Matthew 5:17–48

Here was a new kind of blessedness, quite foreign to the thoughts of Israel as a natural people. So how did the law relate to Christ's teaching and to the new state of things about to come in? Did not the law come from God through Moses?… Weaken the authority of the law, and it is clear that you destroy the foundation on which the gospel rests; for the law was of God as certainly as the gospel.

To "fulfil" does not mean obeying at all. It simply means giving the fulness. The Lord, like the gospel, fully confirms the law as coming from God.

The law was like a beautiful portrait, the portrait of a perfect man… When Jesus came every feature of it found living expression in Him. He was the original. He filled out its every smallest detail, brought out all its beauty and made it alive.

"The law and the prophets" was the recognized phrase for the whole Old Testament. They belonged to a period already past, but they had not passed away with it… Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets. He came to fulfil, or rather complete — fill them out. What would the Old Testament be without the New? Very much like a finger, pointing into empty space!

Read the Gospels with a simple heart, and you will find the whole life and teaching of Jesus woven through with the truth of the law and the prophets as we have them in our ordinary Bibles. To remove their authority, you would have to tear away all the revelation of Christ in them… He was born in Bethlehem, because by God's will the prophet had said so.

We now see our Lord speaking as the One who is greater than Moses. Sitting on the mountain, He speaks with greater authority than Moses or anyone before Him, because He has greater authority. The One who speaks about the law and the prophets, confirming and expanding them, is the One who gave the law to Moses. His fingers wrote on the tablets of stone. His Spirit revealed the visions to the prophets.

He then presses the law home in its deepest spiritual meaning. He searches down into the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees and shows their guilt. He magnifies the law, but in doing so, proves all to be under sin. Then, in infinite love, He goes to the cross and bears the penalty of a broken law for all who believe on Him.

Now what Christ's fulfilling the law has to do with putting me under it I never could understand. I should have thought the opposite was true: if it is fulfilled, that is the end of the matter. He fulfilled the sacrifices in the same way, and all the more since He speaks of the prophets as well. The word "fulfil" is used of both, and that gives it a force quite different from what people try to make of it.

Our Lord is going to expand the great moral principles of the law into commandments that come from Himself, not just from Moses… He recognized the full value of the ten commandments. But He was about to open out the mind of God in a way far deeper than anyone had thought before.

There is no doubt that the Lord obeyed the law. But that is not what fulfilling means. He gave the law and the prophets their full scope. He did even more, for He revealed God in Himself by His words and His ways, and He made known those secrets of the kingdom that were entirely hidden in earlier days... But nothing in the new could weaken the authority of God in the old.

The "jot and tittle" were the smallest marks in the Hebrew alphabet. The jot, or yodh, matches our "i" — a very small letter in Hebrew. The tittle was not a letter at all, but a small mark that told one letter apart from another. So we might put it this way: "not a dot to an 'i,' or a cross to a 't.'"

Our version translates this as "be fulfilled," but it is a different word from the one just used. Such coming to pass could not mean the keeping of commandments. No one would speak of the ten commandments as something that had to come to pass. This coming to pass has to do with the law in its wider sense, which one would say must include the prophets as well.

Nothing of the law will pass away until it is fulfilled in the millennium, in a way Israel's history has never yet seen. The words "till all be fulfilled" point ahead to the glorious reign of Christ as King. Then every Old Testament prophecy will come true, and every word of the law will be kept.

This is very sweet to us. What a priceless treasure we have in the word God has given us! It is steadier than heaven or earth, more solid, more lasting. That is what we have to build on for eternity! So how careful we should be never to corrupt God's word! The Pharisees cancelled it and set it aside by their traditions.

No; the law stands in all its details. So it stands within all the limits it sets for itself, and for all the purposes it was given for, and for no others. This is simple enough to understand. Yet people who use words like these to lay the yoke of the law on the necks of Christians do not understand it.

Nothing upheld the majesty of the law like the death of Christ. He kept it in full at every step of His life. He made it great and honoured it. Yet He bore the law's curse for those who had broken it... The law demanded what man could never give, and cursed him for not giving it. Grace first blesses a man, and then makes him able to do far more than the law demanded.

So in verse 19 He still speaks to them as the godly remnant — those who heard His voice and clung to Him. They were born of God, but under law, and still on this side of the cross and the blessings it brings to faith. He insists on obedience, first and last. Here He begins with the law. But even in this chapter He goes on to what He is saying to them, which people of earlier times never heard.

According to our Lord's teaching, the Law is so entirely divine that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the Law to become void" (Luke 16:16-17). So no one is to violate it: "Whoever relaxes [the Greek word is luo — to loosen, to weaken the authority of] one of the least of these commandments ... will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19). To assert the divine authority of the Law more strongly is impossible.

The scribes counted 613 commandments in the Old Testament in all. They divided them into laws they thought were important and laws they thought were less important. The Lord also points out a difference when He calls the command to love God the great and first commandment. Yet He at once puts the command to love your neighbour on the same level (Matt. 22:36-40). In Matthew 23:23 He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of leaving aside the more important matters of the law — judgment and mercy and faith. Meanwhile they put great emphasis on applying the law of tithes to little things like garden herbs.

It is also possible that the Lord, when speaking here about "commandments," was not thinking of the law of Sinai. He may have meant His own new commandments, which He was just about to announce in the "sermon on the mount"... They might still have seemed "least" to His audience. Yet they were the guidelines for how the disciples of Christ should behave in the kingdom of the heavens.

The end of verse 19 again shows the contrast with the scribes and Pharisees. The Lord later says of them: "So do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practise" (Matt. 23:3). In Matthew 5:19 He links His promise to the agreement between actions and doctrine.

The law was still valid then. So He says to the Jews here that anyone who thinks he can do away with any of it would be called the least in His kingdom. Comparing the two Scriptures we see that He speaks of people who only claim a place in the kingdom of the heavens outwardly. They have not really "entered in" (v. 20). When He appears in glory He will remove them from His kingdom in judgment (Matt. 13:41).

This very attitude — doing and teaching the commandments — would of course lead a person to recognize his own need of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus. He would realize that he comes short when measured by the rule of law.

Teaching that we are not under law, and teaching men to break the commandments, are not the same thing. On the other hand, I can teach the commandments as part of the revealed mind of God. At the same time I can hold that I am not under the law.

Since the Babylonian captivity the Talmud has added a large collection of interpretations and rules on top of the law. The New Testament calls these "the tradition of the elders." The scribes knew the law and these human rules best, and the Pharisees kept them most strictly. In Matthew 23 the Lord Jesus pronounces a sevenfold "woe" over these men and their behaviour. It was marked by self-centredness and a concern for outward appearance. They might look devout and righteous to people, but before God their attitude could not stand.

As undoing the word justly sunk one to be "least" in the kingdom, faithfulness to it raised to a great place there. Clearly then the righteousness of those who entered must exceed and excel that of the Pharisee (v. 20), who honoured tradition, the word of man, and so necessarily belittled God's word.

They looked up with ignorant eyes to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Our Lord declares that this righteousness will not do. It goes up to the temple every day. It prides itself on long prayers, large gifts to the poor, and broad phylacteries. It will not stand in the sight of God. There must be something far deeper and more in keeping with the holy, loving nature of God. For with all that show of outward religion, there might still be no sense of sin and no sense of the grace of God — and usually there was none.

The Scribes and Pharisees were especially ritualist and external. This was letter, not spirit. Our Lord condemns a righteousness of mere outward acts. He insists on inward reality as essential for the kingdom of the heavens... As the Pharisees fatally narrowed the scope of Scripture, the Lord gave its fulness as none but He could. The first of these references is to the law of murder. But the Lord goes immeasurably farther for the kingdom.

He does not mean the righteousness of God which He credits to those who believe on Him. The Lord Jesus, in the "sermon on the mount," does not preach the gospel to the lost, but speaks to His disciples. So "your righteousness" means practical righteousness. It shows in the lives of people He has justified through faith in Him, who follow Him by doing God's will.

The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was mere self-righteousness, an attempted cover-up of their true character. We must have a righteousness that exceeds this. This is not explained for us here, but Romans 4:5 makes this far more clear.

There is a great secret that does not come out in this sermon. First of all, there is a load of unrighteousness on the sinner. How is that to be dealt with, and the sinner made fit for the kingdom of heaven and brought into it? Through faith he is born again. He receives a new nature, a life that flows from the grace of God just as truly as Christ's bearing of his sins on the cross. There is the foundation of practical righteousness. The true beginning of all moral goodness in a sinner is the sense and confession that he has none — that he is bad. Nothing is ever right with God in a man until he gives himself up as all wrong.

The question was raised: who is going to get into the kingdom? The answer is, "Unless your righteousness…" That is the character which suits the kingdom — not the Pharisees with their legal righteousness... We are born again, and so we see and enter the kingdom.

The Lord Jesus begins the first of the six examples with the words, "You have heard that it was said to those of old." Those "of old" are not only the people of Moses' own day, because the words that follow add something to the original commandment. The crowd listening to the Lord Jesus had heard two things. First, God gave the commandment, "You shall not murder." Second, the scribes had probably added the rest of what they knew, "and whoever murders will be liable to judgment," some time after the exile in Babylon. "Judgment" here seems to mean the judges and officers named, for example, in Deuteronomy 16:18. Israel was to appoint them in every town.

He does not once say: "It is written," not even when He quotes a commandment of the Old Testament such as in verses 27 and 38. With His sixfold reply, "But I say to you," the Lord Jesus did not want to set aside the inspired commandments of God. He meant to expose and judge the false interpretations and distortions of the scribes, and "the tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:3), which they valued so highly.

He takes some of the commandments which He wrote on the second table of stone. He begins with this one: "You shall not murder." Murder was the first terrible fruit after the fall, and it sprang from envy in the heart. The penalty of murder is the judgment. This, then, is the letter of the law. It dealt with the outward deed, but the heart itself it did not touch.

Now He takes up the law in its various parts, at least what has to do with men. Here He does not deal with what touches God directly. He first takes up what flows from human violence, and after that the glaring example of human corruption. Violence and corruption are the two outstanding forms of human wickedness. Even before the flood this was the condition of men: "The earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence." Here, in verse 21, the light of the kingdom falls on the command against murder. The law took notice of this extreme form of violence. But our Lord gives it length, breadth, height, and depth.

Eight times in this chapter He says, "I say to you." Six of those times the word "But" comes first, setting His statement against what the law had said. We may well ask: who is this who quotes the holy law of God, and then calmly says, "But I say to you"? He alters and enlarges the law — a thing no prophet had ever dared to do! Is this not terrible presumption, close to blasphemy? Yes, indeed, and only one explanation lifts this charge from Him. But that one explanation is true: here we have the original Lawgiver, who once spoke from Sinai.

As to the two commandments He quoted, His teaching is plain. God looks not only at the outward act but also at the inward attitude of the heart. He forbids not just the act of murder or adultery, but the hatred and the lust that the act expresses. Judged by this standard, who is going to stand before the holy demands of Sinai? The "righteousness" of the scribe and Pharisee utterly collapses.

The Lord Jesus now sets His own words against this commandment and its human addition: "But I say to you." These words occur five times in this part of the fifth chapter. He speaks with the same authority as the One who had once given the law, for He is the Son of God. Yet His words do not set the law aside. They stretch it to reach the condition of man's heart.

The law and the prophets He had vindicated. All must come to pass. Yet the law made nothing perfect. He speaks Who is above the law and gave fulness to all on His own authority.

The law dealt with this extreme form of violence, but our Lord gives it length, breadth, height, and depth… He treats every kind of violence, feeling, and expression as now falling into the same class as murder in the sight of God. It covers anything of contempt and hatred, whatever expresses the ill feeling of the heart. It covers any putting down of another, the will to destroy others as far as their character or influence goes. All this is no better than murder in God's searching eye.

The one who called his brother "Raca" (Aramaic: "reka" — fool, lunatic) was liable to be called before the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish court at that time). Whoever said "fool" was liable to hell ("Gehenna"): eternal damnation. These three sins hardly differ from one another. If the last of them led to eternal damnation, then the others would do so as well. God does not look at the outward appearance but into our hearts.

He judges men's inner thoughts. But if someone put such thoughts into words of scorn, branding another as "Raca" (vain or empty), he was in danger of being rightly called before the Jewish council to answer this serious charge. Worse still, he might put those thoughts into words of hate, calling someone a fool. If so, he was in danger of hell fire. A character that is hateful at heart has no faith: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 John 3:15).

It was not enough not to kill. To nurse anger or contempt was of the same character as murder in His sight. He expressed His judgment of it in the terms of the court proceedings they knew, in their local and higher courts. "The judgment" put men to death by the sword. "The council" (Sanhedrin) did it by stoning. And "the Gehenna of fire" would make the horror of it greater.

The source, motive, and aim decide. If of God and for Him by the Spirit, anger has His sanction; if for self, it is evil that exposes to judgment.

No doubt this will be so when the kingdom comes to the earth; swift judgment will overtake the offender. But the words lay bare the heart. They show that men cannot stand in their own righteousness before God, who judges the heart. The believer shares the divine nature, and so is righteous and loves his brother. Only receiving eternal life, which is Christ Himself, can produce righteousness and love.

We should remember that the Lord Jesus was speaking to His disciples, and the temple sacrifices were still in place. Still, His words have something to say to us too.

But it is a serious mistake to think this undeniable fact takes away the profit of a single word for the Christian, though we now stand in a position of grace that could not exist then. There is the richest moral instruction for everyone who honours Him who spoke as no man ever spoke.

A man brings a gift to honour God, and on the way up to the temple his conscience is at work. Then, at the altar, his conscience reminds him that his brother has something against him. We might have thought it must always be right to put God first: offer the gift, and then go and seek reconciliation with your brother. The Lord, who knows our hearts, shows that in these circumstances the gift is unacceptable.

In Matthew 18:15 the matter is what I have against my brother, because he has wronged me, and I should go and tell him his fault. But here I know that he has something against me. The case is reversed. Pride shows itself as much as anything in refusing to admit when we are wrong.

Perhaps it was only a misunderstanding, or I may have deliberately hurt a child of God, a brother or sister. Anyway, he or she has something against me. The Lord says in this case, "Go."

"The altar" does not mean the Lord's table. Still, we should examine ourselves before taking the Lord's Supper, and we shall have a far deeper sense of grace if we do. These were legal sacrifices. But for us the principle applies whenever we come to God — even in prayer. "If I hold on to sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me."

If I wrong another person, that wrong will interfere with my communion with God. Only atonement can restore that communion. Paying the person back is not enough on its own. It might satisfy the injured man, but it could not be the basis of restored communion with God… Still, if the question is an injury done to my neighbour, then repayment must come first.

The Greek word for "be reconciled" here is di-allasso. It is never used for a man being reconciled to God; that is a different word, kat-allasso. Di-allasso means both sides giving ground after both have been hostile — an idea that is not in kat-allasso. It seems that when believers quarrel or misunderstand each other, the Lord sees that there is usually, if not always, fault on both sides. Both need to give ground.

Certainly you ought to go to him, if you have anything against him, and be reconciled to him. But instead of this you turn your back on the altar and stay away with your gift of thanks due to God. What blindness — sinning like this against God and against your brother!

The Lord spoke with an authority uniquely and emphatically His own. He was not content merely to condemn the hateful evil of anger in heart and word, even when it never becomes a violent deed. He goes on to carry out the revealed mind of God for the kingdom by requiring reconciliation if anyone has made his brother stumble. Throughout, disciples are in view, not mankind in general.

We are called to act, and to act as soon as we see there is a problem. A man brings a gift to honour God, and as he goes up to the temple his conscience is at work. Then, at the altar, he remembers that his brother has something against him. We might have thought it must always be right to put God first — to offer the gift first, and seek reconciliation with the brother afterwards. The Lord, who knows our hearts, shows that in these circumstances the gift is unacceptable.

The Greek word for "be reconciled" is di-allasso. Scripture never uses this word for a man being reconciled to God. For that it uses a different word, kat-allasso. Di-allasso means mutual concession after mutual hostility, an idea absent in kat-allasso... It seems that when believers have a quarrel or misunderstanding, the Lord sees fault on both sides, usually if not always. Both need to make concessions.

Our Father will not value our offerings, as His children and worshippers, unless we are growing in affection for our brothers... Our Father is working to fill a kingdom with children and with brothers. Its citizens will know Him as their Father and each other as brothers... He says, in effect, "You must come to Me in the path of brotherly love. Otherwise I cannot receive your gift. My altar is indeed among you, but I cannot receive your gift while you have no love for one another."

So you certainly ought to go to him, if you have anything against him, and be reconciled to him. But instead of this you turn your back on the altar and stay away with your gift of thanks due to God. What blindness — sinning in this way against God and against your brother!

Some have asked what this means for us. If someone comes to remember the Lord in the breaking of bread, and remembers that another has something against him, should he not break bread until the matter is settled? Scripture does not put it that way. It says instead, "Let a person examine (or judge) himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:28).

What tenderness of conscience He looked for! Brotherly affection, humility, readiness to admit wrong, a desire to win back an offended brother... And the opposite was the case with the Jews. They were so absorbed in bringing their offering to the altar that they were blind to their wrong against Him who stooped to be their brother... They refused to be reconciled and kept on with their offering, however offensive to God. It was presumptuous sin, and high-handed self-will under a cloak of religion.

In the past it was common to keep a convicted debtor in prison until he had paid all his debts. The Lord speaks here in symbolic language: "There is an opportunity to make peace with the other side before it is too late, even though one might find this hard. But the time for reconciliation will cease. The one who is not prepared to act in this way will have to bear the consequences."

The awful truth is this: their stubborn disobedience and blind unbelief made an adversary of Jehovah-Messiah, the very One who loved Israel and would die for them. His presence, if received, would have been their salvation and best blessing. Instead, because they utterly rejected and hated Him, it had to bring on the crisis that could not be avoided.

The "adversary" — the law, "Moses, on whom you have set your hope" — was bringing them to the Ruler or Judge, God, the Judge of His people. John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, had been preaching as the accuser of the people. They showed them their sins and called them to repentance. But while this was the case, Israel was only "on the way to the magistrate." There was still time to be reconciled — by repentance and by accepting Christ as Messiah. This they refused to do... So the Lord's prediction came true: they were delivered to the Judge, dealt with judicially by God, who handed them over to the "officer" — the executor of His will; in this case, the Gentiles.

So Jesus came, seeking an account of the fruit produced. "Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court." Christ was saying, I am still in the way with you. "Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation." The axe was laid to the root of the tree. So they had only one thing to do: agree with Him who had the right against them.

So the case was just about to come before the Judge. The Judge would hand the convicted man over to the official, and he must go to prison until he had paid the last penny. This is no question of eternal judgment, but of God's moral government on the earth... The guilty debtor still lies in that prison, until his heart turns to the One he despised. Then the word will go out, "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God... that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins."

Wrong spiritual applications of the last part of this example have led to much confusion. The doctrine of "purgatory" is probably the saddest proof of that. Scripture nowhere teaches that a man must suffer a temporal punishment from God after death to be eternally saved. No; once death has come, the soul's eternal destiny is settled: a person is either eternally and perfectly saved, or eternally lost!

They were like men in danger of being called before a court. They had no answer to give that could ward off the punishment they deserved. Their only hope lay in making peace with their accuser before they stood before the judge. Once they reached that stage, they could expect nothing but judgment... At the judgment seat, whether of man or of God, no one brought there as guilty can expect mercy. So while they still had the opportunity, let them use it.

In the past it was common to leave a convicted debtor in prison until all his debts were paid (compare Matt. 18:30, 34). The Lord says here in symbolic language: "You still have the chance to make peace with the other party before it is too late. You may find this hard. But the time for reconciliation will end. Whoever is not prepared to act this way will have to bear the consequences."

I believe that Israel were guilty of that very folly — Israel as a people — that they did not agree with the adversary quickly. There was the Messiah. Being His adversaries, they treated Him as their adversary and by their unbelief forced God to be against them... They did not agree with their adversary quickly. So the judge could only hand them over to the officer, and into prison they went. There they remain to this day. Because they rejected the Messiah, the Jewish nation has been shut out from all the promises of God. As a nation they were committed to prison, and there they must remain till the last penny is paid.

God is no adversary to man. For a poor sinner, it would be an entirely wrong thought that God needed to be reconciled... for the sinner is God's adversary... It is man who has made God a judge, not in His nature, but through man's sin. And here as to Israel, sin had made Him an adversary. They rejected Christ, and that rejection ended in the cross. Now they are cast out of their land — or, in the language of our chapter, "cast into prison."

This is no question of eternal judgment. It is God's moral government on the earth. Yet all of it is true of His people, found guilty and consigned to suffer long. In that prison still lies the guilty debtor, till his heart turns to the One he despised. Then the word shall go out: Comfort, comfort My people, says your God... that her iniquity is pardoned (Isa. 40:1-2).

The uttermost farthing of the great debt of the people must be paid, but nothing beyond this will be exacted from them.

Here the Catholics are inconsistent with themselves. If minor sins are forgiven in purgatory, this passage still speaks of the last penny being paid. Surely we cannot speak of a debt being forgiven and at the same time paid to the last penny.

Scripture nowhere teaches that a man must suffer a temporary punishment from God after his death to be eternally saved. No; once death has come, the soul's eternal destiny is decided. A person is either eternally and perfectly saved or eternally lost! This verse therefore can only refer to circumstances on earth.

Thus Jesus came, seeking an account of the fruit produced. "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him." Christ was saying, I am still on the way with you. "Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."

Under law, payment must reach the last penny. For the believer, the cross of Christ has paid it... The majesty of the law was never so upheld as in the death of Christ. He kept it perfectly at every step of His life. He magnified it and made it honourable. Yet He bore the law's curse for those who had broken it.

In the Old Testament, adultery — being unfaithful to your husband or wife to satisfy lust — had to be treated with great severity. Under the law of Sinai this sin had to be punished with death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). First of all, the law gave God's rules for the outward and social life of His earthly people. That is why it punished only the completed act, even though the tenth commandment forbade coveting the neighbour's wife (as well as all his possessions, Ex. 20:17). If a Jew kept the commandment not to commit adultery, he was acting according to God's will... But merely keeping this and all the other commandments on the outside could not justify him before God.

The prophets of old had come before the people with "Thus says the Lord" on their lips... but in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stood up and said, "I SAY TO YOU." His teaching astonished those who heard Him, for He taught them as One having authority... He is able to look behind the profession and all that is outward, and read the heart, which none but God can do.

It is a scandalous and immoral procedure. He was shifting the searchlight from the outward actions to the unseen inner nature... the Lord went deeper. He dealt with the hidden desires of the heart, with the nature that lies at the root of every wrong act and from which all evil deeds spring. He declared that God required truth in the inward parts. In his great repentance David learned that his nature was more terrible than his deeds. The law taught Saul of Tarsus the same needed lesson (Romans 7). This did not make void the law; it established its use as a searching, convicting power.

The law was content to forbid the actual act; the Lord went further, and forbade not only the outward act but the inward desire.

Because of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, the Jews thought that simply keeping the law on the outside was the way to be justified before God. Here the Lord points to the human heart and shows that adultery has its source there. This is not a "spiritualisation of the law," as some say. For the first time He reveals something that every honest Israelite had to learn by experience. Everyone who tried to keep the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" had inside them the very lusts that led to the actions God forbade. They had no strength to overcome them. The commandment even stirred those lusts up: "...for I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom. 7:7-11).

The Lord is not speaking here about accidental, unplanned looks that a person can barely avoid. He means the deliberate look of lust... So the sinful thought in the heart comes before the deliberate look.

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that puts a soul in danger of giving in to these impure desires should never be spared. We must leave it at any cost... Cutting off these parts of the body pictures a heart fully exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying that it never committed the sin. It gives up whatever exposed it to that sin.

Avoiding the act itself might satisfy a Pharisee or scribe. But the Lord could not do without truth in the inward parts... it is not the outside only that God regards, but the heart above all. Only a new nature delights in holiness. The person who has it by grace answers to the will of God his Father. He hates himself if he slips even into a wrong look, as something unworthy of his calling and hateful to Him who loves him.

Take one example out of the seven times in that discourse when our Lord said, "I say to you." "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). Where is the setting aside of the law? No — He upheld it. The law was content to forbid the actual act; the Lord went further, and forbade not only the outward act but the inward desire.

Because of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, the Jews thought the mere outward keeping of the law was the way to be justified before God. Here the Lord points to the human heart and shows that adultery has its source there. He reveals for the first time something every honest Israelite had to learn by experience. Everyone who tried to keep the commandment "You shall not commit adultery" already had inside them the very lusts that led to the acts God forbade. And they had no strength to overcome them. The lusts were even stirred up by the commandment: "for I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'" (Rom. 7:7-11).

This distinction is very important. Today we can hardly go anywhere without seeing the moral corruption of our time. We do not mean to see it, and it defiles us easily. The intentional covetous and sinful look is something completely different. No Christian can stop unclean thoughts rising in his mind. They become sin only when he turns toward them and gives himself to them instead of turning away. Covetous looks and unclean thoughts are sin. So it is also sin when believing women and girls stir them up by their dress and behaviour.

God-fearing Job said: "I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?" (Job 31:1). But some Christians are over-sensitive and over-anxious. Involuntary looks and thoughts weigh their consciences down. I would remind them of the well-known words Martin Luther wrote on this verse: "I cannot stop a bird flying over my head, but I can stop it building a nest in my hair or biting off my nose."

It is sometimes said that deliverance from sin is a matter of personal effort, and that evil habits can and should be overcome by one's own firm resolve and perseverance. But this advice overlooks one thing. Willpower alone may check the wicked deed, but the sinful desire has already filled the heart. And divine holiness uncovers the secret source of inward evil. In God's sight, a foolish thought is sin. Our Lord condemns the lustful look and the adulterous act alike (Matt. 5:28).

The avoidance of the extreme act might satisfy a Pharisee or a scribe; but the Lord had to have truth deep inside a person. Only a new nature delights in holiness. The one who has it by grace answers to the will of God his Father. If he slips even into a wrong look, he hates himself for it, as unworthy of his calling and hateful to Him who loves him.

Whatever in our walk, or in our ways, or in our service — whatever it might be that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these unholy feelings — should never be spared, but abandoned at any cost… The cutting off of these members pictures a heart thoroughly exercised in self-judgment; not excusing itself by saying that it had not actually committed the sin, but giving up whatever exposed it to that sin.

The Lord is not calling for self-mutilation or asceticism in these words. The Creator will never demand that His creature mutilate the body he has received from Himself. Even if someone plucked out both his eyes, the lust would still remain in his heart. Rather, the Lord here extends the teaching to the question of self-judgment.

Better to sacrifice what might seem most necessary than to give oneself up to the sure penalty of sin... Men excuse on the plea of necessity what they find to be a constant provocation to sin. God's law admits no pretext of the kind.

The Greek word translated "scandal" literally means the stick in a trap that holds the bait, and so it came to mean the trap or snare itself. Most translations render it "stumbling-block," which means much the same thing.

In the Bible the right eye is often described as something very precious. The right eye and the right hand are symbols of attitudes and actions, but at the same time also of the precious and important things in human life. If they trap us — that is, if they cause sin or stumbling — then we should not spare even the most precious and important things in our lives. We should judge ourselves honestly and strictly, and separate from them if we must. Even if they are not bad in themselves, this does not mean that they are not dangerous!

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these unholy feelings should never be spared. We must turn from it at any cost. There must be the cutting away of everything that is hurtful to the soul... Cutting off these parts pictures a heart thoroughly exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying it never committed the sin. Whatever exposed it to that sin must go.

If a man is in earnest, he will avoid the occasion of temptation where he feels he cannot overcome. I agree that we are not called upon to abstain as a law, and I object to vows or pledges. But if this man found it a means of avoiding sin, he would gladly act on the principle of total abstinence, so that he might not enter into temptation. We are to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye if it is a stumbling-block to us.

Hell is here "gehenna" or the lake of fire. The place where children were first offered to Moloch was called the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna. People burned the city's rubbish there... It is "their worm" — a person's own conscience — that never dies. And the fire of God's judgment is never quenched. All this about the eye and the hand teaches us one thing: nothing, however valuable and useful, should keep us from self-judgment.

The Lord is not calling for self-mutilation or extreme self-denial in these words. The Creator will never demand that His creature mutilate the body he has received from Himself. Even if someone plucked out both his eyes, the lust would still remain in his heart. Rather, the Lord here extends the teaching to the question of self-judgment. The mention of the right hand points to this.

In Matthew 5 the Lord is stressing what lies behind the action. That is why He names the right eye and the right hand, but not the foot. The right side speaks of what is positive, the left of what is negative. So the right hand stands for positive works of faith. If a man's conscience convicts him of misusing it, let him cut off his hand — that is, judge the action without sparing himself. Refusing to judge yourself at all leads to the judgment of hell. The believer will judge himself; let him do it thoroughly.

The right eye and the right hand are symbols of attitudes and actions, but at the same time also of the precious and important things in human life. If they cause us to sin or stumble, we should not spare even the most precious and important things in our lives. We should judge ourselves honestly and strictly, and separate from them if we must. Even if they are not bad in themselves, this does not mean that they are not dangerous!

Anything in our walk, our ways, or our service that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these sinful desires should never be spared. We must leave it at any cost. Everything that harms the soul must be removed. Cutting off these members shows a heart deeply exercised in self-judgment. Such a heart does not excuse itself by saying it has not actually committed the sin. Whatever exposed it to sin must be given up.

Better sacrifice what might seem most necessary than give oneself up to the sure penalty of sin. Such an instruction clearly does not call for extreme self-denial or self-mutilation. But men plead necessity to excuse what they know keeps provoking them to sin. God's law admits no pretext of the kind.

In Matthew 5 the statement is general. The danger is hell-fire — your whole body cast into hell. The point is to sacrifice one member rather than sin. It is clearly not the valley of Hinnom. "Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (chapter 10:28). They do not put souls there. It is used as a picture of the place of final judgment and punishment… It is a judgment, a judicial punishment, for which there is no relief, of which there is no cessation.

If a man is in earnest, he will avoid the occasion of temptation where he feels he cannot overcome. I agree that we are not called to abstain as a law, and I object to vows or pledges. But if this man found total abstinence a means of avoiding sin, he would gladly act on it, so that he might not enter into temptation. We are to cut off a right hand or pluck out a right eye if it is a stumbling-block to us.

The Lord Jesus is not pointing to a commandment from the Old Testament. He is pointing to a habit of the Jews — the writing of a letter of divorce — which had probably existed before God gave the law at Sinai.

This bill of divorce was meant to stop a man from treating his wife cruelly — throwing her out and yet leaving her unable to marry anyone else.

A bill of divorce had to be given to the woman. Drawing it up and having it witnessed put at least a small check on a man's hasty temper.

Here the woman is protected against hard-hearted man. Only actual sin that breaks the marriage bond calls for divorce. Men abused the permission beyond all measure, as if it were a command; any annoyance was enough. But the LORD hates divorce, as the last prophet told the Jews in their evil day.

One school of Jewish teachers said the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy 24:1 meant adultery or some other immoral behaviour. Other teachers accepted anything a husband disliked about his wife as a reason for divorce.

The law contained certain concessions that did not express God's mind at all. In the law God was dealing with a people in their natural state. The law does not think of a man as born of God; Christianity does… the law itself drew no line between those born again and those not born again. It spoke to all Israel, not to believers only. So it allowed certain things because of the hardness of their hearts.

He sets His own word down with divine authority, so that what He laid down stands in contrast to the law and goes far beyond its claims… And what could be plainer than what He does later, in Matthew 19? He goes back to the beginning, long before the law, to the order and the word God set up in Genesis 2. There again His own word is full and final authority.

According to God's will, marriage cannot be dissolved. The Lord Jesus makes this plain in Matthew 19:6: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." This not only applies to marriages made "in the Lord," but to every marriage. Already in the Old Testament God had spoken to Jews who had divorced their wives: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that He hates putting away" (Malachi 2:16).

In connection with the light of heaven on the lusts of the heart, the Lord adds His word on the permission of divorce in Deuteronomy 24. Here the law protects the woman against hard-hearted man. Only actual sin that breaks the marriage tie calls for divorce. Men abused this permission beyond measure, as if it were a command; and any annoyance was enough. But the Lord hates putting away, as the last prophet testified to the Jews in their evil day.

One school of rabbis taught that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 meant adultery or some other immoral behaviour. Other rabbis accepted anything a husband did not like about his wife as a reason for divorce.

Whatever the wife's faults and weaknesses may be, the man who divorces her puts her in danger. She may be bound to another husband afterwards. The Lord here calls such a relationship adultery. This implies that the first marriage is still valid before God. A marriage is entered into before God and man. A divorce carried out before men, that is, in a court, does not break it. What breaks it is sexual union with another partner afterwards — even when that union takes place in a new marriage. It hardly needs to be said that this also applies to the spouse who puts away, that is, divorces, the other.

The one exception is allowed here because the marriage bond has been so violated that it is already broken in fact. If one party is guilty of sexual immorality, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another.

Here the Lord Jesus makes room for one exception, and it clearly rules out any other. This exception is missing in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, and Paul does not mention it in 1 Corinthians 7. The Lord does not say that divorce is unavoidable when one partner commits sexual immorality. He says only that in such a case, if the other partner divorces and remarries, that is not adultery.

In God's thoughts, the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. He breaks into a marriage that still exists before Him. These words of the Lord agree with what the apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: "the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife."

So our Lord shows that serious difficulties may arise, yet God's own ordinance still stands strongly behind this human relationship. It belongs to this earth, but the light of heaven falls on it. Christ holds up the holiness of marriage. He shuts out every possibility that anything may interfere with it. One case stands apart: where something had already interrupted the marriage in the sight of God. There the act of separation only declares that it was broken already.

Here we see again what the Lord Jesus asks in His kingdom. He does not demand the literal keeping of the law given at Sinai. He seeks instead that His own should follow Him honestly and with a whole heart. For that reason He does not speak about the death penalty for the woman who had committed adultery. He warns His disciples about divorce and the sins caused by it. At the same time, in His grace, He makes room for the possible exception... We should not forget that the sin of adultery can and should be forgiven when the guilty one confesses it honestly. It does not have to lead to divorce.

The moral basis for the command not to swear falsely — that is, not to commit perjury — lay in two commandments. The third says, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." The ninth says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." But other passages in the Old Testament warn the people of Israel about thoughtless swearing. Leviticus 19:12 says: "You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God."

On the other hand, the law required an oath on several occasions. In such cases God asked His people to swear by His name. The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow, made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — the Jehovah who had once Himself taken an oath before Abraham.

There had been great abuse of vowing, as Israel's history makes clear. Men did not hesitate to vow recklessly to God at the prompting of their pride and passion and self-will. Then they found themselves trapped by what now seemed their duty. Careless profanity followed close behind, and people profaned God's name with casual appeals to it on every occasion.

So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God... All the strong affirmations the Lord illustrates from Jewish habit arose from men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name outright bound the conscience. Others could be broken.

The question here is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing authorities. It is a matter of ordinary conversation, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head were ways of swearing in the everyday talk of Jews. They were not the kind of oath used when someone brings in God's authority to bring out the truth in matters of fact. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God.

The same principle that stops me swearing on my own makes me take an oath before a magistrate. In one case I bring in God lightly. In the other I own Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he does not take the oath a magistrate imposes. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.

Whatever is uncalled for gives no strength to an assertion, but is simply a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.

To bring the vow into Christianity is out of place, and worse. Talk of covenant-vows or baptismal vows goes against the simplicity of Christ's arrangements for us, and against the grace which we know is our only strength. The vow has wholly passed away, but it has gone to make room for Christ's strength to rest on us, and for our very weaknesses to be gloried in for that reason. God's oath is sworn to us, that His abundant grace shall be our sufficiency.

So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no... The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong assertion grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they used these means to guarantee the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. We know from a reliable Jewish writer of New Testament times that no one counted oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only an oath that named God outright bound the conscience. Men might even break the rest.

It was wrong to think a man could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as he did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head was offering his own life as security for the oath. He should remember well that God alone is Lord over life and death. He does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.

Man cannot even change the colour of a hair. That shows his utter weakness fully and simply, and it forms (at least in part) the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. We see Him do this beautifully when He wants to reassure His creature, who is so quick to doubt even the perfect faithfulness of his God.

It is quite enough that in our dealings with fellow believers or with other people, our yes should be yes and our no, no. "Anything more than this comes from evil." The believer is as responsible to speak as to act as in the presence of God. This is his regular privilege and safeguard... The evil one is a liar and the father of lies. He would gain a real opening if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people believed him.

The same principle that stops me swearing on my own account makes me take what is called an oath before a magistrate. In the one case I bring God in lightly; in the other I acknowledge Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... When a magistrate imposes an oath, he is putting me under oath by his authority. I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he refuses that oath. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.

Notice how our Lord acted before the high priest. It is practical proof of the distinction drawn here. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?

Deuteronomy 23:21-23 plainly warned Israel that a vow, once made, was binding. They did not have to make such oaths, but if they did, no excuse could cover a failure to keep one. The Lord Jesus, though, forbids the making of oaths. To swear an oath was to promise to do something in the future. People often used God's name in these oaths (1 Sam. 30:15; 1 Kings 17:1). But holding back from God's name led them to swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and even their own head. And that in turn led to empty oaths, made with no intention of keeping them.

It was a wrong idea to think one could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as one did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2).

Men also think little of swearing by heaven. Many use the word "heavens" as an exclamation. But heaven is God's throne, so such swearing means swearing by Him who sits on the throne. All of this shows how little people recognise the supreme honour that belongs to God.

Men were forever deceiving or evading each other. All the strong oaths the Lord points to in Jewish habit grew out of that. People turned to them as a way of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from the time of the New Testament tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only an oath that named God directly bound the conscience; the rest could be broken. The Lord assumed poverty of spirit and purity of heart in those He addressed. So He forbade all such swearing. It offends God, and it does not fit the place of His sons.

Significant here is the description of Jerusalem as the city of the great King. This will be during the millennial reign. When the kingdom has come, praise will be heard in the heavens, in the earth and in Jerusalem. Now the earth is full of swearing and wicked words. But in that coming day the offences will be gathered out of the kingdom.

To Jerusalem alone belongs this title, and it is no empty distinction. The great King Himself, the Judge of Israel, was struck on the cheek there and nailed to the cross. Scripture had to be fulfilled that way. For its sin that same city became a byword and a curse among the nations. Yet it is to be known as the joy of the whole earth, because the same Messiah will be present there in majesty. His glory was once turned to shame, when men wrote over the head of the crucified Son of God, in cruel and mocking scorn, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Many of the old church fathers — Justin, Irenaeus, Origen and Jerome — understood the Lord's words, "swear not at all," to mean that a Christian should never take an oath. Groups such as the Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses also refuse every kind of oath.

The question here (as in James) is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing powers. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem and a man's own head were ways of swearing in everyday Jewish talk. They were not the oaths used when God's authority is called in to draw out the truth about facts. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God (Matt. 26:62-64).

It was a mistake to think one could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as one did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head wanted to put down his own life as security for his oath. He ought to remember that God alone is Lord over life and death. He himself does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.

The Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the ordinary dealings of daily life. Our word in them is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God, and is therefore of evil, or of the evil one, the enemy of God and man. The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong affirmations arose because men were forever deceiving or evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that people did not treat oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only oaths that named God in plain, direct words bound the conscience. The rest they might even break.

The Lord sweeps into His prohibition all these evasions of the third commandment, putting them into the same category with what was once permitted. Man's utter weakness is shown fully and simply by his inability even to change the colour of a hair. That weakness is, at least in part, the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. It is beautiful to see Him do it. He does it to assure the soul of His creature, who is so ready to doubt the perfect faithfulness even of his God.

Faith, on the contrary, raises the soul above the difficulty, straight to God Himself, and enables one to "stand still." We gain nothing by our restless and anxious efforts. "We cannot make one hair white or black," nor "add one cubit to our stature."

Christianity has no place for oaths, whether sworn seriously or in vain. Israel's law had proved that man in the flesh cannot be trusted. They had vowed to keep the law, and they broke it again and again. So we must not dare to stress how dependable our own word is. Instead we should depend completely on the truth of the word of God. This is the effect of grace.

Here the reference is not a judicial oath, that is, an oath administered by a magistrate… The matter here relates to communication between man and man. … Suppose our Lord had meant to forbid the Christian from taking judicial oaths. Would He not have used as His example the oath that was usual in the courts of those days? … If the magistrate does not acknowledge God in the oath, the Christian is still bound to acknowledge God in the magistrate, who is a servant of God in the outward things of this world.

In our dealings with fellow believers or with anyone else, it is quite enough that our yes should be yes, and our no, no. … The believer is as responsible to speak as to act in the presence of God. This is his constant privilege and safeguard… The evil one is a liar and the father of it. Suppose the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed extra words before people would believe him. That would give him no small opportunity.

If our words are honest and true, they need no other confirmation than "yes" or "no." The sense of this double mention of yes and no becomes clear from a very similar passage in James 5:12: "Yes" should really mean "Yes," and "No" should really mean "No." All that is more than that is only a sign that one generally does not take the truth too seriously, and therefore "comes of evil."

This in fact weakens what is said instead of establishing it. Whatever is uncalled for clearly gives no strength to a statement. It is just a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.

So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word in these things is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God, and is therefore of evil, or the evil one, the enemy of God and man. All such strong wording, which the Lord draws from Jewish habit, grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving or evading. So they turned to these ways of guaranteeing the truth. But the efforts defeated themselves. A trustworthy Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name openly bound the conscience; the rest men felt free to break. Since the Lord assumed poverty of spirit and purity of heart in those He addressed, He banned all such swearing outright, as offensive to God and out of keeping with the place of His sons.

The believer is as responsible to speak as to act in the presence of God. This is his habitual privilege and safeguard. It may be forgotten by others, or by himself to his loss. The evil one is a liar and the father of it. It would be a great opportunity for him if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people would believe him.

The law, with that recognition of human strength which as law it necessarily implied, condemned only the false swearing, while permitting the swearing. But man's powerlessness has now been shown in full. The Lord teaches that our everyday speech must now recognise it — the speech of people who "cannot make one hair white or black." How closely faith, the theme here, is joined to the complete giving up of self-confidence that faith assumes!

It is below our calling, then, to indulge in affirmations beyond the simple statements of truth. It is worth noting, as a practical proof of the distinction drawn here, how our Lord acted when He was before the high priest. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?

In verse 38 the Lord quotes from Exodus 21:24. "An eye for an eye" is fully righteous recompense, expressing the firm inflexibility of the law. Of course the sentence must be passed by a judge, not by the offended party. If one takes the law into his own hands, he will practically in every case inflict worse treatment than he received.

Under the old economy we find that the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance.

The law demands an exact equivalent — no more, and no less. But grace can cancel every claim. God has dealt with us in grace and cancelled our whole debt, so we must act on the same principle towards one another. But never forget that righteousness is the deep foundation of grace itself. That is why grace reigns through righteousness (Rom. 5:21), on a basis that is everlasting and unchanging.

Here the Lord instructs His disciples in their own personal path, not in their dealings with rulers. He sets their calling to walk in grace — in what they do and in what they bear — against that of the Jews, who were called to act in the righteousness of the law. It is absurd to apply such a passage to a government or a court of this world. If it did apply, it would prove that magistrates ought to pamper and reward every criminal instead of punishing any.

The principle "an eye for an eye" was valid only before the judges in Israel. We see this too in that the Jew was not allowed to take vengeance: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18). It is not correct to suppose the Lord Jesus was referring to it because the Pharisees might have allowed it.

He presented far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and beat Him, and struck Him with the palms of their hands with the utmost contempt. No! the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.

This law contained moral directions for the life of each Israelite. It contained ceremonial directions too — the laws of the offerings, so that the children of Israel could serve God. And it contained legal directions to regulate the daily life of the people. The principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" belongs to the last group. It is not a principle for one person's conscience. It is a legal direction for the authorities and judges of Israel. This is clear from Exodus 21:22 and Deuteronomy 19:18, where the judges are expressly mentioned. The direction rested on absolute fairness in repaying the deed. It was also meant to warn the people and hold them back (Deut. 19:20).

It is not that it is wrong for a man to punish according to the injury that has been inflicted on another. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous. But our Lord shows that we ought to be much more than righteous. We ought to be gracious… It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do… He is speaking of personal injury. The evil done may be ever so undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good. Show that you are willing to take even more for Christ's sake.

At that time a slap in the face was a deep insult. It was even more humiliating when it came with the back of the hand and so landed on the right cheek. According to the Jewish Talmud this offence "weighed double" compared to an ordinary slap. The disciples of the Lord Jesus ought not to look for reparation before men, but to suffer offences (compare 1 Peter 2:20). It reminds us of what Isaiah foretold about our Lord: "I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting" (Isa. 50:6).

There is no supposition that the law or its penalties are abolished. The government of the world is not in question. What is in question is the path of disciples in it… We may still turn the left cheek to the man who strikes the right. We may let the man who sues us have the cloak as well as the coat he took by fraud. That is clearly within our rights. If the cause were someone else's, we would have no such right. We may not help men escape justice or make light of it. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness, or shrug at the rights of others. He speaks only of what is personal to oneself — "slaps you," "sues you," "forces you."

Some pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary. This was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth. When He was reviled, He did not revile in return. When He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He presented far more than the other cheek. They spat in His face, beat Him, and struck Him with their hands in utmost contempt.

The saint is given a path through this world which has nothing to do with the world, but which displays the character of Christ in it. … This would not be righteousness, but Christ displayed.

Under the law it was forbidden to take as a pledge a poor debtor's cloak overnight. The debtor had to have his cloak returned so that he might have a covering for the night (Ex. 22:26; Deut. 24:12-13). This is probably what the Lord Jesus was referring to. He instructs His disciples not to resist and to give even more than the other man demands. This is grace.

Under the old economy the law laid down the principle, in righteousness, "An eye for an eye" (Ex. 21:24), thereby restraining the wrath of man. Otherwise he would have demanded two eyes for one, in vengeance. But here an entirely new principle comes in... It is the very opposite of nature, which loves to avenge itself. It is different from righteousness, which measures out even-handed justice. It is the beautiful spirit of grace... the disciple should be more than righteous: he should be gracious. As he walks through this world, it is better to lose his cloak than to give up those lovely principles of grace. They mark him out as one who belongs to Christ.

Nothing here assumes that law is abolished, or its penalties. The government of the world is not in question, but the path of disciples in it... We may still turn the left cheek to the man who strikes the right. We may let the man who sues us have the cloak as well as the coat he has gained by fraud. That is clearly within our rights. If the cause were another person's, we would have no such right. We have no right to help people escape justice or treat it lightly. The Lord could never lay down a general rule that His people should allow lawlessness. He would never have them share in an indifference to the rights of others. He speaks only of what is personal to you — "strikes you," "sues you," "forces you."

Some pare down and whittle away His words. They are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally. Their reason: when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He protested calmly, while bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, it was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth, who when reviled, did not revile in return, and when suffering, did not threaten. In fact He presented far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and struck Him, and hit Him with the palms of their hands with the utmost contempt. No — the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and such is the true calling of the Christian.

In the Gospel of Matthew the case is of one who sues at law... Luke, on the contrary, writes, "from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either." It is not a case of legal suing, but of illegal violence... The apparent discrepancies of the Gospels are therefore their perfection, if indeed we value the entire truth of God... The Jewish disciple would especially need guarding on the side of law. But there is also violence in the world that breaks the law. The disciples needed to see this: it was their calling and privilege to hold fast their heavenly principles in the face of man's force, and not only in the face of law.

How much better to lose one's clothes than consistency with Christ? The spirit of the instruction goes further than the one cheek or the outer coat. What men want is to escape all suffering and keep their human rights, in defiance of His words. So they lose the reality of Christianity, and they keep not even its appearance.

The word used for "compel" (Greek: angareuo) first meant to press someone into a service. This is how Simon of Cyrene was pressed into carrying the cross of the Lord Jesus. So even when a service is unwanted and unpleasant, the disciple should not only do it willingly, but do more than the job demands.

The imperial government let its officials, while out on their errands, demand that a man come along in certain cases, and bring his pack animals too. How easily men are annoyed by what is, after all, no great burden! And none more so than a people like the Jews under their pagan rulers. The Lord would raise His disciples above all such self-will.

With what simplicity and force He gives His own a spirit that carries them in quiet dignity above the squabbles of the world! It would be unworthy of Him to hold to the letter and refuse to go four or five miles, if that was the demand, just because the Lord had said, "Go with him two miles." The real mind of the Lord is that the disciple should willingly go beyond what he was asked. It is grace in patience.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous. But our Lord shows that we ought to be much more than righteous. We ought to be gracious, and He presses this as the high point of this part of His teaching... It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do. The New Testament is written for the Christian... Personal injury is what is meant here. The evil done may be entirely undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good... The great principle our Lord marks here is this: according to the law you might go one step, but according to the gospel you would go two. This holds whether it is human violence, or the law applied however harshly or wrongly. Grace does twice as much as the law, whatever the point in hand.

It is the very opposite of nature, which loves to avenge itself. It is different from righteousness, which measures out even-handed justice. It is the beautiful spirit of grace.

Some who would whittle away His words are not ashamed to argue that He did not mean them literally, because when He was struck on the face for His answer to the high priest, He calmly protested, while still bowing to the insult. Was this paying evil back in its own coin? On the contrary, He was One who did no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth; when He was insulted, He did not insult in return, and when He suffered, He did not threaten. In fact He offered far more than the other cheek, for they spat in His face, and beat Him, and struck Him with the palms of their hands in utter contempt. No — the Lord yielded to wrong instead of resisting it; and that is the true calling of the Christian.

He saves by giving not only redemption, but a new and divine nature. That nature hates self-will, and loves and does God's will. So you obey under the law of liberty, not as the Jew did under the law of bondage.

Going the extra mile has a wide application. Someone may be very inconsiderate of our welfare or our feelings. How good it is if we can answer by being extra considerate of him! This is grace, in contrast to legality. In this we rightly represent the character of our blessed Lord.

In this verse we have a great principle for the Christian. It comes at the close of the call not to resist evil, but to suffer it. The wrong may be private, or come through twisted uses of the law, or at public demand. Christ is the pattern for the disciple. No sound explanation can explain away His word, however unpleasant it is to human nature. The new nature stays loyal to it, as the perfect law of liberty. Only the selfish nature looks for a way out by every dishonest means.

The disciples are under a higher government than any earthly one, and it will take abundant care of them. They no longer need to plead their own cause or take up arms in their own defence. And they share in such royal bounty that they are to be bountiful themselves.

He did not stop there, but told the disciple to give habitually to the one who asked. For what had he himself not received from the divine Giver, beyond everything he asked? He was the object of countless rich mercies — was he to turn away from someone who would ask or borrow?

Even under the law the Jew could not lend anything to his brother at interest (Lev. 25:35ff; Deut. 23:19); rather, he was to open his hand wide to him (Deut. 15:7-8). The Lord Jesus here places no restrictions on giving and lending. For God, the great Giver, did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.

I am not to ask questions about whether the person is worthy, and I need not give the amount he asks — but I am to give, because God gives. People brought their sick to the Lord, and having power and grace He healed them, requiring nothing, asking nothing. Many did not deserve it at all; yet He was the display of the giving God, and He gave freely.

This does not mean that we are to give everyone whatever he chooses to ask, or to lend whatever he wants to borrow. Rather, we must always be in a giving state — always ready to give, never tired of giving. Then, when a case of real need comes before us, we may enjoy the privilege of meeting it. So we are givers even as God Himself is a giver. This does not free us from the responsibility of our stewardship — from acting as God would have us act before Him, and for His glory.

Suppose someone came and asked you for something, and you had reason to think he would spend it wrongly — you must limit it. Why not? He might say to you, "Didn't the Lord command, 'Give to the one who begs from you'?" Certainly He did. But He has also given other words. By them I judge whether giving is right in each case. What the Lord has in view is real need.

Do you count up how often you have been deceived? Even then, why feel bitter about it? The word of Jesus entitles you to give as to your Father. The person who receives your gift may put it to a bad use — that is his responsibility. I am bound to cultivate an unsuspicious generosity, and this quite apart from mere friendship.

One man who professed faith said to me, "I ask because I want to give my brothers an opportunity to fulfil Matt. 5:42." I said, "Be consistent then. Go about hitting them, taking them to court, and forcing them to come at your bidding. That will give them the chance to fulfil the three previous verses." Let us make sure that when we read "Love," we love, and when we read "Give," we give. The one who yields everything gets everything; the one who keeps everything loses.

"It was said, You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy." This last clause was a deduction, the inference of an evil nature. The law said, "Love your neighbour"; but there was no instruction to hate an enemy.

The question of the scribe in Luke 10:29, "And who is my neighbour?" shows that the Jews had restricted the meaning of this commandment. God intended them to see a neighbour in every fellow-man. They did not want that. They counted only their own people as their neighbours. In this way the Gentiles, the "uncircumcised," were excluded from their love. The strict scribes and Pharisees went even further. They did not want to count ordinary Jews as their neighbours. They considered them cursed because they did not know the law. Finally they excluded personal enemies from this commandment too. Only a very few "privileged" ones were left to be treated as "neighbours."

Men understand, at least, that they ought to love their neighbour: but their qualifications narrow even their idea of such a duty, while they have invented a duty of hate, which no lawgiver would perhaps dare to write on his tables, but which is nevertheless obeyed all too readily in practice. "You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy" is what a man would justify to his conscience, as he approves it in his heart. But the law has no other word than "neighbour" here, as it has no other duty than to love him; and the Lord specifically puts even our enemies into this class. "But I say to you, Love your enemies" — not merely do them good, though that might seem much, but "love them."

But the Jews deliberately overlooked something. In the law God had also commanded them to love their enemies (see Exodus 23:4-5; Leviticus 19:33-34)... the Lord Jesus does not give His disciples new commandments. He judges the fleshly narrowing of the old commandment, and the human addition to it. In God's thoughts, every person we have dealings with is our neighbour. That holds even if he or she turns out to be our personal enemy. The Lord Jesus does not demand an emotional love or a friendly affection for enemies. He demands the much higher divine love.

To love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, is wholly above the law or the duty of a people in the flesh. An Edomite or an Egyptian was not to be despised. Their children could enter the congregation of the Lord in the third generation. An Ammonite or a Moabite could only enter in the tenth. But Christ brought in grace and truth... As He came to seek and to save the lost, those who were His were to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors.

Here was a thing that the law never could teach — it is grace. In a thousand practical instances, the question is not whether the thing is right. We often hear Christians asking, Is such a thing wrong? But this is not the only question for the Christian. Suppose wrong is done to him; what is he to feel then? If there is enmity towards him in another, what is he to cherish in his own heart?

It is a question of moral conformity or suitability to the character and ways of our Father. In everyday life we sometimes hear the saying, "You would not be your father's son if you acted like that." It is as though our Lord had said, "If you want to be the sons of your heavenly Father, you must act in grace to all; for that is what He is doing."

The rabbis first narrowed the word "neighbour" wrongly. Then they went further. If you must love your neighbour, they said, you must hate your enemies — and by "enemies" they meant everyone else: the other nations, Jews without religious training, and personal enemies too... Love fulfils the law, as Romans 13:10 says. Out of that command they had made its exact opposite. You only had to love the few who shared your views. Everyone else you could meet with pride, contempt and hatred.

To love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us is far above the law, and far above what the law asked of people in their natural state... But Christ brought in grace and truth. In the light of the Son of Man all were lost, even the sheep of Israel. He came to seek and to save the lost, so those who belonged to Him were to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them. It was the mind of heaven for His saints on earth.

Love is not just a kind feeling. It is real concern for another person's true welfare. If that person returns hatred, that is all the more reason to care for him, because he needs special help. When you return good for evil, you represent God rightly. You also set an example that should reach the hearts and consciences of others.

He takes up the principle of the law, which deals with evil in order to hold it down... Then He brings in a vast principle, made known when Christ came into the middle of evil: good that is entirely above evil, yet acts inside it... It is not righteousness, in the sense of justice; it is not what presents us to God... it is goodness in the middle of evil.

The Lord Jesus showed this love of God to us. "But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). While He hung on the cross He prayed for His tormentors: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). So the Lord Himself is the perfect example of the command He gave.

When it is a question of "sons" it refers to our position... while here it is a question of character... God calls us to have the family character and to show the same grace, as sons of such a Father. The person who loves his enemies and does good to those who hate him shows the character of a son. His Father makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good. Think how people treat Him and blaspheme His name... Yet He still treats them this way, and He is "your Father."

If we are His sons, it is not arrogance to hold feelings higher than human nature can reach. This is our new standing, and it should be our delight. Grace alone can make it real. But Christ has obtained everything we need for this. The Holy Spirit is here to see it through and to guide us to Christ's glory.

The Lord here presents a high standard. In the Sermon on the Mount the word "son" has a practical meaning. The Lord Jesus is not speaking of the gospel here, or of how to become a child or son of God. He shows His disciples, who were already born again, how they could copy their Father in heaven by loving their enemies. In that way they would show in practice that they were His sons.

Some think this passage teaches that a person can gain the relationship of children by a certain line of action. It does not. It is a question of moral conformity or suitability to the character and ways of our Father. In everyday life we sometimes hear the saying, "You would not be your father's son if you acted like that." It is as though our Lord had said, "If you want to be the sons of your heavenly Father, you must act in grace to all; for that is what He is doing."

To love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us, is far above the law or the duty of a people in the flesh. Israel was not to hate an Edomite or an Egyptian, and their children could enter the assembly of the LORD in the third generation. An Ammonite or a Moabite had to wait until the tenth generation. But Christ brought in grace and truth… In receiving Him they receive life, His life, and they are to show it this way.

Such love and devotion, to be worth anything, must be no mere form but a living reality — so that they might be sons of their Father in the heavens. That is their place of dignity. And what a pattern He sets! For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. What rich grace in the first comparison, and what faithful goodness in the second!

He has the right to condemn the evil and the unjust. Instead of doing so, He shows them His goodness during their life on earth in the same way that He does to the good and the just. Nothing shows the love of the eternal Creator-God for His enemies more movingly.

When it is a question of "sons" it refers to our position… here it is a question of character. "The sons of your Father", "your Father who makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good" — not simply God, but your Father. He calls us to have the family character and show the same grace, as sons of such a Father… Think how people treat Him and blaspheme Him, and what man's character is! Yet He treats them so, and He is "your Father."

Out of His own goodness, as our Lord put it, He causes His sun to shine on the evil as well as on the good. He sends His rain on the just as well as on the unjust. Yet the man who profits by all these benefits and never thinks of God is a most wicked man, the greatest enemy of God alive on the earth… He shows less gratitude than even the poor animal that knows its master's kindness and care.

Let us therefore be in earnest to keep up the family character… If we are His sons, it is no presumption to cherish feelings above human nature. This is our new status, and it should be our delight. Grace alone can make it good. But Christ has obtained all that is needed and effective for this. And the Holy Spirit is here to see to it, and to guide us to Christ's glory.

The Jews hated paying taxes to the Romans, and they thought the men who collected them deserved no respect. That is why "tax collectors and sinners" are often grouped together. Religious people mocked the Lord for entering their houses. They called Him "a friend of tax collectors and sinners." But God's grace was for all, and Matthew was called from his tax office to be one of the apostles.

The Lord Jesus then gives two examples, in verses 46 and 47. They show that loving your neighbour as the Pharisees practised it was no different from the way the world behaves. Even the tax collectors knew how to love their friends... There was nothing in that behaviour which would lead anyone to expect a reward.

Even in the time before the cross, the Lord insisted on a love wholly above mere human nature with its likes and dislikes. The hated tax collectors had natural affection, and loved those who loved them. The Lord told the disciples to love far beyond Jew or Greek. The family were to love as their heavenly Father did. It could not be equal in degree, but it was the same kind of love. That love must be in God's children by divine grace. It rises above every question of what a person deserves or what can be gained from them.

Here was something the law could never teach — it is grace. In a thousand practical situations the question is not whether the thing is right. We often hear Christians asking, Is such a thing wrong? But that is not the only question for the Christian. Suppose someone wrongs him; what is he to feel then? If someone is hostile to him, what is he to hold in his own heart? "Love your enemies… pray for those who persecute you… so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." In this way they show in practice that they belong to such a Father.

The name of Father reveals to us the fullness of grace. According to this sweet name they were already children, accepted in Christ as Christ is accepted by the Father... It is not said: Present to God a character of perfection, so that He may accept you through it and be pleased with you. Rather, you are the children of your heavenly Father — so display His character to the world. "For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." He acts according to His grace, and not according to the law: you saved sinners, you are and ought to be witnesses of it. The tax collectors love those who love them, but your heavenly Father loves His enemies... It is not said, Be perfect before Him, or with Him, as if you were without sin, but like Him, act in love towards your enemies.

If I love the brother who is nice and agreeable to me, I am only doing what anybody might do. "If you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Suppose my brother is not nice and agreeable to me. If I love him because he is born of God, I am displaying the love which is the nature of God Himself. And nothing is greater than that.

The duty of paying taxes to the Romans was deeply resented by the Jews, and those who collected them were thought unworthy of any respect. So "publicans and sinners" are often grouped together. The Lord was mocked by the religious people for entering their houses; they scornfully called Him "a friend of publicans and sinners." But God's grace was for everyone, and Matthew was called from his tax office to be one of the apostles.

Even the tax collectors, those despised people who enriched themselves at the expense of their own people, knew how to love their friends. And the Gentiles also greeted their brothers — that is, everyone they knew well. There was nothing in this behaviour that would lead anyone to expect a reward.

Even in the time before the cross, the Lord insisted on a love wholly above mere human nature with its likes and its dislikes. The detested tax collectors had natural affection, and loved those that loved them. The Gentiles greeted tenderly those bound up with themselves in mere ties of flesh and blood. The disciples were told to love far beyond Jew or Greek. The family were to love as their heavenly Father did. This could not be equal in degree. But it was the same kind of love. It must be in God's children by divine grace, rising above any question of what a person deserves or of hidden motives.

It is God, not man, whom the Lord makes the standard. He points to the heavenly Father — not the fearful moral ruler made known to Israel, but our Father. What are His affections, what is His will about us?

If they loved those that loved them, did not the hated tax collectors do the same? If they greeted only their brothers, the despised Gentiles did the same too. This was altogether beneath the Christian according to Christ. "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The Saviour would not tolerate a lower standard of feeling and conduct.

Let us therefore be in earnest to keep up the family character. Does not our Father who is in the heavens make His sun rise on evil and good? Does He not send rain on just and unjust? If we are His sons, it is not presumption to cherish feelings above human nature; it is our new standing, and it should be our delight. Grace alone can make it good.

It is not said: present to God a character of perfection, so that He will accept you on that basis. Rather: you are the children of your heavenly Father — therefore display His character to the world. He acts according to His grace, and not according to the law. You saved sinners, you are and ought to be witnesses of it.

By upbringing and habits we may have very little in common. We may also disagree on many matters connected with the things of God. Now these are just the ones who put us to the test. Are we free to say they are no concern of ours, and pass by on the other side? We are not. If I love the brother who is nice and agreeable to me, I am only doing what anybody might do... If I love my brother because he is born of God, even though he is not nice and agreeable to me, I am displaying the love which is the nature of God Himself.

This text has no bearing at all on the question of perfection in the flesh. It is the revelation of the name of our Father who is in heaven, and the character that suits the kingdom of heaven in practice. The Jew of old was responsible to bear witness to the righteousness of Jehovah. The believer now is responsible to show the grace of "our Father." … The children are bound to sustain the family character. … Other Scriptures prove, if anyone needs proof, that sin still lives in the believer here below. It stays there, however much he must refuse it and put it to death. This text simply urges us to imitate our Father's grace, even toward those who deserve His judgment.

We speak of a thing as perfect when it has all its parts, without considering the finish of those parts at all. So the Lord tells us that as children we must resemble our Father, and to do this we must display all the features of our Father's character. We must not only love those who love us. He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends His rain on the just and on the unjust. We must display this feature of His character too.

It does not say, Be perfect "before me," or "with your God," as was said to Abraham and to the Israelites, because the name of Father reveals to us the fullness of grace. … Now it does not say, Present to God a character of perfection, so that He may accept you through it and be pleased with you. Instead, you are the children of your heavenly Father — so display His character to the world. … He acts by grace, not by law. You are saved sinners; you are witnesses of it, and you ought to be. … It does not say, Be perfect before Him, or with Him, as if you were without sin, but like Him — act in love toward your enemies.

The Father notices and understands all the evil in the world. Yet He keeps an even course toward all. He sends His rain for the just and the unjust, and gives the evil a share in all His benefits. He Himself stays apart from all evil and always remains in His own perfectness. So we see things as they are. We are not to be blind to them, and not to be shaken by them. We go steadily on, taking what meets us in the spirit in which the Father bears with things. Then our hearts hold no answering evil. In this way we are perfect according to the pattern shown in the ways of the Father Himself.

The answer to all this is that our blessed Lord does not ask us to do impossible things. He never gives a command without supplying the grace needed to carry it out. So when He calls us to be perfect as our Father, it is plain that He is granting us a holy privilege and clothing us with a high dignity. It is our place to seek to understand and take hold of both.

God is the perfect example of true love for one's enemies. As the heavenly Father He is our example not only in this but in everything. In the parallel passage in Luke 6:36 we read, "Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful." In 1 Peter 1:16 we find the quotation of Leviticus 19:2, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." God is love and He is light (1 John 4:8, 16; 1:5). Mercy is an expression of love, and holiness is a mark of light. In our verse both are joined together.