Who shall ascend the hill of Jehovah?

8. Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God. It is often said that the pure in heart are the sincere and honest people, the men of integrity. A reference to Ps. 24:3, 4 would seem to confirm this:

Who shall ascend the hill of Jehovah?

And who shall stand in his holy place?

He who has clean hands and a pure heart;

Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood

And has not sworn deceitfully.

Purity in heart is also commended in Ps. 73:1. Similarly, in I Tim. 1:5 pure is a synonym for unfeigned. And see also II Tim. 2:22 and I Peter 1:22. All this could easily lead to the conclusion that the people who in the sixth beatitude are pronounced blessed are without any further qualification the sincere individuals, the men who think, speak, and act without hypocrisy.

Now there can be no doubt about the fact that sincerity, honesty, the condition of being without guile, is indeed the emphasis here. Over against all human duplicity, be it Pharisaic or otherwise, Jesus pronounces his blessing upon the persons whose outer manifestation is in harmony with their inner disposition.

Nevertheless, a study of the context in each of the aforegoing references makes clear that something must be added. Sincerity or integrity is not sufficient in and by itself. A man may be sincerely right but he may also be sincerely wrong. No doubt, the prophets of Baal were very sincere when from morning until noon they were leaping about the altar, cutting themselves with knives, and constantly crying out, “Hear us Baal” (I Kings 18:26–28). But they were sincere in the wrong direction. So also, in a passage to which reference is often made in the explanation of the sixth beatitude (Gen. 20:6) Jehovah himself testifies that Abimelech, in the integrity of his heart, had taken Sarah away from Abraham. Nevertheless, the Lord did not approve what the king had done but threatened him with death unless he would restore Sarah to her rightful husband (verse 7). Similarly, the “pure in heart” of Ps. 73:1 are those who in all sincerity are guided by “God’s counsel” (verse 24). The faith unfeigned of I Tim. 1:5 adheres to “sound doctrine” (verse 10). And the people to whom Peter refers (I Peter 1:22) are those who have purified their souls “in obedience to the truth.”

It is clear, therefore, that the blessing of the sixth beatitude is not pronounced without qualification upon all people who are sincere, but rather upon those who, in the worship of the true God in accordance with the truth revealed in his Word, strive without hypocrisy to please and glorify him. These, these alone, are “the pure in heart.” They worship God “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) and love to dwell on and practice the virtues mentioned in I Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Phil. 2:1–4; 4:8, 9; Col. 3:1–17; etc. Their heart, the very mainspring of dispositions as well as of feelings and thoughts (Matt. 15:19; 22:37; Eph. 1:18; 3:17; Phil 1:7; I Tim. 1:5), is in tune with the heart of God.

Hence, it is not really surprising to read that the pure in heart “shall see God,” and that this is the essence of their blessedness. The man whose delight is not truly in the things pertaining to God is unable to appreciate the love of God in Christ toward sinners. Resemblance is the indispensable prerequisite of personal fellowship and understanding. To know God one must be like him. Just as to the hunter devoid of musical knowledge and appreciation the voice of the wind roaring through the forest meant no more than that a hare might be startled from his hiding place and become an easy victim, while to his companion Mozart this same loud deep sound signified instead a majestic diapason from God’s great organ, so also to the impure, God remains unknown but to those who “imitate God as beloved children and walk in love” he reveals himself.

Now the beauty of this vision of God, this spiritual perception of and delight in his being and attributes, is that it is transforming (II Cor. 3:18). Here on earth, however, it is still a “seeing in a mirror darkly,” but in heaven and in the renewed universe, in which the conditions of heaven will also be found on earth (Rev. 21:10), so that “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9), this beatific vision will amount to the sinless and uninterrupted fellowship of the souls of all the redeemed with God in Christ, a seeing “face to face” (I Cor. 13:12).

When I in righteousness at last

Thy glorious face shall see,

When all the weary night is past

And I awake with thee,

To view the glories that abide,

Then, then shall I be satisfied.

(F. F. Bullard, based on Ps. 17:15)

Thus will be fulfilled the prayer of Jesus, “Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, in order that they may gaze on my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the earth.”

The Seventh Beatitude

9. Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God. A blessing is here pronounced on all who, having themselves received reconciliation with God through the cross, now strive by their message and their conduct to be instrumental in imparting this same gift to others. By word and example such peace-makers, who love God, one another, and even their enemies, promote peace also among men.

In a world of peace-breaking this beatitude shows what a thoroughly “relevant,” vital, and dynamic force Christianity really is. Aspersions are frequently cast upon “the church” as if its influence in this direction is pitifully insignificant. If, when the word “church” is used, the reference is to an institution in which nought but dead orthodoxy prevails, the charge is probably valid. On the other hand, if the reference is to “the army of Christ,” that is, the sum-total of all true Christian soldiers, redeemed men and women of all generations, religions, and races who wage the Lord’s battle against evil and for right and truth, the reply, in the form of a counter-question, is, “Without the influence of this mighty army how much worse would not world conditions be today? Is not the church the very cork on which the world remains afloat (Gen. 18:26, 28–32)?”

True peace-makers are all those whose Leader is the God of peace (I Cor. 14:33; Eph. 6:15; I Thess. 5:23), who aspire after peace with all men (Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14), proclaim the gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15), and pattern their lives after the Prince of Peace (Luke 19:10; John 13:12–15; cf. Matt. 10:8).

The gospel of peace is, however, at the same time the preaching of Christ Crucified (I Cor. 1:18). By nature man, wishing to establish his own righteousness, is disinclined to accept this gospel (I Cor. 1:23). Therefore its proclamation initiates a struggle in his heart. If, by God’s grace, the sinner finally yields and welcomes the Prince of Peace as his own Savior and Lord he may face another battle, namely, within his own family. It is for this reason that Jesus, who called the peace-makers blessed, was not inconsistent when he said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword … a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matt. 10:34–36). However, this situation is not Christ’s fault but man’s. It is God in Christ who continues to urge men to find in him reconciliation and lasting peace (Matt. 11:27–30; II Cor. 5:20).

This, moreover, is not a peace at any price. It is not brought about by compromise with the truth, under the guise of “love”(?). On the contrary, it is a peace dear to the hearts of all who speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Those who by word and example are promoters of this peace are called blessed. Their title is “sons of God,” a designation of high honor and dignity, showing that by their promotion of peace they have entered into the very sphere of their Father’s own activity. They are his co-workers. By their trustful attitude and many good works, performed out of gratitude and to the glory of God, they have become their Lord’s agents who are everywhere engaged in the business of crowding the evil out of human hearts by filling them with all that is good and noble (Rom. 12:21; Phil. 4:8, 9). They are, as it were, God’s own “peace corps.” Already they are the sons of God (I John 3:1). In the day of judgment their glorious adoption as sons will be publicly revealed (Rom. 8:23; I John 3:2).

The Eighth Beatitude

10. Blessed those persecuted for righeousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. When the faith of God’s children has developed sufficiently to be outwardly manifested so that those who do not share it with them begin to take notice, persecution results. The persecution to which Jesus refers does not spring from purely social, racial, economic, or political causes, but is rooted in religion. It is distinctly a persecution “for righteousness’ sake.” It is because the men to whom reference is made wish to be and to live in harmony with God’s holy will that they endure persecution and continue to hold out under it no matter what happens to them.²⁷⁰ There is no need to change the definition of the word “righteousness” here: it is the same as in verse 6. The wicked cannot tolerate those who in the eyes of God are accounted “righteous.” Their very character is a constant protest against the character of their opponents. For that reason the “world” hates the children of God (Matt. 10:22; 24:9; John 15:19; I John 3:12, 13). This hatred underlies the persecution of which 5:10 speaks.

The Lord assures the persecuted ones that they are blessed. By constant reading of this beatitude, having probably already committed it to memory in our childhood (in whatever language), we have become so accustomed to it that it has lost its original impact. The impression upon those whom Jesus was addressing must have been tremendous, for it was a rather common idea among the Jews that all suffering, including persecution (see Luke 13:1–5), was an indication of God’s displeasure and of the special wickedness of the one thus afflicted. Christ here reverses this view, but only with respect to those who endured persecution for the sake of righteousness (verse 10), himself (“for my sake,” verse 11), the kingdom of heaven (19:12).

We might add that the meaningfulness of this beatitude is not lost either upon those who today, while this commentary is being written or read, are being persecuted because of their allegiance to Christ. May we never forget them in our prayers and in every other way in which they can be benefitted by us! “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” says Jesus, returning thus to the pronouncement of bliss found at the conclusion of the first beatitude (verse 3). All the grace and the glory that results when God in Christ is recognized and obeyed as Soveriegn is theirs even now, and will be theirs in ever increasing measure.

11, 12. Blessed are you whenever people heap insults upon you and persecute you and, while telling falsehoods, say all kinds of evil against you for my sake. Rejoice, yes, be filled with unrestrained gladness, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way did they persecute the prophets who lived before your time. Note the change from the third person to the second, beginning here and continuing (with either you or you) for most of the rest of the sermon. In substance, nevertheless, this is a continuation of the eighth beatitude. Not only are those who suffer abuse for the sake of their abiding faith in Jesus called “blessed,” but they are told to rejoice, yes, not only to rejoice but to be filled with (or: leap forth with) unrestrained (exuberant) gladness.

The imperative that is added to “rejoice” has been well rendered by A.V.: “be exceeding glad”; Phillips: “be tremendously glad”; and Williams, “keep on … leaping for ecstasy.” It is the type of exultation with which, according to Peter’s address on Pentecost, David reacted to the fact that Jehovah was constantly at his right hand (Acts 2:26); with which the converted jailer and his entire household praised God (Acts 16:34); with which Abraham greeted the welcome news that he was to see Christ’s day (John 8:56); with which Peter, contemplating the grace and the glory of the now unseen Jesus Christ, described his readers, who shared this contemplation with him, as “rejoicing greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (I Peter 1:8); and with which the great triumphant heavenly multitude will one day respond to the coming of the Bridegroom to take his bride to himself, “Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give him the glory; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has prepared herself” (Rev. 19:7).

The persecution referred to takes various forms:

a. Reproach: heaping insults upon believers; for example, “You were wholly born in sin, and you would teach us?” (John 9:34). Surely, those who did not hesitate to address Jesus as follows, “Are we not correct in saying, You are a Samaritan and have a demon,” would not hesitate to heap insults upon his disciples also (cf. John 15:20).

b. Slander: “while telling falsehoods, (they) say all kinds of evil against you for my sake.” “They shall cast out your name as evil” (Luke 6:22). With reference to those who had been deeply impressed with the words of Jesus and had the courage to admit this, the Pharisees were going to say, “This rabble that does not know the law, accursed are they” (John 7:49). Similarly, a little later, during the early persecutions of the church, Christians were going to be called atheists because they did not worship a visible God; immoral because perforce they would frequently meet in secret places; and unpatriotic because they confessed loyalty to Christ as their King and refused to worship the emperor.

c. Persecution in deed. Though no mention is made of this here, see on 10:16–36.

Reasons why those who are persecuted for Christ’s sake are urged to rejoice greatly:

a. Because this persecution indicates the genuine character of their faith: “for in the same way did they persecute the prophets who lived before your time.” Cf. Luke 21:13; I Peter 4:13. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho accuses the Jews of having sawn Isaiah asunder with a wooden saw. There may be a reference to this in Heb. 11:37.²⁷¹ Jeremiah was repeatedly subjected to ill treatment (see Jer. 12; 20; 26; 36; 37; 39; 43). If tradition can be trusted, he was finally stoned to death by the people who had forced him to go down to Egypt with them.²⁷² Ezekiel fared little better (see Ezek. 2:6; 20:49; 33:31, 32). Amos was told to flee away and deliver his prophecies elsewhere (Amos 7:10–13). The labors of Zechariah were not appreciated according to their true worth (Zech. 11:12). Such rejection of the prophets was the rule, not the exception. This follows not only from the words of Jesus here in 5:12 but also from his words as reported by Matt. 23:31, 37; Luke 6:23; 11:49–51; 13:33, 34; John 12:36–43 (cf. Isa. 53:1).²⁷³ And were not such men as Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha “prophets” also? Had they been treated differently?

b. Because Christian character is purged and made mature through suffering (Rom. 5:3, 5; James 1:3, 4; book of Job).

c. Because persecution is followed by great reward in heaven; not a wage won by human merit, but the reward of grace. This reward is in proportion to, yet much greater than, the sacrifice (Rom. 8:18; II Cor. 4:17, 18).

When Jesus spoke the words of verses 11, 12 he clearly implied that his own teaching was not a contradiction of prophetic utterances but was in line with them. He had not come to destroy or annul. He had come to fulfil (5:17).

Salt and Light

In the beatitudes the character and blessedness of the citizens of the kingdom were described. The final beatitude was transitional in character. It described the attitude of the world toward believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. The “two emblems,” salt and light, now introduced, describe the opposite, namely, the influence of the kingdom upon the world, the response of Christ’s followers to those who persecute them. By means of these two emblems or metaphors the important truth is revealed that those people whom the world—including even the quasi-pious world of scribes and Pharisees—hates most are exactly the ones to whom it owes most. The citizens of the kingdom, no matter how despised they are and how insignificant they may seem to be, they alone, not the scribes and the Pharisees, are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

The words of 5:13–16 show both how totally different from the world and yet how closely related to the world believers are. Worldly-mindedness or secularization is here condemned, but so is also aloofness or isolationism. Salt is a blessing when it remains truly salt; light, as long as it is really light. But salt must be sprinkled over, better still, rubbed into, the meat. Light must be allowed to shine into the darkness. It must not be put undercover.

As to salt, Jesus says: 13. You are the salt of the earth. Though salt has many characteristics: whiteness, pungency, flavor, preservative power, etc., it is probably especially the last quality, the potency of salt as an antiseptic, a substance that prevents and retards decay, upon which the emphasis falls here, though the subsidiary function of imparting flavor must obviously not be excluded (see Lev. 2:13; Job 6:6; Col. 4:6).

Salt, then, has especially a negative function. It combats deterioration. Similarly Christians, by showing themselves to be Christians indeed, are constantly combating moral and spiritual decay. How often does it not happen that when a believer suddenly steps into a crowd of worldly individuals the off-color joke by which someone was about to entertain his companions is held back, the profanity is left unspoken, the wicked plan remains unexecuted? To be sure, the world is wicked. Yet God alone knows how far more corrupt it would be without the restraining example, life, and prayers of the saints (Gen. 18:26–32; II Kings 12:2).

Salt acts secretly. We know that it combats decay, though we cannot see it perform its task. Its influence is very real nonetheless.

Continued: but if the salt becomes tasteless, what will make it salty again? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot by men. The salt from the marshes and lagoons or from the rocks in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea easily acquires a stale or alkaline taste, because of its mixture with gypsum, etc.²⁷⁴ It is then literally “good for nothing” but to be thrown away and trampled underfoot (cf. Ezek. 47:11). Jesus, as he walked on earth, saw many Pharisees and scribes, people who advocated a formal, legalistic religion in the place of the true religion proclaimed by the ancient prophets in the name of the Lord. Thus by and large the salt had lost its flavor in the religious life of Israel. Many “sons of the kingdom” would be cast out (Matt. 8:12).

The implication is clear. Just as salt having lost its flavor cannot be restored, so also those who were trained in the knowledge of the truth but who then resolutely set themselves against the exhortations of the Holy Spirit and become hardened in their opposition are not renewed unto repentance (Matt. 12:32; Heb. 6:4–6). Therefore, let that which is named salt be salt indeed! Ever so many people who never read the Bible are constantly reading us! If in our conduct we are untrue to our calling our words will avail very little.

We have seen that in the main salt has a negative function and acts secretly. Light, on the other hand, has a positive function and shines openly, publicly. The two metaphors therefore complement each other. As to light Jesus says: 14a. You are the light of the world. Light in Scripture indicates the true knowledge of God (Ps. 36:9; cf. Matt. 6:22, 23); goodness, righteousness, and truthfulness (Eph. 5:8, 9); joy and gladness, true happiness (Ps. 97:11; Isa. 9:1–7; cf. 60:19). It symbolizes the best there is in learning, love, and laughter, as contrasted with darkness, that is, the worst there is in dullness, depravity, and despair. When light is mentioned, sometimes one quality—for instance, revealed knowledge—is emphasized; then again another, depending on the context in each case. In certain instances the meaning of the word “light” may even be broader than any one quality would indicate. It may be sufficiently comprehensive to include all the blessings of “salvation” (cf. Ps. 27:1; Luke 1:77–79). So, perhaps, also here in 5:14.

The statement, “You are the light of the world” probably means that the citizens of the kingdom not only have been blessed with these endowments but are also the means used by God to transmit them to the men who surround them. The light-possessors become light-transmitters. Collectively believers are “the light.” Individually they are “lights” (luminaries, stars, Phil. 2:15). Both ideas may well have been included in the words as spoken by Jesus, though the emphasis is on the collective.

However, Christians are never a light in and by themselves. They are light “in the Lord” (Eph. 5:8). Christ is the true, the original “light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, 36, 46; II Cor. 4:6; cf. Ps. 27:1; 36:9; 43:3; Isa. 49:6; 60:1; Luke 1:78, 79; 2:32). Believers are “the light of the world” in a secondary or derived sense. He is “the light lighting” (John 1:9). They are the light lighted. He is the sun. They resemble the moon, reflecting the sun’s light. Apart from Christ they cannot shine. The electric bulb does not emit light all by itself. It imparts light only when connected and turned on, so that the electric current generated in the power-house is transmitted to it. So also as long as Christ’s followers remain in living contact with the original light they are a light to others (cf. John 15:4, 5).

Now since it is the business of the church to shine for Jesus, it should not permit itself to be thrown off its course. It is not the task of the church to specialize in and deliver all kinds of pronouncements concerning economic, social, and political problems. “The great hope for society today is in an increasing number of individual Christians. Let the Church of God concentrate on that and not waste her time and energy on matters outside her province.”²⁷⁵ This is not to say that an ecclesiastical pronouncement revealing the bearing of the gospel upon this or that not specifically theological problem is always to be condemned. There may be situations in which such an illuminating public testimony becomes advisable and even necessary, for the gospel must be proclaimed “in all its fulness” and not narrowly restricted to the salvation of souls. But the primary duty of the church remains the spreading forth of the message of salvation, that the lost may be found (Luke 15:4; I Cor. 9:16, 22; 10:33), those found may be strengthened in the faith (Eph. 4:15; I Thess. 3:11–13; I Peter 2:2; II Peter 3:18), and God may be glorified (John 17:4; I Cor. 10:31). Those who, through the example, message, and prayers of believers, have been converted will show the genuine character of their faith and love by exerting their influence for good in every sphere.

Continued: 14b–16. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and place it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. So let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven. In connection with the symbol of light two ideas are combined here: The followers of Christ must be both visible and radiant. They must be “in the light” and must also send out rays of light. The first idea is conveyed by the city situated on a hill. Such a city, with its walls and fortresses, “cannot be hidden.” It is clearly visible to everybody.

The second idea is set forth by the figure of the lamp set on the lampstand (not “a candle put on a candlestick,” A.V.). Such a lamp “gives light”; it “shines.” The lamps of that day can be seen today in any large museum and in many private collections. The author at this moment is looking at one of these terra cotta saucer-shaped objects. This one happens to be about five and one-half inches long, four wide, and one-and-a-half high. It has a handle on one end; on the other a nozzle-shaped extension with a hole for a wick. In the top of the lamp’s upper surface there are two holes, one for adding oil, the other for air.

What Jesus is saying, then, is this, that no one would be foolish enough to light such a lamp—evidently for the purpose of illumining the surroundings—and then immediately place it under the peck-measure.²⁷⁶ Any sensible person would of course set the lit lamp on the lampstand. Such a lampstand was generally a very simple object. It might be a shelf extending from the pillar in the center of the room (the pillar that supported the large crossbeam of the flat roof), or a single stone projecting inward from the wall, or a piece of metal conspicuously placed and used similarly. The point is that the lamp, already lit and placed on the stand, would give light “to everyone in the house.” This is understandable when it is remembered that the houses of the poor, the very people whom Jesus was addressing (Luke 6:20), had only one room.

Now what a lamp is to a house the follower of Christ should be to the world. A lighted lamp should be given the opportunity to send out its rays. Similarly the followers of Jesus should “let their light shine” in order that men may see their conduct, their “good works.” It is on these works, considered as products of faith (see on verse 17) that the Lord places the emphasis, for “actions speak louder than words.”

It is not at all necessary nor even advisable in the present connection to make a separation between works done in obedience to the first table of the law and those performed in conformity with the second. In the teaching of Jesus these two go together even though it is true that the first is basic (Matt. 22:34–40; Mark 12:30, 31; Luke 10:25–28). When such excellent works, of whatever nature, are done out of gratitude for salvation obtained by grace through faith they are pleasing to God. This is true whether they consist of taking hold of God in prayer (Matt. 6:6; cf. Isa. 64:7) and trusting him (Matt. 6:24–34); or of helping those in need (25:34–40) and loving even one’s enemies (5:44).

That some of these good deeds are seen by men is unavoidable. Even unbelievers will at times hear the songs of praise sung by God’s children. Worldly people will take note of the quiet trust in God manifested by believers in times of trial and distress. They will at times express astonishment about the manner in which Christians will go out of their way, risking danger and even death, in order to extend help to the sick and dying. Tertullian (fl. about a.d. 200) wrote: “But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. ‘See,’ they say, ‘how they [the Christians] love one another,’ for they themselves [the non-Christians] are animated by mutual hatred; ‘see how they are ready even to die for one another,’ for they themselves will rather put to death” (Apology XXXIX).

It is a fine thing that these good works are seen by men. That is exactly what Jesus wants. Rightly considered, it is even what those who perform them want, but not in order to gain honor for themselves, in the sense of 6:1, 5, 16. On the contrary, Jesus says, “… and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The end, therefore, and also to a certain extent the result, of seeing such good works, will be that men, influenced by God’s Spirit, will ascribe to God the reverence that is his due for having caused the light to shine forth from human lives (Isa. 24:15; 25:3; Ps. 22:23; cf. I Cor. 10:31).²⁷⁷

A word must be added about this phrase, in the Gospels here used for the first time, “your Father who is in heaven” (literally “in the heavens”). A highly respected author writes, “It is true indeed that even in the Old Testament God is sometimes addressed as Father, but then not to express the personal relation between God and the individual believer but as an indication of the relation between God and the covenant people Israel; compare, for example, Isa. 63:16.”²⁷⁸ I fail to see the correctness of this statement. Even in the Old Testament God is recognized as the Father not only of the nation (besides Isa. 63:16 see also 64:8; Mal. 1:1, 6; and cf. Num. 11:12), but even of individual believers, holding them in his tender embrace and caring for them: “A Father of the fatherless and a Judge of widows is God in his holy habitation” (Ps. 68:5). “He will cry to me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.… My lovingkindness will I keep for him forever” (Ps. 89:26, 28). Although it is true that in Ps. 103:13 God is not directly addressed as “Father,” yet the idea of his fatherhood in relation to individuals is clearly implied: “As a father pities his children, so Jehovah pities those that fear him.” To them he is more precious than any earthly father: “Though my father and my mother have forsaken me, yet Jehovah accepts me” (Ps. 27:10). See also II Sam. 7:14, 15 (cf. I Chron. 28:6). Jesus, then, builds on this Old Testament foundation—was it not his own Spirit that inspired this book?—and in the Gospels causes the term as applied to God, to stand out in all its tenderness (“Father”) and majesty (“who is in heaven”). See further on Matt. 6:9. All those, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, are privileged, in addressing God, to say, “Our Father who art in heaven.”

The Righteousness of the Kingdom

The high standard of life demanded by the King is now set forth. First we are shown that

This Righteousness Is in Full Accord with the Moral Principles Enunciated in the Old Testament

Jesus just now has been admonishing his hearers to let their light shine by performing good works to the glory of the Father in heaven. Now such works are those that are in harmony with God’s holy law. The scribes and the Pharisees were reputed to be the guardians of the law. Yet Jesus was about to expose these men as being hypocrites (5:20; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; see further 15:1–9; 16:1–4; 22:15–22; chap. 23). Did this mean then that he had come to undermine the authority of the law, and of the prophets reaffirming the law? He answers: 17. Do not think that I have come to set aside the law or the prophets. I have not come to set aside but to fulfil. Christ’s opponents even now had begun to regard him as a destructive revolutionist, an iconoclast who wanted to break every tie with the past (John 5:18). This attitude toward Jesus never left them but rather grew on them (Matt. 26:59–61). See Acts 21:21 for a similar attitude toward Paul.

The opponents were wrong. Did the scribes and Pharisees demand good works? So did Jesus (5:16). Did they hold Moses in high regard? So did he (8:4; Mark 7:10, Luke 16:31; 24:27, 44; John 5:46). The righteousness which he proclaimed was not a novelty. It was in thorough harmony with that enunciated in the Old Testament; that is, in “the law and the prophets” (cf. Luke 16:16).²⁷⁹ Here in 5:17, however, in order to emphasize each in its own right, the term used is “the law or the prophets,” the Pentateuch or the rest of the Old Testament.

Jesus, then, as he begins to set forth “the righteousness of the kingdom,” immediately dismisses the charge of his enemies that he is a proclaimer of novelties, and shows that his ministry was not in collision with the Old Testament but in harmony with it; in fact, that without him the Old Testament was incomplete, unfulfilled. Peter, too, on Pentecost interpreted the strange things that were transpiring round about him as a fulfilment of prophecy (Acts 2). And Paul also links the new with the old, making clear that his doctrine of justification by grace through faith was not something altogether new but was firmly rooted in Old Testament teaching (Rom. 3:21; chap. 4; 7:7 f.; chaps. 9–11; Gal. 3:6–22; 4:21–31; etc.).

Calvin, commenting on Matt. 5:17, makes this application: “If we intend to reform affairs that are in a state of disarray we should always exercise such prudence and moderation as will convince the people that we are not opposing the eternal Word of God, or introducing any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care that no suspicion of such conflict shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretence of novelty.”

Actually the honor which Jesus bestowed on “the law or the prophets” was higher by far than that in which it was held by scribes and Pharisees. They buried the divine oracles under a load of tradition and regarded the doing of the law to be the only way to obtain salvation. Therefore in reality they were the ones who were setting aside the Old Testament. With Jesus the case was entirely different. When he (5:16) demands good works he addresses this exhortation to those who had previously been pronounced “blessed” (Matt. 5:2–12; Luke 6:20–23). According to the beatitudes these people, convicted of their spiritual poverty, had mournfully confessed their sins and had received from God the righteousness of imputation and impartation. In such a context “good works” are works of gratitude for salvation already received. Thus the law was in principle being fulfilled, and so were the prophets, in which the demand of the law was reaffirmed. It is clear therefore that it was Jesus—not the opponent—who had the right to affirm, “I have not come to set aside but to fulfil.” It was his aim that in the lives of his true followers the spiritual requirement of the Old Testament would receive its due, that is, that in these lives the vessel of the law’s (hence also of the prophets’) demand would become filled to the brim.

However, it does not appear to the present author that the explanation given so far fully satisfies the meaning of the passage. It is hard for him to believe that in saying, “I have not come to set aside but to fulfil” Jesus was thinking only of fulfilment in his followers. It would rather seem that he was referring to the law’s fulfilment “both in his own experience and increasingly in the experience of his followers” (C. R. Erdman, op. cit., p. 48). Note: also “in his own experience.” This brings the passage in harmony with such other sayings of Jesus in which he presents himself as the fulfilment of the Old Testament; not only with the words uttered at a much later time (Matt. 26:56; Luke 18:31; 24:25–27, 44), but also and especially with those that probably belong to the very year when this sermon was delivered.

It is hard to believe that he who had very recently revealed himself to the woman of Samaria as the realization of mankind’s hope (John 4:25, 26, 42), and who very shortly would describe himself to John the Baptist and to the people of Nazareth as the fulfilment of prophecy (respectively Matt. 11:1–6 and Luke 4:16–30), would in this sermon have been able, without thinking of any realization in himself, to speak about fulfilling the Old Testament.

Now if the fulfilment was to be in relation to himself also, then was it to be with respect to his teaching only, setting forth the true meaning of the law and revealing himself as the fulfilment of the Old Testament types and predictions, so that he would stand out as the chief prophet (Deut. 18:15, 18)? Or with respect to his vicarious suffering and death alone, by which through his active and passive obedience he would satisfy the demand of the law as his people’s sympathetic highpriest (Ps. 40:6, 7; Jer. 23:6)? Or exclusively with respect to his royal rule, thereby delivering his people from the power of the enemy and holding sway over their lives as their eternal king (Gen. 49:10; II Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 72)? But why not all three? Does not the Old Testament itself lead the way to a fuller interpretation of the concept “Messianic Fulfilment” when in describing the coming Redeemer it does not always restrict itself to the manner in which he would function in one office? See Ps. 110:4; Isa. 53; Zech. 6:13. Conclusion: in all he was and was to do he had come not to set aside or annul the Old Testament but to fulfil it. The context does not require—perhaps it is not erroneous to say, “does not even permit”—any restriction to be made as to the meaning of this majestic statement (5:17). Moreover, the passage itself, by means of its disjunctive “or” (“the law or the prophets” instead of “the law and the prophets”) emphasizes breadth of meaning, causing the mind to linger a little longer on the two distinct parts, and probably indicating that Jesus had not come either to lift the demand of the law or to invalidate the words, including the predictions, of the prophets. He had come to fulfil both.

“I have come,” said Jesus. This indicates that he was fully conscious of his Messianic mission, and in close connection with it, of his pre-existence. This doctrine of pre-existence is therefore not peculiar to John (1:1–14; 3:17; 5:36, 43; 6:38; 8:58; 16:28; 18:37) and Paul (II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4, 5; Eph. 4:9, 10; Phil. 2:5 ff.; etc.). Though not as abundantly it is nevertheless taught clearly also in the Synoptics (Matt. 5:17; Luke 12:49; 19:10).

On the basis of the explanation given of verse 17 what follows is easier to understand: 18. For I solemnly declare to you, Until heaven and earth disappears not even the tiniest letter or the tiniest hook on a letter will in any way disappear from the law until all (it calls for) shall have taken place. A strictly literal rendering, one which would make little sense to the reader unacquainted with Hebrew and Greek, would be: “For Amen I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one keraia will not at all pass away from the law until all come to be.”

As to “Amen,” in Hebrew it refers, in general, to ideas of truth and faithfulness. In its simple (Qal) form, the verb means to be faithful, secure. In the simple reflexive (Niph‘al): to be made firm; to be confirmed, established. In its causal (Hiph‘il) form: to stand firm, consider as trustworthy, believe. It occurs in statements which affirm or confirm a solemn truth. In the Old Testament the single Amen is found in Deut. 27:15, 16–26; I Kings 1:36; I Chron. 16:36; Neh. 5:13; Ps. 106:48; and Jer. 28:6. The double Amen is found in Num. 5:22; Neh. 8:6; Ps. 41:13; 72:19; and 89:52. In the New Testament the word Amen, as an adverbial accusative, combines the ideas of truthfulness and solemnity. The rendering “verily”=“in very truth” of the A.V. was certainly not bad, but today is considered somewhat archaic. Whether “truly” (R.S.V., N.A.S.) conveys that same fulness of meaning or whether, through association with such phrases as “yours truly,” it has lost some of the strength or solemnity usually associated with “verily,” is a matter with respect to which opinions differ. In every case—let the reader examine this for himself with the use of a Concordance—in which this word occurs in the New Testament it introduces a statement which not only expresses a truth or fact—as, for example, 2x2=4 would be a fact—but an important, a solemn fact, one that in many cases is at variance with popular opinion or expectation or at least causes some surprise. It is for that reason that I personally prefer the translation “I solemnly declare”²⁸⁰ to “Truly I say.”

Just why it is that John in his Gospel always uses the double Amen (Greek “Amen, Amen”; A.V.: “Verily, verily”) but the Synoptics always the single Amen is not clear. Some surmise that John’s double Amen literally reproduces what Jesus, speaking Aramaic, said, and that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, giving the Greek equivalent, regarded the single Amen to be all that was necessary to reproduce the solemnity of Christ’s words. As long as Christ’s meaning is fully conveyed—and it was in every case!—this makes no material difference.

In connection, then, with the immediately preceding verse, in which Jesus had said that he had not come to set aside the law or the prophets but to fulfil them, he now, sharply contradicting what the opponents must have been saying about his attitude, reaffirms his complete loyalty to the sacred oracles. Not until the universe in its present form disappears (Ps. 102:25, 26; Isa. 34:4; 51:6; Matt. 24:35; Rom. 8:21; Heb. 1:12; II Peter 3:7, 10–13; Rev. 6:14; 21:1–3)²⁸¹ will even the smallest part of the Old Testament that requires fulfilment fail to be fulfilled. Every type will be exchanged for its antitype. Every prediction will be verified. The law’s demand will be fully met.

Not even an iota (A.V. “jot”) or a keraia (A.V. “tittle”) will disappear from the law, that is, from the Old Testament, until its mission has been accomplished. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew letters, the smallest of which was the yodh, sounded “y” as in “young.” In Greek it was represented by the similarly tiniest letter in that tongue, the iota. The keraia is a very small projection, a little hook that distinguishes one Hebrew letter from another. Thus the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the one called beth, in English corresponding to “b” or “bh,” has a slight extension at the lower right hand corner, to distinguish it from the letter kaph, corresponding to English “k” or “kh” Beth is written ב, kaph is ‍ך. The meaning, then, is this, that not even in the slightest respect will the Old Testament remain unfulfilled. It is as if we were to say that with respect to its fulfilment “not a ‘t’ will remain uncrossed and not an ‘i’ undotted.”

As Jesus was speaking, some parts of the Old Testament had already been fulfilled, for example, the incarnation. Other parts were being fulfilled. Still others were to be fulfilled soon, that is, in the crucifixion and the resurrection; or were to be fulfilled later, in the ascension, at and after Pentecost, and finally at Christ’s return in glory.

In the new heaven and earth “the law” as a written book will no longer be necessary. In fact, the written Bible—Old and New Testament—will have become superfluous. Until that time arrives, however, nothing whatever will remain lacking as to fulfilment. God’s program with respect to Christ, the church, mankind in general, and the universe, will be carried out in full (Isa. 40:8).

It is evident from this that our Lord regarded the law of God very highly. Hence, we are not surprised that he continues: 19. Therefore, whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments and so teaches men shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Although all is of grace and nothing whatever is earned by the citizen of the kingdom, yet his rank or position in that kingdom will depend on and be commensurate with his respect for God’s holy law. Not every commandment of that law is of equal significance. The rabbis divided the law into 613 commandments. They considered 248 of these to be positive, 365 negative. They carried on lengthy debates about heavier and lighter commandments. Some rabbis considered Deut. 22:6 (“You shall not carry off the mother-bird together with her young”) to be the “lightest” (least significant) of them all.²⁸² As to the heaviest or greatest of all commandments, the question as to its identity was answered by a scribe (Luke 10:27). That Jesus agreed with him is clear from his response (Luke 10:28; cf. Matt. 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34).

Now, though it is certainly true that Christ’s teaching as to the law was far removed from the trivial hairsplitting arid legalism and torturing scrupulosity of the rabbis, yet he too regarded some requirements of greater importance than others. Not only is this clear from verse 19, quoted above, and from what he said concerning the greatest commandment, it also follows from his statement regarding “the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (Matt. 23:23). Nevertheless, he insists that every commandment of that which is truly God’s moral law—the very law which he is about to discuss in greater detail in 5:21 ff.—must be kept. Nothing must be annulled or canceled.

Anyone, no matter how excellent he may be in other respects, who wilfully disregards even the law’s least commandment and teaches others to copy his example will be least “in the kingdom of heaven” (see pp. 249, 250); whereas, on the other hand, whoever practices and teaches these commandments (as interpreted by Christ) “shall be called”—implying “and shall actually be” (cf. I John 3:1)—great in that kingdom. As Scripture confirms, this principle holds with respect to Christ’s rule both on earth (cf. Matt. 18:1–4) and in heaven. It is true now and will apply also in the day of judgment and afterward. Salvation is not only by grace and through faith, it is also according to works. For more on the last point see Eccl. 12:14; Matt. 25:35–45; Rom. 2:16; II Cor. 5:10; and Rev. 20:12, 13. In degree of faithfulness God’s children differ even here. Therefore, in degree of glory they will differ in heaven and at the time of the resurrection (I Cor. 15:41, 42).

It follows from verse 19 that keeping the law and teaching it to others in the manner in which it should be taught is very important. This is also shown in verse 20, the introductory conjunction “for” indicating that what Christ’s audience was about to hear was in confirmation and further elucidation of what had just been said.

However, though there is this connection between verses 19 and 20, there is also a transition at this point to a new, though closely related, subject. Jesus has been showing that the righteousness of the kingdom is in full accord with the moral principles enunciated in the Old Testament. Now he is going to show that

This Righteousness Is Not in Accord with the Current and Traditional Interpretation and Application of God’s Holy Law

So Jesus said, 20. For I tell you that unless your righteousness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will surely never enter the kingdom of heaven. Note the emphatic introduction, “For I tell you.” Jesus is about to make a very important statement regarding the reprehensible righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, as contrasted with another righteousness, one in which God delights. Immediately after making this statement he is going to become very specific. He is going to show what “You shall not kill” has been interpreted to mean by the rabbis, and what it really means; next, how “You shall not commit adultery” has been explained by the ancients, whose explanation had been adopted by the scribes and the Pharisees, and what was its original intention and is its proper application. So he is going to continue to contrast the false and the true interpretation of the law, discussing one by one the oath, retaliation, and love toward the neighbor. This discussion will go on until the end of chapter 5. But even much of chapters 6 and 7 will reflect the indicated contrast.

Accordingly, the statement made in verse 20 is definitely basic for what follows. The righteousness demanded by Jesus is nothing less than complete conformity with God’s holy law (cf. Matt. 22:34–40, especially verse 37) in all that a person is and does. Such a righteousness means that the heart, not only the outward deed, is right, yes right as the holy God himself views it. This righteousness, moreover, is God-given, here below in principle, hereafter in perfection. On the contrary, the scribes and Pharisees accepted a righteousness of outward compliance, and they believed or pretended to believe that by strenuous exertion they would be able to achieve their goal, and that they were in fact on the way to its realization.

It is natural that Jesus groups together a profession (the scribes) and a sect (the Pharisees). The scribes were the acknowledged expounders and teachers of the Old Testament. The Pharisees were those who tried very hard to make everybody believe that they were adhering to this teaching.

Briefly, the two kinds of righteousness, as sharply contrasted in the Gospels, may be described as follows, the corroborative evidence being appended in each case:

a. That of the scribes and Pharisees fails to satisfy the heart. It is formal, external, and shallow. It falls far short of perfection. That commended by Jesus satisfies the heart. It is genuine, internal, and deeply rooted. It is complete.

“Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8).

“You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts” (Luke 16:15).

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!, because you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of extortion and intemperance” (Matt. 23:25).

b. That of the scribes and Pharisees fails to satisfy the mind. It is based upon reasoning that is deceptive, misleading, and merely “clever,” and proceeds from a mind that is not at rest. That commended by Jesus satisfies the mind. It is in line with reasoning that is honest, reliable, and sound, and proceeds from a mind that has found, or is in the process of finding, rest.

“Come to me all who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Note the sound reasoning of the “prodigal son” after he had come to himself (Luke 15:17–19).

An example of specious reasoning is found in Matt. 15:3–5. Jesus comments, “You have made the word of God null and void for the sake of your tradition” (15:6).

c. That of the scribes and Pharisees is self-made. These men were “self-righteous.” That commended by Jesus is God-given.

“Blessed those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they shall be fully satisfied” (Matt. 5:6).

“To some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and who despised all others Jesus told this parable: Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. The Pharisee took his stand and began to pray with himself as follows: ‘O God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of the people.… But the tax-collector, standing far off … said, ‘O God, be merciful to me, the sinner.’… I tell you, it was this man and not the other who went home justified” (Luke 18:9–14, in part).

d. That of the scribes and Pharisees glorifies self. It is ostentatious and proud. That commended by Jesus glorifies God. It is unpretentious and humble. This too is clear from the passage just quoted (Luke 18:9–14). It is proved also by the following:

“So let your light shine before men … that they may glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

“Take care that you do not practice your righteousness before the people, to attract their attention; otherwise you will not have any reward with your Father who is in heaven. So, whenever you give to the poor do not publicly announce it with the blast of the trumpet, as the hypocrites are in the habit of doing…” (Matt. 6:1, 2).

Having then laid down the underlying principle (verse 20: in a sense verses 17–20), that basic truth is now going to be applied to various commandments. Six times Jesus is going to place his own authoritative pronouncement over against the teaching of scribes and Pharisees, and, going back beyond them, over against the misinterpretations of the sages of long ago. Six times he is going to say, “It was said … but I say” (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43). We may call these The Six Antitheses.

The First Antithesis: The Sixth Commandment, Murder

It will become evident that Jesus sharpens the edge of every precept. He does this by pointing out and condemning the evil disposition of the heart that lies at the root of the transgression, and then placing over against it the positive commandment. This is immediately apparent from his interpretation of the sixth commandment. The introduction is as follows: 21. You have heard that it was said by the men of long ago, You shall not kill, and Whoever kills deserves to be punished (with death). The formula, “You have heard that it was said” presents a difficulty, since the following phrase, considered by itself, can be translated either “to the men of long ago” (R.S.V.: “to the men of old”) or “by the men of long ago.” Many translators and commentators prefer to. Several others favor by.²⁸³ According to the first view Jesus meant that Moses in the law said something to the fathers, and that Jesus now “assumes a tone of superiority over the Mosaic regulations” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 44). J. Jeremias, in the article to which reference was made on p. 256, footnote 250, expresses the same view in even stronger language when he states that “Jesus establishes a new divine law when he opposes his ‘But I say to you’ to the Word of Scripture.”

According to the second view Jesus meant that by the men of long ago, that is, by the expounders of the law, the rabbis, an interpretation had been presented with which he disagrees or which he considers as being dangerously incomplete, even though the scribes and Pharisees of his own day were in agreement with it (as is clearly implied in verse 20).

Reasons for rejecting the first interpretation (“to”) and accepting the second (“by”):

a. It would be very strange that Jesus, having just affirmed in most emphatic terms that he had not come to set aside the law or the prophets, would now suddenly turn around and do this very thing.

b. Had Jesus been referring to what Moses in the law had commanded he would have used different language; for example, “Moses commanded” (Matt. 8:4), or “It is written” (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 2:23; 4:4).

c. In later Jewish writings such famous rabbans as Hillel and Shammai were called “fathers of antiquity.”²⁸⁴ The designation “the men of long ago” is accordingly an excellent designation for those who had orally interpreted the written Old Testament.

d. The expression “it was said,” though possible even as a reference to something written, is more readily associated with oral teaching and tradition than with that which had been put down in a document.

e. It is clear that when Jesus says, “You have heard … but I say” (5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) he is drawing a contrast between two positions that are sharply opposed. This contrast is clearer when the two opposing clauses are “It was said by the men … but I say,” meaning “They said … but I say,” than it would be if they were, “It was said to the men … but I say,” meaning, “They heard … but I say.”

The ancient interpreters, then, in quoting the sixth commandment had said, “You shall not kill.” What was wrong with this? Was not this, after all, exactly what God in his law had written on tablets of stone (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17)? They had added, “Whoever kills deserves to be punished (with death).” And what was wrong with that? It is true that strictly speaking this was an addition of their own. One does not find it in Exod. 20:13 or in Deut. 5:17, but the substance of this addition or interpretation is certainly found in Gen. 9:6, A.V. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.…” From that verse it also follows that the punishment to which the men of long ago referred was capital punishment.²⁸⁵

On the surface, therefore, it would seem that no fault whatever can be found with the manner in which the men of long ago had interpreted the sixth commandment. In the present instance what was wrong was not what they had said but what they had left unsaid, or at least unemphasized. This applied also to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, for, as already indicated, they endorsed the tradition of the ancients. Accordingly, they too were not giving a full summary of the law regarding murder. Their interpretation, though correct as far as it went, did not go nearly far enough. It was woefully inadequate. Imagine a present-day minister of the Gospel preaching on this commandment and limiting his exhortations to a warning to be very careful when using fire weapons, clubs, or automobiles. He might even warn against peddling drugs. As long as he fails to point out the spiritual cause that produces murder, and warns against that, has he not missed the mark? Is the law of God nothing but a penal code?

This one lesson, namely, that a person cannot expect a healthful drink from a polluted fountain, summarizes what Jesus teaches in verse 22. But I say to you that (even) anyone who is angry with his brother deserves to be punished (with death). And whoever says to his brother, You blockhead, deserves to be condemned (to death) by the supreme court. And whoever says, You idiot, deserves to be cast into the hell of fire. Note the emphatic and fully spelled out I (ego) at the very beginning of each of the statements in which Jesus contradicts the traditional interpretation (see verses 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, and 44). Here in verse 22 what Jesus is as it were saying is Principiis obsta, that is, “Resist beginnings.” The beginning of the outward act of murder is sinful anger, hatred. Cf. James 4:1. Such a surly and ill-natured attitude toward a brother is actually sin against the sixth commandment, says Jesus, and deserves to be punished (with death). When in this spirit of contempt and utter disgust anyone says to his brother, “Raca,” probably Aramaic and meaning, “You blockhead” (or “You empty-head”) he is worthy of being condemned to death by the (Jewish) supreme court (the Sanhedrin). Similarly, when in that same frame of mind and heart he says, “You idiot” (or “You moron,” “You fool”) he deserves to die. Moreover, that the Lord is not just thinking of physical death but of eternal death is clear from the wording, “he deserves to be cast into the hell (Gehenna) of fire.” For more on Gehenna see on 10:28.

If this explanation of the passage is adopted everything is quite simple. Jesus is teaching just one lesson, a very important one. He is saying that sinful anger—the kind that leads to bitter words—is in its very nature murder. It is murder committed in the heart. Unless he repents, the person with this kind of attitude faces everlasting punishment in hell. Whatever he may be in human eyes, before God he stands condemned and is on his way to never-ending death. Thus, while the scribes and Pharisees placed the emphasis on the outward deed, as if that alone were reprehensible, Jesus traced the deed to the underlying evil disposition of the heart.

There is, however, another interpretation. In part, it amounts to this: Jesus is saying that for being angry with his brother a man must be sentenced by “a local court”; for doing something worse, namely, in anger calling his brother a blockhead or a good-for-nothing he must be punished by the supreme court; and, worst of all, for calling him an idiot he deserves the extreme penalty, everlasting perdition.²⁸⁶

Objections:

a. That the rabbis might resort to making hairsplitting distinctions between the degree of guilt implied in calling a man a blockhead as compared with that implied in calling him an idiot would be understandable; but that Jesus himself resorts to anything of this nature would not be. This is all the more unlikely in a discourse in which he severely criticizes the interpretations of the men of long ago and of their followers.

b. The view that the Greek word krisis, here in verse 22, or in verses 21 and 22, means “local court,”²⁸⁷ is probably erroneous. Such a definition is burdened not only by the objection mentioned under c. but also by the fact that, aside from 5:21, 22, in none of the well over forty instances of its widely distributed use in the New Testament can it have this meaning. Often it indicates decision, judgment, verdict. Sometimes this amounts to a decision against, hence condemnation, punishment. See N.T.C. on John 3:17–19.

c. It is hard to understand how being angry with a brother, without revealing this anger in word or deed, could get a man in trouble with a “local court.”

d. This “three gradations of sin and of punishment” theory obscures the fact that not only here, in his teaching about murder, but also in what follows in the rest of the chapter, Jesus is emphasizing one central lesson, namely, that the root of evil lies in the heart, where love must be substituted for hatred and indifference, and sincerity for hypocrisy and selfishness.

There was no excuse for the fact that in their interpretation of the sixth commandment the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, in agreement with the men of long ago, were omitting the main lesson. “Moses” had emphasized love for God (Deut. 6:5) and for man (Lev. 19:18). Not only that but the very first domestic quarrel narrative, the story of Cain and Abel, had in a very impressive manner pointed up the evil of jealous anger, as being the root of murder (Gen. 4:1–16; see especially verses 6 and 7). The same lesson had been re-emphasized in the later writings (Prov. 14:17; 22:24; 25:23; Eccl. 7:9; Job 5:2; Jon. 4:4). Accordingly Jesus, in interpreting the sixth commandment as he does, far from annulling it, is showing what it had meant from the very beginning.

But what happens when in a person’s daily conduct this principle of love does not receive its full due? What must be done by the man who is not living in harmony with his brother? Would this strained relationship in any way affect his worship of God? Or are we dealing here with two separate domains? A very practical question indeed, not only then but also today! How often has not the excuse been heard, “This (action or attitude with respect to my neighbor, my family, my business, my country, etc.) has nothing to do with my religion”?

Jesus, differing sharply, answers: 23, 24. Therefore if, while you are bringing your offering to the altar, you there remember that your brother has a grievance against you, leave your offering there in front of the altar, and first go and be reconciled to your brother; then come (back) and present your offering. There is an important change here from the (second person) plural to the singular, a change retained in the A.V. (from “you” to “thou”) and in the translation as given above from “you,” in “You have heard” and in “But I say to you,” to “you,” in “Therefore if, while you, etc.”). Modern English translations, in making no provision for this transition from the plural to the singular, lose something of the vividness of the original. When the change is recognized it gets to be clear that Jesus is becoming very personal now. He is addressing each individual in particular. Let each man examine his own heart.

The very word “Therefore” shows that what the Lord is about to say follows directly from what he has just stated. It is a positive application of the rule that the heart must at all times be filled with love, not with anger and hatred. It also shows that loving God and therefore bringing him an offering, yet not loving the brother but remaining unreconciled to him, cannot go together. “If a person does not love the brother whom he has seen he cannot love God whom he has not seen” (I John 4:20b).

The illustration Jesus presents is that of a person who, according to Jewish custom, is bringing an offering to the altar (cf. Gen. 4:3–5; Exod. 25:2; Lev. 1:2 ff.; Ps. 66:13). Naturally, if he is doing this in the proper manner he is meditating upon the goodness of God toward him. In the midst of his musings the idea occurs to him, “Since God has been so good to me how should I treat my brother?” Suddenly the thought shoots into his mind, “Brother Jonathan (or whatever the name may be) and myself are no longer on speaking terms. Between him and myself there is something which he considers to be a rightful reason for blaming me. What, if anything, must I do about it?”

In this situation Jesus, in thorough harmony with the principle to which he has just now given expression, says, as it were, “Do not finish your act of devotion. Having left your offering at the altar, immediately go and see that man who has this grievance against you. Between the two (διά) bring about another, a totally different and better (ἄλλος) relationship; that is, be reconciled²⁸⁸ to your brother. Then return and finish bringing your offering.”

Strictly according to the original Jesus said, “If … you remember that your brother has something against you.…” What is meant by “something”? Does it mean that if you know of anyone who even in the minutest degree finds fault with you, you cannot bring that offering until you have succeeded in getting him to approve of you and of all your ways? If that were true how few would be the acts of worship and devotion! I do not believe that anything as impractical as that can have been intended. The “something” must be of a nature important enough to be called a grievance.

The next question is, “Must it be a righteous grievance, that is, must the other man have just cause for complaint before you need to spend your efforts on him for the purpose of reconciliation?” Lenski may be taken as a representative of those who answer in the affirmative (op. cit., p. 214); Ridderbos of those who reply in the negative (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 110). My inclination is to agree with Ridderbos. If I know that my brother even thinks that he has a right to be dissatisfied with me, should I not strive to be reconciled to him? How easy it is to find a reason (an excuse?) not to do this!

Also in connection with verses 23 and 24 Jesus is re-emphasizing the true spiritual meaning of the commandment. The Old Testament everywhere teaches that under certain circumstances offerings are not acceptable to God (Gen. 4:5; I Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11; Jer. 6:20; Amos 5:22; Mic. 6:6, to mention a few of a much longer series of passages). The gift derives its value from the heart of the giver (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4; Heb. 11:4; cf. John 3:16!).

Does the illustration found in verses 23, 24 mean that reconciliation can wait until a person is bringing an offering to the altar, or is entering the church? Not at all. The time for reconciliation is always right now. Tomorrow may be too late. This is clear from verses 25, 26. Make friends quickly with your opponent, while you still have the opportunity to deal with him, lest the opponent hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. I solemnly declare to you, never will you get out of that place until you have paid the last cent. The picture changes a little. In the preceding application of the sixth commandment (verses 23, 24) the brother to be reconciled was one described as having “something (a grievance) against you.” Here (verse 25, 26) the opponent is contemplating, in fact may already have started, legal proceedings.²⁸⁹ As in the previous instance so also here, whether this opponent is morally in the right is not indicated. Neither is the nature of the matter in dispute definitely stated, though verse 26b (“until you have paid the last cent”) may point in the direction of a financial debt. In any event “you,” the person whom Jesus addresses, must do your utmost to become “well-disposed” (thus literally) toward your opponent. You must try to make friends with him. You must make every attempt to settle the matter “out of court,” while you still have the opportunity to deal with him; hence privately, without involving the judge or court. Unless you do this, when the suit is prosecuted the decision may go against you. The result would be that the judge will hand you over to his “underling” or assistant, “the officer” who carries out the judge’s orders. You will then be thrown into prison and will stay there until you have paid the last penny,²⁹⁰ that is, you will never, never get out!

It is clear that the words of the Lord have a deeper meaning. In the final analysis he is speaking not about an earthly but about the heavenly judge; nor about an earthly jail but about hell. That this is the meaning is clear from a comparison not only with verse 22b but also with 18:30 and 35. It is the heart that must be right. It is the inner disposition that must be one of love toward all others. That is the only way to fulfil the sixth commandment.

To summarize, in verses 25, 26 it is as if Jesus were saying, “Be not surprised about the urgency of my command that you be reconciled; for, should it be that you were to pass from this life with a heart still at variance with your brother, a condition which you have not even tried to change, that wrong would testify against you in the day of judgment. Moreover, dying with that spirit of hatred still in your heart, you will never escape from the prison of hell.”

The question may be asked, “Does the burden rest on me alone, not at all on the person who opposes me?” Or, wording it differently, “Granted that I am the sinner—so at least my opponent views me—is it not his duty to forgive?” The answer is given in such passages as Matt. 6:12, 14; 18:21–35. These same passages also imply that when I have done all in my power to bring about a reconciliation, and the opponent still refuses to be fair, and where necessary to be forgiving, the guilt will rest on himself alone.

The sixth commandment, then, is a matter that involves the heart, not merely the outward act. And so it is with every commandment, also the seventh; as

The Second Antithesis: The Seventh Commandment, Adultery

will show: 27, 28. You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. The men of long ago, as also the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, were certainly correct in quoting the seventh commandment as they did. But here again, just as was shown in connection with the sixth commandment, they stopped short of giving a full exposition of the matter. As in the previous case, it was not the law but the rabbinical explanation that was at fault.

The seventh commandment should have been explained in the light of the tenth, “You must not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:18). Had that been done, it would have been abundantly clear that “out of the heart come evil deliberations, murders, adulteries, immoralities …” (Matt. 15:19). Christ’s enemies condemned the outward act. At least it was that upon which they placed the emphasis. When it suited their purpose they could be very severe toward those who committed literal adultery (John 8:1–11). Jesus, however, views the evil lust of the heart as adultery, just as he views the hatred of the heart as murder.

It is hardly necessary to add that what holds for the married man applies also to the married woman. Unfaithfulness in the marriage-bond is always wrong. This implies, of course, that any tendency to arouse such unfaithfulness—for example, the attempt by an unmarried person to disrupt a marriage—is equally a sin against the seventh commandment.

Upon closer examination we notice that there is nothing innocent about the man described in verse 28. He is not one who, without any evil intentions, happens to see a person of the opposite sex. No, he is looking, gazing, staring at a woman in order²⁹¹ to lust²⁹² after her, to possess and dominate her completely, to use her for his own pleasure. To be sure, the expression “anyone looking,” taken by itself, is entirely neutral. The verbal form used in the original is very general in its use. But what we have here in verse 28 is a looking to lust after. There is nothing innocent about that. It is selfish. See Matt. 7:12. In the proper setting sex is a wonderful gift of God. However, for lewdness and vulgarity there is no excuse. It is wrong always and everywhere, for the unmarried as well as for the married.

What, then, is to be done with respect to the lustful heart and eye? The answer is found in verses 29, 30. So if your right eye lures you into sin,²⁹³ pluck it out and fling it away from you. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand lures you into sin, cut it off and fling it away from you. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go down into hell. This command must not be taken literally, for even if a person should literally pluck out his right eye he would still be able to sin with his left eye. Jesus has himself supplied us with the key to its interpretation, namely, in Matt. 18:7–9, where in slightly different form this command is repeated. From that passage it follows clearly that the eye and the hand that lead a person into sin symbolize and represent “occasions of stumbling,” or if one prefers, enticements to do wrong, beguiling allurements. The general meaning of the passage, then, is this: “Take drastic action in getting rid of whatever in the natural course of events will tempt you into sin.” In the present connection it is especially the sin against the seventh commandment that is in view.

More in detail, it would seem that the following lessons are taught here:

a. The present is not our only life. We are destined for eternity. Note: “… than that your whole body be thrown into—or go down into—hell.”

b. Nothing, no matter how precious it may seem to us at the moment—think of the right eye and the right hand—should be allowed to doom our glorious destiny.

c. Sin, being a very destructive force, must not be pampered. It must be “put to death” (Col. 3:5). Temptation should be flung aside immediately and decisively.²⁹⁴ Dillydallying is deadly. Halfway measures work havoc. The surgery must be radical. Right at this very moment and without any vacillation the obscene book should be burned, the scandalous picture destroyed, the soul-destroying film condemned, the sinister yet very intimate social tie broken, and the baneful habit discarded. In the struggle against sin the believer must fight hard. Shadow-boxing will never do (I Cor. 9:27).

Of course, these destructive, and in that sense negative, actions will never succeed apart from the powerful sanctifying and transforming operation of God’s Spirit in heart and life. Throughout the sermon therefore Jesus emphasizes the positive. He has done it just now (see verses 23–26), previously in the beatitudes (5:1 ff.), and will continue to do it (5:37, 39–42, 44–48; etc. See also Luke 11:24–26). The beautiful passage found in II Cor. 6:17, 18, a composite quotation from the Old Testament, gives the sense as follows:

“Wherefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you. And I will be to you a Father; and you shall be to me sons and daughters” (II Cor. 6:17, 18; see also verses 14–16).

By saying, “It is better that you lose one of your members,” etc. Jesus emphasizes how incomparably more necessary and far better it is to prepare for eternity than to enjoy (?) the sinful pleasures of this life. Without in any way encouraging or even permitting anyone literally to mutilate himself he is saying that it is surely better to go through the present life maimed in body than, with the whole body still sound and unharmed, to be thrust into Gehenna (“hell”). See also on 10:28 and 16:26.

“You were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body” (I Cor. 6:20).

Continuing his teaching on the seventh commandment Jesus discusses the important subject of divorce. By implication he defends the inviolability of the marriage bond. Countering what was wrong in the traditional teaching Jesus states in

The Third Antithesis: The Seventh Commandment, Divorce

31, 32. It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a divorce certificate. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of (her) infidelity exposes her to adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman involves himself in adultery. Here, then, are the two contrasted positions: the first, about which the scribes and Pharisees, on the basis of opinions expressed by the men of long ago, were always talking and debating, amounted to this, that when a wife was to be dismissed a certificate of divorce had to be properly drawn up and given to her. As if a piece of paper could dissolve a marriage! The second position was that of Jesus. He as it were asks the question, “Why a divorce at all?” He stresses the fact that the violation of the sacred marriage contract is nothing less than infidelity and adultery.

It is clear that here again, as previously, Jesus goes back, beyond rabbinical opinions, to the original intention of the law (Gen. 2:24; 24:67; Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; and Mal. 2:14–16). With all this compare Eph. 5:31, 32 and Heb. 13:4. This appears even more clearly when Matt. 5:32 is studied in connection with 19:3–9. Notice the phrase “from the beginning” in 19:4, 8, and see on that entire passage. The law had made it very clear that in marriage one man is joined to one woman, the implication being that death alone is able to part them. Cf. Rom. 7:2; I Cor. 7:39. The exception to which Jesus refers in Matt. 5:32 (“except on the ground of infidelity”) permits divorce only then when one of the contracting parties, here the wife,²⁹⁵ by means of marital unfaithfulness (“fornication”) rises in rebellion against the very essence of the marriage bond.

The objection might be raised, however, “But did not Moses leave room for the exercise of a greater measure of freedom? Does not the regulation found in Deut. 24:1–4 amount to this, ‘If you wish to divorce your wife, go right ahead, but be sure to give her a divorce certificate?’ ” Such seems to have been the opinion of scribes and Pharisees, though not of all of them in equal degree, as the explanation of 19:3–9 will indicate.

Actually, however, Moses had not at all encouraged divorce but, while not completely forbidding it, had greatly discouraged it. Indeed, whatever be the meaning of the much debated Hebrew phrase 'erwath dābhār (“some uncleanness,” thus A.V., Deut. 24:1; see on Matt. 19:3), Deut. 24:1–4, taken as a unit, most definitely discouraged divorce. The regulation of the first four verses of that chapter may be summed up as follows: “Husband, you better think twice before you reject your wife. Remember that once you have put her away and she has become the wife of another you cannot afterward take her back; not even if that other husband should also have rejected her or should have died.” Moses did mention the giving of a “bill of divorce” (Deut. 24:1), but only in passing, that is, by way of assumption, included in the warning. Scribes and Pharisees, however, as Matt. 5:31 indicates, placed all the emphasis on that certificate. Jesus (verse 32) placed the emphasis where it properly belongs. They greatly exaggerated the importance of the exception, that which made divorce possible. About that they were always debating (cf. 19:3–9). He, on the other hand, stresses the principle, namely, that husband and wife are and must remain one.

With respect to the translation of Christ’s answer commentators differ rather widely, particularly with respect to the words generally translated “causeth her to commit adultery” (A.V.) or “maketh her an adulteress” (A.R.V., cf. R.S.V.). The reader must often have wondered how the act whereby the husband divorces his innocent wife could make her an adulteress! As if the disgrace of having been unjustly rejected by her husband and being forced to face the struggle of life alone were not enough, must she now in addition be branded an “adulteress”? In reply, it is generally pointed out that the statement when thus read is being misinterpreted. It must be read proleptically: she is called an adulteress because she may easily become one. Will the average reader actually so interpret the words, “Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress”? Is not the real solution a better rendering of the original? The Greek, by using the passive voice of the verb, states not what the woman becomes or what she does but what she undergoes, suffers, is exposed to. She suffers wrong. He does wrong. To be sure, she herself also may become guilty, but that is not the point which Jesus is emphasizing. Far better, it would seem to me, is therefore the translation, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the basis of infidelity exposes her to adultery,” or something similar.²⁹⁶

What Jesus is saying, then, is this: Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of infidelity must bear the chief responsibility if as a result she, in her deserted state, should immediately yield to the temptation of becoming married to someone else. The erring husband should be given an opportunity to correct his error, that is, to go back to his wife. This also explains the closing clause, according to which anyone who rushes in to marry the deserted wife is involving himself in—hence, is committing—adultery.—It was thus that Jesus counteracted the looseness in morals prevailing in his day.

The more we study Christ’s teaching as presented to us in this passage the more we begin to appreciate it. Here, by means of a few simple words, Jesus discourages divorce, refutes the rabbinical misinterpretation of the law, reaffirms the law’s true meaning (cf. Matt. 5:17, 18), censures the guilty party, defends the innocent, and throughout it all upholds the sacredness and inviolability of the marriage bond as ordained by God!

And now:

The Fourth Antithesis: The Commandment Concerning the Oath

33–37. Again, you have heard that it was said by the men of long ago, You shall not break your oath, but shall keep the oaths you have sworn to the Lord. But I tell you, Do not take any oath at all, either by heaven, for it is God’s throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your speech be such that yes is simply yes, and no is simply no. Anything beyond that comes from the evil one. Here again, as previously, what was said by the men of long ago was not incorrect. It was a fair summary of the letter of the law concerning the oath (Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; and cf. Deut. 23:21). Only, from the words of Jesus it is very obvious that the ancients, and thus also the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, misplaced the emphasis. As is clear from the context in every case, the divinely intended emphasis (note italics) was as follows:

“You shall not swear by my name falsely” (Lev. 19:12).

“When a man makes a vow to Jehovah or swears an oath … he shall not break his word” (Num. 30:2).

“When you shall make a vow to Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it” (Deut. 23:21).

Or, using the phraseology of the interpreters:

“You shall not break your oath, but shall keep the oaths you have sworn to the Lord.”

In each case the emphasis is on truthfulness: a person must be truthful when he solemnizes his promise with an oath. He must really mean it. He must also be faithful in keeping the oath; that is, he must carry out his promise. Even in connection with the promises which God himself confirmed with an oath it is truthfulness that is stressed, “Jehovah has sworn to David in truth; he will not turn from it” (Ps. 132:11). And in connection with “the two immutable things” (the promise and the oath) from which believers derive strong encouragement (Heb. 6:18) it is emphasized that “it is impossible for God to lie.”

Now this emphasis on truthfulness “in the heart” or “in the inward parts,” absence of “falsehood and deceit” (respectively Ps. 15:2; 51:6; and 24:4) is well distributed in the writings of the Old Testament. In addition to the references already given from the Pentateuch and from the Psalms, see also Prov. 8:7; 12:19; Jer. 5:3; Hos. 4:1; Zech. 8:16; Mal. 2:6; and cf. Mic. 6:8.

It is evident from the words of Jesus in Matt. 5:34–36 that the traditionalists had shifted the emphasis, so that the Pentateuch passages now began to read as follows:

“You shall not swear by the name falsely” (Lev. 19:12).

“When a man makes a vow to Jehovah or swears an oath … he shall not break his word” (Num. 30:2).

“When you shall make a vow to Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it” (Deut. 23:21).

Summary: “You shall not break your oath, but shall keep the oaths you have sworn to the Lord.”

In other words, in the thinking of scribes and Pharisees and their forerunners an oath sworn “to the Lord” must be kept; on the contrary, an oath in connection with which the name of the Lord was not expressly mentioned was of lesser significance. One did not need to be quite so conscientious about keeping it. And so in daily conversation oaths began to multiply “by heaven” and “by the earth” and “by Jerusalem” and, according to 23:16, 18, even “by the temple” and “by the altar.” In order to make an impression a person might utter such an oath, “talking big” and dispensing enormous promises. If the affirmation which he had made was a lie or if the promise was never even meant to be kept, that was not so bad, as long as he had not sworn “to the Lord.”

Jesus forbids this hypocrisy. He shows that the subtle, hair-splitting distinctions by means of which the rabbis, etc. were classifying the oaths into those which were absolutely binding, those not quite so binding, and those not binding at all, or whatever their groupings may have been, were completely devoid of reason. He tells them that an oath “by heaven” must be truthful and must be kept, for was not heaven God’s throne? The man who swears such an oath is invoking God therefore. And so also for the oath “by the earth”; for, was not the earth God’s footstool (Isa. 66:1)? And as to the oath “by Jerusalem,” was not Jerusalem the city of the great King (Ps. 48:3)? In other words, when oaths were sworn with an appeal to any of these objects they were as definitely binding as if the name of the Lord had been expressly invoked in connection with them.

There were even those who swore “by their heads,” meaning, “May I lose my head—hence, may I lose my life—if what I am telling you is not the truth, or if I do not fulfil my promise.” Jesus points out, however, that nobody is able to change the intrinsic color of his hair. It is God, he alone, who determines whether at any given moment a hair is to be white or black. Since this is true, even swearing by one’s head is swearing by God and is as binding as is a different type of oath.

The real solution of the problem is in the heart. In that heart truth should reign supreme. Hence, in daily conversation with his fellowmen a person should avoid oaths altogether. Instead, let him become so truthful, so thoroughly dependable, that his words are believed. When he wishes to affirm something let him then simply say, “Yes”; and when he desires to deny something let him simply say, “No.” Anything “stronger” than that is from the evil one.

It is characteristic of certain individuals who are aware that their reputation for veracity is not exactly outstanding that the more they lie the more they will also assert that what they are saying is “gospel truth.” They are in the habit of interlacing their conversations with oaths. Such perjurious conduct, says Jesus, stems “from the evil one,” the creator of falsehoods (Gen. 3:1, 4; Job 1:9–11; Matt. 4:6, 10, 11; John 8:44; Acts 5:3; and II Thess. 2:9–11.²⁹⁷

Does this mean now that by saying, “Do not take any oath at all” Jesus forbids even those oaths that are made in court? Does he teach that nowhere in the entire realm of human relations is there any room for the solemn invocation of the name of God in substantiation of an important affirmation or promise? Not at all. Such a view would be contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It was with an oath that Abraham confirmed his promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelech (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:23, 24). Abraham also required an oath of his servant (24:3, 9). The oath is mentioned also in connection with Isaac (26:31), Jacob (31:53; cf. 28:20–22), Joseph (47:31, 50:5), “the princes of the congregation” (Josh. 9:15), and the children of Israel (Judg. 21:5). See also Ruth 1:16–18; II Sam. 15:21; I Kings 18:10; and II Chron. 15:14, 15.

With respect to God’s own oaths, to the references already mentioned (p. 307) can be added Gen. 22:16; 26:3; Ps. 89:3, 49; 110:4; Jer. 11:5; and Luke 1:73. Finally, it was under oath that Jesus declared himself to be the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 26:63, 64). In this world of dishonesty and deception the oath is at times necessary to add solemnity and the guarantee of reliability to an important affirmation or promise. Nothing either here in Matt. 5:33–37 or anywhere else in Scripture forbids this. Heb. 6:16 confirms this practice without a word of adverse criticism. What we have here in Matt. 5:33–37 (cf. James 5:12) is the condemnation of the flippant, profane, uncalled for, and often hypocritical oath, used in order to make an impression and to spice daily conversation. Over against that evil Jesus commends simple truthfulness in thought, word, and deed.

The Fifth Antithesis: The Commandment Concerning Retaliation

38–42. You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist the evil-doer; but to him that slaps you on the right cheek turn the other also. And if anyone wishes to go to law with you and take your shirt, let him take your robe also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. To him that asks (anything) of you give, and from him that wants to borrow of you do not turn away. In Exod. 21:24, 25 we read, “… eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Lev. 24:20 adds “fracture for fracture”; Deut. 19:21, “life for life.” This was a law for the civil courts, laid down in order that the practice of seeking private revenge might be discouraged. The Old Testament passages do not mean, “Take personal revenge whenever you are wronged.” They mean the exact opposite, “Do not avenge yourself but let justice be administered publicly.” This is clear from Lev. 24:14, “Take the blasphemer out of the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.” Cf. Deut. 19:15–21.

The Pharisees, however, appealed to this law to justify personal retribution and revenge. They quoted this commandment in order to defeat its very purpose. Cf. Matt. 15:3, 6. The Old Testament repeatedly forbids personal vengeance: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am Jehovah” (Lev. 19:18). “Do not say, I will repay evil. Wait for Jehovah, and he will save you” (Prov. 20:22). “Do not say, as he has done to me so will I do to him; I will pay the man back according to what he has done” (Prov. 24:29).

What then did Jesus mean when he said, “Do not resist the evil-doer; but to him that slaps you,” etc.? When Christ’s words (verses 39–42) are read in the light of what immediately follows in verses 43–48, and when the parallel in Luke 6:29, 30 is explained on the basis of what immediately precedes in verses 27, 28, it becomes clear that the key passage, identical in both Gospels, is “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). In other words, Jesus is condemning the spirit of lovelessness, hatred, yearning for revenge. He is saying, “Do not resist the evil-doer with measures that arise from an unloving, unforgiving, unrelenting, vindictive disposition.”

Once this is understood it becomes evident that “to turn the other cheek” means to show in attitude, word, and deed that one is filled with the spirit not of rancor but of love. Rom. 12:19–21 presents an excellent commentary.

Something similar holds with respect to the person who threatens by means of a lawsuit to take away someone’s “shirt,” the tunic worn next to the body, as payment for an alleged debt. Note that not the person whom Jesus is addressing is suing but his opponent is (cf. I Cor. 6:1). Rather than resentfully to contest this lawsuit, says Jesus, allow the plaintiff to have the outer robe also. This robe was considered so indispensable that when taken as a pledge it had to be returned before sunset, since it also served as a cover—often the poor man’s only one—during sleep (Exod. 22:26, 27; Deut. 24:12, 13; Ezek. 18:7; and Amos 2:8). In summary: we have no right to hate the person who tries to deprive us of our possessions. Love even toward him should fill our hearts and reveal itself in our actions.

The first verb in “Whoever forces you to go one mile.…” refers to the authority to requisition, to press into service. It is a loanword from the Persian language, which in all probability borrowed it from the Babylonian. The famous Persian Royal Post authorized its couriers whenever necessary to press into service anyone available and/or the latter’s animal. There must be no delay in the dispatch and delivery of the king’s decrees, etc. Cf. Esther 3:13, 15; 8:10. As happens frequently, so also here, the verb gradually acquired the more general meaning of compelling someone to render any kind of service. It is used in connection with Simon of Cyrene who was compelled to carry Christ’s cross (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21). Now what Jesus is saying is that rather than to reveal a spirit of bitterness or annoyance toward the one who forces a burden upon a person, the latter should take this position with a smile. Did someone ask you to go with him, carrying his load for the distance of one mile?²⁹⁸ Then go with him two miles!

Similarly, when someone in distress asks for assistance, one must not turn a deaf ear to him. On the contrary, says Jesus, give, not grudgingly or gingerly but generously; lend, not selfishly, looking forward to usury (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:36, 37), but liberally, magnanimously. Not only show kindness but love kindness (Mic. 6:8; cf. Deut. 15:7, 8; Ps. 37:26; 112:5; Prov. 19:17; Acts 4:36, 37; II Cor. 8:8, 9).

Biblical illustrations of the spirit which Jesus here commends:

a. Abraham, rushing to rescue his “brother” Lot (Gen. 14:14 ff.), though the latter had earlier revealed himself to be a rather avaricious nephew (Gen. 13:1–13).

b. Joseph, generously forgiving his brothers (Gen. 50:19–21), who had not treated him very kindly (37:18–28).

c. David, twice sparing the life of his pursuer King Saul (I Sam. 24 and 26).

d. Elisha, setting bread and water before the invading Syrians (II Kings 6).

e. Stephen, interceding for those who were stoning him to death (Acts 7:60).

f. Paul, after his conversion, writing Rom. 12:21; I Cor. 4:12; and I Cor. 13; and putting it into practice!

g. Above all, Jesus himself, praying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34; cf. Isa. 53:12, last clause; Matt. 11:29; 12:19; and I Peter 2:23).²⁹⁹

This brings us to

The Sixth Antithesis: The Summary of the Second Table of the Law

43–47. You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies,³⁰⁰ and pray for those that persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what is your reward? Are not the tax-collectors doing the same thing? And if, with cordial greetings, you approach your brothers only, what are you doing that is exceptional? Are not the Gentiles doing as much? “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy” must have been the popular way in which the average Israelite during the days of Christ’s ministry summarized the second table of the law and regulated his life with respect to friend and foe.³⁰¹ He must have learned it from the scribes and Pharisees, though not necessarily from all of them without exception. We know at least that the scribe whose summary is reported in Mark 12:32, 33 and the lawyer (an expert in the Jewish law) who speaks in Luke 10:25–27 were careful not to omit “as yourself” when they quoted Lev. 19:18. What was even worse than this omission (see 5:43) was the addition “and hate your enemy.” Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anything of the kind. In fact, by means of this addition the emphasis was again shifted away from the original intention of the law as happened also in connection with the commandment concerning the oath (see p. 307). Lev. 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am Jehovah” emphasized love over against vengeance. Its perversion in the popular summary drew a sharp contrast between neighbor and enemy, as if the purpose of the commandment had been that the former be loved and the latter hated. The result was the question, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29). Was it only the Israelite? Or was it the Israelite and the proselyte? See Lev. 19:34. But if so, what kind of proselyte, only the genuine proselyte, that is, the non-Israelite who through baptism and circumcision had become a Jew in every way except for the fact that he was not literally a son of Abraham? Or must the other proselytes also be included? Some of these questions were already being asked during the time of Christ’s sojourn on earth. Others were to demand attention a little later.³⁰²

It stands to reason that as a result of this woeful misinterpretation of the law a wall of separation was built between Jew and Gentile; the former to be loved, the latter to be hated. But it was hard to stop here. Another barricade must be erected between good Israelites, such as the scribes and Pharisees, and bad Israelites, such as those renegates, the publicans (see verse 46) and in general the entire rabble that did not know the law (John 7:49). In such an atmosphere it was impossible for hatred to starve. It had plenty to feed on.

It was in the midst of this intensely narrow-minded exclusivistic and intolerant environment that Jesus carried on his ministry. All around him were those walls and fences. He came for the very purpose of bursting those barriers, so that love—pure, warm, divine, infinite—would be able to flow straight down from the heart of God, hence from his own marvelous heart, into the hearts of men. His love overleaped all the boundaries of race, nationality, party, age, sex, etc.

When he said, “I tell you, love your enemies,” he must have startled his audience, for he was saying something that probably never before had been said so succinctly, positively, and forcefully. Thorough research of all the relevant sources resulted in the statement: “The conclusion remains that the first one who has taught mankind to see the neighbor in every human being, and therefore to encounter every human being in love was Jesus; see the parable of The Good (literally, the Compassionate) Samaritan.”³⁰³ Without in any way denying that statement one might add, Jesus taught the people that one should not even ask, “And who is my neighbor?” but should prove himself neighbor to the man in need, whoever that might be (see Luke 10:36).

Although in the form here expressed (“Love your enemies”) Christ’s teaching was new, it did not contradict the law. Rather, it was the fruition of the seed planted earlier. As has been shown, the Old Testament forbade revenge. But it even went beyond that, teaching that whenever necessary one should render assistance to his enemy:

“If you happen upon your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying (helpless) under its pack, you must refrain from leaving him with it. You must help him to lift it up” (Exod. 23:4, 5).

From “Assist your enemy” to “Love him” was but a step. Jesus took that step. He added, “And pray for those that persecute you.” On persecution of believers see 5:10–12. Jesus does not require that his disciples do the impossible. He does not ask them to be fond of their persecutors. But he does definitely ask that those for whom he was to die while they by nature were still God’s enemies (Rom. 5:8, 10) shall pray for the salvation of their enemies, meaning “for the salvation of those who hate them.”

By means of loving their enemies and praying for them Christ’s followers will prove to themselves and to others that they are true sons of the Father in heaven. It stands to reason that by saying, “that you may be sons,” etc. Jesus could not have meant, “that you by so doing may become sons or earn sonship.” By grace they were sons already, but their son-like or childlike behavior would confirm this fact, for children imitate their father (Eph. 5:1, 2). This is true in the heavenly family even more definitely than in the earthly, for while in the latter case by no means every son is endowed with the “spirit” of his father, in the former every true “son” (one saved by grace through faith, Eph. 2:8) receives the Father’s Spirit. It is to that Spirit that he owes his new birth (John 3:5), as well as his growth in Christian virtues and his final perfection.

When Jesus exhorts those whom he addresses to prove their kinship to the “Father who is in heaven” (on this term see pp. 326, 327) by loving and praying even for their enemies, he illustrates the implied primordial and active love of the Father by calling attention to the fact that “he causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous.” This statement is remarkable in more than one respect:

a. It is far more meaningful to say “He causes his sun to rise” and “He sends rain” than “the sun rises” and “it rains.” The way Jesus says it we are made to look beyond the action to the One who causes it, and also beyond the fact as such to the reason that brings it about, namely, the Father’s love for mankind.

b. The definite articles are omitted; hence probably not, with most versions, “on the evil and on the good … on the just and on the unjust,” but “on evil and good … on righteous and unrighteous.” Thus special emphasis is placed on the character of these people, as if to say, “Though the Father is the spotlessly Holy One, yet he does not shrink from pouring out his blessings on both evil and good.”

c. In order to make the marvelous nature of the Father’s love stand out all the more conspicuously the two pairs of objects are arranged chiastically (X-wise), the emphasis falling neither on the evil nor on the good.

In the first pair “evil” (people) are mentioned first, in the second “righteous” (people) are. Sunshine and rain descend on all alike, and in so doing reveal the Father’s love of which all are the objects.

Now it is certainly true that men respond differently to the blessings by means of which the Father reveals his love. There is no common gratitude. It is therefore also true that those who reject the gospel use God’s blessings to their own hurt. However, all this cannot cancel the fact that the love of God for earth-dwellers, good and bad, is impartially revealed in the blessings of sunshine and rain and all their beneficial results. This love of God for those whom he created is also clear from Gen. 17:20; 39:5; Ps. 36:6; 145:9, 15, 16; Jon. 4:10, 11; Mark 8:2; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; Rom. 2:4; and I Tim. 4:10. To single out just one of these passages, Jonah 4:10, 11—God’s tenderness toward the Ninevites, to their little ones and even toward their cattle—, can anyone read this without being overcome with emotion? Read what G. C. Berkouwer says about this, De Voorzienigheid Gods (Dogmatische Studiën), Kampen, 1950, p. 97.

None of this should be regarded as a denial of the fact that there is indeed a love of God that is not shared by all. Such passages as Gen. 17:21; Ps. 103:17, 18; 147:20; Matt. 20:16; Luke 12:32; Rom. 8:1, 28–39; and a host of others prove this beyond any doubt. But just as a human father, in addition to uniquely loving his own sons and daughters, has room in his heart for his neighbor’s children, yes even for all the children in the world, so also the Father in heaven, in addition to sustaining an altogether peculiar relationship of tender concern and intimate friendship toward those who by his grace are his very own, loves mankind in general. See N.T.C. on John 3:16.

Those, on the other hand, who refuse to include their enemies and their persecutors in their love are putting themselves on a moral and spiritual level with the very people whom they so thoroughly despise, namely, in Christ’s day the tax-collectors (“publicans”) and the Gentiles. Matthew, the man who records all this, having himself been a tax-collector (see pp. 95–97 and on 9:9), was no stranger to the intense hatred with which especially the scribes and Pharisees regarded the people who belonged to this class. The tax-buyers or “farmers” had paid a fixed sum of money to the Roman government for the privilege of levying tolls upon exports and imports as well as upon whatever merchandise passed through the region. The main tax offices were located at Caesarea, Capernaum, and Jericho. The farmers would sublet their rights to “chief publicans” (Luke 19:2) who employed “publicans” to do the collecting. These charged what the traffic would bear, huge sums. So the “publican” had the reputation of being an extortionist. If he were a Jew, he was regarded by his fellows as being also a renegade or traitor, for he was in the service of the foreign oppressor. The low esteem in which publicans were held appears from such passages as Matt. 9:10, 11; 11:19; 21:31, 32; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1; 19:7. Publicans and sinners were mentioned in one breath, the two designations being regarded as synonyms.

If tax-collectors were disdained, so also were the Gentiles. This had not always been the case. In Old Testament times the Israelites had been commanded to love the “sojourners,” (Deut. 10:19), and to remember that they themselves too had at one time been sojourners in the land of Egypt (Exod. 23:9). However, when during the time of the Exile the Israelites suffered indescribable woes at the hands of their captors, and when even later, during the inter-testamentary period, Antiochus Epiphanes threatened to blot out their religion root and branch, the attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles changed. Besides, were not the Gentiles idolaters? And was not idolatry the evil that had led the Israelites into captivity? Were not the Romans also Gentiles, and were not they the foreign oppressors? Were they not also trying to lead Israel astray religiously? During New Testament times, therefore, the Gentiles, like the publicans, were treated with extreme antipathy and scorn. By “pious” Jews they were regarded as “unclean” (John 18:28), in fact as “dogs” (reflected in Matt. 15:26, 27). For a Jew to have dinner with an uncircumcised Gentile was unthinkable (Acts 11:2).

It is understandable that this hatred was mutual. If the Israelites treated those unclean Gentiles with scorn, they themselves received similar treatment (John 18:35; Acts 16:20; 18:2). So, barring a few notable exceptions, with respect for example to a non-Israelite who showed a deep interest in Israel’s religion (Luke 7:1–5), publicans, Gentiles, and Jews formed separate groups. So did also the Samaritans. The Samaritan woman was astonished that Jesus, being a Jew, would ask her to give him a drink of water (John 4:9; cf. Luke 9:52, 53; John 8:48). Fragmentation all around. Hatred everywhere! And as to love? Well, tax-collectors loved tax-collectors. Gentiles cordially greeted³⁰⁴ Gentiles.

We now understand the background of Christ’s saying (in brief) “If you love those who love you, what is your reward? Are not the tax-collectors doing the same thing.… And do not Gentiles fondly greet Gentiles?” The Lord is telling his hearers therefore that by imitating the tax-collectors and the Gentiles in their exclusivism, they are simply showing that they themselves are not any better than those whom they have been regarding as being far below them in moral and spiritual worth. They are doing nothing that is exceptional, that overflows or is extraordinary. Yet, in order to receive a reward the righteousness of those who desired to be Christ’s disciples must “excel” that of the scribes and Pharisees (see verse 20).³⁰⁵

There is nothing wrong with the idea of looking forward to a reward, provided, however, that it be understood a. that the work that is done for the Master must be done spontaneously, in the spirit of Matt. 25:37, 38; and b. that the reward is not out of merit but of grace” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 24). See especially Matt. 6:1, 4, 5, 6; Luke 17:10; I Cor. 3:8; 4:7; 9:17; Phil. 3:14; and Heb. 12:2.

Jesus summarizes this entire paragraph (verses 43–47) by saying: 48. You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. This, too, was in harmony with the law: “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I Jehovah your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). “You shall be perfect before Jehovah your God” (Deut. 18:13). See also Lev. 11:44; 20:7, 26; Eph. 5:1; and I Peter 1:15, 16. Does this mean that Jesus was a perfectionist in the sense that he taught men that they could reach sinlessness before death? Not at all, as the beatitudes clearly show and as the petition that he taught his disciples to pray, namely, “And forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12) reaffirms. He never even hinted that there might be a time before death when this petition could be omitted! Against perfectionism in the sense indicated see also I Kings 8:46; Job 9:1; Ps. 130:3, 4; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10; 7:7–26; Gal. 5:16–24; James 3:2; and I John 1:8.

If the question be asked, “Then why even try to become perfect?” the answer would be, “Because that is what God commands,” as has been shown. Also, a follower of Jesus cannot do otherwise. He, with Paul, yearns for perfection (Phil. 3:7–16). Even here and now he has received the righteousness of imputation. Also the righteousness of impartation (see above, pp. 273, 274), but the latter is not complete in this present life. The struggle for perfection also in the latter sense will not go unrewarded. It is exactly to those who strive to attain the goal that the victory is assured. When they reach the glorious shores of eternity their ideal will be realized. It will be God’s gift to them (Ps. 17:15; Phil. 1:6; 3:12b; II Tim. 4:7, 8; Rev. 21:27, cf. 7:14).

In the present connection, however, “perfect” means “brought to completion, full-grown, lacking nothing.”³⁰⁶ Jesus is saying to the people of that day, as well as to us now, that they and we should not be satisfied with half-way obedience to the law of love, as were the scribes and Pharisees, who never penetrated to the heart of the law. Though in a sense Jesus is here repeating the admonition implied in verse 45 (“that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven”), he now (here in verse 48) indicates even more definitely that it is the Father’s perfection that we should strive to imitate; that is, perfection here specifically (as the preceding context indicates) in the love he shows to all. Is he not the One who causes his sun to rise on evil and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous? Is he not also the One who gently admonished Cain (Gen. 4:6, 7)? The One who all the day spread out his hands toward a disobedient and contrary people (Isa. 65:2; Rom. 10:21)? Similarly, therefore, the love of all those for whom his words were intended must not stop short of embracing everybody, including even the haters and persecutors! Not only that, but in its quality or character, too, it must be a love patterned after the Father’s; for example, in patience, tenderness, earnestness, etc.

Let it be granted immediately that the love of even the most mature believer is and will always remain finite, whereas God’s love is infinite. Let it be added, therefore, that such finite love can never be anything more than a shadow of his marvelous love. This kind of finite love is, nevertheless, attainable. How do we know? Because of the very fact that he is our heavenly Father, who will, for that very reason, not withhold this gift from his children.

Between chapters 5 and 6 there is a close connection. This is evident especially from two facts: a. Jesus continues to speak about the righteousness of the kingdom (cf. 5:6, 10, 20 with 6:1); and b. he continues for a while to contrast genuine righteousness with that which he associates with the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), the hypocrites (6:2, 5, 16).

Nevertheless, there is also a definite transition to a new subdivision. In chapter 5 true religion was contrasted with that which the scribes and Pharisees, on the basis of rabbinical tradition, were teaching; in 6:1–18, it will be contrasted with what they were practicing. Beginning with 6:19 the hypocrites recede into the background. Though it would probably be wrong to say that they drop from view entirely, in this sermon they are no longer specifically mentioned.

Beginning with 6:1 and continuing through 7:12 Jesus, more positively than before, directs the attention of his audience to what is meant by the righteousness of the kingdom. Briefly, living the righteous life consists in spontaneous obedience to the rule, “Love God above all and your neighbor as yourself.” Note the two parts: a. love God; b. love the neighbor. Chapter 6 deals chiefly with the first of these two; 7:1–12 with the second. As to chapter 6, in it Jesus demands the sincere devotion of the heart to God (verses 1–18), and undivided trust in this heavenly Father amid all circumstances (verses 19–34); for, if man is to love the Father sincerely, then to him he will surrender everything, and from him he will expect everything.

The gradual shift of attention, away from scribes and Pharisees, and toward “your heavenly Father” is clear from the fact that while this appellation or the similar “your Father who is in heaven” occurs only three times in chapter 5 (verses 16, 45, and 48), in the considerably shorter chapter 6 the Father is mentioned no less than a dozen times, in slightly varied ways (“your Father,” “your Father,” and “our Father”). See verses 1, 4, 6 twice, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18 twice, 26, and 32. The transition from chapter 5 to chapter 6, also in this respect, is gradual, as 5:45, 48, and 6:1 indicate.

Accordingly, the new subdivision (chapter 6) may be given the title: