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 5:38. An eye for an eye, etc.—(See Exodus 21:24). The scribes drew a false inference from the letter of the law. As a legal remedy the lex talionis was probably the best possible in a rude state of society (Carr). The aim of the law, as Jerome remarks, was not to sacrifice a second eye, but to save both. When a man in a passion understands that he is liable to lose an eye if he take one, he is likely, in the great majority of cases, to be so far controlled as to save both (Morison).
Matthew 5:40. Coat.—The inner garment. Cloke.—The outer and more costly garment. Not allowed to be retained over night as a pledge from the poor, because used for a bed-covering (Exodus 22:26-27). “Be ready to give up even that which by law cannot be taken” (Mansel).
Matthew 5:41. Mile.—The influence of Rome is shown by the use of the Latin word (slightly altered) for the mille passuum, the thousand paces which made up a Roman mile—about one hundred and forty-two yards short of an English statute mile (Plumptre).
Matthew 5:43. Love thy neighbour (Leviticus 19:18). Hate thine enemy.—Lightfoot quotes some of the cursed maxims inculcated by those traditionists regarding the proper treatment of all Gentiles. No wonder that the Romans charged the Jews with hatred of the human race (Brown).
Matthew 5:46. Publicans.—The Roman name publicani, which our translators have employed in this and other places, properly denoted, not the collectors, but the farmers, of the customs; wealthy men of the equestrian order, who paid a rent to the State for the public revenues, and collected them for their own profit. The proper name for the actual collectors was portitores. These latter were sometimes freedmen or slaves, sometimes natives of the province in which the tax was collected (Mansel). The same?—Christianity is more than humanity (M. Henry).
Matthew 5:47. Salute.—The prominence of salutation in the social life of the East gives a special vividness to this precept. To utter the formal “Peace be with you,” to follow that up by manifold compliments and wishes, was to recognise those whom men saluted as friends and brothers (Plumptre). Publicans.—Gentiles (R.V.).
Matthew 5:48. Be … perfect.—Ye therefore shall be perfect (R.V.). The future for the imperative, as in the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not kill” (Webster and Wilkinson).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 5:38-48
Counsels of perfection.—The subject discussed here is at once general and restricted. It is general because, instead of taking up individual commandments, as in Matthew 5:21-37, it rather deals with the whole question of the second table of the law. It is restricted because it takes up nothing beside. The duty of man towards his neighbour! All that, and only that, is spoken of here. This one subject seems treated here in two different ways. On the one hand, we find more demanded in our Saviour’s teaching about the matter in hand; on the other hand we find more imparted, than ever before.
I. More demanded.—More demanded, in the first place, as to the way of dealing with wrong. The natural tendency of men, on this point, is to return evil for evil; and to return it, so to speak, with interest, too. Natural justice, where wrong has been done, approves of its being returned. Natural anger goes further, and wishes it returned in excess. “I gave him more than I got;” so we wish, naturally, to be able to say. But the law of old stepped in here, and said emphatically that that was too much. “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Matthew 5:38). So far, but no farther, it allowed men to say; and, in so allowing, it placed, of course, a certain amount of restriction—of clear restriction and definite, also, if not very close—upon the wishes of men. What the teaching of Christ does here is both to take up and extend this idea. Instead of saying only when evil has been done us, that we are not to return it in excess; instead of saying even in such a case, that we are not to pay back as much; it teaches us rather, in the plainest language, not to return any at all. “Resist not evil;” resent not injuries; almost reward them, in fact (Matthew 5:39-41). Do not even turn aside from the man (whoever he is) to whom you can do any good (Matthew 5:42). On the other side, we find more demanded also in the way of dealing with good. On this point also, the attitude of human nature, where wholly untaught, is of a most unsatisfactory kind. It has been said, and is true, of certain wild beasts, that they regard every other wild beast of the same kind as a natural foe; and always, therefore, in catching sight of such, begin preparations for war. There is something not wholly unlike this in the wholly natural man. He naturally mistrusts, and therefore dislikes, and therefore “bristles” against whatever is similar to himself. Therefore it was that the law of old—God’s earlier message—began at this point. It teaches us not to hate, but to love those with whom we are brought into contact. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour” (Matthew 5:43) and think well of him until he has proved himself the reverse. Thou shalt love thy neighbour and return his kindness if he shows kindness to thee. On this advance—for such we see it is—Christ advances still mora “Thou shalt love” all those, He teaches, whoever they are, with whom thou dost come into contact. Thou shalt love them even when they prove themselves no true “neighbours” to thee; “blessing” them always, and “doing them good,” and “praying” for their welfare; even as though, all the time, they were not in fact doing the very opposite about thee. So clear is it on this side, as on the other, that Christ asks us to “advance.” Let that half-emptied cup of bitterness be by you emptied entirely. Let that half-filled cup of kindness be by you filled to the brim. Yea, over it also!
II. More imparted.—If there was an advance in demanding, there is advance in this too. An advance in regard to the amount of light vouchsafed in this case. The mission of Christ was not the first step in the revelation of God to mankind. It was rather the third. That precious but dim revelation made to the Gentiles (Matthew 5:47 R. V.), by means of God’s works (Romans 1:20; Psalms 19:1-3) may be looked on as the first. That fuller but still only limited declaration of the nature of God contained in those “sayings” of “old”—those messages and ordinances of Moses and the prophets—to which the Saviour has referred in this chapter so often, may be considered the second. That still fuller—but still not exhaustive—setting forth of God’s character and attributes which the Saviour Himself had come to exhibit, is the third (see John 1:17-18; 2 Peter 1:19). Of this the Saviour Himself afterwards said, that it was greater than any before (Matthew 13:17). To this, as being such, in this Sermon on the Mount, He is pointing all through. According to Him in fact—according therefore to truth—according to all also that we have quoted just now—His teaching conveyed both far fuller light and far clearer light than before. The Gentiles, in a word, had walked in the twilight; Israel, in that of the morning; Christ brought that of the noon. An advance, also, in regard to the nature of its light. What the Saviour taught was of a more gracious character than any before. The book of nature is a lesson to all about God as our King. His exceeding “glory”—His “power and Godhead”—are the things it sets forth. The “book of the law” was a lesson to Israel about God as a lawgiver. His awful justice, His stainless holiness, are the chief things it enforces (Leviticus 11:44, etc.). The teaching of Christ is especially a manifestation of Almighty God as our Father (Matthew 5:45; Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:8-9; Matthew 6:15, etc.; also especially John 14:6-9). Evidently, therefore, the special light which it gives us is that which is most important to us. Most important to us, on the one hand, as being the works of His hands; and because what it shows us is, that, besides being such, we are the special objects of His care. We are not only, as it were, part of the furniture—we are the “children”—of the house. Most important to us, on the other, as being children who have forfeited their right to that name. Here is that which is proclaimed to us by the very coming of “Christ.” This is what God signifies to us by sending us His own Son—viz. that He is able and willing to restore us to our former standing as sons (John 1:12). A light this, therefore, which, being the Light of Love, is the most precious of all.
We see, therefore, on the whole, the perfect reasonableness of the demands made in this passage. They are “counsels of perfection,” it is undoubtedly true. But they are counsels, also, which befit the atmosphere in which they are found. We expect the literal Israel to be nearer God than the Gentiles. We expect the spiritual Israel to be still nearer than they. Fuller light, clearer guidance, greater strength, more powerful motives ought to excel, if anything does. Those who are privileged to know such a Father ought on every ground to be like Him. What is the object of a perfect example except that, as it were, of giving birth to similar copies? Copies as “perfect” themselves as the material they are made of permits them to be. Do we not see, also, the perfect harmony of these demands with those going before? For do we not see, if we may so express ourselves, that they are such as grow cut of those? The restrictions of Moses prepare naturally for the closer restrictions of Jesus. The first ascent brings us to the foot of the second. Something in the same way, in earlier times, Joshua had completed what Moses had begun. Something so, also, out of the tabernacle the temple had grown. It is true, in this latter case, that the “curtains” of the one had become the stones of the other; and that some things which were comparatively small in the one were larger in the other. But it is equally true that this only displayed their harmony in almost every other respect. The same glorious idea, the same God, shone the more visibly in them both!
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES.
Matthew 5:38-41. Retaliation.—
I. The doctrine of the scribes and Pharisees.—
1. Though Moses is very express that it was the judges and magistrates who were to inflict this punishment of retaliation, they allowed the injured parties either to avenge themselves or to sell off the punishment by accepting a pecuniary mulct, or some other reward and compensation, to the great discouragement of public justice.
2. They allowed of retaliation for the smallest injury, leaving no room for the virtue of patience.
3. They took no care to teach with what spirit this reparation was to be sought, not distinguishing between a just defence or reparation and a spirit of revenge.
II. Our Saviour’s teaching.—
1. That we are to abstain from all private revenge, let the affront and injury be ever so great; there are public persons whose office it is to be the avengers of wrong, and these are to be applied to if we will needs right ourselves.
2. Our Saviour teaches the way of patience and forgiveness.
3. He obviates an objection, which is very natural to be started—namely, that this way of patience will expose us to be abused and affronted still more and more, when men know they can do it unpunished. Matthew 5:39-41. I take the meaning of these expressions to be that we should rather venture receiving a second injury than revenge the first. The words are not to be interpreted literally, the turning of the cheek being a proverbial phrase for exposing oneself to an injury and patiently bearing it. Lamentations 3:30 means, he patiently beareth injuries and affronts. Our Saviour and St. Paul did not turn the other cheek when they were smitten. That we had better venture the suffering a second injury than revenge the first will appear if we consider:
1. That the evil of suffering is not to be compared with the evil of sin.
2. That not revenging pacifies the wrath of the adversary, whereas retaliating perpetuates strife.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:39. Principle or rule?—It is said that many years ago an eminent minister of the gospel, who had been a great athlete in his youth, on returning to his native town soon after he had been ordained, encountered in the High Street an old companion whom he had often fought and thrashed in his godless days. “So you’ve turned Christian, they tell me, Charley?” said the man. “Yes,” replied the minister. “Well, then, you know the Book says, If you’re struck on one cheek you’re to turn the other. Take that!” and with that hit him a stinging blow. “There, then,” replied the minister quietly, turning the other side of his face toward him. The man was brute enough to strike him heavily again. Whereupon the minister said, “And there my commission ends,” pulled off his coat, and gave his antagonist a severe thrashing, which, no doubt, he richly deserved. But did the minister keep the command of Christ? He obeyed the letter of the rule; but did he not violate the principle, the spirit, of it? Hear [another] story and judge. It is told of a celebrated officer in the army that, as he stood leaning over a wall in the barrack-yard, one of his military servants, mistaking him for a comrade, came softly up behind him and suddenly struck him a hard blow. When the officer looked round, his servant, covered with confusion, stammered out, “I beg your pardon, sir; I thought it was George.” His master gently replied, “And if it were George, why strike so hard?” Which, now, of these two really obeyed the command of Christ? The minister who made a rule of it and kept to the letter of the rule, or the officer who made a principle of it and, acting on the spirit of it, neglected the letter?—S. Cox. D.D.
Matthew 5:41. The historical allusion.—The word that is translated “shall compel to go” is of Persian origin, and has reference to a postal arrangement that was much admired by the Greek historians. On the great lines of road stations were established where horses and riders were kept for the purpose of carrying forward the royal mails, on the principle of relays. The carriers were empowered in cases of emergency to press into their service any available persons, or beasts of burden, or other means of transport. The same kind of postal arrangement was adopted by the later Greeks and by the Romans, and has descended, in fuller development, to our own time, and is now interlacing the whole civilized world. The power of empressment that constituted part of the original system is what is referred to in the word which is employed by our Lord. It would sometimes be exceedingly annoying to private individuals; and, no doubt, petty private tyrants would, in their own petty dominions or demesnes, put in operation the same principle when they had some express to forward on their own account. The empressment of such individuals and their officials would be apt to be vexatious. But, says Jesus, do more in such circumstances than is asked of thee; of course, provided it would be of avail to the carrier, and consistent with other and perhaps more imperious or important obligations. Let there be no stint in your efforts to help others, even when your help is ungraciously asked.—J. Morison, D.D.
Christ and Epictetus.—It is interesting to note a like illustration of the temper that yields to compulsion of this kind, rather than struggle or resist, in the teaching of the Stoic Epictetus—“Should there be a forced service, and a soldier should lay hold on thee, let him work his will; do not resist or murmur (Diss., IV. i. 79).—E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Matthew 5:42. Doing good for evil.—I. It is the duty of Christians to do good for evil.—This is to be gathered chiefly from the connection and purport of this discourse.
II. If our adversary is in want we ought to bestow our bounty upon him, as upon other objects of charity and beneficence.
III. If he is not in such want as to need our bounty by way of charity, yet if he wants our help out of any straits and difficulties, by lending, or any other favour and courtesy, we ought readily to afford it, and not show ourselves hard-hearted, difficult, or morose. Exhortation:—
1. From the example of Almighty God (Matthew 5:45).
2. The efficacy of this method towards the reconciling of an adversary.
3. This kind treating of an adversary in his want or distress is reconcileable with the customs and maxims of the more generous sort of combatants in the world.
4. This is one of the best signs of the good temper of our own souls.
5. We have the greatest assurance that all actions of that nature shall be amply rewarded; and the contrary uncharitableness punished (Matthew 6:14-15).
6. It will be found that the contrary practices proceed always from some base principle, such as pride, frowardness, cruelty, jealousy, cowardice, ingratitude, moroseness, and the want of generosity.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 5:44. The love of enemies.—
I. To say that this precept is romantic and unpractical is to condemn the gospel of Christ.—The Incarnation and coming into the world of our blessed Lord had the object of making us now, here, at once, better men, women, and children. Our Lord does not teach us that we are to like our enemies, but to love them.
II. Our blessed Lord perfectly fulfilled His own law of loving enemies.—Love is a tree known by its fruits; and these are justice, truth, purity, mercy, patience, liberality, honour, meekness, sympathy. The first step in love, to friend or enemy, is respect.
III. Our blessed Lord here, as everywhere, is our Pattern.
IV. The test of love is not mere fondness or fancy, but the trouble you are willing to take and the sacrifice you are prepared to make for the person loved. Instead of the precept, “Love your enemies,” being a mere lovely theory, it is to the last degree practical, because the principle which underlies the whole matter is simply this—and it admits of very wide application indeed—wherever a person finds himself in a position in any way whatever antagonistic to that of another, then there arises at once a special call and reminder to be just, patient, scrupulously fair, to do as one would be done by; for who can fail to see that, when something draws towards one and not towards another, the two are judged by totally different standards? A weak leniency, a caricature of charity, sees nothing wrong in one, while in another faults are magnified and perhaps nothing is right.—H. Percy Smith, M.A.
Loving enemies.—I remember as a boy sitting by the fireside of a little country inn, up near Dead River in Maine, and hearing some men discuss the Sermon on the Mount. Rough fellows they were; and one of them, scoffing at Christianity, said, “Thou shalt love thine enemy—nonsense! It is not in human nature.” He was right. It is not in human nature; qut it was in Christ’s nature, and it is in the Divine nature. And it is in the Divine nature to impart it through Christ to those who claim it.—L. Abbott, D.D.
Subduing enemies.—It is recorded of a Chinese emperor that, on being apprised of his enemies having raised an insurrection in a distant province, he said to his officers, “Come, follow me, and we shall quickly destroy them.” He marched forward, and the rebels submitted upon his approach. All now thought he would take the most signal revenge, but were surprised to see the captives treated with mildness and humanity. “How!” cried the first minister, “is this the manner in which your promise is fulfilled? Your royal word was given that your enemies should be destroyed, and behold, you have pardoned them all, and even caressed some of them.” “I promised,” replied the emperor, with a generous air, “to destroy my enemies. I have fulfilled my word; for see, they are enemies no longer. I have made friends of them.”—Tools for Teachers.
Kindness to enemies.—A good man is kinder to his enemy than bad men are to their friends.—Bishop Hall.
Matthew 5:44-45. Christ’s law ignored.—“Either these sayings are not Christ’s, or we are not Christians,” was the exclamation of a great man after reading these words.—R. W. Dale, LL.D.
Matthew 5:47.What do ye more than others?—
I. Disciples have to do more than others.—
1. Maintain the Christian life.
2. Extend the cause of Christ.
II. They are able to do more than others.—
1. They are in alliance with God.
2. They have more light and knowledge.
3. They have more moral power.
III. More is expected of them than of others.—
1. By their Saviour.
2. By the world.
3. By their own consciences.—J. C. Gray.
Matthew 5:48. Christian perfection.—The text sums up that portion of the Sermon on the Mount in which Christ has so lucidly developed the Christian ideal of character. Our Lord sets before us the only absolutely perfect and holy Being as the ultimate standard of character in the kingdom of God. We have in the text:—
I. A comprehensive command.—“Be ye therefore perfect.” Note:
1. The meaning of the attainment.—
(1) In general the word “perfect” signifies completeness in all its parts. The babe is a perfect human being, even though only in germ or not full grown, when its parts or limbs are complete. Creation was perfect or complete in all its adjustments when God pronounced it “very good,” though its high purpose had not been attained in the activity of providence and grace.
(2) In particular. Complete in those elements of goodness which form character, and which are found in the full-orbed goodness of our heavenly Father—not in degree, but in kind.
2. The nature of the attainment.—It is important that we should distinguish between a perfection which is absolute, and therefore unattainable by us, and a relative or evangelical perfection. Hence observe
(1) Negatively.—It helps us immensely to find out what a thing is if we have found its negative. (a) It is not the perfection of God. The perfection of God is absolute. (b) It is not the perfection of angels. The angels have never left their first estate. Their faculties and understanding have never been impaired and perverted. (c) It is not Adamic perfection. (d) It is not the perfection of knowledge. There are not any of us free from ignorance. (e) It is not freedom from error. None infallible but God. (f) It is not freedom from temptation. (g) It is not freedom from infirmities—bodily infirmities and mental eccentricities, such as weakness of body, dulness of understanding, and incoherence of thought.
(2) Affirmatively.—The word “perfect” signifies in the New Testament completion in Christian character; a desire to please God in all things; and a sincere compliance with all the Divine precepts.
II. A high standard.—“Even as your Father which is in heaven.” Perfect as God is perfect? We say, Impossible! But for our encouragement let us look into these words closely and remember:—
1. That a high standard is necessary in everything great to attain real success.—Painting, architecture, music, etc.
2. That a high standard is necessary in order to lift our thoughts above the earthly standards.—Boys at school are bidden to look at their copies.
3. That a high standard is necessary to meet the boundless desires of our spiritual being.—Our nature is kindred with that of God. Man is satisfied only in being like God.
III. A possible attainment.—That there is an evangelical or Christian perfection which is possible may be proved:
1. Because we are commanded to be perfect.—Text; Genesis 17:1; 2 Corinthians 13:11. God never commands what is impossible.
2. Because prayer is offered in the New Testament for certain persons that they may be perfect (1 Thessalonians 5:23; Colossians 4:12; 2 Corinthians 13:9).
3. Because the means to attain the blessing are sufficient.—We have a perfect rule—God’s Word—to teach us how to get it; a perfect Redeemer, in whom there is fulness of grace, whose blood is enough to cleanse the vilest; a perfect Pattern to copy.
4. Because it is the will of God that we should be perfect.—It is God’s ultimate purpose in all that He has done and is doing for us.—J. Harries.
The Christian aim and motive.—
I. The Christian aim—Perfection.
II. The Christian motive.—Because it is right and Godlike to be perfect.—F. W. Robertson, M.A.
The purpose of Christianity.—Here is Christ’s idea of His holy religion. This is what it is to do for us: It is to make us like God. What is our idea of religion? Very much, one might almost say everything, depends upon the answer.—M. G. Pearse.
The perfection of love.—It is in a small degree that we can share God’s wisdom; in a still smaller degree His power. These attributes of His nature must always be over and around us, rather than within us. But of His love it is said, “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” It is as much ours as our home—nay, as much ours as our heart.—John Ker, D.D.
Perfection—Divine and human.—God’s is the only absolute perfection; man’s is relative, contained in the high destiny which bids him ever struggle towards the Infinite which he yet can never reach. There is no perfection so incomplete as the one which admits of no increase; that is the perfection of death, not of life.—A. M. Fairbairn, D.D.
Difficult yet practicable.—When Dr. Horace Bushnell originated the idea of a public park in Hartford, Connecticut, there were some who feared that the appropriation it called for would not be voted. It was suggested that it would be wiser to ask for half the amount. He replied, “No; sometimes a project is made practicable by being made difficult.”—J. H. Twitchell.
A sign of perfection.—There is no greater sign of your own perfection than when you find yourself all love and compassion toward them that are very weak and defective.—Wm. Law.