CRITICAL NOTES
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
The aim and contents of the “Sermon.”—No mere sermon is this, only distinguished from others of its class by its reach and sweep and power; it stands alone as the grand charter of the commonwealth of heaven; or, to keep the simple title the Evangelist himself suggests (Matthew 4:23), it is “the gospel (or good news) of the kingdom.” To understand it aright we must keep this in mind, avoiding the easy method of treating it as a mere series of lessons on different subjects, and endeavouring to grasp the unity of thought and purpose which binds its different parts into one grand whole. It may help us to do this if we first ask ourselves what questions would naturally arise in the minds of the more thoughtful of the people, when they heard the announcement, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was evidently to such persons the Lord addressed Himself.… In their minds they would, in all probability, be revolving such questions as these:
1. “What is this kingdom, what advantages does it offer, and who are the people that belong to it?”
2. “What is required of those that belong to it? What are its laws and obligations?” And if these two questions were answered satisfactorily, a third would naturally follow.
3. “How may those who desire to share its privileges and assume its obligations become citizens of it?” These, accordingly, are the three great questions dealt with in succession (J. M. Gibson, D.D.).
The originality of the Sermon.—We are not careful to deny, we are eager to admit, that many even of the most admirable sayings in the Sermon on the Mount had been anticipated by heathen moralists and poets (S. Cox, D.D.). To affirm that Christ was not in the world, nor in the thoughts of men, until He took flesh and dwelt among us, is no more to honour Him than it is to affirm that, when He came into the world, He showed Himself to be no wiser than the men whose thoughts He had previously guided and inspired.… His teaching, we may be sure, will not be new in the sense of having no connection with the truths He had already taught by them; but it will be new in this sense, that it will perfect that which in them was imperfect; that it will gather up their scattered thoughts, free them from the errors with which they had blended them, and harmonise, develop, and complete them (S. Cox, D D.).
Is the Sermon on the Mount evangelical?—You have heard, as I have, that there is no “Cross” in this Sermon on the Mount; that we are at the foot of Sinai listening to Moses, and not at Calvary “beholding the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” Let us not be deceived. You might as well say there is no sun in a coal-pit or a geyser because you do not see his form there. Your British coalfields are as truly the-children of the sun as is the ray of light that last fell upon our eyes, and the high-pitched morality of this sermon is as really the offspring of the death and resurrection of Christ as the first pulse-beat of joy on the reception of the forgiveness of sins. Will you say that the writer of Todhunter’s Trigonometry is unfamiliar with the first four rules of arithmetic because he assumes instead of stating and proving them? No more should we conclude that salvation by the sacrifice of the Son of God for men is absent from the Sermon on the Mount, because it is not expressly stated and argued as it is in the third of the Romans. There is not a benediction that does not take us to Calvary. There is not a warning that may not urge us to Christ. There is not a mountain elevation of holiness that will not force from us the cry, “Lord, help me, or I perish.” The Sermon is full of the great principles we have to preach, and those principles are all embodied in the Speaker Himself. Teaching Him we teach the principles of this Sermon, and it is of little use teaching the ideas of this Sermon without also teaching Him (J. Clifford, D.D.). The Lord Jesus did not give the world His best wine in this cup, marvellous and precious though it be. The best thing in the Gospels is the gospel itself—that manifestation of the righteousness and love of God in the person, the life, and the death of His Son by which He wins our love and makes us righteous (S. Cox, D.D.).
The relation between the Sermon on the Mount as reported by St. Matthew and the account of it in St. Luke 6—Commentators are divided in opinion as to whether or not these are two versions of the same discourse. Augustine suggests a solution of the difficulty by saying that the two discourses are entirely distinct, though delivered on the same occasion—that reported by St. Matthew, on the mountain to the disciples; that of St. Luke, delivered on the plain just below to the multitude. Dean Vaughan concurs in this view, and says: “Men have doubted whether the discourse in St. Matthew is to be regarded as an ampler account of that which is reported by St. Luke. The general scope and purport is the same. Yet, as St. Matthew says expressly that Jesus spake ‘sitting on the mountain,’ and St. Luke says that He spake ‘standing on the plain,’ it seems not very unnatural to suppose that the one (that given by St. Matthew) was a discourse delivered, as it were, to the inner circle of His disciples, apart from the crowd outside; the other (preserved by St. Luke), a briefer and more popular rehearsal of the chief topics of the former, addressed, immediately afterwards, in descending the hill, to the promiscuous multitude.” Lange also favours this view. Carr (Cambridge Bible for Schools) states the arguments in favour of the identity of the “Sermon on the Mount” with the “Sermon on the Plain,” thus:
1. The beginning and end are identical as well as much of the intervening matter.
2. The portions omitted—a comparison between the old and the new legislation—are such as would be less adapted for St. Luke’s readers than for St. Matthew’s.
3. The “mount” and the “plain” are not necessarily distinct localities. The plain is more accurately translated “a level place,” a platform on the high land.
4. The place in the order of events differs in St. Luke, but it is probable that here as well as elsewhere St. Matthew does not observe the order of time.
Matthew 5:21. Ye have heard.—It is as if the Saviour were referring to some specific discourse, which some Rabbi or other had recently been delivering to the people; and perhaps as a polemic against the doctrines and influence of Jesus. We need not doubt that there would be many such discussional discourses. And while the native majesty of our Lord would not suffer Him to descend into petty controversies, it is likely enough that several parts of the Sermon on the Mount owe their peculiar shaping to the peculiar nature of the representations made by his Rabbinical opponents (Morison). Whosoever shall kill, etc.—The fact that these words are not found in the Old Testament confirms the view that our Lord is speaking of the traditional comments on the law, and not of the law itself (Plumptre). In danger.—The phrase had a somewhat more technical sense in A.D. 1611 than it has now, and meant “legally liable to” (ibid.). The judgment.—That of the local courts of Deuteronomy 16:18. They had the power of capital punishment, though the special form of death by stoning was reserved for the Sanhedrin or Council (ibid.).
Matthew 5:22. Without a cause.—Omitted in R. V. However we decide as to the text, we must restrict our interpretation to “causeless anger” (Brown). Raca = “thou good-for nothing” (Wendt). Thou fool = “thou godless one” (ibid.). The distinction between raca and thou fool is lost, and naturally, for they belong to that class of words, the meaning of which depends entirely on the usage of the day. There is, however, clearly a climax.
1. Feeling of anger without words.
2. Anger venting itself in words.
3. Insulting anger (Carr). Judgment … council … hell-fire.—There seems to be an incongruity in passing literally from the human events described by the “judgment” and the “council” to the divine sentence of the “Gehenna of fire.” The most natural interpretation seems to be to suppose that three degrees of human punishment are used to denote, by analogy, three corresponding degrees of the Divine sentence hereafter. The judgment, the council, the Gehenna of fire, will thus figuratively represent three degrees of the Divine vengeance against sin, corresponding to three degrees of temporal punishment under the Jewish law; death by the sword inflicted by the minor courts, death by stoning inflicted by the Sanhedrin, and finally, death with the body cast into the valley of Hinnom to be burned. It is not certain that this last punishment was ever actually inflicted under the Jewish law; it may be mentioned as an extreme case beyond the legal punishments, though, in one case, at least, as Tholuck observes, death by fire was ordained (see Leviticus 20:14), though no place of punishment is specified (cf. 1MMalachi 3:5) (Mansel).
Matthew 5:25. Agree with thine adversary.—The Saviour here shifts His scene a little. He seizes, representatively, on such a specific manifestation of malevolence as leads the injured party to become an adversary, i.e. a prosecutor in a law-suit, who is determined to recover damages (Morison). The passion of which you have not repented, the wrong for which you have not atoned, will meet you as an adversary at the bar of God (Tholuck).
Matthew 5:26. Farthing.—The Greek word is derived from the Latin quadrans, the fourth part of the Roman as, a small copper or bronze coin which had become common in Palestine. The “farthing” of Matthew 10:29 is a different word, and was applied to the tenth part of the drachma (Plumptre).
Matthew 5:28. To lust after her.—With the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Matthew 6:1; or, with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires (Brown).
Matthew 5:31. Whosoever shall put away, etc.—The quotation is given as the popular Rabbinic explanation of Deuteronomy 24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Matthew 19:8, was given on account of the hardness of men’s hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The stricter party of Shammai held that the “uncleanness” meant simply unchastity before or after marriage. The followers of Hillel held, on the other hand, that anything that made the company of the wife distasteful was a sufficient ground for repudiation (Plumptre).
Matthew 5:33. Forswear thyself.—These are not the precise words of Exodus 20:7, but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Leviticus 19:12, etc.). This is plain from what follows (Brown).
Matthew 5:34. Swear not at all.—Viz. in the following ways (Morison).
Matthew 5:37. Yea, yea; nay, nay. Let your affirmation and negation be in accordance with fact (Grotius).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 5:21-37
Root and branch.—The Saviour’s purpose here seems to be that of explaining what He has just before said. He has described His mission as being that of “fulfilling” God’s “law” (Matthew 5:17). Amongst the ways in which He was to do this—to do this in connection with the “moral” part of that law—was the way of bringing it home. On what principles were its various precepts founded? How far, in consequence of this, do its various requirements extend? These are the questions which He here sets Himself to answer so far as they bear on three commandments out of the “Ten”—three commandments which seem selected as samples of all.
I. The sixth commandment is the first “old-time” saying (Matthew 5:21) which is dealt with in this way. Its actual language, as quoted here, is brief and simple enough. “Thou shalt not kill.” In dealing with this (Matthew 5:21-26) our Saviour points us first, as we intimated just now, to its root. What is the root of the wicked action which this commandment forbids? It is to be found in the indulgence of the spirit of hate. If there were no hate, no desire to hurt, there would be no such endeavour, of course. It is with this root, therefore—this murder-germ—that the Saviour begins. He bids us understand that it is with this spirit of hate—this anger “without cause” (Matthew 5:22)—that this commandment begins. In forbidding the action it forbids thereby its source. That is the first point to be noted. But that is not all. What we are to note next, is, that it forbids also all that follows from this. All that follows from indulgence in such a spirit, whatever its shape—all words of contempt even—all that is meant to degrade (Matthew 5:22). All that follows from this, also, no matter what else in other directions we may think we have to rely on for acceptance with God. Not even the “worship” of our “gifts” on God’s own “altar” is acceptable to Him if we come in this spirit of hate (Matthew 5:23-24, etc.; cf., in part, Genesis 4:1-10). Not only so, it never can be acceptable so long as this enmity lasts. For what is it that such unrepented enmity does in effect? It turns your brother, as before God, into your “adversary at law”; and it is an indirect appeal to Him, therefore, to deal with you only as your merits deserve—a “process at law” which can only end in your irreversible death (Matthew 5:25-26; also Psalms 130:3; Psalms 143:2; Romans 6:23). Understand, therefore, not only how far, but also how peremptorily, this commandment extends. The spirit of hate, indulged in, is the spirit of death!
II. The seventh commandment is next expounded, in like manner, by Christ. Here, also, the “old saying” was simple enough in its letter. But it was just as profound, also, and just as far-reaching—so the Saviour shows—in its spirit. For here, also, on the one hand, the commandment, in forbidding the action, forbids also the inward desire which gives it birth, as it were (Matthew 5:28, cf. James 1:14-15). And here, also, on the other hand, it necessarily forbids also all those resulting evil indulgences and habits which so often become to men in consequence almost part of themselves. And it bids the sinner (which is more) wholly to part with them, even where that is the case; and warns him solemnly, also, that the only other alternative is that of destroying himself (Matthew 5:29-30, Ephesians 5:3-6). All this that “old saying” taught in the “germ.” Further, on the important question of the dissolution of marriage (which is another branch of this subject) it did the same thing. The “old saying,” on this point, also, had been of a very definite kind. If you do dissolve this contract you must do so with as much formality as you entered on it at first (Matthew 5:31). That restriction contained in it the seed of another. You must not dissolve it even in that way unless it has been dissolved in another way first (Matthew 5:32). That is the “spirit,” and, therefore, those the results, of that “letter” of old.
III. The third commandment—possibly as being, unlike the previous two, a part of the First Table—is then taken up. To “take God’s name in vain” (Exodus 20:7) is to invite His witness to that which is false. To forbid this, therefore (Matthew 5:33), is to forbid, as before, that which lies at its root, viz. in this case, thinking lightly of God. And, therefore, as before, to forbid all that which branches therefrom—all language inconsistent with a proper recollection of the wide supremacy of His rule, whether in “heaven” above, or “earth” beneath, or in the midst of His church (Matthew 5:34-35), or with a proper sense of our utter inability to alter or modify the most insignificant part of our frames (Matthew 5:36). What it rather enjoins on us is a scrupulous anxiety to avoid any approach to these sins. Never call upon God as a witness unless in those cases in which you have His permission to do so. Even to wish this without adequate cause is of the nature of sin (Matthew 5:37). So, of this commandment also, does the Saviour explain both its depth and its reach!
Declarations of this kind lend double value:—
1. To the mercy of the gospel.—When the Saviour undertakes to forgive sin, He is not speaking in the dark. He knows what He is doing, what sin is, what it involves, what it leads to, all that it means. Knowing the worst, He yet blots it all out.
2. To the offers of the gospel.—“Wilt thou be made whole?” This He says to those whose extremity is known to Him to the full (cf. John 5:6).
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 5:21-24. Spiritual exposition of sixth commandment.—The keynote of the portion (Matthew 5:20-26) is contained in Matthew 5:20, and the meaning of that verse is set forth in six examples—murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, retaliation, love and hatred. Consider the Christian law concerning murder:—
I. In the letter.—Sixth commandment. We boast of progress, and of the march of civilisation. Our progress in material civilisation is indeed marvellous; but so long as the columns of our newspapers abound with reports of the most wilful and cold-blooded murders we have cause for “shame and confusion of face” rather than for vainglory.
II. In the spirit.—He who is “angry with his brother without a cause” commits murder in his heart. Anger is declared to be a work of the flesh (Galatians 5:20); but it is often excused as an infirmity, rather than bewailed as a sin.
III. In the punishment.—The three degrees of punishment specified according to the degrees of guilt.
IV. In the application.—Our Lord being “a minister of the circumcision,” and the Jewish ritual being not yet abrogated, the language of the Mosaic ceremonial (“gift” and “altar”) is naturally employed. A pious Jew is supposed to be on his way to the temple, intending to offer to God on the altar his gift, eucharistic or sacrificial. Before reaching the altar, he recollects that his brother has some cause of offence against him—not that he has one against his brother, which is generally all we think of. Our Lord counsels him to “leave,” etc. To offer sacrifice or worship, before reconciliation has been effected, is but to mock the Searcher of hearts (Psalms 66:18; Ephesians 4:26).—F. F. Goe, M.A.
Matthew 5:21-22. Inward hatred.—I. The evil of this sort of anger.—
1. In our Saviour’s interpretation it is the first step towards the sin of murder.
2. It clouds the judgment with such thick fumes of passion that it is not capable of discerning truth from falsehood, or right from wrong, and gives a strong bias to the affections.
3. There is no passion more inconsistent with society and good government.
4. This anger is directly opposed to the love of our neighbours in general.
II. The means for preventing and removing it.—
1. Let us avoid a weak, peevish, waspish disposition.
2. Let us consider this world as a place full of trouble.
3. Let us accustom ourselves to overlook the immediate instruments of our troubles, and take them all as from the hands of God.
4. Let us avoid, as much as possible, all the usual causes or occasions of anger.
5. Let us consider how much self-denial is a principal duty of the Christian religion, and what noble promises are made to it.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:22. Slight affronting words.—To guard us against all disrespect and slight, or even incivility to our neighbour, there are a few things I would offer to your consideration.
I. That this slight and disrespect towards our neighbour proceeds commonly from bad causes; such as:
1. A pride and haughtiness in ourselves, and a conceitedness as to our own opinions and ways.
2. At least, a want of due consideration of our neighbour’s case; perhaps that which we are offended at in him is owing to the uneasiness of his circumstances; the pains and diseases of his body; the fatigue of business; the stiffness of his natural temper; or some little mistake or oversight such as are very incident to all mankind.
3. Or it is owing to our own hasty and impatient temper, which could not bear with the least provocation or contradiction.
II. Disrespect to our neighbour is attended with very bad consequences and effects.—There is no man so dull but he can apprehend the least disrespect put upon him. Disrespectful words begin to alienate our neighbour’s affection from us, as persons that are unjust to him, etc.
III. All slight and disrepect towards our neighbour is exceedingly inconsistent with the laws of Christianity, which require a spirit of love, charity, humility, meekness, and patience; that we should honour all men; that we should curb our tongues, and govern our passions; that we should be courteous and condescending, and become all things to all men, that by all means we may gain some.
IV. Consider the good consequences of the contrary virtue.—I mean, true love and respect to our neighbour, manifested by all expressions of Christian friendship and civility; how it smooths men’s tempers, calms their passions, disposes them for receiving any good impressions we would make upon them; how it contributes to keep up peace and good neighbourhood, and a spirit of love and friendship among men, than which there is nothing more necessary towards the happiness of the world.—Ibid.
Degrees of punishment in the other world—
I. What foundation there is for this doctrine from the text.—
1. From the whole scope and purport of this Sermon on the Mount it is evident our Saviour is not instructing magistrates, but private Christians; He is not prescribing laws of human policy, but directing the conscience, His kingdom not being of this world.
2. Our Saviour never took upon Him either to inflict or to prescribe human penalties; but thought fit to leave the governments of the world in the full possession of their jurisdiction; and therefore it is no way probable that He is here prescribing the penalties of human courts of judicature.
3. It is plain from the sins here described, they are such as fall not under the cognisance of human laws, the first of them being inward anger, which, till it breaks out into some outward words or actions, cannot be the subject of any rule, but of Him who alone is the Searcher of hearts. The punishments, then, here assigned must all relate to the other world. And if so, there being here several degrees of punishments assigned, it follows plainly that there are several degrees of punishments in the world to come.
II. Some other Scripture proofs of the same doctrine.— Psalms 62:12; Proverbs 24:12; Matthew 16:27; Luke 12:47-48; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24.
III. What ground there is in the nature and reason of the thing for this doctrine.—
1. All wicked people are not wicked in the same degree.
2. Of those who go to the same degree and pitch of wickedness, the sin is not equal in them all. In some, perhaps, it is only a sin of ignorance, and the error of their education; in others, it is studied perverseness and wickedness. Some have been captains and ringleaders in vice, others have been but followers and accessories, etc.
IV. Inferences.—This doctrine may serve—
1. To vindicate the justice of God.
2. To deter even wicked men from several high degrees of wickedness.
3. To put us upon a trial of our own state.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:23-24. Worship and reconciliation.—This passage may be understood as combining two lessons.
I. The most sacred of all occupations should not be an impediment to the duty of reconciliation.
II. The gift will not be acceptable to God while offered in enmity against a brother.—On this precept is founded the rule of the church requiring adversaries to be reconciled before partaking of the Holy Communion.—Dean Mansel.
Matthew 5:25-26. Agreeing with one’s adversary.—
I. The duty enjoined.—
1. We are not to abandon the adversary’s company if it may be allowed us.
2. We are to leave no means untried with him that may tend to reconciliation. There should be
(1) Inward love;
(2) Outward expressions of courtesy and civility;
(3) Receding from our strict right for peace’s sake;
(4) Acts of beneficence and friendship;
(5) Prayer to God for him.
II. The evil consequences attending the neglect or delay of this duty.—There are three sorts of evil consequences to be considered.
1. The evil consequences in this world of letting differences run on so far as to come to the extremity of the law.
2. The other evil consequences in this world likewise, of other quarrels beside lawsuits, which, by a parity of reason, fall under the consideration of this advice of agreeing with the adversary (James 3:5-6).
3. The evil consequences in the great day of judgment of neglecting or delaying to make our peace with our adversary.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:26. (With Mark 2:10). Sin and forgiveness.—To the Christian doctrine of forgiveness men have offered a twofold objection—the objection of levity, and the objection of reason.
1. The first declares that sin is a mere trifle, if it is even as much as that, and that forgiveness is a simple process which can be magically and swiftly set at work.
2. To accept the objection of reason means despair. Reason says, “There can be no such thing as forgiveness of sins.” Science utterly slays the doctrine. All the forgiveness in the world is incapable of blotting out a man’s past. In nature there is no such doctrine, neither can there be in religion. Nature exacts her tribute to the full, and she says to us, “You shall not come out thence until you have paid the uttermost farthing.” Reason, however, under the guidance of God, will reach a much higher conclusion than the reason which is its own guide—a conclusion which is honourable and pacific and true to law.
I. The universal law of God is, “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”—Every violation of the moral law is followed by penalty. The Christian doctrine of forgiveness does not repeal that law. Whatever forgiveness does for a man, it does not sweep away from his life the consequences of past misdeeds. God forgave David’s great sin, but David had also to pay the bitter price of his wickedness, and the ages have been acquainted with the story.
II. What under such circumstances, can a man do?—There is at least a choice of two courses.
1. The first is to pay your own debt as best you can. This pseudo-courageousness has a fascination for some minds, but will you think what it really means? If you have a true conception of the extent of your liability, you will not so glibly talk about “paying like a man.”
2. The second course open to you is that in which God comes to us and makes us an offer by which the debt may be paid with honour to the law and with perfect deliverance to the sinner. This offer is known as the doctrine of forgiveness. Be careful to observe that the doctrine of forgiveness is a matter entirely of revelation. What then is forgiveness? It is the first medicine administered to us by the Great Physician with a view to our complete restoration to spiritual health.—F. C. Spurr.
Matthew 5:27-32. The mastery of the body.—The two voices are again heard; the first “by them of old time,” the second that (apart from divinity) of a dogmatist—solemn, impressive, in His individuality. “But, I say,” etc. There is no division of responsibility, all rests upon that “Ἐγώ!”
1. All human impulses are to be held in perfect mastery.
2. There is a judgment upon the heart as well as upon the outer life.
3. When the bodily appetites and the spiritual nature come into collision, let the body suffer, not the soul. A whole body (a body wholly gratified) or a maimed soul—which?
4. There are bodily temptations as well as mental temptations. The mind has advantages in the probationary state which the body has not; death has yet to pass upon the body; the body is not to be wholly purified or transformed until the resurrection; the mind, on the contrary (except so far as modified by the body), may be “set on things above.”
5. Christ, in this paragraph, shows the bearing of His specific truths on the body and bodily relations:
(1) Personal mastery.
(2) Personal mastery may require the severest measures.
(3) Personal mastery required in the maintenance of the conjugal bond.—J. Parker, D.D.
Matthew 5:28. Mental uncleanness.—
1. Begin at the root as our Saviour here advises, and restrain all mental impurities.
2. Carefully avoid all occasions of this sin, e.g. bad books, impure plays, lewd company, etc.
3. Keep the body under by labour and temperance.
4. Avoid idleness, and be prudent as to recreations.
5. When temptations are presented, do not argue or parley with them, do not lie still and muse upon them, but flee from them.
6. Keep yourselves in the love of God and contemplate the things of eternity.
7. Another remedy of lust prescribed by God Almighty is suitable marriage.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:29-30. Plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand.—
I. The supposition.—That the best members of the body, particularly the right eye and right hand, may lead us into very dangerous sins.
II. The duty of mortifying these members. This implies:
1. A serious and firm resolution of restraining the members and imagination from unlawful objects.
2. An avoiding all the occasions of sin.
3. The continual use of all those means whereby sin may be entirely subdued in us.
III. The danger of suffering our members to continue the instruments of sin.—Ibid.
Abandoning darling sins.—
I. The possibility of conquering darling sins.—If this were not possible God would never require it of us, and that under pain of damnation.
II. The difficulty and the causes of it.—
1. To make a darling sin, we must suppose a great propensity of corrupt nature, and to rectify nature is very difficult.
2. This propensity must be supposed to be confirmed by a vicious course or habit, and so to have become customary (Jeremiah 13:23).
III. Some advices to facilitate this matter.—
1. Let us be fully persuaded of the necessity of parting with our beloved sins, under pain of our eternal and final destruction.
2. Let us believe that the longer we indulge in vicious practices, so much the harder it will be to get rid of them.
3. Let us firmly believe that there is no impossibility in overcoming our most favourite sins.
4. Our chief care must be to apply ourselves diligently to the use of all the means of grace.
5. We must not be discouraged if we obtain not the victory at first.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:31-32. The Christian doctrine concerning divorces.—
I. Explication.—Our Saviour was not here treating of the impediments of marriage from the beginning, but only of the dissolution of lawful marriages; particularly He is here correcting the too great liberty the Jewish husbands took to put away their wives for slight causes. He seems to have determined as much in this case as was fit in prudence, viz. that the liberty of divorce for any lighter cause than the marriage infidelity should be prohibited; but that even in that case it should not be commanded, but left to the greater or lesser aggravation of the crime, from the various circumstances of it; and the consideration of the consequences of severity or indulgence, to himself, and his wife and children, and the world abroad. I speak cautiously on this difficult subject, because, as far as I can perceive, there never was, nor is any positive command for divorce.
II. Vindication.—
1. To some it may seem very hard that for no other fault but that of adultery, a man can put away his wife. There are many other things which make the married state very uneasy, and if some men had their will they would have it as easy a thing to put away a wife as to turn out a boarder. But:
(1) The great ends of marriage could never be attained, if marriage were to be dissolved upon every slight account. Consider what those ends are, and whether they are generally attainable any other way than by making marriage a mutual contract for life. (a) As to the procreation and education of children; could that be so well minded, if their mothers were to be turned off at pleasure, and they left to the care of any strange woman, who would look upon them as so many encumbrances upon the estate, and so many rivals of her own children? (b) As to the being a remedy of lust, which is another good end for the institution of matrimony; if marriage were an uncertain loose thing, subject to be dissolved upon every humour and caprice of the parties, and new wives as frequently brought in, this would be no confinement of lust at all; but loose men would change their wives as frequently as they do their mistresses, and marriage would be only a cloak for whoredom, under a more specious name. (c) If we consider married persons, as they are mutual helps to one another in managing a common estate for the benefit of themselves and their children, there is nothing can so well qualify them to answer that end as the being linked together by an inseparable bond, which joins their two interests in one. But now, upon a supposition of these frequent dissolutions of marriage, each party would have a different interest to carry on; the woman upon the prospect of parting, nay upon the bare supposition of the probability, or even possibility of it, would think it but prudence to provide for that time, and to feather her nest, by pilfering and purloining from her husband’s estate, as much as she could, while they are together. (d) Marriage was instituted for the mutual love and comfort of the parties, that such a sacred friendship might ease and sweeten the several troubles and uneasinesses of life. Now, its being a perpetual lasting bond of amity, contributes very much to this; they know now if they have any differences, their best way is to make them up.
(2) This discrediting and making light of marriage would be attended by other very great inconveniences. Particularly the weaker sex, after having left father and mother, after having been deprived of their portion and their honour, must be turned off to strive with solitude and discontent all the rest of their life.
2. As to the permitting of divorce in case of the breach of the marriage covenant; as in all covenants, when one of the parties breaks the fundamental articles, the other is absolved if he pleases, so it is very fit that it should be in this great marriage-covenant, especially considering what an intolerable hardship it would put on the innocent party to be obliged to love and trust one that betrays him, to maintain and provide for an adulterous brood, and to have his right made away to strangers.
III. Inferences.—
1. Our Saviour not only acts the part of a good interpreter of the law, but sometimes makes use of the authority of a legislator too.
2. We may observe how sacred and inviolable He would have the state of marriage to be. He makes it a covenant for life. Teaching
(1) With what deliberation, prudence, and circumspection we should enter into that lasting state.
(2) With what sweetness and friendliness of temper we ought to behave ourselves so as to make the journey of life pleasant, both to ourselves, and to this our inseparable companion.
(3) Since our Saviour has left such a blot on that sort of uncleanness committed by married persons, that on account thereof he permits the dissolution of the marriage, let this deter us from all approaches to those sins. Let husbands and wives beware of everything that may in the least create any dryness or alienation of affection from one another. Let them beware of those pretended friends, who bring oil to inflame, instead of water to quench, the fire of strife and contention, when it is kindled between them. Let every approach of criminal address, so soon as it is perceived, be rejected with abhorrence.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:32. The evil consequences of parting man and wife.—
I. A general lesson.—That whosoever commits any sin is answerable not only for the necessary, but for all the probable consequences of that sin.
II. A particular lesson.—That those quarrels of man and wife which are attended with parting, have very terrible consequences.
1. The dishonour and disgrace of it is apt to throw the wife into despair, that she does not care what becomes of her; and is consequently tempted to lay aside that guard she had formerly upon her honour.
2. The excess of injury is, perhaps, greater than any ordinary patience can bear.
3. The great want to which such an abandoned state exposes poor women, and the helplessness of their circumstances, often drives them upon ill courses.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:33-37. Oaths.—In these words our Saviour gives another instance wherein the righteousness of Christians must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.
I. What was good in the opinion of the Jewish doctors concerning the third commandment. They condemned perjury (Matthew 5:33).
II. Wherein our Saviour finds it defective.—
1. In that they thought nothing else was prohibited in the third commandment, but the sin of perjury.
2. That they allowed of oaths by creatures, of which four are here mentioned, heaven, and earth, Jerusalem, and their head.
3. That they reckoned such oaths as were not by the name of God, not binding: whereas, though they were not in God’s name, yet they had so near a relation to Him, as having the formality of a promise upon oath, that on that account they ought to have been observed.
4. That they had brought in a practice of swearing in conversation, and so made way for rash, idle, customary oaths.
III. What further improvements He makes on this subject.—
1. He condemns all rash, customary swearing in conversation.
2. He disallows all swearing by the creatures.
3. He asserts the obligation of such oaths, as to men, though defective in point of duty to God.
4. He recommends such a veracity, honesty, and sincerity in speech, that we may be trusted upon our bare word, without an oath.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:33. The great sin of perjury.—
I. Describe wherein perjury consists.—It is either swearing to a false thing at present; or afterwards, a voluntary breach of a lawful promise upon oath. Divines agree that the chief properties of an oath are those three mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah (ch. Matthew 4:2), Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth, judgment, and righteousness. The first condition “truth,” excludes not only all lying, but all trick, deceit, or equivocation. The second condition is “judgment”; it is not sufficient that what we swear be true, it must be a thing of weight and importance. The third condition is “righteousness”; it must be a just thing in itself. Perjury is, in general, the calling of God to be witness to a lie. This is done:
1. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, which we know to be false.
2. When we assert upon oath a thing to be true, of the truth of which we are not fully assured. And this, though the thing should happen to be true.
3. When we declare upon oath such a thing to be our judgment, which really is not so.
4. When, in giving our testimony as to any matter of fact, we wilfully suppress some material part of the truth, and aggravate other parts of it, or endeavour so to disguise and change our account of facts, as that the judges and juries may not have a right notion of the matter in question.
5. They that promise upon oath what they do not intend to perform are, ipso facto, guilty of perjury, because they call God to witness a false thing, where the intention of their minds does not concur with the words and meaning of their oath.
6. They are likewise guilty of perjury, who, though they promise with a sincere intention to perform, do afterwards, of their own accord, fall off; when the thing they promised is both lawful and in their power to perform.
7. They are guilty of perjury, who make use of tricks and equivocations, and put forced senses on the words of an oath, or look for evasions, contrary to the plain and genuine sense of the words.
II. What it is that leads and tempts men to perjury.—Bribery, rashness, partiality, self-interest.
III. The heinousness of the sin of perjury.—
1. It is a great proof of a profane, atheistical mind.
2. It is highly injurious to mankind; for an oath being of so universal use among men, in transacting matters of the highest consequence, whosoever goes about to make it vile and cheap does what in him lies to destroy the highest bonds of faith and truth among men.
3. As no sin has a worse influence on all parts of our duty, whether to God or man, so there is no sin more expressly forbidden, or more grievously threatened in the law of God. It is observed that idolatry and perjury are the only two sins to which an express threatening is annexed in the Decalogue.
IV. What absolves us from perjury, though we cannot always perform our oaths.—
1. They who are under the command of a lawful superior, cannot execute an oath or a vow in anything to which his consent is required, if he expressly dissents from it. See Numbers 30. All our oaths and vows must be understood to be meant with this limitation, “as far as it is in my power.”
2. When the matter of the thing fails about which the oath was given, then the oath itself is no longer binding. A soldier that takes the military oath, when peace is made and he comes to be disbanded, he is likewise free from that oath.
3. When we give our oath to another and promise him something for his benefit, if he pleases to forgive that obligation in whole or in part, no doubt we are then absolved from our oath or such part of it, provided no harm be done to any other.
4. If the oath we take to another be, either expressly or in its own nature, conditional, that is, with a proviso that something be done of his part; then, upon his failing as to his part of the condition, we are likewise absolved from ours. But it is otherwise where both parties absolutely promise one another, and not conditionally, for there the failing of one, doth not absolve the other.
5. Whatever we promise, even upon oath, must be understood with a proviso that it be both possible and lawful for us, and that no unforeseen thing happen which may make our observing our oath an evil, or uncomely, dishonest action.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Rash and superfluous oaths.—Though the words of the third commandment signify principally, thou shalt not swear falsely, they signify likewise, thou shalt not swear vainly or unnecessarily. So that all rash, trifling, superfluous oaths are forbidden as well as false ones.
I. The consideration of God should deter us from the common use of oaths; for He is not a common witness to be called in upon all trivial occasions.
II. The sacredness of oaths should deter us from making them cheap and common; for as in human judicatures for small matters there are inferior courts, and it is not allowed that the superior courts be troubled, except in cases of moment or difficulty, so God hath set such an honour upon an oath, which is an appeal to Himself, that it must be a matter of great consequence in which this last resort is allowed.
III. A due regard to our own dignity and reputation should make us abstain from unnecessary oaths; for he who has strictly kept up his honour and reputation will be believed upon his word without an oath.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:37. Simplicity and veracity in conversation.—I. A precept.—“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” I take this to be a prohibition of:
1. A multiplicity of words.
2. A designed doubleness or equivocation in them.
3. Vain compliments and flattery.
4. Oaths and imprecations. And on the contrary, an injunction that our words be few, plain, sincere, and modest.
II. The reason of this precept.—“For whatsoever,” etc.
1. If we exceed the plainness and veracity of speech, this flows from some bad priciple or other.
2. Whenever our discourse exceeds the due bounds is simplicity and modesty, we are immediately to take the alarm, as beginning then to be under the temptation of the devil; and to what intemperance of language he may carry us, nobody can tell.—Ibid.
Matthew 5:33-37.Christ’s teaching on oaths.—In order to avoid any conclusions drawn from this precept of Jesus, which are out of harmony alike with the general view of Jesus, elsewhere expressed in regard to the true righteousness, and with His own practice, we must fix our attention upon the purpose He had in view in thus prohibiting swearing. That purpose is plainly shown from the line of thought running throughout the discourse on righteousness. It was the inculcation of a righteousness having its root in the heart, and therefore requiring to be unconditionally observed in the simplest outward acts. An oath and solemn affirmation which a man may employ before his fellow-men, since, in their inability to read his inward truthfulness, they cannot put full confidence in his word if it be not solemnly asserted, are quite different in their nature and inward motive from the oath and protestation with which a man accompanies his word, because he would not feel absolutely pledged to truth and faithfulness by his simple word and promise. From the whole tenor of His teaching in regard to the righteousness of the kingdom of God, there is no reason to conclude that the members of the kingdom were forbidden the use of such confirmatory forms of speech towards others, or an appeal to God as witness to the truth of their words. Perhaps we cannot refer to the fact that Jesus Himself, at His trial before the high priest, answered by oath (according to the adjuration of the high priest), the question whether He were the Messiah, since, according to the original account in Mark (Mark 14:61), the high priest did not put his question in the form of an adjuration. Still, we can point to the fact that Jesus, according to the testimony of all our sources, frequently strengthened His statements by the addition of “verily,” in order to awaken a closer attention in His hearers, and greater trust in His word (e.g. Matthew 5:18; Mark 3:28; Mark 8:12; Mark 9:1; John 3:3; John 5:19; John 5:24, etc.). When we consider the matter, it is certainly true in a certain sense that the absolute prohibition of oaths can only find its full realisation in the perfected kingdom of God, where the disciples have no longer dealings with men who mistrust them, and whom they must themselves mistrust. But, to my mind, we cannot say that Jesus consciously made this prohibition only for the future ideal state of the perfected kingdom, or only for His disciples in their intercourse with one another. For He addressed His precept to the then present hearers of His discourse, and that in regard to their speech in general, and not merely to their speech among other members of the kingdom. We must, however, bear in mind that principle which is so often to be observed in the discourses of Jesus, of aiming at the greatest clearness in the shortest compass. According to this principle, in order to make the meaning and scope of a rule as plain as possible, He abstracted from all the circumstances of ordinary life which tended in any way to obscure that meaning and scope, yet without really setting up an exception to the rule. According to the tenor of the discourse, the point intended here is to substitute, for the earlier command to be faithful and true in regard to oaths, the higher command to be true and faithful in regard to the smallest word. The prohibition of oaths and all confirmatory additions to the simple statement, is in this connection only meant to apply to the use of oaths and other protestations, as expressing the reservation that one is not pledged to truth and faithfulness by the simple and ordinary form of speech. Jesus sought with the greatest clearness to forbid, universally and unconditionally, such protestations made with this reservation, and so far as they arose out of a deceitful spirit.—H. H. Wendt, D.D