Page images
PDF
EPUB

6. Isa.

e see Ps. xxxii. versary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. 27 Ye have heard that it was said [ by them of DEUT. V. 18. old time], 'Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 but I say g That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust 2 Sam. xi. 2. after her hath committed adultery with her already in his Mark ix. 43 heart. 29 h And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,

f EXOD. XX. 14.

g see Gen.

xxxiv. 2.

h ch. xviii. 8, 9.

47.

unto you,

Jomit.

make up a matter with an adversary before judgment is passed, which may deliver a man to a hard and rigorous imprisonment, so reconciliation with an offended brother in this life is absolutely necessary before his wrong cry against us to the Great Judge, and we be cast into eternal condemnation.'-The adversary, in its abstract personification, is the offended law of God, which will cry against us in that day for all wrongs done to others; but in its concrete representation it is the offended brother, who is to us that law, as long as he has its claim upon us. The way, in the interpretation, is the way in which all men walk, the "way of all the earth" of 1 Kings ii. 2, the "way whence I shall not return" of Job. xvi. 22. In the civil process, it represents the attempt at arbitration or private arrangement before coming into court. 26.] These words, as in the earthly example they imply future liberation, because an earthly debt can be paid in most cases, so in the spiritual counterpart they amount to a negation of it, because the debt can never be discharged. We have "until he should pay what was due," in ch. xviii. 30, where the payment was clearly impossible. The minister is the officer of the court who saw the sentences executed. If we are called on to assign a meaning to it in the interpretation, it must represent the chief of those who in ch. xviii. 34, are hinted at by "the tormentors," viz. the great enemy, the minister of the divine wrath. farthing, the fourth

[blocks in formation]

render, adulterously used her.

an unmarried woman with a view to fornication (it being borne in mind that spiritually, and before God, all fornication is adultery, inasmuch as the unmarried person is bound in loyalty and chastity to Him: see Stier below)-yet the direct assertion in this verse must be understood as applying to the cases where this sin is in question. And, again, the looketh on... to lust after, must not be interpreted of the casual evil thought which is checked by holy watchfulness, but the gazing with a view to feed that desire. And again, hath adulterously used her already in his heart, whatever it may undoubtedly imply respecting the guilt incurred in God's sight, does not directly state any thing; but plainly understood, affirms that the man who can do this-viz. 'gaze with a view to feed unlawful desire '--has already in his heart passed the barrier of criminal intention; made up his mind, stifled his conscience; in thought, committed the deed. But perhaps there is justice in Stier's remark, that our Lord speaks here after the O. T. usage, in which, both in the seventh commandment and elsewhere, adultery also includes fornication; for marriage is the becoming one flesh,—and therefore every such union, except that after the manner and in the state appointed by God, is a violation and contempt of that holy ordinance. The rendering of the A. V., “hath committed adultery with her," is objectionable, as making her a party to the sin, which the original does not. 29.] Chrysos

tom observes, that these commands relate not to the limbs themselves, which are not in fault, but to the evil desire, which is. An admonition, arising out of the truth announced in the last verse, to withstand the first springs and occasions of evil desire, even by the sacrifice of what is most useful and dear to us. We may observe here, that our Lord grounds His precept of the most rigid and decisive self-denial on the

and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

i
ch. xix. 3, &c.

Luke xvi. 18.

31 It hath been said, i Whosoever shall put away his wife, Div.1. let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for k ch. xix. 9. the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them

considerations of the truest self-interest,it is profitable for thee. See ch. xviii. 8, 9, and notes.

31, 32.] THIRD EXAMPLE. The law of divorce. See note on ch. xix. 7-9. Lightfoot gives a form of the “writing of divorcement" which was a divorcement a mensâ et thoro, and placed the woman absolutely in her own power, to marry whom she pleased. In Deut. xxiv. 1, the allowable reason of divorce is some uncleanness.' This the disciples of Shammai interpreted only of adultery; those of Hillel of any thing which amounted to uncleanness in the eyes of the husband.

32.] fornication must be taken to mean
sin, not only before marriage, but after it
also, in a wider sense, as including adultery
likewise. In the similar places, Mark x.
11; Luke xvi. 18, this exception does not
occur; see however our ch. xix. 9. The
figurative senses of fornication cannot be
admissible here, as the law is one having
reference to a definite point in actual life;
and this, its aim and end, restricts the
meaning to that kind of fornication im-
mediately applicable to the case. Other-
wise this one strictly guarded exception
would give indefinite and universal lati-
tude.
causeth her to commit adul-
tery] viz. by her second marriage, thus
put within her power. and whoso-
ever] How far the marriage of the inno-
cent party after separation (on account
of fornication) is forbidden by this or the
similar passage ch. xix. 9, is a weighty
and difficult question. By the Roman
Church such marriage is strictly forbid-
den, and the authority of Augustine much
cited, who strongly upholds this view, but
not without misgivings later in life. On
the other hand, the Protestant and Greek
Churches allow such marriage. Cer-
VOL. I.

tainly it would appear, from the literal meaning of our Lord's words, that it should not be allowed: for if by such divorce the marriage be altogether dissolved, how can the woman be said to commit adultery by a second marriage? or how will St. Paul's precept (1 Cor. vii. 11) find place? for stating this as St. Paul does, prefaced by the words "not I, but the Lord," it must be understood, and has been taken, as referring to this very verse, or rather (see note there) to ch. xix. 6 ff., and consequently can only suppose fornication as the cause. Besides which, the tenor of our Lord's teaching in other places (see above) seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however he may sanction the expulsion a menså et thoro of an unfaithful wife. Those who defend the other view suppose divorced to mean, unlawfully divorced, not for fornication and certainly this is not improbable. We may well leave a matter in doubt, of which Augustine could say, that it was so obscure, that error on either side is venial.

:

33-37.] FOURTH EXAMPLE.

The law

of oaths.
33, 34.] The exact mean-
ing of these verses is to be ascertained by
two considerations. (1) That the Jews
held all those oaths not to be binding, in
which the sacred name of God did not
directly occur:-see Philo and Lightfoot
cited in my Gr. Test. A stress is to be
laid on this technical distinction in the
quotation made by our Lord; and we
must understand as belonging to the
quotation, 'but whatever thou shalt swear
not to the Lord may be transgressed.'
(2) Then our Lord passes so far beyond
this rule, that He lays down (including in
it the understanding that all oaths must
be kept if made, for that they are all ulti-

D

1

1 Levit. xix. 12 of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but "shalt

Numb. xxx.

2.

23.

n James v. 12.

O ISA. lxvi. 1.

m Deut. xxiii. perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is • God's throne: 35 nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: t PSA. xlviii. 2. neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

u Exod. xxi. 24. LEVIT. XXIV. 20. DEUT. xix. 21.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, "An

دو

mately referable to swearing by God) the rule of the Christian community, which is not to swear at all; for that every such means of strengthening a man's simple affirmation arises out of the evil in human nature, is rendered requisite by the distrust that sin has induced, and is, therefore, out of the question among the just and true and pure of heart. See James v. 12, and note there, as explanatory why, in both cases, swearing by the name of God is not specified as forbidden. In the words, 'Swear not at all,' our Lord does not so much make a positive enactment by which all swearing is to individuals forbidden, e. g. on solemn occasions, and for the satisfaction of others, (for that would be a mere technical Pharisaism, wholly at variance with the spirit of the Gospel, and inconsistent with the example of God himself, Heb. vi. 13-17; vii. 21; of the Lord when on earth, whose "verily verily I say unto you was a solemn asseveration, and who at once respected the solemn adjuration of Caiaphas, ch. xxvi. 63, 64; of His Apostles, writing under the guidance of His Spirit, see Gal. i. 20: 2 Cor. i. 23: Rom. i. 9: Phil. i. 8, and especially 1 Cor. xv. 31; of His holy angels, Rev. x. 6,) as declare-to us, that the proper state of Christians is, to require no oaths; that when evil is expelled from among them, every yea and nay will be as decisive as an oath, every promise as binding as a vow. We observe (a) that these verses imply the unfitness of vows of every kind as rules of Christian action; (b) that the greatest regard ought to be had to the scruples of those, not only sects, but individuals, who object to taking an oath, and every facility given in a Christian state for their ultimate entire abolition. 34, 35.] Compare ch. xxiii. 16-22. Dean Trench observes (Serm. on Mount, p. 55), Men had learned to think that, if only God's name were avoided, there was no irreverence in the frequent oaths by heaven, by

eye for an

the earth, by Jerusalem, by their own heads, and these brought in on the slightest need, or on no need at all; just as now-a-days the same lingering halfrespect for the Holy Name will often cause men, who would not be wholly profane, to substitute for that name sounds that nearly resemble, but are not exactly it, or the name, it may be, of some heathen deity.' 36.] Thou hast no control over the appearance of grey hairs on thy head-thy head is not thine own;-thou swearest then by a creature of God, whose destinies and changes are in God's hand; so that every oath is an appeal to God. And, indeed, men generally regard it as such now, even unconsciously. Yea, yea; Nay, nay] The similar place, James v. 12, admirably illustrates this"let your yea be yea, and your nay nay :" -let these only be used, and they in simplicity and unreservedness.

cometh

of evil] The gender of evil is ambiguous, as it may be also in the Lord's prayer, ch. vi. 13: but see note there. It is quite immaterial to the sense, in which gender we understand it; for the evil of man's corrupt nature is in Scripture spoken of as the work of "the evil One," and is itself "that which is evil." See John viii. 44: 1 John iii. 8.

38-41.] FIFTH EXAMPLE. The law of retaliation. 38.] That is, such was the public enactment of the Mosaic law, and, as such, it implied a private spirit of retaliation which should seek such redress; for the example evidently refers to private as well as public retribution. Here again our Lord appears to speak of the true state and perfection of a Christian community,-not to forbid, in those mixed and but half-Christian states, which have ever divided so-called Christendom among them, the infliction of judicial penalties for crime. In fact Scripture speaks, Rom. xiii. 4, of the minister of such infliction as the minister

W

any

see Prov. XX.

22.

w Isa. 1. 6.

eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, That Rom. xii. 17. ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee Deut. xv. 7turn not thou away.

of God. But as before, our Lord shews us the condition to which a Christian community should tend, and to further which every private Christian's own endeavours should be directed. It is quite beside the purpose for the world to say, that these precepts of our Lord are too highly pitched for humanity, and so to find an excuse for violating them. If we were disciples of His in the true sense, these precepts would, in their spirit, as indicative of frames of mind, be strictly observed; and, as far as we are His disciples, we shall attain to such their observance. Here again, our Lord does not contradict the Mosaic law, but expands and fulfils it, declaring to us that the necessity for it would be altogether removed in the complete state of that kingdom which He came to establish. Against the notion

that an eye for an eye &c. sanctioned all kinds of private revenge, Augustine remarks that the ancient precept was rather intended to allay, than to stimulate anger; as a limit to vindictiveness, not a licence.

39. Here again, we have our divine Lawgiver legislating, not in the bondage of the letter, so as to stultify His disciples, and in many circumstances to turn the salt of the earth into a means of corrupting it,-but in the freedom of the spirit, laying down those great principles which ought to regulate the inner purposes and consequent actions of His followers. Taken slavishly and literally, neither did our Lord Himself conform to this precept (John xviii. 22, 23), nor His Apostles (Acts xxiii. 3). But truly, and in the spirit, our blessed Redeemer obeyed it: He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair, and hid not his face from shame and spitting' (Isa. 1. 6): and his Apostles also, see 1 Cor. iv. 9-13.

evil] i. e. here the evil man; him who injures thee.' Or, perhaps, in the indefinite sense, as before, evil, generally, when thus directed against thee.' Only, the other possible meaning there, the evil One,' is precluded here. "Resist the devil," James iv. 7: but not this par

11.

ticular form of his working (viz. malice directed against thyself) so as to revenge it on another. 40, 41.] See note on ver. 39. This is of legal contention only, and is thus distinguished from the violence in ver. 39. take away, i. e. in pledge

for a debt: see Exod. xxii. 6. coat, the inner and less costly garment; cloke, the outer and more valuable, used also by the poor as a coverlet by night (Exod. as above). In Luke vi. 29 the order is inverted, and appears to be that in which the two garments would be taken from the body, that verse referring to abstraction by violence. See the apostolic comment on this precept, 1 Cor. vi. 7. compel] The original word is one derived from the Persian name of the post-couriers who carried the government despatches: and is thence used of any compulsory "pressing" to go on service. The Jews particularly objected to the duty of furnishing posts for the Roman government; and Demetrius, wishing to conciliate the Jews, promised, among other things, that their beasts of burden should not be pressed for service. Hence our Saviour represents this as a burden.' Josephus. The billeting of the Roman soldiers and their horses on the Jews was one kind of this compulsion. 42.] The proper understanding of the command in this verse may be arrived at from considering the way in which the Lord Himself, who declares, If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it' (John xiv. 14), performs this promise to us. It would obviously be, not a promise of love, but a sentence of condemnation to us, understood in its bare literal sense; but our gracious Saviour, knowing what is good for us, so answers our prayers, that we never are sent empty away; not always, indeed, receiving what we ask,--but that which, in the very disappointment, we are constrained thankfully to confess is better than our wish. So, in his humble sphere, should the Christian giver act. To give every thing to every one- the sword to the madman, the alms to the impostor, the criminal request to the temptresswould be to act as the enemy of others

y Deut. xxiii. 8-7.

z Rom. xii. 14, 20.

a Luke xxiii.

60.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 2 Love your enemies, [a bless

you,

Thou shalt 44 But I

them that

unto say 14. Actarii. curse you, do good to them that hate you,] and pray for them which [a despitefully use you, and] persecute you; 45 that ye may be the children of your Father which is in b Job xxv. 3. heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so ?

e Gen, vil. 1. 48 © Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is

Levit. xi. 45: xix. 2.

b render, sons.

a omit.
The oldest and best authorities have Gentiles the same.

and ourselves. Ours should be a higher and deeper charity, flowing from those inner springs of love, which are the sources of outward actions sometimes widely divergent; whence may arise both the timely concession, and the timely refusal. boorrw] without usury, which was forbidden by the law, Exod. xxii. 25: Levit. xxv. 37: Deut. xxiii. 19, 20.

43-48.] SIXTH EXAMPLE. The law of love and hatred. 43.] The Jews called all Gentiles indiscriminately 'enemies.' In the Pharisaic interpretation therefore of the maxim (the latter part of which, although a gloss of the Rabbis, is a true representation of the spirit of the law, which was enacted for the Jews as a theocratic people), it would include the "hatred for mankind," with which the Jews were so often charged. But our Lord's fulfilment of neighbourly love extends it to all mankind-not only foreign nations, but even those who are actively employed in cursing, reviling, and persecuting us; and the hating of enemies is, in His fulfilment of it, no longer an individual or national aversion, but a coming out and being separate from all that rebel.

45. sons] i. e. in being like Him. Of course there is allusion to our state of children by covenant and adoption; but the likeness is the point especially here brought out. So imitators of God, Eph. v. 1. The more we lift ourselves above the world's view of the duty and expediency of revenge and exclusive dealing, into the mind with which the righteous Judge, strong and patient, who is provoked every day,' yet does good to the

unthankful and evil, the more firmly shall we assure, and the more nobly illustrate, our place as sons in His family, as having entered into the kingdom of heaven. for] i. e. because, in that?' gives the particular in which the conformity implied by "sons" consists. There is a sentiment of Seneca remarkably parallel: "If thou wouldest imitate the gods, confer benefits even on the ungrateful for the sun rises on the wicked as well as on others, and the seas are open for pirates' use." 46. publicans] This race of men, so frequently mentioned as the objects of hatred and contempt among the Jews, and coupled with sinners, were not properly the publicans, who were wealthy Romans, of the rank of knights, farming the revenues of the provinces; but their underlings, heathens or renegade Jews, who usually exacted with recklessness and cruelty. "The Talmud classes them with thieves and assassins, and regards their repentance as impossible." Wordsw. In interpreting these verses we must carefully give the persons spoken of their correlative value and meaning: ye, Christians, sons of God, the true theocracy, the Kingdom of heaven,-these, "publicans" or Gentiles," men of this world, actuated by worldly motives,'what thank have ye in being like them?' 47. salute] Here, most probably in its literal sense, Jews did not salute Gentiles: Mohammedans do not salute Christians even now in the East. 48. Be ye] The original is Ye shall be: not altogether imperative in meaning, but including the imperative sense: such shall be the state,

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »