MATTHEW 5:20-22
Matthew 5:20. Unless your righteousness shall be more abundant.
He takes a passing notice of the Scribes, who were laboring to throw a
stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law.
True, he does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly,
that nothing has less influence over their minds than zeal for the law.
“They pretend, that their hostility to me arises from their strong desire,
that the law should not be violated. But their life makes it evident, how
coldly they observe the law,—nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking
God, while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness.”
This is the view which the most of commentators give of the passage.
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted
manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing
the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained
their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. They lived, I readily admit,
as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their
corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false
righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine
may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes
from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to
its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was
unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back
on themselves.
We must bear in mind, what we have mentioned elsewhere, that the Pharisees
are added to the Scribes by way of enlarging on what he had said: for that
sect had, above all others, obtained a reputation for sanctity. It is a
mistake, however, to suppose, that they were called Pharisees on account
of division, because they separated themselves from the ordinary class,
and claimed a rank peculiar to themselves. They were called _ycwrp, that
is, Expounders, because they were not satisfied with the bare letter, but
boasted of being in possession of a key to open up hidden meanings. Hence
arose an immense mass of errors, when they assumed magisterial authority,
and ventured, according to their wicked fancy and their equally wicked
pride, to thrust forward their own inventions in place of Scripture.
21. You have heard that it was said. This sentence, and those
which immediately follow, are connected with what we have just considered:
for our Lord explains more fully, by minute instances, by what tortuous
methods the Pharisees debase the law, so that their righteousness is mere
filth. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that this is an ejpano>rqwsiv,
or correction of the Law, and that Christ raises his disciples to a higher
degree of perfection, than Christ could raise a gross and carnal nation,
which was scarcely able to learn first principles. It has been a prevailing
opinion, that the beginning of righteousness was laid down in the ancient
law, but that the perfection of it is pointed out in the Gospel. But nothing
was farther from the design of Christ, than to alter or innovate any thing
in the commandments of the law. There God has once fixed the rule of life
which he will never retract. But as the law had been corrupted by false
expositions, and turned to a profane meaning, Christ vindicates it against
such corruptions, and points out its true meaning, from which the Jews
had departed.
That the doctrine of the law not only commences, but brings to perfection,
a holy life, may be inferred from a single fact, that it requires a perfect
love of God and of our neighbor, (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18.) He
who possesses such a love wants nothing of the highest perfection. So far
as respects the rules of a holy life, the law conducts men to the goal,
or farthest point, of righteousness. Accordingly, Paul declares the law
to be weak, not in itself, but in our flesh, (Romans 8:3.) But if Moses
had given nothing more than the first lessons of true righteousness, how
ridiculous would have been that appeal!
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have
set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,
that ye may live,” (Deuteronomy 30:19.)
Again,
“And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to
fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and
to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul?” (Deuteronomy
10:12.)
Vain and deceitful, also, would have been that promise, “The man that
doeth them shall live in them,” (Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5; Galatians
3:12.)
That Christ, on the other hand, intended to make no correction in the
precepts of the law, is very clear from other passages: for to those who
desire to enter into life by their good works, he gives no other injunction,
than to, keep the commandments of the law, (Matthew 19:17.) From no other
source do the Apostles, as well as Christ himself, draw the rules for a
devout and holy life. It is doing a grievous injury to God, the author
of the Law, to imagine that the eyes, and hands, and feet alone, are trained
by it to a hypocritical appearance of good works, and that it is only in
the Gospel that we are taught to love God with the heart. Away, then, with
that error, “The deficiencies of the law are here supplied by Christ.”
We must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds any thing to
the eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful
expounder, that we may know what is the nature of the law, what is its
object, and what is its extent.
It now remains for us to see, what Christ condemns in the Pharisees,
and in what respect his interpretation of it differs from their glosses.
The amount of it is, that they had changed the doctrine of the law into
a political order, and had made obedience to it to consist entirely in
the performance of outward duties. Hence it came, that he who had not slain
a man with his hand was pronounced to be free from the guilt of murder,
and he who had not polluted his body by adultery was supposed to be pure
and chaste before God. This was an intolerable profanation of the law:
for it is certain, that Moses everywhere demands the spiritual worship
of God. From the very nature of the law we must conclude, that God, who
gave it by the hand of Moses, spoke to the hearts, as well as to the hands
and to the eyes. True, our Lord quotes the very words of the law; but he
does so in accommodation to the view which was generally taken of them
by the people. “Till now, the scribes have given you a literal interpretation
of the law, that it is enough, if a man keep his hands from murder and
from acts of violence. But I warn you, that you must ascend much higher.
Love is the fulfilling of the law, (Romans 13:10 ;)and I say that your
neighbor is injured, when you act towards him otherwise than as a friend.”
The latter clause which he quotes, he who kills shall be liable to the
judgment, confirms what I said a little before, that Christ charges them
with turning into a political scheme the law of God, which had been given
for the government of the heart.
22. But I say to you. His reply is not opposed to the command
of Moses, (Exodus 20:13; Leviticus 24:21; Numbers 35:16 ;) but to the interpretation
usually put upon it by the scribes. Now, as the Pharisees boasted of antiquity,
(for it is always the custom to plead the prescription of a long period
in defense of errors, ) Christ reminds the people of his authority, to
which all antiquity ought justly to give way. Hence we conclude, that truth
is of greater weight than custom or the number of years.
He who shall say to his brother. Christ assigns three degrees
of condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that
this precept of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections
that are opposed to brotherly love. “Those who shall only be angry with
their brethren, or treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any
reproach, are murderers.” Now, as it is certain that the word Racha occupies
an intermediate place between anger and openly reproachful language, I
have no doubt that it is an interjection of contempt or disdain. Though
Christ adjudges to the hell of fire none but those who break out into open
reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares anger to be free from a
similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he assures them
that God will judge and punish even concealed anger. But, as he who manifests
his indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says,
that that man will be held guilty by the whole heavenly council, that he
may receive severer punishment.
Those, again, who break out into reproaches are adjudged to the hell
of fire: which implies, that hatred, and every thing that is contrary to
love, is enough to expose them to eternal death, though they may have committed
no acts of violence. Ge]enna (hell) is, beyond all question, a foreign
word. ayg (Ge) is the Hebrew word for a valley. Now, “the valley of Hin-nom”
was infamous for the detestable superstition which was committed in it,
because there they sacrificed their children to idols, (2 Chronicles 33:6.)
The consequence was, that holy men, in order to excite stronger hatred
of that wicked ungodliness, used it as the name for hell, that the very
name might be dreaded by the people as shocking and alarming. It would
appear that, in the time of Christ, this was a received way of speaking,
and that hell was then called by no other name than gehenna, (ge>enna,)
the word being slightly altered from the true pronunciation.
MATTHEW 5:23-26; LUKE 12;58-59
Matthew 5:23. Therefore, if thou shalt bring thy gift. This clause
confirms, and at the same time explains, the preceding doctrine. It amounts
to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder, (Exodus 20:13,)
is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly kindness, with our
neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us, Christ declares, that
even the duties of religion are displeasing to God, and are rejected by
him, if we are at variance with each other. When he commands those who
have injured any of their brethren, to be reconciled to him, before they
offer their gift, his meaning is, that, so long as a difference with our
neighbor is kept up by our fault, we have no access to God. But if the
worship, which men render to God, is polluted and corrupted by their resentments,
this enables us to conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual agreement
among ourselves.
Here a question may be put. Is it not absurd, that the duties of charity
should be esteemed more highly than the worship of God? We shall then be
forced to say, that the order of the law is improper, or that the first
table of the law must be preferred to the second. The answer is easy: for
the words of Christ mean nothing more than this, that it is a false and
empty profession of worshipping God, which is made by those who, after
acting unjustly towards their brethren, treat them with haughty disdain.
By a synecdoche he takes a single class to express the outward exercises
of divine worship, which in many men are rather the pretenses, than the
true expressions, of godliness. It ought to be observed that Christ, adapting
his discourse to that age, speaks of sacrifices. Our condition is now different:
but the doctrine remains the same, that whatever we offer to God is polluted,
unless, at least as much as lieth in us, (Romans 12:18,) we are at peace
with our brethren. Alms are called in Scripture sacrifices of a sweet smell,
(Philippians 4:18;) and we learn from the mouth of Paul, that he who
“spends all his substance on the poor,
if he have not charity, is nothing,” (1 Corinthians 13:3.)
Lastly, God does not receive and acknowledge, as his sons, any who do
not, in their turn, show themselves to be brethren to each other. Although
it is only to those who have injured their brethren that these words are
addressed, enjoining them to do their endeavor to be reconciled to them,
yet under one class he points out, how highly the harmony of brethren is
esteemed by God. When he commands them to leave the gift before the altar,
he expresses much more than if he had said, that it is to no purpose for
men to go to the temple, or offer sacrifices to God, so long as they live
in discord with their neighbors.
25. Be agreed with thy adversary. Christ appears to go farther,
and to exhort to reconciliation not only those who have injured their brethren,
but those also who are unjustly treated. But I interpret the words as having
been spoken with another view, to take away occasion for hatred and resentment,
and to point out the method of cherishing good-will. For whence come all
injuries, but from this, that each person is too tenacious of his own rights,
that is, each is too much disposed to consult his own convenience to the
disadvantage of others? Almost all are so blinded by a wicked love of themselves,
that, even in the worst causes, they flatter themselves that they are in
the right. To meet all hatred, enmity, debates, and acts of injustice,
Christ reproves that obstinacy, which is the source of these evils, and
enjoins his own people to cultivate moderation and justice, and to make
some abatement from the highest rigor, that, by such an act of justice,
they may purchase for themselves peace and friendship. It were to be wished,
indeed, that no controversy of any kind should ever arise among us; and
undoubtedly men would never break out into abuse or quarrelling, if they
possessed a due share of meekness. But, as it is scarcely possible but
that differences will sometimes happen, Christ points out the remedy, by
which they may be immediately settled; and that is, to put a restraint
on our desires, and rather to act to our own disadvantage, than follow
up our rights with unflinching rigor. That Christ frequently gave this
exhortation is evident from the twelfth chapter of Luke’s Gospel, where
he does not relate the sermon on the mount, but gives an abridgment of
various passages in our Lord’s discourses.
Lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge. This part is explained
by some in a metaphorical sense, that the Heavenly Judge will act toward
us with the utmost rigor, so as to forgive us nothing, if we do not labor
to settle those differences which we have with our neighbors. But I view
it more simply, as an admonition that, even among men, it is usually advantageous
for us to come to an early agreement with adversaries, because, with quarrelsome
persons, their obstinacy often costs them dear. At the same time, I admit,
that the comparison is justly applied to God; for he will exercise judgment
without mercy (James 2:13) to him who is implacable to his brethren, or
pursues his contentiousness to the utmost. But it is highly ridiculous
in the Papists, to construct their purgatory out of a continued allegory
on this passage. Nothing is more evident than that the subject of Christ’s
discourse is the cultivation of friendship among men. They have no shame,
or conscientious scruple, to pervert his words, and to torture them into
a widely different meaning, provided they can impose on the unlearned.
But as they do not deserve a lengthened refutation, I shall only point
out, in a single word, their shameful ignorance. The adversary is supposed
by them to be the devil. But Christ enjoins those who believe on him to
be agreed with the adversary. Therefore, in order that the Papists may
find their purgatory here, they must first become the friends and brethren
of devils. A farthing is well known to be the fourth part of a penny: but
here, as is evident from Luke, it denotes a mite, or any small piece of
money. Now, if we were disposed to cavilling, we might here obtain another
exposure of the absurdity of the Papists. For, if he who has once entered
Purgatory will never leave it, till he has paid the last farthing, it follows,
that the suffrages (as they call them) of the living for the dead are of
no avail. For Christ makes no allowance, that others may free a debtor
by satisfying for him, but expressly demands from each person the payment
of what he owes. Now, if Moses and other satisfactions are useless, however
warm the fire of Purgatory may be, yet the kitchens of priests and monks,
for the sake of which they are so anxious to maintain it, will be cool
enough.
