XLII.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
(A Mountain Plateau not far from Capernaum.)
Subdivision D.
RELATION OF MESSIANIC TEACHING TO OLD TESTAMENT
AND TRADITIONAL TEACHING.
aMATT. V. 17-48; cLUKE
VI. 27-30, 32-36.
a17 Think not that I am
come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfil. [This verse constitutes a preface to the section of the
sermon which follows it. It is intended to prevent a misconstruction of
what he was about to say. Destroy is here used in antithesis, not with
perpetuate, but with fulfill. To destroy the law would be more than to
abrogate it, for it was both a system of statutes designed for the ends
of government, and a system of types foreshadowing the kingdom of Christ.
To destroy it, therefore, would be both to abrogate its statutes [235] and
prevent the fulfillment of its types. The former, Jesus eventually did;
the latter, he did not. As regards the prophets, the only way to destroy
them would be to prevent the fulfillment of the predictions contained in
them. Instead of coming to destroy either the law or the prophets, Jesus
came to fulfill all the types of the former, and (eventually) all the unfulfilled
predictions of the latter. He fulfills them partly in his own person, and
partly by his administration of the affairs of his kingdom. The latter
part of the process is still going on, and will be until the end of the
world.] 18 For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all things be accomplished. [The jot or yod
answering to our letter i was the smallest of the Hebrew letters.
The tittle was a little stroke of the pen, by which alone some of the Hebrew
letters were distinguished from others like them. To put it in English,
we distinguish the letter c from the letter e by the tittle
inside of the latter. This passage not only teaches that the law was to
remain in full force until fulfilled, but it shows the precise accuracy
with which the law was given by God.]
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom
of heaven. [Disobedience is a habit, and it is not easily laid aside.
Hence he that is unfaithful in that which is little will also be unfaithful
in that which is great. So also those who were disobedient and reckless
under the Jewish dispensation would be inclined to act in like manner in
the new, or Christian, dispensation: hence the warning. Not only shall
God call such least, but men also shall eventually do likewise. Those who
by a false system of interpretation, or an undue regard for the traditions
of men, enervate or annul the obligations of Christ's laws or ordinances,
and teach others to do the same, shall be held in low esteem or contempt
by the church or kingdom of God as fast as it comes to a knowledge [236] of
the truth. Greatness in the kingdom of heaven is measured by conscientiousness
in reference to its least commandments. Small Christians obey the great
commandments, but only the large are careful about the least.]
20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter
into the kingdom of heaven. [Since the scribes and Pharisees were models
of righteousness in their own sight and in that of the people, Jesus here
laid down a very high ideal. Though one may now enter the kingdom of heaven
having of himself far less righteousness than that of the Pharisees, yet
he must attain righteousness superior to theirs, or he can not abide in
the kingdom. A large portion of the sermon from this point on is a development
of the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven in contrast with old dispensation
righteousness and Pharisaic interpretation of it. The laws of Moses regulated
civil conduct, and being state laws, they could only have regard to overt
acts. But the laws of the kingdom of Christ are given to the individual,
and regulate his inner spiritual condition, and the very initial motives
of conduct; in it the spirit-feelings are all acts--I. John iii. 15.]
21 Ye have heard [Ex. xx. 13; Deut. v. 17. The common people, for the
most part, knew the law only by its public reading, and hence the exposition
of the scribes which accompanied the readings shared in their estimation
the very authority of Scripture itself.] that it was said to them of
old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger
[shall be liable to] of the judgment;
22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall
be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca
[an expression of contempt frequently used in rabbinical writings, but
of uncertain derivation, so that it may mean "empty head" or "spit out;"
i. e., heretic], shall be in danger of the council: and
whosoever shall say, Thou fool ["'Thou impious wretch;' folly and impiety
being equivalent with the Hebrews"--Bloomfield], shall
be in [237] danger of hell fire.
[We have here three degrees of criminality or offence as to the sin of
anger: 1. Silent rage; 2. Railing speech; 3. Bitter reproach (Ps. xiv.
1). With these are associated respectively three different degrees of punishment.
The law of Moses provided for the appointment of judges (Deut. xvi. 18),
and Josephus informs us that in each city there were seven judges appointed
(Ant. iv. 8, 14). This tribunal was known as the judgment, and by it the
case of the manslayer was determined. Compare Num. xxxv. 15, 24, 25 with
Josh. xx. 4. And in determining his case this court might certify it for
decision to the Sanhedrin, or they might themselves confine the man in
of the cities of refuge, or order him to be stoned to death. The second
punishment would be the result of a trial before the Sanhedrin or council.
This chief court of the Jews sat at Jerusalem (Deut. xvii. 8-13), and common
men stood in great awe of it. The third punishment passes beyond the pale
of human jurisdiction. It is the final punishment--being cast into hell.
The Scripture word for hell is derived from the name of a place in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem, called the valley of Hinnom. It was a deep,
narrow valley, lying southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek word Gehenna (which
we translate hell) is first found applied to it in the Septuagint translation
of Josh. xviii. 16. (For the history of the valley, see the following passages
of Scripture: Josh. xv. 8; II. Chron. xxviii. 3; xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31;
xix. 1-5; II. Kings xxiii. 1-14; II. Chron. xxxiv. 4, 5.) The only fire
certainly known to have been kindled there was the fire in which children
were sacrificed to the god Moloch. This worship was entirely destroyed
by King Josiah, who polluted the entire valley so as to make it an unfit
place even for heathen worship. Some commentators endeavor to make this
third punishment a temporal one, and assert that fires were kept burning
in the valley of Hinnom, and that as an extreme punishment the bodies of
criminals were cast into those fires. But there is not the slightest authentic
evidence that any fire was kept burning there; nor is there any evidence
at all that casting a criminal into the [238] fire
was ever employed by the Jews as a punishment. It was the fire of idolatrous
worship in the offering of human sacrifice which had given the valley its
bad name. This caused it to be associated in the mind of the Jews with
sin and suffering, and led to the application of its name, in the Greek
form of it, to the place of final and eternal punishment. When the conception
of such a place as hell was formed, it was necessary to give it a name,
and there was no word in the Jewish language more appropriate for the purpose
than the name of this hideous valley. It is often used in the New Testament,
and always denotes the place of final punishment (Matt. x. 28; xviii. 9;
xxiii. 33; Mark ix. 43). We should note that while sin has stages, God
takes note of it from its very first germination in the heart, and that
a man's soul is imperiled long before his feelings bear their fruitage
of violence and murder.] 23 If therefore
[having forbidden anger, Jesus now proceeds to lay down the course for
reconciliation] thou art offering thy gift at the altar [that which
was popularly esteemed the very highest act of worship], and
there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,
24; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled
to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. [Reconciliation takes
precedence of all other duties, even of offerings made to God. A very important
teaching in these days, when men, by corrupt practices, by extortionate
combinations, and by grinding the face of the poor, accumulate millions
of dollars and then attempt to placate God by bestowing a little of their
pocket change upon colleges and missionary societies. God hears and heeds
the voice of the unreconciled brethren, and the gift is bestowed upon the
altar in vain. The offering of unclean hands is an abomination. The lesson
teaches us to be reconciled with all who bear grudges against us, and says
nothing as to whether their reasons are sufficient or insufficient, just
or unjust. "It is enough to say, I have naught against him, and
so justify myself"--Stier.]
25 Agree with thine adversary [opponent in a lawsuit] [239] quickly,
while thou art with him in the way [on the road to the judge];
lest haply thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver
thee to the officer [one answering somewhat to our sheriff],
and thou be cast into prison. ["In this brief allegory one is supposed
to have an adversary at law who has just cause against him, and who will
certainly gain a verdict when the case comes into court. The plaintiff
himself used to apprehend the defendant" (Bengel). The defendant
is, therefore, advised to agree with this adversary while the two are alone
on the way to the judge, and thus prevent a trial. Jesus still has in mind
the preceding case of one who has given offence to his brother. Every such
one is going to the final judgment, and will there be condemned unless
he now becomes reconciled to his brother.]
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till
thou have paid the last farthing. [This is the text on which the Roman
Catholic Church has built its doctrine of purgatory, and one of those on
which the Universalists build theirs of final restoration. But neither
"prison" nor "till" necessarily point to ultimate deliverance. Compare
II. Pet. ii. 4 and Jude 6. The allusion here is of course to imprisonment
for debt. In such a case the debtor was held until the debt was paid, either
by himself or some friend. If it were not paid at all, he remained in prison
until he died. In the case which this is made to represent, the offender
would have let pass all opportunity to make reparation and no friend can
make it for him; therefore, the last farthing will never be paid, and he
must remain a prisoner forever. So far, therefore, from being a picture
of hope, it is one which sets forth the inexorable rigor of divine justice
against the hardened and impenitent sinner. It is intended to teach that
men can not pay their debts to God, and therefore they had better obtain
his forgiveness through faith during these days of grace. It exposes the
vain hope of those who think that God will only lightly exact his debts.
God knows only complete forgiveness or complete exaction. This is an action
founded upon the perfection of his nature. The Greek word [240] translated
"farthing," is derived from the Latin "quadrans," which equals the fourth
part of a Roman As, a small copper or bronze coin which had become
common in Palestine. The farthing was worth about one-fifth part of a cent.]
27 Ye have heard that it was said [Ex. xx. 14; Deut. v. 18],
Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after
her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Here, as
in reference to murder, Jesus legislates against the thought which lies
back of the act. He cuts off sin at its lowest root. The essence of all
vice is intention. Those who indulge in unchaste imaginations, desires
and intentions are guilty before God--II. Pet. ii. 14.]
29 And if thy right eye [the organ of reception] causeth thee to
stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee [these words indicate
decision and determination, and suggest the conduct of a surgeon, who,
to protect the rest of the body, unflinchingly severs the gangrened members]:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not thy whole body be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand [the instrument of outward action] causeth
thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable
for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body
go into hell. [Jesus here emphasizes the earnestness with which men
should seek a sinless life. To this the whole Scripture constrains us by
the terrors of hell, and encourages us by the joys of heaven. The right
eye and hand and foot were regarded as the most precious (Zech. xi. 17;
Ex. xxix. 20), but it is better to lose the dearest thing in life than
to lose one's self. To be deprived of all earthly advantage than to be
cast into hell. Of course the Saviour does not mean that we should apply
this precept literally, since bodily mutilation will not cure sin which
resides in the will and not in the organ of sense or action. A literal
exaction of the demands of this precept would turn the church into a hospital.
We should blind ourselves by taking care not to look with evil eyes; we
should [241] maim ourselves by absolutely refusing
to go to forbidden resorts, etc. "'Mortify' (Col. iii. 5) is a similar
expression"--Bengel.] 31 It
is said also [Deut. xxiv. 1, 3], Whosoever shall put away
his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress [the mere fact
of divorce did not make her an adulteress, but it brought her into a state
of disgrace from which she invariably sought to free herself by contracting
another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation
drove her made her an adulteress]: and whosoever shall marry
her when she is put away committeth adultery. [The law of divorce will
be found at Deut. xxiv. 1-4. Jesus explains that this law was given by
Moses on account of the hardness of the people's heart; i. e., to
prevent greater evils (Matt. xix. 8). The law permitted the husband to
put away the wife when he found "some unseemly thing in her." But Jesus
here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be
a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry
again without committing adultery (Matt. xix. 9). Such is Jesus' modification
of the Old Testament law, and in no part of the New Testament is there
any relaxation as to the law here set forth. It is implied that divorce
for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost
universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party
to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty part could not,
for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong. For
further light on the subject, see Rom. vii. 1-3; I. Cor. vii. 10-16, 39.
It is much to be regretted that in many Protestant countries the civil
authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce
and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority
of Christ can take advantage of such legislation.]
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform [242] unto
the Lord thine oaths [Lev. xix. 12; Num. xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21]:
34 but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is the
throne of God; 35 nor by the earth, for
it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of
the great King. [Ps. xlviii. 2.]
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black. 37 But let your speech
be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil
one. [It will be seen from the quotation given by Jesus that
the law permitted oaths made unto the Lord. It was not the intention of
Jesus to repeal this law. But the Jews, looking upon this law, construed
it as giving them exemption from the binding effect of all other oaths.
According to the their construction no oath was binding in which the sacred
name of God did not directly occur. They therefore coined many other oaths
to suit their purposes, which would add weight to their statements or promises,
which, however, would not leave them guilty of being forsworn if they spoke
untruthfully. But Jesus showed that all oaths were ultimately referable
to God, and that those who made them would be forsworn if they did not
keep them. To prevent this evil practice of loose swearing Jesus lays down
the prohibition, "Swear not at all;" but the universality of this prohibition
is distributed by the specifications of these four forms of oaths, and
is, therefore, most strictly interpreted as including only such oaths.
Jesus surely did not intend to abolish now, in advance of the general abrogation
of the law, those statutes of Moses which allowed, and in some instances
required, the administration of an oath. See Ex. xxii. 11; Num. v. 19.
What we style the judicial oaths of the law of Moses then were not included
in the prohibition. This conclusion is also reached when we interpret the
prohibition in the light of authoritative examples; for we find that God
swore by himself (Gen. xxii. 16, 17; Heb. vi. 13; vii. 21). Jesus answered
under oath before the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 63), and Paul also made oath
to the Corinthian church (II. Cor. i. 23). See also Rom. i. 9; Gal. i.
20; Phil. i. 8 [243] I. Cor. xv. 31; Rev. x.
5, 6. We conclude, then, that judicial oaths, and oaths taken in the name
of God on occasions of solemn religious importance, are not included in
the prohibition. But as these are the only exceptions found in Scriptures,
we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden. Looking at the details
of the paragraph, we find that oaths by heaven and by the earth, by Jerusalem
and by the head, are utterly meaningless save as they have reference to
God. "Swearing is a sin whereunto neither profit incites, nor pleasure
allures, nor necessity compels, nor inclination of nature persuades"--Quarles.]
38 Ye have heard that it was said [Ex. xxi. 24; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut.
xix. 21], An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil [The lex talionis,
or law of like for like, was the best possible rule in a rude state of
society, its object being not to sacrifice the second eye, but to save
both, by causing a man when in a passion to realize that every injury which
he inflicted upon his adversary he would in the end inflict upon himself.
From this rule the scribes drew the false inference that revenge was proper,
and that a man was entitled to exercise it. Thus a law intended to prevent
revenge was so perverted that it was used as a warrant for it. This command
which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon,
does not demand of us absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under
all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on
the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles
which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We
are to submit to evil for principle's sake and to accomplish spiritual
victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a
harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge
when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so
far encourage crime as to become a sin. As in the case of the precept about
swearing just above, Jesus distributes the universal prohibition by the
specification of certain examples, which in this case are three in number]:
but [244] whosoever smiteth thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [This first example is
taken from the realm of physical violence. The example given, a slap in
the face, has been regarded as a gross insult in all ages, but it is not
an assault which imperils life. We find this precept illustrated by the
conduct of the Master himself. He did not literally turn the other cheek
to be smitten, but he breathed forth a mild and gentle reproof where he
might have avenged himself by the sudden death of his adversary (John xviii.
22, 23). The example of Paul also is given, but it is not so perfect as
that of the Master (Acts xxiii. 2-5). Self-preservation is a law of God
giving rights which, under most circumstances, a Christian can claim. He
may resist the robber, the assassin and all men of that ilk, and may protect
his person and his possessions against the assaults of the violent and
lawless (Acts xvi. 35-39). But when the honor of Christ and the salvation
of man demands it, he should observe this commandment even unto the very
letter.] 40 And if any man would go
to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
[This second case is one of judicial injustice, and teaches that the most
annoying exactions are to be endured without revenge. The coat was the
inner garment, and the cloak was the outer or more costly one. The creditor
was not allowed to retain it over night, even when it was given to him
as a pledge from the poor, because it was used for a bed-covering (Ex.
xxii. 26, 27). The idea therefore is, "Be ready to give up even that which
by law can not be taken" (Mansel). This case, as the one just above,
is also an instance of petty persecution, and shows that the command does
not forbid a righteous appeal to the law in cases where large and important
interests are involved.] 41 And whosoever
shall compel thee to go one mile [the Roman mile; it was 142 yards
short of the English mile], go with him two. [This third
instance is a case of governmental oppression. It supposes a man to be
impressed by government officials to go a mile. The custom alluded to is
said to have originated with Cyrus, king of Persia, and it [245] empowered
a government courier to impress both men and horses to help him forward.
For an example of governmental impress, see Luke xxiii. 26. The exercise
of this power by the Romans was exceedingly distasteful to Jews, and this
circumstance gave a special pertinency to the Saviour's mention of it.
(See Herodotus viii. 98; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, 7; Jos. Ant. xiii. 2, 3.)
The command, "Go with him two," requires a cheerful compliance with the
demands of a tyrannical government--a doubling of the hardship or duty
required rather than a resistance to the demand. But here again the oppression
is not an insupportable one. A man might go two miles and yet not lose
his whole day's labor. The Saviour chooses these lesser evils because they
bring out more distinctly the motives of conduct. If we resist the smaller
evils of life, we thereby manifest a spirit of pride seeking revenge; but
when the larger evils come upon us, they waken other motives. A man may
strive for self-protection when life is threatened without any spirit of
revenge. He may appeal to the law to protect his property without any bitterness
toward the one who seeks to wrest it from him, and he may set himself against
the oppression of his government from the loftiest motives of patriotism.
If revenge slumbers in our breast, little injuries will waken it as quickly
as big ones.] 42 Give to him that asketh
thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. [Jesus
here turns from the negative to the positive side of life. Our conduct,
instead of being selfish and revengeful, should be generous and liberal.
A benevolent disposition casts out revenge as light does darkness. No lending
was provided for by the law of Moses except for benevolent purposes, for
no interest was allowed, and all debts were canceled every seventh year.
The giving and lending referred to, then, are limited to cases of real
want, and the amount given or loaned is to be regulated accordingly. Giving
or lending to the encouragement of vice or indolence can not, of course,
be here included. Good actions are marred if they bear evil fruit.]
43 Ye have heard that it was said [Lev. xix. 18], [246] Thou
shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:
44 but I say unto you, cthat hear, Love your enemies, do good
to them that hate you 28 bless them that
curse you [I. Cor. iv. 12], aand pray for them
that persecute you; cthat despitefully use you. [The law
commanding love will be found at Lev. xix. 18, while the sentiment "hate
thy enemy" is not found in the law as a precept. But the Jews were forbidden
by law to make peace with the Canaanites (Ex. xxxiv. 11-16; Deut. vii.
2; xxiii. 6), and the bloody wars which were waged by God's own command
inevitably taught them to hate them. This was the feeling of their most
pious men (I. Chron. xx. 3; II. Kings xiii. 19), and it found utterance
even in their devotional hymns; e. g., Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9; cxxxix.
21, 22. It is a true representation of the law, therefore, in its practical
working, that it taught hatred of one's enemies. This is one of the defects
of the Jewish dispensation, which, like the privilege of divorce at will,
was to endure but for a time. To love an enemy has appeared to many persons
impossible, because they understand the word "love" as here expressing
the same feeling in all respects which are entertained toward a friend
or a near kinsman. But love has many shades and degrees. The exact phase
of it which is here enjoined is best understood in the light of examples.
The parable of the good Samaritan is given by Jesus for the express purpose
of exemplifying it (Luke x. 35-37); his own example in praying on the cross
for those who crucified him serves the same purpose, as does also the prayer
of Stephen made in imitation of it (Luke xxiii. 34; Acts vii. 60). The
feeling which enables us to deal with an enemy after the manner of the
Samaritan, or Jesus, or Stephen, is the love for our enemies which is here
enjoined. It is by no means an impossible feeling. Prayer, too, can always
express it, for as Hooker says, "Prayer is that which we always have in
our power to bestow, and they never in theirs to refuse."]
a45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on
[247] the just and the unjust. [Jesus
here gives two reasons why we should obey this precept: 1. That we may
be like God; 2. That we may be unlike publicans and sinners. Of course
right action towards our enemies does not make us sons of God, but it proves
us such by showing our resemblance to him. We are made children of God
by regeneration. God, in his daily conduct toward the children of this
earth, does not carry his discrimination to any great length. Needful blessings
are bestowed lavishly upon all.] c29
To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;
and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy
goods ask them not again. [The teaching of this passage has been explained
above. It is repeated because of its difference in verbiage, and because
its position here illustrates the spirit of the verses which precede it.]
a46 For {c32 And}
if ye love them that love you, what thank {areward} have ye?
do not even the publicans the same? cfor even sinners love those
that love them. 33 And if ye do good to
them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do the same?
[The Roman publican proper was a wealthy man of the knightly order, who
purchased from the state the privilege of collecting the taxes, but the
publicans mentioned in the Scripture were their servants--the men who actually
collected the taxes, and the official name for them was portitores.
These latter were sometimes freedmen or slaves, and sometimes natives of
the province in which the tax was collected. The fact that the Jews were
a conquered people, paying tax to a foreign power, made the tax itself
odious, and hence the men through whom it was extorted from them were equally
odious. These men were regarded in the double aspect of oppressors and
traitors. The odium thus attached to the office prevented men who had any
regard for the good opinion of their countrymen from accepting it, and
left it in the hands of those who had no self-respect and no reputation.
Jesus teaches that our religion is [248] worth
little if it begets in us no higher love than that which is shown by natural,
worldly men. "Christianity is more than humanity"--M. Henry.]
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?
even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love your enemies, and do them good [Ex. xxiii. 4; Prov.
xxiv. 17; Rom. xii. 17, 19-21], and lend, never despairing; and
your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for
he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. ["To make our neighbor purchase,
in any way, the assistance which we give him is to profit by his misery;
and, by laying him under obligations which we expect him in some way or
other to discharge, we increase his wretchedness under the pretense of
relieving him"--Clarke.] a47
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?
do not even the Gentiles the same? [The Jews despised the Gentiles,
so that they did not usually salute them. This was especially true of the
Pharisees. The morality, therefore, of this sect proved to be, in this
respect, no better than that of the heathen. Salutation has always been
an important feature in Eastern social life. The salutation, with all its
accompaniments, recognized the one saluted as a friend.]
c36 Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
a48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect. [Luke emphasizes the particular characteristic of God's perfection
which Jesus has been discussing; namely, mercy; but Matthew records the
broader assertion which bids us resemble God's perfections in all their
fullness and universality. God is our model. Everything short of that is
short of what we ought to be. God can not be satisfied with that which
is imperfect. This requirement keeps us in mind of our infirmities, and
keeps us at work. Like Paul, we must be ever striving (Phil. iii. 12).
Our standard is not the perfection of great and heroic men, but of the
infinite Creator himself.] [249]
[FFG 235-249]
