much greater calamity than that of a right eye: so that there is a gradation and force in this passage beyond what has generally been observed.” — Doddridge. There is an allusion, in both instances, to the practice of surgeons, who, when any member of the body happens to be mortified, cut it off, to prevent the sound part from being tainted. And the meaning of the passage, stripped of the metaphor, is this: By the force of a strong resolution, founded on the grace of God, deny thyself the use of thy senses, though ever so delightful, in all cases where the use of them insnares thy soul. Turn away thine eye, and keep back thy hand from the alluring object. This, says Chrysostom, is a most mild and easy precept. It would have been much more hard, had he given commandment to converse with and look curiously on women, and then abstain from further commission of uncleanness with them. Upon the whole, we learn from these two verses, that the salvation of our immortal souls is to be preferred beyond all things, be they never so dear and precious to us; and that, if men’s ordinary discretion teaches them, for the preservation of their bodies, to cut off a particular member, which would necessarily endanger the whole body, it much more teaches them to part with any thing which would prevent the salvation of their souls.

V. 31. Let him give her a writing of divorce-Which the scribes and Pharisees allowed men to do on any trifling occasion. Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:7; Mark 10:2; Luke 16:18.

Verse 31. Whosoever shall put away his wife] The Jewish doctors gave great license in the matter of divorce. Among them, a man might divorce his wife if she displeased him even in the dressing of his victuals! Rabbi Akiba said, “If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the law, If she find not favour in his eyes.” Deuteronomy 24:1.

Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, “About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners.” These two cases are sufficient to show to what a scandalous and criminal excess this matter was carried among the Jews. However, it was allowed by the school of Shammai, that no man was to put away his wife unless for adultery. The school of Hillel gave much greater license. A writing of divorcement] The following is the common form of such a writing. See Maimonides and Lightfoot.

“On the day of the week A. in the month B. in the year C. from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the province of D., I, N. the son of N. by whatever name I am called, of the city E. with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee-thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. who wast heretofore my wife: but now I have dismissed thee-thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. so as to be free, and at thine own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hinderance from any one, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for any man. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

REUBEN, son of Jacob, Witness.

ELIEZAR, son of Gilead, Witness.”

God permitted this evil to prevent a greater; and, perhaps, to typify his repudiating the Jews, who were his first spouse.

Verses 31, 32. Let him give her a writing of divorcement — “The doctors of the school of Sammai affirmed, that, in the law concerning divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, the words some uncleanness, were to be understood of adultery only; whereas, they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any matter of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, Matthew 19:3, if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears from both their practice and their writings. Thus, Malachi 2:16, the clause which in our translation runs, The Lord says, He hateth putting away, that is, divorces on frivolous pretences, is, by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX., turned thus, (ean mishsav exaposteilhv,) if thou hatest thou shouldest put her away. Also, the son of Sirach says, 25:26: If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh. And Josephus, Ant. lib. 4. cap. 8, ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ Nay, one of their doctors, R. Akiba by name, delivered it as his opinion, ‘that a man may put his wife away, if he likes any other woman better.’” As, therefore, they had perverted the law of divorce that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning, assuring them, “that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, lays her under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God; and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committed adultery also.” Saving for the cause of fornication, &c. — Fornication here, as elsewhere, is often used for adultery: in general it denotes the exercise of all the different species of unlawful lusts. Although in these words only one just cause of divorce is acknowledged, namely, adultery; “yet the apostle, 1 Corinthians 7:15, plainly allows another, viz., malicious and obstinate desertion in either of the parties; and that because it is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of marriage. We must therefore suppose, that our Lord here speaks of the causes of divorce commonly said to be comprehended under the term uncleanness, in the law; and declares, that none of them will justify a man’s divorcing his wife, except fornication.” Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery — Here we learn, “that if the cause of a divorce be just, the innocent party is freed from the bond of marriage, so as to be at liberty to marry again.” But if the divorce be made without a just cause, the marriage still subsists, and consequently both parties, the innocent as well as the guilty, thus divorced, commit adultery if they marry, as do the persons likewise whom they marry.” — Macknight.

31. A writing of divorcement — The Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:1) was, that if “uncleanness” were found in a wife, the husband might “write a bill of divorcement, and put it into her hand, and send her out of his house.” On the meaning of the word “uncleanness,” the schools of the two Rabbies Shammai and Hillel differed. The former taught that the law allowed divorce for adultery alone; the latter interpreted it to mean any defect of person or character. Divorces thereby had become shamefully common, and the marriage tie of little force. As a consequence, all the laws of morality were loose, and all the best affections of our nature but slightly existed. The family is the true school of the purer virtues and noblest feelings. Where it exists in its full excellence, and its well managed government, the young character is rightly shaped, and men go forth into the world trained to maintain a well ordered society. Where this institution is in ruins, or but loosely maintained, childhood and youth are but poorly formed, and maturer years are lawless and unprincipled. Family disorganization is the forerunner of social disorganization, anarchy, and final despotism.

Verse 31. Whosoever shall put away his wife, &c. — The Mosaic law of divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:1: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” On the meaning of this law, the Jewish schools were divided, and the dispute was especially ardent about our Lord’s time; the school of Shammai taking the hwr[, rendered by us, uncleanness, to signify whoredom; and that of Hillel contending that it meant any defect whatever, either of person or disposition. However this might be decided, divorces had been long frequent among the Jews, and that for trivial causes; and the general interpretation of the law had introduced a laxity far beyond its intention. Here then our Lord, in his capacity of the Lawgiver of his own dispensation, settles this question also; a question of the highest importance to the institution of marriage, which is the source of all the domestic virtues, and the fountain of public morals. He allows the bill of divorce, but restrains it absolutely to cases which directly and essentially violate the marriage covenant. Porneia, “fornication,” is usually distinguished from adultery; and some difficulties have therefore been raised as to the exact meaning of our Lord. These are, however, removed by considering porneia as a generic term signifying criminal sexual intercourse, and which in the case of a married woman necessarily became adultery.

V. 32. Causeth her to commit adultery-If she marry again.

Verse 32. Saving for the cause of fornication] logou porneiav, on account of whoredom. As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married. I have therefore translated logou porneiav, on account of whoredom. It does not appear that there is any other case in which Jesus Christ admits of divorce. A real Christian ought rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly the imperfections of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her. “But divorce was allowed by Moses;” yes, for the hardness of their hearts it was permitted: but what was permitted to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews, should not serve for a rule to a heart in which the love of God has been shed abroad by the Holy Spirit. Those who form a matrimonial connection in the fear and love of God, and under his direction, will never need a divorce. But those who marry as passion or money lead the way, may be justly considered adulterers and adulteresses as long as they live.

Verses 31, 32. Let him give her a writing of divorcement — “The doctors of the school of Sammai affirmed, that, in the law concerning divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, the words some uncleanness, were to be understood of adultery only; whereas, they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any matter of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, Matthew 19:3, if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears from both their practice and their writings. Thus, Malachi 2:16, the clause which in our translation runs, The Lord says, He hateth putting away, that is, divorces on frivolous pretences, is, by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX., turned thus, (ean mishsav exaposteilhv,) if thou hatest thou shouldest put her away. Also, the son of Sirach says, 25:26: If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh. And Josephus, Ant. lib. 4. cap. 8, ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ Nay, one of their doctors, R. Akiba by name, delivered it as his opinion, ‘that a man may put his wife away, if he likes any other woman better.’” As, therefore, they had perverted the law of divorce that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning, assuring them, “that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, lays her under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God; and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committed adultery also.” Saving for the cause of fornication, &c. — Fornication here, as elsewhere, is often used for adultery: in general it denotes the exercise of all the different species of unlawful lusts. Although in these words only one just cause of divorce is acknowledged, namely, adultery; “yet the apostle, 1 Corinthians 7:15, plainly allows another, viz., malicious and obstinate desertion in either of the parties; and that because it is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of marriage. We must therefore suppose, that our Lord here speaks of the causes of divorce commonly said to be comprehended under the term uncleanness, in the law; and declares, that none of them will justify a man’s divorcing his wife, except fornication.” Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery — Here we learn, “that if the cause of a divorce be just, the innocent party is freed from the bond of marriage, so as to be at liberty to marry again.” But if the divorce be made without a just cause, the marriage still subsists, and consequently both parties, the innocent as well as the guilty, thus divorced, commit adultery if they marry, as do the persons likewise whom they marry.” — Macknight.

Ver. 32. Whosoever shall put away his wife. See notes on Genesis 2:24. Malachi 2:11.

32. But I say unto you — Our Lord has quoted the words of Moses, and seems to oppose them with this but. Yet it is not the law in its purity which he quotes and corrects. He does not oppose Moses. But what he does oppose and correct is that law as it is uttered by the mouth of those who quote it for licentious purposes, making it the means of all that dissoluteness described in our note on verse 31. That licentiousness he corrects by limiting divorce to cases of adultery; or rather he restores this provision as the true intent of the law of Moses. Causeth her to commit adultery — The dismissing a wife for other cause than unfaithfulness, did not dissolve the marriage. Yet, as by unlawful custom she could marry again, in such cases the husband dismissing her occasioned the adultery. Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced — That is, thus unlawfully divorced, and so not divorced at all. Committeth adultery — By marrying her who is still bound by an unbroken marriage tie to her former husband, who has unlawfully dismissed her.

(3.) Christian law of oaths.

Verse 32. Causeth her to commit adultery, &c. — By setting her at liberty to marry another, which was expressly done in the bill of divorce, one of the clauses in the form being, “So as to be free, and at thy own disposal to marry whom thou pleasest, without hinderance from any one,” &c.

V. 33. Our Lord here refers to the promise made to the pure in heart of seeing God in all things, and points out a false doctrine of the scribes, which arose from their not thus seeing God.

What he forbids is, the swearing at all, 1. by any creature, 2. in our ordinary conversation: both of which the scribes and Pharisees taught to be perfectly innocent. Exodus 20:7.

Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] They dishonour the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfil, are not less criminal. Swearing in civil matters is become so frequent, that the dread and obligation of an oath are utterly lost in it. In certain places, where oaths are frequently administered, people have been known to kiss their thumb or pen, instead of the book, thinking thereby to avoid the sin of perjury; but this is a shocking imposition on their own souls. See Clarke’s notes on “Deuteronomy 4:26”; “Deuteronomy 6:13”. Perform unto the Lord thine oaths] The morality of the Jews on this point was truly execrable: they maintained, that a man might swear with his lips, and annul it in the same moment in his heart. Rab. Akiba is quoted as an example of this kind of swearing. See Schoettgen.

Verses 33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Ek tou ponhrou, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

33. Forswear — Perjure. Shalt perform — Shalt not commit perjury by breaking thy vows and solemn affirmations.

Verse 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — Our Lord does not here explain or give an extended sense to the Mosaic law, which prohibits perjury; but he enforces it against a practice of the Jews, which was founded upon distinctions invented to cover deceit and treachery. Our Lord, instead of forbidding oaths to be taken before a magistrate, or on solemn occasions, leaves that as it stands in the decalogue, and in Leviticus 19:12. for none of the oaths which he prohibits in what follows were by THE NAME of God, which all JUDICIAL oaths were: “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely.” He himself, though for a time silent, on his examination before the high priest, answered when ADJURED “by the living God;” and sanctioned the oath by taking it upon himself. See the note on the place. What he forbids is false swearing, in any mode: for as the Jews thought that swearing by heaven, by the temple, or by the head, their usual voluntary oaths, were not as binding as when the name of God was invoked, Christ, on the contrary, shows that such oaths came under the Mosaic prohibition of swearing falsely; and that their violation rendered the offender liable to an equal penalty. That this practice, of adjuring creatures and not God, prevailed among the Jews, appears from Philo, who has a passage forbidding men to swear in extrajudicial cases by the Supreme Cause; but, if necessary, directs them to record the earth, the sun, or the heavens. And that they trifled with such oaths, we learn from Maimonides, who says, that “if any man swear by heaven or by earth, yet this is not an oath;” meaning not an oath in the highest sense, such as the law regarded, or the violation of which would come under its rule of swearing falsely. It was not unknown to the heathen that this fallacy was practised among the Jews. A curious illustration of this has frequently been cited from an epigram of Martial: —

Ecce! negas, jurasque mihi per templa tonantis;

Non credo: Jura, verpe, per ANCHIALUM.

“Lo, thou deniest it, and swearest by heaven; but I believe thee not. Swear then by Anchialus,” that is, hya yt אם, as God liveth, which, with the Jews, was a binding oath. When, therefore, our Lord says, “Swear not at all,” he neither refers to profane swearing by the name of God, which impiety as well as perjury is dearly forbidden by the third commandment; nor does he forbid judicial oaths administered by proper authority, nor adjurations in the name of God, on other solemn occasions, but all such swearing as he immediately specifies.; “by heaven,” “by the earth,” “by Jerusalem,” “by the head,” and other similar oaths, wherein some creature is adjured. These oaths were often trifled with; and he therefore inhibits them altogether, because they led men into the sin of perjury, under the false casuistry of their teachers, who taught that because in them the name of God was not appealed to, their violation did not amount to any great offence. On the contrary, Christ determines that they all, in fact, implied an appeal to God, inasmuch as he could not be separated from the work of his hands. For since they swore by one or other of the objects here mentioned, as imprecating upon themselves misfortune or punishment from it if they swore deceitfully, every appeal to a creature as an avenger of falsehood, independent of God, whose power alone gives energy to the creatures to bless or to hurt, was a manifest folly. “Swear not at all,” therefore, is the precept: neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: Isaiah 66:1: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King, who has his temple there: neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black; the health or sickness of the human frame being constantly in the hands of God. Thus he teaches, that to swear by any of the creatures is, in fact, to swear by God who made and preserves them; and that the violation of such oaths was as truly an act of perjury as when the name of God was directly appealed to. It is a beautiful observation of Law, in reference to this passage: “How sacred the whole frame of the world is, how all things are to be considered as God’s, and referred to him, is fully taught by our Lord in the case of oaths. Here you see all things in the whole order of nature, from the highest heaven to the smallest hair, are always to be considered, not separately as they are in themselves, but as in some relation to God.” It is in this way that our Lord makes the Mosaic precept to bear upon the practice of the Jews; but as the frequent use of all oaths, even when rightly conceived to be binding, and freed from the loose casuistry of the Jews, tended to lower their sanctity on the one hand, and to diminish confidence between man and man in the affirmations or denials which ordinary life calls for, our Lord prohibits all these voluntary oaths on common occasions; and thus at once enhances the sanctity of judicial adjurations, and raises an honourable confidence in the common communications of men with each other, which the frequency of these appeals to God or to his creatures had served to diminish. It was a strong and admirable manner of impressing his followers with a constant regard to truth in speech: and therefore he adds, But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; that is, strictly and accurately true both in affirming and denying; the words being repeated to give the precept more strength, according to the manner of the Hebrews, or as the ellipsis to be understood is supplied by St. James, in quoting these words of our Lord, “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay;” that is, Let your yea be yea, and not nay; and your nay be nay, and not yea: intend what you say, and act accordingly.

For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. — Ek tou ponhrou, of the evil one. — (See Matthew 13:19.) That is, this custom of trifling with oaths, and truth, and inventing subtle distinctions to palliate it, is of the devil, the father of lies; — a sentence which also refers the vicious casuistry of the papal Church, in the matter of oaths, to its true origin.

Verse 34. - 35. Neither by heaven, &c.] It was a custom among the Scythians, when they wished to bind themselves in the most solemn manner, to swear by the king’s throne; and if the king was at any time sick, they believed it was occasioned by some one’s having taken the oath falsely. Herod. l. iv.

Who is there among the traders and people of this world who obey this law? A common swearer is constantly perjuring himself: such a person should never be trusted. When we make any promise contrary to the command of God, taking, as a pledge of our sincerity, either GOD, or something belonging to him, we engage that which is not ours, without the Master’s consent. God manifests his glory in heaven, as upon his throne; he imprints the footsteps of his perfections upon the earth, his footstool; and shows that his holiness and his grace reign in his temple as the place of his residence. Let it be our constant care to seek and honour God in all his works.

Verses 33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Ek tou ponhrou, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

Ver. 34. Swear not at all. St. James explains this when he says, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by earth, nor by any other oath; for man is not lord of heaven and earth, nor can he say that he shall live and have power to perform his oath. Yet a man may conscientiously swear to the truth, as St. Paul when he says, I protest by your rejoicing. A christian also, on the renewal of his covenant, ought to swear to the Lord. Jeremiah 34:18.

34. Swear not at all — Neither in his prohibition of swearing nor of violence (38-42) is our Lord giving any law for the magistrate or the governmental regulations, but for private conduct. The officer of government has still a right to use force, and the magistrate to administer an oath. In fact, to forbid these things in private life secures that they may be done magistratively with better effect.

None of the oaths which our Lord adduces as specimens are judicial oaths. The Orientalists are great profane swearers, and the secondary oaths here forbidden by our Lord are just the ordinary profanities of their conversation. Dr. Thomson (vol. i, p. 284) says: “This people are fearfully profane. Everybody curses and swears when in a passion. No people that I have ever known can compare with these Orientals for profaneness in the use of the names and attributes of God.… They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or, what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.” Our Lord’s caution not to forswear is given because the people held that to violate these minor oaths of conversation was no perjury. Our Lord not only pronounces it to be forswearing, but forbids the swearing at all.

Verse 34. - 35. Neither by heaven, &c.] It was a custom among the Scythians, when they wished to bind themselves in the most solemn manner, to swear by the king’s throne; and if the king was at any time sick, they believed it was occasioned by some one’s having taken the oath falsely. Herod. l. iv.

Who is there among the traders and people of this world who obey this law? A common swearer is constantly perjuring himself: such a person should never be trusted. When we make any promise contrary to the command of God, taking, as a pledge of our sincerity, either GOD, or something belonging to him, we engage that which is not ours, without the Master’s consent. God manifests his glory in heaven, as upon his throne; he imprints the footsteps of his perfections upon the earth, his footstool; and shows that his holiness and his grace reign in his temple as the place of his residence. Let it be our constant care to seek and honour God in all his works.

Verses 33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Ek tou ponhrou, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

35. Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool — The Lord here exposes the fallacy of those who avoided using the name of God, and swore by some object created by God. Our Lord declares that to swear by anything of God’s is to swear by him; since it is God who gives it all the worth by which it becomes the object of an oath. An oath by God, invokes the attributes of God — his power, justice, and unchangeableness, to sustain our credibility. If, therefore, we swear by anything he has created, we swear secondarily by him; for those same attributes of his give to those things the qualities that render them the basis of an oath.

V. 36. For thou canst not make one hair white or black-Whereby it appears, that this also is not thine but God's.

Verse 36. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head] For these plain reasons: 1st. God commands thee not to do it. 2dly. Thou hast nothing which is thy own, and thou shouldst not pledge another’s property. 3dly. It never did, and never can, answer any good purpose. And 4thly. Being a breach of the law of God, it is the way to everlasting misery.

Verses 33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Ek tou ponhrou, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

36. Swear by thy head — ”It is very common among the Orientals,” says Mr. Paxton in his Illustrations, “to swear by the life or head of the king.” Joseph, improperly yielding to the fashion of the country, swore by the life of Pharaoh; and this oath is still used in various parts of the East. According to Mr. Hanway, the most sacred oath among the Persians is by the head of the king; and Thevenot asserts that to swear by the head of the king is, in Persia, more authentic and of greater credit than if they swore by all that is most sacred in heaven and upon the earth. The ordinary phrase, “I will give you my head if it is not so,” is a colloquial form of swearing of the same kind; it pledges the head or the life upon the certainty of the affirmation.

Thou canst not make one hair white or black — Thy life, thy head, thy every hair are all God’s workmanship, and their preservation is his act. To swear, therefore, by life or head, is to swear by the act, power, and person of God. The presumption of the oath reaches the Divine Being.

V. 37. Let your conversation be yea, yea; nay, nay-That is, in your common discourse, barely affirm or deny.

Verse 37. Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay] That is, a positive affirmation, or negation, according to your knowledge of the matter concerning which you are called to testify. Do not equivocate; mean what you assert, and adhere to your assertion. Hear what a heathen says on this subject:-

ecqrov gar moi keinov ~omwv aidao pulhsin,

ov c~eteron men keuqei eni fresin, allo de bazei.

Hom. Il. ix. 312.

“He whose words agree not with his private thoughts is as detestable to me as the gates of hell.” See on Joshua 2: at the end. See the subject of swearing particularly considered in the note at the conclusion of Deuteronomy 6.

Whatsoever is more than these] That is, more than a bare affirmation or negation, according to the requirements of Eternal Truth, cometh of evil; or, is of the wicked one-ek tou ponhrou estin, i.e. the devil, the father of superfluities and lies. One of Selden’s MSS. and Gregory Nyssen, a commentator of the fourth century, have ek tou diabolou estin, is of the devil.

That the Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, for which our Lord particularly reprehends them, and warns his disciples against, and that they swore by heaven, by earth, by Jerusalem, by their head, &c., the following extracts, made by Dr. Lightfoot from their own writings, amply testify:-

“It was customary and usual among them to swear by the creatures. ‘If any swear by heaven, by earth, by the sun, &c., although the mind of the swearer be, under these words, to swear by HIM who created them, yet this is not an oath. Or, if any swear by some of the prophets, or by some of the books of the Scripture, although the sense of the swearer be to swear by HIM that sent that prophet, or that gave that book, nevertheless, this is not an oath. MAIMONIDES.’

“If any adjure another by heaven or earth, he is not guilty. TALMUD.

“They swore by HEAVEN, awh כנ השמים hashsha mayim, ken hu, ‘By heaven, so it is.’ BAB. BERAC.

“They swore by the TEMPLE. ‘When turtles and young pigeons were sometimes sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said, hwh המעונ By this habitation (that is, by this TEMPLE) I will not rest this night, unless they be sold for a penny of silver.’ CHERITUTH, cap. i.

“R. Zechariah ben Ketsab said, hwh המעונ ‘By this TEMPLE, the hand of the woman departed not out of my hand.’-R. Jochanan said, alkyh ‘By the TEMPLE, it is in our hand, &c.’ KETUBOTH and BAB. KIDUSHIN.

“Bava ben Buta swore by the TEMPLE in the end of the tract Cherithuth, and Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel in the beginning, larvyk ghnm hzw-And so was the custom in Israel.-Note this, so was the custom. JUCAS. fol. 56.

“They swore by the city Jerusalem. R. Judah saith, ‘He that saith, By JERUSALEM, saith nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow towards Jerusalem.’ Where also, after two lines coming between those forms of swearing and vowing, are added, lkyhb lkyhl lkyh בירושלם לירושלם ירושלם ‘Jerusalem, For

Jerusalem, By Jerusalem.-The Temple, For the temple, By the temple.-The Altar, For the altar, By the altar.-The Lamb, For the Lamb, By the Lamb.-The Chambers of the Temple, For the chambers of the temple, By the chambers of the temple.-The Word, For the Word, By the Word.-The Sacrifices on Fire, For the sacrifices on fire, By the sacrifices on fire.-The Dishes, For the dishes, By the dishes.-By all these things, that I will do this to you.’ TOSAPHT. ad. NEDARIM.

“They swore by their own HEADS. ‘One is bound to swear to his neighbour, and he saith, Ëvar yytk yl dyr Vow (or swear) to me by the life of thy head, &c. SANHEDR. cap. 3.

“One of the holiest of their precepts relative to swearing was this: ‘Be not much in oaths, although one should swear concerning things that are true; for in much swearing it is impossible not to profane.’ Tract. DEMAI.”-See Lightfoot’s Works, vol. ii. p. 149. They did not pretend to forbid ALL common swearing, but only what they term MUCH. A Jew might swear, but he must not be too abundant in the practice. Against such permission, our Lord opposes his Swear NOT AT ALL! He who uses any oath, except what he is solemnly called by the magistrate to make, so far from being a Christian, he does not deserve the reputation, either of decency or common sense. In some of our old elementary books for children, we have this good maxim: “Never swear: for he that swears will lie; and he that lies will steal; and, if so, what bad things will he not do!” READING MADE EASY.

Verses 33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish doctors affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In your common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves credit, you need do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — Ek tou ponhrou, Of the evil one: in common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. Accordingly we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18, 19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

37. Yea, yea; Nay, nay — That is, use in conversation only these simple affimatives and negatives, enforced by no violent adjurations. Cometh of evil — The oath arises from men’s want of conversational veracity, or from an undue excitement of feeling. If men were not false in their simple affirmations no oath would be needed. Hence it is well said the man is the surety of the oath, not the oath of the man. Hence it is only where there is much falsehood that the oaths are needed; so that lying and swearing are twin vices. The habit of oaths also cherishes excited and violent feeling. It is averse to that calm, self-reliant firmness which both Christianity and dignified character require, and which can depend on its own simple affirmation for all the demands of life.

Men are often excited to more violent passion by the very profanity which is produced by passion. Our own violent expression increases our own violent feeling and character. And thus, lying, swearing, and violence are associate vices.

That the oath before the magistrate is not prohibited is plain, for our Lord himself answered under the oath imposed upon him by Caiaphas. (Matthew 26:63, 64.) As magistracy is instituted by God, so the invocation of his presence has the solemnity of worship, not the irreverence of profanity. The oath, then, is the tie of society and not its dissolution. And it is to preserve the purity of the authoritative oath that the licentious oath is forbidden.

So also the solemn appeal to God made by the pious man has none of the irreverence of profanity, but, again, a prayer-like solemnity. So St. Paul, (Galatians 1:20:) “Behold, before God, I lie not;” and, (2 Corinthians 1:23:) “I call God for a record upon my soul.”

(4.) Christian law of conciliation.

The Mosaic law laid down the rule of punishment by the magistrate, to inflict the evil upon the wrong doer, which the wrong doer had committed against a complainant. Exodus 21:22. It was life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. This is, no doubt, for the magistrate, the abstract principle of retribution, which must ever be retained in criminal law. But the Jews introduced this principle of retaliation into private life. Each man became judge for himself when and how far it should be inflicted. Thereby the principle of revenge was cultivated, and all conciliation became dishonourable.

Christ enjoins here a different method of dealing with an assailant. Instead of resenting every affront, and retorting every blow aimed, to disarm him by skilful generosity. Our Saviour expresses the principle by symbolic specimens; that is, by strong external instances. But these outward acts are to be understood as mere symbols to express the internal disposition, and mere examples to illustrate the general rule.

Judgment must always be exercised as to when and in what individual cases these laws of conciliation will apply. Certainly they will not apply where it is clear that no conciliation will follow. Our Lord here prescribes a method for an end, which cannot be used where the end could not be attained, and where the method would only produce useless submission to increasing aggression. The law of self-defence then comes in, to be exercised either under the magistrate, or, if necessary, in our own persons.

V. 38. Ye have heard-Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love on those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake (which he pursues to the end of the chapter) as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees.

It hath been said-In the law, as a direction to judges, in ease of violent and barbarous assaults.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth-And this has been interpreted, as encouraging bitter and rigorous revenge. Deuteronomy 19:21.

Verse 38. An eye for an eye] Our Lord refers here to the law of retaliation mentioned See Clarke “Exodus 21:24”, (see the note there, and See Clarke on “Leviticus 24:20”,) which obliged the offender to suffer the same injury he had committed. The Greeks and Romans had the same law. So strictly was it attended to at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of another who had but one, the offender was condemned to lose both his eyes, as the loss of one would not be an equivalent misfortune. It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received. This is often the case among those who are called Christians.

Verses 38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as tw ponhrw ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word antisthnai implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word citwn, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, imation, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered kriqhnai. The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Upon the whole of this passage, from verse 38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

38. An eye for an eye — This is the old law of retaliation, to which reference has just been made.

Verse 38. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, &c. — As this was one of the judicial laws of the nation, and we have no instance in which our Lord interfered with merely civil matters which implied no moral turpitude, and know that on one or two occasions he expressly declined to interfere, it is not probable that he here repeals this part of the Jewish law, Deuteronomy 19:21; Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:19. We may, therefore, conclude, that under the shelter of this public law, the disposition to appeal to the magistrate in trifling cases, and also the private retaliation of injuries, had been both practised and justified by the Jews; and thus a litigious and revengeful temper was encouraged, a character which, indeed, they appear always to have borne. What, then, does our Lord teach his disciples? But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil. Antishnai here signifies, to retaliate; for anti, in composition, imports, vicem referre, to repay, or oppose the injury by the same means; and is here used in the same sense as antapodidonai in Romans 12:17, “Recompense to no man evil for evil.” The pacific disposition here enjoined forbids us to be eager to resort to legal process on comparatively trifling occasions, which are exemplified by being smitten on the cheek, — which was an act of contumely among the Jews rather than intended to inflict corporal injury, — or being sued at law unjustly for a coat, or being compelled to go a mile. These are all proverbial expressions, to denote the smaller class of injuries. And the precept, also, forbids all private retaliation of any kind, especially of those injuries which Christians were to sustain for their religion, not only from public functionaries, but from their neighbours and other individuals. It is a principle, too, which may be applied to the smaller circumstances of life, in which neglects, as well as injuries, might place us under a temptation to return “evil for evil;” a thought which ought never to be allowed a place in the breast of a disciple of the meek and patient Saviour.

A question here, however, will arise, whether our Lord forbids us to resort to the protection of the laws of our country on any occasion, even should the consequence be the infliction of a severe penalty upon the offender. To this it may be answered, that as the instances of injustice given by him which we are forbidden to retaliate by even an appeal to law are such as can do but little injury; the impunity of greater cases, such as would affect the interests of society as well as our own, is not included in the prohibition.

Besides, it is a principle laid down in our religion, that magistracy is of God; and that the magistrate “bears not the sword in vain.” Still, however, every Christian is, by implication, even in these graver cases, guarded against too eager a disposition to commence legal processes; and ought to be clear in his own mind that he is free from the spirit of revenge, and is acting with a serious regard to the duty he owes to himself and to the public.

On the above verses a few remarks explanatory of the phrases and terms may be added.

The law of restitution, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” was not peculiar to the Jews; it obtained among many ancient nations. It was so rigidly enforced at Athens, that if a man put out the eye of a man who had but one eye, the offender was condemned to lose both eyes, as the only exact equivalent. To turn the other cheek to be smitten, is not to be understood literally. Neither did our Lord nor St. Paul act thus when so assaulted. The expression is proverbial for a patient and unrevenging temper. The coat, citwn, was the tunic, or under garment; the cloak, imation, was the upper garment; or mantle; a piece of cloth nearly square, and wrapped round the body, or tied over the shoulders. To compel thee to go a mile, is also a proverbial expression. The verb aggareuein (from hangar, a dagger, which the couriers wore as a mark of authority) is a Persian word, used to denote the impressing of men by state authority, to carry burdens, or messages from stage to stage. This was imposed upon the Jews while under the Persians; and both the Roman governors and the tetrarchs compelled them to similar services, or to furnish horses to their public messengers and posts, and to accompany them. The word came, therefore, to express any oppression or compulsory treatment attempted by any one. The word ayrgga often occurs in the Jewish writings, and is explained by them, the taking of any thing for the service of the king.

V. 39. But I say unto you, that ye resist not the evil man-Thus; the Greek word translated resist signifies standing in battle array, striving for victory. If a man

smite thee on the right cheek-Return not evil for evil: yea, turn to him the other-Rather than revenge thyself.

Verse 39. Resist not evil] Or, the evil person. So, I am fully persuaded, tw ponhrw ought to be translated. Our Lord’s meaning is, “Do not repel one outrage by another.” He that does so makes himself precisely what the other is, a wicked person.

Turn to him the other also] That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. But these exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Let such leave the judgment of their cause to Him for whose sake they suffer. The Jews always thought that every outrage should be resented; and thus the spirit of hatred and strife was fostered.

Verses 38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as tw ponhrw ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word antisthnai implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word citwn, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, imation, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered kriqhnai. The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Upon the whole of this passage, from verse 38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

Ver. 39. Resist not evil. Retaliate not an injury by private revenge. A christian may deprive his enemy of the means of hurting him, and he may bring him before the magistrates, whose authority Christ has allowed: ver.

22. But to oppose evil against evil is to double the crime. It punishes our enemy unseasonably, perhaps in an improper manner and degree, and it may harden him to greater wickedness. It is mostly our best wisdom to rely on providence which brings all things round, and will punish all wickedness, and avenge injured innocence, in such a time and way as to do the sinner good with stripes. Nor should we be content with negative virtues: let us sometimes do for the greedy man more than he requires, that we may shame and confound his covetousness by the superior and godlike energies of divine grace.

39. Resist not evil — The word here, resist, may also signify retaliate. As it is the maxim of individual retaliation that our Lord is here annulling, this would seem to be the natural meaning of the word. It is also the law of retaliation, an eye for an eye, that he is now expounding. The instinct of self-preservation seems to be given us divinely, for the very purpose of instantaneous resistance of violence; and the religion of Jesus does never condemn the healthful action of any one of our primary instincts. Yet the feeling of revenge proper, the appetite to inflict a pain upon him who has given us pain, our Lord does condemn. In the place of this he substitutes:

1. The aim to bring the injurer to repentance and reformation. 2. The effort to disarm him by unexpected concession and graceful conciliation. This is the true Christian mode of overcoming a foe.

Still it must be acknowledged that the Greek verb here used signifies to resist rather than to retaliate. It is a compound word, literally signifying to stand against. The command, therefore, is, not to take our stand in opposition to, or to take issue with the evil. The word in the text rendered evil may signify either evil or the evil person. The latter is perhaps the preferable meaning. The import, therefore, of the command, with these definitions of the words, may be best completely understood when we have explained the latter half of the verse.

Cheek, turn him the other also — Our Lord gives a supposable instance. The turning the other cheek is a symbol by specimen or sample of the thing. To do this in a bare literal way would probably expose a man to ridicule, especially if known to be a mechanical compliance with the letter of the command. But follow that course skilfully of which this instance is an index. By some method subdue your enemy with an unexpected stroke of generosity, of candour, of concession, of confidence, of appeal to the magnanimous part of his nature. Thus you will make him your friend, develop the good in him, and illustrate the true generosity of the Gospel. Both members, therefore, of the verse taken together will amount to this: The Christian way of dealing with the bad assailant is not to take issue with him, or to overcome him by hostile force; but to disarm him by generous concessions and benefactions. The sentiment is therefore identical with the precept of the wise man in the Old Testament, (Proverbs 25:21, 22:) “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.” Yet it would be doing great violence both to the words of Solomon in the Old Testament and of the greater than Solomon in the New, to understand them as commanding us to extinguish the instinct and to disobey the law of self-preservation, when assaulted by some violent and unappeasable foe.

And here we must repudiate the interpretation of our Lord’s commands in regard to oaths and to non-resistance of an enemy, adopted by Stier and other German critics, and also by Alford, which represent those commands as not intended for the real, but imperfect Church hitherto existing on earth, but for an ideal Church hereafter to exist. Whatever our Lord’s commands were, they are binding in their full moaning now. The fact that the low state of Christian morality renders the declining of oaths and the practice of non-resistance inconvenient at the present time, does not abrogate the law. If the Quaker interpretation be true, the Quaker doctrine is true, and the Quaker practice right, and all Christendom is bound to be Quaker. There can be no sliding scale in Christian morality. Nor is obedience to the commands of Christ to be postponed to some distant age in the unknown future.

V. 40, 41. Where the damage is not great, choose rather to suffer it, though possibly it may on that account be repeated, than to demand an eye for an eye, to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. The meaning of the whole passage seems to be, rather than return evil for evil, when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily wrong after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words are not literally to be understood, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23.

Verse 40. And if any man will sue thee at the law] Every where our blessed Lord shows the utmost disapprobation of such litigations as tended to destroy brotherly kindness and charity. It is evident he would have his followers to suffer rather the loss of all their property than to have recourse to such modes of redress, at so great a risk. Having the mind averse from contentions, and preferring peace and concord to temporal advantages, is most solemnly recommended to all Christians. We are great gainers when we lose only our money, or other property, and risk not the loss of our souls, by losing the love of God and man.

Coat] citwna, upper garment.-Cloke, imation, under garment. What we call strait coat, and great coat.-See on Luke 6:29.

Verses 38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as tw ponhrw ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word antisthnai implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word citwn, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, imation, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered kriqhnai. The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Upon the whole of this passage, from verse 38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

40. Coat… cloak — How much may a man not gain by a timely and magnanimous surrender! How much does he not gain by the disposition to be above a sensitive irritability and anxiety to maintain his rights and battle for every inch! How many a most contemptible misery can be avoided by the high spirit that can say without ostentation, “You have got that, and I will fling this into the bargain rather than have a quarrel with my neighbour.” Even if there be a temporary loss, there is, in the long run, a stupendous gain.

Yet this does not command or advise us to allow a man persistently to assail our well-being without prevention or reparation. It does not apply to cases where a ruffian would seize our valuable property, violate chastity, endanger or take life. If possible, reform and benefit an assailant; if that cannot be, then, for the good of society, bring him to legal justice; if his assault be too sudden, defend yourself with the least harm possible to him; if instantly necessary, it is your right, inasmuch as he is a criminal, to save yourself by damage to him. All this is consistent with the law of love. The coat here mentioned was a tunic, worn next to the skin, with armholes or sleeves, and reaching down, like a shirt, to the knees. Its material was commonly linen. It was bound round the waste by a girdle. A person wearing this only is called in Scripture naked, that is, undressed. Isaiah 20:2-4; 1 Samuel 19:24; John 21:7. In later times; this coat or tunic was made larger, and a shirt worn under it. The coat of our Saviour, “without seam, woven from the top throughout,” (John 19:23,) was the garment here described.

The cloak, called in modern times the “aba,” was a large square piece, several feet in length and breadth, and worn very much as an American Indian wears his blanket. It was put on by flinging one corner of it over the left shoulder, and bringing the cloth around the back, then around the right side under the right arm, crossing the breast and reaching again over the left shoulder. Thus, while the left arm took care of it, the right arm was free.

This “aba” or cloak was used by the poor, by night, as a bed. Such were the garments spread before the Saviour as he entered Jerusalem. Matthew 21:8. See also John 13:4; 21:7; Matthew 24:18.

V. 40, 41. Where the damage is not great, choose rather to suffer it, though possibly it may on that account be repeated, than to demand an eye for an eye, to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. The meaning of the whole passage seems to be, rather than return evil for evil, when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily wrong after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words are not literally to be understood, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23.

Verse 41. Shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.] aggareusei. This word is said to be derived from the Persians, among whom the king’s messengers, or posts, were called aggapoi, or angari. This definition is given both by Hesychius and Suidas. The Persian messengers had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships, and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were employed. These angari are now termed chappars, and serve to carry despatches between the court and the provinces. When a chappar sets out, the master of the horse furnishes him with a single horse; and, when that is weary, he dismounts the first man he meets, and takes his horse. There is no pardon for a traveller that refuses to let a chappar have his horse, nor for any other who should deny him the best horse in his stable. See Sir J. Chardin’s and Hanway’s Travels. For pressing post horses, &c., the Persian term is [Persian] Sukhreh geriften. I find no Persian word exactly of the sound and signification of aggarov; but the Arabic [Arabic] agharet signifies spurring a horse, attacking, plundering, &c. The Greek word itself is preserved among the rabbins in Hebrew characters, ayrgna angaria, and it has precisely the same meaning: viz. to be compelled by violence to do any particular service, especially of the public kind, by the king’s authority. Lightfoot gives several instances of this in his Horæ Talmudicæ. We are here exhorted to patience and forgiveness:

First, When we receive in our persons all sorts of insults and affronts, Matthew 5:39.

Secondly, When we are despoiled of our goods, Matthew 5:40.

Thirdly, When our bodies are forced to undergo all kinds of toils, vexations, and torments, Matthew 5:41. The way to improve the injustice of man to our own advantage, is to exercise under it meekness, gentleness, and long-suffering, without which disposition of mind, no man can either be happy here or hereafter; for he that avenges himself must lose the mind of Christ, and thus suffer an injury ten thousand times greater than he can ever receive from man. Revenge, at such an expense, is dear indeed.

Verses 38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as tw ponhrw ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word antisthnai implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word citwn, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, imation, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered kriqhnai. The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Upon the whole of this passage, from verse 38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

Ver. 41. Go with him twain, alluding to the practice of the Roman legions, who impressed men as guides, and as carriers of their baggage, forcing them also to do it at inadequate rates of payment.

41. Compel thee to go a mile — The phrase was borrowed from the practice of the oppressive Eastern despotisms. The custom was introduced from the Persian into the Roman government. The royal officers in transmitting government dispatches, were empowered to impress any man into service, and compel him or his beast to perform a stage or two of the message. So Simon, the Cyrenian, was compelled to bear the cross. Now, says our Lord, if any one obliges you to perform some task for him like this, make him magnanimously ashamed, if possible, by doubling the favour.

V. 42. Thus much for your behaviour toward the violent. As for those who use milder methods,

Give to him that asketh thee-Give and lend to any so far, (but no further, for God never contradicts himself) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Luke 6:30.

Verse 42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow] To give and lend freely to all who are in need, is a general precept from which we are only excused by our inability to perform it. Men are more or less obliged to it as they are more or less able, as the want is more or less pressing, as they are more or less burthened with common poor, or with necessitous relatives. In all these matters, both prudence and charity must be consulted. That God, who makes use of the beggar’s hand to ask our charity, is the same from whom we ourselves beg our daily bread: and dare we refuse HIM! Let us show at least mildness and compassion, when we can do no more; and if we cannot or will not relieve a poor man, let us never give him an ill word nor an ill look. If we do not relieve him, we have no right to insult him.

To give and to lend, are two duties of charity which Christ joins together, and which he sets on equal footing. A rich man is one of God’s stewards: God has given him money for the poor, and he cannot deny it without an act of injustice. But no man, from what is called a principle of charity or generosity, should give that in alms which belongs to his creditors. Generosity is godlike; but justice has ever, both in law and Gospel, the first claim.

A loan is often more beneficial than an absolute gift: first, because it flatters less the vanity of him who lends; secondly, it spares more the shame of him who is in real want; and, thirdly, it gives less encouragement to the idleness of him who may not be very honest. However, no advantage should be taken of the necessities of the borrower: he who does so is, at least, half a murderer. The lending which our Lord here inculcates is that which requires no more than the restoration of the principal in a convenient time: otherwise to live upon trust is the sure way to pay double.

Verses 38-42. Ye have heard, &c. — Our Lord proceeds to enforce such meekness and love toward their enemies, on those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, as were utterly unknown to the scribes and Pharisees. And this subject he pursues to the end of the chapter. It hath been said, viz., in the law, Deuteronomy 19:21, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — Though this statute was only intended as a direction to judges, with regard to the penalties to be inflicted in case of violent and barbarous assaults; yet it was interpreted among the Jews as encouraging a rigorous and severe revenge of every injury a man might receive. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil — Or, rather, the evil man, as tw ponhrw ought to be rendered. Dr. Doddridge reads the clause: That you do not set yourselves against the injurious person, viz., in a posture of hostile opposition, as the word antisthnai implies, and with a resolution to return evil for evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, &c. — Where the damage is not great, choose rather to pass it by, though possibly it might, on that account, be repeated, than to enter into a rigorous prosecution of the offender. And if any man will sue thee, &c., and take away thy coat — By the word citwn, here rendered coat, it seems we are to understand an inner garment; and by the word, imation, rendered cloak, an outer garment. Dr. Doddridge renders the former, vest, and the latter, mantle. They are parts of dress, under different names, still used in Barbary, Egypt, and the Levant. See Shaw’s Travels, pp. 289, 292. Our Lord, it is to be observed, is not here speaking of a robber attacking a person on the highway, to whom it would be natural to take the outer garment first, but of a person suing another at law, as our translators seem properly to have rendered kriqhnai. The meaning of the whole passage evidently is, rather than return evil for evil: when the wrong is purely personal, submit to one bodily injury after another, give up one part of your goods after another, submit to one instance of compulsion after another. That the words, Turn to him the other cheek also, (and consequently those in the next clause,) are not to be taken literally, appears from the behaviour of our Lord himself, John 18:22, 23. Give to him, that asketh thee, &c. — Give and lend to any that are in want, so far, (but no farther, for God never contradicts himself,) as is consistent with thy engagements to thy creditors, thy family, and the household of faith. Upon the whole of this passage, from verse 38, we may observe, that it seems to have been primarily intended to counteract and correct that abuse of the law of retaliation above mentioned, which was common among the Jews, who carried their resentments to the utmost lengths; and, by so doing, maintained infinite quarrels, to the great detriment of social life. For this purpose, our Lord “puts five cases wherein Christian meekness must especially show itself. 1st, When any one assaults our person, in resentment of some affront he imagines we have put upon him. 2d, When any one sues us at the law, in order to take our goods from us. 3d, When he attacks our natural liberty. 4th, When one who is poor asks charity. 5th, When a neighbour begs the loan of something from us. In all these cases our Lord forbids us to resist. Yet, from the examples which he mentions, it is plain that this forbearance and compliance are required only when we are slightly attacked, but by no means when the assault is of a capital kind. For it would be unbecoming the wisdom which Jesus showed in other points, to suppose that he forbids us to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, and oppressors, who would unjustly take away our life, our estate, or our liberty. Neither can it be thought that he commands us to give every idle fellow all he may think fit to ask, whether in charity or in loan. We are only to give what we can spare, and to such persons as out of real necessity ask relief from us. Nay, our Lord’s own behaviour toward the man that smote him on the cheek, shows he did not mean that in all cases his disciples should be passive under the very injuries which he here speaks of. In some circumstances, smiting on the cheek, taking away one’s coat, and the compelling one to go a mile, may be great injuries, and therefore are to be resisted. The first instance was judged so by Jesus himself in the case mentioned. For had he forborne to reprove the man who did it, his silence might have been interpreted as proceeding from a conviction of his having done evil, in giving the high priest the answer for which he was smitten.” But, admitting that this rule has for its object small injuries, and that our Lord orders his disciples to be passive under them rather than to repel them, it is liable to no objection: for he who “bears a slight affront, consults his honour and interest much better than he who resists or resents it; because he shows a greatness of mind worthy of a man, and uses the best means of avoiding quarrels, which oft-times are attended with the most fatal consequences. In like manner, he who yields a little of his right, rather than he will go to law, is much wiser than the man who has recourse to public justice in every instance; because, in the progress of a law-suit, such animosities may arise as are inconsistent with charity. To conclude, benevolence, which is the glory of the divine nature, and the perfection of the human, rejoices in doing good. Hence the man that is possessed of this god-like quality cheerfully embraces every occasion in his power of relieving the poor and distressed, whether by gift or loan. Some are of opinion, that the precept concerning alms-giving, and gratuitous lending, is subjoined to the instances of injuries which our Lord commands us to bear, to teach us that, if the persons who have injured us fall into want, we are not to withhold any act of charity from them on account of the evil they have formerly done us. Taken in this light, the precept is generous and divine. Moreover, as liberality is a virtue nearly allied to the forgiveness of injuries, our Lord joined the two together, to show that they should always go hand in hand. The reason is, revenge will blast the greatest liberality, and a covetous heart will show the most perfect patience to be a sordid meanness of spirit, proceeding from selfishness.” — Macknight.

42. Give… turn not away — This forbids a churlish, unsympathizing closeness. It rebukes the maxim, “I neither ask nor grant favours.” It commands generosity; yet it is a suggestive, not a universal command. It does not mean that an industrious man’s purse must open at the call of every idle vagabond. There are occasions to which it is applicable, and others to which it is not; or rather, it presents specimens of the actions that come under the head of winning men by generous habits.

(5.) Christian law of love.

Verse 42. Give to him that asketh, &c. — These precepts are added to show that the religion of Christ requires positive, as well as negative virtues. It is not enough to be peaceable and forgiving, we must be generous and beneficent. The giving and lending here enjoined are not, however, to be performed without regard to prudence as to our own means, and regard to the character of others. But the circumstances of any case which may come before us are to be considered under the influence of a free and bounteous disposition. The man who never gives or lends to alleviate the wants or difficulties of others, is not a Christian: this is a plain inference from the precept, whatever other comment may be dictated by selfishness.

V. 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour; And hate thy enemy-God spoke the former part; the scribes added the latter. Leviticus 19:18.

Verse 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.] Instead of plhsian neighbour, the Codex Grævii, a MS. of the eleventh century, reads filon friend. Thou shalt love thy friend, and hate thine enemy. This was certainly the meaning which the Jews put on it: for neighbour, with them, implied those of the Jewish race, and all others were, considered by them as natural enemies. Besides, it is evident that plhsion, among the Hellenistic Jews, meant friend merely: Christ uses it precisely in this sense in Luke 10:36, in answer to the question asked by a certain lawyer, Matthew 5:29. Who of the three was neighbour (plhsion friend) to him who fell among the thieves? He who showed him mercy; i.e. he who acted the friendly part. In Hebrew, [r rea, signifies friend, which word is translated plhsion by the LXX. in more than one hundred places. Among the Greeks it was a very comprehensive term, and signified every man, not even an enemy excepted, as Raphelius, on this verse, has shown from Polybius. The Jews thought themselves authorized to kill any Jew who apostatized; and, though they could not do injury to the Gentiles, in whose country they sojourned, yet they were bound to suffer them to perish, if they saw them in danger of death. Hear their own words: “A Jew sees a Gentile fall into the sea, let him by no means lift him out; for it is written, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour:-but this is not thy neighbour.” Maimon. This shows that by neighbour they understood a Jew; one who was of the same blood and religion with themselves.

Verse 43. Ye have heard that it hath been said — In this, as is in the former instances, our Lord, intending to comprehend not only the law itself, but the explications of it given by the Jewish doctors, and said to be derived by tradition from the mouth of Moses, does not say, Ye know, but, Ye have heard, that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy — God enjoined the former part of this precept, Leviticus 19:18, and the scribes added the latter, abusing, it seems, the commands for destroying the Canaanites, to countenance such an addition, though this was in direct contradiction to many other scriptures. See Exodus 24:4, 5; Leviticus 19:17; Proverbs 25:21. But I say unto you, Love your enemies — To the narrow charity of the Jews, confined to their own brethren and men of their own religion, Christ here opposes his admirable precept, enjoining us, if we would be his genuine disciples, to love even our enemies; and that, by showing a sincere affection and good will to them who bear enmity or ill will to us; by manifesting our beneficence to them who, by their actions, show their hatred to us; by doing good to them for evil; by blessing them who with their mouths curse us; and by praying for God’s blessing upon them who revile and persecute us, as his followers. And this love he recommends, 1st, from the manifest absurdity of the Jewish doctrine, which made them no better, in this respect, than those sinners, publicans, and heathen, whom they allowed themselves to hate, &c.; 2d, that they, who boasted of it as their peculiar glory that they were the sons of God, might show that they really were so by their imitating His goodness who is kind to the unthankful and evil; 3d, because this would render his followers complete in the great duty of love and mercy to others, as he adds in the last clause.

The following paraphrase on the different clauses of the passage may, perhaps, give the reader a clearer and fuller view of its meaning. Explaining what he intends, when he says, Love your enemies, he adds, Bless them that curse you — Give them kind and friendly language who rail, act, or speak evil of you; say all the good you can to, and of them. Do good to them that hate you — Repay love in thought, word, and deed, to those who really bear ill will to you, and show it both in their words and actions; and embrace every opportunity of promoting their welfare, both temporal and spiritual. And pray for those which despitefully use you, &c. — Besides doing all in your own power to advance their happiness, endeavour, by your prayers, to engage God also to befriend and bless them. The expression ephreazontwn umav, is by some rendered, who falsely accuse, or traduce you; but more properly by Dr. Doddridge, who insult over you. The word is plainly used by St. Peter, (1 Peter 3:16, the only other place in Scripture where it occurs,) to express abusive language. Both it and the other terms here used express the highest degree of enmity, for what can be worse than cursing, and calumny, and insults, and persecutions; yet we are commanded to love, and bless, and do good to those who express their enmity to us even by these things; and this doctrine Christ enforces from the noblest of all considerations, that it renders men like God; for he adds, that ye may be the children of your Father — As if he had said, Being thus benevolent toward all the bad as well as the good, ye shall be like God, and so prove yourselves to be his genuine offspring; for he maketh his sun common to them who worship and them who contemn him; and lets his rain be useful both to the just and to the unjust; alluring the bad to repentance, and exciting the good to thankfulness, by this universal and indiscriminate benignity of his providence. For if ye love them which love you, &c., and salute your brethren only, &c. — These are common things, practised by people of the worst character; which therefore do not distinguish you from others, nor prove you to be of a truly pious and virtuous disposition, but as being only indued with the essential principles of human nature, so that no peculiar reward can await you for doing them. The phrase ti perisson poieite, rendered in our translation, What do ye more than others? but which Dr. Campbell renders, Wherein do you excel? is thought by him to refer to what our Lord had declared, verse 20, concerning the necessity of our righteousness excelling, or abounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees. Thus, he thinks, our Lord’s expostulation is rendered more energetical by the contrast; as if he had said, I told you your righteousness must excel that of the scribes and Pharisees, but if you do good to your friends only, it will not excel even that of the publicans and pagans. Perhaps, in the phrase, If ye salute your brethren only, our Lord might glance at those prejudices which different sects had against each other, and might intimate that he would not have his followers imbibe that narrow spirit. And “would to God,” says a pious divine, “that the hint had been more attended to, among the unhappy subdivisions into which his church has been crumbled; and that we might at least advance so far as cordially to embrace our brethren in Christ, of whatever party or denomination they are! Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father, &c. — Imitate especially the divine goodness, as it is promiscuous, and extends to the evil as well as the good. This seems to be chiefly what is here intended; the love to friends, brethren, and countrymen implying only a very imperfect imitation of God; we are to labour after a more complete resemblance to him, in loving enemies. Our Lord, therefore, afterward expressed himself in a parallel discourse on the same subject in a rather different manner, saying, Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful, Luke 6:36. But, it is probable, he used a greater latitude of expression here, to remind us of our obligations to imitate the blessed God in all his moral perfections. The exhortation undoubtedly refers to all that holiness which is described in the foregoing verses, which our Lord, in the beginning of the chapter, recommends as happiness, and in the close of it as perfection. And it must be observed, that the words in the original, esesqe oun umeiv teleioi, express a promise, rather than a precept: Ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. And how wise and gracious is this, to sum up, and, as it were, to seal all his commandments with a promise! even the proper promise of the gospel, that he will put those laws in our minds and write them in our hearts! He well knew how ready our unbelief would be to suggest, This is impossible! And therefore stakes upon it all the power, truth, and faithfulness of Him to whom all things are possible.

43. Love… neighbour… hate… enemy — The command, Love thy

neighbour, (Leviticus 19:18,) was interpreted by the rabbles to include Israelites only. To hate the rest of mankind was, therefore, they held, religiously right. Our Lord, however, extends our neighbourhood over all mankind. As immortal beings, all are entitled to a solemn respect; as children of the same Father, they are the proper objects of our wishes for their wellbeing. That they are our enemies is a good reason why we should ward off their attacks; but it is no reason why we should not wish their happiness. One of the best ways of showing our benevolence is to invent some method of removing their bad disposition and disarming their enmity. Love your friends and hate your enemies is the law written by selfishness on the human heart. Its’ necessary effect is to divide mankind into clans maintaining perpetual feuds. The action and reaction of revenge, sustained by the point of honour, render the feud permanent and cruel. Such was eminently the state of society when our Lord was engaged in dispensing these truths to his Church. To end these feuds, the commencement must be made by the good man’s making the advances of patience, of adventurous suffering, of disarming enmity by magnanimous disregard of the standing feud, of the point of honour, and even, sometimes, of the possible law of self-preservation. Here is the finest field for the purest heroism and the noblest generosity. And, at the same time, there is the fullest room for all our tact and fertility of invention to make our generosity truly tell. By blunder, by misapplication, by ill-timed introduction, our magnanimity may wear the look of cowardice; and the enemy, instead of being conciliated, will think himself called upon to trample upon our meanness. Thereby we shall not heap coals of fire upon his head, but apply a coal of fire to inflame his heart.

And what a beautiful and masterly calmness does our Lord here prescribe to the Christian heart. He is to keep his own temper undisturbed, and while his enemy is raging with insane fury he is calmly to study by what skilful application of touching kindness he can transform the lion to a lamb. By so doing he attains a victory; but that is the smallest part of the matter. He has transformed an enemy to a friend; and what is better than either, he has, perhaps, converted a sinner from his error, and saved a soul from death.

Verse 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. — The first part of this precept is written in the law; the latter part is nowhere written, but might probably be inferred from the command to extirpate the Canaanites, and to hold no communion with several of the neighbouring hostile and idolatrous nations. The original necessity of keeping the Jews distinct from foreigners, that they might be uncontaminated with their idolatry, and the circumstance of their being made the special instruments of inflicting God’s severe judgments upon nations which had “filled up the measure of their iniquity,” gave, in the best times, something of an exclusive character to that people. Yet their benevolence was not to be confined to those of their own country merely; nor was the precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour” so understood. There were “strangers” dwelling among the Israelites, whom the law of Moses commanded them to love and protect; and though the more modern Jews contended that by such “strangers,” proselytes were meant, it would seem from the parable of the good Samaritan, which was designed to answer the question, “Who is my neighbour?” that the law, in its original sense, contemplated every man as a neighbour, so as to compassionate and relieve his distresses, without respect to country or religion. As the Jewish teachers had, however, limited the meaning of the law of love as to neighbours, and so far extended the original malediction against the seven nations of Canaan, and the Moabites, Midianites, and Amalekites, as to regard all other idolatrous nations as under the same or a similar exclusion from their kindness, and so justified that hatred of them which they often so contemptuously and haughtily manifested; our Lord tacitly intimates that the original command to hate certain hostile and idolatrous people had been fully accomplished in the punishments anciently inflicted upon them, and was no longer in force; and now expressly declares that, at least under his dispensation, LOVE was to be UNIVERSAL, and all hatreds to be for ever extinguished. Still farther, as that exclusive temper of the Jews, which had so long over-stepped its legitimate boundary as to heathen nations, did, in that degenerate age, when religion was no longer placed in the heart, but in outward forms, so frequently break forth into malignity and hatred against those of their own nation who had offended them, so that they were often disposed to treat them as “heathen men and publicans;” he meets this case also in the words before us. What, then, are these Divine precepts of the religion of our Saviour? What sense has he given to the ancient law. as taken up into his dispensation, on these points?

1. He repealed for ever the maledictions of a former age against all that might remain of the devoted nations: and many remnants of these people, as of the Canaanites, Moabites, and others, were still in existence. In that respect “there was to be no more curse,” not even on the descendants of Canaan; and his followers were not, like the ancient Jews, to be the instruments of vengeance, but of peace and salvation, to every heathen nation throughout the world.

2. He has fixed the meaning of the precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour,” so as to embrace all men in all the relations in which they may stand to us, however hostile and injurious, that there might be ONE LAW OF LOVE for all nations, and for every individual. “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them,” &c. “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;” imitators of him, and influenced by his infinite charity, even to the unworthy and unthankful: “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust:” one of the noblest duties enforced by the noblest and most moving of all considerations. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord;” he only can righteously exercise it whose perfection is absolute. This belongs not to erring and passionate mortals; none of them must dare to imitate his thunder; but all are to imitate his forgiving and bounteous mercy.

V. 44. Bless them that curse you-Speak all the good you can to and of them, who speak all evil to and of you. Repay love in thought, word, and deed, to those who hate you, and show it both in word and deed. Luke 6:27, 35.

Verse 44. Love your enemies] This is the most sublime piece of morality ever given to man. Has it appeared unreasonable and absurd to some? It has. And why? Because it is natural to man to avenge himself, and plague those who plague him; and he will ever find abundant excuse for his conduct, in the repeated evils he receives from others; for men are naturally hostile to each other. Jesus Christ design’s to make men happy. Now he is necessarily miserable who hates another. Our Lord prohibits that only which, from its nature, is opposed to man’s happiness. This is therefore one of the most reasonable precepts in the universe. But who can obey it? None but he who has the mind of Christ. But I have it not. Seek it from God; it is that kingdom of heaven which Christ came to establish upon earth. See on Matthew 3:2. This one precept is a sufficient proof of the holiness of the Gospel, and of the truth of the Christian religion. Every false religion flatters man, and accommodates itself to his pride and his passions. None but God could have imposed a yoke so contrary to self-love; and nothing but the supreme eternal love can enable men to practise a precept so insupportable to corrupt nature. Sentiments like this are found among Asiatic writers, and in select cases were strongly applied; but as a general command this was never given by them, or any other people. It is not an absolute command in any of the books which they consider to be Divinely inspired. Sir William Jones lays by far too much stress on the casual introduction of such sentiments as this in the Asiatic writers. See his WORKS, vol. i. p. 168, where the sentiment is connected with circumstances both extravagant and unnatural; and thus it is nullified by the pretended recommendation.

Bless them that curse you] eulogeite, give them good words for their bad words. See Clarke’s note on “Genesis 2:3”. Do good to them that hate you] Give your enemy every proof that you love him. We must not love in tongue, but in deed and in truth. Pray for them which despitefully use you] ephreazontwn from epi against, and arhv Mars, the heathen god of war. Those who are making continual war upon you, and constantly harassing and calumniating you. Pray for them-This is another exquisitely reasonable precept. I cannot change that wicked man’s heart; and while it is unchanged he will continue to harass me: God alone can change it: then I must implore him to do that which will at once secure the poor man’s salvation, and contribute so much to my own peace.

And persecute you] diwkontwn, those who press hard on and pursue you with hatred and malice accompanied with repeated acts of enmity. In this verse our Lord shows us that a man may be our enemy in three different ways.

First, in his heart, by hatred.

Secondly, in his words by cursing or using direful imprecations (katarwmenouv) against us.

Thirdly, in his actions, by continually harassing and abusing us. He shows us also how we are to behave to those.

The hatred of the first we are to meet with love.

The cursings or evil words of the second, we are to meet with good words and blessings.

And the repeated injurious acts of the third, we are to meet with continual prayer to God for the man’s salvation.

44. Love… bless… do good… pray — These are the Christian modes of feeling toward enemies. The external act of conciliation is good, and may perhaps prevail. It may immensely benefit our enemy, and yet it may fail of good to ourselves. It may proceed from mere policy. There may be a Pharisaic pride in so managing an impetuous man. Then, alas! though our act was right, yet our heart was not right in the act. We may save our enemy, and lose ourselves. It should be the case that the action springs from love. Then the same love that saves one will save both. For our own sake, our heart must be converted from hate. That same indwelling love by which we love God with all our heart, must love our neighbour, including our enemy, even as ourself.

And even if our act of conciliation fails, if our enemy remain enemy, our feelings must still be love. The same tranquil, masterly desire to do him good, and to watch the vulnerable point by which he can be approached, and his enmity slain, must be preserved. How happy is such a heart in its own great calmness, even though in the midst of foes, and girt with enmities. Yet nothing but the grace of God, co-operated with by our own determinations, guided by the precepts of Jesus, is ever likely to produce such a state in the heart. When every Christian attains this state, and every man becomes Christian, then complete will be the reign of the Prince of Peace.

Verse 44. Bless them that curse you. — To bless here signifies to speak kindly to them, without returning their revilings; and well of them, as far as we can see any thing commendable in them, notwithstanding their faults.

V. 45. That ye may be the children-That is, that ye may continue and appear such before men and angels.

For he maketh his sun to rise-He gives them such blessings as they will receive at his hands. Spiritual blessings they will not receive.

Verse 45. That ye may be the children of your Father] Instead of uioi children, some MSS., the latter Persic version, and several of the primitive fathers, read omoioi, that ye may be like to, or resemble, your Father who is in heaven. This is certainly our Lord’s meaning. As a man’s child is called his, because a partaker of his own nature, so a holy person is said to be a child of God, because he is a partaker of the Divine nature. He maketh his sun to rise on the evil] “There is nothing greater than to imitate God in doing good to our enemies. All the creatures of God pronounce the sentence of condemnation on the revengeful: and this sentence is written by the rays of the sun, and with the drops of rain, and indeed by all the natural good things, the use of which God freely gives to his enemies.” If God had not loved us while we were his enemies, we could never have become his children: and we shall cease to be such, as soon as we cease to imitate him.

45. Children of your Father — Images and likenesses of the Father of us all, who in patient calmness disregards the insults of men, and still pours upon them his sunlight and his showers. God, as a Father, we may well imitate, but not God as a judge. To him, indeed, vengeance belongeth, and, at the due time, by him it will be rendered. But it is rulers alone that are God’s representatives in this respect.

To become the children of God implies regeneration, or being born again. When a man is bidden to love God, and to love his enemy, he may truly reply, “I cannot love at my will — I cannot love to order — I cannot command a feeling to exist in my heart.” His excuse is true, and it proves the very doctrine of human helplessness which he is perhaps inclined to condemn. He cannot create a holy love, nor infuse a single holy emotion into his own heart. But he can see, if he will look at the truth written on his own conscience, that he ought to love God and man; and so seeing he may look to God the author of his being to renew him in righteousness, and to implant that affection in his heart which by nature he cannot have. That prayer, truly, and sincerely, and perseveringly offered, will be granted. So that while no man can regenerate himself, every man may, at proper will, attain regeneration from God.

V. 46. The publicans-were officers of the revenue, farmers, or receivers of the public money: men employed by the Romans to gather the taxes and customs, which they exacted of the nations they had conquered. These were generally odious for their extortion and oppression, and were reckoned by the Jews as the very scum of the earth.

Verse 46. For if ye love them which love you] He who loves only his friends, does nothing for God’s sake. He who loves for the sake of pleasure or interest, pays himself. God has no enemy which he hates but sin; we should have no other.

The publicans] That is, tax-gatherers, telwnai, from telov a tax, and wneomai I buy or farm. A farmer or collector of the taxes or public revenues. Of these there were two classes; the superior, who were Romans of the equestrian order; and the inferior, those mentioned in the Gospels, who it appears were mostly Jews.

This class of men was detestable among the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews, for their intolerable rapacity and avarice. They were abhorred in an especial manner by the Jews, to whom the Roman government was odious: these, assisting in collecting the Roman tribute, were considered as betrayers of the liberties of their country, and abettors of those who enslaved it. They were something like the tythe-farmers of certain college-livings in some counties of England, as Lancashire, &c.-a principal cause of the public burthens and discontent. One quotation, of the many produced by Kypke, will amply show in what detestation they were held among the Greeks. Theocritus being asked, Which of the wild beasts were the most cruel? answered, en men toiv oresin apktoi kai leontev\ en de taiv polesin, telwnai kai sukofantai. Bears and lions, in the mountains; and TAX-GATHERERS and calumniators, in cities.

46. What reward have ye — How have you manifested at all the power of the Gospel? Ye have only done what the most depraved characters on earth are ready to do. How can you expect the Christian’s reward for a mere heathen’s virtue? Publicans — The Roman government had conquered Judea, and obliged the Jews to pay taxes and tribute to support its tyranny. The publicans were the officers who collected the Roman taxes, and though they might be otherwise respectable men, they were hated by the Jews as tools of a foreign despotism.

Verse 46. What reward have ye? — To every thing by which we please God, Christ promises a reward, which disobedience forfeits. Yet it is a reward of grace, not merit. On this subject the remarks of Augustine on Psalm 32, are happy: “Let us preserve the most faithful of debtors, because we retain the most merciful promiser; yet we lend nothing to him which can make him our debtor, because we receive every thing from him; for it is of him, in him, and through him. What, then! do we give him nothing, and yet make him our debtor? How is this? Because he is our promiser. We do not say, Lord, restore what thou hast received, but, Render what thou hast promised.”

The publicans. — These were the collectors and farmers of the taxes imposed by the Romans from the time of Pompey; and on this account their very existence being the visible proof of national subjection to a foreign power, as well as from their frequent extortions, they were objects of great aversion among the Jews, and were therefore ranked in the common language with notorious “sinners.” — Those actually resident in Judea were Jews: and some, as Matthew and Zaccheus, were men of character. All, however, shared more or less in the common odium. They have their name, telwnai, from telov, tribute. The taxes of a province were usually farmed by Roman knights; under them were the receivers, called, “chiefs of the publicans;” and those of the lowest degree were the collectors, who paid in the taxes to the receivers, who transmitted them to the farmers-general.

V. 47. And if ye salute your friends only-Our Lord probably glances at those prejudices, which different sects had against each other, and intimates, that he would not have his followers imbibe that narrow spirit. Would to God this had been more attended to among the unhappy divisions and subdivisions, into which his Church has been crumbled! And that we might at least advance so far, as cordially to embrace our brethren in Christ, of whatever party or denomination they are!

Verse 47. And if ye salute your brethren only] Instead of adelfouv brethren, upwards of one hundred MSS., and several of them of great authority and antiquity, have filouv friends. The Armenian Slavonic, and Gothic versions, with the later Syriac, and some of the primitive fathers, agree in this reading. I scarcely know which to prefer; as brother is more conformable to the Jewish mode of address, it should be retained in the text: the other reading, however, tends to confirm that of the Codex Grævii on Matthew 5:43.

On the subject of giving and receiving salutations in Asiatic countries, Mr. Harmer, Observat. vol. ii. p. 327, &c., edit. 1808, has collected much valuable information: the following extract will be sufficient to elucidate our Lord’s meaning.

“Dr. Doddridge supposes that the salutation our Lord refers to, Matthew 5:47, If ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? means embracing, though it is a different word. I would observe, that it is made use of in the Septuagint to express that action of endearment; and which is made use of by an apocryphal writer, (Ecclus. 30:19,) whereas, the word we translate salute is of a much more general nature: this, I apprehend, arose from his being struck with the thought, that it could never be necessary to caution his disciples, not to restrain the civilities of a common salutation to those of their own religious party. Juvenal, when he satirizes the Jews of the apostolic age for their religious opinions, and represents them as unfriendly, and even malevolent, to other people, Sat. xiv., and when he mentions their refusing to show travellers the way, Non monstrare vias, &c., or to point out to them where they might find water to drink when thirsty with journeying, takes no notice of their not saluting those of another nation; yet there is no reason to believe, from these words of CHRIST, that many of them at least would not, and that even a Jewish public an received no salutations from one of his own nation, excepting brother publicans.

“Nor shall we wonder at this, or think it requisite to suppose the word we translate salute (aspazomai) and which certainly, sometimes at least, signifies nothing more than making use of some friendly words upon meeting with people, must here signify something more particular, since we find some of the present inhabitants of the east seem to want this admonition of our Lord. ‘When the Arabs salute one another,’ according to Niebuhr, ‘it is generally in these terms, Salam aleikum, Peace be with you; in speaking which words they lay the right hand on the heart. The answer is, Aleikum essalam, With you be peace. Aged people are inclined to add to these words, And the mercy and blessing of God. The Mohammedans of Egypt and Syria never salute a Christian in this manner; they content themselves with saying to them, Good day to you; or, Friend, how do you do? The Arabs of Yemen, who seldom see any Christians, are not so zealous but that sometimes they will give them the Salam aleikum.’

“Presently after he says: ‘For a long time I thought the Mohammedan custom, of saluting Christians in a different manner from that made use of to those of their own profession, was an effect of their pride and religious bigotry. I saluted them sometimes with the Salam aleikum, and I had often only the common answer. At length I observed in Natolia, that the Christians themselves might probably be the cause that Mohammedans did not make the same return to their civilities that they did to those of their own religion. For the Greek merchants, with whom I travelled in that country, did not seem pleased with my saluting Mohammedans in the Mohammedan manner. And when they were not known to be Christians, by those Turks whom they met with in their journeying, (it being allowed Christian travellers in these provinces to wear a white turban, Christians in common being obliged to wear the sash of their turbans white striped with blue, that banditti might take them at a distance for Turks, and people of courage,) they never answered those that addressed them with the compliment of Salam aleikum. One would not, perhaps, suspect that similar customs obtain in our times, among Europeans: but I find that the Roman Catholics of some provinces of Germany never address the Protestants that live among them with the compliment JESUS CHRIST be praised; and, when such a thing happens by mistake, the Protestants do not return it after the manner in use among Catholics, For ever and ever. Amen!’

“After this, the words of our Lord in the close of the fifth of Matthew want no farther commentary. The Jews would not address the usual compliment of Peace be to you, to either heathens or publicans; the publicans of the Jewish nation would use it to their countrymen that were publicans, but not to heathens; though the more rigid Jews would not do it to them, any more than to heathens: our Lord required his disciples to lay aside the moroseness of Jews, and express more extensive benevolence in their salutations. There seems to be nothing of embracing thought of in this case, though that, doubtless, was practised anciently among relations, and intimate friends, as it is among modern Asiatics.”

If not to salute be a heathenish indifference, to hide hatred under outward civilities is a diabolic treachery. To pretend much love and affection for those for whom we have neither-to use towards them complimentary phrases, to which we affix no meaning, but that they mean, nothing, is highly offensive in the sight of that God by whom actions are weighed and words judged.

Do not-the publicans] telwnai,-but eqnikoi heathens, is adopted by Griesbach, instead of telwnai, on the authority of Codd. Vatican. & Bezæ, and several others; together with the Coptic, Syriac later, and Syriac Jerusalem; two Arabic, Persic, Slavonic; all the Itala but one; Vulgate, Saxon, and several of the primitive fathers.

47. Do ye more than others — How much soever civilization and the general influences of religion have improved society, the Christian ought to let his light shine by some way showing a superior excellence. He ought ever to be above the average standard of virtue around him. This should not be shown by an extra severity and moroseness, but by an extra serenity, sweetness, generosity, love, and devotion.

Verse 47. And if ye salute your brethren only. — The Jews refused the customary salutations prescribed by the courtesy of the age to Gentiles and Samaritans. On the contrary, we are taught that the benevolence of Christians is to be not only that of the heart, but is to show itself in a careful observance of all the forms of external civility and courtesy.

V. 48. Therefore ye shall be perfect; as your Father who is in heaven is perfect-So the original runs, referring to all that holiness which is described in the foregoing verses, which our Lord in the beginning of the chapter recommends as happiness, and in the close of it as perfection. And how wise and gracious is this, to sum up, and, as it were, seal all his commandments with a promise! Even the proper promise of the Gospel! That he will put those laws in our minds, and write them in our hearts! He well knew how ready our unbelief would be to cry out, this is impossible! And therefore stakes upon it all the power, truth, and faithfulness of him to whom all things are possible.

Verse 48. Be ye therefore perfect-as your Father] God himself is the grand law, sole giver, and only pattern of the perfection which he recommends to his children. The words are very emphatic, esesqe oun umeiv teleioi, Ye shall be therefore perfect-ye shall be filled with the spirit of that God whose name is Mercy, and whose nature is love. God has many imitators of his power, independence, justice, &c., but few of his love, condescension, and kindness. He calls himself LOVE, to teach us that in this consists that perfection, the attainment of which he has made both our duty and privilege: for these words of our Lord include both a command and a promise.

“Can we be fully saved from sin in this world?” is an important question, to which this text gives a satisfactory answer: “Ye shall be perfect, as your Father, who is in heaven, is perfect.”-As in his infinite nature there is no sin, nothing but goodness and love, so in your finite nature there shall dwell no sin, for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus shall make you free from the law of sin and death, Romans 8:2. God shall live in, fill, and rule your hearts; and, in what He fills and influences, neither Satan nor sin can have any part. If men, slighting their own mercies, cry out, This is impossible!-whom does this arguing reprove-God, who, on this ground, has given a command, the fulfilment of which is impossible. “But who can bring a clean out of an unclean thing?” God Almighty-and, however inveterate the disease of sin may be, the grace of the Lord Jesus can fully cure it; and who will say, that he who laid down his life for our souls will not use his power completely to effect that salvation which he has died to procure. “But where is the person thus saved?” Wherever he is found who loves God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbour as himself; and, for the honour of Christianity and its AUTHOR, may we not hope there are many such in the Church of God, not known indeed by any profession of this kind which they make, but by a surer testimony, that of uniformly holy tempers, piety to God, and beneficence to man? Dr. Lightfoot is not perfectly satisfied with the usual mode of interpreting the 22nd verse of this chapter. I subjoin the substance of what he says. Having given a general exposition of the word brother, which the Jews understood as signifying none but an Israelite-enocov, which we translate is in danger of, and which he shows the Jews used to signify, is exposed to, merits, or is guilty of-and the word gehenna, hell-fire, which he explains as I have done above, he comes to the three offences, and their sentences. The FIRST is causeless anger, which he thinks too plain to require explanation; but into the two following he enters in considerable detail:- “The SECOND. Whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Racha,’ a nickname, or scornful title usual, which they disdainfully put one upon another, and very commonly; and therefore our Saviour has mentioned this word, the rather because it was of so common use among them. Take these few examples:-

“A certain man sought to betake himself to repentance (and restitution.) His wife said to him, ‘Rekah, if thou make restitution, even thy girdle about thee is not thine own, &c.’ Tanchum, fol. 5. “Rabbi Jochanan was teaching concerning the building of Jerusalem with sapphires and diamonds, &c. One of his scholars laughed him to scorn. But afterwards, being convinced of the truth of the thing, he saith to him, ‘Rabbi, do thou expound, for it is fit for thee to expound: as thou saidst, so have I seen it.’ he saith to him, ‘Rekah, hadst thou not seen, thou wouldst not have believed, &c.’ Midras Tillin, fol. 38, col. 4.

“To what is the thing like? To a king of flesh and blood, who took to wife a king’s daughter: he saith to her, ‘Wait and fill me a cup;’ but she would not: whereupon he was angry, and put her away; she went, and was married to a sordid fellow; and he saith to her, ‘Wait, and fill me a cup;’ she said unto him, ‘Rekah, I am a king’s daughter, &c.’ Idem in Psalm 137.

“A Gentile saith to an Israelite, ‘I have a choice dish for thee to eat of.’ He saith, ‘What is it ?’ He answers, ‘Swine’s flesh.’ he saith to him, ‘Rekah, even what you kill of clean beasts is forbidden us, much more this.’ Tanchum, fol. 18, col. 4.

“The THIRD offence is to say to a brother, ‘Thou fool,’ which, how to distinguish from racha, which signifies an empty fellow, were some difficulty, but that Solomon is a good dictionary here for us, who takes the term continually here for a wicked wretch and reprobate, and in opposition to spiritual wisdom: so that in the first clause is condemned causeless anger; in the second, scornful taunting and reproaching of a brother; and, in the last, calling him a reprobate and wicked, or uncharitably censuring his spiritual and eternal estate. And this last does more especially hit the scribes and Pharisees, who arrogated to themselves only to be called חכמים chocamim, wise men, but of all others they had this scornful and uncharitable opinion, ‘This people, that knoweth not the law, is cursed,’ John 7:49.

“And now for the penalties denounced upon these offences, let us look upon them, taking notice of these two traditions of the Jews, which our Saviour seems to face, and to contradict.

“1st. That they accounted the command, Thou shalt not kill, to aim only at actual murder. So that in their collecting the six hundred and thirteen precepts out of the law, they understand that command to mean but this: ‘That one should not kill an Israelite,’ and accordingly they allotted this only violation of it to judgments; against this wild gloss and practice, he speaks in the first clause: Ye have heard it said, Thou shalt not kill, and he that killeth, or committeth actual murder, is liable to judgment, and ye extend the violation of that command no farther; but I say to you, that causeless anger against thy brother is a violation of that command, and even that maketh a man liable to judgment.

2nd. They allotted that murder only to be judged by the council, or Sanhedrin, that was committed by a man in propria persona: let them speak their own sense, &c. Talm. in Sanhedrin, per. 9. “‘Any one that kills his neighbour with his hand, as if he strike him with a sword, or with a stone that kills him, or strangle him till he die, or burn him in the fire, seeing that he kills him any how in his own person, lo! such a one must be put to death by the Sanhedrin; but he that hires another to kill his neighbour, or that sends his servants, and they kill him, or that violently thrusts him before a lion, or the like, and the beast kills him-any one of these is a shedder of blood, and the guilt of shedding of blood is upon him, and he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven, but he is not to be put to death by the Sanhedrin. And whence is the proof that it must be thus! Because it is said, He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. This is he that slays a man himself, and not by the hand of another. Your blood of your lives will I require. This is he that slays himself. At the hand of every beast will I require it. This is he that delivers up his neighbour before a beast to be rent in pieces. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. This is he that hires others to kill his neighbour: In this interpretation, requiring is spoken of all the three; behold, their judgment is delivered over to Heaven (or God.) And all these man-slayers and the like, who are not liable to death by the Sanhedrin, if the king of Israel will slay them by the judgment of the kingdom, and the law of nations, he may, &c.’ Maym. ubi supr. per. 2.

“You may observe in these wretched traditions a twofold killing, and a twofold judgment: a man’s killing another in his own person, and with his own hand, and such a one liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrin, to be put to death by them, as a murderer; and a man that killed another by proxy, not with his own hand, not hiring another to kill him, or turning a beast or serpent upon him to kill him. This man is not to be judged and executed by the Sanhedrin, but, referred and reserved only to the judgment of God. So that we see plainly, from hence, in what sense the word judgment is used in the latter end of the preceding verse, and the first clause of this, namely, not for the judgment of any one of the Sanhedrins, as it is commonly understood, but for the judgment of God. In the former verse, Christ speaks their sense, and in the first clause of this, his own, in application to it. Ye have heard it said, that any man that kills is liable to the judgment of God; but I say unto you, that he that is but angry with his brother without a cause is liable to the judgment of God. You have heard it said, that he only that commits murder with his own hand is liable to the council, or Sanhedrin, as a murderer; but I say unto you, that he that but calls his brother racha, as common a word as ye make it, and a thing of nothing, he is liable to be judged by the Sanhedrin.

“Lastly, he that saith to his brother, Thou fool, wicked one, or cast-away, shall be in danger of hell-fire, enocov eiv qeevvav purov. There are two observable things in the words. The first is the change of case from what was before; there it was said th krisei tw sunedriw, but here, eiv geennan. It is but an emphatical raising of the sense, to make it the more feeling and to speak home. He that saith to his brother, Raka, shall be in danger of the council; but he that says, Thou fool, shall be in danger of a penalty even to hell-fire. And thus our Saviour equals the sin and penalty in a very just parable. In just anger, with God’s just anger and judgment; public reproach, with public correction by the council; and censuring for a child of hell, to the fire of hell. “2nd. It is not said eiv pur geennhv, To the fire of hell, but eiv geennav purov, To a hell of fire; in which expression he sets the emphasis still higher. And, besides the reference to the valley of Hinnom, he seems to refer to that penalty used by the Sanhedrin of burning-the most bitter death that they used to put men to; the manner of which was thus: They set the malefactor in a dunghill up to the knees; and they put a towel about his neck, and one pulled one way, and another the opposite, till, by thus strangling him, they forced him to open his mouth. Then they poured boiling lead into his mouth, which went down into his belly, and so burnt his bowels. Talm. in Sanhedrin. per. 7.

“Now, having spoken in the clause before, of being judged by the Sanhedrin, whose most terrible penalty was this burning, he doth in this clause raise the penalty higher; namely, of burning in hell; not with a little scalding lead, but even with a hell of fire.” It is possible that our Lord might have reference to such customs as these. ST. MATTHEW

Ver. 48. Be ye therefore perfect. Ulphilas, the missionary to the Goths, about the year 350, gives the exact sense. SŸAITH NU JUS FULLA TOGAI SWA SWE ATTAH IZWAR SA IN HIMINAM FULLA TOGIS IST. “Beeth now you full doers so, so your Dada in heaven a full doer is.” He sends rain on the just and on the unjust, and makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good. Seeing then we owe so much to grace, the question is just, what do ye more than others? Let us hear this voice, and abound more and more in the word and the work of the Lord.

48. Perfect… as your Father — Be not at the low standard of publicans and other ordinary men; but make God your model; as was commanded in verse 45. Be not low and imperfect, like unregenerate man, but rise to an imitation of our Father. Be perfect, by having a heart purified from all hate, and filled with all love. If thy vessel be filled with love, God can be no more than full. He is the perfect infinite, thou art the perfect finite. The shrine of a temple was the perfect image of the temple. The temple was a perfect temple, the shrine was a perfect shrine. They were different in magnitude, but they were alike perfect.

It is to be remarked that the Greek verb here rendered be ye, is truly to be rendered ye shall be. It is therefore a promise that if we disregard the low average of customary morality around us, and fully obey the law and enjoy the power of love in our hearts, we shall be perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. Alford here remarks: “No countenance is given by this verse to… perfectibility in this life.” Taking the word perfectibility in its evangelical sense, we should like to know why? Our Saviour here distinctly affirms that it depends upon, or rather consists in the indwelling reign of love in our hearts. Nor must any man lower down to his own moral level the high promises of God’s word in this behalf. It is a practical promise, which is implied in the prayer of the apostle, and is expressly limited to this life, when he prays: “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23. And it is a practical precept which St. James gives: “That ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” James 1:4. Against these promises of the complete reign of love in the heart, completing our Christian life, it is useless to quote those imperfections and failings which belong to men as men, arising from the limitations of the human mind. Neither St. Paul nor St. James expected that the Christians they addressed would be perfect like angels, or even ideally perfect men, nor perfect performers of God’s absolute law. But they did expect that the law of love might possess a perfect power in their hearts, and in that would consist the perfected character of their piety.

Verse 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, &c. — The verb is in the future, but used Hebraice for the imperative. For “perfect,” St. Luke uses “merciful;” the meaning being the same. It is the Divine perfection of love which we are to imitate, in its PRINCIPLE and in its ACTS. “God,” says Augustine, “is perfect in mercy, both in pardoning and in conferring benefits; so be you perfect, both in forgiving wrongs, and in conferring your favours and benefits upon such as need them.” The particle, wsper, even as, does not here signify equality but resemblance; an entire conformity to the full extent of our mental and moral capacity. Philo finely observes, “The best wish we can frame, and the very perfection of felicity, is a resemblance to God.”

On the expression, “and sendeth rain on the just and unjust,” we may observe that, judging from their later writers, it appears to have been a common observation among the Jews, though they probably borrowed it from the New Testament. They observed the FACT; but the grand MORAL which our Lord raises upon it escaped their notice, and was far from their practice. “Greater,” says one of them, “is the day of rain than the day of the resurrection of the dead; for the resurrection of the dead is for the just,” (and only for the just, according to the notions of some of the rabbins,) “but rain is both for the just and the wicked.” R. Jose bar Jacob went to visit R. Joden, of Magdala. — While he was there, rain descended, and he heard his voice saying, “Thousands of thousands, and millions of millions are bound to praise thy name, O our King, for every drop thou causest to descend upon us, because thou renderest good to the wicked.”