29-30. Most men could claim that they had not committed the sin of adultery but very few could honestly say that they had not committed the sin of lusting, which could easily turn into adultery. Thus, the statement of cutting off one's hand or plucking out one's eye definitely is not to be taken literally.  What Jesus implied is that if thy right eye offend thee then the logical thing to do would be to pluck it out. His point is not that one should literally pluck out his eye but that one should recognize that the source of lust comes from within the mind and heart of man, not from the physical organ itself. The right eye is not the source of sin; the heart of man is that source. Someone who had plucked out his right eye in an attempt to deal with lust would simply become a left-eyed luster! The real source of the sin of adultery comes from within man's heart.

The seriousness of the sin of lusting is thus illustrated by this graphic comparison. Ultimately, it would be better for a person to be physically maimed than to enter into hell forever. However, doing physical damage to one's self does not in any way guarantee entrance into heaven. What Jesus simply taught was that man must bring the passions of his heart under control of the Spirit of God.

31-32. It hath been said is again a reference to the 0ld Testament commandment of the Mosaic regulation (cf. Deut 24:1). The normal custom of the ancient Near East was for a man to verbally divorce his wife. The Arab custom was to say "I divorce you" three times and the divorce was consummated without any legal protection of any kind to the wife. In contrast the ancient law of Israel insisted on a writing of divorcement or certificate of divorce. This written statement gave legal protection to both the wife and the husband. Jesus explained elsewhere (cf. Mt 19:8) that Moses' concession was not intended to be taken as license. In ancient rabbinic Judaism Moses' statement had been variously interpreted from meaning adultery (Shammai) to the trivial matters of personal preference (Hillel). The only legitimate exception for divorce allowed by Christ is possibly for the cause of fornication (Gr porneia), meaning sexual unfaithfulness. Ryrie (p.14) notes that fornication may mean adultery prior to or after marriage, as well as unfaithfulness during the period of betrothal.

These statements make it clear that adultery or fornication is a legitimate grounds for divorce. However, the legitimacy of the divorce does not necessarily establish the legitimacy of remarriage. That one must divorce an unfaithful wife or husband is nowhere commanded in Scripture. To the contrary, there are many examples of extending forgiveness to the adulterous offender (cf. Hos 3:1, Gen 38:26, Jn 8:1-11). Nor does the discovery of premarital fornication on the part of the wife necessarily demand a divorce as is indicated by Atkinson (p. 780). Sexual involvement alone does not necessarily constitute a marriage in the sight of God (cf. the example of Judah and Tamar, who were both widowed at the time of their illicit sexual involvement). Though this temporary union produced twin sons, it resulted in no permanent marriage. Great care needs to be exercised when interpreting the New Testament passages regarding divorce and marriage. It should be remembered that Jesus made His statements about divorce to people who were already married, so that they might take seriously the marriage relationship. These statements were not necessarily made to add an extra burden to the already divorced person.

The responsibility of divorce is clearly laid upon the one seeking the divorce. Whosoever shall put away his wife without biblical basis causeth her to commit adultery. Lenski (pp. 230-235) translates "brings about that she is stigmatized as adulterous" and regards the sin of the divorcer as bringing about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee.

33. The basis of Old Testament swearing, or oath-taking, is found in Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 23:21; and Exodus 20:17. To forswear means to swear falsely or perjure one's self. Oaths taken in the name of the Lord were looked upon as binding and perjury of such oaths was strongly condemned by the law. Such phrases like "as the Lord liveth" or "by the name of the Lord" emphasize the sanctity of such oaths. Ryrie (p.14) states: "Every oath contained an affirmation of promise of an appeal to God as the omniscient punisher of falsehoods, which made an oath binding." By the time of Christ, the Jews had developed an elaborate system of oath-taking, which often formed the basis of actual lying. For example, one might swear that he had told the truth according to the dome of the Temple, while another might swear by the gold on the dome of the Temple! In other words, there were stages of truth and thus also of falsehood within the system of taking oaths. In our time this custom is found in phrases such as: "I swear by God," "cross my heart and hope to die," or "on my mother's grave.

34.36. All such oath-taking, Jesus would announce, was unnecessary if one were normally in the habit of telling the truth. Thus, His command was swear not at all. This does not have reference to cursing, as such, but to oath-taking. The Christian is not to take an oath by heaven, earth, nor the city of Jerusalem. He is not to swear on the basis of his own head or any other physical feature. He is to speak the truth in such a way that his "yes" means yes and his "no" means no.

37. Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay. When you say yes make sure that that is what you mean. When you say no, make sure that also is what you mean. Mean what you say; say what you mean. Anything that is more than a simple affirmation of the truth cometh of evil. When we add an oath to our regular affirmation of the truth, we either admit that our normal conversation cannot be trusted, or that we are lowering ourselves to the level of a world which normally does not tell the truth. This does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to "swear to tell the truth" in a court of law. The point is that it should be unnecessary in a genuine Christian society to have to swear to tell the truth at all !

38. The principle of retaliation, lex talionis, is common in both Jewish and other ancient Near Eastern law codes (cf. the Code of Hammurabi). The judicial penalty of An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is stated in Exodus 2:24 as a means of ending feuds. However, Jesus is clearly saying this method is not a license for vengeance. Many times an offended person will overreact to the offense and retaliate in such a way as to return injury for injury. The idea here is that to the Jews of Jesus' day it was common to attempt to retaliate upon the offender through the arm of the law, especially in a nation dominated by a foreign power.

39. The Saviour's point is that we should resist not evil. Evil is seen here, not as a state, but rather as the action of the evil ones or the malicious ones. It represents the evil and sinful  element in man which provokes him to an act of evil. Jesus shows how the believer should respond to personal injury. He is not discussing the government's obligation to maintain law and order. The question of non-retaliation or nonviolence is often discussed in relation to these verses. These passages alone do not mean that a man should not defend his family or his country, but rather that he should not attempt personal vengeance, even through the means of the law, to compensate for a personal injury.

Why would Jesus make such a statement? Certainly the words were spoken to remind those who would be His disciples not to expect divine justice from an unregenerate society.  All justice ultimately is in the hand and heart of God. As long as human governments prevail, justice will be limited by man's finite abilities. The disciples of the kingdom are to look to the King Himself for ultimate vindication. The practical application of this truth is that the believer should not attempt to justify himself or inflict vengeance even through legal means. He is to place his total confidence in the ultimate sovereignty of God over the affairs of his life. (See Rom 12:19 where "give place unto wrath" means God's wrath.)

Jesus gives five examples of how the believer should react to unfair or unreasonable treatment. First, in retaliation to physical violence, he is to turn to him the other (side) also. Man's normal impulse is to strike back, but the disciple is not to be a normal man. He is to "overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:2).  This is probably one of the most feared statements in all the Bible. People have gone to great lengths in an attempt to explain it away. Nevertheless, it remains the most pungent statement of Jesus' ethic. The life of the believer is to be lived with such a quality of spiritual verity and justice that he needs no physical retaliation in order to defend or justify his position. There is no greater example of this ethical truth than the life and death of Jesus Himself!

40. Secondly, whether robbed by personal assault or compulsory litigation, the believer is to respond with confidence in that which is eternal, rather than that which is temporal. If the believer is sued in order that the accuser may take away thy coat, he is to also let him have his cloak. The coat (Gr chitδn) is the undergarment or tunic. The cloak (Gr himation) is the more expensive outer garment worn over the tunic. Jesus taught us to have confidence in an almighty God who is completely aware of the injustices done to man and totally capable of evoking ultimate eternal justice. He must be trusted even when legal litigation goes against the believer. In our society, we would phrase Jesus' teaching, "If someone takes your suit coat, give him your overcoat as well."

41. Thirdly, in ancient times government agents were in a position to compel forced service upon a subjugated people. A Roman soldier, for example, could compel a Jewish native to carry his armor or materials for one mile, in order to relieve the soldier. Jesus now states that if someone compels you to walk a mile, go with him twain. The believer is to be willing to "go the extra mile." Doing double our duty not only proves the loyalty and faithfulness of our cooperation to human authority, but likewise proves the spiritual intention of our heart. It also provides an opportunity of conviction in order to witness effectively out of our life message. It would have been foolish for the believer of Jesus' day to reluctantly go only a mile with a Roman official and then attempt to share the gospel with him. By going the second mile he proved the innermost intention of his heart.

42. The fourth example is that of lending to him that would borrow of thee. Jesus made it clear that a loan should be looked upon as a potential gift. When we lend something to someone, we should not expect to receive in return. Is that not impractical? Yes it is! But that which is spiritual is not always that which is practical. There are many statements in Proverbs against borrowing, lending, and surety (cf. Prov 6:1; 11:15 22:7; 27:13). While we are warned of the dangers of borrowing and lending, Jesus made it clear that the believer ought to be willing to lend to those in need.

Finally, even the beggar is to be ministered to through the provision of giving to him that asketh thee. This statement certainly forms the basis of all Christian charity and provides the proper social application of the message of the gospel to the physical needs of man as well as his spiritual needs.

43. The law of love, sometimes called "law of Christ," summarizes the ethical principle of the Sermon on the Mount "Love thy neighbor" summarizes the entire second table of the law (cf. Lev 19: l8-34). But the unscriptural addition "hate thin enemy" was a popular concept in Jesus' day (cf. The Qumran Manual of Discipline lQS 1:4, "hate all that he has rejected").  The admonition love your enemies is one of the greatest statements Jesus ever made. The love enjoined in this passage is that which originates from God Himself!  Man is not commanded to attempt to love his enemy on the basis of mere human affection but rather on the basis of a love which comes from God. This kind of love holds a unique place in the New Testament Scripture, for it is the gift of God and the fruit of the Spirit to the believer only. It is not something that man can muster within himself. Rather, it must come from God Himself into the life of the believer (cf. Gal 5:22; I Tim 1:5).

44. How does one love an enemy? Notice that the passage makes it clear that he does not have to attempt to work up an artificial feeling of love. The quality of love commanded here is expressed by giving. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute you.  Loving an enemy involves doing good toward that enemy in order to win him over to the cause that you represent. The message of the kingdom, therefore, is that we will win over those who oppose us more readily with love than with hatred. It is not in the divisiveness of contention that we win our greatest converts, but in the application of the heart of the gospel and the love of Christ.

45-47. In summarizing the importance of love, Jesus reminded that love was a necessary proof of salvation: "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." An initial reading of this text out of its context might seem to imply that loving one's neighbor automatically makes one a child of God. However, the New Testament is clear that love is an evidence of the one who is already saved by the grace of God (cf. I Jn 3:14). It is a natural tendency of human beings to love those who love them; therefore Jesus reminds that we are to love our enemies as our brethren, for even the publicans love those who love them. Publicans were public officials of Jewish nationality who worked for the Roman government as tax collectors and were generally despised by the people. The idea here is that even the most hated people of the day loved their own friends. Therefore, the true child of the kingdom is to have a quality of love that goes beyond that of the world.

48. This section of the Sermon on the Mount is summarized with the statement Be ye therefore perfect. Since the New Testament makes it clear that even the believer is capable of sin, the term perfect here (Gr teleios) is not to be taken as absolute sinless perfection. Rather, it is used in relation to the matter of love in this context. "As God's love is complete, not omitting any group, so must the child of God strive for maturity in this regard" (Kent, p. 19).

continue >>

Copyright © BiblePath.Com. All rights reserved.