MATTHEW 5 23-37 COMME�TARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you,

BAR�ES, "Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar ... - The Pharisees were intent only on the external act in worship. They looked not at all to the internal state of the mind. If a man conformed to the external rites of religion, however much envy, and malice, and secret hatred he might have, they thought he was doing well. Our Saviour taught a different doctrine. It was of more consequence to have the heart right than to perform the outward act. If, therefore, says he, a man has gone so far as to bring his gift to the very altar, and should remember that anyone had anything against him, it was his duty there to leave his offering and go and be reconciled. While a difference of this nature existed, his offering could not be acceptable. He was not to wait until the offended brother should come to him; he was to go and seek him out, and be reconciled. So now the worship of God will not be acceptable, however well performed externally, until we are at peace with those that we have injured. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” 1Sa_15:22. He that comes to worship his Maker filled with malice, and hatred, and envy, and at war with his brethren, is a hypocritical worshipper, and must meet with God’s displeasure. God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.

Thy gift - Thy sacrifice. What thou art about to devote to God as an offering.

To the altar - The altar was situated in front of the temple, and was the place on which sacrifices were made. See the notes on plan, Mat_21:12. To bring a gift to the altar was expressive of worshipping God, for this was the way in which he was formerly worshipped.

Thy brother - Any man, especially any fellow-worshipper. Anyone of the same religious society.

Hath aught - Is offended, or thinks he has been injured by you in any manner.

First be reconciled - This means to settle the difficulty; to make proper acknowledgment or satisfaction for the injury. If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to be paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon. If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation. Do all in your power; and all you ought to do, to have the matter settled. From this we learn:

1. That, in order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men.

2. Our worship will not be acceptable unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

3. It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

4. This should be done before we attempt to worship God.

5. This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to others; we cherish improper feelings or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship him.

CLARKE, "Therefore if thou bring thy gift - Evil must be nipped in the bud. An unkind thought of another may be the foundation of that which leads to actual murder. A Christian, properly speaking, cannot be an enemy to any man; nor is he to consider any man his enemy, without the fullest evidence: for surmises to the prejudice of another can never rest in the bosom of him who has the love of God in his heart, for to him all men are brethren. He sees all men as children of God, and members of Christ, or at least capable of becoming such. If a tender forgiving spirit was required, even in a Jew, when he approached God’s altar with a bullock or a lamb, how much more necessary is this in a man who professes to be a follower of the Lamb of God; especially when he receives the symbols of that Sacrifice which was offered for the life of the world, in what is commonly called the sacrament of the Lord’s supper!

GILL, "Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar,.... The Jews obliged such who had done any damage to their neighbours, by stealing from them, to make satisfaction before they brought their offering; concerning which they say (c),

"he that brings what he has stolen, before he brings his trespass offering, is right; he that brings his trespass offering, before he brings that which he has stolen, is not right.''

Again (d),

"they do not bring the trespass offering before the sum of what is stolen is returned, either to the owners, or to the priests.''

Some have thought Christ refers to this; only what they restrained to pecuniary damages, he extends to all sorts of offences. But not a trespass offering, but a freewill offering, seems to be designed by "the gift": which, when a man either intended to bring, or was going to bring, or had already brought, as a voluntary sacrifice to be offered unto God; and it came into his mind, that he had offended any man by showing any undue passion, or by any reproachful words, then he was to do what is advised in the following verse: "and there", whilst going, or when at the altar,

rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: hath anything to charge thee with; any just ground of complaint against thee; if thou hast done him any injury, or given him any offence: particularly, if he had at any time said Raca to him, or called him "fool" for those words have reference to what goes before, and are a corollary, or conclusion from them, as appears from the causal particle "therefore".

HE�RY, "Because, till this be done, we are utterly unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances, Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24. The case supposed is, “That thy brother havesomewhat against thee,” that thou has injured and offended him, either really or in his apprehension; if thou are the party offended, there needs not this delay; if thou have

aught against thy brother, make short work of it; no more is to be done but to forgive him (Mar_11:25), and forgive the injury; but if the quarrel began on thy side, and the fault was either at first or afterwards thine, so that thy brother has a controversy with thee, go and be reconciled to him before thou offer thy gift at the altar, before thou approach solemnly to God in the gospel-services of prayer and praise, hearing the word or the sacraments. Note, (1.) When we are addressing ourselves to any religious exercises, it is good for us to take that occasion of serious reflection and self-examination: there are many things to be remembered, when we bring our gift to the altar, and this among the rest, whether our brother hath aught against us; then, if ever, we are disposed to be serious, and therefore should then call ourselves to an account. (2.) Religious exercises are not acceptable to God, if they are performed when we are in wrath; envy, malice, and uncharitableness, are sins so displeasing to God, that nothing pleases him which comes from a heart wherein they are predominant, 1Ti_2:8. Prayers made in wrath are written in gall, Isa_1:15; Isa_58:4. (3.) Love or charity is so much better than all burnt-offerings and sacrifice, that God will have reconciliation made with an offended brother before the gift be offered; he is content to stay for the gift, rather than have it offered while we are under guilt and engaged in a quarrel.

JAMISO�, "Therefore— to apply the foregoing, and show its paramount importance.

if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught— of just complaint “against thee.”

TRAPP, "VER 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar] To anger our Saviour here opposeth charity, which suffereth long and is kind. Charity envieth not, nor is rash, &c.; but beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Strangers we must love as ourselves, Luke 10:27-28; but brethren, as Christ loved us, with a preventing constant love, John 15:15, notwithstanding provocations to the contrary.

That thy brother hath aught against thee] As justly offended by thee: see the like phrase, Luke 7:39; Revelation 2:4. If either thou have given offence carelessly, or taken offence causelessly. And two flints may as soon smite together, and not fire come out, as people converse together, and not offences happen. �ow, if it be a great offence, a considerable injury, to the just grief or disgrace of another, satisfaction must be given, and reconciliation sought (at least), ere the service can be accepted. For how can we look our Father in the face, or ask him blessing, when we know that he knows there is hatred or heart burning between us and our brethren?

ELLICOTT, "(23) If thou bring thy gift to the altar.—Literally, If thou shouldst be offering. Our Lord was speaking to Jews as such, and paints, therefore, as it were, a scene in the Jewish Temple. The worshipper is about to offer a “gift” (the most generic term seems intentionally used to represent any kind of offering), and stands at the altar with the priest waiting to do his work. That is the right time for recollection and self-scrutiny. The worshipper is to ask himself, not whether he has a ground of complaint against any one, but whether any one has cause of complaint against him. This, and not the other, is the right question at such a moment—has he

injured his neighbour by act, or spoken bitter words of him?

COKE, "Matthew 5:23-24. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift— Farther, to quench the first and smallest sparks of enmity, and prevent all occasion of angry resentments, our Lord adds what follows from this to the 26th verse; for so far his advice extends, with regard to the sixth commandment. Our Lord insisted particularly on reparation, assuring us, that unless it be made, God will not accept the worshipof such offenders; being infinitely better pleased with repentance than with sacrifices, or external worship of any kind, how precious soever those duties may appear in the eyes of carnal men. Vain, therefore, is their presumption, who fancy they can make amends for yet more gross acts of injustice, by acts of devotion: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift, δωρον,— thy free-will offering, to the altar, and there recollect that thy brother hath aught against thee,—any just cause of complaint; leave there thy gift before the altar:—do not lay aside the thoughts of worshipping God, because thou art not in a proper state, but prepare thyself for his worship without delay; go thy way; first be reconciled," &c. It is observable, that Philo, in explaining the law of the trespass-offering, tells us, that, when a man had injured his brother, and, repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it, (in which case both restitution and sacrifice were required,) he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon. This is a veryjust and natural ACCOU�T of the matter, and adds a great illustration to this text. See Macknight and Doddri

BARCLAY, "THE I�SURMOU�TABLE BARRIER Matthew 5: 23, 24

So, then, if you bring your gift to the altar, and if you there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go, and first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

WHE� Jesus said this, He was doing no more than recall the Jews to a principle which they well knew and ought never to have forgotten. The idea behind sacrifice was quite simple. If a man did a wrong thing, that action disturbed the relationship between him and God, and the sacrifice was meant to be the cure which restored that relationship.

But two most important things have to be noted. First, it was never held that sacrifice could atone for deliberate sin, for what the Jews called " the sins of a high hand/' If a man committed a sin unawares, if he was swept into sin in a moment of passion when self-control broke, then

sacrifice was effective; but if a man deliberately, defiantly, callously and open-eyed committed sin, then sacrifice was powerless to atone. Second, to be effective, sacrifice had to include confession of sin and true penitence; and true penitence involved the attempt to rectify any consequences sin might have had. The great Day of Atonement was held to make atonement for the sins of the whole nation, but the Jews were quite clear that not even the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement could avail for a man unless he was first reconciled to his neighbour. The breach between man and God could not be healed until the breach between man and man was healed. If a man was making a sin-offering, for instance, to atone for a theft, the offering was held to be completely unavailing until the thing stolen had been restored; and, if it was dibcovered that the thing had not been restored, then the sacrifice had to be destroyed as unclean and burned outside the Temple. The Jews were quite clear that a man had to do his utmost to put things right himself before he could be right with God.

In some sense sacrifice was substitutionary. The symbol of this was that, as the victim was about to be sacrificed, the worshipper placed his hands upon the beast's head, and pressed them down upon it, as if to transfer his own guilt to it. As he did so he said, " I entreat, O Lord; I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled; I have committed . . . (here the sacrificer specified his sins) ; but I return in penitence, and let this be for my covering."

If any sacrifice was to be valid, confession and restora-tion were involved. The picture which Jesus is painting is very vivid. The worshipper, of course, did not make his own sacrifice; he brought it to the priest who offered it on his behalf. The worshipper has entered the Temple; he has passed through its series of courts, the Court of the Gentiles, the Court of the Woman, the Court of the Men. Beyond that there lay the Court of the Priests into which the layman could not go. The worshipper is standing at the rail, ready to hand over his victim to the priest; his hands are on it to confess; and then he remembers his breach with his brother, the wrong done to his brother; if his sacrifice is to avail, he must go back and mend that breach and undo that wrong, or nothing can happen.

Jesus is quite clear about this basic fact we cannot be right with God until we are right with men; we cannot hope for forgiveness until we have confessed our sin, not

only to God, but also to men, and until we have done our best to remove the practical consequences of it. We some-times wonder why there is a barrier between us and God; we sometimes wonder why our prayers seem unavailing. The reason may well be that we ourselves have erected that barrier, because we are at variance with our fellow-men, or because we have wronged someone and have done nothing to put things right.

CALVI�, "Mat_5:23.Therefore, if thou shalt bring thy gift This clause CO�FIRMS, and at the same time explains, the preceding doctrine. It amounts to this, that the precept of the law, which forbids murder, (Exo_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, (Rom_12:18,) we are at peace with our brethren. Alms are called in Scripture sacrifices of a sweet smell, (Phi_4:18;) and we learn from the mouth of Paul, that he who

“ all his substance on the poor,

if he have not charity, is nothing,” (1Co_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.

BE�SO�, "Matthew 5:23. Therefore, &c. — “Because men are very apt to fall into rash anger, and to express their anger by contemptuous speeches and abusive names, fancying that there is no sin in these things, or but little, and that the compensation may easily be made for them by acts of devotion, Jesus declares that atonement is not to be made for these offences by any offerings, how costly soever, and therefore prescribes immediate repentance and reparation as the only remedies of them. He insisted particularly on reparation, assuring us that, unless it be made, God will not accept the worship of such offenders, being infinitely better pleased with repentance than with sacrifices, or external worship of any kind, how specious soever those duties may appear in the eye of vulgar understandings. Vain, therefore, is their presumption, who fancy they can make amends for yet more gross acts of injustice, by acts of devotion.” — Macknight. If thou bring thy gift to the altar —However costly and free; and there rememberest — What thou didst not recollect before; that thy brother hath aught against thee — On any of the preceding ACCOU�TS, for any reproachful or unkind word, or injurious action: do not content thyself with a secret, and, it may be, a deceitful purpose that thou wilt hereafter accommodate the affair, but bring it to an immediate issue. Leave there thy gift before the altar — In the hands of those that are ministering there: for neither thy gift nor thy prayer will atone for thy want of love and injurious conduct, but these will make thy devotions and oblations an abomination before God. Go thy way — Do not lay aside thoughts of worshipping God, because thou art not in a proper state, but prepare thyself for his worship without delay. Be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift — Which thou mayest then cheerfully hope God will accept at thy hand. Philo, (de Sacrif., p. 844,) explaining the law of the trespass- offering, tells us, “That when a man had injured his brother, and, repenting of his fault, voluntarily acknowledged it, (in which case, both restitution and sacrifice were required,) he was first to make restitution, and then to come into the temple, presenting his sacrifice, and asking pardon.” This greatly illustrates the text, especially considering that our Lord supposes, in this case, not a trespass-offering, but a voluntary gift, presented before the altar; and yet declares that this will not be accepted while there is a consciousness of having wronged a brother, and not made him reparation.

KRETZMA��, "The forgiving attitude is pictured from a happening which was very frequent among the Jews, with which they were thoroughly familiar. A Jew might bring his Corban, his GIFT, used of every kind of bloody and unbloody sacrifice which was brought to the Temple, Mat_8:4; Mat_15:5; Mat_23:8. But in the very act of handing it to the officiating priest at the altar there comes the remembrance. It suddenly flashes into his mind that he has been guilty of an act or a word which might have provoked a brother. The natural way of dealing with the situation might seem to be to keep on with the worship, get through as quickly as possible, and then hurry to make peace with the offended. But Christ tells us to

interrupt our worship and go on the errand of seeking forgiveness first, though it may seem profane to do so. It is more important that the heart be FREE from anxiety for a brother's peace of mind than that an external rite be performed: mercy before sacrifice. There will be plenty of time for sacrificing afterward. See Isa_58:4-7.

CHARLES SIMEO�, "THE �ECESSITY OF SEEKI�G RECO�CILIATIO� WITH ME�

Mat_5:23-24. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

THE explanation which our Lord has given us of the sixth commandment, shews, that we are not to confine the import of the commandments to the mere letter of them, but to regard them as extending to the words of our lips, and the dispositions of our hearts. �or must we imagine that they are intended solely to prohibit sin: they must be understood as inculcating all those virtues which are opposed to the sin forbidden. This is evident from the connexion in which our text stands with the preceding context. Our blessed Lord had declared, that a wrathful word was in fact a species and degree of murder: and from thence he takes occasion to inculcate the necessity of exercising in every respect a spirit of love, so as, not only to entertain no anger in one’s own heart against others, but so as not to leave room for the exercise of it in the hearts of others towards us. The direction which he gives us respecting it will lead us to shew,

I. The duty of seeking reconciliation with men—

Wild beasts are scarcely more prone to injure their own species, than man is to oppress and injure his fellow-man. I�DEED, considering what tempers we have, and what tempers exist in others, and what frequent occasions of interference with each other must of necessity arise, it would be a miracle if any of us had so conducted himself on all occasions, that no brother should on any ACCOU�T “have ought against him.” We apprehend that no one who knows any thing of his own heart, would profess himself so perfect, as never to have done towards another any thing differently from what he would have wished to be done towards himself. Supposing then that “a brother have ought against us,” what is to be done? I answer,

1. We should be willing to see our fault—

[There is in us a self-love, which BLI�DS our eyes, and prevents us from seeing our own defects. Whatever relates to ourselves, we view in a partial light; so that we scarce ever attach any material blame to ourselves. Every one complains of the injuries he receives, but not of the injuries he commits. Take the report of mankind respecting each other, and the world is full of injuries; but take each person’s report

of himself, and no occasion of complaint wall be found to exist. But it would be far better to put ourselves in the place of those who are offended with us; and, instead of extenuating our own offences and aggravating theirs, to view the extenuations of theirs, and the aggravations of our own. This would be doing as we would be done unto; and, if the habit of it were universal, it would soon root out all contention from the world.]

2. We should be ready to ask pardon for it—

[This is a condescension to which men in general are very averse to stoop. They would regard it as an act of meanness and cowardice; and therefore, even when conscious that they are wrong, they will rather risk the loss of their lives than submit to it. But no man should be ashamed to make a suitable apology for any offence he may have committed. When the friends of Job had, even with a good intention, criminated him on account of supposed hypocrisy, God was incensed against them for their uncharitable conduct, and ordered them to make their acknowledgments to Job himself, and to entreat his intercession in their behalf. It was no excuse for them that they had been mistaken, or that they had intended well, or even that they had been actuated by a zeal for God: they had wounded the feelings, and defamed the character, of Job; and if ever they would obtain forgiveness from God, they must first of all ask forgiveness from their injured friend [�ote: Job_42:7-8.]. Thus must we do: it is an act of justice which we owe to man; and an act of obedience which we owe to God.]

3. We should be desirous to make reparation for it—

[This was expressly required under the law [�ote: Lev_6:2-6.]: and it was practised under the Gospel. �o sooner was Zaccheus converted to the faith, than he engaged to restore fourfold to any person whom in his unconverted state he had defrauded [�ote: Luk_19:8.]. And it is in vain to affect penitence, if we be not unfeignedly determined to make reparation, as far as is in our power, for any injury we may have clone. Who would give CREDIT to a man for penitence, whilst he wilfully retained the goods that he had stolen? Sincere contrition would urge him to undo whatever he had done amiss. And the same principle would produce the same effects in every person under heaven.]

Such is our duty towards an offended brother. We now proceed to state,

II. The importance of it in order to our acceptance with God—

The command here given, to suspend the exercise of a solemn duty to God till we shall have performed this duty to man, shews,

1. That no duties whatever can supersede the necessity of it—

[It is here taken for granted, that men will bring their gifts to God’s altar, or, in other words, will draw nigh to him in the use of all his appointed ordinances. But

will works of piety procure us a dispensation from the duties of the second table? Will the making of long prayers be any compensation for devouring widows’ houses; or the paying tithe of mint and anise and cummin atone for neglecting the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and truth? �o such commutation will be admitted by God; no such reserves allowed: his word to us, under all such circumstances, is, “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”]

2. That no duties whatever will be accepted without it—

[A person is represented here as already with his offering before God’s altar. But what says the word of God unto him? ‘Finish thine offering to me, and then go and be reconciled to thy brother?’ �o: it is, “Go thy way;” depart from my altar; leave thy gift there, that it may be ready for thee to offer when thou art reconciled to thy brother: but do not for a moment think of approaching me with acceptance, whilst thy brother’s rights are overlooked. “The prayer of the upright is doubtless God’s delight:” but, when presented by one who “regards iniquity in his heart, it not only shall not be heard,” but it shall be held in utter “abomination [�ote: Pro_15:8; Pro_21:27.].” Hear how solemnly God protests against all such hypocritical services [�ote: Isa_1:11-15. Amo_5:21-24.] — — — It is not in the power of words to express more sovereign contempt, or more rooted abhorrence, of such services, than is conveyed in these passages: and we may be assured, that if we attempt to draw nigh to God, either at his table or at the footstool of his grace, he will spurn us from him with indignation. Let us be ever so urgent in our supplications, his only answer will be, “Go thy way.”

Let us not however be misunderstood on this subject: we are not to imagine, that the circumstance of our being at variance with a brother is any excuse for staying away from the Lord’s table: (it were strange indeed if a want of love to man would excuse a want of piety to God:) this is certainly not the meaning of our text: the meaning is, that, as we cannot be accepted of God in such a state, it becomes us without delay to seek reconciliation with our offended brother.

From this subject we may learn,

1. The necessity of frequent self-examination—

[It is here supposed that a person may be living in the exercise of religious duties, and, without being conscious of his danger, may be in a state wherein neither his person nor his services can be accepted of God: he goes to the altar of his God as usual, and there recollects that his brother has some cause of complaint against him. Alas! there are many such self-deceiving people in the Christian world at this time. But how terrible! and they continue in their delusions till God himself shall bring their sins to remembrance at his judgment-seat! How dreadful will it then be to be told, “Go thy way!” Let us then live in the habit of daily self-examination: let us not leave any of our ways unnoticed, lest some hidden evil remain unrepented of, and “separate between us and our God” for ever. Especially when about to come to the

supper of our Lord, let us try our ways with more than common jealousy, ACCORDI�G to that advice of the Apostle, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him come [�ote: 1Co_11:28.].” Let us GO BACK to our early days, and ask, Whom have we offended? whom defrauded? whom calumniated? whom encouraged in the ways of sin, or discouraged in the ways of piety and virtue? And, whilst we are careful to wash away our stains in the Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness, let us be no less careful to obtain forgiveness of man, and to remedy the evils which we are unable to recall.]

2. The necessity of cultivating a humble spirit—

[It is pride which renders us so averse to ask forgiveness of a fellow-creature. But we have no alternative: if we will not seek reconciliation with an offended brother, we shall not obtain it with an offended God. Let us only get our spirits humbled with a sense of sin, and all the difficulty will vanish. We shall even feel a pleasure in making any acknowledgment which may tend to restore harmony and love. Even, if we are not conscious of having given any just occasion of offence, we shall not be satisfied, whilst we see a brother alienated from us: we shall be anxious to find the cause of his displeasure; to explain any thing which he may have misapprehended, and alter any thing he may have disapproved. In short, if the Gospel had its due effect upon us, we should, as far as our influence extended, convert this wilderness into another Paradise. Our “swords would immediately be turned into ploughshares;” and “the wolf and the lamb would dwell together” in perfect amity: there would be “none to hurt or to destroy in all God’s holy mountain.” O that we could see such a state existing all around us! Let us at least endeavour to produce it in our respective circles. Let us appreciate as we ought the comfort of love, and the excellency of a Christian spirit. And let us seek that “wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy [�ote: Jam_3:17.].”]

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "Be reconciled to thy brother.

Mutual conciliation

I. That a worshipper of God may be in a state of discord in reference to his brother.

II. That public worship rightly used is one of the means to detect and remove this wrong affection. It leads to reflection.

III. Conciliation is of superior value even to public worship.

IV. That it is the duty of brethren to be immediately conciliated. (Caleb Morris.)

I. In order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men. Our worship will not be acceptable, unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

II. It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

III. This should be done before we attempt to worship God. This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not

do what we ought to do to others; we cherish improper feelings, or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship Him. (Dr. A. Barnes.)

I. Observe the word brother.

1. So God teaches thee to call every one.

2. Think with what tenderness and love thou oughtest, and perhaps wouldst behave to him, if he really were such.

II. Does not Christ Himself call the Scribes and Pharisees fools? Truly; but with Divine compassion, to rouse them to a consideration of their state.

(1) The sin is in the anger, the scorn,

(2) the pride of heart in one sinner towards another.

III. Nothing will be accepted from thee in this disposition.

1. Agree with thy brother.

2. The loss of an hour may be the loss of thy soul. (Thomas Adam.)

24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

BAR�ES, "Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar ... - The Pharisees were intent only on the external act in worship. They looked not at all to the internal state of the mind. If a man conformed to the external rites of religion, however much envy, and malice, and secret hatred he might have, they thought he was doing well. Our Saviour taught a different doctrine. It was of more consequence to have the heart right than to perform the outward act. If, therefore, says he, a man has gone so far as to bring his gift to the very altar, and should remember that anyone had anything against him, it was his duty there to leave his offering and go and be reconciled. While a difference of this nature existed, his offering could not be acceptable. He was not to wait until the offended brother should come to him; he was to go and seek him out, and be reconciled. So now the worship of God will not be acceptable, however well performed externally, until we are at peace with those that we have injured. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” 1Sa_15:22. He that comes to worship his Maker filled with malice, and hatred, and envy, and at war with his brethren, is a hypocritical worshipper, and must meet with God’s displeasure. God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.

Thy gift - Thy sacrifice. What thou art about to devote to God as an offering.

To the altar - The altar was situated in front of the temple, and was the place on which sacrifices were made. See the notes on plan, Mat_21:12. To bring a gift to the altar was expressive of worshipping God, for this was the way in which he was formerly worshipped.

Thy brother - Any man, especially any fellow-worshipper. Anyone of the same religious society.

Hath aught - Is offended, or thinks he has been injured by you in any manner.

First be reconciled - This means to settle the difficulty; to make proper acknowledgment or satisfaction for the injury. If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to be paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon. If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation. Do all in your power; and all you ought to do, to have the matter settled. From this we learn:

1. That, in order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men.

2. Our worship will not be acceptable unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

3. It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

4. This should be done before we attempt to worship God.

5. This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to others; we cherish improper feelings or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship him.

CLARKE, "Leave there thy gift before the altar - This is as much as to say, “Do not attempt to bring any offering to God while thou art in a spirit of enmity against any person; or hast any difference with thy neighbor, which thou hast not used thy diligence to get adjusted.” It is our duty and interest, both to bring our gift, and offer it too; but God will not accept of any act of religious worship from us, while any enmity subsists in our hearts towards any soul of man; or while any subsists in our neighbor’s heart towards us, which we have not used the proper means to remove. A religion, the very essence of which is love, cannot suffer at its altars a heart that is revengeful and uncharitable, or which does not use its utmost endeavors to revive love in the heart of

another. The original word, δωρον, which we translate gift, is used by the rabbins in

Hebrew letters דורון doron, which signifies not only a gift, but a sacrifice offered to God. See several proofs in Schoettgen.

Then come and offer thy gift - Then, when either thy brother is reconciled to thee, or thou hast done all in thy power to effect this reconciliation. My own obstinacy and uncharitableness must render me utterly unfit to receive any good from God’s hands, or to worship him in an acceptable manner; bat the wickedness of another can be no hinderance to me, when I have endeavored earnestly to get it removed, though without effect.

GILL, "Leave there thy gift before the altar,.... This might easily be done, and the business soon dispatched, at some seasons; particularly, at their public feasts, as the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, when all the Israelites were together:

and go thy way; make what haste thou canst,

first be reconciled to thy brother: use all means to reconcile him; acknowledge the offence; ask his pardon; assure him that thou wishest well to him, and not ill;

and then come and offer thy gift, by putting it on the altar, before which it was left. This shows, that acts of love and friendship are preferable to sacrifices; and that sacrifices offered up in wrath, and whilst unreconciled to others, are unacceptable to God, and of no avail: and so much the Jews themselves seem to acknowledge; when they say (e):

"that transgressions, which are between a man and God, the day of atonement expiates; the transgressions which are between a man and his neighbour, the day of atonement

does not expiate, עד�שירצה�את�חבירו, "until he hath reconciled his neighbour."''

Which is enlarged upon, and explained by Maimonides (f), after this manner:

"the day of atonement does not expiate any transgressions, but those that are between a man and God, as when one eats anything that is forbidden, and lies with anything that is forbidden, or the like; but transgressions which are between a man and his neighbour, as he that hurts his neighbour, or curses his neighbour, or steals from him, and the like, are never forgiven, until he has given his neighbour what he owed him, and has "reconciled" him; yea, though he has returned to him the money he owed him, he ought to "reconcile" him, and desire him to forgive him; yea, even though "he has only provoked him by

words", (which is the very case in the text before us,) צריך�לפייסו, "he ought to reconcile him", and to meet him until he forgives him: if his neighbour will not forgive, he must bring with him three of his friends, and meet him, and entreat him; and if he will not be reconciled by them, he must bring them a second, and a third time.''

So that he was to use all means to obtain a reconciliation.

HE�RY, " Though we are unfitted for communion with God, by a continual quarrel with a brother, yet that can be no excuse for the omission or neglect of our duty: “Leave there thy gift before the altar, lest otherwise, when thou has gone away, thou be tempted not to come again.” Many give this as a reason why they do not come to church or to the communion, because they are at variance with some neighbour; and whose fault is that? One sin will never excuse another, but will rather double the guilt. Want of charity cannot justify the want of piety. The difficulty is easily got over; those who have wronged us, we must forgive; and those whom we have wronged, we must make satisfaction to, or at least make a tender of it, and desire a renewal of the friendship, so that if reconciliation be not made, it may not be our fault; and then come, come and welcome, come and offer thy gift, and it shall be accepted. Therefore we must not let the sun go down upon our wrath any day, because we must go to prayer before we go to sleep; much less let the sun rise upon our wrath on a sabbath-day, because it is a day of prayer.

JAMISO�, "Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother— The meaning evidently is - not, “dismiss from thine own breast all ill feeling,” but “get thy brother to dismiss from his mind all grudge against

thee.”

and then come and offer thy gift— “The picture,” says Tholuck, “is drawn from life. It transports us to the moment when the Israelite, having brought his sacrifice to the court of the Israelites, awaited the instant when the priest would approach to receive it at his hands. He waits with his gift at the rails which separate the place where he stands from the court of the priests, into which his offering will presently be taken, there to be slain by the priest, and by him presented upon the altar of sacrifice.” It is at this solemn moment, when about to cast himself upon divine mercy, and seek in his offering a seal of divine forgiveness, that the offerer is supposed, all at once, to remember that some brother has a just cause of complaint against him through breach of this commandment in one or other of the ways just indicated. What then? Is he to say, As soon as I have offered this gift I will go straight to my brother, and make it up with him? Nay; but before another step is taken - even before the offering is presented - this reconciliation is to be sought, though the gift have to be left unoffered before the altar. The converse of the truth here taught is very strikingly expressed in Mar_11:25, Mar_11:26 : “And when ye stand praying (in the very act), forgive, if ye have aught (of just complaint) against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive you,” etc. Hence the beautiful practice of the early Church, to see that all differences amongst brethren and sisters in Christ were made up, in the spirit of love, before going to the Holy Communion; and the Church of England has a rubrical direction to this effect in her Communion service. Certainly, if this be the highest act of worship on earth, such reconciliation though obligatory on all other occasions of worship - must be peculiarly so then.

HAWKER, "CHRIST is our New Testament Altar, neither have we any other. It is painful to hear men call the communion table Altar, a name which belongs only to JESUS. But seen in this point of view, when drawing nigh at any time to JESUS, and recollecting some offence given to our brother, how truly doth this correspond to the union and harmony subsisting between CHRIST and his members, to come to Him as the Head, and to bring with us by faith, the whole body in our arms to the Lord. Joh_17:21; 1Co_12:25-27. For the members are to have the same care one for another, as one member of the body hath for its fellow member.

TRAPP, "Ver. 24. Leave there thy gift] The fountain of love will not be laded at with uncharitable hands. God appeared not to Abraham till Lot and he were AGREED. Jacob reconciled to his brother, first builds an altar, &c.

And go thy way, first be reconciled] Unless thou wilt lose thy labour, and worse, as Saul and Judas did. God proffers mercy before sacrifice, and is content his own immediate service should be intermitted, rather than reconciliation be omitted. Confess your trespasses ( παραπτωµατα) one to another, saith St James, {James 5:16} your lapses and offences one against another, and then pray one for another, that ye may be healed; as Abraham, after reconciliation, prayed for Abimelech, and the Lord healed him. St Peter would have husbands and wives live lovingly together; or, if some household words occur between them at any time, to peace again that their prayers be not hindered, as else they will be, 1 Peter 3:7. Dissension

and ill will will lie at the wellhead and stop the current. The spirit of grace and supplication will be grieved by bitterness, anger, clamour; yea, made thereby to stir with discontent, and to WITHDRAW, as loathing his lodging, Ephesians 4:30-31. Si quis est qui neminem in gratiam putat redire posse, non nostram is perfidiam arguit, sed indicat suam. (Cic. Epist. lib. 2. eph 17.) Menander tamen dicit, reconciliationes esse lupinas amicitias.

First be reconciled to thy brother] And, as a bone once broken is stronger after well setting, so let love be after reconciliation; that if it be possible, as much as in us lieth, we may live peaceably with all men. Let it not stick on our part howsoever, but seek peace and ensue it. Though it flee from thee, follow after it, and ACCOU�T it an honour to be first in so good a matter. I do not see (saith one) the Levite’s father-in-law make any means for reconciliation; but when remission come to his doors, no man entertaineth it more thankfully. The nature of many men is forward to accept and negligent to sue for; they can spend secret wishes upon, that which shall cost them no endeavour. But why should men be so backward to a business of this nature? Almighty God beseecheth sinners to be reconciled unto him, 2 Corinthians 5:20. And, as when a man goes from the sun, yet the sunbeams follow him, shine on him, warm him; so doth the mercy of God follow us all the days of our lives, Psalms 23:6. Our Saviour first sent to Peter that had DE�IED him, and went to the rest that had forsaken him. Aristippus (though but a heathen) went of his own accord to Aeschines, his enemy, and said, Shall we not be reconciled till we become a table talk to all the country? And when Aeschines answered he would most gladly be at peace with him: Remember, therefore, said Aristippus, that although I were the elder and better man, yet I sought first unto thee. Thou art indeed, said Aeschines, a far better man than I, for I began the quarrel, but thou the reconcilement. (Laert. lib. 2.) Guiltiness is commonly clamorous and implacable, and none so averse to reconciliation as they that are most injurious; as he that wronged his brother, thrust away Moses, saying, "Who made thee a ruler?" &c. "Wilt thou kill me?" &c. Acts 7:27-28.

ELLICOTT, "(24) Leave there thy gift.—The words describe an act which would appear to men as a breach of liturgical propriety. To leave the gift and the priest, the act of sacrifice unfinished, would be strange and startling, yet that, our Lord teaches, were better than to sacrifice with the sense of a wrong unconfessed and unatoned for, and, à fortiori, better than the deeper evil of not being ready to forgive. The Talmud gives a curious rule, to which the words may perhaps allude: “If a man is on the point of offering the Passover, and remembers that there is any leaven left in the house, let him return to his house, and remove it, and then come and finish the Passover” (Pesachim, f. 49). What the scribes laid down as a duty in regard to the “leaven of bread,” our Lord APPLIES to the leaven of malice and wickedness.

Be reconciled.—It is not enough to see in this only a command to remove ill-will and enmity from our own mind, though that, of course, is implied. There must be also confession of wrong and the endeavour to make amends, to bring about, as far as in

us lies, reconciliation, or atonement.

COFFMA�, "It is useless to offer worship to God when some brother has been wronged and insulted, until the would-be worshiper shall seek out the one wronged and make amends. Christ's plan of maintaining harmony and fellowship in his church is really quite simple. It is "Go!" Three definite situations are outlined in which it is imperative that the true follower of Christ "go" to his brother. These are: (1) when a brother has aught against such a one (this passage), (2) when such a one has been wronged by a brother (Matthew 18:15-17), and (3) when one shall observe that a brother has been overtaken in any fault (Galatians 6:1). �eed it be said that this is the only procedure laid down in God's word for dealing with the sins of a brother? Furthermore, these divinely imposed procedures are applicable to all types of sins and errors brethren may commit. The artificial and unscriptural distinction as to "public" and "private" sins with an implied waiver of God's commanded procedure if the sins are said to be "public," is a gross and sinful perversion of our Lord's teaching. To distinguish sins as "private" or "public" and make the APPLICATIO� of God's word depend on man's classification is every whit as sinful as the unwarranted division of faith into "historical" and "saving" varieties, or as the Roman classifications of "mortal" and "venial" sin!

Where is the Scripture that says Matthew 5:34; 18:15 and Galatians 6:1 do not apply to "public" sins? Christ commands his servants to "go" to the brother who is sinned against or who has himself sinned against us, or when the brother has been overtaken in any "fault"! If obeyed, the Scriptures here outlined would prevent the sinful and destructive practice of venting animosities, pronouncing anathemas, shouting corrections, and launching vicious criticisms against one's brothers in Christ through such media as gospel papers, radio PROGRAMS, and circulatory letters. See more on this under Matthew 18:15.

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.

BAR�ES, "Agree with thine adversary quickly - This is still an illustration of

the sixth commandment. To be in hostility, to go to law, to be litigious, is a violation always, on one side or the other, of the law requiring us to love our neighbor, and our Saviour regards it as a violation of the sixth commandment. While you are in the way with him, says he, that is, while you are going to the court, before the trial has taken place, it is your duty, if possible, to come to an agreement. It is wrong to carry the contention to a court of law. See 1Co_6:6-7. The consequence of not being reconciled, he expresses in the language of courts. The adversary shall deliver to the judge, and he to the executioner, and he shall throw you into prison. He did not mean to say that this would be literally the way with God, but that His dealings with those that harbored these feelings, and would not be reconciled with their brethren, were represented by the punishment inflicted by human tribunals. That is, he would hold all such as violators of the sixth commandment, and would punish them accordingly.

There is no propriety in the use sometimes made of this verse, in representing God as the “adversary” of the sinner, and urging him to be reconciled to God while in the way to judgment. Nor does the phrase “thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing” refer to the eternity of future punishment. It is language taken from courts of justice, to illustrate the truth that God will punish people according to justice for not being reconciled to him. The punishment in the future world will be eternal indeed Mat_25:46, but this passage does not prove it.

Thine adversary - A man that is opposed to us in law. It here means a creditor; a man who has a just claim on us.

In the way with him -While you are going before the court. Before the trial comes on. It is remarkable that this very direction is found in the Roman law of the Twelve Tables, which expressly directed the plaintiff and defendant to make up the matter while they were in the way, or going to the praetor - in via, rem uti pacunt orato. - Blackstone’s Commentary, iii. p. 299. Whether the Saviour had any reference to this cannot be determined. As the Roman laws prevailed to some extent in Palestine, however, it is possible that there was such an allusion.

The officer - The executioner; or, as we should say, the sheriff.

The uttermost farthing - The last farthing. All that is due. The farthing was a small coin used in Judea, equal to two mites. It was not quite equal to half a farthing of British money.

CLARKE, "Agree with thine adversary quickly - Adversary, αντιδικος, properly a plaintiff in law - a perfect law term. Our Lord enforces the exhortation given in the preceding verses, from the consideration of what was deemed prudent in ordinary law-suits. In such cases, men should make up matters with the utmost speed, as running through the whole course of a law-suit must not only be vexatious, but be attended with great expense; and in the end, though the loser may be ruined, yet the gainer has nothing. A good use of this very prudential advice of our Lord is this: Thou art a sinner; God hath a controversy with thee. There is but a step between thee and death. Now is the accepted time. Thou art invited to return to God by Christ Jesus. Come immediately at his call, and he will save thy soul. Delay not! Eternity is at hand; and if thou die in thy sins, where God is thou shalt never come.

Those who make the adversary, God; the judge, Christ; the officer, Death; and the prison, Hell, abuse the passage, and highly dishonor God.

GILL, "Agree with thine adversary quickly,.... These words are not to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if "the adversary" was the justice of God, demanding payment of debts; "the way", this present life; "the judge", God himself; "the officer", the devil; "the prison", the pit of hell; and "the uttermost farthing", the least sin, which will never be remitted without satisfaction: but the design of them is to prevent lawsuits about debts, which may be in dispute; it being much better for debtor and creditor, especially the former, to compose such differences among themselves, than to litigate the matter in a court of judicature. By "the adversary" is meant not an enemy, one that bears hatred and ill will, but a brother that has ought against a man; a creditor, who demands and insists upon payment of what is owing to him; and for this purpose has taken methods towards bringing the debtor before a proper magistrate, in order to oblige him to payment: wherefore it is better for him to make up and agree the matter directly, as soon as possible,

whilst thou art in the way with him; that is, whilst the creditor and debtor are going together to some inferior magistrate, or lesser court, as the sanhedrim, which

consisted of three persons only, before whom such causes might be tried: for דיני�ממונות�

pecuniary causes, or causes relating to money matters, were tried "by the bench ,בשלושה

of three" (g): and the selfsame advice is given in the Talmud (h), as here, where it seems to be a common proverb; for it is said,

"there are men that say, or men usually say, אגב�אורחך�לבעל�דבבך�אישתמע, "whilst thou art in the way with thine adversary, be obedient".''

Lest at any time the adversary should deliver thee to the judge, a superior magistrate in a higher court; for if the creditor would, he could oblige the debtor to go with him to the supreme court of judicature, and try the cause there; for so say the Jewish (i); canons:

"if the creditor says we will go to the great sanhedrim, they compel the debtor, and he goes up with them, as it is said, "the borrower is servant to the lender",''

where it might go harder with the poor debtor; and therefore it was advisable to prevent it by an agreement, lest

the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison,

"It was an affirmative command in the law, says Maimonides, to appoint "judges" and

"officers" in every country and province, as it is said, Deu_16:18. שופטים, "judges" they are the judges that are fixed in the sanhedrim, and such that engage in law suits come

before them: שוטרים, "officers"; these are the masters of the rod and scourge, i.e. who

beat and scourge delinquents; and these stand before the judges--and all they do, is by the order of the judges.''

Now it is one of these that is meant by "the officer"; in Munster's Hebrew Gospel, he is

called שוטר; who, when he had authority from the judge, could cast into prison, and that

for debt; of which we have no account in the law of Moses.

HE�RY, "Because, till this be done, we lie exposed to much danger, Mat_5:25, Mat_5:26. It is at our peril if we do not labour after an agreement, and that quickly, upon two accounts:

(1.) Upon a temporal account. If the offence we have done to our brother, in his body, goods, or reputation, be such as will bear action, in which he may recover considerable damages, it is our wisdom, and it is our duty to our family, to prevent that by a humble submission and a just and peaceable satisfaction; lest otherwise he recover it by law, and put us to the extremity of a prison. In such a case it is better to compound and make the best terms we can, than to stand it out; for it is in vain to contend with the law, and there is danger of our being crushed by it. Many ruin their estates by an obstinate persisting in the offences they have given, which would soon have been pacified by a little yielding at first. Solomon's advice in case of suretyship is, Go, humble thyself, and so secure and deliver thyself, Pro_6:1-5. It is good to agree, for the law is costly. Though we must be merciful to those we have advantage against, yet we must be just to those that have advantage against us, as far as we are able. “Agree, and compound with thine adversary quickly, lest he be exasperated by thy stubbornness, and provoked to insist upon the utmost demand, and will not make thee the abatement which at first he would have made.” A prison is an uncomfortable place to those who are brought to it by their own pride and prodigality, their own wilfulness and folly.

(2.) Upon a spiritual account. “Go, and be reconciled to thy brother, be just to him, be friendly with him, because while the quarrel continues, as thou art unfit to bring thy gift to the altar, unfit to come to the table of the Lord, so thou art unfit to die: if thou persist in this sin, there is danger lest thou be suddenly snatched away by the wrath of God, whose judgment thou canst not escape nor except against; and if that iniquity be laid to thy charge, thou art undone for ever.” Hell is a prison for all that live and die in malice and uncharitableness, for all that are contentious (Rom_2:8), and out of that prison there is no rescue, no redemption, no escape, to eternity.

This is very applicable to the great business of our reconciliation to God through Christ; Agree with him quickly, whilst thou art in the way. Note, [1.] The great God is

an Adversary to all sinners, antidikos - a law-adversary; he has a controversy with them,

an action against them. [2.] It is our concern to agree with him, to acquaint ourselves with him, that we may be at peace, Job_22:21; 2Co_5:20. [3.] It is our wisdom to do this quickly, while we are in the way. While we are alive, we are in the way; after death, it will be too late to do it; therefore give not sleep to thine eyes till it be done. [4.] They who continue in a state of enmity to God, are continually exposed to the arrests of his justice, and the most dreadful instances of his wrath. Christ is the Judge, to whom impenitent sinners will be delivered; for all judgment is committed to the Son; he that was rejected as a Saviour, cannot be escaped as a Judge, Rev_6:16, Rev_6:17. It is a fearful thing to be thus turned over to the Lord Jesus, when the Lamb shall become the Lion. Angels are the officers to whom Christ will deliver them (Mat_13:41, Mat_13:42); devils are so too, having the power of death as executioners to all unbelievers, Heb_2:14. Hell is the prison, into which those will be cast that continue in a state of enmity to God, 2Pe_2:4. [5.] Damned sinners must remain in it to eternity; they shall not depart till they have paid the uttermost farthing, and that will not be to the utmost ages of eternity: divine justice will be for ever in the satisfying, but never satisfied.

JAMISO�, "Agree with thine adversary— thine opponent in a matter cognizable

by law.

quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him— “to the magistrate,” as in Luk_12:58.

lest at any time— here, rather, “lest at all,” or simply “lest.”

the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge— having pronounced thee in the wrong.

deliver thee to the officer— the official whose business it is to see the sentence carried into effect.

HAWKER, "These are sweet verses if referred to that lawsuit we all have, by reason of sin and transgression, with Gob. An adversary doth, not always mean the evil spirit. It is indeed one of his names. 1Pe_5:8. But the LORD saith I will be an adversary to thine adversaries: Exo_23:22. And the Lord is represented as an adversary to his People in the day of their sorrow. Lam_2:4. In this sense JEHOVAH hath a controversy and a lawsuit with his people by reason of sin, and the Loan JESUS recommends his church in these verses, to make up the breach quickly while we are in the way, that is, JESUS himself is the way, and the only way of reconciliation. Reader! what a refreshing thought! Christ is our peace. Mic_5:5. God Was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. 2Co_5:19. And now there is no condemnation to them that are in CHRIST JEWS. Rom_8:1. Bet to those who live and die in the natural enmity of their mind, CHRIST becomes the judge, to whom the ungodly are delivered. Joh_5:22. Angels are the officers of judgment. Mat_13:41-42. And the prison is explained to us in the. Scriptures as Hell, where they will he cast and remain forever. 2Pe_2:4; Rev_20:15.

TRAPP, "25 AGREE with thine adversary 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.

VER 25. Agree with thine adversary quickly] Habent aulae suum Cito, cito. God’s work also must be done with expedition; opportunities are headlong, delays dangerous. Let not therefore the sun go down upon YOUR wrath, lest it grow inveterate, as it proves in many, who not only let the sun go down once or twice, but run his whole race, ere they can find hearts and means to be reconciled. {a} "Cursed be their wrath, for it is deadly. O my soul, come not thou into their secret," Genesis 49:6-7. It were much to he wished, that, as Livy hath it, Amicitiae immortales, inimicitiae mortales essent, enmities were mortal among us, amities immortal.

Lest thine adversary deliver thee to the judge] By his groans and moans to God, who is gracious (though thou art stiff), and will pay thee for thy pertinacy, Exodus 22:26; (and him for his patience), with extremity of law. Compound, therefore, and take up the suit before it come to execution and judgment. Suffer it not, as ill husbands do, to run on, and charges to grow from term to term, lest we pay not only the main debt, but the arrears too, the time of God’s patience, &c.

Thou be cast into prison] Into hell, worse than any prison. Of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, the second man from King Stephen, it is REPORTED, that he was so tortured in prison with hunger and other calamities accompanying such men, ut vivere noluerit, mori nescieret, live he would not, die he could not. This and much worse is the case of those that are cast into hell; they seek death, but find it not; they desire it, but it fleeth from them, Revelation 9:6.

ELLICOTT, "(25) AGREE with thine adversary.—The imagery is changed, and returns to that of human tribunals, which has met us in Matthew 5:22. The man whom we have wronged appears as the “adversary,” the prosecutor bringing his charge against us. The impulse of the natural man at such a time, even if conscious of wrong, is to make the best of his case, to prevaricate, to recriminate. The truer wisdom, Christ teaches, is to “agree”—better, to be on good terms with—show our own good will, and so win his. The whole teaching, it is obvious, is ADDRESSED to one who has done wrong. The treatment of a false charge involves different considerations.

The officer.—In this case, the officer of the court, the gaoler.

In the APPLICATIO� of the words, the judge is clearly God, and the officers, those (angels or others) who execute His judgment, and the “adversary,” those whom we have wronged, leaving the wrong unredressed. In 1 Peter 5:8 the devil is described as the great “adversary,” and that meaning is, perhaps, not excluded, though it is not prominent, here. Any evil deed becomes in the end as an accusing Satan, bearing its witness against us; and Satan himself is the embodiment of all such accusers.

COKE, "Matthew 5:25-26. AGREEwith thine adversary— Our blessed Saviour here enforces the exhortation in the preceding verses, from the consideration of what was reckoned prudent in ordinary law-suits. In such cases, wise and honest men always advise the party that has done the wrong to make up matters with his adversary whilst it is in his power, lest the sentence of a judge, being interposed, fall heavy on him. For the same reason, we, when we have offended our brother, ought to make it up with him, whilst an OPPORTU�ITY of repentance is allowed us, and that, though our quarrel should have PROCEEDEDto the greatest lengths; lest the sentence of the supreme judge overtake us, and put reconciliation out of our power for ever. The original ισθι ευνοων, rendered agree, seems to imply not only peace, but benevolence; and therefore might be rendered, "Come to a friendly agreement." The word αντιδικος, adversary, property signifies a person who is going to law with another. The farthing, κοδραντης, was the least brass coin that the Romans had. In a figurative sense, which is that of the Lord Jesus Christ here, the prison is taken for hell, out of which the unrelenting sinner can never come, according to our Lord's declaration, because he can never be able to make satisfaction.—We are all thy debtors, O Lord, and in one sense theprisoners of thy justice; of ourselves most incapable, not only of paying the uttermost farthing, but even of discharging the least part of the debt. We bless thee for that generous Surety, who has undertaken and discharged it for us; and by the price of whose atoning blood we are delivered

from the chains of darkness, and are TRA�SLATED into the glorious liberty of thy children! See Doddridge, Beausobre and Lenfant, &c.BARCLAY, "MAKE PEACE I� TIME Matthew 5: 25, 26

Get on to good terms again with your opponent, while you are still on the road with him, in case your opponent hands you over to the judge, and the judge hands you over to the court officer, and you be cast into prison. This is the truth I tell you if that happens, you certainly will not come out until you have paid the last farthing.

HERE Jesus is giving the most practical advice; he is telling men to get trouble sorted out in time, before it piles up still worse trouble for the future.

Jesus draws a picture of two opponents on their way together to the law courts ; and He tells them to get things settled and straightened out before they reach the court, for, if they do not, and, if the law takes its course, there will be still worse trouble for one of them at least in the days to come.

The picture of two opponents on the way to court together seems to us very strange, and indeed rather improbable. But in the ancient world it often happened.

Under Greek law there was a process of arrest called apagoge, which means summary arrest. In it the plaintiff himself arrested the defendant. He caught him by his robe at the throat, and held the robe in such a way that, if he struggled, he would strangle himself. Obviously the causes for which such an arrest was legal were very few. The malefactor had to be taken in the act, and caught red-handed. The crimes for which a man might be summarily arrested by anyone in this way were thieving, clothes-stealing (clothes-stealers were the curse of the public baths in ancient Greece), picking pockets, house-breaking and kidnapping (the kidnapping of specially gifted and accomplished slaves was very common in ancient Greece). Further, a man might be summarily arrested if he was discovered to be exercising the rights of a citizen when he had been dis-franchised, or if he returned to his state or city after being exiled. In view of this custom it was by no means uncom-mon to see a plaintiff and a defendant on their way to court together in a Greek city.

Clearly it is much more likely that Jesus would be thinking in terms of Jewish law; nor was this situation by any means impossible under Jewish law. This is obviously a case of debt, for, if peace is not made, the last farthing will have to be paid. Such cases were settled by the local council of elders. A time was appointed when plaintiff and defendant had to appear together; in any small town or village there was every likelihood of them finding them-selves on the way to the court together. When a man was adjudged guilty, he was handed over to the court officer. Matthew calls the officer the huperetes; Luke calls him, in his version of the saying, by the more common term, praktor (Luke 12: 58, 59). It was the duty of the court officer to see that the penalty was duly paid, and, if it was not paid, he had the power to imprison the defaulter, until it was paid. It is no doubt of that situation that Jesus was thinking. Jesus' advice may mean one of two things.

(i) It may be a piece of most practical advice. Again and again it is the experience of life that, if a quarrel, or a difference, or a dispute is not healed immediately, it can go on breeding worse and worse trouble as time goes on. Bitterness breeds bitterness. It has often happened that a quarrel between two people has descended to their families, and has been inherited by future generations, and has in the end succeeded in splitting a church or a society in two. If at the very beginning one of the parties had had the grace to apologize or to admit fault, a very grievous situa-tion need never have arisen. If ever we are at variance with someone else, we must get the situation put right straight away. It may mean that we must be humble enough to confess that we were wrong and to make apology; it may mean that, even if we were in the right, we have to take the first step towards healing the breach. When per-sonal relations go wrong, in nine cases out of ten immediate action will mend them ; but if that immediate action is not taken, they will continue to deteriorate, and the bitterness will spread in an ever-widening circle.

(ii) It may be that in Jesus' mind there was something more ultimate than this. It may be that He is saying, 14 Put things right with your fellowmen, while life lasts, for some day you know not when life will finish, and you will go to stand before God, the final Judge of all." The greatest of all Jewish days was the Day of Atonement. Its sacri-fices were held to atone for sin known and unknown ; but even

this day had its limitations. The Talmud clearly lays it down: " The Day of Atonement does atone for the offences between man and God. The Day of Atonement does not atone for the offences between a man and his neighbour, unless the man has first put things right with his neighbour." Here again we have the basic fact a man cannot be right with God unless he is right with his fellow-men. A man must so live that the end will find him at peace with all men.

It may well be that we do not need to choose between these two interpretations of this saying of Jesus. It may well be that both were in the mind of Jesus, and that what Jesus is saying is: " If you want happiness in time, and happiness in eternity, never leave an unreconciled quarrel or an unhealed breach between yourself and your brother man. Act immediately to remove the barriers which anger has raised."

CALVI�, "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. (401) 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 BLI�DED 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. (402) It were to be wished, I�DEED, 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’ Gospel, where he does not relate the sermon on the mount, but gives an abridgment of various passages in our Lord’ 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 APPLIEDto God; for he will exercise judgment without mercy (Jas_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 CO�TI�UED allegory on this passage. �othing is more evident than that the subject of Christ’ 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. �ow, if we were disposed to cavilling, (403) we might here obtain another exposure of the absurdity of the Papists. For, if he who has once E�TERED 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 PAYME�T of what he owes. (404) �ow, 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.

(401) “Mais aussi ceux qui sont assaillis et provoquez les premiers;” — “ also those who are first attacked and provoked.”

(402) “Afin que ne prenans pas les choses a la rigueur, ils rachetent paix et amite en se monstrans ainsi traitables.” — “ not taking things to the rigor, they may purchase peace and friendship, by showing themselves so tractable.”

(403) “Qui voudroit user de cavillation et chippoter sur chacun mot.” — “ who would cavil and higgle about every word.”

(404) “Mais il requiert nommement qu'un chacun satisface pour soy, et paye ce qu'il doit.” — “ he requires expressly that each satisfy for himself and pay what he owes.”

BE�SO�, "Matthew 5:25. AGREE &c. — Here our Lord enforces the preceding exhortation, from the consideration of what is reckoned prudent in ordinary quarrel and law-suits. “In such cases, wise men always advise the party that has done wrong to make up matters with his adversary while it is in his power, lest the sentence of a judge, being interposed, fall heavy on him. For the same reason, we, who have offended our brother, ought to make it up with him, while an opportunity of repentance is allowed us; and that though our quarrel should have PROCEEDED to the greatest lengths, lest the sentence of the Supreme Judge overtake us, and put reconciliation out of our power for ever.” With thine adversary quickly — With any

against whom thou hast thus offended; whiles thou art in the way with him —Going with him to a magistrate; or, instantly, on the spot; before you part. Lest the adversary deliver thee to the judge — To be tried before him; and the judge, deciding the cause against thee, deliver thee to the officer of the court, to keep thee in custody till satisfaction be made, and thou be cast into prison — �ot being able to discharge A� ACCOU�T enhanced with so many additional articles of expense. Thou shalt by no means come out thence — Be released out of prison; till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing — For thy antagonist, when he has got thee at such an advantage, will be more rigorous in his demands than before. And surely, if by impenitent wickedness thou makest thyself the prisoner of the divine justice, thy case will be yet more deplorable and hopeless. Understanding the words in a figurative sense, which is, partly at least, intended by Christ here, the prison is taken for hell, out of which the unrelenting sinner can never come, ACCORDI�G to our Lord’s declaration, because he can never be able to make that satisfaction. “Lord, we are all the debtors, and, in one sense, the prisoners of thy justice, and of ourselves were most incapable, not only of paying the uttermost farthing, but even of discharging the least part of the debt! We bless thee for that generous Surety who has taken and discharged it for us; and by the price of whose atoning blood we are delivered from the chains of darkness, and are TRA�SLATED into the glorious liberty of thy children.” — Doddridge. What has hitherto been said refers to meekness; what follows, to purity of heart.

COFFMA�, "Settling disagreements and healing possible sources of friction should be the pressing business of every day. In that manner, hatreds and enmities would not be left to build up strength. An attitude of conciliation and fairness can pull the sting from many thorny human problems, provided it is manifested spontaneously and early enough at the first sign of disagreement or conflict.

KRETZMA��, "The picture is that of a debtor on the way to court with his creditor, Deu_21:18; Deu_25:1, who is his adversary, but probably might be found willing to come to terms outside of court. The advice is that the debtor be in a very conciliatory mood, ready and eager to straighten out the difficulty without litigation. In case a settlement would not be effected in this manner, the danger would be that the adversary, losing all patience, would deliver and even forcibly drag the debtor before the judge, SECURE a favorable decision, have this carried out by the officer of the court, and have the satisfaction of seeing him taken to prison. All hopes of obtaining mercy would then be shattered. For even the last quadrans , the fourth part of a Roman assarin, which was worth not quite two cents, would be demanded of him. PAYME�T would be exacted to the last fraction of a penny. A very earnest admonition not to wait or hesitate about coming to terms with our adversary, with any one whom we owe reconciliation. The brief period of life is soon behind us, and the implacable that refused to AGREE will find in the Lord an equally implacable Judge.

CHARLES SIMEO�, "THE IMPORTA�CE OF SEEKI�G RECO�CILIATIO� WITH GOD

Mat_5:25-26. AGREEwith thine adversary 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. Verily I say unto thee, thou shall by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

IT is thought by many, that prudential considerations are unworthy the attention of a Christian. That he ought to be influenced by higher principles, we readily admit. The love of Christ should be to him in the place of all other incentives, so far at least that he should not need any other motive for doing the will of God. But Christians are men, and feel the force of every principle which can operate upon the human mind: and therefore subordinate motives may fitly be proposed to them in aid of those which are more worthy of their regard. Our blessed Lord, having explained the sixth commandment, inculcates the duties contained in it, particularly that of seeking reconciliation with an offended brother: and this he does, first from the consideration of the offence which a want of a conciliatory spirit gives to God, and next from a consideration of the danger to which it exposes ourselves. In the former view we have treated of it in the foregoing verses; in the latter view we are to speak of it at this time. But the peculiarly emphatic manner in which our Lord speaks in the words before us, will naturally, and almost necessarily, lead our thoughts beyond the mere concerns of time, to another tribunal before which we must all appear. We shall therefore consider our text,

I. In its primary and literal sense—

When we have by any means offended a brother, we should not defer the period of making proper concessions, but should make them “quickly:” the danger of delay is great: for,

1. The breach may become irreparable—

[When we have excited a painful feeling in the breast of another, or even injured him in a considerable degree, we may by instantaneous concessions abate at least, if not entirely remove, his anger. But the longer he is suffered to pore over the injuries he has sustained, the more his wound festers, and indignation rankles in his bosom. CO�TI�UED pondering over the misconduct of the offending person brings to his recollection a multitude of incidents, which under other circumstances would have been overlooked, but, viewed through the medium of anger, are magnified into importance, and regarded as aggravations of the offence committed. Thus an aversion to make acknowledgments on the one side begets inflexibility on the other; and that which might have passed away as a slight and transient dispute, becomes a ground of bitter alienation and rooted aversion. To prevent this, we should strive to make up the matter “while we are in the way with him.” Instead of separating

immediately, as is usually the case, and avoiding all means of friendly communication, we should labour to prevent matters from coming to an extremity: and set ourselves in the first instance to procure a reconciliation, precisely as we would to extinguish a fire that threatened to consume our house: we should not stop till the flames had gained an irresistible ascendant; but should set ourselves first to quench the fire, and afterwards guard against the occasions of future conflagration.]

2. The consequences may be fatal—

[Our Lord supposes a person so irritated as to have determined to prosecute us in a court of law: and he supposes that the offence has been such as, when judgment is given against us, will terminate in our ruin; the compensation awarded him, and the costs of the suit, exceeding our power to discharge, we shall be cast into prison, and be liberated from thence no more.

This is a consequence which not unfrequently happens for want of timely humiliation in the offending party. But where measures are not pursued to such an extent, the disagreement may yet be attended with most calamitous effects.And it will be well for us to remember, that, though the persons we may offend may not be able to avenge themselves in that precise way, there is no person who may not at some time or other have it in his power to do us an essential injury: and therefore, though it is but a poor motive for a Christian to act upon, we may not improperly bear it in mind, as a subordinate considertion, to keep us from giving offence to any, and to stir us up to adopt the most prompt and effectual means of reconciliation with any whom we may have chanced to provoke.]

That our subject may be more generally interesting, we shall consider the text,

II. In a secondary and accommodated sense—

�otwithstanding the Apostles occasionally QUOTE the Scriptures in a secondary and accommodated sense, we would be very cautious in taking such a liberty with the word of God. But we can scarcely conceive that our Lord had not some reference to the future judgment, when the Supreme Judge of all will execute on every unhumbled sinner the punishment he deserves. Though our offences be primarily against our fellow-creature, he will take cognizance of them at the last day, if we have not sought forgiveness in this life, as well at the hand of our offended brother, as at his hands. But since we cannot absolutely affirm that this is the sense of our text, we are contented to call it an accommodated sense; more especially because, in this latter sense, we consider God as the offended party, no less than the Judge who takes cognizance of the offence. Let not this, however, be thought a great liberty, because he is really the offended party, whether our transgression be immediately against man or not; and, as we have observed, he will bring every work into judgment, whomsoever it might affect in the first instance.

With this apology we shall consider our text as prescribing a rule of conduct for us

towards God no less than towards our fellow-creatures: and this we may well do; for,

1. Our duty is the same

[We have all offended God, and that in instances without number. To humble ourselves before him is our bounden duty. This would be our duty, though no means of reconciliation had been provided for us: but when God has sent his only-begotten Son to make an atonement for our sins, that so we might be brought into a state of reconciliation with him in a way consistent with the honour of his law and of his moral government, we should be inexcusable I�DEED if we should delay to seek him one single moment. The ingratitude which such conduct would argue, would aggravate our past offences beyond measure — — —]

2. The reasons for it are the same—

[“We are yet in the way with him.” Though we are hastening to the judgment-seat of Christ, we are not yet arrived there: and there is yet time for reconciliation with our offended God — — — This time however will be very short; how short we know not: we are advancing towards his tribunal every day and hour — — — But, if once the matter is brought before the Judge, all hope of mercy and forgiveness will be past: justice must then be dispensed ACCORDI�G to the strict letter of the law —— — The sentence that will then be decreed will be unalterably fixed for ever: so far from “paying the last farthing” of our debt, we shall never be able to pay one farthing: and consequently must endure the penalty of our sins for ever and ever. Who can reflect on the awfulness of that prison, and yet continue one hour in an unreconciled state? — — — Consider the solemnity with which our Lord warns us against delay, and lose not another moment in imploring mercy at the hands of God.]

Reflections—

1. Of what value in the sight of God is brotherly love!

[If we were to judge by the little regard shewn to it by men, we should ACCOU�T it of no value: but God declares, that whatever we may have, or do, or suffer, if destitute of this, we are no better than sounding brass, or tinkling cymbals [�ote: 1Co_13:1-3.]. As far as we are possessed of this, so far we resemble him [�ote: 1Jn_4:7-8; 1Jn_4:16.]: as far as we are destitute of it, we resemble “the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning [�ote: 1Jn_3:14-15. with Joh_8:44.].” Let us cultivate to the uttermost this heavenly grace — — —]

2. How happy would the world be if Christianity universally prevailed!

[“Love is the fulfilling both of the law” and the Gospel too. If the Gospel reigned in the hearts of all, “Judah would no more vex Ephraim, nor would Ephraim envy Judah.” All would be harmony and peace throughout the world. To prove the

blessedness of such a state, I need only appeal to those, who have felt at any time the disquietudes arising from anger and contention, and have at last been enabled to re-unite with their brother in cordial amity and affection. What a difference is there in your feelings! Instead of being harassed with incessant vexation, how are you now filled with tranquillity and joy! If then we have nothing more than our own happiness in view, we should, “as much as lieth in us, live peaceably with all men” — — —]

3. How earnest should we be in preparing for the future judgment!

[There, not overt actions only, but tempers and dispositions, will be strictly investigated: and a sentence will be passed upon us, founded on the moral state of our minds. Let us not trifle in a matter of such importance. Let us not be satisfied with saying, “I forgive all;” but let us inquire whether there be any person of whom we have not asked forgiveness? — — — Our proud hearts are very averse to stoop; but if we do not humble ourselves now before God and man, the time will come when we shall “find no place of repentance, though we should seek it carefully with tears [�ote: Heb_12:17. Mat_25:10-12.].”]

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "Agree with thine adversary.

Reconciliation with God

1. Man by his sin has made God his adversary.

2. God has opened a way by which sinners, though they have thus grossly offended, may be brought back into a state of reconciliation with Him.

3. To show you that it is man’s duty and interest to avail himself of the opportunity of coming into agreement with God.

I. Who are the persons that may rightly apply to themselves the motives by which i shall urge the business of agreement with God. God is the adversary of any child of Adam who has not availed himself of pardon, the man of private virtue as well as his profligate neighbour.

II. Motives by which this business is urged won you.

1. Consider what it is I am endeavouring to enforce upon your attention. No trifle, agreement with God.

2. What would be the blessings that would result if you were thus reconciled to God.

3. What will be the consequences if you are not reconciled?

4. Let me remind you of the interest others take in your reconciliation with God.

III. Begin that reconciliation immediately “Whiles thou art in the way.”

1. God is now waiting to come to agreement with you.

2. What reason have you to advance why you should not.

3. Consider the uncertainty of life.

4. All the opportunities of agreement are confined to this present life.

5. The results that in another world will follow a want of reconciliation with God in this, are indescribably dreadful.

6. The punishment will be inevitable and eternal. (J. A. James, D. D.)

Agree with thine adversary quickly

1. The Lord warns us to make our Christian peace in time.

2. To take care that our sacramental offering of charity and forgiveness be not delayed.

3. Lest our adversary be no more in the way with us; lest, among the many partings of this world, we lose sight of him for ever.

4. And that on the ground of God’s awful judgment.

5. For to Him the unreconciled quarrels of this world must be referred.

6. He will exact the uttermost farthing of His own incalculable debt from those who have been unkind and unforgiving to their fellow-servants. (G. Moberley, D. C. L.)

26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

CLARKE, "The uttermost farthing - Κοδραντην. The rabbins have this Greek

word corrupted into קרדיונטסס kordiontes, and קונטריק, kontrik, and say, that two פרוטות

prutoth make a kontarik, which is exactly the same with those words in Mar_12:42, λεπτα�

δυο,�ο�εστι�κοδραντης, two mites, which are one farthing. Hence it appears that the λεπτον

lepton was the same as the prutah. The weight of the prutah was half a barley-corn, and it was the smallest coin among the Jews, as the kodrantes, or farthing, was the smallest coin among the Romans. If the matter issue in law, strict justice will be done, and your creditor be allowed the fullness of his just claim; but if; while you are on the way, going to the magistrate, you come to a friendly agreement with him, he will relax in his claims, take a part for the whole, and the composition be, in the end, both to his and your profit.

This text has been considered a proper foundation on which to build not only the doctrine of a purgatory, but also that of universal restoration. But the most unwarrantable violence must be used before it can be pressed into the service of either of the above antiscriptural doctrines. At the most, the text can only be considered as a

metaphorical representation of the procedure of the great Judge; and let it ever be remembered, that by the general consent of all (except the basely interested) no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of any doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls.

GILL, "Verily, I say unto thee,.... This may be depended upon, you may assure yourself of it, that

thou shalt by no means come out thence, from prison,

till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing, or "last farthing"; or as the Ethiopic version reads it, "till thou hast exactly paid all"; which seems to express the inexorableness of the creditor, and the impossibility of the debtor's release.

JAMISO�, "Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing— a fractional Roman coin, to which our “farthing” answers sufficiently well. That our Lord meant here merely to give a piece of prudential advice to his hearers, to keep out of the hands of the law and its officials by settling all disputes with one another privately, is not for a moment to be supposed, though there are critics of a school low enough to suggest this. The concluding words - “Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out,” etc.— manifestly show that though the language is drawn from human disputes and legal procedure, He is dealing with a higher than any human quarrel, a higher than any human tribunal, a higher than any human and temporal sentence. In this view of the words - in which nearly all critics worthy of the name agree - the spirit of them may be thus expressed: “In expounding the sixth commandment, I have spoken of offenses between man and man; reminding you that the offender has another party to deal with besides him whom he has wronged on earth, and assuring you that all worship offered to the Searcher of hearts by one who knows that a brother has just cause of complaint against him, and yet takes no steps to remove it, is vain: But I cannot pass from this subject without reminding you of One whose cause of complaint against you is far more deadly than any that man can have against man: and since with that Adversary you are already on the way to judgment, it will be your wisdom to make up the quarrel without delay, lest sentence of condemnation be pronounced upon you, and then will execution straightway follow, from the effects of which you shall never escape as long as any remnant of the offense remains unexpiated.” It will be observed that as the principle on which we are to “agree” with this “Adversary” is not here specified, and the precise nature of the retribution that is to light upon the despisers of this warning is not to be gathered from the mere use of the word “prison”; so, the remedilessness of the punishment is not in so many words expressed, and still less is its actual cessation taught. The language on all these points is designedly general; but it may safely be said that the unending duration of future punishment - elsewhere so clearly and awfully expressed by our Lord Himself, as in Mat_5:29, Mat_5:30, and Mar_9:43, Mar_9:48 - is the only doctrine with which His language here quite naturally and fully accords. (Compare Mat_18:30, Mat_18:34).

TRAPP, "Ver. 26. Thou shalt by no means come out thence till, &c.] i.e. �ever come

ont. Let our merit mongers first go to hell for their sins, and stay all eternity there; then afterward, if God will create another eternity, they may have liberty to relate their good works, and call for their wages. But the curse of the law will first be served of such, as, seeking to be Saved by the works of the law, are fallen from Christ; these shall never come out till they have paid the utmost farthing. And when will that be? We read of a miserable malefactor (John Chambone by name) who had lain in the dungeon at Lyons the duration of seven or eight months. This thief, for pain and torment, cried out of God, and cursed his parents that begat him, being almost eaten up with lice, and ready to eat his own flesh for hunger; being fed with such bread as dogs and horses had refused to eat. So it pleased the goodness of Almighty God, that Petrus Bergerius, a French martyr, was cast into the same dungeon; through whose preaching and prayers he was brought to repentance, learning much comfort and patience by the word of the gospel preached unto him. Touching his conversion he wrote a very sweet letter out of his bonds, declaring therein, that the next day after that he had taken held of the gospel, and framed himself to patience according to the same, his lice (which he could pluck out before by twenty at once between his fingers) now were so gone from him that he had not one. Furthermore, so the alms of good people were extended towards him, that he was fed with white bread, and that which was very good. His imprisonment, at utmost, lasted but while life; death as a jailer knocked off his shackles, and set him into the glorious liberty of the saints above. So the penitent thief in the Gospel; and so that Robert Samuel, martyr, above mentioned. But not so those that are clapt up in the dark dungeon of hell. Their misery is as endless as easeless. A river of brimstone is not consumed by burning; the smoke of that pit ascendeth for ever. A child with a spoon may sooner empty the sea than the damned in hell accomplish their misery. All that wicked men suffer here is but a paying the usury MO�EY required for that dreadful debt, that must be paid at last by all that make not timely composition.

ELLICOTT, "26) The uttermost farthing.—The Greek word is derived from the Latin quadrans, the fourth part of the Roman as, a small copper or BRO�ZE COI� which had become common in Palestine. The “mite,” half the quadrans (Mark 12:42), was the smallest coin in circulation. The “farthing” of Matthew 10:29 is a different word, and was applied to the tenth part of the drachma.

Do the words point to a terminable or to an endless punishment? In the frame-work of the similitude such a sentence would not involve perpetual imprisonment, if only the condemned could get together the money wherewith to pay his debt or fine; and we might infer, as Romanist divines have inferred, that such a PAYME�T, to be followed by liberation, was possible in the divine judgment. But in practice, unless the man had friends or property, the sentence would, for the most part, involve a life-long punishment. And the question may well be asked, when we turn to the realities shadowed forth in the parable, Can a man pay the “uttermost farthing” in that unseen world? Does he pay by enduring for a given time a given measure of suffering, bodily or spiritual? Can he there find others to pay it for him? Do not the words “till thou hast paid” exclude the thought of their intervention as availing to stay the full action of the great law of retribution? These questions must, for the

most part, be so answered as to diminish the force of the first hasty inference. If hope is not shut out altogether, it is because we cannot absolutely answer the first question in the negative. There may be a suffering that works repentance, and the repentance may lead to peace and pardon—there may be, but that is the very utmost that can be said. It is noticeable that the word “prison” is that used in 1 Peter 3:19, where the “spirits in prison” are, almost beyond a doubt, represented as the objects of a dispensation that proclaimed even there the good news of salvation. But the whole tone of the passage is that of one who seeks to deepen the sense of danger, not to make light of it, to make men feel th

COFFMA�, "As a matter of practical, everyday living, the teaching of Christ in this place is I�DEED light and wisdom. There are countless examples of human conflict ending in the most tragic results which could have been avoided altogether by the application of Christ's teaching.

Illustration: In a certain city of the Southwest, two men owned adjoining houses in an attractive subdivision, and the driveways were adjacent with a small strip of turf, about a foot wide, between the driveways. They quarreled over this trifling strip. One planted onions in it; the other pulled them up and set out tomatoes! After many words, each STEPPED to the back door of his residence, took a shotgun, stepped out on the back steps, and shot the other dead while their respective families were at church!

To "pay the last farthing" refers to reaping the last and bitterest fruit of a failure to handle problems in the manner here laid down by Christ.

Adultery27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e]

BAR�ES, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery - See the notes at Mat_5:21. Our Saviour in these verses explains the seventh commandment. It is probable that the Pharisees had explained this commandment, as they had the sixth, as extending only to the external act; and that they regarded evil thoughts and a wanton imagination as of little consequence, or as not forbidden by the law. Our Saviour assures them that the commandment did not regard the external act merely, but the secrets of the heart, and the movements of the eye. He declares that they who indulge a wanton desire, that they who look on a woman to increase their lust, have already, in the sight of God, violated the commandment, and

committed adultery in the heart. Such was the guilt of David, whose deep and awful crime fully shows the danger of indulging in evil desires, and in the rovings of a wanton eye. See 2 Sam. 11; Ps. 51. See also 2Pe_2:14. So exceeding strict and broad is the law of God! And so heinous in his sight axe thoughts and feelings which may be forever concealed from the world!

CLARKE, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old - By the ancients,

τοις�αρχαιοις, is omitted by nearly a hundred MSS., and some of them of the very greatest

antiquity and authority; also by the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, and Sclavonian versions; by four copies of the old Itala; and by Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Hilary. On this authority Wetstein and Griesbach have left it out of the text.

GILL, "Ye have heard that it was said,.... These forms of speech, as well as what follows,

by them of old time, have been explained, in ver. 21. The law here mentioned,

thou shalt not commit adultery, is recorded in Exo_20:14 and the meaning of our Lord is, not that the then present Jews had heard that such a law had been delivered "to the ancients", their fathers, at Mount Sinai; for that they could read in their Bibles: but they had received it by tradition, that the sense of it, which had been given to their ancestors, by the ancient doctors of the church, was, that this law is to be taken strictly, as it lies, and only regards the sin of uncleanness in married persons; or, what was strictly adultery, and that actual; so that it had no respect to fornication, or unchaste thoughts, words, or actions, but that single act only.

HE�RY, "We have here an exposition of the seventh commandment, given us by the same hand that made the law, and therefore was fittest to be the interpreter of it: it is the law against uncleanness, which fitly follows upon the former; that laid a restraint upon sinful passions, this upon sinful appetites, both which ought always to be under the government of reason and conscience, and if indulged, are equally pernicious.

I. The command is here laid down (Mat_5:27), Thou shalt not commit adultery;which includes a prohibition of all other acts of uncleanness, and the desire of them: but the Pharisees, in their expositions of this command, made it to extend no further than the act of adultery, suggesting, that if the iniquity was only regarded in the heart, and went no further, God could not hear it, would not regard it (Psa_66:18), and therefore they thought it enough to be able to say that they were no adulterers, Luk_18:11.

II. It is here explained in the strictness of it, in three things, which would seem new and strange to those who had been always governed by the tradition of the elders, and took all for oracular that they taught.

JAMISO�, "Mat_5:27-32. The same subject illustrated from the Seventh Commandment.

Ye have heard that it was said— The words “by,” or “to them of old time,” in this verse are insufficiently supported, and probably were not in the original text.

Thou shall not commit adultery— Interpreting this seventh, as they did the sixth

commandment, the traditional perverters of the law restricted the breach of it to acts of criminal intercourse between, or with, married persons exclusively. Our Lord now dissipates such delusions.

HAWKER 27-30, "Reader! do not fail to observe the spiritual nature of the law of GOD. It is not limited to actions, but includes thoughts. The heart is the forge where all actions are worked. And whether they be brought forth into actual deeds or not, in the eye of the LORD the. intention is the same. Surely the whole earth is at once brought in guilty before God. It is the grossest mistake in the world for any man to take shelter from guilt, in a supposed exemption from this or that particular sin. The heart sin, the nature sin, the mother sin, it is this which gives birth to all. And that it doth not break out in all men alike, is not from any difference in nature, . for all are the same, but from certain restraints, particularly the restraints of grace. Read what the LORD said to Abimelech on this subject, which may serve to explain

MEYER, " PURE EYES AND CLEAN SPEECH

Mat_5:27-37

The legislation of the old time insisted that no member of the commonwealth should commit adultery, and enforced terrible penalties. See Deu_22:22-24. But the Divine Man, who reads the human heart with perfect accuracy, goes behind the deed to its premonitory stages, legislates about the look that may inflame passion, and condemns the soul that does not instantly turn the eye from that which allures it, to the All-Holy, asking to be cleansed not with tears only but with blood. The first act in the religious life is to detect right and wrong in the thought or intention. If the tempter is arrested there, He is powerless to hurt. Kill the snake in the egg!

The prohibition against swearing does not deal with taking an oath in the law court. During His trial by the high priest, our Lord did not resent being put on His oath. On rare and solemn occasions we may have to bare our heads before God and ask Him to corroborate our word. But how different is this from the frequent and flippant use of expletives and extravagances of speech.

TRAPP, "Ver. 27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery] This they corruptly restrained to the gross act, and made nothing of contemplative filthiness, hearts full of harlotry, hot as an oven with scalding lusts, Hosea 7:6, very stews and brothel houses, cages of unclean birds; besides eyes full of adultery, hands defiled with dalliance, tongues taught to talk obscenities and ribaldries. Spurcitias Veneris eliminantes. But Seneca could say, Incesta est, et sine stupro, quae stuprum cupit: she is a whore that would be so had she but OPPORTU�ITY; and the Romans put to death a vestal virgin for singing this verse only.

" Faelices nuptae! moriar ni nubere dulce est."

St Paul’s virgin is holy, not in body only, but in spirit also, 1 Corinthians 7:34. Quae

quia non licuit non facit, illa facit. {a} And for the avoiding of fornications, δια τας πορνειας, 1 Corinthians 7:2; (in the plural �UMBER, inward burnings as well as outward pollutions), let every man have his own wife, &c. Fecit quisque quantam voluit, saith Seneca. Every one doeth as he desireth to do. And Polybius attributeth the death of Antiochus to sacrilege only in his purpose and will. Josephus indeed derideth Polybius for so saying; but with as little reason, as his countryman Kimchi (soured with the leaven of the Pharisees) sets this strange sense upon Psalms 66:18 : If I regard iniquity only in my heart, so that it break not forth into outward act, the Lord will not hear me, that is (saith he) so as to impute it, or ACCOU�T it a sin.

ELLICOTT, "(27) By them of old time.—Omitted in the best MSS. If retained, TRA�SLATE as before, to them of old time. It was probably inserted for the sake of conformity with Matthew 5:21. Here the words are simply those of the divine commandment, but it is given as it was taught in the Rabbinic schools, simply in the narrowness of the letter, without any perception that here too the commandment was “exceeding broad.” It is with that teaching, as before, that our Lord contrasts His own.

COKE, "Matthew 5:27-28. Ye have heard, &c.— What has been hitherto said refers to meekness; what now follows, to purity of heart. Dr. Lightfoot, to explain the opinion of the Jewish DOCTORS, respecting the duty of this seventh commandment, cites the Targum upon Exodus 20 by which it appears, that they were very loose moralists indeed. In opposition therefore to them, our Lord declared, that whosoever looketh on a woman, &c. whosoever cherishes unchaste desires and intentions, or, as it is expressed in the tenth commandment, covets his neighbour's wife, is really guilty of adultery, though he should never find the opportunity of committing the act with her; for which cause, all such use of our senses, as inflames the mind with lust, must be carefully avoided. See on the next verse, and Eccliasticus 9:5, &c.

BARCLAY, "THE FORBIDDE� DESIRE

Matthew 5: 27, 28

You have heard that it has been said: You must not commit adultery. But 1 say to you that every one who looks at a woman in such a way as to waken within himself forbidden desires for her has already com-mitted adultery with her within his heart.

HERE is Jesus' second example of the new standard. The Law laid it down: Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20: 14). So serious a view did the Jewish teachers take of adultery that the guilty parries could be punished by nothing less than death (Leviticus 20: 10); but once again Jesus lays it down that not only the forbidden action, but also the forbidden thought is guilty in the sight of God,

It is very necessary that we should understand whaf Jesus is saying here. He is not speaking of the natural, normal desire, which is part of human instinct and human nature. According to the literal meaning of the Greek the man who is condemned is the man who looks at a woman with the deliberate intention of lusting after her. The man who is condemned is the man who deliberately uses his eyes to awaken his lust, the man who looks in such a way that passion is awakened and desire deliberately stimulated.

The Jewish Rabbis well knew the way in which the eyes can be used to excite and to stimulate the wrong desire. They had their sayings. " The eyes and the hand are the two brokers of sin." " Eye and heart are the two hand-maids of sin." " Passions lodge only in him who sees." " Woe to him who goes after his eyes for they are adulter-ous! " As someone has said, " There is an internal desire of which adultery is only the fruit."

In a tempting world there are many things which are deliberately designed to excite and to stimulate desire. There are books, pictures, plays, even advertisements, which are deliberately calculated to awaken and to stimulate desire. The man whom Jesus here condemns is the man who deliberately uses his eyes to stimulate his desires; the man who finds a strange delight in things which waken the desire for the forbidden thing. To the pure all things are pure. But the man whose heart is defiled can look at any scene and find something in it to titillate, and stimu-late, and excite the wrong desire.

CALVI�, "Mat_5:27.Thou shalt not commit adultery. Christ proceeds with his subject, and shows, that the law of God not only has authority over the life, in a political view, to form the outward manners, but that it requires pure and holy affections of the heart. We must remember what I have already stated, that though Christ QUOTES the very words of the law, it is the gross and false meaning, which had been put upon it by dishonest interpreters, that he blames. He has already told us, that he did not come as a new Legislator, but as the faithful expounder of a law which had been already given. It might be objected that, through long practice, that interpretation had grown old. Christ expressly admits this, but meets it by saying, that the antiquity of an error ought not to be allowed to plead in its favor.

BE�SO�, "Matthew 5:27-28. Ye have heard, &c. — Jesus now PROCEEDS in his sermon to the seventh commandment, the true interpretation of which he gives us. Thou shalt not commit adultery — This, as well as the sixth commandment, the scribes and Pharisees interpreted barely of the outward act. But I say unto you, &c.

— The command extends not only to unchaste actions and words, but even to looks, and the very thoughts of the heart: for whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her — Whosoever cherishes or indulges unchaste imaginations, desires, and intentions, hath committed adultery with her, &c. — Hath been guilty of a violation of this commandment, which was intended to forbid the corrupt inclinations of the heart, and all irregular desires, as well as the pollution of the body.

COFFMA�, "Once more, Christ selected as his TARGET one of the great and highly respected words of the Decalogue, blasting it with his "BUT I SAY U�TO YOU!" �o wonder Christ's teachings on this occasion resulted in astonishment and amazement among the people (Matthew 7:28,29).PULPIT, "Matthew 5:27-32

Christ's second and third illustration of the Christian type of a true fulfilling of the Law.

After the illustration based on the letter of the sixth commandment, Christ takes the letter of the seventh as the basis of further illustration. Both of these commandments lend themselves so well for the instruction of the individual in the matter of the wide difference between the outer commandment and the spirit of it, that whoever will may learn that difference, and, learning it, become a true learner—a learner in the school of Christ. In this illustration individual feeling, impulse, character, are so sensitively and so subtilly touched, that perhaps none could penetrate more effectually or have better OPPORTU�ITY of far-reaching and lasting lessons. �otice that Christ teaches how, to the true conception of God's Law, it is necessary to remember that—

I. �OT O�LY BEFORE ALL A�D EVERY ACTIO� OF SI� HE MAKES COU�T OF THE THOUGHT-SEED THAT GREW TO IT, A�D �OT O�LY BEHI�D ALL A�D EVERY ACTIO� OF SI� HE MAKES COU�T OF MOTIVE, A�D THE THOUGHT THAT WORKS AS MOTIVE THERETO, BUT ALSO THAT WITHOUT A�Y ACTIO� WHATSOEVER, HE TAKES MOST SURE ACCOU�T OF THOUGHT, AS ITSELF MATTER A�D SUBJECT OF SI�, WITH ITS QUALITIES A�D ATTRIBUTES.

II. THE BODILY SE�SE THAT MAY BE THE I�LET, THE AWAKE�ER, A�D FEEDER TO THOUGHT A�D HEART, OF SI� OR OCCASIO� OF SI�, MUST BE DE�IED, CLOSED, A�D DESTROYED, RATHER THA� LEFT TO BE A� "OFFE�CE" TO THE KEEPI�G OF THE LAW. THIS IS TO HO�OUR GOD'S LAW.

III. THE BODILY POWER WHICH MAY HAVE THE SKILL A�D CU��I�G, A�D ALL THAT MAY BE THE BEST TALE�T OF THE PERSO� GATHERED I�TO IT, MUST I� LIKE MA��ER BE DE�IED, SUPPRESSED, DESTROYED, IF A�Y PERVERSE BIAS POSSESSI�G IT MAKE IT PROVE A� "OFFE�CE." THE SOVEREIG� VOICE OF THE COMMA�DME�T IS THE� AGAI�ST IT.

IV. THE COURSE WHICH FAILS OF HO�OURI�G THE LAW OF GOD TO ITS TRUE I�TE�TIO�, IS O�LY TOO SURE TO BETRAY ITS OW� FAULTI�ESS, I� I�VOLVI�G MA�IFOLD OTHER VIOLATIO� OF IT, A�D THIS, TOO, O� THE PART OF OTHERS AS OF THE WRO�G-DOER HIMSELF.—B.

KRETZMA��, "The Sixth Commandment had I�DEED been given to "them of old time," Exo_20:14; Deu_5:18. But it was understood by the Jewish teachers of the sin in deed only, of the deliberate unfaithfulness of those joined in wedlock, or the carnal intercourse of the unmarried. Many rabbis expressly stated that the evil thought should not be regarded on a LEVEL with the sinful act. Christ's explanation opens the deeper meaning of the commandment. He finds the BEGI��I�G of adultery in the deliberate nourishing of the awakening lust of the heart. A woman may be seen, come within the range of vision of a man, and there is no wrong in the act. Ordinary human intercourse would be impossible without it. But when the look turned upon any woman, married or unmarried, is deliberate and intentional, conscious and persistent, as on a person of the opposite sex, and this is followed by an impure desire of coveting her for immoral purposes, then adultery has in fact been committed, although the sin is hidden deeply in the heart.

CHARLES SIMEO�, "OUR LORD’S EXPOSITIO� OF THE SEVE�TH COMMA�DME�T

Mat_5:27-28. Ye have heard that it was said by [to] them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

THAT the Jews were unacquainted with the spiritual nature of their law, we do not wonder; because their authorized instructors were chiefly occupied in ceremonial observances; but that Christians should be ignorant of it, is astonishing, since the strongest light has been cast upon it in the �ew Testament, and every minister of Christ must make it known, in order to state with accuracy the scope and excellence of the Gospel. Yet it is certain that few Christians comparatively have just views of the law: and it is to be feared, that, in many instances, ministers themselves are not sufficiently aware of the importance of setting it before their people in all its spirituality and extent. The exposition of it which our Lord has given us in this sermon, precludes all possibility of doubt respecting its real import. In the words which we have now read, he interprets the seventh commandment: in discoursing upon which, it will be proper to consider,

I. Its true import—

The Scribes and Pharisees imagined that the prohibition reached no further than to the actual commission of adultery; but our Lord shews that it extended,

1. To mental as well as bodily impurity—

[The intent of God’s law is, to regulate our hearts. It can never be supposed that God should require us to “cleanse the outside of the cup and platter,” and leave us at liberty to retain all manner of uncleanness within. He surely will not be satisfied with seeing us like “whited sepulchres.” He forbids an evil desire no less than an evil act [�ote: Rom_7:7.]: and especially in relation to the evil we are considering, he specifies every variety of it as alike hateful in his eyes: “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,” are all distinctly mentioned as “works of the flesh,” which equally exclude us from the kingdom of God [�ote: Gal_5:19; Gal_5:21.]. Of course, the law does not condemn that ATTACHME�T which is cherished in order to an honourable marriage; but all desires which have not respect to that, it does condemn.

We forbear to E�LARGE upon the subject, wishing rather to commend it to your consciences before God; but we entreat you all attentively to consider what have been the workings of your own hearts on different occasions, when perhaps you little thought what construction God put upon them, and in what light you were viewed by him [�ote: On such a subject as this, the utmost possible delicacy must bo observed.].]

2. To the means and occasions of impurity, as well as to impurity itself—

[It is needless to observe, that the eye and the ear are inlets to evil, and that they need to be subjected to CO�TI�UAL restraints. Our blessed Lord declares, that even a look, when employed for the purpose of exciting an impure desire, or when productive of that effect, involves the soul in guilt, no less than adultery itself. And St. Peter speaks of persons having “eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin.” If the eye then may bring so much defilement on the soul, what shall we say of frequenting those places of public amusement, where every thing that is seen and heard has a direct tendency to corrupt the mind? What shall we say of suffering our minds to be contaminated with light and frothy novels, with indecent pictures, with licentious conversation, or I�DEED with sensual thoughts? Can any one who allows himself in such liberties as these, acquit himself of the charge which is brought against him in the text? �or are they less criminal, whose dress is framed for this unhallowed end, and who sacrifice both decency and health to the detested purpose of inflaming the appetites of men. It is obvious, that, whether we are the tempters, or the tempted, we are highly criminal: however the imagination becomes defiled, that defilement constitutes us guilty in the sight of God.]

Such being the view which our Lord himself gives us of the commandment, we PROCEED to consider,

II. The effect which our Lord’s exposition of it should produce upon us—

Were the commandment restricted to its literal meaning, we might find cause perhaps for self-complacency in relation to it. But when it is rightly interpreted, it affords to all of us abundant occasion for,

1. Humiliation—

[“Who will say, My heart is clean, I am pure from this sin?” Who, if an adulteress were now to be stoned to death, would take up the first stone to cast at her? Who must not retire self-convicted, and self-condemned? If then we would know what ought to be our feelings before God, we have here an image whereby they may be illustrated in the clearest manner. Conceive a woman who has for many years maintained an honourable character, betrayed at last into a forgetfulness of her marriage vows, and exposed to all the shame which her misconduct has justly brought upon her: how degraded would she be in her own eyes! how ashamed would she be to appear in the presence of her injured husband! how would she even lothe her own existence, and hate the light which would expose her to public view! Such consciousness should we feel in the presence of our God, even when our conduct has been most blameless in the sight of men. We should take to ourselves our proper character; and, knowing what abominations the omniscient God has seen within us, we should humble ourselves before him, and lothe ourselves in dust and ashes. We should put our hands on our mouths, and “our mouths in the dust,” “crying, Unclean, unclean!”]

2. Gratitude—

[Many instances there are of persons, who, in former times, have been as moral in their habits as any of us, who yet, through the violence of temptation, have fallen, and brought indelible disgrace upon their names and families. Whence is it, we would ask, that this has not been our lot? Is it that we have never found any disposition to commit the evils which have ruined them? Is it that we are not actually chargeable with those very evils in the sight of God, who identifies the desire with the act itself? Or rather, is it not owing to the kind providence of God, who has screened us from temptation, or interposed in some way to break its force and rescue us from its power? We may perhaps be ready to ascribe our safety to a good education, and other secondary causes: but, if the First Great Cause had not rendered them effectual, they would have been as unavailing for us, as they have been for thousands all around us. Doubtless we have reason to be thankful for the restraints OF EDUCATIO�, for a dread of public shame, yea even for the laws of the land also: all of these have had their weight, when perhaps other barriers might have been broken down: we have reason therefore to be thankful for them. But especially have we cause to bless our God for the checks of conscience, if at any time the progress of evil has been impeded by them. Whatever have been the means of preserving us from the actual commission of iniquity, the true source of our deliverance is the same: it must ultimately be traced to the providence or grace of God; and all the glory must be given to our heavenly Benefactor.]

3. Circumspection—

[When we consider how many temptations to evil present themselves to us on every side, and what depraved appetites lurk within us, we shall see reason to maintain

continual vigilance and circumspection. It was wise in Job, who “made a covenant with his eyes, that he would not even look upon a maid [�ote: Job_31:1.].” And Solomon has wisely cautioned us to let our eyes look strait forward [�ote: Pro_4:25.]. If we regarded only the danger of falling into open sin, this advice would be good: but when we reflect on our Lord’s assertion, that an impure look will be considered by Amighty God as actual adultery, we had need to be on our guard against the very first assaults of evil: we should “watch and pray, that we enter not into temptation:” we should “keep,” not our feet only, but “our hearts also, with all diligence; knowing that out of them are the issues of life.” Remember then what we have already spoken respecting the means and occasions of impurity. Guard against the books, the places, the company, the conversation, that you have at any time perceived to be defiling to your souls. Be as careful of catching infection from those around you, as you would be if they were disordered with the plague. Go not into the world, without carrying with you, as an antidote, the fear of God. Come not from your intercourse with the world, without washing away your defilements in “the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.” Be on your guard also against your secret thoughts; remembering, that God is “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of your hearts,” and that he will bring every secret thing into judgment, whether it be good or evil.” It is awful to reflect, what evils will be disclosed in the last day, and what fearful judgments will be denounced on many, who in this world were reputed chaste. May God enable us all to walk as in his immediate presence; and give us such a measure of his grace, as shall “sanctify us wholly,” and “preserve us blameless unto his heavenly kingdom!”]

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "n his heart.

The heart or will is, in man, the seat of virtue or vice.

I. Actions must be our invariable touchstone of truth whilst we sojourn in this state of imperfect knowledge and comparative obscurity, where expression is the only avenue to sentiment, and action the only publisher of intention.

II. Actions are the only public representatives of our private sentiments.

1. So many channels through which the heart discharges its flow of various passions.

2. So many mirrors by the reflection of which the internal dispositions of the soul become externally visible.

III. Actions viewed in a moral light are to the soul what

(1) streams are to the fountain;

(2) branches are to the root.

Branches have no existence but what they derive from the root. Streams have no existence but what they derive from the fountain. Actions have no moral existence but that which they derive from the heart.

When God judges man, the heart is the rule of judgment.

1. The heart, the source of these actions, is to Him uncovered

2. The heart, having the principle of religion so strong as to prevent an unlawful

enjoyment, will likewise be sufficiently strong to prevent an unlawful resolution.

3. The depraved heart is before God of the same criminality as the depraved life, and exposes us to the same punishment from God. Let us therefore eternally renounce every inclination inconsistent with religion and reproachful to humanity. Let us cultivate purity of heart. (David Lamont, D. D.)

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

CLARKE, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her - Επιθυµησαι�

αυτην, earnestly to covet her. The verb, επιθυµεω, is undoubtedly used here by our Lord, in the sense of coveting through the influence of impure desire. The word is used in precisely the same sense, on the same subject, by Herodotus, book the first, near the end. I will give the passage, but I dare not translate it. To the learned reader it will justify

my translation, and the unlearned must take my word. Της�ΕΠΙΘΥΜΗΣΕΙ�γυναικος�

Μασσαγετης�ανηρ,�µισγεται�αδεως, Raphelius, on this verse, says, επιθυµειν hoc loco, est turpi cupiditate mulieris potiundae flagrare. In all these eases, our blessed Lord points out the spirituality of the law; which was a matter to which the Jews paid very little attention. Indeed it is the property of a Pharisee to abstain only from the outward crime. Men are very often less inquisitive to know how far the will of God extends, that they may please him in performing it, than they are to know how far they may satisfy their lusts without destroying their bodies and souls, utterly, by an open violation of his law.

Hath committed adultery with her already in his heart - It is the earnest wish or desire of the soul, which, in a variety of cases, constitutes the good or evil of an act. If a man earnestly wish to commit an evil, but cannot, because God puts time, place, and opportunity out of his power, he is fully chargeable with the iniquity of the act, by that God who searches and judges the heart. So, if a man earnestly wish to do some kindness, which it is out of his power to perform, the act is considered as his; because God, in this case, as in that above, takes the will for the deed. If voluntary and deliberate looks and desires make adulterers and adulteresses, how many persons are there whose whole life is one continued crime! whose eyes being full of adultery, they cannot cease from sin, 2Pe_2:14. Many would abhor to commit one external act before the eyes of men, in a temple of stone; and yet they are not afraid to commit a multitude of such acts in the

temple of their hearts, and in the sight of God!

GILL, "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman,.... Many and severe are the prohibitions of the Jews, concerning looking upon a woman, which they aggravate as a very great sin: they say (k), it is not lawful to look upon a beautiful woman, though unmarried; nor upon another man's wife, though deformed; nor upon a woman's coloured garments: they forbid (l) looking on a woman's little finger, and say (m), that he that tells money to a woman, out of his hand into her's, that he may look upon her, though he is possessed of the law and good works, even as Moses, he shall not escape the damnation of hell: they affirm (n), that he that looks upon a woman's heel, his children shall not be virtuous; and that a man may not go after a woman in the way, no, not after his wife: should he meet her on a bridge, he must take her to the side of him; and whoever goes through a river after a woman, shall have no part in the world to (o)come: nay, they forbid (p) a man looking on the beauty of his own wife. Now these things were said by them, chiefly to cover themselves, and because they would be thought to be very chaste; when they were, as Christ calls them, an "adulterous generation" in a literal sense: they usually did what our Lord observes, "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel".

We read in the Talmud (q), of חסיד�שוטה, a "foolish saint" and it is asked, who is he? and it is answered, one that sees a woman drowning in a river, and says it is not lawful for me

,to look" upon her, and deliver her. It was not any looking upon a woman" ,לאיסתכולי�בה

that is forbid by Christ as criminal; but so to look, as "to lust after her"; for such an one

hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. But these men, who forbad external looking upon a woman, generally speaking, had no notion of heart sins; and which was the prevailing opinion of the Pharisees, in Christ's time.

"A good thought, they (r) allow, is reckoned as if done; as it is said, Mal_3:16. Upon which it is asked, what is the meaning of that, and "that thought" upon "his name?" Says R. Ase, if a man thinks to do a good work, and is hindered, and does it not, the Scripture reckons it to him, as if he did it; but an evil thought, the holy blessed God does not account of it as if done, as is said, Psa_66:18.''

Upon which words, a noted commentator (s) of their's has this remark:

"Though I regard iniquity in my heart to do it, even in thought, yea, against God himself,

as if I had expressed it with my lips, he does not hear it; that is, לא�חשב�לי�עון, "he does not reckon it to me for sin"; because the holy blessed God does not account an evil thought for an action, to them that are in the faith of God, or of the true religion.''

For it seems, this is only true of the Israelites; it is just the reverse with the Gentiles, in whom God does not reckon of a good thought, as if it was done, but does of an evil one, as if it was in act (t). It must be owned, that this is not the sense of them all; for some of them have gone so far as to say (u), that

"the thoughts of sin are greater, or harder, than sin itself:''

by which they mean, that it is more difficult to subdue sinful lusts, than to refrain from

the act of sin itself; and particularly, some of them say things which agree with, and come very near to what our Lord here says; as when they affirm (w), that

"everyone that looks upon a woman בכוונה, with intention, it is all one as if he lay with her.''

And that נואף�בעיניו�נקרא�נואף, "he that committeth adultery with his eyes, is called an

adulterer" (x). Yea, they also observe (y), that a woman may commit adultery in her heart, as well as a man; but the Pharisees of Christ's time were of another mind.

HE�RY, "It is here explained in the strictness of it, in three things, which would seem new and strange to those who had been always governed by the tradition of the elders, and took all for oracular that they taught.

1. We are here taught, that there is such a thing as heart-adultery, adulterous thoughts and dispositions, which never proceed to the act of adultery or fornication; and perhaps the defilement which these give to the soul, that is here so clearly asserted, was not only included in the seventh commandment, but was signified and intended in many of those ceremonial pollutions under the law, for which they were to wash their clothes, and bathe their flesh in water. Whosoever looketh on a woman (not only another man's wife, as some would have it, but any woman), to lust after her, has committed adultery with her in his heart,Mat_5:28. This command forbids not only the acts of fornication and adultery, but, (1.) All appetites to them, all lusting after the forbidden object; this is the beginning of the sin, lust conceiving (Jam_1:15); it is a bad step towards the sin; and where the lust is dwelt upon and approved, and the wanton desire is rolled under the tongue as a sweet morsel, it is the commission of sin, as far as the heart can do it; there wants nothing but convenient opportunity for the sin itself. Adultera mens est - The mind is debauched. Ovid. Lust is conscience baffled or biassed: biassed, if it say nothing against the sin; baffled, if it prevail not in what is says. (2.) All approaches toward them; feeding the eye with the sight of the forbidden fruit; not only looking for that end, that I may lust; but looking till I do lust, or looking to gratify the lust, where further satisfaction cannot be obtained. The eye is both the inlet and outlet of a great deal of wickedness of this kind, witness Joseph's mistress (Gen_39:7), Samson (Jdg_16:1), David, 2Sa_11:2. We read the eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin, 2Pe_2:14. What need have we, therefore, with holy Job, to make a covenant with our eyes, to make this bargain with them that they should have the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the works of God, provided they would never fasten or dwell upon any thing that might occasion impure imaginations or desires; and under this penalty, that if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears! Job_31:1. What have we the covering of the eyes for, but to restrain corrupt glances, and to keep out of their defiling impressions? This forbids also the using of any other of our senses to stir up lust. If ensnaring looks are forbidden fruit, much more unclean discourses, and wanton dalliances, the fuel and bellows of this hellish fire. These precepts are hedges about the law of heart-purity, Mat_5:8. And if looking be lust, they who dress and deck, and expose themselves, with design to be looked at and lusted after (like Jezebel, that painted her face and tired her head, and looked out at the window) are no less guilty. Men sin, but devils tempt to sin.

JAMISO�, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her— with the intent to do so, as the same expression is used in Mat_6:1; or,

with the full consent of his will, to feed thereby his unholy desires.

hath committed adultery with her already in his heart— We are not to suppose, from the word here used - “adultery” - that our Lord means to restrict the breach of this commandment to married persons, or to criminal intercourse with such. The expressions, “whosoever looketh,” and “looketh upon a woman,” seem clearly to extend the range of this commandment to all forms of impurity, and the counsels which follow - as they most certainly were intended for all, whether married or unmarried -seem to confirm this. As in dealing with the sixth commandment our Lord first expounds it, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mat_5:21-25), so here He first expounds the seventh commandment, and then in the four following verses applies His exposition (Mat_5:28-32).

TRAPP, "VER 28. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her] Lusting is often the fruit of looking; as in Joseph’s mistress, who set her eyes upon Joseph; {a} and David, who saw Bathsheba bathing. Lust is quicksighted. How much better Job, who would not look, lest he should think upon a maid! and �azianzen, who had learned (and he glories in it) to keep in his eyes front roving to wanton prospects! τους οφθαλµους σωφρονισαι. And the like is reported of that heavenly spark, the young Lord Harrington; whereas those that have eyes full of adultery cannot cease to sin, saith St Peter. {2 Peter 2:14, µοιχαλιδος, full of the whore, as if she sat in the adulterer’s eye.} And facti crimina lumen habet, saith another. Samson’s eyes were the first offenders that betrayed him to lust, therefore are they first pulled out, and he led a blind captive to Gaza where before he had lustfully gazed on his Delilah. It is true, the blindness of his body opened the eyes of his mind. But how many thousands are there that die of the wound in the eye! Physicians reckon 200 diseases that belong to it; but none like this. For, by these loop-holes of lust and windows of wickedness, the devil windeth himself into the soul. Death entereth in by these windows, as the fathers APPLY that text in Jeremiah. The eye is the light of the body, saith our Saviour, and yet by our abuse, this most lightsome part of the body draweth many times the whole soul into utter darkness. �othing, I dare say, so much enricheth hell as beautiful faces; while a man’s eye-beams, beating upon that beauty, reflect with anew heat upon himself. Ut vidi, ut perii! (Propert.) Looking and lusting differ (in Greek) but in one letter ( εκ του οραν γινεται το εραν). When one seemed to pity a one-eyed man, he told him he had lost one of his enemies, a very thief, that would have stolen away his heart. Democritus (but in that no wise man) pulled out his eyes; and the Pharisee (little wiser) would shut his eyes when he walked abroad, to avoid the sight of women; insomuch that he often dashed his head against the walls, that the blood gushed out, and was therefore called Pharisoeus impingens, {b} How much better, and with greater commendation had these men taken our Saviour’s counsel in the following verses!

ELLICOTT, "(29) If thy right eye offend thee.—The Greek verb means, strictly, to cause another to stumble or fall into a snare, and this was probably the sense in which the translators used the word “offend.” It is doubtful, however, whether it

ever had this factitive sense in English outside the Authorised version, and the common use of the word gives so different a meaning that it cannot be regarded as a happy rendering. The difficulty of finding an equivalent is shown by the variations in the successive English versions: “offend,” in Tyndal’s; “hinder thee,” in Cranmer’s; “cause thee to offend,” in the Geneva; “scandalise,” in the Rhemish; “offend,” again in the Authorised version. Of these the Geneva is, beyond doubt, the best.

Pluck it out.—The bold severity of the phrase excludes a literal interpretation. The seat of the evil lies in the will, not in the organ of sense or action, and the removal of the instrument might leave the inward taint unpurified. What is meant is, that any sense, when it ministers to sin is an evil and not a good, the loss of which would be the truest gain. Translated into modern language, we are warned that taste, culture, æsthetic refinement may but make our guilt and our punishment more tremendous. It were better to be without them than

“Propter vitam vivendi perdere causas.”

[“ And for life’s sake to lose life’s noblest ends.”]

It is profitable.—The element of prudential self-love, of a calculation of profit and loss, is not excluded from Christian motives. As addressed to a nation immersed in the pursuit of gain, it conveys the stern, yet pertinent, warning—“If you must think of profit, make your CALCULATIO�S wisely.”

Hell.—Gehenna, as in Matthew 5:22. The language is still symbolical. The horrid picture of a human body thrown into the foul, offal-fed flame of the Valley of Hinnom is again a parable of something more terrible than itself.

CALVI�, "28.Whoever shall look upon a woman. The design of Christ was to condemn generally the lust of the flesh. He says, that not only those who have seduced their neighbors’ wives, but those who have polluted their eyes by an immodest look, are adulterers before God. This is a synec-doche: (406) for not only the eyes, but even the concealed flames of the heart, render men guilty of adultery. ACCORDI�GLY, Paul makes chastity (1Co_7:34) to consist both in body and in mind. But Christ reckoned it enough to refute the gross mistake which was prevalent: for they thought that it was only necessary to guard against outward adultery. As it is generally by the wantonness of the eyes that temptations are presented to the mind, and as lust E�TERS, as it were, by that door, Christ used this mode of speaking, when he wished to condemn lust: which is evident from the expression, to lust after her. This teaches us also, that not only those who form a deliberate purpose of fornication, but those who admit any polluted thoughts, are reckoned adulterers before God. The hypocrisy of the Papists, therefore, is too gross and stupid, when they affirm that lust is not a sin, until it gain the full consent of the heart. But we need not wonder, that they make sin to be so small a matter: for those who ascribe righteousness to the merit of works must be very dull and stupid in judging of their sins.

(406) “C'est une facon de parler qu'on appelle Synecdoche, quand on prend une artie our le tout.” — “ is a way of speaking which is called Synecdoche, when a part is taken for the whole.”

COFFMA�, "Thus, Christ made the lustful thought as sinful as the overt act. In the light of this, who is innocent? In this commandment, just as in the case of the Fifth Commandment, Jesus was more concerned with antecedents than with overt sins. Adultery PROCEEDS from impure thinking; and in this passage Christ's law appears far higher and more discerning than the Decalogue.PULPIT, "Matthew 5:28

Cherished evil feeling is sin before God.

It is not possible to deal, in a general audience, with the precise subject introduced in this text; but it is possible to treat it as illustrating the SEARCHI�G character of God's Law, which goes in behind all acts of sin, and recognizes the states of mind and feeling out of which acts of sin would surely come if opportunity offered. "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart." And yet we have to make a very precise distinction. It is not the evil that comes into our heart which Christ declares to be sin; it is the evil that is cherished in our heart. In the cherishing lies the sin, because that cherishing is as truly the act of the will, the act of the personality, as any overt act of transgression could be.

I. TEMPTATIO� IS �OT SI�. Illustrate by the threefold temptation of our Lord. To have those thoughts suggested to his mind was in no sense sin. We may say, he could not help their coming. They were presented from without. Bodily passion may present to us temptation; the presence of others may become force of temptation; circumstances may prove temptations; evil spirits may suggest temptations; but we must see clearly that temptation is outside our true selves. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust;" something he has, not something he is. An old divine quaintly says, "If Satan comes up to my door, I cannot help it; if he lifts the latch and walks in, I cannot help it. But if I offer him a chair, and BEGI� with him a parley, I put myself altogether in the wrong."

II. SI� DEPE�DS O� MA�'S WAY OF DEALI�G WITH THE TEMPTATIO�. It bears no relations to a man's will until the man exercises his will upon it. And that will may refuse a parley or may admit a parley. That will may reject the temptation or may cherish the temptation. Sin comes with the cherishing. The possibilities of man's dealing with temptation are shown to us in the threefold triumph won by the Lord Jesus Christ over temptation when in the wilderness.—R.T.

29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

BAR�ES, "Thy right eye - The Hebrews, like others, were accustomed to represent the affections of the mind by the members or parts of the body, Rom_7:23; Rom_6:13. Thus, the bowels denoted compassion; the heart, affection or feeling; the reins, understanding, secret purpose. An evil eye denotes sometimes envy Mat_20:15, and sometimes an evil passion, or sin in general. Mar_7:21-22; “out of the heart proceedeth an evil eye.” In this place, as in 2Pe_2:14, the expression is used to denote strong adulterous passion, unlawful desire, or wicked inclination. The right eye and hand are mentioned, because they are of most use to us, and denote that, however strong the passion may be, or difficult to part with, yet that we should do it.

Offend thee - The noun from which the verb “offend,” in the original, is derived, commonly means a stumbling-block, or a stone placed in the way, over which one might fall. It also means a net, or a certain part of a net against which, if a bird strikes, it springs the net, and is taken. It comes to signify, therefore, anything by which we fall, or are ensnared; and applied to morals, means anything by which we fall into sin, or by which we are ensnared. The English word “offend” means now, commonly, to displease; to make angry; to affront. This is by no means the sense of the word in Scripture. It means to cause to fall into sin. The eye does this when it wantonly looks upon a woman to lust after her.

Pluck it out ... - It cannot be supposed that Christ intended this to be taken literally. His design was to teach that the dearest objects, if they cause us to sin, are to be abandoned; that by all sacrifices and self-denials we must overcome the evil propensities of our nature, and resist our wanton imaginations. Some of the fathers, however, took this commandment literally. Our Saviour several times repeated this sentiment. See Mat_18:9; Mar_9:43-47. Compare also Col_3:5.

It is profitable for thee - It is better for thee. You will have gained by it.

One of thy members perish - It is better to deny yourself the gratification of an evil passion here, however much it may cost you, than to go down to hell forever.

Thy whole body should be cast into hell - Thy body, with all its unsubdued and vicious propensities. This will constitute no small part of the misery of hell. The sinner will be sent there as he is, with every evil desire, every unsubdued propensity, every wicked and troublesome passion, and yet with no possibility of gratification. It constitutes our highest notions of misery when we think of a man filled with anger, pride, malice, avarice, envy and lust, and with no opportunity of gratifying them forever. This is all that is necessary to make an eternal hell. On the word hell, see the notes at Mat_5:22.

CLARKE, "Pluck it out - cut it off - We must shut our senses against dangerous

objects, to avoid the occasions of sin, and deprive ourselves of all that is most dear and profitable to us, in order to save our souls, when we find that these dear and profitable things, however innocent in themselves, cause us to sin against God.

It is profitable for thee that one of thy members -Men often part with some members of the body, at the discretion of a surgeon, that they may preserve the trunk, and die a little later; and yet they will not deprive themselves of a look, a touch, a small pleasure, which endanger the eternal death of the soul. It is not enough to shut the eye, or stop the hand; the one must be plucked out, and the other cut off. Neither is this enough, we must cast them both from us. Not one moment’s truce with an evil passion, or a sinful appetite. If you indulge them, they will gain strength, and you shall be ruined. The rabbins have a saying similar to this: “It is better for thee to be scorched with a little fire in this world, than to be burned with a devouring fire in the world to come.”

GILL, "And if thy right eye offend thee,.... Or "cause thee to offend", to stumble, and fall into sin. Our Lord has no regard here to near and dear relations seeking to alienate us from God and Christ, and hinder us in the pursuit of divine things; whose solicitations are to be rejected with the utmost indignation, and they themselves to be parted with, and forsaken, rather than complied with; which is the sense some give of the words: for both in this, and the following verse, respect is had only to the law of adultery; and to such members of the body, which often are the means of leading persons on to the breach of it; particularly the eye and hand. The eye is often the instrument of ensnaring the heart this way: hence the Jews have a (z) saying,

"whoever looks upon women, at the end comes into the hands of transgression.''

Mention is only made of the right eye; not but that the left may be an occasion of sinning, as well as the right; but that being most dear and valuable, is instanced in, and ordered to be parted with:

pluck it out, and cast it from thee: which is not to be understood literally; for no man is obliged to mutilate any part of his body, to prevent sin, or on account of the commission of it; this is no where required, and if done, would be sinful, as in the case of Origen: but figuratively; and the sense is, that persons should make a covenant with their eyes, as Job did; and turn them away from beholding such objects, which may tend to excite impure thoughts and desires; deny themselves the gratification of the sense of seeing, or feeding the eyes with such sights, as are graceful to the flesh; and with indignation and contempt, reject, and avoid all opportunities and occasions of sinning; which the eye may be the instrument of, and lead unto:

for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. This is still a continuation of the figure here used; and the meaning is, that it will turn to better account, to lose all the carnal pleasures of the eye, or all those pleasing sights, which are grateful to a carnal heart, than, by enjoying them, to expose the whole man, body and soul, to everlasting destruction, in the fire of hell.

HE�RY, "That such looks and such dalliances are so very dangerous and destructive to the soul, that it is better to lose the eye and the hand that thus offend then to give way to the sin, and perish eternally in it. This lesson is here taught us, Mat_5:29, Mat_5:30. Corrupt nature would soon object against the prohibition of heart-adultery, that it is

impossible to governed by it; “It is a hard saying, who can bear it? Flesh and blood cannot but look with pleasure upon a beautiful woman; and it is impossible to forbear lusting after and dallying with such an object.” Such pretences as these will scarcely be overcome by reason, and therefore must be argued against with the terrors of the Lord,and so they are here argued against.

(1.) It is a severe operation that is here prescribed for the preventing of these fleshly lusts. If thy right eye offend thee, or cause thee to offend, by wanton glances, or wanton gazings, upon forbidden objects; if thy right hand offend thee, or cause thee to offend, by wanton dalliances; and if it were indeed impossible, as is pretended, to govern the eye and the hand, and they have been so accustomed to these wicked practices, that they will not be withheld from them; if there be no other way to restrain them (which, blessed be God, through his grace, there is), it were better for us to pluck out the eye, and cut off the hand, though the right eye, and right hand, the more honourable and useful, than to indulge them in sin to the ruin of the soul. And if this must be submitted to, at the thought of which nature startles, much more must we resolve to keep under the body, and to bring it into subjection; to live a life of mortification and self-denial; to keep a constant watch over our own hearts, and to suppress the first rising of lust and corruption there; to avoid the occasions of sin, to resist the beginnings of it, and to decline the company of those who will be a snare to us, though ever so pleasing; to keep out of harm's way, and abridge ourselves in the use of lawful things, when we find them temptations to us; and to seek unto God for his grace, and depend upon that grace daily, and so to walk in the Spirit, as that we may not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; and this will be as effectual as cutting off a right hand or pulling out a right eye; and perhaps as much against the grain to flesh and blood; it is the destruction of the old man.

JAMISO�, "And if thy right eye— the readier and the dearer of the two.

offend thee— be a “trap spring,” or as in the New Testament, be “an occasion of stumbling” to thee.

pluck it out and cast it from thee— implying a certain indignant promptitude, heedless of whatever cost to feeling the act may involve. Of course, it is not the eye simply of which our Lord speaks - as if execution were to be done upon the bodily organ - though there have been fanatical ascetics who have both advocated and practiced this, showing a very low apprehension of spiritual things - but the offending eye, or the eye considered as the occasion of sin; and consequently, only the sinful exercise of the organ which is meant. For as one might put out his eyes without in the least quenching the lust to which they ministered, so, “if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light,” and, when directed by a holy mind, becomes an “instrument of righteousness unto God.” At the same time, just as by cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye, the power of acting and of seeing would be destroyed, our Lord certainly means that we are to strike at the root of such unholy dispositions, as well as cut off the occasions which tend to stimulate them.

for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell— He who despises the warning to cast from him, with indignant promptitude, an offending member, will find his whole body “cast,” with a retributive promptitude of indignation, “into hell.” Sharp language, this, from the lips of Love incarnate!

SBC, "This is one of the texts which the mass of mankind, if they would confess it, feel rather as a blow when they read it. They feel it as a text which it would be disagreeable to

them to think much of. They feel disposed to pass it over with the general hope that they will never act contrary to it, avoiding any direct consideration of what it claims from them. The reason is evident.

I. The text suggests the general idea of having to make definite, distinct, and sometimes even sudden and sharp sacrifices for the sake of religion. We like an easy and comfortable prospect before us, as well as a comfortable present; and this prospect, though not actually taken from us, is somewhat modified by this thought, and we feel the solidity and permanency of our world here to be somewhat shaken.

II. But this is not, after all, the main account of the peculiar significance and formidableness of the text; for this reason is mainly connected with the future, and is concerned with possibilities, whereas it is not necessary to go to the future or to possibilities to discover the peculiar application of the text and the reason of its force. From the wording we see at once that its main bearing is upon the present. "If thy right eye or hand offend thee," it says; that is to say, if they offend thee now, the time is present, the thing to occasion the act, and calling for the treatment, exists now.

III. The text stands in most direct and uncompromising opposition to what is just the most cherished attitude of the human mind toward sin. It tells us not to suppose that we can encourage ourselves in approximations to any special indulgence to which we are drawn, and have none of the sin of it. All such approaches to and tampering with sin are sin, and they enervate and corrupt the mind, destroy its simplicity and singleness, and withdraw it from God.

IV. With respect to the way in which the text must be supposed to operate in ordinary life, (1) the text implies that men have some knowledge of themselves, and observe their own weaknesses and the bad tendencies of their minds. (2) We are to cut off ourselves as strongly and decidedly as possible from all avenues and approaches to our particular sins. We are to keep ourselves carefully out of the way of temptation. The text is in harmony with the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 1.

TRAPP, "Ver. 29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out] That is, if it be either so natural or habitual to thee to go after the sight of thine eyes (which Solomon assigneth for the source of all youthful outrages, Ecclesiastes 11:9) that thou hadst as dear to me lose thy right eye as not look at liberty; out with such an eye (though a right eye): pull it out, and rake in the hole where it grew, rather than that any filth should remain there. Pluck it out of the old Adam, and set it into the new man. Get that oculum irretortum, that may look forth right upon the mark, without idle or curious prying into, or poring upon, forbidden beauties, Proverbs 4:25. A praetor (said the heathen) should have continent eyes as well as hands. And the Greek orator wittily and worthily upbraided a certain wanton, that he had not pupils but punks in his eyes. {a} And Archesilaus the philosopher, observing one to have wanton eyes, told him that the difference was not great, whether he played the naughty pack with his upper parts or his nether. Lot might not look toward Sodom. And Peter Martyr observeth out of �athan’s parable, that lust, though it once prevailed over David, yet it was but a stranger to him; he had enough of that once, for it cost him hot water. His eye became a fountain, he washed his bed which he

had defiled (yea, his pallet, or underbedding) with tears. {b} So did Mary Magdalen, once a strumpet: her hands were bands, her words were cords, her eyes as glasses whereinto while silly larks gazed they were taken as in a clap net. She therefore made those eyes a fountain to bathe Christ’s feet in, and had his blood a fountain to bathe her soul in, Zechariah 13:1. To conclude, the sight is a deceitful sense, therefore bind it to the good abearance; call it from its straying, CHECK it, and lay God’s charge upon it for the future. Chaste Joseph would not once look on his immodest mistress; she looked, and caught hold on him, and that when she was in bed; but her temptation fell like fire upon wet tinder, and took not. {c} It must be our constant care that no sparkle of the eye flee out to consume the whole by a flame of lust: but upon offer of wanton glances from others beat them back as the north wind driveth away rain, Proverbs 25:23. A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment (and so any other man that sets seriously upon this practice of mortification) scattereth away all evil with his eyes, Proverbs 20:8. And this is to pluck out and cast away the right eye that offendeth us, as being an occasion of offence unto us. He that shall see God to his comfort, shuts his eyes from seeing of evil. For wanton and wandering eyes (like spiders) gather poison out of the fairest flowers: and (like Jacob’s sheep) being too firmly fixed on beautiful objects, they make the affections often times bring forth spotted fruits, Isaiah 33:14-15.

For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members perish] An eye is better lost than a soul. For every (unmortified) one shall be salted with fire, pickled up, as it were, and preserved for eternal torment: and every sacrifice (acceptable to God) shall be salted with salt of mortification and self-denial, Mark 9:49.

And not that thy whole body should be cast into hell] As otherwise it will be: "For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die," &c., Romans 8:13. In Barbary, it is present death for any man to see one of the Zeriff’s concubines; and for them too, if when they see a man, though but through a casement, they do not suddenly screech out. So here, a loose and lewd eye hazards the whole to hell fire. And is it nothing to lose an immortal soul? to purchase an everliving death? A man would be loth to fetch gold out of a fiery crucible, because he knows it will burn him. Did we as truly believe the everlasting burning of that infernal fire we dare not offer to fetch either pleasures or profits out of those flames. {d} Bellarmine is of the opinion that one glimpse of hell’s horror were enough to make a man not only turn Christian and sober, but anchorite {e} and monk, to live after the strictest rule that can be. And there is a story of one, that being vexed with fleshly lusts, laid his hands upon hot burning coals to mind himself of hell fire that followeth upon fleshly courses.

{a} ου κορας, αλλα πορνας. κορη puellam et pupillam oculi significat. Plut.

{b} In 2 Samuel 12:4, there came a traveller to the rich man, &c., עין signifies both an eye and a fountain: as it is the spring of sin, let it be of tears.

{c} Iisdem quibus videmus oculis flemus. Josephus saith that Potiphar and his servants were at a feast; she was at home as feigning herself sick.

{d} Apuleius cum amicam dissuaviaretur, ab illa hoc modo monitus est: heus tu scholastice, dulce et amarum gustulam carpis: cave ne nimia mellis dulcedine diutinam bilis amaritudinem trahas. Lascivis contrectationibus animi adulterium saepe contrahitur. The archers shot at Joseph, but his bow abode in strength, Genesis 49:24. Castus erat, non solum continens, ut Bellerophon.

{e} A person who has withdrawn or secluded himself from the world; usually one

who has done so for religious reasons, a recluse, a hermit. ŒDDDD

COKE,�"Matthew�COKE,�"Matthew�COKE,�"Matthew�COKE,�"Matthew�5:295:295:295:29----30303030.�And�if�thy�right�eye�offend�thee,�&c..�And�if�thy�right�eye�offend�thee,�&c..�And�if�thy�right�eye�offend�thee,�&c..�And�if�thy�right�eye�offend�thee,�&c.————�The�word�rendered��The�word�rendered��The�word�rendered��The�word�rendered�

offend�thee,�offend�thee,�offend�thee,�offend�thee,ףךבםהבכיזויףךבםהבכיזויףךבםהבכיזויףךבםהבכיזוי�,�signifies�to�be�a�stumbling,�signifies�to�be�a�stumbling,�signifies�to�be�a�stumbling,�signifies�to�be�a�stumbling----block�in�a�person's�way,�or�the�block�in�a�person's�way,�or�the�block�in�a�person's�way,�or�the�block�in�a�person's�way,�or�the�

occasion�of�his�fall;�and�so�implies�much�more�than�merely�to�displease;�a�remark�occasion�of�his�fall;�and�so�implies�much�more�than�merely�to�displease;�a�remark�occasion�of�his�fall;�and�so�implies�much�more�than�merely�to�displease;�a�remark�occasion�of�his�fall;�and�so�implies�much�more�than�merely�to�displease;�a�remark�

which�deserves�attending�to,�because�the�sense�of�many�texts�depends�upon�it.�We�may�which�deserves�attending�to,�because�the�sense�of�many�texts�depends�upon�it.�We�may�which�deserves�attending�to,�because�the�sense�of�many�texts�depends�upon�it.�We�may�which�deserves�attending�to,�because�the�sense�of�many�texts�depends�upon�it.�We�may�

read,�make�thee�offend,�or�insnare�thee.�We�may�just�note,�that�the�greatest�part�of�read,�make�thee�offend,�or�insnare�thee.�We�may�just�note,�that�the�greatest�part�of�read,�make�thee�offend,�or�insnare�thee.�We�may�just�note,�that�the�greatest�part�of�read,�make�thee�offend,�or�insnare�thee.�We�may�just�note,�that�the�greatest�part�of�

Christ's�auditors�being�people�who�lived�by�their�daily�labour,�to�these�the�loss�of�a�Christ's�auditors�being�people�who�lived�by�their�daily�labour,�to�these�the�loss�of�a�Christ's�auditors�being�people�who�lived�by�their�daily�labour,�to�these�the�loss�of�a�Christ's�auditors�being�people�who�lived�by�their�daily�labour,�to�these�the�loss�of�a�

right�hand�would�be�a�much�greater�calamity�than�that�of�a�right�eye;�so�that�there�is�a�right�hand�would�be�a�much�greater�calamity�than�that�of�a�right�eye;�so�that�there�is�a�right�hand�would�be�a�much�greater�calamity�than�that�of�a�right�eye;�so�that�there�is�a�right�hand�would�be�a�much�greater�calamity�than�that�of�a�right�eye;�so�that�there�is�a�

gradation�and�force�in�this�passage,�beyond�what�has�been�generally�observed.�Every�gradation�and�force�in�this�passage,�beyond�what�has�been�generally�observed.�Every�gradation�and�force�in�this�passage,�beyond�what�has�been�generally�observed.�Every�gradation�and�force�in�this�passage,�beyond�what�has�been�generally�observed.�Every�

one�knows�that�the�expressions�in�these�verses�are�figurative,and�not�to�be�literally�one�knows�that�the�expressions�in�these�verses�are�figurative,and�not�to�be�literally�one�knows�that�the�expressions�in�these�verses�are�figurative,and�not�to�be�literally�one�knows�that�the�expressions�in�these�verses�are�figurative,and�not�to�be�literally�

understood.�The�general�meaning�is,�"Denythyself�the�use�of�thy�senses,�though�ever�so�understood.�The�general�meaning�is,�"Denythyself�the�use�of�thy�senses,�though�ever�so�understood.�The�general�meaning�is,�"Denythyself�the�use�of�thy�senses,�though�ever�so�understood.�The�general�meaning�is,�"Denythyself�the�use�of�thy�senses,�though�ever�so�

delightful,�in�all�cases�where�the�use�of�them�ensnares�thy�soul.�Turn�away�thine�eye,�delightful,�in�all�cases�where�the�use�of�them�ensnares�thy�soul.�Turn�away�thine�eye,�delightful,�in�all�cases�where�the�use�of�them�ensnares�thy�soul.�Turn�away�thine�eye,�delightful,�in�all�cases�where�the�use�of�them�ensnares�thy�soul.�Turn�away�thine�eye,�

and�keep�back�thy�hand�from�the�alluring�object."�This,�says�Chrysostome,�is�a�most�and�keep�back�thy�hand�from�the�alluring�object."�This,�says�Chrysostome,�is�a�most�and�keep�back�thy�hand�from�the�alluring�object."�This,�says�Chrysostome,�is�a�most�and�keep�back�thy�hand�from�the�alluring�object."�This,�says�Chrysostome,�is�a�most�

mild�and�easy�precept:�it�would�have�been�much�more�hard,�had�he�given�mild�and�easy�precept:�it�would�have�been�much�more�hard,�had�he�given�mild�and�easy�precept:�it�would�have�been�much�more�hard,�had�he�given�mild�and�easy�precept:�it�would�have�been�much�more�hard,�had�he�given�

commandment�to�converse�with�and�look�curiously�on�women,�and�then�to�abstain�commandment�to�converse�with�and�look�curiously�on�women,�and�then�to�abstain�commandment�to�converse�with�and�look�curiously�on�women,�and�then�to�abstain�commandment�to�converse�with�and�look�curiously�on�women,�and�then�to�abstain�

from�farther�commission�of�uncleanness�with�them.�Figurative�and�proverbial�from�farther�commission�of�uncleanness�with�them.�Figurative�and�proverbial�from�farther�commission�of�uncleanness�with�them.�Figurative�and�proverbial�from�farther�commission�of�uncleanness�with�them.�Figurative�and�proverbial�

speeches,�which�may�have�great�beauty�and�force�in�one�language,�often�lose�their�speeches,�which�may�have�great�beauty�and�force�in�one�language,�often�lose�their�speeches,�which�may�have�great�beauty�and�force�in�one�language,�often�lose�their�speeches,�which�may�have�great�beauty�and�force�in�one�language,�often�lose�their�

grace�and�energy�when�translated�into�another�tongue,�wherein�the�novelty�and�exotic�grace�and�energy�when�translated�into�another�tongue,�wherein�the�novelty�and�exotic�grace�and�energy�when�translated�into�another�tongue,�wherein�the�novelty�and�exotic�grace�and�energy�when�translated�into�another�tongue,�wherein�the�novelty�and�exotic�

air�of�the�expression�may�greatly�obscure�the�sense�intended�by�it.�All�our�translations�air�of�the�expression�may�greatly�obscure�the�sense�intended�by�it.�All�our�translations�air�of�the�expression�may�greatly�obscure�the�sense�intended�by�it.�All�our�translations�air�of�the�expression�may�greatly�obscure�the�sense�intended�by�it.�All�our�translations�

of�the�Scripture�must�labour�under�this�difficulty.�A�superficial�reader�will�find�his�of�the�Scripture�must�labour�under�this�difficulty.�A�superficial�reader�will�find�his�of�the�Scripture�must�labour�under�this�difficulty.�A�superficial�reader�will�find�his�of�the�Scripture�must�labour�under�this�difficulty.�A�superficial�reader�will�find�his�

imagination�shocked�at�the�bare�proposal�of�pulling�out�an�eye,�or�cutting�off�an�hand,�imagination�shocked�at�the�bare�proposal�of�pulling�out�an�eye,�or�cutting�off�an�hand,�imagination�shocked�at�the�bare�proposal�of�pulling�out�an�eye,�or�cutting�off�an�hand,�imagination�shocked�at�the�bare�proposal�of�pulling�out�an�eye,�or�cutting�off�an�hand,�

being�not�aware,�that�by�the�eye�is�meant�the�intention,�and�by�the�hand�the�execution�being�not�aware,�that�by�the�eye�is�meant�the�intention,�and�by�the�hand�the�execution�being�not�aware,�that�by�the�eye�is�meant�the�intention,�and�by�the�hand�the�execution�being�not�aware,�that�by�the�eye�is�meant�the�intention,�and�by�the�hand�the�execution�

of�it.�In�the�very�next�chapter�we�have�the�eye�again�in�this�sense,�namely,�to�denote�the�of�it.�In�the�very�next�chapter�we�have�the�eye�again�in�this�sense,�namely,�to�denote�the�of�it.�In�the�very�next�chapter�we�have�the�eye�again�in�this�sense,�namely,�to�denote�the�of�it.�In�the�very�next�chapter�we�have�the�eye�again�in�this�sense,�namely,�to�denote�the�

intention,�view,�or�design:�and�to�express�performance�by�the�hand,�is�so�agreeable�to�intention,�view,�or�design:�and�to�express�performance�by�the�hand,�is�so�agreeable�to�intention,�view,�or�design:�and�to�express�performance�by�the�hand,�is�so�agreeable�to�intention,�view,�or�design:�and�to�express�performance�by�the�hand,�is�so�agreeable�to�

the�general�tenor�of�Scripturethe�general�tenor�of�Scripturethe�general�tenor�of�Scripturethe�general�tenor�of�Scripture----language,�that�it�is�needless�to�insist�upon�it.�With�this�language,�that�it�is�needless�to�insist�upon�it.�With�this�language,�that�it�is�needless�to�insist�upon�it.�With�this�language,�that�it�is�needless�to�insist�upon�it.�With�this�

explanation,�it�appears�not�only�that�the�precept�is�reasonable�and�expedient,�but�also�explanation,�it�appears�not�only�that�the�precept�is�reasonable�and�expedient,�but�also�explanation,�it�appears�not�only�that�the�precept�is�reasonable�and�expedient,�but�also�explanation,�it�appears�not�only�that�the�precept�is�reasonable�and�expedient,�but�also�

that�the�terms�by�which�our�Lord�chose�to�express�it,�are�peculiarlyproper�to�the�that�the�terms�by�which�our�Lord�chose�to�express�it,�are�peculiarlyproper�to�the�that�the�terms�by�which�our�Lord�chose�to�express�it,�are�peculiarlyproper�to�the�that�the�terms�by�which�our�Lord�chose�to�express�it,�are�peculiarlyproper�to�the�

occasion.�The�occasion�was�the�prohibition�of�impure�desires,�and�the�mental�adultery;�occasion.�The�occasion�was�the�prohibition�of�impure�desires,�and�the�mental�adultery;�occasion.�The�occasion�was�the�prohibition�of�impure�desires,�and�the�mental�adultery;�occasion.�The�occasion�was�the�prohibition�of�impure�desires,�and�the�mental�adultery;�

an�odious�subject,�which�requires�great�reserve,�and�a�covering�of�darkness,�even�in�an�odious�subject,�which�requires�great�reserve,�and�a�covering�of�darkness,�even�in�an�odious�subject,�which�requires�great�reserve,�and�a�covering�of�darkness,�even�in�an�odious�subject,�which�requires�great�reserve,�and�a�covering�of�darkness,�even�in�

reproving�it.�But�it�is�known�how�those�who�are�possessed�with�that�criminal�passion,�reproving�it.�But�it�is�known�how�those�who�are�possessed�with�that�criminal�passion,�reproving�it.�But�it�is�known�how�those�who�are�possessed�with�that�criminal�passion,�reproving�it.�But�it�is�known�how�those�who�are�possessed�with�that�criminal�passion,�

are�apt�to�be�transported�by�it;�and�that�the�exaggerating�metaphors�in�which�they�are�apt�to�be�transported�by�it;�and�that�the�exaggerating�metaphors�in�which�they�are�apt�to�be�transported�by�it;�and�that�the�exaggerating�metaphors�in�which�they�are�apt�to�be�transported�by�it;�and�that�the�exaggerating�metaphors�in�which�they�

delight�to�express�their�infatuation,�amply�justify�the�sacred�language�of�pulling�out�the�delight�to�express�their�infatuation,�amply�justify�the�sacred�language�of�pulling�out�the�delight�to�express�their�infatuation,�amply�justify�the�sacred�language�of�pulling�out�the�delight�to�express�their�infatuation,�amply�justify�the�sacred�language�of�pulling�out�the�

right�eye,�and�casting�it�away,�to�express�the�right�eye,�and�casting�it�away,�to�express�the�right�eye,�and�casting�it�away,�to�express�the�right�eye,�and�casting�it�away,�to�express�the�

extremeviolencewhichtheyoughttodothemselves,whowould�preserve�their�purity.�See�extremeviolencewhichtheyoughttodothemselves,whowould�preserve�their�purity.�See�extremeviolencewhichtheyoughttodothemselves,whowould�preserve�their�purity.�See�extremeviolencewhichtheyoughttodothemselves,whowould�preserve�their�purity.�See�

Heylin�and�Ostervald�on�uncleanness.Heylin�and�Ostervald�on�uncleanness.Heylin�and�Ostervald�on�uncleanness.Heylin�and�Ostervald�on�uncleanness.

BARCLAY,�"THE�SURGICAL�CURE�BARCLAY,�"THE�SURGICAL�CURE�BARCLAY,�"THE�SURGICAL�CURE�BARCLAY,�"THE�SURGICAL�CURE�

Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�5555:�:�:�:�29292929,�,�,�,�30�30�30�30�

If�your�right�eye�proves�a�stumblingIf�your�right�eye�proves�a�stumblingIf�your�right�eye�proves�a�stumblingIf�your�right�eye�proves�a�stumbling----block�to�you,�tear�block�to�you,�tear�block�to�you,�tear�block�to�you,�tear�

it�out�and�throw�it�away�from�you�;�for�it�is�better�that�it�out�and�throw�it�away�from�you�;�for�it�is�better�that�it�out�and�throw�it�away�from�you�;�for�it�is�better�that�it�out�and�throw�it�away�from�you�;�for�it�is�better�that�

one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed,�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed,�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed,�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed,�than�that�

your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�If�your�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�If�your�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�If�your�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�If�your�

right�hand�proves�a�stumblingright�hand�proves�a�stumblingright�hand�proves�a�stumblingright�hand�proves�a�stumbling----block�to�you,�cut�it�off�block�to�you,�cut�it�off�block�to�you,�cut�it�off�block�to�you,�cut�it�off�

and�throw�it�away�from�you;�for�it�is�better�for�you�and�throw�it�away�from�you;�for�it�is�better�for�you�and�throw�it�away�from�you;�for�it�is�better�for�you�and�throw�it�away�from�you;�for�it�is�better�for�you�

that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed�than�that�one�part�of�your�body�should�be�destroyed�than�

that�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�that�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�that�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�that�your�whole�body�should�go�away�to�Gehenna.�

HERE�Jesus�makes�a�great�and�a�surgical�demand.�He�HERE�Jesus�makes�a�great�and�a�surgical�demand.�He�HERE�Jesus�makes�a�great�and�a�surgical�demand.�He�HERE�Jesus�makes�a�great�and�a�surgical�demand.�He�

insists�that�anything�which�is�a�cause�of,�or�a�seduction�to,�insists�that�anything�which�is�a�cause�of,�or�a�seduction�to,�insists�that�anything�which�is�a�cause�of,�or�a�seduction�to,�insists�that�anything�which�is�a�cause�of,�or�a�seduction�to,�

sin�should�be�completely�cut�out�of�life.�sin�should�be�completely�cut�out�of�life.�sin�should�be�completely�cut�out�of�life.�sin�should�be�completely�cut�out�of�life.�

The�word�he�uses�for�a�stumblingThe�word�he�uses�for�a�stumblingThe�word�he�uses�for�a�stumblingThe�word�he�uses�for�a�stumbling----block�is�interesting.�It�block�is�interesting.�It�block�is�interesting.�It�block�is�interesting.�It�

is�the�word�skandalon.�Skandalon�is�a�form�of�the�word�is�the�word�skandalon.�Skandalon�is�a�form�of�the�word�is�the�word�skandalon.�Skandalon�is�a�form�of�the�word�is�the�word�skandalon.�Skandalon�is�a�form�of�the�word�

skandalethron,�which�means�the�baitskandalethron,�which�means�the�baitskandalethron,�which�means�the�baitskandalethron,�which�means�the�bait----stick�in�a�trap.�It�was�stick�in�a�trap.�It�was�stick�in�a�trap.�It�was�stick�in�a�trap.�It�was�

the�stick�or�arm�on�which�the�bait�was�fixed�and�which�the�stick�or�arm�on�which�the�bait�was�fixed�and�which�the�stick�or�arm�on�which�the�bait�was�fixed�and�which�the�stick�or�arm�on�which�the�bait�was�fixed�and�which�

operated�the�trap�to�catch�the�animal�lured�to�its�own�operated�the�trap�to�catch�the�animal�lured�to�its�own�operated�the�trap�to�catch�the�animal�lured�to�its�own�operated�the�trap�to�catch�the�animal�lured�to�its�own�

destruction.�So�the�word�came�to�mean�anything�which�destruction.�So�the�word�came�to�mean�anything�which�destruction.�So�the�word�came�to�mean�anything�which�destruction.�So�the�word�came�to�mean�anything�which�

causes�a�man's�destruction,�Behind�it�there�are�two�pictures.�causes�a�man's�destruction,�Behind�it�there�are�two�pictures.�causes�a�man's�destruction,�Behind�it�there�are�two�pictures.�causes�a�man's�destruction,�Behind�it�there�are�two�pictures.�

First,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�hidden�stone�in�a�path�First,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�hidden�stone�in�a�path�First,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�hidden�stone�in�a�path�First,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�hidden�stone�in�a�path�

against�which�a�man�may�stumble,�or�of�a�cord�stretched�against�which�a�man�may�stumble,�or�of�a�cord�stretched�against�which�a�man�may�stumble,�or�of�a�cord�stretched�against�which�a�man�may�stumble,�or�of�a�cord�stretched�

across�a�path,�deliberately�put�there�to�make�a�man�trip.�across�a�path,�deliberately�put�there�to�make�a�man�trip.�across�a�path,�deliberately�put�there�to�make�a�man�trip.�across�a�path,�deliberately�put�there�to�make�a�man�trip.�

Second,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�pit�dug�in�the�ground�and�Second,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�pit�dug�in�the�ground�and�Second,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�pit�dug�in�the�ground�and�Second,�there�is�the�picture�of�a�pit�dug�in�the�ground�and�

deceptively�covered�over�with�a�thin�layer�of�branches�or�of�deceptively�covered�over�with�a�thin�layer�of�branches�or�of�deceptively�covered�over�with�a�thin�layer�of�branches�or�of�deceptively�covered�over�with�a�thin�layer�of�branches�or�of�

turf,�and�so�arranged�that,�when�the�unwary�traveller�set�turf,�and�so�arranged�that,�when�the�unwary�traveller�set�turf,�and�so�arranged�that,�when�the�unwary�traveller�set�turf,�and�so�arranged�that,�when�the�unwary�traveller�set�

his�foot�on�it,�he�was�immediately�thrown�into�the�pit.�The�his�foot�on�it,�he�was�immediately�thrown�into�the�pit.�The�his�foot�on�it,�he�was�immediately�thrown�into�the�pit.�The�his�foot�on�it,�he�was�immediately�thrown�into�the�pit.�The�

skandalon,�the�stumblingskandalon,�the�stumblingskandalon,�the�stumblingskandalon,�the�stumbling----block�is�something�which�trips�a�block�is�something�which�trips�a�block�is�something�which�trips�a�block�is�something�which�trips�a�

man�up,�something�which�sends�him�crashing�to�destruction,�man�up,�something�which�sends�him�crashing�to�destruction,�man�up,�something�which�sends�him�crashing�to�destruction,�man�up,�something�which�sends�him�crashing�to�destruction,�

something�which�lures�him�to�his�own�ruin.�something�which�lures�him�to�his�own�ruin.�something�which�lures�him�to�his�own�ruin.�something�which�lures�him�to�his�own�ruin.�

Of�course,�the�words�of�Jesus�are�not�to�be�taken�with�a�Of�course,�the�words�of�Jesus�are�not�to�be�taken�with�a�Of�course,�the�words�of�Jesus�are�not�to�be�taken�with�a�Of�course,�the�words�of�Jesus�are�not�to�be�taken�with�a�

crude�literalism.�What�they�mean�is�that�anything�which�crude�literalism.�What�they�mean�is�that�anything�which�crude�literalism.�What�they�mean�is�that�anything�which�crude�literalism.�What�they�mean�is�that�anything�which�

helps�to�seduce�us�to�sin�is�to�be�ruthlessly�rooted�out�of�helps�to�seduce�us�to�sin�is�to�be�ruthlessly�rooted�out�of�helps�to�seduce�us�to�sin�is�to�be�ruthlessly�rooted�out�of�helps�to�seduce�us�to�sin�is�to�be�ruthlessly�rooted�out�of�

life.�If�in�life�there�is�a�habit�which�can�be�a�seduction�to�life.�If�in�life�there�is�a�habit�which�can�be�a�seduction�to�life.�If�in�life�there�is�a�habit�which�can�be�a�seduction�to�life.�If�in�life�there�is�a�habit�which�can�be�a�seduction�to�

sin,�if�in�life�there�is�an�association�which�can�be�the�cause�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�an�association�which�can�be�the�cause�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�an�association�which�can�be�the�cause�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�an�association�which�can�be�the�cause�

of�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�a�pleasure�which�could�turn�our�to�of�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�a�pleasure�which�could�turn�our�to�of�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�a�pleasure�which�could�turn�our�to�of�sin,�if�in�life�there�is�a�pleasure�which�could�turn�our�to�

be�our�ruin,�then�that�thing�must�be�surgically�excised�be�our�ruin,�then�that�thing�must�be�surgically�excised�be�our�ruin,�then�that�thing�must�be�surgically�excised�be�our�ruin,�then�that�thing�must�be�surgically�excised�

from�life.�from�life.�from�life.�from�life.�

Coming�as�it�does�immediately�after�the�passage�which�Coming�as�it�does�immediately�after�the�passage�which�Coming�as�it�does�immediately�after�the�passage�which�Coming�as�it�does�immediately�after�the�passage�which�

deals�with�forbidden�thoughts�and�desires,�this�passage�deals�with�forbidden�thoughts�and�desires,�this�passage�deals�with�forbidden�thoughts�and�desires,�this�passage�deals�with�forbidden�thoughts�and�desires,�this�passage�

compels�us�to�ask:�How�shall�we�free�and�liberate�ourcompels�us�to�ask:�How�shall�we�free�and�liberate�ourcompels�us�to�ask:�How�shall�we�free�and�liberate�ourcompels�us�to�ask:�How�shall�we�free�and�liberate�our----

selves�from�these�unclean�desires�and�defiling�thoughts?�selves�from�these�unclean�desires�and�defiling�thoughts?�selves�from�these�unclean�desires�and�defiling�thoughts?�selves�from�these�unclean�desires�and�defiling�thoughts?�

It�is�the�fact�of�experience�that�thoughts�and�pictures�come�It�is�the�fact�of�experience�that�thoughts�and�pictures�come�It�is�the�fact�of�experience�that�thoughts�and�pictures�come�It�is�the�fact�of�experience�that�thoughts�and�pictures�come�

unbidden�into�our�minds,�and�it�is�the�hardest�thing�on�unbidden�into�our�minds,�and�it�is�the�hardest�thing�on�unbidden�into�our�minds,�and�it�is�the�hardest�thing�on�unbidden�into�our�minds,�and�it�is�the�hardest�thing�on�

earth�to�shut�the�door�to�them.�earth�to�shut�the�door�to�them.�earth�to�shut�the�door�to�them.�earth�to�shut�the�door�to�them.�

There�is�one�way�in�which�these�forbidden�thoughts�and�There�is�one�way�in�which�these�forbidden�thoughts�and�There�is�one�way�in�which�these�forbidden�thoughts�and�There�is�one�way�in�which�these�forbidden�thoughts�and�

desires�cannot�be�dealt�with�and�that�is�to�sit�down�and�to�desires�cannot�be�dealt�with�and�that�is�to�sit�down�and�to�desires�cannot�be�dealt�with�and�that�is�to�sit�down�and�to�desires�cannot�be�dealt�with�and�that�is�to�sit�down�and�to�

say,�I�will�not�think�of�these�things.�The�more�we�say,�I�will�say,�I�will�not�think�of�these�things.�The�more�we�say,�I�will�say,�I�will�not�think�of�these�things.�The�more�we�say,�I�will�say,�I�will�not�think�of�these�things.�The�more�we�say,�I�will�

not�think�of�such�and�such�a�thing,�the�more�our�thoughts�not�think�of�such�and�such�a�thing,�the�more�our�thoughts�not�think�of�such�and�such�a�thing,�the�more�our�thoughts�not�think�of�such�and�such�a�thing,�the�more�our�thoughts�

are�in�fact�concentrated�on�it.�The�outstanding�example�in�are�in�fact�concentrated�on�it.�The�outstanding�example�in�are�in�fact�concentrated�on�it.�The�outstanding�example�in�are�in�fact�concentrated�on�it.�The�outstanding�example�in�

history�of�the�wrong�way�to�deal�with�such�thoughts�and�history�of�the�wrong�way�to�deal�with�such�thoughts�and�history�of�the�wrong�way�to�deal�with�such�thoughts�and�history�of�the�wrong�way�to�deal�with�such�thoughts�and�

desires�was�the�hermits�and�the�monks�in�the�desert�in�the�desires�was�the�hermits�and�the�monks�in�the�desert�in�the�desires�was�the�hermits�and�the�monks�in�the�desert�in�the�desires�was�the�hermits�and�the�monks�in�the�desert�in�the�

time�of�the�early�Church.�They�were�men�who�wished�to�time�of�the�early�Church.�They�were�men�who�wished�to�time�of�the�early�Church.�They�were�men�who�wished�to�time�of�the�early�Church.�They�were�men�who�wished�to�

free�themselves�from�all�earthly�things,�and�especially�of�free�themselves�from�all�earthly�things,�and�especially�of�free�themselves�from�all�earthly�things,�and�especially�of�free�themselves�from�all�earthly�things,�and�especially�of�

the�desires�of�the�body.�To�do�so�they�went�away�into�the�the�desires�of�the�body.�To�do�so�they�went�away�into�the�the�desires�of�the�body.�To�do�so�they�went�away�into�the�the�desires�of�the�body.�To�do�so�they�went�away�into�the�

Egyptian�desert�with�the�idea�of�living�alone�and�thinking�Egyptian�desert�with�the�idea�of�living�alone�and�thinking�Egyptian�desert�with�the�idea�of�living�alone�and�thinking�Egyptian�desert�with�the�idea�of�living�alone�and�thinking�

of�nothing�but�God.�The�most�famous�of�them�all�was�of�nothing�but�God.�The�most�famous�of�them�all�was�of�nothing�but�God.�The�most�famous�of�them�all�was�of�nothing�but�God.�The�most�famous�of�them�all�was�

Saint�Anthony.�He�lived�the�hermit's�life;�he�fasted;�he�Saint�Anthony.�He�lived�the�hermit's�life;�he�fasted;�he�Saint�Anthony.�He�lived�the�hermit's�life;�he�fasted;�he�Saint�Anthony.�He�lived�the�hermit's�life;�he�fasted;�he�

did�without�sleep;�he�tortured�his�body.�For�thirtydid�without�sleep;�he�tortured�his�body.�For�thirtydid�without�sleep;�he�tortured�his�body.�For�thirtydid�without�sleep;�he�tortured�his�body.�For�thirty----five�five�five�five�

years�he�lived�in�the�desert,�and�these�thirtyyears�he�lived�in�the�desert,�and�these�thirtyyears�he�lived�in�the�desert,�and�these�thirtyyears�he�lived�in�the�desert,�and�these�thirty----five�years�were�five�years�were�five�years�were�five�years�were�

a�nona�nona�nona�non----stop�battle,�without�respite,�with�his�temptations.�stop�battle,�without�respite,�with�his�temptations.�stop�battle,�without�respite,�with�his�temptations.�stop�battle,�without�respite,�with�his�temptations.�

The�story�is�told�in�his�biography.�"�First�of�all�the�devil�The�story�is�told�in�his�biography.�"�First�of�all�the�devil�The�story�is�told�in�his�biography.�"�First�of�all�the�devil�The�story�is�told�in�his�biography.�"�First�of�all�the�devil�

tried�to�lead�him�away�from�discipline,�whispering�to�him�tried�to�lead�him�away�from�discipline,�whispering�to�him�tried�to�lead�him�away�from�discipline,�whispering�to�him�tried�to�lead�him�away�from�discipline,�whispering�to�him�

the�remembrance�of�his�wealth,�cares�for�his�sister,�claims�the�remembrance�of�his�wealth,�cares�for�his�sister,�claims�the�remembrance�of�his�wealth,�cares�for�his�sister,�claims�the�remembrance�of�his�wealth,�cares�for�his�sister,�claims�

of�kindred,�love�of�money,�love�of�glory,�the�various�of�kindred,�love�of�money,�love�of�glory,�the�various�of�kindred,�love�of�money,�love�of�glory,�the�various�of�kindred,�love�of�money,�love�of�glory,�the�various�

pleasures�of�the�table,�and�the�other�relaxations�of�life,�and,�pleasures�of�the�table,�and�the�other�relaxations�of�life,�and,�pleasures�of�the�table,�and�the�other�relaxations�of�life,�and,�pleasures�of�the�table,�and�the�other�relaxations�of�life,�and,�

at�last,�the�difficulty�of�virtue�and�the�labour�of�it.�.�.�at�last,�the�difficulty�of�virtue�and�the�labour�of�it.�.�.�at�last,�the�difficulty�of�virtue�and�the�labour�of�it.�.�.�at�last,�the�difficulty�of�virtue�and�the�labour�of�it.�.�.�

The�one�would�suggest�foul�thoughts,�and�the�other�counter�The�one�would�suggest�foul�thoughts,�and�the�other�counter�The�one�would�suggest�foul�thoughts,�and�the�other�counter�The�one�would�suggest�foul�thoughts,�and�the�other�counter�

them�with�prayers�;�the�one�fire�him�with�lust,�the�other,�as�them�with�prayers�;�the�one�fire�him�with�lust,�the�other,�as�them�with�prayers�;�the�one�fire�him�with�lust,�the�other,�as�them�with�prayers�;�the�one�fire�him�with�lust,�the�other,�as�

one�who�seemed�to�blush,�fortify�his�body�with�prayers,�one�who�seemed�to�blush,�fortify�his�body�with�prayers,�one�who�seemed�to�blush,�fortify�his�body�with�prayers,�one�who�seemed�to�blush,�fortify�his�body�with�prayers,�

faith�and�fasting.�The�devil�one�night�even�took�upon�him�faith�and�fasting.�The�devil�one�night�even�took�upon�him�faith�and�fasting.�The�devil�one�night�even�took�upon�him�faith�and�fasting.�The�devil�one�night�even�took�upon�him�

the�shape�of�a�woman,�and�imitated�all�her�acts�simply�to�the�shape�of�a�woman,�and�imitated�all�her�acts�simply�to�the�shape�of�a�woman,�and�imitated�all�her�acts�simply�to�the�shape�of�a�woman,�and�imitated�all�her�acts�simply�to�

beguile�Anthony."�So�for�thirtybeguile�Anthony."�So�for�thirtybeguile�Anthony."�So�for�thirtybeguile�Anthony."�So�for�thirty----five�years�the�struggle�five�years�the�struggle�five�years�the�struggle�five�years�the�struggle�

went�on.�went�on.�went�on.�went�on.�

The�plain�fact�is�that,�if�ever�anyone�was�asking�for�The�plain�fact�is�that,�if�ever�anyone�was�asking�for�The�plain�fact�is�that,�if�ever�anyone�was�asking�for�The�plain�fact�is�that,�if�ever�anyone�was�asking�for�

trouble,�Anthony�and�his�friends�were.�It�is�the�inevitable�trouble,�Anthony�and�his�friends�were.�It�is�the�inevitable�trouble,�Anthony�and�his�friends�were.�It�is�the�inevitable�trouble,�Anthony�and�his�friends�were.�It�is�the�inevitable�

law�of�human�nature�that�the�more�a�man�says�he�will�not�law�of�human�nature�that�the�more�a�man�says�he�will�not�law�of�human�nature�that�the�more�a�man�says�he�will�not�law�of�human�nature�that�the�more�a�man�says�he�will�not�

think�of�something,�the�more�that�something�will�present�think�of�something,�the�more�that�something�will�present�think�of�something,�the�more�that�something�will�present�think�of�something,�the�more�that�something�will�present�

itself�to�his�thoughts.�There�are�only�two�ways�to�defeat�itself�to�his�thoughts.�There�are�only�two�ways�to�defeat�itself�to�his�thoughts.�There�are�only�two�ways�to�defeat�itself�to�his�thoughts.�There�are�only�two�ways�to�defeat�

the�forbidden�thoughts.�the�forbidden�thoughts.�the�forbidden�thoughts.�the�forbidden�thoughts.�

The�first�way�is�by�Christian�action.�The�best�way�to�The�first�way�is�by�Christian�action.�The�best�way�to�The�first�way�is�by�Christian�action.�The�best�way�to�The�first�way�is�by�Christian�action.�The�best�way�to�

defeat�such�thoughts�is�to�do�something,�to�fill�life�so�full�defeat�such�thoughts�is�to�do�something,�to�fill�life�so�full�defeat�such�thoughts�is�to�do�something,�to�fill�life�so�full�defeat�such�thoughts�is�to�do�something,�to�fill�life�so�full�

with�Christian�labour�and�Christian�service�that�there�is�no�with�Christian�labour�and�Christian�service�that�there�is�no�with�Christian�labour�and�Christian�service�that�there�is�no�with�Christian�labour�and�Christian�service�that�there�is�no�

time�for�these�thoughts�to�enter�in,�to�think�so�much�of�others�time�for�these�thoughts�to�enter�in,�to�think�so�much�of�others�time�for�these�thoughts�to�enter�in,�to�think�so�much�of�others�time�for�these�thoughts�to�enter�in,�to�think�so�much�of�others�

that�in�the�end�we�entirely�forget�ourselves,�to�rid�ourselves�that�in�the�end�we�entirely�forget�ourselves,�to�rid�ourselves�that�in�the�end�we�entirely�forget�ourselves,�to�rid�ourselves�that�in�the�end�we�entirely�forget�ourselves,�to�rid�ourselves�

of�a�diseased�and�morbid�introspection�by�concentrating�of�a�diseased�and�morbid�introspection�by�concentrating�of�a�diseased�and�morbid�introspection�by�concentrating�of�a�diseased�and�morbid�introspection�by�concentrating�

not�on�ourselves�but�on�other�people.�The�real�cure�for�not�on�ourselves�but�on�other�people.�The�real�cure�for�not�on�ourselves�but�on�other�people.�The�real�cure�for�not�on�ourselves�but�on�other�people.�The�real�cure�for�

evil�thoughts�is�good�action.�evil�thoughts�is�good�action.�evil�thoughts�is�good�action.�evil�thoughts�is�good�action.�

The�second�way�is�to�fill�the�mind�with�good�thoughts.�The�second�way�is�to�fill�the�mind�with�good�thoughts.�The�second�way�is�to�fill�the�mind�with�good�thoughts.�The�second�way�is�to�fill�the�mind�with�good�thoughts.�

There�is�a�famous�scene�in�Barrie's�Peter�Pan.�Peter�is�in�There�is�a�famous�scene�in�Barrie's�Peter�Pan.�Peter�is�in�There�is�a�famous�scene�in�Barrie's�Peter�Pan.�Peter�is�in�There�is�a�famous�scene�in�Barrie's�Peter�Pan.�Peter�is�in�

the�children's�bedroom;�they�have�seen�him�fly;�and�they�the�children's�bedroom;�they�have�seen�him�fly;�and�they�the�children's�bedroom;�they�have�seen�him�fly;�and�they�the�children's�bedroom;�they�have�seen�him�fly;�and�they�

wish�to�fly�too.�They�have�tried�it�from�the�floor�and�they�wish�to�fly�too.�They�have�tried�it�from�the�floor�and�they�wish�to�fly�too.�They�have�tried�it�from�the�floor�and�they�wish�to�fly�too.�They�have�tried�it�from�the�floor�and�they�

have�tried�it�from�the�beds�and�the�result�is�failure.�"�How�have�tried�it�from�the�beds�and�the�result�is�failure.�"�How�have�tried�it�from�the�beds�and�the�result�is�failure.�"�How�have�tried�it�from�the�beds�and�the�result�is�failure.�"�How�

do�you�do�it?"�John�said.�And�Peter�answered;�"You�do�you�do�it?"�John�said.�And�Peter�answered;�"You�do�you�do�it?"�John�said.�And�Peter�answered;�"You�do�you�do�it?"�John�said.�And�Peter�answered;�"You�

just�think�lovely,�wonderful�thoughts�and�they�lift�you�up�just�think�lovely,�wonderful�thoughts�and�they�lift�you�up�just�think�lovely,�wonderful�thoughts�and�they�lift�you�up�just�think�lovely,�wonderful�thoughts�and�they�lift�you�up�

in�the�air."�The�only�way�to�defeat�evil�thoughts�is�to�begin�in�the�air."�The�only�way�to�defeat�evil�thoughts�is�to�begin�in�the�air."�The�only�way�to�defeat�evil�thoughts�is�to�begin�in�the�air."�The�only�way�to�defeat�evil�thoughts�is�to�begin�

to�think�of�something�else.�to�think�of�something�else.�to�think�of�something�else.�to�think�of�something�else.�

tf�any�man�is�harassed�by�thoughts�of�the�forbidden�and�tf�any�man�is�harassed�by�thoughts�of�the�forbidden�and�tf�any�man�is�harassed�by�thoughts�of�the�forbidden�and�tf�any�man�is�harassed�by�thoughts�of�the�forbidden�and�

unclean�things,�he�will�certainly�never�defeat�the�evil�unclean�things,�he�will�certainly�never�defeat�the�evil�unclean�things,�he�will�certainly�never�defeat�the�evil�unclean�things,�he�will�certainly�never�defeat�the�evil�

things�by�withdrawing�from�life�and�saying,�I�will�not�things�by�withdrawing�from�life�and�saying,�I�will�not�things�by�withdrawing�from�life�and�saying,�I�will�not�things�by�withdrawing�from�life�and�saying,�I�will�not�

think�of�these�things.�He�can�only�do�so�by�plunging�into�think�of�these�things.�He�can�only�do�so�by�plunging�into�think�of�these�things.�He�can�only�do�so�by�plunging�into�think�of�these�things.�He�can�only�do�so�by�plunging�into�

Christian�action�and�Christian�thought.�He�will�never�do�Christian�action�and�Christian�thought.�He�will�never�do�Christian�action�and�Christian�thought.�He�will�never�do�Christian�action�and�Christian�thought.�He�will�never�do�

it�by�trying�to�save�his�own�life;�he�can�only�do�it�by�it�by�trying�to�save�his�own�life;�he�can�only�do�it�by�it�by�trying�to�save�his�own�life;�he�can�only�do�it�by�it�by�trying�to�save�his�own�life;�he�can�only�do�it�by�

flinging�his�life�away�for�others.�flinging�his�life�away�for�others.�flinging�his�life�away�for�others.�flinging�his�life�away�for�others.�

CALVI�, "29.If thy right eye shall be a stumbling-block to thee. It might be thought that, considering the weakness of the flesh and of nature, Christ pressed too severely on men, and therefore he anticipates all such complaints. The general meaning is, that however difficult, or severe, or troublesome, or harsh, any commandment of God may be, yet no excuse ought to be pleaded on those grounds, because the justice of God ought to stand higher in our estimation, than all that we reckon most precious and valuable. “ have no right to object to me, that you can scarcely turn your eyes in any direction, without being suddenly drawn away by some temptation: for you ought rather to part with your eyes, than to depart from the commandments of God.” And yet Christ does not mean, that we must mutilate our body, in order to obey God: but as all would readily wish, that they should not be restrained from the free use of their senses, Christ EMPLOYS an exaggerated (407) form of speech to show, that whatever hinders us from yielding that obedience to God which he requires in his law, ought to be cut off. And he does so expressly, because men allow themselves too much liberty in that respect. If the mind were pure, the eyes and hands would be obedient to it; for it is certain, that they have no movement of their own. But here we are deeply to blame. We are so far from being as careful as we ought to be, to avoid allurements, that we rather provoke our senses to wickedness by allowing them unbounded liberty.

(407) “Par une facon de parler hyperbolique, (c’ a dire, excessive :” — “ a hyperbolical, that is, an excessive mode of speaking.”

BE�SO�, "Verse 29-30Matthew 5:29-30. If thy right eye offend thee — If any person or thing, as pleasant and as dear to thee as thy right eye, should be a stumbling-block in thy way, and an occasion of thy falling, or should be a means of insnaring thee, and leading thee into sin, pluck it out — With inexorable resolution: that is, give up and part with the beloved object. For it is profitable for thee — It will be to thine advantage, that one of thy members should perish — To suffer an apparent temporary loss of pleasure or profit, rather than that thy whole soul and body should perish eternally, which yet would be the fatal consequence of thy indulging a favourite lust. And if thy right hand offend, or insnare thee — Though it be so useful and necessary a part, do not spare it, but immediately cut it off and cast it from thee — “The greatest part of Christ’s auditors were poor people, who lived by their daily labour; and to these the loss of a right hand would be a much greater calamity than that of a right eye: so that there is a gradation and force in this passage beyond what has generally been observed.” — Doddridge. There is an allusion, in both instances, to the practice of surgeons, who, when any member of the body happens to be mortified, cut it off, to prevent the sound part from being tainted. And the meaning of the passage, stripped of the metaphor, is this: By the force of a strong resolution, founded on the grace of God, DE�Y thyself the use of thy senses, though ever so delightful, in all cases where the use of them insnares thy soul. Turn away thine eye, and keep back thy hand from the alluring object. This, says Chrysostom, is a most mild and easy

precept. It would have been much more hard, had he given commandment to converse with and look curiously on women, and then abstain from further commission of uncleanness with them. Upon the whole, we learn from these two verses, that the salvation of our immortal souls is to be preferred beyond all things, be they never so dear and precious to us; and that, if men’s ordinary discretion teaches them, for the preservation of their bodies, to cut off a particular member, which would necessarily endanger the whole body, it much more teaches them to part with any thing which would prevent the salvation of their souls.

COFFMA�, "The location of this verse in the midst of Jesus' teaching on adultery makes the meaning clear. Christ expects his followers to avoid gross sin by keeping the fountain of the heart sweet and clean. That this requires exertion, self-denial, and determination of heroic proportions is seen in the implied comparison of plucking out the right eye. The comparison is VALID and is so recognized in medicine which often amputates an offending member to save the entire physical body. The giving up of cherished sin is far more difficult but just as necessary for those who would truly enter into life. See under Matthew 18:8-9.

PULPIT, "KRETZMA��, "The right eye and the right hand are named as prominent members in the actual committing of sin, through which the evil desire of the heart finds its expression. They are represented as the organs of temptation. ACCORDI�G to popular view, they are the members that offend, that incite to the actual commission of sin. Therefore, symbolically speaking, these members and all the members of the body must be controlled, if necessary, by an absolute and painful renunciation. Better to be without individual organs and members of the body than have the whole body condemned. Christ speaks figuratively, and His words must be understood in the spiritual sense; for mutilation evidently may prevent the outward act, but will not kill the desire. Every member of the body shall be so controlled and governed by the sanctified will that it will not yield to sin, thus bringing the whole body into condemnation. Jesus again uses the figure of the perpetual fires of the valley of Hinnom, where the waste and refuse of the city of Jerusalem was burned, for the punishment of hell. "This, then, is the meaning: If you feel that you look upon a woman with evil lust, then pluck that eye or vision out as being contrary to God's commandment, not of the body, but of the heart from which the burning and desire proceeds, then have you torn it out rightly. For when the evil lust is out of the heart, then the eye will also not sin nor offend you, and you will look upon the same woman with the same eyes of your body, but without desire, and it will be as though you had not seen her. For no longer is that eye there which was there before, which is called an eye of burning or desire, although the eye of the body remains uninjured. "

CHARLES SIMEO�, "THE �ECESSITY OF MORTIFYI�G EVERY SI�

Mat_5:29-30. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, 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. 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.

MA�Y of the precepts of our holy religion are so strict, that persons indisposed to obey them are ready to turn away from them in despair, exclaiming, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” But must we on that ACCOU�T keep back the truth, or lower the commands of God to the habits and inclinations of men? Must we not rather “declare the whole counsel of God,” and enforce to the uttermost the authority of his word? Our blessed Lord has set us an example in this respect; an example which all his servants must follow. He had declared, that an impure look was, in God’s estimation, constructive adultery. To this it might be objected, that our constitution, rather than our will, was chargeable with this offence. But our Lord shuts out at once all objections of this kind, by saying, that even a right eye or a right hand must be parted with, rather than that we should suffer them to lead us to the commission of any sin; and that, if we refuse to sacrifice any thing for his sake, eternal misery will be our merited and inevitable portion.

In his words there are two things to be noticed:

I. The alternative proposed—

It is here supposed, that we have, both within us and without, many things which may operate as incitements to sin. And experience proves that this is really the case: there is not a faculty of our minds, or a member of our bodies, which may not become an occasion of evil; nor is there any thing around us which may not administer fuel to the flames of corruption that are within us. Beauty has a tendency to create unhallowed desires; splendour, to call forth envy and ambition; and plenty, to promote intemperance.

But our Lord sets before us an alternative, either to turn away from those things which are occasions of evil, or to suffer the displeasure of an angry God in hell.

�ow this is,

1. An only alternative—

[�othing leas will suffice on our part; nor will any diminution of punishment be admitted on God’s part. It is to no purpose to urge, that the evil disposition which we harbour is but small, or that it is in a manner necessary to our happiness: if it is as dear as a right eye, or as necessary as a right hand, it must be sacrificed. �or is there any intermediate state, like that of purgatory, to which small offenders can be consigned. As there is no medium between the renunciation of sin and the allowance of it, so there is no middle state between heaven and hell. The alternative is clear, definite, irreversible [�ote: Rom_8:13.]. You cannot be “Christ’s, unless you crucify the flesh, with the affections and lusts [�ote: Gal_5:24.].”

It is worthy of observation, that our Lord does not affirm that the retaining of a right hand or eye will ensure eternal punishment; but he takes it for granted; he considers it as an acknowledged truth: yea, even before the resurrection of the body had been fully revealed, he considers that also as acknowledged; he takes for granted that the body, as well as the soul, shall be a subject of happiness or misery in the eternal world; and he assumes this truth as the ground of his argument. There can be no doubt therefore but that “the whole body will be cast into hell,” if any one member of it be made an instrument or occasion of sin.]

2. A desirable alternative—

[It may seem strange to represent such an alternative as desirable: but it is really so: for a permission to harbour one unmortified lust would be like a permission to drink so much poison, or to retain one disorder preying upon our vitals. But this is not all. Sin, if allowed any part in our affections, will strive for mastery, and never cease, till it has attained an undisputed dominion. It is a leprosy which will overspread the whole man; “a canker which will eat,” till it has consumed us utterly. Is it not desirable then to have it altogether eradicated, and to be compelled to wage incessant war against it? Were there any other alternative allowed us, we should want a sufficient stimulus to exertion: we should be apt to side with the traitor, and, for the sake of present ease or gratification, to neglect our true interests. But, when there is no other choice given us, but either to mortify every sinful propensity, or to suffer eternal misery in hell, we are constrained to gird ourselves to the battle, and to “fight without intermission the good fight of faith.”]

3. A necessary alternative—

[This alternative is no arbitrary imposition to which we are subjected without necessity: it arises out of the very nature of things. God himself could not alter it consistently with his own perfections: he could no more give license to his creatures to harbour sin, or decline punishing it if harboured, than he could cease to be holy, or to have a due respect for the honour of his law. But supposing he were to CA�CEL this alternative, and to admit to the regions of bliss a person who retained one bosom lust, it would be of no avail; for heaven to such a person would not be heaven. Place a man here at a royal banquet; set before him every thing that can please the appetite; let him hear the sweetest melody that ever charmed the ear; let all around him be as full of happiness as their hearts can hold; what enjoyment of it would he have, whilst “a thorn was in his eye?” We do not hesitate to say, that darkness and solitude would to him be far preferable to all this gaiety and splendour. And precisely thus would it be to one who should be admitted into heaven, whilst one unmortified sin was yet rankling in his bosom.]

What to do under such circumstances we learn from,

II. The advice given—

The advice is simply this, To mortify sin without reserve—

[It is here allowed, that the mortification of sin is a difficult and painful work, like the destruction of an eye, or the excision of a hand. But still it must be done. Of course, the language of our text is not to be taken literally: the maiming of the body, though it might incapacitate that individual member for the commission of sin, would effect nothing towards the eradicating of sin from the heart. We must understand the text as referring to the dispositions of the mind, and to the things which cull forth those dispositions into exercise. Do our connexions draw us aside from the path of duty? Are we beguiled by their example, or intimidated by their authority? We must learn to withstand their influence, and to SUBMIT either to their hatred or contempt, rather than be betrayed by them into any thing that is displeasing to God. Doubtless, we should do every thing in our power to conciliate them; but if nothing but a dereliction of duty will satisfy them, we must be prepared with meekness to reply, “Whether it be right to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” Do our interests betray us into sin? Are we engaged in a trade which we cannot carry on without doing things which our consciences condemn? Or have we prospects in life which must be sacrificed, if we will follow the Lord fully? There must be no hesitation on this point: we must pluck out the right eye, and cut off the right hand, and “cast them from us” with abhorrence, rather than suffer them to warp our judgment, and defile our conscience.

Are our passions the occasions of sin? We must learn to subdue them by fasting and prayer, and to restrain the gratification of them to the limits which God himself has assigned. We must “mortify our members upon earth,” and “crucify the whole body of sin [�ote: Col_3:5. Rom_6:6.].”

Let it not be said, We require too much. It is not man, but God, that requires these things: and he has promised that “his grace shall be sufficient for us;” so that, however the work may exceed all human power, we need not be discouraged: we are authorized, every one of us, to say with the Apostle, “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” Only “walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh [�ote: Gal_5:16.].”]

The argument with which this advice is enforced, is such as no human being can withstand—

[We have before observed, that our Lord assumes this as an acknowledged and indisputable truth, namely, that eternal misery in hell must be the consequence of indulging one single sin. From hence he argues, that “it is expedient” to part with sin, rather than incur that tremendous punishment. The pleasure of sin will surely be too dearly PURCHASED at such a price as this. Whatever we design to procure, we always consider what its value is: no man would give a large estate for a worthless insignificant bauble: nor would any man gratify his palate with a poisonous draught, which he knew would fill him with excruciating agony to the latest hour of his life. We grant then that sin is pleasant, just for the moment: but will that momentary enjoyment REPAY an eternity of misery, of such misery too as no imagination can conceive? We grant too that something may be gained by sin:

but can the gain ever equal the loss that will be sustained? “If a man should gain the whole word, what would it profit him, if by that means he lost his own soul?”

Moreover, the pain of mortifying sin can never be compared with that which will follow from the indulgence of it. Be it so, the mortifying of sin is painful; but what are the sufferings of hell fire? Were the pain of self-denial a million times greater than it is, it is but for a moment: whereas the pains of hell are everlasting. Alas! who can think of them, and not tremble? Who can think of them, and hesitate one moment about the mortifying of sin? See what we do when informed that the retaining of a limb will endanger our lives: we suffer amputation, however painful it may be; and are glad to pay the person that will perform the operation for us. O let us be equally wise in relation to our souls!

From the contemplation of this argument then we most heartily concur in our Lord’s advice: If your connexions ensnare you, renounce them; if your interests, sacrifice them; if your passions, get them subdued and mortified. Having your choice given you, learn, with Mary, to CHOOSE THE better part.”]

We cannot conclude the subject without pointing out to you the importance,

1. Of ministerial faithfulness—

[It can be no pleasure to us to speak of “hell fire,” and to alarm you with denouncing it as the portion of so great a multitude of our fellow-creatures. But what are we to do? What did our Lord himself do in the words before us? If we are silent, we cannot alter God’s determinations: whether we tell you of it or not, this is the alternative which God has given you: we cannot reverse it; we cannot soften it; we cannot lower it to your wishes or attainments. We may deceive and ruin you by our silence; but we cannot benefit you at all: we shall only involve ourselves in your ruin. If I�DEED we have put a wrong construction on our text, then we are blameable for alarming you without reason: but yet, as long as we believe this to be the mind and will of God, we must declare it: “knowing, as we do, the terrors of the Lord, we must persuade men;” and you may at least derive this advantage from our warnings, namely, to be stirred up to a diligent inquiry after truth. But suppose our interpretation of the passage to be just, of what infinite importance to you is it to be rightly informed respecting it! How many of you may now escape the miseries of hell, who, but for this warning, might have been subjected to them for ever! Surely then, brethren, you are indebted to us for our fidelity. You cannot but know that such faithfulness is the parent of contempt and obloquy. But we would gladly endure infinitely more than ever we have endured, if only you would take heed to our words, and flee from the wrath to come. To all of you then we say, Be thankful for the ministry that probes you to the quick, and that consults your benefit rather than your approbation.]

2. Of personal integrity—

[Self-love inclines us always to view ourselves more favourably than we ought. If we

are conscious of some secret evil, we excuse ourselves as much as possible, in order to dissipate all fear of future punishment. If we hear that evil exposed, we are rather led to contemplate it in others, than to view it in ourselves: or if constrained to advert to our own case, we condemn the minister, either as personal, or as too severe. But what folly is this! If we had reason to apprehend that we had caught the plague, should we not be anxious to ascertain the truth, in order that we might counteract the infection, and escape its baneful effects? Why then are we not equally solicitous to know the state of our souls before God? Why will we shut our eyes against the light? What harm can arise from knowing what God has said concerning us? O put not from you, brethren, the word of life! Rather come hither, in order that you may be probed; in order that there may be no evil in you undiscovered. Examine yourselves with all imaginable care. Be afraid of nothing so much as being left in ignorance, and deceiving your own souls. When we speak the severest truths, apply them, not to others, but yourselves: take them as a light wherewith to search your own hearts: and beg of God to aid you by his Holy Spirit. Let David’s prayer be ever on your lips: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me; and lead me in the way everlasting.”]

30�30�30�30�And�if�your�right�hand�causes�you�to�stumble,�cut�And�if�your�right�hand�causes�you�to�stumble,�cut�And�if�your�right�hand�causes�you�to�stumble,�cut�And�if�your�right�hand�causes�you�to�stumble,�cut�

it�off�and�throw�it�away.�It�is�better�for�you�to�lose�it�off�and�throw�it�away.�It�is�better�for�you�to�lose�it�off�and�throw�it�away.�It�is�better�for�you�to�lose�it�off�and�throw�it�away.�It�is�better�for�you�to�lose�

one�part�of�your�body�than�for�your�whole�body�to�go�one�part�of�your�body�than�for�your�whole�body�to�go�one�part�of�your�body�than�for�your�whole�body�to�go�one�part�of�your�body�than�for�your�whole�body�to�go�

into�hell.into�hell.into�hell.into�hell.

BARNES,�"BARNES,�"BARNES,�"BARNES,�"And�if�thy�right�hand�offend�thee�And�if�thy�right�hand�offend�thee�And�if�thy�right�hand�offend�thee�And�if�thy�right�hand�offend�thee�---- The�right�hand�is�selected�for�the�same�

reason�as�the�right�eye,�because�it�is�one�of�the�most�important�members�of�the�human�body.�The�

idea�is,�that�the�dearest�earthly�objects�are�to�be�sacrificed�rather�than�that�we�should�commit�sin;�

that�the�most�rigid�self-denial�should�be�practiced,�and�that�the�most�absolute�self-government�

should�be�maintained�at�any�sacrifice,�rather�than�that�we�should�suffer�the�mind�to�be�polluted�

by�unholy�thoughts�and�impure�desires.

CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"Pluck�it�out�Pluck�it�out�Pluck�it�out�Pluck�it�out�----�cut�it�off��cut�it�off��cut�it�off��cut�it�off�---- We�must�shut�our�senses�against�dangerous�objects,�to�

avoid�the�occasions�of�sin,�and�deprive�ourselves�of�all�that�is�most�dear�and�profitable�to�us,�in�

order�to�save�our�souls,�when�we�find�that�these�dear�and�profitable�things,�however�innocent�in�

themselves,�cause�us�to�sin�against�God.

It�is�profitable�for�thee�that�one�of�thy�members�It�is�profitable�for�thee�that�one�of�thy�members�It�is�profitable�for�thee�that�one�of�thy�members�It�is�profitable�for�thee�that�one�of�thy�members�---- Men�often�part�with�some�members�of�the�

body,�at�the�discretion�of�a�surgeon,�that�they�may�preserve�the�trunk,�and�die�a�little�later;�and�

yet�they�will�not�deprive�themselves�of�a�look,�a�touch,�a�small�pleasure,�which�endanger�the�

eternal�death�of�the�soul.�It�is�not�enough�to�shut�the�eye,�or�stop�the�hand;�the�one�must�be�

plucked�out,�and�the�other�cut�off.�Neither�is�this�enough,�we�must�cast�them�both�from�us.�Not�

one�moment’s�truce�with�an�evil�passion,�or�a�sinful�appetite.�If�you�indulge�them,�they�will�gain�

strength,�and�you�shall�be�ruined.�The�rabbins�have�a�saying�similar�to�this:�“It�is�better�for�thee�

to�be�scorched�with�a�little�fire�in�this�world,�than�to�be�burned�with�a�devouring�fire�in�the�world�

to�come.”

GILL,�"GILL,�"GILL,�"GILL,�"And�if�thy�right�hand�offend�theeAnd�if�thy�right�hand�offend�theeAnd�if�thy�right�hand�offend�theeAnd�if�thy�right�hand�offend�thee,....�Or�"cause�thee�to�offend";�that�is,�is�the�means�of�

ensnaring�thine�heart;�and�of�drawing�thee�into�either�mental,�or�actual�adultery;�for,�as�before,�

all�unchaste�looks,�so�here,�all�unchaste�touches,�embraces,�&c.�are�condemned.�As�adultery�may�

be�committed�in�the�heart,�and�by�the�eye,�so�with�the�hand:�

"says�R.�Eliezer�(a)�what�is�the�meaning�of�that�Scripture,�"your�hands�are�full�of�blood",�Isa_

1:15?�It�is�replied,אלו�המנאפים�ביד�, "these are they, that commit adultery with the hand". It

is a tradition of the house of R. Ishmael, that the sense of that command, "thou shalt not commit adultery", is, there shall be none that commits adultery in thee, whether "with the hand", or "with the foot".''

Like orders are given as before,

cut it off, and cast it from thee; as a man would choose to do, or have it done for him, when such a part of the body is mortified, and endangers all the rest. The Jews enjoined cutting off of the hand, on several accounts; if in a morning, before a man had

washed his hands, he put his hand to his eye, nose, mouth, ear, &c. תיקצץ, it was to be "cut off" (b); particularly, the handling of the "membrum virile", was punishable with

cutting off of the hand.

"Says R. (c) Tarphon, if the hand is moved to the privy parts, תקצץ�ידו, "let his hand be cut off to his navel".''

That is, that it may reach no further; for below that part of the body the hand might not be put (d); lest unclean thoughts, and desires, should be excited. In the above (e) place it is added,

"what if a thorn should be in his belly, must he not take it away? It is replied, no: it is further asked, must not his belly be ripped up then? It is answered, it is better that his

belly be ripped up, ואל�ירד�לבאר�שחת, "than that he should go down to the pit of corruption."''

A way of speaking, much like what our Lord here uses; and to the above orders and canons, he may be very well thought to allude: but he is not to be understood literally, as enjoining the cutting off of the right hand, as they did; but of men's refraining from all such impure practices, either with themselves, or women, which are of a defiling nature; and endanger the salvation of them, body and soul; the same reason is given as before.

HE�RY, " It is a startling argument that is made use of to enforce this prescription (Mat_5:29), and it is repeated in the same words (Mat_5:30), because we are loth to hear such rough things; Isa_30:10. It is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, though it be an eye or a hand, which can be worse spared, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Note, [1.] It is not unbecoming a minister of the gospel to preach of hell and damnation; nay, he must do it, for Christ himself did it; and we are unfaithful to our trust, if we give not warning of the wrath to come. [2.] There are some sins from which we need to be saved with fear, particularly fleshly lusts, which are such natural brute beasts as cannot be checked, but by being frightened; cannot be kept from a forbidden tree, but by cherubim, with a flaming sword. [3.] When we are tempted to think it hard to deny ourselves, and to crucify fleshly lusts, we ought to consider how much harder it will be to lie for ever in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone; those do not know or do not believe what hell is, that will rather venture their eternal ruin in those flames, than deny themselves the gratification of a base and brutish lust. [4.] In hell there will be torments for the body; the whole body will be cast into hell, and there will be torment in every part of it; so that if we have a care of our own bodies, we shall possess them in sanctification and honour, and not in the lusts of uncleanness. [5.] Even those duties that are most unpleasant to flesh and blood, are profitable for us; and our Master requires nothing from us but what he knows to be for our advantage.

JAMISO�, "And if thy right hand— the organ of action, to which the eye excites.

offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable, etc.— See on Mat_5:29. The repetition, in identical terms, of such stern truths and awful lessons seems characteristic of our Lord’s manner of teaching. Compare Mar_9:43-48.

TRAPP, "VER 30. And if thy right hand offend thee, &c.] By wanton touches, by unclean dalliance; a further degree of this sin, and a greater incentive to lust; as we see in Joseph’s mistress; when she not only cast her eyes, but PROCEEDED to lay hand upon him, she became much more inflamed towards him; and had not his heart been seasoned with the true fear of God, there was so much the greater danger of his being drawn thereby to commit, not that trick of youth, as the world excuseth it, but that great wickedness, as he there counts and calls it. {a} VISAS colloquium, contactus, osculum, concubitus, They see, they talk, they touch, they kiss, they lie together, are the whoremonger’s five descents into the chambers of death. Off therefore with such a hand by all means; cry out of it, as Cranmer did of his unworthy right hand wherewith he had subscribed; and as John Stubbes of Lincoln’s Inn, having his right hand cut off in Queen Elizabeth’s time with a cleaver driven through the wrist with the force of a beetle (for writing a book against the marriage with the Duke of Anjou, entitled, The gulf wherein England will be swallowed by the French match, &c.), he put off his hat with his left hand, and said with a loud voice, God save the Queen. So when God strikes a parting blow between us and our dilecta delicta, our right hand sins, let us see a mercy in it, and be thankful: let us say to these idols, Get thee hence, what have I to do any more with idols? Isaiah 30:22; that God may say, as there, "I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found," Hosea 14:8; when he shall see thee pollute those idols that thou wast wont to perfume, Isaiah 30:22.

And not that thy whole body be cast into hell] Our Saviour is much in speaking of hell. And it were much to be wished (saith St Chrysostom) that men’s thoughts and tongues would run much upon this subject, there being no likelier way of escaping hell than by taking ever and anon a turn or two in hell by our meditations. {b} A certain hermit is said to have learned three leaves, a black, red, and white one; that is, he daily meditated upon the horror of hell, the passion of Christ, the happiness of heaven.

ILLICOTT, "(30) If thy right hand offend thee.—The repetition of the same form of warning has, in part, the emphasis of iteration, but it points also to a distinct danger. �ot the senses only, through which we receive impressions, but the GIFTS and energies which issue in action, may become temptations to evil; and in that case, if the choice must be made, it were better to forfeit them. The true remedy is, of course, found in so directing the will that eye and hand may each do its work in obedience to the law of righteousness.

COFFMA�, "This is the same thought as that in Matthew 5:29, repeated in a different figure for the sake of emphasis. Remember that Christ is still speaking of adultery; and the only proper meaning that can ATTACH to these two verses (Matthew 5:29-30) must relate to that subject. It seems plain enough that Christians should strive, at whatever cost, to avoid lustful thoughts. See under Matthew 18:8-9.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "Thy right hand offend.

I. Rather than anything, though ever so dear and precious to thee, should hinder thee in thy Christian progress, or prove a means of snaring thy soul and body, absolutely and totally forego it.

1. Whatsoever opposes God in the heart, or keeps Him out of it, must be abhored and east out;

2. All sin and temptation must be resisted, and the outward act of any sin must be avoided.

3. For some temptations are against my retirement, against my prayers, against my possession and enjoyment of Christ, against peace in life, comfort in death, against time, eternity, and all my hopes. (Thomas Adam.)

Strange conduct of a Land-Crab

One of the most useful pioneer evangelists of the Samoan mission was Teava, who, after many years of active services returned to Rarotonga. Though very feeble and bent with age, his place in the sanctuary was never vacant; and he was ever ready with a word of exhortation. On one occasion he said, “I have been meditating this morning upon our Lord’s words: ‘If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and east 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.’ When I laboured at Tutuila I often felt rebuked by the strange conduct of a large species of land-crab, called there the ‘ mali’o,’ here the ‘tupa.’ It bores deep into the soil, the holes sometimes extending a considerable distance. At night this crab loves to make its way to the sea, for the purpose of laving itself in the salt water and drinking it. Now it sometimes happens that, when hurrying through the tall grass and fern, some of its legs become defiled by contact with filth. So great is the vexation of this crab at its mishap, that it delays its march to the sea in order to wrench off the offending legs! One may sometimes meet a mutilated individual hobbling along without two or three of its legs-a self-inflicted punishment! In some rare instances it has been known to wrench off all its eight legs to escape defilement. It is then content to drag itself over the ground with considerable difficulty by means of its nippers, until it reaches its hole, where it hides until the legs partially develop themselves again, though not of their original length and beauty.” “Were we,” added Teava, “as willing to part with our favourite sins as this ‘ mali’o’ crab is with its defiled limbs, there would be little doubt of our reaching heaven! This is what our Lord means by our cutting off our right hand, and casting it from us.”

How may beloved lusts be discovered and mortified?-

I. Explication.

1. That we ourselves must engage in the mortifying of our lusts. It is not enough to cry to God, and be idle.

2. That we must be willing in this as in other duties.

3. It is not said, “If thine eye offend thee, observe it more than ordinarily,” but “pluck it out.”

4. It must be renounced for ever-“cast it from thee.”

II. Observations.

1. That the eye and hand are useful parts of the body of man.

2. That offences are from ourselves.

3. That sin is to all intents and purposes our own.

I. Why sin is expressed in scripture by pants and members of our body.

1. The whole mass of corruption in Scripture is called “the old man,” and “the body of sin” (Rom_6:6).

2. As the natural body makes use of its several parts in work, so corruption makes use of several lusts.

3. Sin is, according to some, conveyed into the soul by means of the body.

4. Corruption shews itself by the sinful actions of the body, and therefore may have its denomination by the parts of it.

II. That every man hath his particular iniquity.

III. How it comes to pass that particular persons have their particular sins.

1. Men have particular temperaments, and therefore sins suitable to their constitutions.

2. There are distinct and peculiar periods of times and ages that incline to peculiar sins.

3. Men have distinct and particular callings that incline to particular sins.

4. Men have distinct and particular ways of breeding and education, and upon that account have particular sins.

IV. The use and application.

1. Examination: how this sin may be discovered-

(1) By the love the sinner bears it;

(2) The sin which distracts us in holy worship is our beloved sin;

(3) It may be known by its commanding power over other sins;

(4) The sin that conscience doth most chide for;

(5) It may be known by being impatient of reproof;

(6) It makes a man notoriously partial in his own case;

(7) it may be known by the fair pretences that the sinner hath for it;

(8) The sin which a man wishes were no sin;

(9) The sin we think of first in the morning and latest at evening;

(10) The sin which most infests us in our solitudes;

(11) The sin we are willing to endure greatest hardship for.

2. Press upon you the mortification of your beloved sin;

(1) Seek holy courage and resolution against it;

(2) Let your repentance be against it;

(3) Beware of those things that occasion it;

(4) Pray to God that thou mayest not fall into that condition favourable to it;

(5) Learn to suspect things that are delightful;

(6) Labour to act that grace that is contrary to thy beloved sin;

(7) Keep watch over thy heart;

(8) Get respect to all God’s laws;

(9) Lay hold on God’s strength.

V. Motives.

1. Bight-eye sins are the greatest hindrances to the soul’s closing with Christ.

2. They are a great trouble to the soul afterwards.

3. It is a choice evidence of regeneration. (B. Needler, B. C. L.)

Divorce31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f]

BAR�ES, "It hath been said ... - That is, by Moses, Deu_24:1-2. The husband was directed, if he put his wife away, to give her a bill of divorce, that is a certificate of the fact she had been his wife, and that he had dissolved the marriage. There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other maintained that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when and for what cause he chose. And this seems to be agreeable to the law in Deuteronomy. Our Saviour in Mar_10:1-12, says that this was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that in the beginning it was not so. God made a single pair, and ordained marriage for life. But Moses found the people so much hardened; so long accustomed to the practice, and so rebellious, that, as a matter of civil appointment, he thought it best not to attempt any change. Our Saviour brought marriage back to its original intention, and declared that whosoever put away his wife henceforward, except for one offence, should be guilty of adultery. This is now the law of God. This was the original institution. This is the only law that is productive of peace and good morals, and that secures the respect due to a wife, and the good of children. Nor has any man or set of men - any legislature or any court, civil or ecclesiastical - a right to interfere, and declare that divorces may be granted for any other cause. They, therefore, whoever they may be, who are divorced for any cause except the single one of adultery, if they marry again, are, according to the Scriptures, living in adultery. No earthly laws can trample down the laws of God, or make that right

which he has solemnly pronounced wrong.

CLARKE, "Whosoever shall put away his wife - The Jewish doctors gave great license in the matter of divorce. Among them, a man might divorce his wife if she displeased him even in the dressing of his victuals!

Rabbi Akiba said, “If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the law, If she find not favor in his eyes.” Deu_24:1.

Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, “About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners.”

These two cases are sufficient to show to what a scandalous and criminal excess this matter was carried among the Jews. However, it was allowed by the school of Shammai, that no man was to put away his wife unless for adultery. The school of Hillel gave much greater license.

A writing of divorcement - The following is the common form of such a writing. See Maimonides and Lightfoot.

“On the day of the week A. in the month B. in the year C. from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the province of D., I, N. the son of N. by whatever name I am called, of the city E. with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee - thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. who wast heretofore my wife: but now I have dismissed thee - thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. so as to be free, and at thine own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hinderance from any one, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for any man. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

Reuben, son of Jacob, Witness.

Eliezar, son of Gilead, Witness.”

God permitted this evil to prevent a greater; and, perhaps, to typify his repudiating the Jews, who were his first spouse.

GILL, "It hath been said,.... It is not added here, as in the former instances, "by them of old time"; nor prefaced with these words, "ye have heard"; because the case of divorce was not any law of Moses, or of God by him; but only a permission, because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews: and as to the controversy, about the causes of divorce, this was not debated by them of old time, but was a new thing, just started in the time of Christ; and was a controversy then agitating, between the schools of Hillell and Shammai: the one allowing it upon any frivolous cause; the other, only on account of adultery.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, dissolve the marriage bond, dismiss her from his bed, and send her from his house, see Deu_24:1 "let him give her a writing of

divorcement", ספר�כריתת, "a bill of divorcement", or "a book of cutting off". For though a

wife was obtained by several ways, there was but one way of dismissing her, as the Jews observe (f), and that was, by giving her a bill. The form of a writing of divorcement, as given by Maimonides (g), is as follows:

"On such a day of the week, in such a month, of such a year, either from the creation, or the epocha of contracts, according to the usual way of computation, which we observe in such a place; I such an one, the son of such an one, of such a place; or if I have any other name, or surname, or my parents, or my place, or the place of my parents; by my own will, without any force, I put away, dismiss, and divorce thee. Thee, I say, who art such an one, the daughter of such an one, of such a place; or if thou hast any other name, or surname, or thy parents, or thy place, or the place of thy parents; who wast my wife heretofore, but now I put thee away, dismiss and divorce thee; so that thou art in thine own hand, and hast power over thyself, to go, and marry any other man, whom thou pleasest; and let no man hinder thee in my name, from this day forward and for ever; and lo! thou art free to any man: and let this be unto thee, from me, a bill of divorce, an instrument of dismission, and a letter of forsaking, according to the law of Moses and Israel.''

"Such an one, the son of such an one, witness. Such an one, the son of such an one, witness.''

Would you choose to have one of these bills, filled up in proper form, take it in manner (h) following.

"On the fourth day of the week, on the eleventh day of the month Cisleu, in the year five thousand four hundred and fifty four, from the creation of the world; according to the computation which we follow here, in the city of Amsterdam, which is called Amstelredam; situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; I Abraham, the son of Benjamin, surnamed Wolphius, the priest; and at this time dwelling in the city of Amsterdam, which is called Amstelredam, which is situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; or if I have any other name, or surname, or my parents, or my place, or the place of my parents; by my own free will, without any compulsion, I put away, dismiss, and divorce thee, my wife Rebecca, the daughter of Jonas the Levite; who at this time abides in the city of Amsterdam, called Amstelredam, situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; or if thou hast any other name, or surname, or thy parents, or thy place, or the place of thy parents, who wast heretofore my wife; but now I put thee away, dismiss, and divorce thee; so that thou art in thine own hands, and hast power over thyself, to go and marry any other man, whom thou pleasest: and let no man hinder thee in my name, from this day forward, and for ever; and lo! thou art free to any man. Let this be to thee, from me, a bill of divorce, an instrument of dismission, and a letter of forsaking, according to the law of Moses and Israel.''

"Sealtiel, the son of Paltiel, witness. Calonymus, the son of Gabriel, witness.''

This bill being written in twelve lines, neither more nor less, and being sealed by the husband, and signed by the witnesses, was delivered, either by him, or by a messenger, or deputy of his or hers, into her hand, lap, or bosom, in the presence of two persons; after which, she might, if she would, enrol it in the public records, and marry whom she pleased.

HE�RY, " That men's divorcing of their wives upon dislike, or for any other cause except adultery, however tolerated and practised among the Jews, was a violation of the seventh commandment, as it opened a door to adultery, Mat_5:31, Mat_5:32. Here observe,

(1.) How the matter now stood with reference to divorce. It hath been said (he does not say as before, It hath been said by them of old time, because this was not a precept, as those were, though the Pharisees were willing so to understand it, Mat_19:7, but only a permission), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce; let him not think to do it by word of mouth, when he is in a passion; but let him do it deliberately, by a legal instrument in writing, attested by witnesses; if he will dissolve the matrimonial bond, let him do it solemnly.” Thus the law had prevented rash and hasty divorces; and perhaps at first, when writing was not so common among the Jews, that made divorces rare things; but in process of time it became very common, and this direction of how to do it, when there was just cause for it, was construed into a permission of it for any cause, Mat_19:3.

(2.) How this matter was rectified and amended by our Saviour. He reduced the ordinance of marriage to its primitive institution: They two shall be one flesh, not to be easily separated, and therefore divorce is not to be allowed, except in case of adultery, which breaks the marriage covenant; but he that puts away his wife upon any other pretence, causeth her to commit adultery, and him also that shall marry her when she is thus divorced. Note, Those who lead others into temptation to sin, or leave them in it, or expose them to it, make themselves guilty of their sin, and will be accountable for it. This is one way of being partaker with adulterers Psa_50:18.

JAMISO�, "It hath been said— This shortened form was perhaps intentional, to mark a transition from the commandments of the Decalogue to a civil enactment on the subject of divorce, quoted from Deu_24:1. The law of divorce - according to its strictness or laxity - has so intimate a bearing upon purity in the married life, that nothing could be more natural than to pass from the seventh commandment to the loose views on that subject then current.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement— a legal check upon reckless and tyrannical separation. The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was “some uncleanness” - in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of Shammai) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of Hillel) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband - a view of the law too well fitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to find extensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lord uttered what follows:

TRAPP, "Ver. 31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, &c.] This Moses permitted, as a law maker, not as a prophet; as a civil magistrate, not as a man of God; merely for the hardness of the men’s hearts, and for the relief of the

women, who else might have been misused and mischiefed by their unmannerly and unnatural husbands, Malachi 2:13. Those hard hearted Jews caused their wives, when they should have been cheerful in God’s service, to cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, so that he regarded not the offering any more. A �UMBER of such �abals there are today, that tyrannize over and trample upon their wives, as if they were not their fellows, but their footstools, not their companions and co-mates, but their slaves and vassals. "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them," Colossians 3:16. He saith not (as it might seem he should with respect to the former verse), Rule over them, and show your authority over those that are bound to SUBMIT unto you; but, love them, that their subjection may be free and ingenuous. Live not, as Lamech, like lions in your houses, quarrelsome, austere, discourteous, violent, with high words and hard blows, such are fitter to live in Bedlam than in a civil society. The apostle requires "that all bitterness be put away," all, and in all persons; how much more in married couples! The heathens, when they sacrificed at their marriage feasts, used to cast the gall of the beast sacrificed out of doors. פחם קןכחם ומוכןםפןע וססירבם. (Plutarch.) Vipera virus ob venerationem nuptiarum evomit; et tu duritiem animi, tu feritatem, tu crudelitatem ob unionis reverentiam non deponis? saith Basil. I confess it were better be married to a quartan ague than to a bad wife (so saith Simonides), for there be two good days for one bad with the one, not one with the other; febris hectica uxor mala, et non nisi morte avellenda. (Scalig.) But that should have been looked to beforehand. A hard adventure it is to yoke one’s self with any untamed heifer, that beareth not the yoke of Christ. And as grace, so good nature, a courteous disposition, is a thing to be especially looked at in a wife, which Eleazar, Abraham’s servant, understood, and therefore singled out as a token of a meet mate for his son. "Let her offer me drink, and my camels also," saith he, Genesis 24:14. But what if it prove otherwise, and men by leaping unadvisedly into the marriage estate, have drawn much misery upon themselves? Quid si pro coniugio coniurgium contraxerint? Varro answereth, Uxoris vitium aut tollendum aut tolerandum est. A wife’s faults must be either cured or covered; mended, if we can; made the best of, if we cannot. If the first, she is made better; if the second, we. Qui tollit hanc sibi commodiorem praestat: qui tolerat, ipse se meliorem reddit. (Gellius.) Aurelii vox est, uxor admonenda persaepe, reprehendenda raro, verberanda nunquam.

" Coniugium humanae divina Academia vitae est."

And hence it cometh to pass, that,

" Quae modo pugnarant, iungant sua rostra columbae:

Quarum blanditias verbaque, murmur habet."

As on the other side, where this meekness of wisdom is not made use of by married folk, they are together in the house no otherwise than as two poisons in the stomach, as live eels in the pot, as two spaniels in a chain; their houses are more like kennels

of hounds than families of Christians: or as so many fencing schools, wherein the two sexes seem to have met together for nothing but to play their PRIZES and to try masteries. Job was not more weary of his boils than they are of their bed fellows, cursing their wedding day as much as he did his birthday; and thirsting after a divorce as he did after death; which, because it cannot be had, their lives prove like the sojourning of Israel in Marah, where almost nothing could be heard but murmuring, mourning, conjuring, and complaining. Leo cassibus irretitus dixit, si praescivissem.

ELLICOTT, "(31) It hath been said.—The better MSS. give, “But it was said,” as though stating an implied objection to the previous teaching. Men might think that they could avoid the sin of adultery by taking the easy course of divorcing one wife before marrying another.

Whosoever shall put away . . .—The quotation is given as the popular Rabbinic explanation of Deuteronomy 24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Matthew 19:8, was given, on ACCOU�T of the hardness of men’s hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The words of the precept were vague—“If she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her,” and the two school of casuists took opposite views of its meaning. The stricter party of Shammai held that the “uncleanness” meant simply unchastity before or after marriage. The followers of Hillel held, on the other hand (as Milton among Christian teachers), that anything that made the company of the wife distasteful was a sufficient ground for repudiation. Even a moralist generally so pure and noble as the son of Sirach, took in this matter the laxer view—“If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of DIVORCE, and let her go” (Sirach 25:26). It is noteworthy that our Lord, whose teaching, especially as regards the Sabbath question, might have been, for the most part, claimed by the school of Hillel, on this matter of divorce stamps the impress of His approval on the teaching of his rival.COKE, "Matthew 5:31-32. It hath been said, &c.— The DOCTORS of the school of Sammai affirmed, that in the law concerning DIVORCE, Deuteronomy 24:1 the words some uncleanness were to be understood of adultery only; whereas they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any manner of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, ch. Matthew 19:3 if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears both from their practice and their writings. Thus Malachi 2:16 the clause which in our TRA�SLATIO� runs, The Lord says he hateth putting away, that is to say, divorces on frivolous pretences, is by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX rendered, If thou hatest, thou shouldst put her away. Also the son of Sirach, Eccl'us, Ecclisasticus_25:26. If she go not as thou wouldst have her, cut her off from thy flesh; and and Josephus, Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. "He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce." �ay, one of their doctors delivered it as his opinion, "That a man may put away his wife, if he likes any other woman better." As therefore they had perverted the law of divorce, that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning; assuring them, that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, layeth her

under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God: and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committeth adultery also. See Macknight, Calmet, and 1 Corinthians 7:15

BARCLAY, "THE BO�D WHICH MUST �OT BE BROKE� I. Marriage amongst the Jews

Matthew 5: 31, 32

It has been said: Let every man who divorces his wife give her a bill of divorcement. But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife for any other cause than fornication causes her to commit adultery; and anyone who marries a woman who has been so divorced himself commits adultery.

WHE� Jesus laid down this law for marriage He laid it down against a very definite situation. There is no time in history when the marriage bond stood in greater peril of almost total destruction than in the days when Christianity first came into this world. At that time the world was in danger of witnessing the break-up of marriage and the collapse of the home. Christianity had a double background. It had the background of the Jewish world, and of the world of the Romans and the Greeks. Let us look at Jesus' teaching against these two backgrounds.

Theoretically no nation ever had a higher ideal of marriage than the Jews had. Marriage was a sacred duty which a man was bound to undertake. He might delay or abstain from marriage for only one reason to devote his whole time to the study of the Law. If a man refused to marry and to beget children he was said to have broken the positive commandment which bade men to be fruitful and to multiply, and he was said to have " lessened the image of God in the world," and " to have slain his posterity."

Ideally the Jew abhorred divorce. The voice of God had said, " I hate divorce " (Malachi 2: 16). The Rabbis had the loveliest sayings. " We find that God is long-suffering to every sin except the sin of unchastity." " Unchastity causes the glory of God to depart." " Every Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery." " The very altar sheds tears when a man divorces the wife of his youth."

The tragedy was that practice fell so far short of the ideal. One thing vitiated the whole marriage relationship. The woman in the eyes of the law was a thing. She was at the absolute disposal of her father or of her husband. She had to all intents and purposes no legal rights at all. To all intents and purposes a woman could not divorce her husband for any reason, and a man could divorce his wife for any cause at all. " A woman/ 1 said the Rabbinic law, " may be divorced with or without her will; but a man only with his will."

The matter was complicated by the fact that the Jewish law of divorce was very simple in its expression and very debatable in its meaning. It is stated in Deuteronomy 24: I: " When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it comes to pass that she find no favour in his sight, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, let him write her a bill of divorcement, and send her out of his house." The process of divorce was extremely simple. The bill of divorcement simply ran:

" Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt."

All that had to be done was to hand that document to the woman in the presence of two witnesses and she stood divorced.

Clearly the crux of this matter lies in the interpretation of the phrase some uncleanness. In all matters of Jewish law there were two schools. There was the school of Shammai, which was the strict, severe, austere school; and there was the school of Hillel which was the liberal, broad-minded, generous school. Shammai and his school denned some un-cleanness as meaning unchastity and nothing but unchastity. " Let a wife be as mischievous as the wife of Ahab," they said, " she cannot be divorced except for adultery." To the school of Shammai there was no possible ground of divorce except only adultery and unchastity. On the other hand the school of Hillel denned some uncleanness in the widest possible way. They said that it meant that a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner by putting too much salt in his food, if she went in public with her head uncovered, if she talked with men in the streets, if she was a brawling woman, if she spoke disrespectfully of

her husband's parents in his presence, if she was trouble-some or quarrelsome. A certain Rabbi Akiba said that the phrase, if she find no favour in his sight, meant that a man might divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he con-sidered to be more attractive than his wife.

Human nature being such as it is, it is easy to see which school would have the greater influence. In the time of Jesus divorce had grown easier and easier, so that a situa-tion had arisen in which girls were actually unwilling to marry, because marriage was so insecure.

When Jesus said this, He was not speaking as some theoretical idealist; He was speaking as a practical reformer. He was seeking to deal with a situation in which the structure of family life was collapsing, and in which national morals were becoming ever more immoral.

THE BO�D THAT CA��OT BE BROKE�

2. Marriage amongst the Greeks Matthew 5: 31, 32

WE have seen the state of marriage in Palestine in the time of Jesus, but the day was soon to come when Christianity would go out far beyond Palestine, and it is necessary that we should look at the state of marriage in that wider world into which the teachings of Christianity were to go forth.

First then, let us look at marriage amongst the Greeks. Two things vitiated the marriage situation in the Greek world.

A. W. Verrall, the great classical scholar, said that one of the chief diseases from which ancient civilization died was a low view of woman. The first thing which wrecked the marriage situation among the Greeks was the fact that

relationships outside marriage carried no stigma whatso-ever, and were in fact the accepted and the expected thing. Such relationships brought not the slightest discredit; they were part ot the ordinary routine of life. Demosthenes laid it down as the accepted practice of life: " We have courtesans for the sake of pleasure; we have concubines for the sake of daily cohabitation; we have wives for the

purpose ot having children legitimately, and of having a faithful guardian for all our household affairs." In later days, when Greek ideas had penetrated into, and had ruined Roman morality, Cicero in his speech In defence of Caelius says, " If there is anyone who thinks that young men should be absolutely forbidden the love of courtesans he is indeed extremely severe. I am not able to deny the principle that he states. But he is at variance, not only with the licence of his own age, but also from the customs and concessions of our ancestors. When indeed was this not done? When did anyone ever find fault with it? When was permission denied? When was it that that which is now lawful was not lawful ? " It is Cicero's plea, as it was the statement of Demosthenes, that relationships outside marriage were the ordinary and the conventional thing.

The Greek view of marriage was an extraordinary paradox. The Greek demanded that the respectable woman should live such a life of seclusion that she could never even appear on the street alone, and that she did not even have her meals in the apartments of the men. She had no part even in social life. From his wife the Greek demanded the most complete moral purity ; for himself he demanded the utmost immoral licence. To put it bluntly, the Greek married a wife for domestic security, but he found his pleasure elsewhere. Even Socrates said, " Is there anyone to whom you entrust more serious matters than to your wife, and is there anyone to whom you talk less? " Verus, the colleague of Marcus Aurelius in the imperial power, was blamed by his wife for associating with other women. His answer was that she must remember that the name of wife was a title of dignity, not of pleasure.

So, then, in Greece an extraordinary situation arose. The Temple of Aphrodite at Corinth had a thousand priestesses, who were sacred courtesans; they came down to the streets of Corinth at evening time so that it became a proverb: " �ot every man can afford a journey to Corinth." This amazing alliance of religion with prosti-tution can be seen in an almost incredible way in the fact that Solon was the first to allow the introduction of prosti-tutes into Athens and the building of brothels, and with the profits of the brothels a new temple was built to Aphrodite the goddess of love. The Greeks saw nothing wrong in the building of a temple with the proceeds of prostitution.

But apart altogether from the practice of common

prostitution there arose in Greece an amazing class of women called the hetairai. They were the mistresses of famous men; they were easily the most cultured and socially accomplished women of their day; their homes were nothing less than salons; and many of their names go down in history with as much fame as the great men with whom they associated. Thais was the hetaira of Alexander the Great; on Alexander's death she married Ptolemy, and became the mother of the Egyptian royal family. Aspasia was the hetaira of Pericles, perhaps the greatest ruler and orator Athens ever had; and it is said that she taught Pericles his oratory and wrote his speeches for him. Epicurus, the famous philosopher, had his equally famous Leontinium. Socrates had his Diotima. The way in which these women were regarded can be seen from the visit that Socrates paid to Theodota, as Xenophon tells ot it. He went to see if she was as beautiful as she was said to be. He talked kindly to her; he told her that she must shut the door against the insolent; that she must care tor her lovers in their sicknesses, and rejoice with them when honour came to them, and that she must tenderly love those who gave their love to her.

Here, then, in Greece we see a whole social system based on relationships outside marriage; we see that these relationships were accepted as natural and normal, and not in the least blameworthy; we see that these relationships could, in fact, become the dominant thing in a man's life. We see an amazing situation in which Greek men kept their wives completely and absolutely secluded in a compulsory purity, while they themselves found their real pleasure and their real life in relationships outside marriage.

The second thing which vitiated the situation in Greece was that divorce required no legal process whatsoever. All that a man had to do was to dismiss his wife in the presence of two witnesses. The one saving clause was that he must return her dowry intact.

It is easy to see what an incredible novelty the Christian teaching regarding chastity and fidelity in marriage was in a civilization like that.

THE BO�D THAT CA��OT BE BROKE�

3. Marriage amongst the Romans Matthew 5: 31, 32 (continued)

THE history of the development of the marriage situation amongst the Romans is the history of a tragedy. The whole of Roman religion and society was originally founded on the home. The basis of the whole Roman commonwealth was the patria potestas, the father's power; the father had literally the power of life and death over his family. A Roman son never came of age so long as his father was alive. He might be a consul; he might have reached the highest honour and office the state could offer, so long as his father was alive he was still within his father's power. To the Roman the home was everything. The Roman matron was not secluded like her Greek counterpart. She took her full part in life. " Marriage," said Modestinus, the Latin jurist, " is a life-long fellowship of all divine and human rights." Prostitutes, of course, there were, but they were held in contempt and to associate with them was dishonourable. There was, for instance, a Roman magis-trate who was assaulted tn a house of ill-fame, and who refused to prosecute or to go to law about the case, because to do so would have been to admit that he had been in such a place. So high was the standard of Roman morality that for the first five hundred years of the Roman common-wealth there was not one single recorded case ot divorce. The first man to divorce his wife was Spurius Carvilius Ruga in the year 234 B.C., and he did so because she was childless and he desired a child.

Then there came the Greeks. In the military and the imperial sense Rome conquered Greece; but in the moral and the social sense Greece conquered Rome. By the second century B.C. Greek morals had begun to infiltrate into Rome, and the descent was catastrophic. Divorce became as common as marriage. Seneca speaks ot women who were married to be divorced and who were divorced to be married. He tells of women who identified the years, not by the names of the consuls, but by the names of their husbands. Juvenal writes: " Is one husband enough for Iberina? Sooner will you prevail upon her to be content with one eye." He cites the case of a woman who had eight husbands in five years. Martial cites the case ot a woman who had ten husbands. A Roman orator, Metillus �umidicus, made an extraordinary speech: " If, Romans, it were possible to love without wives, we would be free from trouble; but since it is the law of nature that we can

neither live pleasantly with them, nor at all without them, we must take thought for the continuance of the race rather than for our own brief pleasure." Marriage had become nothing more than an unfortunate necessity. There was a cynical Roman jest: " Marriage brings only two happy days the day when the husband first clasps his wife to his breast, and the day when he lays her in the tomb."

To such a pass did things come that special taxes were levied on the unmarried, and the unmarried were prohibited from entering into inheritances. Special privileges were given to those who had children, for children were regarded as a disaster. The very law was manipulated in an attempt to rescue the necessary institution of marriage.

There lay the Roman tragedy, what Lecky called "that outburst of ungovernable and almost frantic depravity which followed upon the contact with Greece." Again it is easy to see with what a shock the ancient world must have heard the demands of Christian chastity.

We shall leave the discussion of the ideal of Christian marriage until we come to Matthew 19: 3-9. At the present we must simply note that with Christianity there had come into the world an ideal of chastity of which men did not dream.

CALVI�, "Mat_5:31.Whosoever shall put away his wife. As a more suitable occasion for discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur, (Mat_19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. DIVORCES, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that “ bill of divorcement” should be given to the wives who were put away, (Deu_24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time acknowledged, that he did not send her away on ACCOU�T of any crime, but because she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were observed. (409)

But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It contains a perfect

and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that ACCOU�T, lawful in the sight of God. That man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her a bill of divorcement, shelters himself under the pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is added, except on ACCOU�T of fornication: for the woman, who has basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at liberty.

(409) “Pourveu qu'on observast ce que la Loy commandoit en tel cas;”— “ that what the Law commanded in such a case were observed.”

COFFMA�, "Thus Christ, improving on the Decalogue, ATTACHED guilt to lustful thoughts, and in this place makes marriages to divorced persons sinful, except in the case of the innocent party of a divorce for adultery (Matthew 19:9).Interestingly enough, Jesus abolished the death penalty for adultery. At least, this can be deduced from his words addressed to the woman who was taken in the very act by the Pharisees, "�either do I condemn thee, etc." (John 8:11).

KRETZMA��, "The form in which Jesus here speaks indicates that He disapproves of their literal interpretation of the permission granted by Moses, Deu_24:1. The Mosaic law was given in the interest of the woman, to give her at least some show of right. But the Jewish doctors, concerned only about the outward form and about getting the bill of separation into due legal shape, permitted a license which was soon carried to scandalous and criminal excesses. Pouncing upon the phrase: "She find no favor in his eyes," they permitted divorces when a man found a handsomer woman, when he was displeased with his wife's cooking, when he did not find her manners agreeable. Only the bill or letter of separation must be made out, that formality was insisted upon. But such a deliberate breaking of the marriage-tie, though it be sanctioned by the civil courts, has no validity before God. The Lord recognizes only one reason for divorce, when there is a plain case of unfaithfulness, of adultery, of any unlawful intercourse of a married person with any other person but the lawful spouse. In this case a divorce may be SECURED, but is not commanded. "We neither command nor hinder such divorce, but leave it to the government to act... But to give advice to such as want to be Christians, it would be far better to admonish and urge both parties to stay together, and that the innocent spouse be reconciled to the guilty one (if this one were humble and willing to amend) and forgive in Christian love. " If any other reason is alleged and the divorce brought about, adultery is committed, both by the complainant, in severing the marriage-tie, and by the accused that permits the frivolous dissolution. In the same way he that marries a woman divorced from her lawful husband, to whom she

still belongs before God, is an adulterer in the eyes of the Lord.

CHARLES SIMEO�, "DIVORCES FORBIDDE�

Mat_5:31-32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: hut I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.

THE laws of men cannot always proceed to the extent that might be wished in the SUPPORT of truth and virtue. They must sometimes bend to circumstances, and tolerate evils which they cannot totally prevent. Even under the Theocracy itself this necessity was felt and admitted. The laws of Moses, as far as they were purely moral, were perfect and inflexible; but, as far as they were political, they yielded in a measure to the state and character of the people for whom they were made. The Jews were a hardhearted and stiffnecked people, and extremely licentious in their manners. They would multiply their wives to any extent that they chose, and put them away on the most frivolous occasions. Moses knew that an absolute prohibition of such practices would only render the men more ferocious, and the women more miserable: and therefore he contented himself with laying some restrictions on the men, that if divorces could not be prevented, they might at least be rendered less frequent, by being made more solemn, more deliberate, more manifest. He limited the permission to those instances wherein there was in the woman some moral, natural, or acquired defect, which was the ground of her husband’s alienation from her. He then ordered that a writing of divorcement should be drawn up, and in the presence of two witnesses be given to her; that so, if she were afterwards married to another man, she might be able to prove that she was not living in adultery, because her former marriage had been A��ULLED [�ote: Deu_24:1.]. This restriction, which was only a permission granted on ACCOU�T of the hardness of their hearts, was by the Scribes and Pharisees construed into a command to put away their wives, as soon as ever they ceased to love them: and, under cover of this law, the most licentious and cruel practices almost universally obtained. Our blessed Lord, who came to put all his followers under the authority of the moral law, and to reduce the world to its primeval sanctity, declared, that this license was contrary to the original institution of marriage; and that henceforth, as Adam and Eve were formed for each other, and united in marriage, without any latitude allowed to either of them to dissolve the connexion, or to admit any other to a participation of their mutual rights, so should every man and woman, when united in wedlock, have an inalienable right in each other, a right that should never be cancelled, but by a violation of the marriage vows [�ote: Mat_19:3-9.]. To this subject our Lord was led by his exposition of the seventh commandment. He had shewn, that that commandment was no less violated by an impure look than by the act of adultery itself: and now he proceeds to shew, that those practices, which were supposed to be sanctioned by the Mosaic law, were never to be tolerated amongst his followers, since they were directly contrary to the spirit of that commandment. There was one, and only one reason, which should henceforth be admitted as a proper ground of

divorce: and if any one in future should put away his wife in defiance of this restriction, he should be dealt with as an adulterer in the day of judgment.

The restriction itself being so clear and simple, we shall not attempt any further elucidation of it, but shall rather point out the importance of the restriction to the welfare of mankind.

I. It raises the female sex from the lowest state of degradation—

[Whilst men were at liberty to take, and to repudiate, as many wives as they pleased, the female sex were viewed in no other light than as females are regarded by the brute creation. Their moral and intellectual qualities were overlooked. Whatever distinguished them as a higher order of beings, was disregarded: their beauty only was deemed of any essential consequence; and they were valued only as means and instruments of licentious gratification. Consider the state of those whom Solomon and Rehoboam selected as ministers to their pleasures. Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [�ote: 2Ch_11:21.]. Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines [�ote: 1Ki_11:3.]. What can be conceived more humiliating than the state of all those women? all cut off from converse with men; all precluded from a possibility of filling that station in life, to which, in common with other females, they had been ordained. View those also who are selected for the choice of king Ahasuerus. Officers were appointed to gather together all the most beautiful young virgins throughout the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of his empire: these were all to be purified with oil of myrrh and sweet odours for the space of a whole year; and then in succession to be admitted to the king for one night, and never afterwards to see him, unless called for by name [�ote: Est_2:3; Est_2:12-14.]. Four years had the succession CO�TI�UED, before Esther’s turn for admission to him arrived; and she, pleasing him beyond all the rest, was appointed Queen [�ote: Est_2:15-17.]. How incredible does all this appear; that such a state of things should ever exist; that the parents should ever suffer it; and that the females should ever endure it! Were it reported in any other history than that which we know to be divine, we should never believe that the whole female sex would ever be reduced to such a state of horrible degradation as this.

But from this the Gospel raises them. By the restriction in our text, they are again elevated to the rank which the first woman sustained in Paradise. Though still inferior to the man in power and dignity [�ote: 1Co_11:3; 1Co_11:7-10.], they possess equal rights with him. He has no more power to repudiate them, than they him. The wife has now the same property in her husband as he has in her [�ote: 1Co_7:2-4.]: nor can any thing but a wilful alienation of it by infidelity on her part deprive her of it. If in one single instance he transfer to another those regards which by his nuptial vows were exclusively assigned to her, he shall be condemned for it by God, as certainly as she would be, if she were guilty of a similar transgression.]

II. It moderates the tempers and passions of men—

[Every one knows that power is a snare; and that it is difficult to possess unlimited

authority without being sometimes led to exercise it in an unbecoming manner. Suppose a man at liberty to put away his wife whenever he chose, and to take whomsoever he would to fill her place; is it not probable that he would presume upon that power to tyrannize over her and oppress her? Is it not to be expected also that he would he easily captivated by youth and beauty, as soon as ever sickness or age should have robbed his wife of her former attractions? Under such circumstances, little could be hoped for, but inconstancy in affection, irritability in temper, licentiousness in manners, and cruelty in conduct. But by the restriction in our text all occasion for these things is cut off; and a necessity is imposed of cultivating dispositions directly opposite. A man when first he plights his troth to a virgin, knows that he takes her for better and for worse. He is aware that the knot can never be untied; and that his connexion with her forbids even a desire after any other. Hence then he sees the necessity of patience and forbearance towards her: he ieels the importance of gaining her affections by kind usage: and he determines, by contributing to her happiness as much as possible, to ensure his own. If any man think that the restriction operates unfavourably on him, let him compare the tumultuous passions of a lawless libertine with the chaste enjoyments of conjugal fidelity: and he will soon see the one is “like the crackling of thorns under a pot,” whilst the other is a source of steady and increasing comfort to the latest hour of his life.]

III. It provides for the happiness of the rising generation—

[What must be the effect of that licentious intercourse of which we have spoken? Would men feel much regard for children whose mothers they had ignominiously dismissed? Would even the mothers themselves feel that regard for their children, which they would have done, if they had still retained the affections of their cruel father? The women, reduced to great extremities, would doubtless in many instances leave their children to perish with cold and hunger, if not put a period to their existence with their own hands.

But how different the condition of children under the present system! �ow both the parents become their guardians, and equally exert themselves to make provision for them. They look upon their children as their dearest treasure; and expect from them their richest comforts. Hence they feel interested in imbuing their minds with Christian knowledge, and in regulating their conduct according to the Christian code. In short, their happiness being bound up in their offspring, they, for their own comfort’s sake, instruct them in whatever is necessary to make them good members of society at least, if not also members of the Church above. We say not I�DEED that this effect is universally produced: but we do say, that the restriction in our text, if duly considered, has a direct tendency to produce it.]

From this view of our subject we may see,

2. How great are our obligations to Christianity!

[God, even under the law, bore strong testimony against the licentious cruelty of his

people [�ote: Mal_2:13-16.]: but our Saviour has decided the point for ever. �one can henceforth inflict, or suffer, such injuries as the Jews inflicted on their wives. Even those who have no regard whatever for religion, are partakers of these benefits, in common with the whole Church. Christianity has raised the tone of morals, and made those things infamous, which are approved and applauded where the light of the Gospel is not known — — — But if the ungodly and unbelieving are thus benefited by the Gospel, how much more are they who feel its influence on all their conduct and conversation! They, knowing that the marriage union is indissoluble, set themselves to fulfil its duties; and in fulfilling them, are made truly happy. Behold a Christian family conducting themselves after this manner, and then you will see what Christianity has done for an ungodly world.]

2. How studious we should be to adorn its doctrines!

[In nothing is Christianity more seen than in the deportment of its votaries in relative and social life. It is easy for men to be on their guard when they are in company, and to demean themselves reverently in the house of God: but it is not easy for persons to be consistent in all their conduct amidst the various occurrences of domestic life. Here the tempers, if not restrained by grace, will break out: the husband will be imperious and harsh; or the wife will be fretful, querulous, and disobedient. Feeling a confidence that their respective weaknesses will be hid from public view, they shew them to each other without restraint. Beloved brethren, inquire whether this be not the case with you; and, if it be, learn to mortify these unhallowed tempers. The true way to adorn religion, is to propose to yourselves that image by which the marriage state is represented in the Gospel. It is compared to that union which subsists between the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church. The Church renders unto him all grateful obedience; whilst he exercises towards it the most self-denying and endearing affection. Thus should the wife be cheerfully obedient to her husband, even as to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, in every thing which is not contrary to the will of God: and the husband should ACCOU�T it his joy to manifest towards her all possible love, never exercising authority over her but with a view to her best interests and her truest happiness. Only let this be the pattern for your imitation, and you will never wish for a relaxation of that law whereby you are united to each other in an indissoluble bond. You will rather bless God that he has made the bond so strict; and you will avail yourselves of your mutual influence to advance in each other your spiritual and eternal interest, that, “as fellow-heirs of the grace of life,” you may dwell together in heaven for evermore.]

LA�GE, "Mat_5:31. It has been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of DIVORCEME�T.—Christ here first takes up the later perversions of the law about divorce, and returns to the ordinances given by Moses, which He then further explains and develops. “According to Deu_24:1, ֶצְרַות ָּדָבר —ֶערָוה , ‘uncleanness,’ ‘matter of nakedness,’ something abominable in a female—is admitted as a ground of divorce (Ewald, Alterthamer, p. 234). Rabbi Shammai and his school explained this as referring to adultery, while Hillel and his school applied it to anything displeasing to a husband (comp. Joseph. Antiq. iv. 8, 23). Rosenmה

ller, Schol. on Deu_24:1, sqq. Rabbi Akiba went even further, and permitted divorce in case a man should meet with a more pleasing woman; see Wetstein.”—Meyer. The difference between the two schools consisted not merely in this, that while Shammai limited divorce to adultery, Hillel allowed it in a great variety of cases; but that Shammai insisted on the necessity of a criminal and legal cause for divorce, while Hillel left it to the inclination of the individual. The terms employed by Moses implied at least the germ of those spiritual views concerning marriage which were the aim of the theocracy. But the teaching of Hillel destroyed that germ, and converted the law of Moses into a cloak for adulterous lust. As the Lord shows in another place, Moses allowed a bill of divorce in the case of moral aberrations on the part of a wife, in order to limit the number of divorces. The Rabbins reversed the meaning of the law by saying Moses has commanded, Mat_19:7. The practice of divorce was an ancient and traditional custom, which Moses limited by insisting on a definite motive, and on a regular bill of divorce. Hence, ὅע ἂם ἀף נןכῃ (according to custom), הaפש ἀנןףפaףיןם (according to the new arrangement in Israel). Its object was not merely to serve “as evidence that the marriage had been legally dissolved, and that the woman was at liberty to marry another man” (Ewald), but to render divorce more difficult.

BE�SO�, "Verse 31-32Matthew 5:31-32. Let him give her a writing of divorcement — “The DOCTORS of the school of Sammai affirmed, that, in the law concerning DIVORCE, Deuteronomy 24:1, the words some uncleanness, were to be understood of adultery only; whereas, they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any matter of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, Matthew 19:3, if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears from both their practice and their writings. Thus, Malachi 2:16, the clause which in our TRA�SLATIO� runs, The Lord says, He hateth putting away, that is, divorces on frivolous pretences, is, by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX., turned thus, ( ובם ליףחףבע ומבנןףפויכחע,) if thou hatest thou shouldest put her away. Also, the son of Sirach says, Matthew 25:26 : If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh. And Josephus, Ant. lib. 4. cap. 8, ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ �ay, one of their doctors, R. Akiba by name, delivered it as his opinion, ‘that a man may put his wife away, if he likes any other woman better.’” As, therefore, they had perverted the law of divorce that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning, assuring them, “that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, lays her under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God; and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committed adultery also.” Saving for the cause of fornication, &c. — Fornication here, as elsewhere, is often used for adultery: in general it denotes the exercise of all the different species of unlawful lusts. Although in these words only one just cause of divorce is acknowledged, namely, adultery; “yet the apostle, 1 Corinthians 7:15, plainly allows another, viz., malicious and obstinate desertion in either of the parties; and that because it is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of

marriage. We must therefore suppose, that our Lord here speaks of the causes of divorce commonly said to be comprehended under the term uncleanness, in the law; and declares, that none of them will justify a man’s divorcing his wife, except fornication.” Whosoever shall marry her that is DIVORCED committeth adultery — Here we learn, “that if the cause of a divorce be just, the innocent party is freed from the bond of marriage, so as to be at liberty to marry again.” But if the divorce be made without a just cause, the marriage still subsists, and consequently both parties, the innocent as well as the guilty, thus divorced, commit adultery if they marry, as do the persons likewise whom they marry.” — Macknight.

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

CLARKE, "Saving for the cause of fornication - Λογου�πορνειας, on account of whoredom. As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married.

I have therefore translated λογου�πορνειας, on account of whoredom. It does not appear

that there is any other case in which Jesus Christ admits of divorce. A real Christian ought rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly the imperfections of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her. “But divorce was allowed by Moses;” yes, for the hardness of their hearts it was permitted: but what was permitted to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews, should not serve for a rule to a heart in which the love of God has been shed abroad by the Holy Spirit. Those who form a matrimonial connection in the fear and love of God, and under his direction, will never need a divorce. But those who marry as passion or money lead the way, may be justly considered adulterers and adulteresses as long as they live.

GILL, "But I say unto you; that whosoever shall put away his wife,.... Christ does not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; only frees it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it; and restores the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in

no case,

saving for the cause of fornication; which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written (i),

"The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to Deu_24:1 The house of Hillell say, if she should spoil his food, (that is, as Jarchi and Bartenora explain it, burns it either at the fire, or with salt, i.e. over roasts or over salts it,) who appeal also to Deu_24:1. R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, Deu_24:1 "and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes."''

The commentators (k) on this passage say that the determination of the matter is, according to the school of Millell; so that, according to them, a woman might be put away for a very trivial thing: some difference is made by some of the Jewish doctors, between a first and second wife; the first wife, they say (l), might not be put away, but for adultery; but the second might be put away, if her husband hated her; or she was of ill behaviour, and impudent, and not modest, as the daughters of Israel. Now our Lord says, without any exception, that a man ought not to put away his wife, whether first or second, for any other reason than uncleanness; and that whoever does, upon any other account,

causeth her to commit adultery; that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from Mat_19:9 that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.

JAMISO�, "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery— that is, drives her into it in case she marries again.

and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced— for anything short of conjugal infidelity.

committeth adultery— for if the commandment is broken by the one party, it must be by the other also. But see on Mat_19:4-9. Whether the innocent party, after a just divorce, may lawfully marry again, is not treated of here. The Church of Rome says, No; but the Greek and Protestant Churches allow it.

TRAPP, "Ver. 32. Saving for the cause of fornication] Taken in the largest sense for adultery also. Adulteriam est quasi ad alterum, aut alterius locum. (Becman de Originibus.) This sill strikes at the very sinew, heart, and life of the marriage knot, and dissolves it. Further, it directly lights against human society, which the law mainly respects, and was therefore to be punished with death, as a most notorious theft. "Master," say they, "this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." In the very theft, saith the original ( ופ ביפנצשסש, John 8:4), to intimate, belike, the great theft that is in adultery, while the child of a stranger carries away the goods or lands of the family. �either may any conclude from our Saviour’s words to that woman, {John 8:11} "�either do I condemn thee," that adultery is not to be punished; any more than he may, that inheritances are not to be divided, because Christ, who was no magistrate, would not divide them, Luke 12:14. The marriage bed is honourable, and should be kept inviolable; society and the purity of posterity cannot otherwise CO�TI�UE among men; which is well observed by divines to be the reason why adultery is named in the commandment, under it all uncleanness being forbidden; when yet other violations are more heinous, as sodomy and bestiality.

Causeth her to commit adultery] Because it is God that both maketh and keepeth the bonds of wedlock, which is therefore called, "the covenant of God," Proverbs 2:17. Covenants are either, 1. Religious, as when a man tieth himself by vow to God, to shun such a sin or do such a duty. 2. Civil, between man and man, as in our common contracts, bargains, and BUSI�ESSES. Or, 3. Mixed, that are made partly with God and partly with man. And of this sort is the marriage covenant, the parties thereby tie themselves first to God and then to one another. Hence it is that the knot is indissoluble, and cannot be undone or recalled at the pleasure of the parties that make it, because there is a third person engaged in the business, and that is God, to whom the bond is made; and if afterward they break, he will take the forfeiture. This David understood, and therefore upon his adultery cried out, "Against thee, thee only" (that is, chiefly) "have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight," Psalms 51:4. A sin it is against the Father, whose covenant is broken; against the Son, whose members are made the members of a harlot; and against the Holy Ghost, whose temple is defiled, 1 Corinthians 6:19.

ELLICOTT, "(32) Saving for the cause of fornication.—The most generic term seems intentionally used to include ante-nuptial as well as post-nuptial sin, possibly, indeed, with reference to the former only, seeing that the strict letter of the Law of Moses made death the punishment of the latter, and so excluded the possibility of the adultery of a second marriage. The words causeth her to commit adultery imply that the “putting away” was legally a divorce א vinculo, leaving the wife, and אfortiori the husband, at liberty to marry again; for otherwise she could not have incurred the guilt of adultery by a second marriage: but it asserts that in such a case, when divorce was obtained on any other ground than the specific sin which violated the essence of the marriage contract, man’s law (even that of Moses) was at variance with the true eternal law of God.

Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced.—The Greek is less definite, and may be rendered either “a woman who has been put away,” or better, “her when she has been put away.” Those who take the former construction, infer from it the absolute unlawfulness of marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances whatever; some holding that the husband is under the same restrictions, i.e., that the vinculum matrimonii is absolutely indissoluble; while others teach that in the excepted case, both the husband and the wife gain the right to contract a second marriage. The Romish Church, in theory, takes the former view, the Greek and most Reformed Churches the latter; while some codes, like those of some countries in modern EUROPE, go back to the looser interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, and allow the divorce א vinculo for many lesser causes than incontinence. Of these contending views, that which is intermediate between the two extremes seems to be most in harmony with the true meaning of our Lord’s words. The words “put away” would necessarily convey to His Jewish hearers the idea of an entire dissolution of the marriage union, leaving both parties free to contract a fresh marriage; and if it were not so, then the case in which He specially permits that dissolution would stand on the same level as the others. The injured husband would still be bound to the wife who had broken the vow which was of the essence of the marriage-contract. But if he was free to marry again, then the guilt of adultery could not possibly ATTACH to her subsequent marriage with another. The context, therefore, requires us to restrict that guilt to the case of a wife divorced for other reasons, such as Jewish casuistry looked on as adequate. This, then, seems the true law of divorce for the Church of Christ as such to recognise. The question as to how far national legislation may permit divorce for other causes, such as cruelty or desertion, seems to stand on a different footing, and must be discussed on different grounds. In proportion as the “hardness of heart” which made the wider license the least of two evils prevails now, it may be not only expedient, but right and necessary, though it implies a standard of morals lower than the law of Christ, to meet it, as it was met of old, by a like reluctant permission.

CALVI�, "32.Causeth her to commit adultery. As the bill of DIVORCEME�T bore, that the woman had been loosed from her former husband, and might E�TER into a new marriage, the man who, unjustly and unlawfully, abandons the wife whom God had given him, is justly condemned for having prostituted his wife to others.

LA�GE, "Mat_5:32. Save for the cause of fornication, נבסוך פὸע כaדןץ נןסםוaבע .—This exceptional case is not mentioned in Mar_10:11, nor in Luk_16:18; but occurs again in Mat_19:9 ( וἰ לὴ ἐנὶ נןסםוaᾳ ), and must be supplied in the parallel passages,—the more so, as, according to Lev_20:10, adultery was to be punished with death. Calov, Meyer, and others, maintain that the mention of this one ground of divorce excludes every other; while de Wette thinks that this one implies others also. But the question is not so simple as appears at first sight. We must distinguish between the legislation of the theocracy and that of the state which is intermediate between Moses and Christ; and again, between these two and the spiritual law binding upon Christians, and derived from the word of Christ. Moses permitted a

bill of divorce, not to weaken, but to protect the marriage relationship. Absolutely to forbid all divorce, would have amounted to a practical sanction of the then customary low views on the subject of marriage, and to a rejection of the spiritual principles CO��ECTED with it. Hence Moses introduced the bill of divorce, which rendered separation difficult, by requiring an adequate cause for it, as in Deu_24:1. This arrangement was intended as a lever gradually to elevate the views of the people from the former customary laxity to the spiritual ideal ultimately aimed at. It was left to the gradual development of spiritual life in Israel more clearly to determine and to settle the only sufficient motive for divorce, at which Moses had darkly hinted. This Christ did when He exhibited the full ideal of the law, by the words נבסוךפὸע כaדןץ נןסםוaבע . But the practical difficulty which the State has to encounter in its legislation on this point, is that it cannot anticipate this interpretation of the Lord without raising the legal ordinances higher than the idea of marriage commonly entertained by the people. Still, this interpretation must always be the goal aimed at. Standing at that goal, our Lord does not refer to the recognition of an actual divorce, but to a positive divorce, when a man repudiates his wife. To make such a divorce, is certainly not allowed except for the sake of fornication. But it is another question, whether, if the divorce is actually accomplished by the other party, we are warranted in regarding and accepting it as accomplished. To this question Paul gives an affirmative reply in 1Co_7:15. The only difficulty lies in the question, Under what circumstances other than fornication a divorce may be regarded as actually accomplished by the seceding party? In this respect, the explanations which our Lord adds, may be taken as a final directory.

Causeth her to commit adultery—viz., by contracting another marriage. Strictly speaking, the actual adultery consists in, and dates from, the re-marriage of the woman who had been divorced. The following is the state of the case as laid down by the Lord. In the passage under consideration, we are told that he causeth her to commit adultery; and in Matthew 19, that he who divorces a woman, and marrieth another, himself committeth adultery. In the former case, the husband who divorces his wife is morally the cause of her committing adultery, and in that respect even more culpable than she. Still, the stigma of adultery is only attached to marriage after divorce, or to fornication before divorce. This implies, that where the guilty or the divorcing party has not actually committed the act of adultery (as above defined), the other party is in Christian duty bound to wait in faith and patience. This is the intermediate stage, or separation a mensa et thoro, which is the only kind of divorce allowed by the Roman Church: another species of legalism, by which the words of our Saviour are first converted into a literal ordinance, and next, the letter of the commandment—the נבסוךפὸע כaדןץ נןסםוaבע —itself is A��ULLED. The bad consequences of this arrangement are sufficiently notorious in the degeneracy of the marriage relation in Roman Catholic countries, especially in South America.

“Our Lord,” says Meyer, “does not refer to the case of adultery committed by the man,—there being no occasion for it, since a woman, according to the law of Moses, could not divorce her husband. But the spirit of Christian ethics fully justifies and requires the application of the statement to the other case.” However, it ought to be noted, that Christ speaks three different times of the sin of the man, but never of the

woman: (1) Whosoever looketh on woman, etc.; (2) whosoever shall put away his wife, etc.; (3) whosoever shall marry her who is divorced, etc.—Comp. Heubner, p. 68.

Oaths33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’

BAR�ES, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself - Christ here proceeds to correct another false interpretation of the law. The law respecting oaths is found in Lev_19:12, and Deu_23:23. By those laws people were forbid to perjure themselves, or to forswear, that is, swear falsely.

Perform unto the Lord - Perform literally, really, and religiously what is promised in an oath.

Thine oaths - An oath is a solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favor if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury, or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish rabbins, that while the Jews professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered to be binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Yahweh, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. “It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things.” To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his special abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God, and could not be without guilt. It is remarkable that the sin here condemned by the Saviour prevails still in Palestine in the same form and manner referred to here. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. ii. p. 284) says, “The people now use the very same sort of oaths that are mentioned and condemned by our Lord. They swear by the head, by their life, by heaven, and by the temple, or what is in its place, the church. The forms of cursing and swearing, however, are almost infinite, and fall on the pained ear all day long.”

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion and by everything that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mat_26:63-64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1; Gal_1:20; Heb_6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Exo_22:11; Lev_5:1; Num_5:19; Deu_29:12, Deu_29:14.

CLARKE, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself - They dishonor the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfill, are not less criminal. Swearing in civil matters is become so frequent, that the dread and obligation of an oath are utterly lost in it. In certain places, where oaths are frequently administered, people have been known to kiss their thumb or pen, instead of the book, thinking thereby to avoid the sin of perjury; but this is a shocking imposition on their own souls. See the notes on Deu_4:26; Deu_6:13.

Perform unto the Lord thine oaths - The morality of the Jews on this point was truly execrable: they maintained, that a man might swear with his lips, and annul it in the same moment in his heart. Rab. Akiba is quoted as an example of this kind of swearing. See Schoettgen.

GILL, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said,.... Besides what has been observed, in ver. 21 and 27 you know it has also been said,

by, or to them of old time, what is written in Lev_19:12. "And ye shall not swear by my name falsely"; which seems to be referred to, when it is said, "thou shalt not forswear thyself": and is the law forbidding perjury, or false swearing; and was what the Jews were chiefly, if not only concerned about; little regarding the vanity, only the truth of an oath: for they took swearing vainly, to be the same as swearing falsely; wherefore so long as what they swore was truth, they were not careful whether it was of any importance or not: moreover, these men sinned, in that they swore by the creatures, which they thought they might do, and not sin; and when they had so done, were not under obligation to perform; because they made no use of the name of God, to whom only vows and oaths were to be performed, "but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths", Num_30:2 which they understood of vows only made to the Lord, and not to others; and of oaths, when in his name, and not by others; which they did do, and yet thought themselves not obliged by them.

HE�RY, "We have here an exposition of the third commandment, which we are the more concerned right to understand, because it is particularly said, that God will not hold him guiltless, however he may hold himself, who breaks this commandment, by taking the name of the Lord in vain. Now as to this command,

I. It is agreed on all hands that it forbids perjury, forswearing, and the violation of oaths and vows, Mat_5:33. This was said to them of old time, and is the true intent and meaning of the third commandment. Thou shalt not use, or take up, the name of God (as

we do by an oath) in vain, or unto vanity, or a lie. He hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, is expounded in the next words, nor sworn deceitfully, Psa_24:4. Perjury is a sin condemned by the light of nature, as a complication of impiety toward God and injustice toward man, and as rendering a man highly obnoxious to the divine wrath, which was always judged to follow so infallibly upon that sin, that the forms of swearing were commonly turned into execrations or imprecations; as that, God do so to me, and more also; and with us, So help me God; wishing I may never have any help from God, if I swear falsely. Thus, by the consent of nations, have men cursed themselves, not doubting but that God would curse them, if they lied against the truth then, when they solemnly called God to witness to it.

It is added, from some other scriptures, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths(Num_30:2); which may be meant, either, 1. Of those promises to which God is a party, vows made to God; these must be punctually paid (Ecc_5:4, Ecc_5:5): or, 2. Of those promises made to our brethren, to which God was a Witness, he being appealed to concerning our sincerity; these must be performed to the Lord, with an eye to him, and for his sake: for to him, by ratifying the promises with an oath, we have made ourselves debtors; and if we break a promise so ratified, we have not lied unto men only, but unto God.

JAMISO�, "Mat_5:33-37. Same subject illustrated from the Third Commandment.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself— These are not the precise words of Exo_20:7; but they express all that it was currently understood to condemn, namely, false swearing (Lev_19:12, etc.). This is plain from what follows.

But I say unto you, Swear not at all— That this was meant to condemn swearing of every kind and on every occasion - as the Society of Friends and some other ultra-moralists allege - is not for a moment to be thought. For even Jehovah is said once and again to have sworn by Himself; and our Lord certainly answered upon oath to a question put to Him by the high priest; and the apostle several times, and in the most solemn language, takes God to witness that he spoke and wrote the truth; and it is inconceivable that our Lord should here have quoted the precept about not forswearing ourselves, but performing to the Lord our oaths, only to give a precept of His own directly in the teeth of it. Evidently, it is swearing in common intercourse and on frivolous occasions that is here meant. Frivolous oaths were indeed severely condemned in the teaching of the times. But so narrow was the circle of them that a man might swear, says Lightfoot, a hundred thousand times and yet not be guilty of vain swearing. Hardly anything was regarded as an oath if only the name of God were not in it; just as among ourselves, as Trench well remarks, a certain lingering reverence for the name of God leads to cutting off portions of His name, or uttering sounds nearly resembling it, or substituting the name of some heathen deity, in profane exclamations or asseverations. Against all this our Lord now speaks decisively; teaching His audience that every oath carries an appeal to God, whether named or not.

neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne— (quoting Isa_66:1);

HAWKER 3-37, "What a beautiful train of thoughts arise from those words of Jesus. Not only the prohibition of the Load to what is so highly unsuitable and offensive in oaths and the like, but the injunction to a simple confirmation of the Yea and Nay among the followers of Him whose name is Amen.

SBC 33-37, "I. Our Lord does not here forbid a solemn oath, such as may be required, for example, in a court of justice. The law clearly allowed such an oath for confirmation. When the high priest adjured Jesus by the living God, Jesus found no fault with it. And therefore it seems to me the act, not of an enlightened, but of an over-scrupulous conscience to refuse an oath in such circumstances. Christ does not allude to solemn adjurations, but only to the flippant expletives which were and are so eagerly used, in such a way as to impair the perfect simplicity and veracity of men’s souls.

II. Our Lord here obviously forbids all profane swearing. For other sins, it has been said, one may have something to show. But in the case of a profane swearer a man sells his soul absolutely for nought. It is the veriest wilful and wanton outrage of God’s law, without advantage to the sinner himself, and most revolting to every well-constituted mind. It is an utterly profitless vice, a degrading of God’s good gift of speech, without reason and without excuse. Therefore, "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

III. I apprehend that our Lord’s special object here is to insist on His people practising the habit of absolute truthfulness, which will not need any oath to confirm it, and which is apt to be greatly weakened by the use of such language. The needless taking of oaths tends to lessen a man’s sense of truth, and enfeeble his regard for it. Men who swear much by heaven or by earth do not regard such oaths as very binding; and once they have accustomed themselves to untruth in this way, bigger and rounder adjurations will be needed, and will be found equally useless, until the whole soul becomes corrupted with that worst of all rottenness—an utterly lying spirit.

W. C. Smith, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 116.

TRAPP, "VER 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself] An oath is ןסךןע quasi וסךןע, a hedge which a man may not break. It must not be taken without necessity. Hence the Hebrew נשבע nishbang, is a passive, and signifieth to Be sworn, rather than to swear. For if the doubt or question may be assoiled, or ended by verily or truly, or such naked asseverations, we are, by the example of our Saviour, to forbear an oath. But having sworn, though to his hurt, a man must not change, Psalms 15:4, upon pain of a curse, yea, a book full of curses, Zechariah 5:3-4. It is not for men to play with oaths as children do with nuts; to slip them at pleasure, as monkeys do their collars; to snap them asunder, as Samson did his cords. It was an impious and blasphenmus speech of him that said, "My tongue hath sworn, but my mind is

unsworn." ח�הו�צסחם�בםשלןפןעח�הו�צסחם�בםשלןפןעח�הו�צסחם�בםשלןפןעח�הו�צסחם�בםשלןפןע,�,�,�,�ח�דכשףע�ןלשלןקח�דכשףע�ןלשלןקח�דכשףע�ןלשלןקח�דכשףע�ןלשלןק .�(Euripides.)�And�who�can�but�detest�.�(Euripides.)�And�who�can�but�detest�.�(Euripides.)�And�who�can�but�detest�.�(Euripides.)�And�who�can�but�detest�

that�abominable�doctrine�of�the�Priscillianists�of�old,�and�their�heirs�the�Jesuits�of�late:that�abominable�doctrine�of�the�Priscillianists�of�old,�and�their�heirs�the�Jesuits�of�late:that�abominable�doctrine�of�the�Priscillianists�of�old,�and�their�heirs�the�Jesuits�of�late:that�abominable�doctrine�of�the�Priscillianists�of�old,�and�their�heirs�the�Jesuits�of�late:

"�Iura,�periura,�secretum�prodere�noli.""�Iura,�periura,�secretum�prodere�noli.""�Iura,�periura,�secretum�prodere�noli.""�Iura,�periura,�secretum�prodere�noli."

God will be a swift witness against perjured persons, Malachi 3:5, as those that villanously abuse his majesty, making him an accessory, yea, a partner in their sin, thinking him like themselves, and therefore calling him to justify their untruths.

Had Shimei peace, that brake his oath to Solomon? Or Zedekiah, that kept not touch with the king of Babylon? Or Ananias and Sapphira, that but uttered an untruth, swore it not? God punisheth perjury with destruction, man with disgrace, saith a FRAGME�T of the Twelve Tables in Rome; periurii poena divina exitium, humana dedecus. The Egyptians and Scythians punished it with death. So did Philip, Earl of Flanders, and others. But where men have not done it, God hath hanged up such with his own hands, as it were, as our Earl Godwin; Rodolphus, Duke of Suabia, that rebelled against his master Henry, Emperor of Germany, to whom he had sworn allegiance; Ladislaus, King of Bohemia, at the great battle of Varna, where the raging Turk, provoked by his perjury, appealed to Christ; Michael Paleologus, Emperor of Constantinople, who for his perjury, and other his foul and faithless dealings, lieth obscurely shrouded in the sheet of defame, saith the history. Richard Long, soldier at Calais, deposing falsely against William Smith, curate of Calais, shortly after, upon a displeasure of his wife, desperately drowned himself. And within the memory of man, Feb. 11, 1575, Ann Averies forswore herself at a shop in Wood Street, London, and praying God she might sink where she stood if she had not paid for the wares she took, fell down speechless, and with a horrible stink died SOO� after. Thus God hangeth up evildoers in gibbets, as it were, that others may hear and fear, and do no more so. Alterius perditio tua cautio.

But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths] As David, "I have sworn, and I will perform," &c., Psalms 119:106. And yet David was not always as good as his oath, as in the case of Mephibosheth, &c. �or did Jacob for a long time perform his vow, Genesis 28:21, though once, at least, admonished, Genesis 31:13, till he was frightfully aroused by the slaughter of the Shechemites, and his own apparent danger, to go up to Bethel and do as he had promised. {a} The font in baptism is Beersheha, the well of an oath, there we solemnly swear ourselves to God, which St Peter calleth the stipulation of a good conscience, 1 Peter 3:21. This oath we renew when we come to the other sacrament; and often besides, when the Lord layeth siege to us by some disease or other distress, what promises and protestations make we, as Pharaoh and those votaries! Psalms 78:43-51 But sciapato il morbo, fraudato il Dio, as the Italian proverb hath it; the disease or danger once over, God is defrauded of his due. See it in those, Jeremiah 34:8-22, who forfeited their fidelity, though they had cut the calf in twain, and passed through the parts thereof (a most solemn way of sealing up covenants), and are sorely threatened for it, that Ged would in like sort cut them in twain and destroy them, which was the import of that ceremony. Virgil viii.

{a} Iacob pater votorum nuncupatur. Pareus.

ELLICOTT, "(33) By them of old time.—Read, to them of old time, as before. Here, again, the reference is to the letter of the Law as taught by the Rabbis, who did not go beyond it to its wider spirit. To them the Third Commandment was simply a prohibition of perjury, as the Sixth was of murder, or the Seventh of adultery. They did not see that the holy name (Leviticus 19:12) might be profaned in other ways, even when it was not uttered; and they expressly or tacitly allowed (See Philo, De

SPECIAL. Legg.) many forms of oath in which it was not named, as with the view of guarding it from desecration. Lastly, out of the many forms thus sanctioned (as here and in Matthew 23:16-22) they selected some as binding, and others as not binding, and thus by a casuistry at once subtle, irrational, and dishonest, tampered with men’s sense of truthfulness.

COKE, "Matthew 5:33-37. Again, ye have heard, &c.— As to oaths, the doctors affirmed, that they were obligatory, according to the nature of the things by which a man swears. See ch. Matthew 23:16. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law which forbad them to forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only, as were of a binding nature. It was this detestablemorality which Jesus condemned in Matthew 5:34-36. By comparing ch. Matthew 23:16 it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. Jesus by no means condemns swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16 and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:13. Isaiah 65:16 an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but also a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great protector and patron of right, and the avenger of falsehood. But let your communication, says he, be yes, yes; no, no: "Maintain such sincerity and truth in all YOURwords, as will claim the belief of your acquaintance: so that in common conversation, to gain yourselves CREDIT, you should do no more than barely assert or deny any matter, without invoking the name of God at all; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;" or, as it may be translated, cometh of the evil one: ' See ch. Matthew 6:13. In common discourse, whatever . ֵ◌ך פןץ נןםחסןץis more than affirmation or negation, arises either from our own evil heart, or from the temptation of the devil, who prompts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen their reverence for God, and lead them at length to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations, which shew the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. We may just observe, that the Jews have a proverb among them to this purpose: "The yea of the just is yea, and their nay, nay:" that is to say, they are sincere, and perform whatever they say or promise. See James 5:12. In whatever sense the last clause be understood,—cometh of evil, it contains a demonstration, that the 34th verse is to be explained with the limitation proposed; for it is evident that oaths were in some cases not only allowed, but required by the Mosaic law. See Exodus 22:11. Leviticus 5:1. �umbers 19:21. Deuteronomy 12:14. So that if Christ's prohibition had here referred to swearing in solemn and judicial cases, he would in these words have charged the divine law with establishing an immorality; which is most absurd to suppose. See Macknight, Doddridge, and Wetstein.

Dr. Campbell well observes, that our Lord is to be considered here, not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or DE�Y, inwhich case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style to say barely, םבי ךבי ןץ, yes and no, without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexibleregard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner

of converting these adverbs into nouns is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, 2 Corinthians 1:20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen; that is, certain and infallible truths.

BARCLAY,�"A�WORD�IS�A�PLEDGE�BARCLAY,�"A�WORD�IS�A�PLEDGE�BARCLAY,�"A�WORD�IS�A�PLEDGE�BARCLAY,�"A�WORD�IS�A�PLEDGE�

Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�5555:�:�:�:�33333333----37�37�37�37�

You�have�heard�that�it�was�said�by�the�people�of�the�You�have�heard�that�it�was�said�by�the�people�of�the�You�have�heard�that�it�was�said�by�the�people�of�the�You�have�heard�that�it�was�said�by�the�people�of�the�

old�days:�You�shall�not�take�an�oath�falsely,�but�you�old�days:�You�shall�not�take�an�oath�falsely,�but�you�old�days:�You�shall�not�take�an�oath�falsely,�but�you�old�days:�You�shall�not�take�an�oath�falsely,�but�you�

shall�pay�your�oath�in�full�to�the�Lord.�But�I�say�to�shall�pay�your�oath�in�full�to�the�Lord.�But�I�say�to�shall�pay�your�oath�in�full�to�the�Lord.�But�I�say�to�shall�pay�your�oath�in�full�to�the�Lord.�But�I�say�to�

you:�Do�not�swear�at�all,�neither�by�heaven,�for�it�is�you:�Do�not�swear�at�all,�neither�by�heaven,�for�it�is�you:�Do�not�swear�at�all,�neither�by�heaven,�for�it�is�you:�Do�not�swear�at�all,�neither�by�heaven,�for�it�is�

the�throne�of�God,�nor�by�the�earth,�for�it�is�the�footthe�throne�of�God,�nor�by�the�earth,�for�it�is�the�footthe�throne�of�God,�nor�by�the�earth,�for�it�is�the�footthe�throne�of�God,�nor�by�the�earth,�for�it�is�the�foot----

stool�of�his�feet,�nor�by�Jerusalem,�for�it�is�the�city�of�stool�of�his�feet,�nor�by�Jerusalem,�for�it�is�the�city�of�stool�of�his�feet,�nor�by�Jerusalem,�for�it�is�the�city�of�stool�of�his�feet,�nor�by�Jerusalem,�for�it�is�the�city�of�

the�Great�King,�nor�by�your�head,�for�you�cannot�make�the�Great�King,�nor�by�your�head,�for�you�cannot�make�the�Great�King,�nor�by�your�head,�for�you�cannot�make�the�Great�King,�nor�by�your�head,�for�you�cannot�make�

one�hair�black�or�white.�When�you�say,�Yes,�let�it�one�hair�black�or�white.�When�you�say,�Yes,�let�it�one�hair�black�or�white.�When�you�say,�Yes,�let�it�one�hair�black�or�white.�When�you�say,�Yes,�let�it�

be�yes;�and�when�you�say,�No,�let�it�be�no.�Anything�be�yes;�and�when�you�say,�No,�let�it�be�no.�Anything�be�yes;�and�when�you�say,�No,�let�it�be�no.�Anything�be�yes;�and�when�you�say,�No,�let�it�be�no.�Anything�

which�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil.�which�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil.�which�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil.�which�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil.�

ONE�of�the�strange�things�about�the�Sermon�on�the�Mount�ONE�of�the�strange�things�about�the�Sermon�on�the�Mount�ONE�of�the�strange�things�about�the�Sermon�on�the�Mount�ONE�of�the�strange�things�about�the�Sermon�on�the�Mount�

is�the�number�of�occasions�in�it�when�Jesus�was�recalling�to�is�the�number�of�occasions�in�it�when�Jesus�was�recalling�to�is�the�number�of�occasions�in�it�when�Jesus�was�recalling�to�is�the�number�of�occasions�in�it�when�Jesus�was�recalling�to�

the�Jews�that�which�they�already�knew.�The�Jewish�the�Jews�that�which�they�already�knew.�The�Jewish�the�Jews�that�which�they�already�knew.�The�Jewish�the�Jews�that�which�they�already�knew.�The�Jewish�

teachers�had�always�insisted�on�the�paramount�obligation�teachers�had�always�insisted�on�the�paramount�obligation�teachers�had�always�insisted�on�the�paramount�obligation�teachers�had�always�insisted�on�the�paramount�obligation�

of�telling�the�truth.�"�The�world�stands�fast�on�three�of�telling�the�truth.�"�The�world�stands�fast�on�three�of�telling�the�truth.�"�The�world�stands�fast�on�three�of�telling�the�truth.�"�The�world�stands�fast�on�three�

things,�on�justice,�on�truth,�and�on�peace."�"�Four�persons�things,�on�justice,�on�truth,�and�on�peace."�"�Four�persons�things,�on�justice,�on�truth,�and�on�peace."�"�Four�persons�things,�on�justice,�on�truth,�and�on�peace."�"�Four�persons�

are�shut�out�from�the�presence�of�God�the�scoffer,�the�are�shut�out�from�the�presence�of�God�the�scoffer,�the�are�shut�out�from�the�presence�of�God�the�scoffer,�the�are�shut�out�from�the�presence�of�God�the�scoffer,�the�

hypocrite,�the�liar,�and�the�retailer�of�slander."�"�One�whohypocrite,�the�liar,�and�the�retailer�of�slander."�"�One�whohypocrite,�the�liar,�and�the�retailer�of�slander."�"�One�whohypocrite,�the�liar,�and�the�retailer�of�slander."�"�One�who

has�given�his�word�and�who�changes�it�is�as�bad�as�an�has�given�his�word�and�who�changes�it�is�as�bad�as�an�has�given�his�word�and�who�changes�it�is�as�bad�as�an�has�given�his�word�and�who�changes�it�is�as�bad�as�an�

idolater.'*�The�school�of�Shamrnai�was�su�wedded�to�the�idolater.'*�The�school�of�Shamrnai�was�su�wedded�to�the�idolater.'*�The�school�of�Shamrnai�was�su�wedded�to�the�idolater.'*�The�school�of�Shamrnai�was�su�wedded�to�the�

truth�that�they�forbade�the�ordinary�courteous�politetruth�that�they�forbade�the�ordinary�courteous�politetruth�that�they�forbade�the�ordinary�courteous�politetruth�that�they�forbade�the�ordinary�courteous�polite----

nesses�of�society,�as,�for�instance,�when�a�bride�was�comnesses�of�society,�as,�for�instance,�when�a�bride�was�comnesses�of�society,�as,�for�instance,�when�a�bride�was�comnesses�of�society,�as,�for�instance,�when�a�bride�was�com----

plimented�for�her�charming�appearance�when�in�tact�she�plimented�for�her�charming�appearance�when�in�tact�she�plimented�for�her�charming�appearance�when�in�tact�she�plimented�for�her�charming�appearance�when�in�tact�she�

was�but�illwas�but�illwas�but�illwas�but�ill----favoured�I�favoured�I�favoured�I�favoured�I�

Still�more�did�the�Jewish�teachers�insist�on�the�truth,�if�Still�more�did�the�Jewish�teachers�insist�on�the�truth,�if�Still�more�did�the�Jewish�teachers�insist�on�the�truth,�if�Still�more�did�the�Jewish�teachers�insist�on�the�truth,�if�

the�truth�had�been�guaranteed�by�an�oath.�Repeatedly�the�truth�had�been�guaranteed�by�an�oath.�Repeatedly�the�truth�had�been�guaranteed�by�an�oath.�Repeatedly�the�truth�had�been�guaranteed�by�an�oath.�Repeatedly�

that�principle�is�laid�down�in�the�New�Testament.�The�that�principle�is�laid�down�in�the�New�Testament.�The�that�principle�is�laid�down�in�the�New�Testament.�The�that�principle�is�laid�down�in�the�New�Testament.�The�

commandment�has�it:�"�'Jhou�shalt�not�take�the�name�of�commandment�has�it:�"�'Jhou�shalt�not�take�the�name�of�commandment�has�it:�"�'Jhou�shalt�not�take�the�name�of�commandment�has�it:�"�'Jhou�shalt�not�take�the�name�of�

the�Lord,�Thy�God,�in�vain;�for�the�Lord�will�not�hold�him�the�Lord,�Thy�God,�in�vain;�for�the�Lord�will�not�hold�him�the�Lord,�Thy�God,�in�vain;�for�the�Lord�will�not�hold�him�the�Lord,�Thy�God,�in�vain;�for�the�Lord�will�not�hold�him�

guiltless�that�taketh�His�name�in�vain�"�(Exodu*�guiltless�that�taketh�His�name�in�vain�"�(Exodu*�guiltless�that�taketh�His�name�in�vain�"�(Exodu*�guiltless�that�taketh�His�name�in�vain�"�(Exodu*�20202020:�:�:�:�7777).�).�).�).�

That�commandment�has�nothing�to�do�with�swearing�in�That�commandment�has�nothing�to�do�with�swearing�in�That�commandment�has�nothing�to�do�with�swearing�in�That�commandment�has�nothing�to�do�with�swearing�in�

the�sense�of�using�bad�language;�it�condemns�the�man�who�the�sense�of�using�bad�language;�it�condemns�the�man�who�the�sense�of�using�bad�language;�it�condemns�the�man�who�the�sense�of�using�bad�language;�it�condemns�the�man�who�

swears�that�something�is�true,�or�who�makes�some�promiseswears�that�something�is�true,�or�who�makes�some�promiseswears�that�something�is�true,�or�who�makes�some�promiseswears�that�something�is�true,�or�who�makes�some�promise----,�,�,�,�

in�the�name�of�God,�and�who�has�taken�the�oath�tahely.�in�the�name�of�God,�and�who�has�taken�the�oath�tahely.�in�the�name�of�God,�and�who�has�taken�the�oath�tahely.�in�the�name�of�God,�and�who�has�taken�the�oath�tahely.�

"�If�a�man�vow�a�vow�unto�the�Lord,�or�swear�an�oath�to�"�If�a�man�vow�a�vow�unto�the�Lord,�or�swear�an�oath�to�"�If�a�man�vow�a�vow�unto�the�Lord,�or�swear�an�oath�to�"�If�a�man�vow�a�vow�unto�the�Lord,�or�swear�an�oath�to�

bind�his�soul�with�a�bond,�he�shall�not�break�his�word,�he�bind�his�soul�with�a�bond,�he�shall�not�break�his�word,�he�bind�his�soul�with�a�bond,�he�shall�not�break�his�word,�he�bind�his�soul�with�a�bond,�he�shall�not�break�his�word,�he�

shall�do�according�to�all�that�proceedeth�out�of�his�mouth�"�shall�do�according�to�all�that�proceedeth�out�of�his�mouth�"�shall�do�according�to�all�that�proceedeth�out�of�his�mouth�"�shall�do�according�to�all�that�proceedeth�out�of�his�mouth�"�

(Numbers�(Numbers�(Numbers�(Numbers�30303030:�:�:�:�2222).�"�When�thou�shalt�vow�a�vow�unto�the�).�"�When�thou�shalt�vow�a�vow�unto�the�).�"�When�thou�shalt�vow�a�vow�unto�the�).�"�When�thou�shalt�vow�a�vow�unto�the�

Lord�thy�God,�thou�shalt�not�slack�to�pay�it;�for�the�Lord�Lord�thy�God,�thou�shalt�not�slack�to�pay�it;�for�the�Lord�Lord�thy�God,�thou�shalt�not�slack�to�pay�it;�for�the�Lord�Lord�thy�God,�thou�shalt�not�slack�to�pay�it;�for�the�Lord�

thy�God�shall�surely�require�it�of�thee;�and�it�would�be�sin�thy�God�shall�surely�require�it�of�thee;�and�it�would�be�sin�thy�God�shall�surely�require�it�of�thee;�and�it�would�be�sin�thy�God�shall�surely�require�it�of�thee;�and�it�would�be�sin�

in�thee�"�(Deuteronomy�in�thee�"�(Deuteronomy�in�thee�"�(Deuteronomy�in�thee�"�(Deuteronomy�23232323:�:�:�:�21212121,�,�,�,�22222222).�).�).�).�

But�in�the�time�of�Jesus�there�were�two�unsatisfactory�But�in�the�time�of�Jesus�there�were�two�unsatisfactory�But�in�the�time�of�Jesus�there�were�two�unsatisfactory�But�in�the�time�of�Jesus�there�were�two�unsatisfactory�

things�about�taking�oaths.�things�about�taking�oaths.�things�about�taking�oaths.�things�about�taking�oaths.�

The�first�was�what�might�be�called�frivolous�swearing,�The�first�was�what�might�be�called�frivolous�swearing,�The�first�was�what�might�be�called�frivolous�swearing,�The�first�was�what�might�be�called�frivolous�swearing,�

taking�an�oath�where�no�oath�was�necessary�or�proper.�It�taking�an�oath�where�no�oath�was�necessary�or�proper.�It�taking�an�oath�where�no�oath�was�necessary�or�proper.�It�taking�an�oath�where�no�oath�was�necessary�or�proper.�It�

had�become�far�too�common�a�custom�to�introduce�a�statehad�become�far�too�common�a�custom�to�introduce�a�statehad�become�far�too�common�a�custom�to�introduce�a�statehad�become�far�too�common�a�custom�to�introduce�a�state----

ment�by�saying,�"�By�thy�life,"�or,�"�By�my�head,"�or,�ment�by�saying,�"�By�thy�life,"�or,�"�By�my�head,"�or,�ment�by�saying,�"�By�thy�life,"�or,�"�By�my�head,"�or,�ment�by�saying,�"�By�thy�life,"�or,�"�By�my�head,"�or,�

"�May�I�never�see�the�comfort�of�Israel�if�.�.�."�The�Rabbis�"�May�I�never�see�the�comfort�of�Israel�if�.�.�."�The�Rabbis�"�May�I�never�see�the�comfort�of�Israel�if�.�.�."�The�Rabbis�"�May�I�never�see�the�comfort�of�Israel�if�.�.�."�The�Rabbis�

laid�it�down�that�to�use�any�form�of�oath�in�a�simple�statelaid�it�down�that�to�use�any�form�of�oath�in�a�simple�statelaid�it�down�that�to�use�any�form�of�oath�in�a�simple�statelaid�it�down�that�to�use�any�form�of�oath�in�a�simple�state----

ment�like:�"�That�is�an�olive�tree,"�was�sinful�and�wrong.�ment�like:�"�That�is�an�olive�tree,"�was�sinful�and�wrong.�ment�like:�"�That�is�an�olive�tree,"�was�sinful�and�wrong.�ment�like:�"�That�is�an�olive�tree,"�was�sinful�and�wrong.�

"�The�yes�of�the�righteous�is�yes,"�they�said,�"�and�their�no�"�The�yes�of�the�righteous�is�yes,"�they�said,�"�and�their�no�"�The�yes�of�the�righteous�is�yes,"�they�said,�"�and�their�no�"�The�yes�of�the�righteous�is�yes,"�they�said,�"�and�their�no�

is�no."�There�is�still�need�of�warning�here.�Far�too�often�is�no."�There�is�still�need�of�warning�here.�Far�too�often�is�no."�There�is�still�need�of�warning�here.�Far�too�often�is�no."�There�is�still�need�of�warning�here.�Far�too�often�

people�use�the�most�sacred�language�in�the�most�meaningless�people�use�the�most�sacred�language�in�the�most�meaningless�people�use�the�most�sacred�language�in�the�most�meaningless�people�use�the�most�sacred�language�in�the�most�meaningless�

way.�They�take�the�sacred�names�and�the�sacred�things�way.�They�take�the�sacred�names�and�the�sacred�things�way.�They�take�the�sacred�names�and�the�sacred�things�way.�They�take�the�sacred�names�and�the�sacred�things�

upon�their�lips�in�the�most�thoughtless�and�irreverent�way.�upon�their�lips�in�the�most�thoughtless�and�irreverent�way.�upon�their�lips�in�the�most�thoughtless�and�irreverent�way.�upon�their�lips�in�the�most�thoughtless�and�irreverent�way.�

The�sacred�names�should�be�kept�for�sacred�things.�The�sacred�names�should�be�kept�for�sacred�things.�The�sacred�names�should�be�kept�for�sacred�things.�The�sacred�names�should�be�kept�for�sacred�things.�

The�second�Jewish�custom�was�in�some�ways�even�worse�The�second�Jewish�custom�was�in�some�ways�even�worse�The�second�Jewish�custom�was�in�some�ways�even�worse�The�second�Jewish�custom�was�in�some�ways�even�worse�

than�that;�it�might�be�called�evasive�swearing.�The�Jews�than�that;�it�might�be�called�evasive�swearing.�The�Jews�than�that;�it�might�be�called�evasive�swearing.�The�Jews�than�that;�it�might�be�called�evasive�swearing.�The�Jews�

divided�oaths�into�two�classes,�those�which�were�absolutely�divided�oaths�into�two�classes,�those�which�were�absolutely�divided�oaths�into�two�classes,�those�which�were�absolutely�divided�oaths�into�two�classes,�those�which�were�absolutely�

binding�and�those�which�were�not.�Any�oath�which�conbinding�and�those�which�were�not.�Any�oath�which�conbinding�and�those�which�were�not.�Any�oath�which�conbinding�and�those�which�were�not.�Any�oath�which�con----

ta'ned�the�name�of�God�was�absolutely�binding;�any�oath�ta'ned�the�name�of�God�was�absolutely�binding;�any�oath�ta'ned�the�name�of�God�was�absolutely�binding;�any�oath�ta'ned�the�name�of�God�was�absolutely�binding;�any�oath�

which�succeeded�in�evading�the�name�of�God�was�held�not�which�succeeded�in�evading�the�name�of�God�was�held�not�which�succeeded�in�evading�the�name�of�God�was�held�not�which�succeeded�in�evading�the�name�of�God�was�held�not�

to�be�binding.�The�result�was�that�if�a�man�swore�by�the�to�be�binding.�The�result�was�that�if�a�man�swore�by�the�to�be�binding.�The�result�was�that�if�a�man�swore�by�the�to�be�binding.�The�result�was�that�if�a�man�swore�by�the�

name�of�God�in�any�form,�he�would�rigidly�keep�that�oath;�name�of�God�in�any�form,�he�would�rigidly�keep�that�oath;�name�of�God�in�any�form,�he�would�rigidly�keep�that�oath;�name�of�God�in�any�form,�he�would�rigidly�keep�that�oath;�

but�if�he�swore�by�heaven,�or�by�earth,�or�by�Jerusalem,�but�if�he�swore�by�heaven,�or�by�earth,�or�by�Jerusalem,�but�if�he�swore�by�heaven,�or�by�earth,�or�by�Jerusalem,�but�if�he�swore�by�heaven,�or�by�earth,�or�by�Jerusalem,�

or�by�his�head,�he�felt�quite�free�to�break�that�oath.�The�or�by�his�head,�he�felt�quite�free�to�break�that�oath.�The�or�by�his�head,�he�felt�quite�free�to�break�that�oath.�The�or�by�his�head,�he�felt�quite�free�to�break�that�oath.�The�

result�was�that�evasion�had�been�brought�to�a�fine�art.�result�was�that�evasion�had�been�brought�to�a�fine�art.�result�was�that�evasion�had�been�brought�to�a�fine�art.�result�was�that�evasion�had�been�brought�to�a�fine�art.�

The�idea�behind�this�was�that,�if�God's�name�was�used,�The�idea�behind�this�was�that,�if�God's�name�was�used,�The�idea�behind�this�was�that,�if�God's�name�was�used,�The�idea�behind�this�was�that,�if�God's�name�was�used,�

God�became�a�partner�in�the�transaction;�whereas�if�God's�God�became�a�partner�in�the�transaction;�whereas�if�God's�God�became�a�partner�in�the�transaction;�whereas�if�God's�God�became�a�partner�in�the�transaction;�whereas�if�God's�

name�was�not�used,�God�had�nothing�to�do�with�the�transname�was�not�used,�God�had�nothing�to�do�with�the�transname�was�not�used,�God�had�nothing�to�do�with�the�transname�was�not�used,�God�had�nothing�to�do�with�the�trans----

action.�The�principle�which�Jesus�lays�down�is�quite�clear.�action.�The�principle�which�Jesus�lays�down�is�quite�clear.�action.�The�principle�which�Jesus�lays�down�is�quite�clear.�action.�The�principle�which�Jesus�lays�down�is�quite�clear.�

In�effect�Jesus�is�saying�that,�so�far�from�having�to�make�In�effect�Jesus�is�saying�that,�so�far�from�having�to�make�In�effect�Jesus�is�saying�that,�so�far�from�having�to�make�In�effect�Jesus�is�saying�that,�so�far�from�having�to�make�

God�a�partner�in�any�transaction,�no�man�can�keep�God�God�a�partner�in�any�transaction,�no�man�can�keep�God�God�a�partner�in�any�transaction,�no�man�can�keep�God�God�a�partner�in�any�transaction,�no�man�can�keep�God�

out�of�any�transaction.�God�is�already�there.�The�heaven�out�of�any�transaction.�God�is�already�there.�The�heaven�out�of�any�transaction.�God�is�already�there.�The�heaven�out�of�any�transaction.�God�is�already�there.�The�heaven�

is�the�throne�of�God;�the�earth�is�the�footstool�of�God;�is�the�throne�of�God;�the�earth�is�the�footstool�of�God;�is�the�throne�of�God;�the�earth�is�the�footstool�of�God;�is�the�throne�of�God;�the�earth�is�the�footstool�of�God;�

Jerusalem�is�the�city�of�God;�a�man's�head�does�not�belong�Jerusalem�is�the�city�of�God;�a�man's�head�does�not�belong�Jerusalem�is�the�city�of�God;�a�man's�head�does�not�belong�Jerusalem�is�the�city�of�God;�a�man's�head�does�not�belong�

to�him;�he�cannot�even�make�a�hair�white�or�black;�his�to�him;�he�cannot�even�make�a�hair�white�or�black;�his�to�him;�he�cannot�even�make�a�hair�white�or�black;�his�to�him;�he�cannot�even�make�a�hair�white�or�black;�his�

ife�is�God's;�there�is�nothing�in�the�world�which�does�not�ife�is�God's;�there�is�nothing�in�the�world�which�does�not�ife�is�God's;�there�is�nothing�in�the�world�which�does�not�ife�is�God's;�there�is�nothing�in�the�world�which�does�not�

belong�to�God;�and,�therefore,�whether�God�is�actually�belong�to�God;�and,�therefore,�whether�God�is�actually�belong�to�God;�and,�therefore,�whether�God�is�actually�belong�to�God;�and,�therefore,�whether�God�is�actually�

named�in�so�many�words�or�not,�does�not�matter.�God�is�named�in�so�many�words�or�not,�does�not�matter.�God�is�named�in�so�many�words�or�not,�does�not�matter.�God�is�named�in�so�many�words�or�not,�does�not�matter.�God�is�

there�already.�there�already.�there�already.�there�already.�

Here�is�a�great�eternal�truth.�Life�cannot�be�divided�into�Here�is�a�great�eternal�truth.�Life�cannot�be�divided�into�Here�is�a�great�eternal�truth.�Life�cannot�be�divided�into�Here�is�a�great�eternal�truth.�Life�cannot�be�divided�into�

compartments�in�some�of�which�God�is�involved�and�in�compartments�in�some�of�which�God�is�involved�and�in�compartments�in�some�of�which�God�is�involved�and�in�compartments�in�some�of�which�God�is�involved�and�in�

others�of�which�he�is�not�involved�;�there�cannot�be�one�kind�others�of�which�he�is�not�involved�;�there�cannot�be�one�kind�others�of�which�he�is�not�involved�;�there�cannot�be�one�kind�others�of�which�he�is�not�involved�;�there�cannot�be�one�kind�

of�language�in�the�Church�and�another�kind�of�language�in�of�language�in�the�Church�and�another�kind�of�language�in�of�language�in�the�Church�and�another�kind�of�language�in�of�language�in�the�Church�and�another�kind�of�language�in�

the�shipyard�or�the�factory�or�the�office;�there�cannot�be�the�shipyard�or�the�factory�or�the�office;�there�cannot�be�the�shipyard�or�the�factory�or�the�office;�there�cannot�be�the�shipyard�or�the�factory�or�the�office;�there�cannot�be�

one�kind�of�standard�of�conduct�in�the�Church�and�another�one�kind�of�standard�of�conduct�in�the�Church�and�another�one�kind�of�standard�of�conduct�in�the�Church�and�another�one�kind�of�standard�of�conduct�in�the�Church�and�another�

kind�of�standard�in�the�business�world.�The�fact�is�that�kind�of�standard�in�the�business�world.�The�fact�is�that�kind�of�standard�in�the�business�world.�The�fact�is�that�kind�of�standard�in�the�business�world.�The�fact�is�that�

God�does�not�need�to�be�invited�into�certain�departments�God�does�not�need�to�be�invited�into�certain�departments�God�does�not�need�to�be�invited�into�certain�departments�God�does�not�need�to�be�invited�into�certain�departments�

of�life,�and�kept�out�of�others.�He�is�everywhere,�all�through�of�life,�and�kept�out�of�others.�He�is�everywhere,�all�through�of�life,�and�kept�out�of�others.�He�is�everywhere,�all�through�of�life,�and�kept�out�of�others.�He�is�everywhere,�all�through�

life�and�every�activity�of�life.�He�hears�not�only�the�words�life�and�every�activity�of�life.�He�hears�not�only�the�words�life�and�every�activity�of�life.�He�hears�not�only�the�words�life�and�every�activity�of�life.�He�hears�not�only�the�words�

which�are�spoken�in�His�name;�He�hears�all�words;�and�which�are�spoken�in�His�name;�He�hears�all�words;�and�which�are�spoken�in�His�name;�He�hears�all�words;�and�which�are�spoken�in�His�name;�He�hears�all�words;�and�

there�cannot�be�any�such�thing�as�a�form�of�words�which�there�cannot�be�any�such�thing�as�a�form�of�words�which�there�cannot�be�any�such�thing�as�a�form�of�words�which�there�cannot�be�any�such�thing�as�a�form�of�words�which�

evades�bringing�God�into�any�transaction.�We�will�regard�evades�bringing�God�into�any�transaction.�We�will�regard�evades�bringing�God�into�any�transaction.�We�will�regard�evades�bringing�God�into�any�transaction.�We�will�regard�

all�promises*�as�sacred,�if�we�remember�that�all�promises�all�promises*�as�sacred,�if�we�remember�that�all�promises�all�promises*�as�sacred,�if�we�remember�that�all�promises�all�promises*�as�sacred,�if�we�remember�that�all�promises�

are�made�in�the�presence�of�God.�are�made�in�the�presence�of�God.�are�made�in�the�presence�of�God.�are�made�in�the�presence�of�God.�

THE�END�OF�OATHS�THE�END�OF�OATHS�THE�END�OF�OATHS�THE�END�OF�OATHS�

Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�Matthew�5555:�:�:�:�33333333----37�37�37�37�(continued)�(continued)�(continued)�(continued)�

THIS�passage�concludes�with�the�commandment�that�when�THIS�passage�concludes�with�the�commandment�that�when�THIS�passage�concludes�with�the�commandment�that�when�THIS�passage�concludes�with�the�commandment�that�when�

a�man�has�to�say�yes,�he�should�say�yes,�and�nothing�more;�a�man�has�to�say�yes,�he�should�say�yes,�and�nothing�more;�a�man�has�to�say�yes,�he�should�say�yes,�and�nothing�more;�a�man�has�to�say�yes,�he�should�say�yes,�and�nothing�more;�

and�when�he�has�to�say�no,�he�should�say�no,�and�nothing�and�when�he�has�to�say�no,�he�should�say�no,�and�nothing�and�when�he�has�to�say�no,�he�should�say�no,�and�nothing�and�when�he�has�to�say�no,�he�should�say�no,�and�nothing�

more.�more.�more.�more.�

The�ideal�is�that�a�man�should�never�need�an�oath�to�The�ideal�is�that�a�man�should�never�need�an�oath�to�The�ideal�is�that�a�man�should�never�need�an�oath�to�The�ideal�is�that�a�man�should�never�need�an�oath�to�

buttress�or�guarantee�the�truth�ot�anything�he�may�say.�buttress�or�guarantee�the�truth�ot�anything�he�may�say.�buttress�or�guarantee�the�truth�ot�anything�he�may�say.�buttress�or�guarantee�the�truth�ot�anything�he�may�say.�

The�man's�character�should�make�an�oath�completely�The�man's�character�should�make�an�oath�completely�The�man's�character�should�make�an�oath�completely�The�man's�character�should�make�an�oath�completely�

unnecessary.�His�guarantee�and�his�witness�should�lie�in�unnecessary.�His�guarantee�and�his�witness�should�lie�in�unnecessary.�His�guarantee�and�his�witness�should�lie�in�unnecessary.�His�guarantee�and�his�witness�should�lie�in�

what�he�is�himself.�Isocrates,�the�great�Greek�teacher�and�what�he�is�himself.�Isocrates,�the�great�Greek�teacher�and�what�he�is�himself.�Isocrates,�the�great�Greek�teacher�and�what�he�is�himself.�Isocrates,�the�great�Greek�teacher�and�

orator,�said,�"A�man�must�lead�a�life�which�will�gain�more�orator,�said,�"A�man�must�lead�a�life�which�will�gain�more�orator,�said,�"A�man�must�lead�a�life�which�will�gain�more�orator,�said,�"A�man�must�lead�a�life�which�will�gain�more�

confidence�in�him�than�ever�an�oath�can�do."�Clement�of�confidence�in�him�than�ever�an�oath�can�do."�Clement�of�confidence�in�him�than�ever�an�oath�can�do."�Clement�of�confidence�in�him�than�ever�an�oath�can�do."�Clement�of�

Alexandria�insisted�that�Christians�must�lead�such�a�life�Alexandria�insisted�that�Christians�must�lead�such�a�life�Alexandria�insisted�that�Christians�must�lead�such�a�life�Alexandria�insisted�that�Christians�must�lead�such�a�life�

and�demonstrate�such�a�character�that�no�one�will�ever�and�demonstrate�such�a�character�that�no�one�will�ever�and�demonstrate�such�a�character�that�no�one�will�ever�and�demonstrate�such�a�character�that�no�one�will�ever�

dream�ot�asking�an�oath�from�them.�The�ideal�society�is�dream�ot�asking�an�oath�from�them.�The�ideal�society�is�dream�ot�asking�an�oath�from�them.�The�ideal�society�is�dream�ot�asking�an�oath�from�them.�The�ideal�society�is�

one�in�which�no�man's�word�will�ever�need�an�oath�to�one�in�which�no�man's�word�will�ever�need�an�oath�to�one�in�which�no�man's�word�will�ever�need�an�oath�to�one�in�which�no�man's�word�will�ever�need�an�oath�to�

guarantee�its�truth,�and�no�man's�promise�ever�need�an�guarantee�its�truth,�and�no�man's�promise�ever�need�an�guarantee�its�truth,�and�no�man's�promise�ever�need�an�guarantee�its�truth,�and�no�man's�promise�ever�need�an�

oath�to�guarantee�its�fulfilling.�oath�to�guarantee�its�fulfilling.�oath�to�guarantee�its�fulfilling.�oath�to�guarantee�its�fulfilling.�

Does�this�saying�of�Jesus�then�forbid�a�man�to�take�Does�this�saying�of�Jesus�then�forbid�a�man�to�take�Does�this�saying�of�Jesus�then�forbid�a�man�to�take�Does�this�saying�of�Jesus�then�forbid�a�man�to�take�

an�oath�anywhere,�for�instance,�in�the�witness�box?�There�an�oath�anywhere,�for�instance,�in�the�witness�box?�There�an�oath�anywhere,�for�instance,�in�the�witness�box?�There�an�oath�anywhere,�for�instance,�in�the�witness�box?�There�

have�been�two�sets�of�people�who�completely�refused�all�have�been�two�sets�of�people�who�completely�refused�all�have�been�two�sets�of�people�who�completely�refused�all�have�been�two�sets�of�people�who�completely�refused�all�

oaths.�There�were�the�Essenes,�an�ancient�sect�ot�the�Jews.�oaths.�There�were�the�Essenes,�an�ancient�sect�ot�the�Jews.�oaths.�There�were�the�Essenes,�an�ancient�sect�ot�the�Jews.�oaths.�There�were�the�Essenes,�an�ancient�sect�ot�the�Jews.�

Josephus�writes�of�them:�"�They�are�eminent�for�fidelity�Josephus�writes�of�them:�"�They�are�eminent�for�fidelity�Josephus�writes�of�them:�"�They�are�eminent�for�fidelity�Josephus�writes�of�them:�"�They�are�eminent�for�fidelity�

and�are�ministers�of�peace.�Whatsoever�they�say�also�is�and�are�ministers�of�peace.�Whatsoever�they�say�also�is�and�are�ministers�of�peace.�Whatsoever�they�say�also�is�and�are�ministers�of�peace.�Whatsoever�they�say�also�is�

firmer�than�an�oath.�Swearing�is�avoided�by�them�and�they�firmer�than�an�oath.�Swearing�is�avoided�by�them�and�they�firmer�than�an�oath.�Swearing�is�avoided�by�them�and�they�firmer�than�an�oath.�Swearing�is�avoided�by�them�and�they�

esteem�it�worse�than�perjury.�For�they�say�that�he�who�esteem�it�worse�than�perjury.�For�they�say�that�he�who�esteem�it�worse�than�perjury.�For�they�say�that�he�who�esteem�it�worse�than�perjury.�For�they�say�that�he�who�

cannot�be�believed�without�swearing�is�already�concannot�be�believed�without�swearing�is�already�concannot�be�believed�without�swearing�is�already�concannot�be�believed�without�swearing�is�already�con----

demned."�There�were,�and�still�are,�the�Quakers.�The�demned."�There�were,�and�still�are,�the�Quakers.�The�demned."�There�were,�and�still�are,�the�Quakers.�The�demned."�There�were,�and�still�are,�the�Quakers.�The�

Quakers�will�not�in�any�situation�submit�to�taking�an�oath.�Quakers�will�not�in�any�situation�submit�to�taking�an�oath.�Quakers�will�not�in�any�situation�submit�to�taking�an�oath.�Quakers�will�not�in�any�situation�submit�to�taking�an�oath.�

The�utmost�length�to�which�George�Fox�would�go�was�to�The�utmost�length�to�which�George�Fox�would�go�was�to�The�utmost�length�to�which�George�Fox�would�go�was�to�The�utmost�length�to�which�George�Fox�would�go�was�to�

use�the�word�Verily.�He�writes:�"�I�never�wronged�man�or�use�the�word�Verily.�He�writes:�"�I�never�wronged�man�or�use�the�word�Verily.�He�writes:�"�I�never�wronged�man�or�use�the�word�Verily.�He�writes:�"�I�never�wronged�man�or�

woman�in�all�that�time�(the�time�that�he�worked�in�business).�woman�in�all�that�time�(the�time�that�he�worked�in�business).�woman�in�all�that�time�(the�time�that�he�worked�in�business).�woman�in�all�that�time�(the�time�that�he�worked�in�business).�

While�I�was�in�that�service,�I�used�in�my�dealings�the�word�While�I�was�in�that�service,�I�used�in�my�dealings�the�word�While�I�was�in�that�service,�I�used�in�my�dealings�the�word�While�I�was�in�that�service,�I�used�in�my�dealings�the�word�

Verily,�and�it�was�a�common�saying,�'�It�George�Fox�says�Verily,�and�it�was�a�common�saying,�'�It�George�Fox�says�Verily,�and�it�was�a�common�saying,�'�It�George�Fox�says�Verily,�and�it�was�a�common�saying,�'�It�George�Fox�says�

Verily,�there�is�no�altering�him.'�"�In�the�ancient�days�the�Verily,�there�is�no�altering�him.'�"�In�the�ancient�days�the�Verily,�there�is�no�altering�him.'�"�In�the�ancient�days�the�Verily,�there�is�no�altering�him.'�"�In�the�ancient�days�the�

Essenes�would�not�in�any�circumstances�take�an�oath,�and�Essenes�would�not�in�any�circumstances�take�an�oath,�and�Essenes�would�not�in�any�circumstances�take�an�oath,�and�Essenes�would�not�in�any�circumstances�take�an�oath,�and�

to�this�day�the�Quakers�are�the�same.�to�this�day�the�Quakers�are�the�same.�to�this�day�the�Quakers�are�the�same.�to�this�day�the�Quakers�are�the�same.�

Are�they�correct�in�taking�this�line�in�this�matter?�There�Are�they�correct�in�taking�this�line�in�this�matter?�There�Are�they�correct�in�taking�this�line�in�this�matter?�There�Are�they�correct�in�taking�this�line�in�this�matter?�There�

were�occasions�when�Paul�took�an�oath,�and,�as�it�were,�put�were�occasions�when�Paul�took�an�oath,�and,�as�it�were,�put�were�occasions�when�Paul�took�an�oath,�and,�as�it�were,�put�were�occasions�when�Paul�took�an�oath,�and,�as�it�were,�put�

himself�upon�oath.�"�/�call�God�for�a�record�on�my�soul,"�himself�upon�oath.�"�/�call�God�for�a�record�on�my�soul,"�himself�upon�oath.�"�/�call�God�for�a�record�on�my�soul,"�himself�upon�oath.�"�/�call�God�for�a�record�on�my�soul,"�

he�writes�to�the�Corinthians,�"�that�to�spare�you�I�came�not�he�writes�to�the�Corinthians,�"�that�to�spare�you�I�came�not�he�writes�to�the�Corinthians,�"�that�to�spare�you�I�came�not�he�writes�to�the�Corinthians,�"�that�to�spare�you�I�came�not�

again�to�Corinth�"�(again�to�Corinth�"�(again�to�Corinth�"�(again�to�Corinth�"�(2�2�2�2�Corinthians�I:�Corinthians�I:�Corinthians�I:�Corinthians�I:�23232323).�"�Now�the�).�"�Now�the�).�"�Now�the�).�"�Now�the�

things�that�I�write�unto�you,"�he�writes�to�the�Galatians,�things�that�I�write�unto�you,"�he�writes�to�the�Galatians,�things�that�I�write�unto�you,"�he�writes�to�the�Galatians,�things�that�I�write�unto�you,"�he�writes�to�the�Galatians,�

"�behold,�before�God,�I�lie�not�"�(Galatians�I:�"�behold,�before�God,�I�lie�not�"�(Galatians�I:�"�behold,�before�God,�I�lie�not�"�(Galatians�I:�"�behold,�before�God,�I�lie�not�"�(Galatians�I:�20202020).�On�these�).�On�these�).�On�these�).�On�these�

occasions�Paul�is�putting�himselt�on�oath.�Jesus�Himself�occasions�Paul�is�putting�himselt�on�oath.�Jesus�Himself�occasions�Paul�is�putting�himselt�on�oath.�Jesus�Himself�occasions�Paul�is�putting�himselt�on�oath.�Jesus�Himself�

did�not�protest�at�being�put�upon�oath.�At�his�trial�before�did�not�protest�at�being�put�upon�oath.�At�his�trial�before�did�not�protest�at�being�put�upon�oath.�At�his�trial�before�did�not�protest�at�being�put�upon�oath.�At�his�trial�before�

the�High�Priest,�the�High�Priest�said�to�Him:�"�I�adjure�the�High�Priest,�the�High�Priest�said�to�Him:�"�I�adjure�the�High�Priest,�the�High�Priest�said�to�Him:�"�I�adjure�the�High�Priest,�the�High�Priest�said�to�Him:�"�I�adjure�

you�by�the�living�God�I�put�you�on�oath�by�God�Himselt�you�by�the�living�God�I�put�you�on�oath�by�God�Himselt�you�by�the�living�God�I�put�you�on�oath�by�God�Himselt�you�by�the�living�God�I�put�you�on�oath�by�God�Himselt�

that�Thou�tel>�us�whether�Thou�be�the�Christ,�the�Son�of�that�Thou�tel>�us�whether�Thou�be�the�Christ,�the�Son�of�that�Thou�tel>�us�whether�Thou�be�the�Christ,�the�Son�of�that�Thou�tel>�us�whether�Thou�be�the�Christ,�the�Son�of�

God�"�(Matthew�God�"�(Matthew�God�"�(Matthew�God�"�(Matthew�26262626:�:�:�:�63636363),�What�then�is�the�situation?�),�What�then�is�the�situation?�),�What�then�is�the�situation?�),�What�then�is�the�situation?�

Let�us�look�at�the�last�part�of�this�verse.�The�Authorised�Let�us�look�at�the�last�part�of�this�verse.�The�Authorised�Let�us�look�at�the�last�part�of�this�verse.�The�Authorised�Let�us�look�at�the�last�part�of�this�verse.�The�Authorised�

Version�has�it�that�a�man�must�answer�simply�yes�or�no,�Version�has�it�that�a�man�must�answer�simply�yes�or�no,�Version�has�it�that�a�man�must�answer�simply�yes�or�no,�Version�has�it�that�a�man�must�answer�simply�yes�or�no,�

"�tor�whatsoever�is�more�than�these�cometh�of�evil,�anything�"�tor�whatsoever�is�more�than�these�cometh�of�evil,�anything�"�tor�whatsoever�is�more�than�these�cometh�of�evil,�anything�"�tor�whatsoever�is�more�than�these�cometh�of�evil,�anything�

that�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil."�What�does�that�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil."�What�does�that�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil."�What�does�that�goes�beyond�that�has�its�source�in�evil."�What�does�

that�mean?�It�can�mean�one�of�two�things.�that�mean?�It�can�mean�one�of�two�things.�that�mean?�It�can�mean�one�of�two�things.�that�mean?�It�can�mean�one�of�two�things.�

(a)�If�it�is�necessary�to�take�an�oath�from�a�man,�that�(a)�If�it�is�necessary�to�take�an�oath�from�a�man,�that�(a)�If�it�is�necessary�to�take�an�oath�from�a�man,�that�(a)�If�it�is�necessary�to�take�an�oath�from�a�man,�that�

necessity�arises�trom�the�evil�that�is�in�man.�If�there�was�necessity�arises�trom�the�evil�that�is�in�man.�If�there�was�necessity�arises�trom�the�evil�that�is�in�man.�If�there�was�necessity�arises�trom�the�evil�that�is�in�man.�If�there�was�

no�evil�in�man,�no�oath�would�be�necessary.�That�is�to�say,�no�evil�in�man,�no�oath�would�be�necessary.�That�is�to�say,�no�evil�in�man,�no�oath�would�be�necessary.�That�is�to�say,�no�evil�in�man,�no�oath�would�be�necessary.�That�is�to�say,�

the�fact�that�it�is�sometimes�necessary�to�make�a�man�take�the�fact�that�it�is�sometimes�necessary�to�make�a�man�take�the�fact�that�it�is�sometimes�necessary�to�make�a�man�take�the�fact�that�it�is�sometimes�necessary�to�make�a�man�take�

an�oath�is�a�demonstration�of�the�evil�in�Christless�human�an�oath�is�a�demonstration�of�the�evil�in�Christless�human�an�oath�is�a�demonstration�of�the�evil�in�Christless�human�an�oath�is�a�demonstration�of�the�evil�in�Christless�human�

nature.�nature.�nature.�nature.�

(b)�The�fact�that�it�is�necessary�to�put�men�on�oath�on�(b)�The�fact�that�it�is�necessary�to�put�men�on�oath�on�(b)�The�fact�that�it�is�necessary�to�put�men�on�oath�on�(b)�The�fact�that�it�is�necessary�to�put�men�on�oath�on�

certain�occasions�arises�from�the�fact�that�this�is�an�evil�certain�occasions�arises�from�the�fact�that�this�is�an�evil�certain�occasions�arises�from�the�fact�that�this�is�an�evil�certain�occasions�arises�from�the�fact�that�this�is�an�evil�

world.�In�a�perfect�world,�in�a�world�which�was�the�Kingworld.�In�a�perfect�world,�in�a�world�which�was�the�Kingworld.�In�a�perfect�world,�in�a�world�which�was�the�Kingworld.�In�a�perfect�world,�in�a�world�which�was�the�King----

dom�of�God,�no�taking�ot�oaths�would�ever�be�necessary.�dom�of�God,�no�taking�ot�oaths�would�ever�be�necessary.�dom�of�God,�no�taking�ot�oaths�would�ever�be�necessary.�dom�of�God,�no�taking�ot�oaths�would�ever�be�necessary.�

It�is�necessary�only�because�of�the�evil�of�the�world.�It�is�necessary�only�because�of�the�evil�of�the�world.�It�is�necessary�only�because�of�the�evil�of�the�world.�It�is�necessary�only�because�of�the�evil�of�the�world.�

What�Jesus�is�saying�is�this�the�truly�good�man�will�What�Jesus�is�saying�is�this�the�truly�good�man�will�What�Jesus�is�saying�is�this�the�truly�good�man�will�What�Jesus�is�saying�is�this�the�truly�good�man�will�

never�need�to�take�an�oath;�the�truth�of�his�sayings�and�never�need�to�take�an�oath;�the�truth�of�his�sayings�and�never�need�to�take�an�oath;�the�truth�of�his�sayings�and�never�need�to�take�an�oath;�the�truth�of�his�sayings�and�

the�reality�of�his�promises�need�no�such�guarantee.�But�the�the�reality�of�his�promises�need�no�such�guarantee.�But�the�the�reality�of�his�promises�need�no�such�guarantee.�But�the�the�reality�of�his�promises�need�no�such�guarantee.�But�the�

fact�that�oaths�are�still�sometimes�necessary�is�the�proof�fact�that�oaths�are�still�sometimes�necessary�is�the�proof�fact�that�oaths�are�still�sometimes�necessary�is�the�proof�fact�that�oaths�are�still�sometimes�necessary�is�the�proof�

that�men�are�not�good�men�and�that�this�is�not�a�good�world.�that�men�are�not�good�men�and�that�this�is�not�a�good�world.�that�men�are�not�good�men�and�that�this�is�not�a�good�world.�that�men�are�not�good�men�and�that�this�is�not�a�good�world.�

So,�then,�this�saying�of�Jesus�leaves�two�obligations�upon�So,�then,�this�saying�of�Jesus�leaves�two�obligations�upon�So,�then,�this�saying�of�Jesus�leaves�two�obligations�upon�So,�then,�this�saying�of�Jesus�leaves�two�obligations�upon�

us.�It�leaves�upon�us�the�obligation�to�make�ourselves�us.�It�leaves�upon�us�the�obligation�to�make�ourselves�us.�It�leaves�upon�us�the�obligation�to�make�ourselves�us.�It�leaves�upon�us�the�obligation�to�make�ourselves�

such�that�men�will�so�see�our�transparent�goodness�that�such�that�men�will�so�see�our�transparent�goodness�that�such�that�men�will�so�see�our�transparent�goodness�that�such�that�men�will�so�see�our�transparent�goodness�that�

they�will�never�ask�an�oath�from�us�;�and�it�leaves�upon�us�they�will�never�ask�an�oath�from�us�;�and�it�leaves�upon�us�they�will�never�ask�an�oath�from�us�;�and�it�leaves�upon�us�they�will�never�ask�an�oath�from�us�;�and�it�leaves�upon�us�

the�obligation�to�seek�to�make�this�world�such�a�world�the�obligation�to�seek�to�make�this�world�such�a�world�the�obligation�to�seek�to�make�this�world�such�a�world�the�obligation�to�seek�to�make�this�world�such�a�world�

that�falsehood�and�infidelity�will�be�so�eliminated�from�it�that�falsehood�and�infidelity�will�be�so�eliminated�from�it�that�falsehood�and�infidelity�will�be�so�eliminated�from�it�that�falsehood�and�infidelity�will�be�so�eliminated�from�it�

that�the�necessity�for�oaths�will�be�abolished.�that�the�necessity�for�oaths�will�be�abolished.�that�the�necessity�for�oaths�will�be�abolished.�that�the�necessity�for�oaths�will�be�abolished.�

CALVIN,�"CALVIN,�"CALVIN,�"CALVIN,�"33333333.Thou�shalt�not�perjure�thyself�This�also�is�not�a�CORRECTION�of�the�.Thou�shalt�not�perjure�thyself�This�also�is�not�a�CORRECTION�of�the�.Thou�shalt�not�perjure�thyself�This�also�is�not�a�CORRECTION�of�the�.Thou�shalt�not�perjure�thyself�This�also�is�not�a�CORRECTION�of�the�

law,�but�a�true�interpretation�of�it.�For�God�condemned�in�the�law�not�only�acts�of�law,�but�a�true�interpretation�of�it.�For�God�condemned�in�the�law�not�only�acts�of�law,�but�a�true�interpretation�of�it.�For�God�condemned�in�the�law�not�only�acts�of�law,�but�a�true�interpretation�of�it.�For�God�condemned�in�the�law�not�only�acts�of�

perjury,�but�lightness�in�swearing,�which�lessens�the�reverence�for�his�name.�The�man�perjury,�but�lightness�in�swearing,�which�lessens�the�reverence�for�his�name.�The�man�perjury,�but�lightness�in�swearing,�which�lessens�the�reverence�for�his�name.�The�man�perjury,�but�lightness�in�swearing,�which�lessens�the�reverence�for�his�name.�The�man�

who�perjures�himself�is�not�the�only�person�who�takes�the�name�of�God�in�vain,�(Exo_who�perjures�himself�is�not�the�only�person�who�takes�the�name�of�God�in�vain,�(Exo_who�perjures�himself�is�not�the�only�person�who�takes�the�name�of�God�in�vain,�(Exo_who�perjures�himself�is�not�the�only�person�who�takes�the�name�of�God�in�vain,�(Exo_

20202020::::7777.)�He�does�so,�who�idly�and�contemptuously�pronounces�the�name�of�God�on�trivial�.)�He�does�so,�who�idly�and�contemptuously�pronounces�the�name�of�God�on�trivial�.)�He�does�so,�who�idly�and�contemptuously�pronounces�the�name�of�God�on�trivial�.)�He�does�so,�who�idly�and�contemptuously�pronounces�the�name�of�God�on�trivial�

occasions,�or�in�ordinary�conversation.�While�the�law�condemns�every�kind�of�occasions,�or�in�ordinary�conversation.�While�the�law�condemns�every�kind�of�occasions,�or�in�ordinary�conversation.�While�the�law�condemns�every�kind�of�occasions,�or�in�ordinary�conversation.�While�the�law�condemns�every�kind�of�

profanation�of�the�name�of�God�the�Jews�imagined,�that�the�guilt�of�it�lay�entirely�in�profanation�of�the�name�of�God�the�Jews�imagined,�that�the�guilt�of�it�lay�entirely�in�profanation�of�the�name�of�God�the�Jews�imagined,�that�the�guilt�of�it�lay�entirely�in�profanation�of�the�name�of�God�the�Jews�imagined,�that�the�guilt�of�it�lay�entirely�in�

acts�of�perjury.�Christ�reproves�this�gross�ERROR�of�supposing�that�they�might,�acts�of�perjury.�Christ�reproves�this�gross�ERROR�of�supposing�that�they�might,�acts�of�perjury.�Christ�reproves�this�gross�ERROR�of�supposing�that�they�might,�acts�of�perjury.�Christ�reproves�this�gross�ERROR�of�supposing�that�they�might,�

without�danger,�abuse�the�name�of�God,�provided�they�did�not�swear�falsely.�We�are,�without�danger,�abuse�the�name�of�God,�provided�they�did�not�swear�falsely.�We�are,�without�danger,�abuse�the�name�of�God,�provided�they�did�not�swear�falsely.�We�are,�without�danger,�abuse�the�name�of�God,�provided�they�did�not�swear�falsely.�We�are,�

no�doubt,�strictly�enjoined�to�perform�to�the�Lord�what�we�have�sworn:�for�he�who,�no�doubt,�strictly�enjoined�to�perform�to�the�Lord�what�we�have�sworn:�for�he�who,�no�doubt,�strictly�enjoined�to�perform�to�the�Lord�what�we�have�sworn:�for�he�who,�no�doubt,�strictly�enjoined�to�perform�to�the�Lord�what�we�have�sworn:�for�he�who,�

after�EMPLOYING�the�name�of�God,�cheats�and�deceives�his�neighbors,�does�an�after�EMPLOYING�the�name�of�God,�cheats�and�deceives�his�neighbors,�does�an�after�EMPLOYING�the�name�of�God,�cheats�and�deceives�his�neighbors,�does�an�after�EMPLOYING�the�name�of�God,�cheats�and�deceives�his�neighbors,�does�an�

injury�to�God�as�well�as�to�man.�But�it�is�improper�to�confine�to�a�single�part�that�which�injury�to�God�as�well�as�to�man.�But�it�is�improper�to�confine�to�a�single�part�that�which�injury�to�God�as�well�as�to�man.�But�it�is�improper�to�confine�to�a�single�part�that�which�injury�to�God�as�well�as�to�man.�But�it�is�improper�to�confine�to�a�single�part�that�which�

has�a�wider�reference.�Some�consider�the�word�perform�as�applying�to�vows,�when�any�has�a�wider�reference.�Some�consider�the�word�perform�as�applying�to�vows,�when�any�has�a�wider�reference.�Some�consider�the�word�perform�as�applying�to�vows,�when�any�has�a�wider�reference.�Some�consider�the�word�perform�as�applying�to�vows,�when�any�

thing�has�been�promised�to�God�on�ACCOUNTof�religion.�But�this�mode�of�thing�has�been�promised�to�God�on�ACCOUNTof�religion.�But�this�mode�of�thing�has�been�promised�to�God�on�ACCOUNTof�religion.�But�this�mode�of�thing�has�been�promised�to�God�on�ACCOUNTof�religion.�But�this�mode�of�

expression�applies�very�well�to�all�promises�and�engagements,�which�have�been�expression�applies�very�well�to�all�promises�and�engagements,�which�have�been�expression�applies�very�well�to�all�promises�and�engagements,�which�have�been�expression�applies�very�well�to�all�promises�and�engagements,�which�have�been�

sanctioned�by�the�use�of�the�name�of�God:�for�in�such�cases�God�is�appealed�to�as�sanctioned�by�the�use�of�the�name�of�God:�for�in�such�cases�God�is�appealed�to�as�sanctioned�by�the�use�of�the�name�of�God:�for�in�such�cases�God�is�appealed�to�as�sanctioned�by�the�use�of�the�name�of�God:�for�in�such�cases�God�is�appealed�to�as�

guarantee�between�the�parties,�to�secure�their�fidelity.�guarantee�between�the�parties,�to�secure�their�fidelity.�guarantee�between�the�parties,�to�secure�their�fidelity.�guarantee�between�the�parties,�to�secure�their�fidelity.�

COFFMAN,�"THE�NINTH�COMMANDMENT;�REVISED�(MATT.�COFFMAN,�"THE�NINTH�COMMANDMENT;�REVISED�(MATT.�COFFMAN,�"THE�NINTH�COMMANDMENT;�REVISED�(MATT.�COFFMAN,�"THE�NINTH�COMMANDMENT;�REVISED�(MATT.�5555::::33333333----37373737))))

In�this�passage,�Christ�does�not�QUOTE�verbatim�from�the�Ninth�Commandment,�but�In�this�passage,�Christ�does�not�QUOTE�verbatim�from�the�Ninth�Commandment,�but�In�this�passage,�Christ�does�not�QUOTE�verbatim�from�the�Ninth�Commandment,�but�In�this�passage,�Christ�does�not�QUOTE�verbatim�from�the�Ninth�Commandment,�but�

rather�deals�with�Pharisaical�deductions,�extensions,�and�exceptions�on�the�Great�rather�deals�with�Pharisaical�deductions,�extensions,�and�exceptions�on�the�Great�rather�deals�with�Pharisaical�deductions,�extensions,�and�exceptions�on�the�Great�rather�deals�with�Pharisaical�deductions,�extensions,�and�exceptions�on�the�Great�

Word�which�said,�"THOU�SHALT�NOT�BEAR�FALSE�WITNESS,"�It�was�far�more�Word�which�said,�"THOU�SHALT�NOT�BEAR�FALSE�WITNESS,"�It�was�far�more�Word�which�said,�"THOU�SHALT�NOT�BEAR�FALSE�WITNESS,"�It�was�far�more�Word�which�said,�"THOU�SHALT�NOT�BEAR�FALSE�WITNESS,"�It�was�far�more�

offensive�to�the�priestly�mentality�for�one�to�violate�his�oath,�especially�with�reference�offensive�to�the�priestly�mentality�for�one�to�violate�his�oath,�especially�with�reference�offensive�to�the�priestly�mentality�for�one�to�violate�his�oath,�especially�with�reference�offensive�to�the�priestly�mentality�for�one�to�violate�his�oath,�especially�with�reference�

to�some�gift�to�the�temple,�than�to�bear�slanderous�witness�against�an�accused�on�trial�to�some�gift�to�the�temple,�than�to�bear�slanderous�witness�against�an�accused�on�trial�to�some�gift�to�the�temple,�than�to�bear�slanderous�witness�against�an�accused�on�trial�to�some�gift�to�the�temple,�than�to�bear�slanderous�witness�against�an�accused�on�trial�

in�a�court�of�law,�which�is�one�of�the�primary�meanings�in�the�Decalogue.�As�he�in�a�court�of�law,�which�is�one�of�the�primary�meanings�in�the�Decalogue.�As�he�in�a�court�of�law,�which�is�one�of�the�primary�meanings�in�the�Decalogue.�As�he�in�a�court�of�law,�which�is�one�of�the�primary�meanings�in�the�Decalogue.�As�he�

frequently�did,�Christ�referred�the�whole�question�to�higher�ground,�making�it�a�sin,�frequently�did,�Christ�referred�the�whole�question�to�higher�ground,�making�it�a�sin,�frequently�did,�Christ�referred�the�whole�question�to�higher�ground,�making�it�a�sin,�frequently�did,�Christ�referred�the�whole�question�to�higher�ground,�making�it�a�sin,�

under�all�circumstances,�to�utter�an�untruth,�thus�bypassing�altogether�the�question�of�under�all�circumstances,�to�utter�an�untruth,�thus�bypassing�altogether�the�question�of�under�all�circumstances,�to�utter�an�untruth,�thus�bypassing�altogether�the�question�of�under�all�circumstances,�to�utter�an�untruth,�thus�bypassing�altogether�the�question�of�

violating�an�oath!violating�an�oath!violating�an�oath!violating�an�oath!

Under�the�interpretation�of�the�Pharisees,�the�divine�prohibition�was�against�Under�the�interpretation�of�the�Pharisees,�the�divine�prohibition�was�against�Under�the�interpretation�of�the�Pharisees,�the�divine�prohibition�was�against�Under�the�interpretation�of�the�Pharisees,�the�divine�prohibition�was�against�

"SWEARING"�a�lie.�This,�in�practice,�meant�that�as�long�as�one�had�not�been�properly�"SWEARING"�a�lie.�This,�in�practice,�meant�that�as�long�as�one�had�not�been�properly�"SWEARING"�a�lie.�This,�in�practice,�meant�that�as�long�as�one�had�not�been�properly�"SWEARING"�a�lie.�This,�in�practice,�meant�that�as�long�as�one�had�not�been�properly�

"sworn�in,"�or�as�long�as�one�refused�to�deliver�a�formal�oath,�the�offender�could�tell�as�"sworn�in,"�or�as�long�as�one�refused�to�deliver�a�formal�oath,�the�offender�could�tell�as�"sworn�in,"�or�as�long�as�one�refused�to�deliver�a�formal�oath,�the�offender�could�tell�as�"sworn�in,"�or�as�long�as�one�refused�to�deliver�a�formal�oath,�the�offender�could�tell�as�

many�lies�as�he�would�without�incurring�guilt�under�the�Law!�It�goes�without�saying�that�many�lies�as�he�would�without�incurring�guilt�under�the�Law!�It�goes�without�saying�that�many�lies�as�he�would�without�incurring�guilt�under�the�Law!�It�goes�without�saying�that�many�lies�as�he�would�without�incurring�guilt�under�the�Law!�It�goes�without�saying�that�

THAT�interpretation�was�not�of�God,�but�it�was�only�of�sinful�men.�The�glory�of�Jesus�THAT�interpretation�was�not�of�God,�but�it�was�only�of�sinful�men.�The�glory�of�Jesus�THAT�interpretation�was�not�of�God,�but�it�was�only�of�sinful�men.�The�glory�of�Jesus�THAT�interpretation�was�not�of�God,�but�it�was�only�of�sinful�men.�The�glory�of�Jesus�

Christ�is�that�he�stripped�off�those�superficial�and�shallow�devices�for�circumventing�Christ�is�that�he�stripped�off�those�superficial�and�shallow�devices�for�circumventing�Christ�is�that�he�stripped�off�those�superficial�and�shallow�devices�for�circumventing�Christ�is�that�he�stripped�off�those�superficial�and�shallow�devices�for�circumventing�

God's�Law�and�made�the�truth�to�shine�before�all�people.�See�under�Matthew�God's�Law�and�made�the�truth�to�shine�before�all�people.�See�under�Matthew�God's�Law�and�made�the�truth�to�shine�before�all�people.�See�under�Matthew�God's�Law�and�made�the�truth�to�shine�before�all�people.�See�under�Matthew�23232323::::22222222....

PULPIT,�"Matthew�PULPIT,�"Matthew�PULPIT,�"Matthew�PULPIT,�"Matthew�5555::::33333333----37373737

The�true�fulfilling�of�the�Law:�Christ's�fourth�illustration.The�true�fulfilling�of�the�Law:�Christ's�fourth�illustration.The�true�fulfilling�of�the�Law:�Christ's�fourth�illustration.The�true�fulfilling�of�the�Law:�Christ's�fourth�illustration.

The�consideration�of�this�passage�asks�careful�and�fair�understanding�of�the�The�consideration�of�this�passage�asks�careful�and�fair�understanding�of�the�The�consideration�of�this�passage�asks�careful�and�fair�understanding�of�the�The�consideration�of�this�passage�asks�careful�and�fair�understanding�of�the�

CORRECT�exposition�of�it�(for�which�see�also�Exposition�foregoing).�Matthew�CORRECT�exposition�of�it�(for�which�see�also�Exposition�foregoing).�Matthew�CORRECT�exposition�of�it�(for�which�see�also�Exposition�foregoing).�Matthew�CORRECT�exposition�of�it�(for�which�see�also�Exposition�foregoing).�Matthew�5555::::37�37�37�37�of�of�of�of�

itself,�when�strictly�rendered,�and�the�word�"communication"�replaced�by�"speech,"�or�itself,�when�strictly�rendered,�and�the�word�"communication"�replaced�by�"speech,"�or�itself,�when�strictly�rendered,�and�the�word�"communication"�replaced�by�"speech,"�or�itself,�when�strictly�rendered,�and�the�word�"communication"�replaced�by�"speech,"�or�

even�"conversation,''�is�sufficient�to�show�that�our�Lord's�pronouncements�here�do�not�even�"conversation,''�is�sufficient�to�show�that�our�Lord's�pronouncements�here�do�not�even�"conversation,''�is�sufficient�to�show�that�our�Lord's�pronouncements�here�do�not�even�"conversation,''�is�sufficient�to�show�that�our�Lord's�pronouncements�here�do�not�

refer�either�to�solemn�judicial�occasions,�or�to�those�supremely�solemn�instances�in�refer�either�to�solemn�judicial�occasions,�or�to�those�supremely�solemn�instances�in�refer�either�to�solemn�judicial�occasions,�or�to�those�supremely�solemn�instances�in�refer�either�to�solemn�judicial�occasions,�or�to�those�supremely�solemn�instances�in�

which�God�is�represented�as�"swearing�by�himself,"�or�he�himself�is�testified�to�or�his�which�God�is�represented�as�"swearing�by�himself,"�or�he�himself�is�testified�to�or�his�which�God�is�represented�as�"swearing�by�himself,"�or�he�himself�is�testified�to�or�his�which�God�is�represented�as�"swearing�by�himself,"�or�he�himself�is�testified�to�or�his�

first�apostles,�as�using�that�sanction�of�asseveration�called�the�oath.�In�like�manner,�due�first�apostles,�as�using�that�sanction�of�asseveration�called�the�oath.�In�like�manner,�due�first�apostles,�as�using�that�sanction�of�asseveration�called�the�oath.�In�like�manner,�due�first�apostles,�as�using�that�sanction�of�asseveration�called�the�oath.�In�like�manner,�due�

weight�must�be�faithfully�given�to�the�four�examples�of�the�verbal�swearing�manifestly�weight�must�be�faithfully�given�to�the�four�examples�of�the�verbal�swearing�manifestly�weight�must�be�faithfully�given�to�the�four�examples�of�the�verbal�swearing�manifestly�weight�must�be�faithfully�given�to�the�four�examples�of�the�verbal�swearing�manifestly�

in�vogue,�and�requiring�particular�denunciation.�Whatever�was�the�most�unfavourable�in�vogue,�and�requiring�particular�denunciation.�Whatever�was�the�most�unfavourable�in�vogue,�and�requiring�particular�denunciation.�Whatever�was�the�most�unfavourable�in�vogue,�and�requiring�particular�denunciation.�Whatever�was�the�most�unfavourable�

side�of�the�oath,�they�had�this.�And�they�had�the�least�of�what�was�legitimate.�They�side�of�the�oath,�they�had�this.�And�they�had�the�least�of�what�was�legitimate.�They�side�of�the�oath,�they�had�this.�And�they�had�the�least�of�what�was�legitimate.�They�side�of�the�oath,�they�had�this.�And�they�had�the�least�of�what�was�legitimate.�They�

covered�equivocation,�PROMOTED�familiarity�with�what�under�any�circumstances�covered�equivocation,�PROMOTED�familiarity�with�what�under�any�circumstances�covered�equivocation,�PROMOTED�familiarity�with�what�under�any�circumstances�covered�equivocation,�PROMOTED�familiarity�with�what�under�any�circumstances�

should�be�reserved�for�solemn�occasion,�and�nourished�the�deeper�distrust�between�should�be�reserved�for�solemn�occasion,�and�nourished�the�deeper�distrust�between�should�be�reserved�for�solemn�occasion,�and�nourished�the�deeper�distrust�between�should�be�reserved�for�solemn�occasion,�and�nourished�the�deeper�distrust�between�

man�and�man.�Excepting,�therefore,�from�condemnation�what�we�have�every�reason�to�man�and�man.�Excepting,�therefore,�from�condemnation�what�we�have�every�reason�to�man�and�man.�Excepting,�therefore,�from�condemnation�what�we�have�every�reason�to�man�and�man.�Excepting,�therefore,�from�condemnation�what�we�have�every�reason�to�

believe�that�Christ�did�not�mean�to�include�in�condemnation,�we�have�his�most�express�believe�that�Christ�did�not�mean�to�include�in�condemnation,�we�have�his�most�express�believe�that�Christ�did�not�mean�to�include�in�condemnation,�we�have�his�most�express�believe�that�Christ�did�not�mean�to�include�in�condemnation,�we�have�his�most�express�

discouragement�of�all�frequent,�ordinary,�idle�use�of�forms�of�swearingdiscouragement�of�all�frequent,�ordinary,�idle�use�of�forms�of�swearingdiscouragement�of�all�frequent,�ordinary,�idle�use�of�forms�of�swearingdiscouragement�of�all�frequent,�ordinary,�idle�use�of�forms�of�swearing————nay,�of�all�use�nay,�of�all�use�nay,�of�all�use�nay,�of�all�use�

of�swearing,�except�such�as�SPECIALLY�safeguarded,�is�therein,�and,�other�things�of�swearing,�except�such�as�SPECIALLY�safeguarded,�is�therein,�and,�other�things�of�swearing,�except�such�as�SPECIALLY�safeguarded,�is�therein,�and,�other�things�of�swearing,�except�such�as�SPECIALLY�safeguarded,�is�therein,�and,�other�things�

being�equal,�to�be�regarded�as�authorized.�We�have�the�opportunity�of�a�divinely�being�equal,�to�be�regarded�as�authorized.�We�have�the�opportunity�of�a�divinely�being�equal,�to�be�regarded�as�authorized.�We�have�the�opportunity�of�a�divinely�being�equal,�to�be�regarded�as�authorized.�We�have�the�opportunity�of�a�divinely�

suggested�glimpse�into�the�moral�ethics�of�Christianity,�and�are�invited�to�note�of�all�suggested�glimpse�into�the�moral�ethics�of�Christianity,�and�are�invited�to�note�of�all�suggested�glimpse�into�the�moral�ethics�of�Christianity,�and�are�invited�to�note�of�all�suggested�glimpse�into�the�moral�ethics�of�Christianity,�and�are�invited�to�note�of�all�

swearing,�that�while�it�PROCEEDS�on�the�very�showing,�when�between�men,�that�it�swearing,�that�while�it�PROCEEDS�on�the�very�showing,�when�between�men,�that�it�swearing,�that�while�it�PROCEEDS�on�the�very�showing,�when�between�men,�that�it�swearing,�that�while�it�PROCEEDS�on�the�very�showing,�when�between�men,�that�it�

adds�inducement�to�the�faithful�performance�of�the�promise,�and�confidence�to�the�adds�inducement�to�the�faithful�performance�of�the�promise,�and�confidence�to�the�adds�inducement�to�the�faithful�performance�of�the�promise,�and�confidence�to�the�adds�inducement�to�the�faithful�performance�of�the�promise,�and�confidence�to�the�

calm�trust�of�the�person�to�whom�the�promise�is�made,�in�these�very�things�it�carries�the�calm�trust�of�the�person�to�whom�the�promise�is�made,�in�these�very�things�it�carries�the�calm�trust�of�the�person�to�whom�the�promise�is�made,�in�these�very�things�it�carries�the�calm�trust�of�the�person�to�whom�the�promise�is�made,�in�these�very�things�it�carries�the�

reminder�of�its�own�discredit.�And�the�way�is�paved�for�Christ's�more�excellent�version.�reminder�of�its�own�discredit.�And�the�way�is�paved�for�Christ's�more�excellent�version.�reminder�of�its�own�discredit.�And�the�way�is�paved�for�Christ's�more�excellent�version.�reminder�of�its�own�discredit.�And�the�way�is�paved�for�Christ's�more�excellent�version.�

NoticeNoticeNoticeNotice————

I.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�RULE�OF�CHRISTIAN�I.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�RULE�OF�CHRISTIAN�I.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�RULE�OF�CHRISTIAN�I.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�RULE�OF�CHRISTIAN�

LANGUAGE.LANGUAGE.LANGUAGE.LANGUAGE.

II.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�HONOUR�TO�THE�II.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�HONOUR�TO�THE�II.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�HONOUR�TO�THE�II.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�HONOUR�TO�THE�

CHARACTER�OF�THE�LIP�THAT�SPEAKS.CHARACTER�OF�THE�LIP�THAT�SPEAKS.CHARACTER�OF�THE�LIP�THAT�SPEAKS.CHARACTER�OF�THE�LIP�THAT�SPEAKS.

III.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�CREDIT�TO�THE�III.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�CREDIT�TO�THE�III.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�CREDIT�TO�THE�III.�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�THE�BEST�CREDIT�TO�THE�

TRUSTFULNESS�OF�THE�PERSON�WHO�HEARS.TRUSTFULNESS�OF�THE�PERSON�WHO�HEARS.TRUSTFULNESS�OF�THE�PERSON�WHO�HEARS.TRUSTFULNESS�OF�THE�PERSON�WHO�HEARS.

IV.�WHAT�IS�MORE�THAN�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�MEANS�IV.�WHAT�IS�MORE�THAN�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�MEANS�IV.�WHAT�IS�MORE�THAN�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�MEANS�IV.�WHAT�IS�MORE�THAN�SIMPLE�ASSEVERATION�OR�DENIAL�MEANS�

"EVIL"�IN�THE�ONE�PARTY,�OR�IN�THE�OTHER,�OR�IN�BOTH.�IT�PROCEEDS�"EVIL"�IN�THE�ONE�PARTY,�OR�IN�THE�OTHER,�OR�IN�BOTH.�IT�PROCEEDS�"EVIL"�IN�THE�ONE�PARTY,�OR�IN�THE�OTHER,�OR�IN�BOTH.�IT�PROCEEDS�"EVIL"�IN�THE�ONE�PARTY,�OR�IN�THE�OTHER,�OR�IN�BOTH.�IT�PROCEEDS�

ON�THE�VERY�SUSPICION�OF�EVIL�PRESENT.ON�THE�VERY�SUSPICION�OF�EVIL�PRESENT.ON�THE�VERY�SUSPICION�OF�EVIL�PRESENT.ON�THE�VERY�SUSPICION�OF�EVIL�PRESENT.————B.B.B.B.

KRETZMANN�KRETZMANN�KRETZMANN�KRETZMANN�33333333----37373737,�"Jesus�introduces�the�subject�as�before,�referring�to�the�,�"Jesus�introduces�the�subject�as�before,�referring�to�the�,�"Jesus�introduces�the�subject�as�before,�referring�to�the�,�"Jesus�introduces�the�subject�as�before,�referring�to�the�

customary�reading�of�the�Law�and�the�accompanying�teaching.�The�implication�of�customary�reading�of�the�Law�and�the�accompanying�teaching.�The�implication�of�customary�reading�of�the�Law�and�the�accompanying�teaching.�The�implication�of�customary�reading�of�the�Law�and�the�accompanying�teaching.�The�implication�of�

Christ�is�that�the�people�were�really�kept�under�a�false�impression,�by�being�permitted�Christ�is�that�the�people�were�really�kept�under�a�false�impression,�by�being�permitted�Christ�is�that�the�people�were�really�kept�under�a�false�impression,�by�being�permitted�Christ�is�that�the�people�were�really�kept�under�a�false�impression,�by�being�permitted�

to�draw�the�conclusion�that�they�were�listening�to�the�exact�words�of�Moses.�The�words�to�draw�the�conclusion�that�they�were�listening�to�the�exact�words�of�Moses.�The�words�to�draw�the�conclusion�that�they�were�listening�to�the�exact�words�of�Moses.�The�words�to�draw�the�conclusion�that�they�were�listening�to�the�exact�words�of�Moses.�The�words�

as�stated�are�INDEED�found�in�the�Law,�Lev_as�stated�are�INDEED�found�in�the�Law,�Lev_as�stated�are�INDEED�found�in�the�Law,�Lev_as�stated�are�INDEED�found�in�the�Law,�Lev_19191919::::12121212;�Num_;�Num_;�Num_;�Num_30303030::::3333;�Deu_;�Deu_;�Deu_;�Deu_23232323::::22222222.�But�the�.�But�the�.�But�the�.�But�the�

interpretation�left�much�to�be�desired.�It�placed�no�emphasis�upon�the�inner�interpretation�left�much�to�be�desired.�It�placed�no�emphasis�upon�the�inner�interpretation�left�much�to�be�desired.�It�placed�no�emphasis�upon�the�inner�interpretation�left�much�to�be�desired.�It�placed�no�emphasis�upon�the�inner�

truthfulness�of�the�heart.�If�that�is�missing,�what�object�have�all�oaths?�All�the�careful�truthfulness�of�the�heart.�If�that�is�missing,�what�object�have�all�oaths?�All�the�careful�truthfulness�of�the�heart.�If�that�is�missing,�what�object�have�all�oaths?�All�the�careful�truthfulness�of�the�heart.�If�that�is�missing,�what�object�have�all�oaths?�All�the�careful�

distinctions�as�to�DEGREES�of�oaths,�and�therefore�of�perjury,�were�a�yoke�on�the�distinctions�as�to�DEGREES�of�oaths,�and�therefore�of�perjury,�were�a�yoke�on�the�distinctions�as�to�DEGREES�of�oaths,�and�therefore�of�perjury,�were�a�yoke�on�the�distinctions�as�to�DEGREES�of�oaths,�and�therefore�of�perjury,�were�a�yoke�on�the�

necks�of�the�Jews�that�did�not�affect�their�hearts.�And�it�was�a�matter�of�mere�necks�of�the�Jews�that�did�not�affect�their�hearts.�And�it�was�a�matter�of�mere�necks�of�the�Jews�that�did�not�affect�their�hearts.�And�it�was�a�matter�of�mere�necks�of�the�Jews�that�did�not�affect�their�hearts.�And�it�was�a�matter�of�mere�

sophistical�quibbling�that�permitted�all�manner�of�affirmations�in�which�the�divine�sophistical�quibbling�that�permitted�all�manner�of�affirmations�in�which�the�divine�sophistical�quibbling�that�permitted�all�manner�of�affirmations�in�which�the�divine�sophistical�quibbling�that�permitted�all�manner�of�affirmations�in�which�the�divine�

name�was�not�mentioned�directly,�Deu_name�was�not�mentioned�directly,�Deu_name�was�not�mentioned�directly,�Deu_name�was�not�mentioned�directly,�Deu_6666::::13131313,�and�thus�evaded�the�obligation�of�the�,�and�thus�evaded�the�obligation�of�the�,�and�thus�evaded�the�obligation�of�the�,�and�thus�evaded�the�obligation�of�the�

oath.�There�is�not�the�slightest�difference�between�an�oath�in�the�name�of�God�and�oath.�There�is�not�the�slightest�difference�between�an�oath�in�the�name�of�God�and�oath.�There�is�not�the�slightest�difference�between�an�oath�in�the�name�of�God�and�oath.�There�is�not�the�slightest�difference�between�an�oath�in�the�name�of�God�and�

such�asseverations�as�substitute�the�names�of�holy�things,�heaven,�or�such�over�which�such�asseverations�as�substitute�the�names�of�holy�things,�heaven,�or�such�over�which�such�asseverations�as�substitute�the�names�of�holy�things,�heaven,�or�such�over�which�such�asseverations�as�substitute�the�names�of�holy�things,�heaven,�or�such�over�which�

God�alone�has�control:�His�city,�Jerusalem,�the�earth,�His�footstool,�a�man's�head�or�God�alone�has�control:�His�city,�Jerusalem,�the�earth,�His�footstool,�a�man's�head�or�God�alone�has�control:�His�city,�Jerusalem,�the�earth,�His�footstool,�a�man's�head�or�God�alone�has�control:�His�city,�Jerusalem,�the�earth,�His�footstool,�a�man's�head�or�

life.�All�these�oaths�involve�a�reference�to�God.�And�all�of�them,�as�He�distinctly�life.�All�these�oaths�involve�a�reference�to�God.�And�all�of�them,�as�He�distinctly�life.�All�these�oaths�involve�a�reference�to�God.�And�all�of�them,�as�He�distinctly�life.�All�these�oaths�involve�a�reference�to�God.�And�all�of�them,�as�He�distinctly�

specifies�them,�one�after�the�other,�are�superfluous�where�the�heart�is�pure�and�specifies�them,�one�after�the�other,�are�superfluous�where�the�heart�is�pure�and�specifies�them,�one�after�the�other,�are�superfluous�where�the�heart�is�pure�and�specifies�them,�one�after�the�other,�are�superfluous�where�the�heart�is�pure�and�

truthful.�The�Lord�distinctly�condemns�the�incessant,�frivolous�calling�upon�the�Deity�truthful.�The�Lord�distinctly�condemns�the�incessant,�frivolous�calling�upon�the�Deity�truthful.�The�Lord�distinctly�condemns�the�incessant,�frivolous�calling�upon�the�Deity�truthful.�The�Lord�distinctly�condemns�the�incessant,�frivolous�calling�upon�the�Deity�

in�all�kinds�of�garbled�forms.�He�does�not�imply�that�oaths,�under�circumstances,�are�in�all�kinds�of�garbled�forms.�He�does�not�imply�that�oaths,�under�circumstances,�are�in�all�kinds�of�garbled�forms.�He�does�not�imply�that�oaths,�under�circumstances,�are�in�all�kinds�of�garbled�forms.�He�does�not�imply�that�oaths,�under�circumstances,�are�

not�altogether�lawful�and�right.�"In�civil�life�the�most�truthful�man�has�to�take�an�oath�not�altogether�lawful�and�right.�"In�civil�life�the�most�truthful�man�has�to�take�an�oath�not�altogether�lawful�and�right.�"In�civil�life�the�most�truthful�man�has�to�take�an�oath�not�altogether�lawful�and�right.�"In�civil�life�the�most�truthful�man�has�to�take�an�oath�

because�of�the�untruth�and�consequent�distrust�prevailing�in�the�world,�and�in�so�doing�because�of�the�untruth�and�consequent�distrust�prevailing�in�the�world,�and�in�so�doing�because�of�the�untruth�and�consequent�distrust�prevailing�in�the�world,�and�in�so�doing�because�of�the�untruth�and�consequent�distrust�prevailing�in�the�world,�and�in�so�doing�

he�does�not�sin�against�Christ's�teaching.�Christ�Himself�took�an�oath�before�the�high�he�does�not�sin�against�Christ's�teaching.�Christ�Himself�took�an�oath�before�the�high�he�does�not�sin�against�Christ's�teaching.�Christ�Himself�took�an�oath�before�the�high�he�does�not�sin�against�Christ's�teaching.�Christ�Himself�took�an�oath�before�the�high�

priest.�"�His�demand�is�absolute�truthfulness�and�straightforwardness�in�the�dealing�of�priest.�"�His�demand�is�absolute�truthfulness�and�straightforwardness�in�the�dealing�of�priest.�"�His�demand�is�absolute�truthfulness�and�straightforwardness�in�the�dealing�of�priest.�"�His�demand�is�absolute�truthfulness�and�straightforwardness�in�the�dealing�of�

people�with�one�another.�There�the�affirmation�shall�have�the�full�value�and�force�of�people�with�one�another.�There�the�affirmation�shall�have�the�full�value�and�force�of�people�with�one�another.�There�the�affirmation�shall�have�the�full�value�and�force�of�people�with�one�another.�There�the�affirmation�shall�have�the�full�value�and�force�of�

the�Yea,�and�the�denial�the�simple�power�of�the�Nay,�that�there�may�be�an�unhesitating�the�Yea,�and�the�denial�the�simple�power�of�the�Nay,�that�there�may�be�an�unhesitating�the�Yea,�and�the�denial�the�simple�power�of�the�Nay,�that�there�may�be�an�unhesitating�the�Yea,�and�the�denial�the�simple�power�of�the�Nay,�that�there�may�be�an�unhesitating�

dependence�upon�all�statements,�without�the�support�of�an�oath.�Anything�that�goes�dependence�upon�all�statements,�without�the�support�of�an�oath.�Anything�that�goes�dependence�upon�all�statements,�without�the�support�of�an�oath.�Anything�that�goes�dependence�upon�all�statements,�without�the�support�of�an�oath.�Anything�that�goes�

beyond�this�simple�definition�is�of�evil,�even�savors�of�the�influence�of�the�evil�one,�the�beyond�this�simple�definition�is�of�evil,�even�savors�of�the�influence�of�the�evil�one,�the�beyond�this�simple�definition�is�of�evil,�even�savors�of�the�influence�of�the�evil�one,�the�beyond�this�simple�definition�is�of�evil,�even�savors�of�the�influence�of�the�evil�one,�the�

devil,�the�father�of�lies.�Jesus�expressed�Himself�mildly�with�a�purpose,�and�did�not�devil,�the�father�of�lies.�Jesus�expressed�Himself�mildly�with�a�purpose,�and�did�not�devil,�the�father�of�lies.�Jesus�expressed�Himself�mildly�with�a�purpose,�and�did�not�devil,�the�father�of�lies.�Jesus�expressed�Himself�mildly�with�a�purpose,�and�did�not�

DENY�the�necessity�of�oaths�in,�a�world�full�of�falsehood.�"I�know,�He�means�to�say,�DENY�the�necessity�of�oaths�in,�a�world�full�of�falsehood.�"I�know,�He�means�to�say,�DENY�the�necessity�of�oaths�in,�a�world�full�of�falsehood.�"I�know,�He�means�to�say,�DENY�the�necessity�of�oaths�in,�a�world�full�of�falsehood.�"I�know,�He�means�to�say,�

that�in�certain�circumstances�something�beyond�yea�and�nay�will�be�required�of�you.�that�in�certain�circumstances�something�beyond�yea�and�nay�will�be�required�of�you.�that�in�certain�circumstances�something�beyond�yea�and�nay�will�be�required�of�you.�that�in�certain�circumstances�something�beyond�yea�and�nay�will�be�required�of�you.�

But�it�comes�of�evil,�the�evil�of�untruthfulness.�See�that�the�evil�be�not�in�you."But�it�comes�of�evil,�the�evil�of�untruthfulness.�See�that�the�evil�be�not�in�you."But�it�comes�of�evil,�the�evil�of�untruthfulness.�See�that�the�evil�be�not�in�you."But�it�comes�of�evil,�the�evil�of�untruthfulness.�See�that�the�evil�be�not�in�you."

CHARLES�SIMEON,�"SWEARING�FORBIDDENCHARLES�SIMEON,�"SWEARING�FORBIDDENCHARLES�SIMEON,�"SWEARING�FORBIDDENCHARLES�SIMEON,�"SWEARING�FORBIDDEN

Mat_Mat_Mat_Mat_5555::::33333333----37373737.�Again,�ye�have�heard�that�it�hath�been�said�by�them�of�old�time,�Thou�.�Again,�ye�have�heard�that�it�hath�been�said�by�them�of�old�time,�Thou�.�Again,�ye�have�heard�that�it�hath�been�said�by�them�of�old�time,�Thou�.�Again,�ye�have�heard�that�it�hath�been�said�by�them�of�old�time,�Thou�

shalt�not�forswear�thyself,�but�shalt�perform�unto�the�Lord�thine�oaths:�but�I�say�unto�shalt�not�forswear�thyself,�but�shalt�perform�unto�the�Lord�thine�oaths:�but�I�say�unto�shalt�not�forswear�thyself,�but�shalt�perform�unto�the�Lord�thine�oaths:�but�I�say�unto�shalt�not�forswear�thyself,�but�shalt�perform�unto�the�Lord�thine�oaths:�but�I�say�unto�

you,�Swear�not�at�all;�neither�by�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne:�nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�you,�Swear�not�at�all;�neither�by�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne:�nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�you,�Swear�not�at�all;�neither�by�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne:�nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�you,�Swear�not�at�all;�neither�by�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne:�nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�

his�footstool:�neither�by�Jerusalem;�for�it�is�the�city�of�the�great�King.�Neither�shalt�his�footstool:�neither�by�Jerusalem;�for�it�is�the�city�of�the�great�King.�Neither�shalt�his�footstool:�neither�by�Jerusalem;�for�it�is�the�city�of�the�great�King.�Neither�shalt�his�footstool:�neither�by�Jerusalem;�for�it�is�the�city�of�the�great�King.�Neither�shalt�

thou�swear�by�thy�head,�because�thou�canst�not�make�one�hair�white�or�black.�But�let�thou�swear�by�thy�head,�because�thou�canst�not�make�one�hair�white�or�black.�But�let�thou�swear�by�thy�head,�because�thou�canst�not�make�one�hair�white�or�black.�But�let�thou�swear�by�thy�head,�because�thou�canst�not�make�one�hair�white�or�black.�But�let�

your�communication�be,�Yea,�yea;�Nay,�nay:�for�whatsoever�is�more�than�these,�cometh�your�communication�be,�Yea,�yea;�Nay,�nay:�for�whatsoever�is�more�than�these,�cometh�your�communication�be,�Yea,�yea;�Nay,�nay:�for�whatsoever�is�more�than�these,�cometh�your�communication�be,�Yea,�yea;�Nay,�nay:�for�whatsoever�is�more�than�these,�cometh�

of�evil.of�evil.of�evil.of�evil.

AMONGST�persons�unaccustomed�to�hear�the�peculiar�doctrines�of�the�Gospel,�a�kind�AMONGST�persons�unaccustomed�to�hear�the�peculiar�doctrines�of�the�Gospel,�a�kind�AMONGST�persons�unaccustomed�to�hear�the�peculiar�doctrines�of�the�Gospel,�a�kind�AMONGST�persons�unaccustomed�to�hear�the�peculiar�doctrines�of�the�Gospel,�a�kind�

of�jealousy�is�often�excited�by�the�very�recital�of�the�text;�especially�if�the�preacher�be�of�jealousy�is�often�excited�by�the�very�recital�of�the�text;�especially�if�the�preacher�be�of�jealousy�is�often�excited�by�the�very�recital�of�the�text;�especially�if�the�preacher�be�of�jealousy�is�often�excited�by�the�very�recital�of�the�text;�especially�if�the�preacher�be�

known�to�be�zealous�for�those�doctrines,�and�the�passage�which�he�has�selected�known�to�be�zealous�for�those�doctrines,�and�the�passage�which�he�has�selected�known�to�be�zealous�for�those�doctrines,�and�the�passage�which�he�has�selected�known�to�be�zealous�for�those�doctrines,�and�the�passage�which�he�has�selected�

evidently�inculcates�them.�This�feeling�is�manifestly�wrong;�and�every�one�who�loves�the�evidently�inculcates�them.�This�feeling�is�manifestly�wrong;�and�every�one�who�loves�the�evidently�inculcates�them.�This�feeling�is�manifestly�wrong;�and�every�one�who�loves�the�evidently�inculcates�them.�This�feeling�is�manifestly�wrong;�and�every�one�who�loves�the�

Gospel�sees�in�a�moment�the�evil�of�indulging�it.�But�is�this�feeling�peculiar�to�those�Gospel�sees�in�a�moment�the�evil�of�indulging�it.�But�is�this�feeling�peculiar�to�those�Gospel�sees�in�a�moment�the�evil�of�indulging�it.�But�is�this�feeling�peculiar�to�those�Gospel�sees�in�a�moment�the�evil�of�indulging�it.�But�is�this�feeling�peculiar�to�those�

who�are�ignorant�of�the�Gospel?�No;�by�no�means:�for�religious�people�themselves�are�who�are�ignorant�of�the�Gospel?�No;�by�no�means:�for�religious�people�themselves�are�who�are�ignorant�of�the�Gospel?�No;�by�no�means:�for�religious�people�themselves�are�who�are�ignorant�of�the�Gospel?�No;�by�no�means:�for�religious�people�themselves�are�

too�apt�to�yield�to�it,�when�any�text�is�announced�which�leads�only�to�the�discussion�of�too�apt�to�yield�to�it,�when�any�text�is�announced�which�leads�only�to�the�discussion�of�too�apt�to�yield�to�it,�when�any�text�is�announced�which�leads�only�to�the�discussion�of�too�apt�to�yield�to�it,�when�any�text�is�announced�which�leads�only�to�the�discussion�of�

some�moral�subject.�But�if�this�feeling�be�wrong�in�the�unenlightened�part�of�mankind,�some�moral�subject.�But�if�this�feeling�be�wrong�in�the�unenlightened�part�of�mankind,�some�moral�subject.�But�if�this�feeling�be�wrong�in�the�unenlightened�part�of�mankind,�some�moral�subject.�But�if�this�feeling�be�wrong�in�the�unenlightened�part�of�mankind,�

it�is�a�thousand�times�more�so�in�those�who�profess�to�be�enlightened,�and�who�ought�it�is�a�thousand�times�more�so�in�those�who�profess�to�be�enlightened,�and�who�ought�it�is�a�thousand�times�more�so�in�those�who�profess�to�be�enlightened,�and�who�ought�it�is�a�thousand�times�more�so�in�those�who�profess�to�be�enlightened,�and�who�ought�

on�that�very�ACCOUNT�to�love�every�portion�of�the�sacred�volume,�and�gladly�to�hear�on�that�very�ACCOUNT�to�love�every�portion�of�the�sacred�volume,�and�gladly�to�hear�on�that�very�ACCOUNT�to�love�every�portion�of�the�sacred�volume,�and�gladly�to�hear�on�that�very�ACCOUNT�to�love�every�portion�of�the�sacred�volume,�and�gladly�to�hear�

every�truth�insisted�on�in�its�season.every�truth�insisted�on�in�its�season.every�truth�insisted�on�in�its�season.every�truth�insisted�on�in�its�season.

The�subject�of�swearing�does�not�seem�to�promise�much�edification�to�an�audience�The�subject�of�swearing�does�not�seem�to�promise�much�edification�to�an�audience�The�subject�of�swearing�does�not�seem�to�promise�much�edification�to�an�audience�The�subject�of�swearing�does�not�seem�to�promise�much�edification�to�an�audience�

conversant�with�the�sublimer�mysteries�of�our�religion:�but,�if�our�blessed�Lord�saw�fit�conversant�with�the�sublimer�mysteries�of�our�religion:�but,�if�our�blessed�Lord�saw�fit�conversant�with�the�sublimer�mysteries�of�our�religion:�but,�if�our�blessed�Lord�saw�fit�conversant�with�the�sublimer�mysteries�of�our�religion:�but,�if�our�blessed�Lord�saw�fit�

to�speak�of�it�so�fully�in�his�Sermon�on�the�Mount,�we�may�be�sure�that�our�time�cannot�to�speak�of�it�so�fully�in�his�Sermon�on�the�Mount,�we�may�be�sure�that�our�time�cannot�to�speak�of�it�so�fully�in�his�Sermon�on�the�Mount,�we�may�be�sure�that�our�time�cannot�to�speak�of�it�so�fully�in�his�Sermon�on�the�Mount,�we�may�be�sure�that�our�time�cannot�

be�misspent�in�investigating,�as�we�purpose�to�do,be�misspent�in�investigating,�as�we�purpose�to�do,be�misspent�in�investigating,�as�we�purpose�to�do,be�misspent�in�investigating,�as�we�purpose�to�do,

I.�������The�nature�and�extent�of�the�prohibition�before�usI.�������The�nature�and�extent�of�the�prohibition�before�usI.�������The�nature�and�extent�of�the�prohibition�before�usI.�������The�nature�and�extent�of�the�prohibition�before�us————

You�must�be�aware�that�there�is�a�very�respectable�body�of�people�in�this�kingdom,�who�You�must�be�aware�that�there�is�a�very�respectable�body�of�people�in�this�kingdom,�who�You�must�be�aware�that�there�is�a�very�respectable�body�of�people�in�this�kingdom,�who�You�must�be�aware�that�there�is�a�very�respectable�body�of�people�in�this�kingdom,�who�

not�only�deny�the�lawfulness�of�oaths�altogether,�but�make�the�abstaining�from�them�an�not�only�deny�the�lawfulness�of�oaths�altogether,�but�make�the�abstaining�from�them�an�not�only�deny�the�lawfulness�of�oaths�altogether,�but�make�the�abstaining�from�them�an�not�only�deny�the�lawfulness�of�oaths�altogether,�but�make�the�abstaining�from�them�an�

essential�part�of�their�religion;�insomuch�that�the�legislature,�which�exacts�an�oath�of�all�essential�part�of�their�religion;�insomuch�that�the�legislature,�which�exacts�an�oath�of�all�essential�part�of�their�religion;�insomuch�that�the�legislature,�which�exacts�an�oath�of�all�essential�part�of�their�religion;�insomuch�that�the�legislature,�which�exacts�an�oath�of�all�

others,�allows�them�to�give�their�evidence�in�a�way�of�simple�assertion.�Now�these�others,�allows�them�to�give�their�evidence�in�a�way�of�simple�assertion.�Now�these�others,�allows�them�to�give�their�evidence�in�a�way�of�simple�assertion.�Now�these�others,�allows�them�to�give�their�evidence�in�a�way�of�simple�assertion.�Now�these�

people�understand�the�prohibition�in�ourtext�as�unlimited:�whereas�we�consider�it�as�people�understand�the�prohibition�in�ourtext�as�unlimited:�whereas�we�consider�it�as�people�understand�the�prohibition�in�ourtext�as�unlimited:�whereas�we�consider�it�as�people�understand�the�prohibition�in�ourtext�as�unlimited:�whereas�we�consider�it�as�

limited.limited.limited.limited.

To exhibit it in its true light, I shall shew,

1. To what it does not extend—

[It does not extend then to oaths taken in a court of judicature. This is evident from their being absolutely enjoined on many occasions by God himself [�ote: Exo_22:10-11. �um_5:19-22. Deu_6:13.] — — — Moreover, our blessed Lord submitted to be examined upon oath; and, on being adjured by the living God, gave a reply, which nothing else could extort from him [�ote: Mat_26:63-64.]. And by his disciples also such an use of oaths is manifestly approved: it is said, that an oath for confirmation is an “end of all strife [�ote: Heb_6:16.].” �ow then I ask, would such kind of oaths have been commanded of God, taken by Christ, and approved by the Apostles, if there had been any thing necessarily and inherently wrong in them? We are well assured, that had they been in themselves morally evil, the use of them would never have been so sanctioned.

�or does the prohibition absolutely extend to the use of them on any other solemn occasion. On some particular occasions they were imposed and taken by holy men of old. Abraham exacted an oath of his servant whom he sent to seek a wife for his son Isaac [�ote: Gen_24:2-3; Gen_24:9.]. Jacob took an oath of Joseph, as Joseph also did of the children of Israel, that they would carry up his bones to Canaan, and bury them in the promised land [�ote: Gen_47:29-31; Gen_50:25.]. And Jonathan made David swear to him to exercise tenderness towards his posterity, after that he should be seated on the throne of Israel [�ote: 1Sa_20:14-17.]. Under the �ew Testament, the most distinguished of all the Apostles very frequently made an appeal to God, when the subject was such as needed a solemn confirmation, and could not be confirmed in any other way [�ote: Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1. 2Co_1:18; 2Co_1:23; 2Co_11:31. Gal_1:20. Php_1:8.] — — —

Who that considers this statement can doubt for a moment the admissibility of oaths on such occasions as could not otherwise be satisfactorily determined?]

2. To what it does extend—

[The foregoing limitation is intimated even in the text: for though the words, “Swear not at all,” appear to be indefinite, yet it is plain that the prohibition was designed only to reach to such oaths as were used in common “conversation:” “Swear not; but let your conversation be Yea, yea, �ay, nay.”

�evertheless the import of the prohibition is very extensive. It extends, first, to all irreverent appeals to God. The “taking of God’s holy name in vain” is forbidden in the third commandment; which our blessed Lord is here rescuing from the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. They thought that nothing but perjury was a violation of that commandment: but he informs them that all light mention of the name of God, and all irreverent appeals to him, were sinful. Well would it be, if they who customarily curse and swear, and they also who occasionally use the words “God knoweth,” were sensible of the guilt which they contract!

The prohibition extends also to all swearing by the creature. The Jews had a much greater reverence for the name of God than the generality of Christians have. Being averse to mention that, they invented an inferior kind of oaths, and swore “by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by their own heads.” To these they annexed less sanctity, and were therefore less scrupulous about the violation of them. But our Lord shews, that to swear by the creature was, in fact, to swear by the Creator himself; since every creature was his, and subsisted only by his providential care. On another occasion he entered more fully still into this argument, and shewed the folly of recurring to such subterfuges [�ote: Mat_23:16-22.]. In fact, if a separation could be made, there would be to the full as much guilt in swearing by the creature as in swearing by the Creator; since it would be an ascribing of omniscience and omnipotence to that which is incapable of knowing the things about which the appeal is made, or of executing judgment between the parties. This is idolatry; and, as idolatry, will be visited with God’s heaviest displeasure [�ote: Jer_5:7.]. This statement is abundantly confirmed by the Apostle James, who prohibits the same kind of oaths under the pain of eternal condemnation [�ote: Jam_5:12.].

Once more, the prohibition extends to all unnecessary CO�FIRMATIO� of our word. All vehement protestations are unbecoming the Christian character. Unless the urgency of the occasion require some additional testimony, a simple affirmation or negation is all that we should use: our “Yea should be yea, and our �ay, nay.” If questioned, we may repeat our answer; “Yea, yea,” or “�ay, nay;” but beyond that we ought not to go, except the authority of a magistrate, or the importance of the subject, absolutely require it.]

Having thus endeavoured to mark the extent of the prohibition, we will proceed to state,

II. The reasons of it—

Our Lord says, “Whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.” The words which

are here translated “evil,” may also mean, “the evil one:” and in this sense many understand them. If we take them in the former sense, it relates to the source of such expressions; and if in the latter sense, it refers rather to their tendency: since Satan instigates men to swear, in order that he may accomplish by that means his own malevolent designs. Both senses being equally good and proper, we shall include both.

Our Lord then prohibits oaths, because they are evil,

1. In their source—

[Whence do they spring? Frequently from an undue vehemence of temper. Those who are irascible, almost always are intemperate in their expressions. They will swear, if not by God, yet by their life, their soul, their faith; or they will pledge their honour, which yet is God’s, as much as their “head” is God’s. In short, whether they affirm or deny, they will, directly or indirectly, make God a party in their cause. If reproved for this, they will urge their passion as an excuse; but this is to urge one sin as an excuse for another: and, if we grant that hasty expressions originate in hasty tempers, they are on that very ACCOU�T exceeding criminal. They “come of evil,” and are for that very reason to be condemned.

But they arise also from low thoughts of the importance of truth. A person duly sensible of the sacredness of truth will not hastily convey an idea that his simple assertions are unworthy of CREDIT: he will be cautious what he affirms: and, having affirmed any thing, he will expect his word to be taken as much as his oath. If unreasonable persons require more, he will rather leave the confirmation of his word to other testimony, than admit, by unnecessary oaths or protestations, the existence of an intention to deceive. In direct opposition to such a character is he, who wantonly transgresses the commandment in our text: he proves by that very act, that he has no such high sense of honour, no such value for truth, no such disposition to maintain his character for veracity. What then must that habit be, which so degrades every one that yields to it; or rather, I should say, which marks him so destitute of the noblest attributes of man?

We may further add, that all violations of this commandment proceed from a disregard of God, and of every thing belonging to him. Who that had a reverence for the Divine Majesty, would dare to profane his name, and to appeal to him on every trivial occasion? People, when they take God’s name in vain, account it sufficient to say, “I did not think of it:” but what excuse is that? It says, in fact, ‘I have no reverence for God: he has forbidden such levity; but I have no fear of offending him: he is present when I profane his name; but I have no wish to please him. Were I in the presence of an earthly monarch, I could take heed to my words, and put a bridle on my tongue; but, though I know that God both sees and hears me, I regard him no more than if he did not exist. It is true, he declares, that, “if I take his name in vain, he will not hold me guiltless;” but “my lips are my own: who is he, that he should be Lord over me [�ote: Psa_12:4.]?” Let him say what he will, or do what he will, I am determined to have my own way, and to set him at

defiance.’

Once more I ask, what must that habit be, which betrays such a disposition as this?]

2. In their tendency—

[Satan, “the god of this world,” is ever “working in all the children of disobedience.” As he put it into the hearts of Ananias and Sapphira to lie, so he puts it into the hearts of ungodly men to swear. By this he has several objects to accomplish.

By this he hopes, first, to eradicate truth and virtue from the world. When he has prevailed on men so to cast off the fear of God as to take his name in vain, he will easily instigate them to any thing else. Having already lowered their estimate of truth, he will soon lead them to overstep the bounds of truth, and occasionally to confirm their falsehoods also with oaths. I�DEED he stirs up men to confirm with oaths that which is doubtful, more frequently than that which is true; and consequently to perjure themselves, without being at all aware what guilt they are contracting: and could he influence all, as he does the great mass of those who are under his dominion, there would be no longer any truth or virtue to be found. He was a liar from the beginning; and he would take care that all his children should be known by their resemblance to him [�ote: Joh_8:44.].

By this too he hopes, in the next place, to bring God himself into contempt. How ardently he desires to attain this object, we need not say: but this is clear, that the means he uses to attain it are admirably adapted to the end proposed. Tell a person who is accustomed to swear, that God is displeased with him; and you make no more impression on him than if he had never heard of such a Being. Tell him that he shall be fined a few shillings, and he is all alive to the subject: but if you speak of “the judgments of God, he puffs at them” with perfect contempt [�ote: Psa_10:5.]. �or is it in the speaker only that these effects are produced: the hearers of such conversation gradually lose their abhorrence of the sin, and their tender concern for the honour of their God: and the more this insensibility is diffused, the more does Satan exult and triumph.

Lastly, by this Satan aims to destroy the souls of men. What destruction he makes in this nation by means of oaths, none but God can tell. This appears to many to be a little sin; and Satan easily seduces men to the commission of it. But, even if it drew no other sins along with it, it would not be small, nor would the consequences of it be unimportant. God has said, that “he will not hold such persons guiltless.” They may hold themselves guiltless, it is true; but God will not form his judgment ACCORDI�G to their estimate: he has fixed his determination, and will never reverse it. This Satan knows: and if he can but deceive us with vain hopes, he has gained his end. Yes, in truth, that roaring lion goeth about, seeking to devour us; and then does he most prosper in his endeavours, when he leads us to “sport ourselves with our own deceivings [�ote: 2Pe_2:13.].”]

Address—

1. Those who are addicted to the habit of swearing—

[I speak not to those who are familiar with oaths and imprecations (if their own consciences do not speak to them, all that I can say will be to little purpose) but to those who make only occasional appeals to God, or take his name in vain. View your sin as it has been set forth: view it in its source. What undue warmth of temper does it manifest! what insensibility to the value and importance of truth! and what a profane disregard of God! View it in its tendency: see how it tends to eradicate virtue from the world; to bring God himself into contempt, and to ruin the souls of men. Is this a habit that you will indulge? What do you gain by it? By other sins you obtain some kind of gratification; but by this, none at all: it brings no pleasure, no profit, no honour, along with it. In the commission of other sins you sell your souls for something; in this, for nought; you do not sell, but give, yourselves to your great adversary. O that God may impress this thought upon your minds, and that this word may be ever sounding in your ears, “Swear not at all!”]

2. Those who are free from that habit—

[Shall I tell you what the ungodly world are ready to say to you? “These people will not swear; but they will lie.” Dearly beloved, this would be a dreadful reproach indeed if it were true: and whosoever he be to whom this reproach ATTACHES, that person has reason to tremble for his state before God. Tell me not of faith, or love, or any thing else; for this is certain, that “all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone [�ote: Rev_21:8.].” Christian tradesmen, consider this in your dealings with mankind; for “as the nail sticketh between the jointings of the stones, so doth lying between buying and selling [�ote: Ecclesiasticus 27:2.].” Christian servants, remember this when tempted to conceal a fault, or to exculpate yourselves from some blame. Let all, of every class, and every degree, remember this. If ye be Christ’s indeed, ye will remember him “in whose lips there was no guile found.” Let truth be in your inward parts, and let it be ever dear to your souls. Set a watch before the door of your lips; for “of every idle word you shall give account in the day of judgment;” yea, “by your words you shall be justified; and by your words you shall be condemned [�ote: Mat_12:36-37.].”]

MACLARE�, "‘SWEAR �OT AT ALL’

Mat_5:33-37.

In His treatment of the sixth and seventh commandments, Jesus deepened them by bringing the inner man of feeling and desire under their control. In His treatment of the old commandments as to oaths, He expands them by extending the prohibitions from one kind of oath to all kinds. The movement in the former case is downwards and inwards; in the latter it is outwards, the compass sweeping a wider circle. Perjury, a false oath, was all that had been forbidden. He forbids all. We may note that the forms of colloquial swearing, which our Lord specifies, are not to be taken as an exhaustive enumeration of what is forbidden. They are in the nature of a

parenthesis, and the sentence runs on continuously without them-’Swear not at all . . . but let your communication be Yea, yea; �ay, nay.’ The reason appended is equally universal, for it suggests the deep thought that ‘whatsoever is more than these’ that is to say, any form of speech that seeks to strengthen a simple, grave asseveration by such oaths as He has just QUOTED, ‘cometh of evil’ inasmuch as it springs from, and reveals, the melancholy fact that his bare word is not felt binding by a man, and is not accepted as conclusive by others. If lies were not so common, oaths would be needless. And oaths increase the evil from which they come, by confirming the notion that there is no sin in a lie unless it is sworn to.

The oaths specified are all colloquial, which were and are continually and offensively mingled with common speech in the East. �owhere are there such habitual liars, and nowhere are there so many oaths. Every traveller there knows that, and sees how true is Christ’s filiation of the custom of swearing from the custom of falsehood. But these poisonous weeds of speech not only tended to degrade plain veracity in the popular mind, but were themselves parents of immoral evasions, for it was the teaching of some Rabbis, at all events, that an oath ‘by heaven’ or ‘by earth’ or ‘by Jerusalem’ or ‘by my head’ did not bind. That further relaxation of the obligation of truthfulness was grounded on the words QUOTED in Mat_5:33, for, said the immoral quibblers, ‘it is “thine oaths to the Lord” that thou “shalt perform,” and for these others you may do as you like’ Therefore our Lord insists that every oath, even these mutilated, colloquial ones which avoid His name, is in essence an appeal to God, and has no sense unless it is. To swear such a truncated oath, then, has the still further condemnation that it is certainly an irreverence, and probably a quibble, and meant to be broken. It must be fully admitted that there is little in common between such pieces of senseless profanity as these oaths, or the modern equivalents which pollute so many lips to-day, and the oath administered in a court of justice, and it may further be allowed weight that Jesus does not specifically prohibit the oath ‘by the Lord,’ but it is difficult to see how the principles on which He condemns are to be kept from touching even judicial oaths. For they, too, are administered on the ground of the false idea that they add to the obligation of veracity, and give a guarantee of truthfulness which a simple affirmation does not give. �or can any one, who knows the perfunctory formality and indifference with which such oaths are administered and taken, and what a farce ‘kissing the book’ has become, doubt that even judicial oaths tend to weaken the popular conception of the sin of a lie and the reliance to be placed upon the simple ‘Yea, yea; �ay, nay.’

BE�SO�, "Verses 33-37Matthew 5:33-37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time — Or rather, was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, &c. — See the margin. The Jewish DOCTORS affirmed, that oaths were obligatory according to the nature of the things by which a man swears: Matthew 23:10. Hence they allowed the use of such oaths in common conversation as they said were not obligatory; pretending that there was no harm in them, because the law, which forbade them to

forswear themselves, and enjoined them to perform their vows, meant such solemn oaths only as were of a binding nature. It is this detestable morality which Jesus condemns in the following words. But I say unto you, Swear not at all — In YOUR common discourse one with another, but barely affirm or deny. Swear not by any thing, on the supposition that the oath will not bind you. “For all oaths whatever, those by the lowest of the creatures not excepted, are obligatory;” because, if they “have any meaning at all, they are an appeal to the great Creator; consequently they are oaths by him, implying a solemn invocation of his wrath on such of the creatures sworn by as are capable of God’s wrath; and for the other, the oath implies a solemn imprecation, in case of your swearing falsely, that you may be for ever deprived of all the comfort or advantage you have in, or hope from those creatures. Swear not, therefore, neither by heaven, &c. — By comparing Matthew 23:16, it appears that our Lord is here giving a catalogue of oaths, which, in the opinion of the doctors, were not obligatory. His meaning therefore is, Swear not at all, unless you have a mind to perform; because every oath being really obligatory, he who, from an opinion that some are not, swears voluntarily by heaven, or by the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by his own head, is without all doubt guilty of perjury. Much more is he guilty, who, when called thereto by lawful authority, swears with an intention to falsify. But by no means does Jesus condemn swearing truly before a magistrate, or upon grave and solemn occasions, because that would have been to prohibit both the best method of ending controversies, Hebrews 6:16; and a high act of religious worship, Deuteronomy 6:3; Isaiah 65:16; an oath being not only a solemn appeal to the Divine Omniscience, from which nothing can be hid, but a direct acknowledgment of God, as the great patron and protector of right, and the avenger of falsehood.” But let your communication be yea, yea — Avoid the use of all such oaths, as of those in which the name of God is directly expressed, and maintain such sincerity and truth in all your words as will merit the belief of your acquaintance; so that, in common conversation, to gain yourselves CREDIT, you need do no more than barely assert or DE�Y any matter, without invoking the name of God at all. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil — :Of the evil one ,וך פןץ נןםחסןץin common discourse, whatever is more than affirmation or negation, ariseth from the temptation of the devil, who tempts men to curse and to swear, that he may lessen in them, and in all who hear them, a due reverence of the Divine Majesty, and by this means lead them, at length, to perjury, even in the most solemn instances; considerations which show the evil nature of this sin in the strongest light. The Apostle James expresses this sentiment thus, James 5:12, Let YOUR yea be yea, and your nay, nay. The first yea and nay, therefore, signify the promise or assertion; the second the fulfilment. ACCORDI�GLY we find the word yea used as a promise, Revelation 1:7, where it is explained by amen; likewise, as the fulfilment of a promise, 2 Corinthians 1:10, where we are told that the promises of God are all in Christ, yea and amen. On the other hand, concerning those whose actions do not correspond to their promises, it is said, 2 Corinthians 1:18-19, that their word is yea and nay: Our word toward you was not yea and nay. — Macknight.

BIBLICAL�ILLUSTRATOR,�"BIBLICAL�ILLUSTRATOR,�"BIBLICAL�ILLUSTRATOR,�"BIBLICAL�ILLUSTRATOR,�"Swear�not.

I.�Profane�swearing�is�always�the�evidence�of�a�depraved�heart.

II.�II.�II.�II.�No�man�is�believed�any�sooner�in�common�conversation�because�he�swears�to�a�thing.

III.�III.�III.�III.�It�is�no�mark�of�a�gentleman�to�swear.

IV.�IV.�IV.�IV.�Profaneness�does�no�man�any�good.�It�is�degrading,�etc.

V.�V.�V.�V.�God�will�not�hold�the�profane�swearer�guiltless.�There�is�not�in�the�universe�more�cause�of�

amazement�at�God’s�forbearance.�(Dr.�A.�Barnes.)

I.�I.�I.�I.�It�is�mean�to�swear.

II.�II.�II.�II.�It�is�rude�to�swear.

III.�III.�III.�III.�Swearing�is�the�sign�of�an�empty�head.

IV.�IV.�IV.�IV.�Swearing�is�wicked.�(J.�N.�Norton.)

In�order�to�keep�us�at�the�greatest�distance�from�all�profanation�of�the�sacred�name,�Christ�warns�

us�here�to�avoid�oaths�of�every�kind.

((((1111))))�Except�in�cases�of�necessity.

((((2222))))�How�trifling�soever�they�may�seem�to�us.

((((3333))))�As�implying�an�appeal�to�God�contrary�to�the�reverence�we�owe�Him,�and�to�that�

simplicity�of�speech�which�becomes�those�who�fear�Him.

II.�II.�II.�II.�Let�the�general�probity�of�your�character�and�known�regard�to�the�truth�be�such�that�your�bare�

word�may�be�credited.�Whether�it�is�or�not,�resolve�to�go�no�farther,�for�whatsoever�is�more�than�

these,�cometh�of�evil.�(Thomas�Admire.)

The�lawfulness�and�obligation�of�oathsThe�lawfulness�and�obligation�of�oathsThe�lawfulness�and�obligation�of�oathsThe�lawfulness�and�obligation�of�oaths

I.�I.�I.�I.�This�precept�does�not�absolutely�forbid�all�use�of�oaths.�An�oath�is�a�solemn�appeal�to�God,�as�

a�witness�of�the�truth�of�what�we�declare,�and�of�our�sincerity�in�what�we�promise.�Oaths�are�

assertory�and�promissory.

1111.�.�.�.�It�is�not�uncommon�for�Scripture�to�use�general�expressions,�which�are�to�be�understood�in�

a�qualified�sense.

2222.�.�.�.�From�the�reasons�of�the�charge�and�other�passages�of�Scripture.�Oaths�are�necessary�in�

civil�society:�they�are�of�Divine�institution;�St.�Paul�used�them;�God�swears�by�Himself.

II.�II.�II.�II.�Christ�condemns-

1111.�.�.�.�Perjury.

2222.�.�.�.�Customary�swearing�in�common�conversation.

3333.�.�.�.�As�we�may�not�use�the�Divine�name�wantonly�so�neither�may�we�swear�by�any�of�God’s�

creatures.

4444.�.�.�.�He�forbids�all�rash�imprecations.

5555.�.�.�.�All�scoffing�at�religion,�contempt�of�the�writings�of�God,�and�all�sporting�with�Scripture.�

Profane�language�is�a�sure�evidence�of�a�bad�disposition�of�mind.�It�tends�to�produce�greater�

hardness�and�to�extinguish�all�reverence:�it�is�most�pernicious�in�its�consequences:it�is�

unreasonable�yet�infectious;�it�heaps�guilt�upon�the�soul.�(J.�Lathrop,�D.�D.)

I.�I.�I.�I.�The�Christian�Jaw�in�regard�to�oaths�(Lev_19:12;�Num_30:2).

II.�II.�II.�II.�The�Christian�law�of�retaliation.

III.�III.�III.�III.�Practical�lessons.�The�sin�of�perjury�is�said�to�be�growing�appallingly�frequent.�Whilst�

technical�vows�are�no�longer�in�harmony�with�the�liberty�of�the�new�dispensation,�still�the�spirit�of�

the�vow�by�which�one�dedicates�himself�to�Divine�service�is�as�sacred�and�as�useful�as�ever.�Avoid�

using�expressions�that�are�in�the�nature�of�an�oath�without�having�its�technical�form.�Outright�

profanity�is�a�terrible�sin,�as�useless�as�it�is�hardening.�What�a�confession�of�man’s�proneness�to�

lie,�is�his�habitual�appeal�to�God�as�a�witness�of�the�truth!�The�law�of�retaliating�love�laid�down�by�

Christ�shows�Him�to�be�the�one�and�supreme�Teacher.�(J.�S.�Doolittle,�D.�D.)

LanguageLanguageLanguageLanguage

1111.�.�.�.�Language�should�be�the�simple�expression�of�the�heart.

2222.�.�.�.�Christianity�seeks�to�simplify�human�communications.

3333.�.�.�.�Exaggerated�expressions�lead�to�an�untrue�life.

4444.�.�.�.�Christ’s�law�of�speech�will�regulate�our�social�intercourse.�(W.�W.�Whythe.)

Profane�SwearingProfane�SwearingProfane�SwearingProfane�Swearing

This�sin�is�awfully�prevalent.

I.�I.�I.�I.�The�excuses�usually�made�for�it.�Ignorance,�custom,�example,�surprise,�passion,�confirmation�of�

what�is�said,�meaning�no�harm,�inconsistencies�of�professors,�etc.�(2Sa_12:14;�Eze_36:20;�Rom_

2:24;�2Pe_2:2).

II.�II.�II.�II.�The�evil�consequences�of�it.�Destroys�the�little�remains�of�the�fear�of�God.�Leads�to�the�

disobedience�of�all�His�commands.�Such�a�horrid�example�to�others,�especially�to�the�young,�etc.

III.�III.�III.�III.�The�powerful�arguments�against�it.�God�hears.�He�is�holy�and�jealous.�Before�His�bar�the�

swearer�must�appear.�He�is�able�to�punish,�and�declares�He�will�(2Ki_19:22;�2Ki_19:28;�Isa_

37:23;�Isa_37:36;�Isa_37:38;�Eze_20:27;�Eze_20:33;�Eze_35:12-14).�(A.�Tucker.)

The�Sin�of�SwearingThe�Sin�of�SwearingThe�Sin�of�SwearingThe�Sin�of�Swearing

I.�I.�I.�I.�Explain�the�sin�in�question.

1111.�.�.�.�One�branch�of�this�sin�is�cursing�and�swearing.

2222.�.�.�.�Another�branch�is�the�familiar�introduction�of�oaths�into�common�conversation.

3333.�.�.�.�A�mingling�religious�language�in�our�common�discourse�without�any�corresponding�

feelings�in�our�heart.

II.�II.�II.�II.�Its�aggravated�guilt.

1111.�.�.�.�It�is�a�gratuitous�sin.

2222.�.�.�.�It�is�a�wilful�sin.

3333.�.�.�.�It�is�a�presumptuous�sin.

III.�III.�III.�III.�The�awful�state�of�those�who�practise�this�sin.

1111.�.�.�.�Awful�because�God�has�denounced�His�vengeance�against�them.

2222.�.�.�.�It�is�a�state�of�fitness�for�destruction.

3333.�.�.�.�It�is�a�sure�sign�of�an�unregenerate�condition.�(E.�Cooper.)

Profane�exclamationsProfane�exclamationsProfane�exclamationsProfane�exclamations

Charlie�Harold,�speaking�to�his�grandmother�about�something�he�did�not�like,�exclaimed,�“By�

thunder�I�…�Hush�I�“�said�the�old�lady,�“you�must�not�swear,�my�dear.�Don’t�you�know�that�Jesus�

said,�‘Swear�not�at�all!�…�.�Did:He?�Well,�I�didn’t�know�it�was�swearing�to�say�‘By�thunder,’�or�‘By�

golly.’�Is�it,�grandma?�…�All�such�expressions,�my�dear,�in�which�‘�by’�is�used,�partake�of�the�

nature�of�swearing,�and�a�boy�who�wishes�to�be�good�will�never�let�them�fall�from�his�lips.”�

Charlie�sat�silent�for�several�minutes,�in�grave�thought,�and�then�said,�“‘Grandma,�what�makes�

the�newspaper�swear�every�morning?�…�Does�it,”�inquired�the�old�lady,�looking�over�the�top�of�

her�spectacles�with�curious�eyes.�“Yes,�it�says,�‘By�telegraph.’”�The�old�lady�could�not�help�

laughing,�but�she�explained�to�Charlie�the�difference�between�an�exclamation�such�as�“�By�

thunder,”�used�to�give�emphasis�to�a�remark,�and�an�incomplete�sentence�such�as�“By�telegraph.”�

The�little�boy�determined�that�he�would�not�offend�in�this�way�again,�and�I�have�told�you�the�

story,�hoping�that�you�may�make�the�same�wise�rule.�(J.�N.�Norton.)

Keep�from�SwearingKeep�from�SwearingKeep�from�SwearingKeep�from�Swearing

A�lad�in�Boston,�rather�small�for�his�years,�worked�in�an�office�as�errand�boy�for�four�gentlemen�

who�did�business�there.�One�day�the�gentlemen�were�teasing�him�a�little�about�being�so�small,�

and�said�to�him:�“You�never�will�amount�to�much,�you�never�can�do�much�business,�you�are�too�

small.”�The�little�fellow�looked�at�them.�“Well,”�said�he,�“as�small�as�I�am,�I�can�do�something�

which�none�of�you�four�men�can�do.”�“Ah,�what�is�that?”�said�they.�“I�don’t�know�as�I�ought�to�

tell�you,”�he�replied.�But�they�were�anxious�to�know,�and�urged�him�to�tell�what�he�could�do�that�

none�of�them�were�able�to�do.�“I�can�keep�from�swearing!”�said�the�little�fellow.�There�were�some�

blushes�on�four�manly�faces,�and�there�seemed�to�be�very�little�anxiety�for�further�information�on�

the�point.

Swear�in�the�Gaelic�tongueSwear�in�the�Gaelic�tongueSwear�in�the�Gaelic�tongueSwear�in�the�Gaelic�tongue

A�lady�travelling�from�Edinburgh�to�Glasgow�was�much�annoyed�by�a�young�officer’s�

conversation�in�the�carriage�being�interspersed�with�oaths.�She�sat�uneasy�till�she�could�no�longer�

keep�silence.�“Sir,”�she�said�to�the�officer,�“can�you�talk�in�the�Gaelic�tongue?”�To�this�he�replied�

in�the�affirmative,�seemingly�with�great�pleasure,�expecting�to�have�some�conversation�with�the�

lady�in�that�dialect.�She�then�politely�requested�that�if�he�wished�to�swear�any�more,�it�might�be�in�

that�language,�as�the�practice�of�swearing�was�very�offensive�to�herself�and�the�rest�of�the�

company.�The�officer�was�confounded�at�this�reproof,�and�no�more�oaths�were�heard�from�him�

during�the�remainder�of�the�journey.

The�tongue�and�the�temperThe�tongue�and�the�temperThe�tongue�and�the�temperThe�tongue�and�the�temper

1111.�.�.�.�The�language�of�irreverence.

2222.�.�.�.�The�language�of�retaliation.

3333.�.�.�.�The�language�of�revenge.�(Sermons�by�Monday�Club.)

LANGE,�"Mat_5:33.�Thou�shalt�not�forswear�thyself,ן�QךQףויע�ניןסך�(swear�falsely):�Exo_

20:7;�Lev_19:12.—In�this�instance,�also,�the�Lord�first�reverts�to�the�law�as�given�by�Moses,�

showing�its�full�and�spiritual�import,�and�then�condemns�the�perversions�of�it�introduced�by�

traditionalism.�Like�divorce,�the�practice�of�taking�an�oath�was�an�ancient�custom,�which�existed�

before�the�time�of�Moses.�Considering�it�indispensable�in�civil�causes,�the�legislator�adopted�it�in�

his�code�(Exo_22:11,�comp.�Heb_6:16),�just�as�he�admitted�divorce.�But�as�all�license�was�

restrained�by�the�enactment�concerning�the�bill�of�divorce,�so�all�levity�by�the�ordinances�

attaching�to�an�oath,�viz.:�(1)�by�the�condemnation�of�a�false�oath,�Exo_20:7;�Lev_19:12;�(2)�by�

the�injunction�to�regard�vows�as�sacred,�and�to�fulfil�them,�Num_30:3;�(3)�by�the�direction�to�take�

an�oath�only�in�the�name�of�the�Lord,�Deu_6:13.�Hence,�when�Christ�ordains,�Swear�not�at�all,�

He�enters�fully�into�the�spirit�of�this�legislation,�and�fulfils�this�law,�or�carries�it�to�its�ideal.�The�

internal�agreement�between�the�saying�of�the�Lord�and�the�law�of�Moses�is�evident.�As,�in�the�

case�of�the�law�of�divorce,�Jesus�had�brought�out�the�latent�prohibition�of�Moses,�by�presenting�it�

without�the�temporary�and�conditional�permission�attaching�to�it;�so�here�also�the�same�latent�

prohibition�appears�when�the�Saviour�carries�out�the�spirit�of�the�limitations�introduced�by�

Moses,�which�ultimately�aimed�at�the�complete�abrogation�of�the�oath.�But�the�law�of�Moses�was�

intended�to�bring�out�the�spiritual�nature�of�marriage,�and�not�as�absolute�legislation�on�the�

subject.�Similarly,�his�ordinances�concerning�oaths�were�not�intended�to�abrogate�them�

completely,�but�to�bring�out�the�ultimate�idea�of�an�oath—the�yea,�yea,�nay,�nay!—both�as�before�

God.�In�these�instances,�however,�Christ�aims�not�merely�after�a�negative,�but�after�a�positive�

result,—in�the�present�case,�to�introduce�the�oath�in�its�spiritual�aspect.�Accordingly,�He�now�

shows�the�difference�between�it�and�the�practice�common�among�the�Jews.�This�consists�not�

merely�in�the�fact,�that�what�had�been�sanctioned�for�judicial�procedure�was�now�used�in�every-

day�life,�but�also�in�the�introduction�of�additional�asseverations�and�of�self-imprecations�in�the�

common�mode�of�taking�oaths,ףבי�ל���.�These�asseverations�by�heaven,�by�earth,�etc.—this�

pledging�as�it�were�of�things�over�which�we�have�no�control—are�manifestly�sinful.�In�a�certain�

sense,�they�convert�an�oath�into�a�curse.�Hence,�rendering�the�words�of�Christ�according�to�their�

import,�we�might�almost�translate�them:�But�I�say�unto�you,�Curse�not,�not�at�all!�Since�the�oath,�

in�the�proper�sense�of�the�term,�had�thus�degenerated,�and�been�almost�completely�perverted,�it�

was�to�cease,�but�only�in�order�to�give�place�to�what�was�implied�in�the�true�idea�of�the�oath—the�

calm�and�solemn�attestation:�yea,�yea;�nay,�nay;�as�in�the�presence�of�God.�The�relation�in�which�

the�Christian�State�and�the�Christian�citizen�stand�to�this�absolute�spiritua�law,�is�the�same�as�we�

formerly�noticed�in�reference�to�marriage.�So�far�as�our�own�personal�conduct�is�concerned,�we�

are�to�adopt�in�the�fullest�sense�the�New�Testament�direction�(Jam_5:12);�it�is�the�duty�of�the�

State�to�aim�after�realizing�the�ideal�here�set�before�it,�while�the�Christian�citizen�is�bound�

humbly�to�submit.�(In�this,�and�in�similar�respects,�it�is�important�to�distinguish�between�the�duty�

of�bearing�testimony�and�that�of�obedience.�There�is�no�inconsistency,�for�example,�in�the�

Christian�minister,�who�as�an�evangelist�is�opposed�to�all�war,�and�yet�acts�as�an�humble�and�

efficient�military�chaplain.)�This�explanation�Christ�has�sanctioned�by�His�example.�Like�the�

patriarchs�of�old�(Gen_21:23-24;�Gen_31:33;�Gen_47:31),�He�acknowledged�the�lawfulness�of�

the�adjuration�before�the�Sanhedrin�(Mat_26:64).�It�is�not�an�isolated�error�when�certain�

sectarians—as�the�Anabaptists�of�the�Reformation�period,�the�Mennonites,�and�the�Quakers—

confound�the�duty�of�the�individual�Christian�as�such�with�that�of�the�citizen;�the�mistake�goes�far�

deeper.�They�deny�in�principle�the�moral�and�EDUCATIONAL�character�and�object�of�the�

State,�which�is�intended�to�be�subservient�to�the�kingdom�of�heaven�and�to�promote�it.�From�the�

example�of�Paul�(Rom_9:1;�2Co_11:10)�we�gather�how�the�spiritual�nature�of�the�oath�appears,�

when�the�Christian�appeals�to�his�fellowship�with�God�in�support�of�the�reality�and�certainty�of�

his�assertions.�Viewed�in�this�light,�the�oath�of�the�Christian�is�based�even�on�that�of�the�Lord�

Himself�(Isa_45:23;�Heb_6:13).�God�swears�by�Himself,�i.�e.,�He�appeals�to�His�absolute�and�

personal�certitude;�and�the�Christian�swears�before�God,�when�he�solemnly�attests�his�statement�

under�a�calm�sense�of�the�presence�of,�and�of�communion�with,�God.�It�is�the�duty�of�the�State�

more�and�more�to�modify�the�oath�in�conformity�to�the�spirit�of�the�gospel,�and�to�acknowledge�a�

simple�Christian�assurance�as�equivalent�to�an�oath.�The�Church�cannot�require�an�oath�without�

obscuring�the�consciousness�of�standing�before�the�Lord�with�all�the�solemn�affirmations�and�

vows�of�her�members.�Comp.�on�the�different�explanations�Heubner,�Com.�p.�71�[and�Tholuck,�

Bergpredigt,�p.�258–275].

The�scribes�insisted�on�the�obligatory�character�of�vows,�but�distinguished�between�oaths�which�

were�binding�and�others�which�were�not�binding.�Maimonides:�Si�quis�jurat�per�c�lum,�per�terram,�

per�solem,�non�est�juramentum.�Comp.�Mat_23:16�Similarly,�Philo�regarded�oaths�by�heaven,�by�

earth,�etc.,�as�not�very�important,�and�advised�that�they�should�be�employed�rather�than�a�direct�

appeal�to�the�Most�High�God.

34�34�34�34�But�I�tell�you,�do�not�swear�an�oath�at�all:�either�But�I�tell�you,�do�not�swear�an�oath�at�all:�either�But�I�tell�you,�do�not�swear�an�oath�at�all:�either�But�I�tell�you,�do�not�swear�an�oath�at�all:�either�

by�heaven,�for�it�is�God’s�throne;�by�heaven,�for�it�is�God’s�throne;�by�heaven,�for�it�is�God’s�throne;�by�heaven,�for�it�is�God’s�throne;�

BARNES,�"BARNES,�"BARNES,�"BARNES,�"But�I�say�unto�you,�Swear�not�at�all�But�I�say�unto�you,�Swear�not�at�all�But�I�say�unto�you,�Swear�not�at�all�But�I�say�unto�you,�Swear�not�at�all�---- That�is,�in�the�manner�which�he�proceeds�to�

specify.�Swear�not�in�any�of�the�common�and�profane�ways�customary�at�that�time.

By�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne�By�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne�By�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne�By�heaven;�for�it�is�God’s�throne�---- To�swear�by�that�was,�if�it�meant�anything,�to�swear�by�Him�

that�sitteth�thereon,�Mat_23:22.

Nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�his�footstool�Nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�his�footstool�Nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�his�footstool�Nor�by�the�earth;�for�it�is�his�footstool�---- Swearing�by�that,�therefore,�is�really�swearing�by�God.�

Or�perhaps�it�means:

1. That�we�have�no�right�to�pledge,�or�swear�by,�what�belongs�to�God;�and,

2. That�oaths�by�inanimate�objects�are�unmeaningful�and�wicked.

If�they�are�real�oaths,�they�are�by�a�living�Being,�who�has�power�to�take�vengeance.�A�footstool�

is�that�on�which�the�feet�rest�when�sitting.�The�term�is�applied�to�the�earth�to�denote�how�lowly�

and�humble�an�object�it�is�when�compared�with�God.

Jerusalem�Jerusalem�Jerusalem�Jerusalem�---- See�the�notes�at�Mat_2:1.

City�of�the�Great�King�City�of�the�Great�King�City�of�the�Great�King�City�of�the�Great�King�---- That�is,�of�God;�called�the�Great�King�because�he�was�the�King�of�the�

Israelites,�and�Jerusalem�was�the�capital�of�the�nation,�and�the�place�where�he�was�especially�

honored�as�king.�Compare�Psa_46:4;�Psa_48:1-2;�Psa_87:3.

CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"CLARKE,�"Neither�by�heaven,�etc.�Neither�by�heaven,�etc.�Neither�by�heaven,�etc.�Neither�by�heaven,�etc.�---- It�was�a�custom�among�the�Scythians,�when�they�wished�

to�bind�themselves�in�the�most�solemn�manner,�to�swear�by�the�king’s�throne;�and�if�the�king�was�

at�any�time�sick,�they�believed�it�was�occasioned�by�some�one’s�having�taken�the�oath�falsely.�

Herod.�l.�iv.

Who�is�there�among�the�traders�and�people�of�this�world�who�obey�this�law?�A�common�

swearer�is�constantly�perjuring�himself:�such�a�person�should�never�be�trusted.�When�we�make�

any�promise�contrary�to�the�command�of�God,�taking,�as�a�pledge�of�our�sincerity,�either�God,�or�

something�belonging�to�him,�we�engage�that�which�is�not�ours,�without�the�Master’s�consent.�God�

manifests�his�glory�in�heaven,�as�upon�his�throne;�he�imprints�the�footsteps�of�his�perfections�

upon�the�earth,�his�footstool;�and�shows�that�his�holiness�and�his�grace�reign�in�his�temple�as�the�

place�of�his�residence.�Let�it�be�our�constant�care�to�seek�and�honor�God�in�all�his�works.

GILL,�"GILL,�"GILL,�"GILL,�"But�I�say�unto�you,�swear�not�at�allBut�I�say�unto�you,�swear�not�at�allBut�I�say�unto�you,�swear�not�at�allBut�I�say�unto�you,�swear�not�at�all,....�Which�must�not�be�understood�in�the�strictest�

sense,�as�though�it�was�not�lawful�to�take�an�oath�upon�any�occasion,�in�an�affair�of�moment,�in�a�

solemn�serious�manner,�and�in�the�name�of�God;�which�may�be�safely�done:�but�of�rash�swearing,�

about�trivial�matters,�and�by�the�creatures;�as�appears�by�what�follows,�

neither�by�heavenneither�by�heavenneither�by�heavenneither�by�heaven;�which�is�directly�contrary�to�the�Jewish�canons�(m),�which�say,�

"they�that�swearבשמים�, "by heaven", and by earth, are free.''

Upon the words in Son_2:7, "I adjure you", &c. it is asked (n),

"by what does she adjure them? R. Eliezer says, by the heavens, and by the earth; by the hosts, the host above, and the host below.''

So Philo the Jew says (o) that the most high and ancient cause need not to be

immediately mentioned in swearing; but the "earth", the sun, the stars, ουρανον, "heaven", and the whole world. So R. Aben Ezra, and R. David Kimchi, explain Amo_

4:2. "The Lord God hath sworn by his holiness"; that is, say they, בשמים, "by heaven": which may be thought to justify them, in this form of swearing; though they did not look upon it as a binding oath, and therefore if broken they were not criminal (p).

"He that swears בשמים by heaven, and by the earth, and by the sun, and the like; though his intention is nothing less than to him that created them, this is no oath.''

The reason why it is forbidden by Christ to swear by heaven, is,

for it is God's throne; referring to Isa_66:1 where he sits, the glory of his majesty shines forth, and is itself glorious and excellent, and not to be mentioned in a vain way; and especially, for the reason Christ elsewhere gives, Mat_23:22 that "he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon"; so that they doubly sinned, first, by openly swearing by that which is God's creature; and then, by tacitly bringing God into their rash and vain oaths.

HE�RY, "It is here added, that the commandment does not only forbid false swearing, but all rash, unnecessary swearing: Swear not at all,Mat_5:34; Compare Jam_5:12. Not that all swearing is sinful; so far from that, if rightly done, it is a part of religious worship, and we in it give unto God the glory due to his name. See Deu_6:13; Deu_10:20; Isa_45:23; Jer_4:2. We find Paul confirming what he said by such solemnities (2Co_1:23), when there was a necessity for it. In swearing, we pawn the truth of something known, to confirm the truth of something doubtful or unknown; we appeal to a greater knowledge, to a higher court, and imprecate the vengeance of a righteous Judge, if we swear deceitfully.

Now the mind of Christ in this matter is,

1. That we must not swear at all, but when we are duly called to it, and justice or charity to our brother, or respect to the commonwealth, make it necessary for the end of strife (Heb_6:16), of which necessity the civil magistrate is ordinarily to be the judge. We may be sworn, but we must now swear; we may be adjured, and so obliged to it, but we must not thrust ourselves upon it for our own worldly advantage.

2. That we must not swear lightly and irreverently, in common discourse: it is a very great sin to make a ludicrous appeal to the glorious Majesty of heaven, which, being a sacred thing, ought always to be very serious: it is a gross profanation of God's holy name, and of one of the holy things which the children of Israel sanctify to the Lord: it is a sin that has no cloak, no excuse for it, and therefore a sign of a graceless heart, in which enmity to God reigns: Thine enemies take thy name in vain.

3. That we must in a special manner avoid promissory oaths, of which Christ more particularly speaks here, for they are oaths that are to be performed. The influence of an affirmative oath immediately ceases, when we have faithfully discovered the truth, and the whole truth; but a promissory oath binds so long, and may be so many ways broken, by the surprise as well as strength of a temptation, that it is not to be used but upon great necessity: the frequent requiring and using of oaths, is a reflection upon Christians, who should be of such acknowledged fidelity, as that their sober words should be as sacred as their solemn oaths.

4. That we must not swear by any other creature. It should seem there were some, who, in civility (as they thought) to the name of God, would not make use of that in swearing, but would swear by heaven or earth, etc. This Christ forbids here (Mat_5:34) and shows that there is nothing we can swear by, but it is some way or other related to God, who is the Fountain of all beings, and therefore that it is as dangerous to swear by them, as it is to swear by God himself: it is the verity of the creature that is laid at stake; now that cannot be an instrument of testimony, but as it has regard to God, who is the summum verum - the chief Truth. As for instance,

(1.) Swear not by the heaven; “As sure as there is a heaven, this is true;” for it is God's throne, where he resides, and in a particular manner manifests his glory, as a Prince upon his throne: this being the inseparable dignity of the upper world, you cannot swear by heaven, but you swear by God himself.

TRAPP, "Ver. 34. Swear not at all] �ot at all by the creatures. {a} (which the Pharisees held no fault), nor yet by the name of God in common talk, lightly, rashly, and irreverently; for such vain oaths the land mourneth. Oaths, alas, are become very interjections of speech to the common people, and phrases of gallantry to the braver. He that cannot swear with a grace, wanteth his tropes and his figures befitting a gentleman. �ot to speak of those civilized complements of faith and loyalty (which are counted light matters), who hears not how ordinarily and OPE�LY ruffianly oaths and abhorred blasphemies are darted up with hellish mouths, against God and our Saviour, whom they can swear all over, and seldom name, but in an oath? How can these pray, "Hallowed be that �ame," that they so daily dishallow? {b} Some cannot utter a sentence without an oath, yea, a fearful one, an oath of sound, if enraged especially. Oh the tragedies, the blusters, the terrible thunder cracks or fierce and furious language, interlaced with oaths, enough to make the very stones crack under them! Yea, to such a height and habitual practice hereof are some grown, that they swear and foam out a great deal of filth, and perceive it not. Had these men such distemper of body as that their excrements came from them when they knew not of it, it would trouble them. So it would, I dare say, did they believe the Holy Scriptures, threatening so many woes to them, yea, telling them of a large roll, ten yards long and five yards broad, full of curses against the swearer, yea, resting upon his house, where he thinks himself most SECURE, Zechariah 5:2-3 "Brimstone is scattered upon the house of the wicked," saith Job, {Job 18:15} as ready to take fire if God but lighten upon it. They walk, as it were, upon a mine of gunpowder, and it may be just in God they should be blown up, when their hearts are full of hell, and their mouths even big with hellish blasphemies. Surely their damnation sleepeth not; God hath vowed he will not hold them guiltless, sworn these swearers shall never E�TER into his rest, Exodus 20:7; Psalms 95:11. And for men, those that have but any ingenuity abhor and shun their company. The very Turks have the Christians blaspheming Christ in execration, and will punish their prisoners sorely, when as through impatience or desperateness they burst out into them. Yea, the Jews, as their conversion is much hindered by the blasphemies of the Italians (who blaspheme oftener than swear), so in their speculations of the causes of the strange success of the affairs of the world, they assign the reason of the Turks prevailing so against the Christians, to be their

oaths and blasphemies, which wound the ears of the very heavens. They can tell that swearing is one of those sins for the which God hath a controversy with a land, Hosea 4:2; Jeremiah 23:10. And I can tell what a great divine hath observed, that the stones in the wall of Aphek shall sooner turn executioners than a blasphemous Aramite shall escape unrevenged. So much doth a jealous God hate to be robbed of his glory, or wronged in his name, even by ignorant pagans (how much more by professed Christians!) whose tongues might seem no slander. Those that abuse earthly princes in their name and titles are imprisoned, banished, or hanged as traitors. And shall these go altogether unpunished? Hell gapes for such miscreants, &c.

�either by heaven] As the Manichees and Pharisees did, and held it no sin. But God only is the proper object of an oath, Isaiah 65:16; Jeremiah 12:6. The name of the creature, say some, may be inferred, the attestation referred to God alone. But they say better that tell us that the form of an oath is not at all to be indirect or oblique, in the name of the creature. Albeit I doubt not but he that sweareth by heaven sweareth by him that dwelleth in heaven, &c. And forasmuch as God clotheth himself with the creatures, Psalms 104:1-2, is it fit for us to spit upon the king’s royal robes, especially when they are upon his back? But forasmuch as we must shun and be shy of the very show and shadow of sin, they do best and safest that abstain from all oaths of this nature, 1 Thessalonians 5:22. They do very ill that swear by this light, bread, hand, fire (which they absurdly call God’s angel), by St Ann, St George, by our Lady, &c., by the parts of Christ, which they substitute in the ROOM of God. The barbarous soldiers would not break his bones, but these miscreants with their carrion mouths rend and tear (oh cause for tears!) his heart, hands, head, feet, and all his members asunder. Let all such consider, that, as light a matter as they make of it, this swearing by the creature is a "forsaking of God," Jeremiah 5:7, a provocation little less than unpardonable; an exposing God’s honour to the spoil of the creatures, which was the heathen’s sin, Romans 1:23; and abasing themselves below the meanest creatures, "for men verily swear by the greater," Hebrews 6:16. And the viler the thing is they swear by, the greater is the oath, because they ascribe thereto omniscience, power to punish, justice, &c., Amos 8:14; Zephaniah 1:3-5; besides a heavy doom of unavoidable destruction denounced against such. They that speak in favour of this sin allege 1 Corinthians 15:31. But that is not an oath, but an obtestation; q.d. my sorrows and sufferings for Christ would testify, if they could speak, that I die daily. And that, Song of Solomon 3:5, where Christ seemeth to swear "by the toes and hinds of the field." But that is not an oath either, but an adjuration: for he chargeth them not to trouble his Church; or if they do, the roes and hinds shall testify against them, because they do what those would not, had they reason as they have. In like sort Moses attesteth heaven and earth, Deuteronomy 32:1; and so doth God himself, Isaiah 1:2. And for those phrases, "As Pharaoh liveth," "As thy soul liveth," &c., they are rather earnest vouchings of things than oaths. {c} And yet that phrase of gallantry now so common, "As true as I live," is judged to be no better than an oath by the creature, �umbers 14:21; cf. Psalms 95:11. And we may not swear in jest, but in judgment, Jeremiah 4:2.

For it is God’s throne] We must not conceive that God is commensurable by a place, as if he were partly here and partly there, but he is everywhere all-present. The heavens have a large place, yet have they one part here and another there, but the Lord is totally present wheresoever present. Heaven therefore is said to be his throne, and he is said to inhabit it, Isaiah 66:1, not as if he were confined to it, as Aristotle and those atheists in JOB conceited it; {d} but because there he is pleased to manifest the most glorious and visible signs of his presence, and there in a special manner he is enjoyed and worshipped by the crowned saints and glorious angels, &c. Here we see but as in a glass obscurely, his toe, TRAI�, hind parts, footstool. �o man can see more and live; no man need see more here, that he may live for ever. But "there we shall see as we are seen, know as we are known," see him face to face, Isaiah 6:1; Isaiah 60:13; Isaiah 66:1; Exodus 33:23; 1 Corinthians 13:12. Oh how should this fire up our dull hearts, with all earnestness and intention of endeared affection to long, lust, pant, faint after the beatifical vision! How should we daily lift up our hearts and hands to God in the heavens, that he would send from heaven and save us; send his law, and command deliverance out of Sion; yea, that himself would break the heavens and come down, and fetch us home upon THE CLOUDS of heaven, as himself ascended, that when we awake we may be full of his image, and as we have borne the image of the earthly, so we may bear the image of the heavenly! St Paul, after he had once seen God in his throne, being rapped up into the third heaven (like the bird of Paradise), he never left groaning out, Cupio dissolvi, " I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which is far far the better." {e} And Pareus, a little before his death, uttered this swan song,

" Discupio solvi, tecumque, o Christe, manere:

Portio fac regni sim quotacunque tui."

Oh that I were in heaven! Oh that I might

Be ever with the Lord! Oh blissful plight!

Thus must our broken spirits even spend and exhale themselves in CO�TI�UAL sallies, as it were, and egressions of thoughts, wishings, and longings after God, affecting not only a union, but a unity with him. {f} St Austin wished that he might have seen three things, Romam in flore, Paulum in ore, et Christum in corpore: Rome flourishing, Paul discoursing, and Christ living upon the earth. But I had rather wish, with venerable Bede, "My soul desireth to see Christ my King upon his throne, and in his majesty." {g

ELLICOTT, "34) Swear not at all.—�ot a few interpreters, and even whole Christian communities, as e.g. the Society of Friends, see in these words, and in James 5:12, a formal prohibition of all oaths, either promissory or evidential, and look on the general practice of Christians, and the formal teaching of the Church of England in her Articles (Art. xxxix.), as simply an acquiescence in evil. The first impression made by the words is indeed so strongly in their favour that the scruples

of such men ought to be dealt with (as English legislation has at last dealt with them) with great tenderness. Their conclusion is, however, it is believed, mistaken: (1) Because, were it true, then in this instance our Lord would be directly repealing part of the moral law given by Moses, instead of completing and expanding it, as in the case of the Sixth and Seventh Commandments. He would be destroying, not fulfilling. (2) Because our Lord himself answered, when He had before been silent, to a solemn formal adjuration (Matthew 26:63-64), and St. Paul repeatedly uses such forms of attestation (Romans 1:9; 1 Corinthians 15:31; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8). (3) Because the context shows that the sin which our Lord condemned was the light use of oaths in common speech, and with no real thought as to their meaning. Such oaths practically involved irreverence, and were therefore inconsistent with the fear of God. The real purpose of an oath is to intensify that fear by bringing the thought of God’s presence home to men at the very time they take them, and they are therefore rightly used when they attain that end. Practically, it must be admitted that the needless multiplication of oaths, both evidential and promissory, on trivial occasions, has tended, and still tends, to weaken awe and impair men’s reverence for truth, and we may rejoice when their �UMBER is diminished. In an ideal Christian society no oaths would be needed, for every word would be spoken as by those who knew that the Eternal Judge was hearing them.

CALVI�, "34.Swear not at all Many have been led by the phrase, not at all, to adopt the false notion, that every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to this extreme rigor by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which prevailed in the world. The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal, on the ground, that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion, because he commands, Swear not at all But we need not go beyond the immediate context to obtain the exposition: for he immediately adds, neither by heaven, nor by the earth Who does not see that those kinds of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more fully by specifying a number of cases? The Jews had circuitous or indirect ways of swearing: and when they swore by heaven, or by earth, or by the altar, (Mat_23:18,) they reckoned it to be next to nothing; and, as one vice springs from another, they defended, under this pretense, any profanation of the name of God that was not OPE�LY avowed.

To meet this crime, our Lord declares that they must not swear at all, either in this or that way, either by heaven, or by the earth Hence we conclude, that the particle, at all, relates not to the substance, but to the form, and means, “ directly nor indirectly.” It would otherwise have been superfluous to enumerate those kinds: and therefore the Anabaptists betray not only a rage for controversy, but gross ignorance, when they obstinately press upon us a single word, and pass over, with closed eyes, the whole scope of the passage. Is it objected, that Christ permits no swearing? I reply: What the expounder of the law says, must be viewed in CO��ECTIO� with its design. His statement amounts to this, that there are other ways of “ the name of God in vain,” besides perjury; and, therefore, that we ought to refrain from allowing ourselves the liberty of unnecessary swearing: for, when there are just reasons to demand it, the law not only permits, but expressly

commands us to swear. Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful, which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence.

�either by heaven It is a mistake to explain these words as meaning, that such forms of swearing are condemned by Christ as faulty, on the ground that we ought to swear by God only. The reasons which he brings forward tend rather to the opposite view, that we swear by the name of God even when we name the heaven, and the earth: because there is no part of the world on which God has not engraved the marks of his glory. But this statement appears not to AGREE with the precept of the law, in which God expressly commands us to “ by his name,” (Deu_6:13;) and likewise with so many passages of Scripture, in which he complains, that injury is done to him, if we swear by creatures. I reply: It is a corruption allied to idolatry, when we appeal to them either as having a right to judge, or authority to prove testimony: for we must look at the object of swearing. It is an appeal which men make to God to revenge falsehood, and to uphold truth. This honor cannot be transferred to another, without committing an outrage on the divine majesty.

For the same reason the Apostle says, that we do not swear in a right manner, unless we swear by the greater, and that it belongs to God alone to swear by himself, (Heb_6:13.) Thus any one who, in ancient times, swore by “” (Lev_18:21,) or by any other idol, withdrew something of what belonged to God; because they put that idol in the place of God, as possessing an acquaintance with the hearts, and as the judge of the souls of men. And in our own times, those who swear by angels, or by departed saints, take from God what belongs to him, and ascribe to them a divine majesty. The case is different, when men swear by heaven and earth, with a view to the Creator himself: for, in that case, the sanctity of the oath is �OT FOU�DED on creatures, but God alone is appealed to as a witness, by bringing forward the symbols of his glory.

Heaven is called in Scripture (Isa_66:1) the throne of God: not that he dwells in heaven alone, but to teach men to raise their minds upwards, whenever they think of him, and not to form any low or earthly conceptions of him. Again, the earth is called his footstool, (v. 35,) to inform us, that he fills all things, and that no extent of space can contain him. The holiness of Jerusalem (v. 35) depended on his promise. It was the holy city, (Isa_52:1 :) because God had selected it to be the seat and residence of his empire. When men swear by their head, (v. 36,) they bring forward their life, which is a remarkable gift of God, as a pledge of their sincerity.

COFFMA�, "The obvious meaning is that a Christian's word is his bond. He does not need to reinforce his words with any oath or any appeal for heaven to witness, or by any other device to underscore the truth of his remarks. A Christian's speech is limited to "Yes" and "�o" with regard to oath. The only possible exception, and there is no unanimity of opinion even on this, is that of a Christian's taking a judicial oath to assure proper and legal testimony in a court of law. Many courts allow the conscientious adherent to our Saviour's words in this place the privilege of "affirming under the penalties of perjury" instead of taking the customary oath.

Those who insist that a Christian may take such oaths point out that Christ, in this place, was clearly not talking about judicial oaths and that Almighty God himself is represented as taking an oath in these words, "Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath" (Hebrews 6:17).

Speaking the truth in love is a badge of true discipleship. Falsehood, evil-speakings, slander, backbiting, gossip, and idle talk of all kinds - these are surely prohibited to the child of God. One cannot help observing that Christ's way is almost as novel, untried, and astonishing as it was to the generation that first heard these words!

Various references to heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and one's head, are only examples of oaths which people of that day commonly EMPLOYED.

35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

GILL, "Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,.... That the Jews were wont to swear by the earth, is clear from the above mentioned instances; and is condemned by Christ for this reason, because the earth is God's "footstool", referring, as before, to Isa_66:1 on which he treads; and where he also manifests forth his glory, and is a considerable part of the work of his hands.

Neither by Jerusalem, which the Jews used to swear by: such forms of vows as these are to be met with in their writings (q);

"as the altar, as the temple, כירושלם, "as Jerusalem";''

that is, by Jerusalem, I vow I will do this, or the other thing.

"R. Judah says, he that says Jerusalem (i.e. as Bartenora observes (r), without the note of comparison, as) says nothing.''

In the Gemara (s) it is,

"he that says as Jerusalem, does not say anything, till he has made his vow concerning a thing, which is offered up in Jerusalem.''

Dr. Lightfoot (t) has produced forms of vowing and swearing, which have not occurred to me.

"Jerusalem; לירושלם, "for", or "unto Jerusalem", which exactly answers to εις�Ιεροσολυµα, here; and "by Jerusalem";''

The reason given for prohibiting this kind of oath, is;

for it is the city of the great king: not of David, but of the King of kings, the Lord of hosts; who had his residence, and his worship, here; see Psa_48:2.

HE�RY, "2. That we must not swear lightly and irreverently, in common discourse: it is a very great sin to make a ludicrous appeal to the glorious Majesty of heaven, which, being a sacred thing, ought always to be very serious: it is a gross profanation of God's holy name, and of one of the holy things which the children of Israel sanctify to the Lord: it is a sin that has no cloak, no excuse for it, and therefore a sign of a graceless heart, in which enmity to God reigns: Thine enemies take thy name in vain.

3. That we must in a special manner avoid promissory oaths, of which Christ more particularly speaks here, for they are oaths that are to be performed. The influence of an affirmative oath immediately ceases, when we have faithfully discovered the truth, and the whole truth; but a promissory oath binds so long, and may be so many ways broken, by the surprise as well as strength of a temptation, that it is not to be used but upon great necessity: the frequent requiring and using of oaths, is a reflection upon Christians, who should be of such acknowledged fidelity, as that their sober words should be as sacred as their solemn oaths.

4. That we must not swear by any other creature. It should seem there were some, who, in civility (as they thought) to the name of God, would not make use of that in swearing, but would swear by heaven or earth, etc. This Christ forbids here (Mat_5:34) and shows that there is nothing we can swear by, but it is some way or other related to God, who is the Fountain of all beings, and therefore that it is as dangerous to swear by them, as it is to swear by God himself: it is the verity of the creature that is laid at stake; now that cannot be an instrument of testimony, but as it has regard to God, who is the summum verum - the chief Truth. As for instance,

(1.) Swear not by the heaven; “As sure as there is a heaven, this is true;” for it is God's throne, where he resides, and in a particular manner manifests his glory, as a Prince upon his throne: this being the inseparable dignity of the upper world, you cannot swear by heaven, but you swear by God himself.

(2.) Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool. He governs the motions of this lower world; as he rules in heaven, so he rules over the earth; and though under his feet, yet it is also under his eye and care, and stands in relation to him as his, Psa_24:1. The earth is the Lord's; so that in swearing by it, you swear by its Owner.

(3.) Neither by Jerusalem, a place for which the Jews had such a veneration, that they could not speak of any thing more sacred to swear by; but beside the common reference Jerusalem has to God, as part of the earth, it is in special relation to him, for it is the city of the great King (Psa_48:2), the city of God (Psa_46:4), he is therefore interested in it, and in every oath taken by it.

JAMISO�, "Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool— (quoting Isa_66:1);

neither by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great King— (quoting Psa_48:2).

TRAPP, "ver 35. �or by the earth, for it is his footstool] A fault so common among this people, that St James saw cause to warn the believing Jews of it, to whom he wrote. They had taken up such a custom of swearing by the creatures, that after conversion they could not easily leave it. It is a poor plea to say, "I have gotten a custom of swearing, and must therefore be borne with." For who is it but the devil that saith to such, as the Jews to Pilate, "Do as thou hast ever done?" Mark 15:8. The Cretians, when they wished worst to any one, they wished that he might take delight in an evil custom. {a} Break off, therefore, this ill use by repentance; and though you cannot suddenly turn the stream, yet swim against it, bite in thine oaths, and with bitterness bewail them; swear to God, as David did, thou wilt swear no more, and by DEGREES outgrow this ill custom.

For it is his footstool] And should be ours. For he hath "put all things under our feet," Psalms 8:6. He saith not, under our hands, but under our feet, that we might trample upon them in a holy contempt, as the Church is said to tread upon the moon, Revelation 12:1; and the way of the righteous is said to be on high, to depart from hell below, Proverbs 15:24. It is a wonder, surely, that treading upon these minerals, gold, silver, precious stones, &c. (which are but the GUTS and garbage of the earth), we should so admire them. God hath hid them in the bowels of the earth, and in those parts that are farthest off from the Church. Where they grow, little else grows that is aught; no more doth grace in an earthly heart. But to return from whence we are digressed: earth is God’s footstool. How ought we then to walk circumspectly, that we provoke not the eyes of his glory! there is an honour due even to the footstools of princes, when they are on the throne especially. Oh, "be thou in the fear of the Lord all day long," saith Solomon, walk in the sense of his presence and light of his countenance, Proverbs 23:17; "He is not very far from any one of us," saith the apostle, not so far as the bark from the tree, or the flesh from the bones, Acts 17:27. This one God and Father of all is not only above all, and from his throne beholdeth all that is done here below, but "also through all, and in you all," Ephesians 4:6. Therefore no corner can secrete us, no cranny of the heart can escape his eye; all things are (for the outside) naked and (for the inside) open, dissected, quartered, and, as it were, cleft through the backbone, as the word signifieth, before the eyes of him with whom we DEAL ( פופסבקחכיףלוםב ,דץלםב), Hebrews 4:13.

�either by Jerusalem: for it is the city of the great King] The place of his rest, the seat of his empire, and they the people of his praise and of his purchase ( כבןע פחע Sept.), Exodus 19:5. Glorious things are spoken of thee, thou city of ,נוסינןיחףושעGod. There was "the adoption, and the glory, the covenants, and the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises," &c., Romans 9:4. Constantinople was acknowledged by Tamerlane to be, for her situation, an imperial city, and such as was made to command the world. Strasburg in Germany is called by some compendium orbis, an abridgment of the world. But Jerusalem, by a better author, is styled princess of provinces, the joy of the whole earth, the pleasant land, &c. Lamentations 1:1; Psalms 48:2; Daniel 8:9. It must needs be pleasant where God himself was resident. But how is the faithful city become a harlot! It was full of judgment, righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Her silver is become

dross, her wine mixed with water, Isaiah 1:21-22. Bethel is become Bethaven, and Jerusalem turned into Jerushkaker. It fell again into the power of the Turks and Infidels, A. D. 1234 (after that the most warlike soldiers of Europe had there, as it were, one common sepulchre, but an eternal monument of their misguided valour), and so remaineth still, a poor ruinous city, governed by one of the Turk’s Sanzacks, and for nothing now more famous than for the sepulchre of our Saviour, again repaired and much visited by the Christians, and not unreverenced by the Turks themselves. There are not to be found there at this time 100 households of Jews, and yet there are ten or more churches of Christians there.

Of the great King] The Jews much admired the greatness of Herod, and especially of the Romans, whose tributaries they were at this time. {b} Our Saviour mindeth them of a greater than these, one that is greater, greatest, greatness itself. �ebuchadnezzar styleth himself the great king, and brags of his Babel. The rich miser thinks himself no small thing, because of his country of grain. {c} Ahasuerus taketh state upon him, because he reigned from India to Ethiopia. Darius’s flatterers held it meet that no man should ask a petition of any god or man, for thirty days, save of him. Diocletian would needs be worshipped as a god, and was the first that held forth his feet to be kissed, after Caligula. Amurath III, Emperor of the Turks, styled himself god of the earth, governor of the whole world, the messenger of God, and faithful servant of the great prophet. And the great Cham of Tartary is called by the simple common people, the shadow of spirits, and son of the immortal God; and by himself he is reputed to be the monarch of the whole world. For which cause every day (if all is true that is reported of him) as soon as he hath dined, he causeth his trumpets to be sounded, by that sign giving leave to other kings and princes to go to dinner. These be the grandees of the earth, and think no mean things of themselves. But compare them with the great King here mentioned, and what becometh of all their supposed greatness "All nations before him are but as the dust of the BALA�CE or drop of a bucket." Quantilla ergo es tu istius guttae particula? saith a Father: if all nations are to God but as the drop of a bucket, oh, what a small pittance must thou needs be, how great soever, of that little drop? {d} And as he is great, so he looketh to be praised and served according to his excellent greatness. We should, if it were possible, fill up that vast distance and disproportion that is between him and us, by the greatness of our praises, and sincerity, at least, of our services, in presenting him with the best. "For I am a great King," saith God, Malachi 1:14; and he stands upon his seniority: OFFER it now to thy prince, will he accept thy refuse breadstuff? &c. It is verily a most sweet meditation of St Bernard, whensoever we come before God in any duty, we should conceive ourselves to be entering into the court of heaven wherein the King of kings sitteth in a stately throne, surrounded with a host of glorious angels and crowned saints. With how great humility, therefore, reverence, and godly fear, ought a poor worm crawling out of his hole, a vile frog creeping out of his mud, draw nigh to such a Majesty! {e} The seraphims clap their wings on their faces when they stand before God, Isaiah 6:2-3, as men are wont to do their hands when the lightning flasheth in their faces; the nearer any man draws to God, the more rottenness he findeth in his bones, Habakkuk 3:16. Abraham is dust and ashes; JOB abhorreth himself in dust and ashes; Isaiah cries, Woe is me, for I am undone; Peter, Depart from me, I am a

sinful man. All these had right conceptions of God’s greatness, and this is that which is required so often in Scripture under the term of magnifying God; when we get him into our hearts in his own likeness, and enlarge his room there; when we take him into our thoughts under the notion of a great King, when we get so far as to conceive of him above all creatures, far above all the glory that can be found in earthly princes and potentates. Think of God as one not to be thought of, and when you have thought YOUR utmost, as Cicero affirmeth concerning Socrates described by Plato, and desireth of his readers concerning Lucius Crassus, that they would imagine far greater things of them than they find written, {f} so assure yourselves, your highest apprehensions of God fall infinitely short of his incomparable and incomprehensible greatness. And if he could add, if any think me overly lavish in their commendation, it is because he never heard them, or cannot judge of them, {g} how much more may we say the same of this "blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:15-16.

ELLICOTT, "(34-35) �either by heaven; . . . nor by the earth; . . . neither by Jerusalem.—Other formulז of oaths meet us in Matthew 23:16-22; James 5:12. It is not easy at first to understand the thought that underlies such modes of speech. When men swear by God, or the name of Jehovah, there is an implied appeal to the Supreme Ruler. We invoke Him (as in the English form, “So help me God”) to assist and bless us according to the measure of our truthfulness, or to punish us if we speak falsely. But to swear by a thing that has no power or life seems almost unintelligible, unless the thing invoked be regarded as endowed in idea with a mysterious holiness and a power to bless and curse. Once in use, it was natural that men under a system like that of Israel, or, we may add, of Christendom, should EMPLOY them as convenient symbols intensifying affirmation, and yet not involving the speaker in the guilt of perjury or in the profane utterance of the divine name. Our Lord deals with all such formulז in the same way. If they have any force at all, it is because they imply a reference to the Eternal. Heaven is His throne, and earth is His footstool (the words are a citation from Isaiah 66:1), and Jerusalem is the city of the great King. To use them lightly is, therefore, to profane the holy name which they imply. Men do not guard themselves either against irreverence or perjury by such expedients.

36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.

BAR�ES, "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head - This was a common oath. The Gentiles also used this oath. To swear by the head was the same as to swear by the life; or to say, I will forfeit my life if what I say is not true. God is the Author of the life, and to swear by that, therefore, is the same as to swear by him.

Because thou canst not make one hair white or black - You have no control or right over your own life. You cannot even change one single hair. God has all that control; and it is therefore improper and profane to pledge what is God’s gift and God’s property; and it is the same as swearing by God himself.

CLARKE, "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head - For these plain reasons:

1st. God commands thee not to do it.

2dly. Thou hast nothing which is thy own, and thou shouldst not pledge another’s property.

3dly. It never did, and never can, answer any good purpose. And

4thly. Being a breach of the law of God, it is the way to everlasting misery.

GILL, "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,.... This also was a common form of swearing among the Jews: take a few instances.

"If anyone is bound to his friend by an oath, and says to him, vow unto me בחיי�ראשך, "by the life of thy head"; R. Meir says (u), he may retract it; but the wise men say, he cannot.''

Again (w), a certain Rabbi said to Elijah,

"I heard "Bath Kol" (or the voice from heaven) mourning like a dove, and saying, woe to my children; for, because of their sins, I have destroyed my house, and have burnt my temple, and have carried them captive among the nations: and he (Elijah) said unto him

by thy life, and by the life of thy head", not this time only it says so, but it" ,חייך�וחיי�ראשך

says so three times every day.''

Once more (x), says R. Simeon ben Antipatras, to R. Joshua,

"I have heard from the mouth of the wise men, that he that vows in the law, and transgresses, is to be beaten with forty stripes: he replies, blessed art thou of God, that

thou hast so done, חייך�וחיי�ראשך, "by thy life, and by the life of thy head", he that is used to do so is to be beaten.''

This form of swearing is condemned, for this reason,

because thou canst not make one hair white or black: which shows, that a man's

head, nor, indeed, one hair of his head, is in his own power, and therefore he ought not to swear by it; as he ought not to swear by heaven, or earth, or Jerusalem, because these were in the possession of God. Some copies read, "canst not make one white hair black".

HE�RY, " “Neither shalt thou swear by the head; though it be near thee, and an essential part of thee, yet it is more God's than thine; for he made it, and formed all the springs and powers of it; whereas thou thyself canst not, from any natural intrinsic influence, change the colour of one hair, so as to make it white or black; so that thou canst not swear by thy head, but thou swearest by him who is the Life of thy head, and the Lifter up of it.” Psa_3:3.

JAMISO�, "Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black— In the other oaths specified, God’s name was profaned quite as really as if His name had been uttered, because it was instantly suggested by the mention of His “throne,” His “footstool,” His “city.” But in swearing by our own head and the like, the objection lies in their being “beyond our control,” and therefore profanely assumed to have a stability which they have not.

TRAPP, "VER 36. �either shalt thou swear by thy head] That is, by thy health, which is the life of our lives, say some: by thy life, say others, which is a sweet blessing; {a} for a living dog is better than a dead lion; yea, though full of crosses, yet why is living man sorrowful? q.d. it is a mercy that amidst all his crosses he is yet alive. "Joseph is yet alive, I have enough," saith Jacob. They told him of his honour, he speaks of his life. Life is better than honour, and is not therefore to be laid to pawn upon every light occasion, as they that so often use, As I live, and As true as I live: whereof something before.

Because thou canst not make one hair, &c.] God is great in great things, saith St Augustine, and not little in the smallest. ( Magnus in magnis, nec parvus in minimis.) What less than a hair? yet in making a hair white or black, God’s power appeareth. The devil can as little create a hair of the head as he could of old a louse in the land of Egypt, Exodus 8:18. There are miracles enough in man’s body to fill a volume. It is THE IMAGE of God and a little world ( ליךסןךןףלןע), an epitome of the visible world, as his soul is of the invisible. The idea or example of the great world, which was in God from all eternity, is, as it were, briefly and summarily exprest by God in man. Hence man is called every creature; "Go preach the gospel to every creature," Mark 16:15, as if there were none to him, none besides him. A philosopher could say, "there is nothing great in earth besides man." And an orator, "the greatest thing in the least room is a good soul in a man’s body." Man, saith the poet, is the masterpiece of the wisest workman; he is, saith the historian, the fairest piece of the chiefest architect; the very miracle of daring nature, saith Trismegist. {b} Galen, a profane physician, after he had described the nature and parts of man’s body, was forced to sing a hymn to that God that he knew not. And St Augustine complaineth, that men can admire the height of the hills, the hugeness of the waves, the compass of the ocean, and the circumvolution of the stars, and yet not

once mark nor admire the power and goodness of God shining in their own souls and bodies, as in a MIRROR. {c} "Fearfully and wonderfully am I made," saith David; "yea, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth;" that is, in my mother’s womb, Psalms 139:13-15. A counsel was called in heaven when man was to be formed: "Let us make man," Genesis 1:26. And were not the birth of a child so common, should it happen but once in an age, people would run together to see it, as to a miracle. Pliny wondereth at the gnat, so small a creature, yet making so great a buzzing; and so also at the butterfly. He also maketh mention of one that spent 58 years in searching out the nature of the bee, and could not in all that time attain to the full of it. What a shame is it for us, not to see God in every creature, in ourselves especially, and even the least part of us! There is not a hair upon our heads, white or black, but hath God for the maker and God for the master too. Let those that pride themselves in their hair, think what a heavy ACCOU�T Absalom made to God for that sin. Absolon Marte furens, pensilis arbore, obit. Long hair in women is a token of modesty. But modesty grows short in men, as their hair grows long, saith one. And Seneca, speaking of the curled and crisped youths of his time, telleth us that they had more care of their locks than of their limbs, and had rather the commonwealth should be disturbed than their frizzled tresses disheveled. {d} Pompey was TAXED for this neat nicety: Unico digitulo caput scalpit. And of Helen, too curious of her hair at her mother’s funeral, the poet bringeth in one that saith, This is old Helen still, no changeling in all this time. The holy :וףפים ח נבכבי דץםחwomen of old dared not adorn themselves with plaited or braided hair, as St Peter testifieth, but trusted in God, and decked themselves with a meek and quiet spirit, 1 Peter 3:3-5. And "doth not nature itself teach us," saith St Paul, "that it is a shame to a man to wear long hair?" It is objected, that the apostle intends such hair as is as long as women’s. But it is answered, that Homer useth the same word of the Greeks, calling them ךבסחךןלןשםפבע בקביןץע, and yet they did not wear their hair as long as women’s. But as it is a shame to wear it, so it is a sin to swear by it, whether long or short, white or black. �either helps it to say, The matter is but small we swear by. For, first, it is a forsaking of God; and count you that a small matter? Compare Jeremiah 5:7; cf. Jeremiah 2:12-13. Secondly, the more base and vile the thing is a man sweareth by, the greater is the oath, because he ascribeth that to a vile creature which is proper to God only, sc. to know the heart, to be a discerner of secrets, and an avenger, of falsehood. And if a man may not swear by his hair, much less by his faith and loyalty, that are much more precious; and to swear by them so often and ordinary, what doth it argue but that we are low brought and hardly driven? For who but a bankrupt will lay the best jewel in his house to pledge for every trifle? Besides, they are not ours to pledge; for we have plighted them ALREADY to God. Lastly, he that pawneth them so often, will easily forfeit them at length, as the pitcher doeth not so often to the well but at last it comes broken home. A man may soon swear away his faith and loyalty and it is a marvel if he that often sweareth doth not too often forswear, and so forfeit all. Swear not therefore at all in this sort. These petty oaths (as they count them) are great faults, and to be refused in our talk as poison in our meat. {e} The dishonour of them redounds to God, though he be not named in them. But of this see more. {See trapp on "Matthew 5:35"}

ELLICOTT, "(36) By thy head.—This is apparently chosen as an extreme instance

of a common oath in which men found no reference to God. Yet here, too, nothing but an implied reference to Him fits it to be an oath at all. He made us, and not we ourselves, and the hairs of our head are not only numbered, but are subject in all their changes to His laws, and not to our volition.

37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘�o’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

BAR�ES, "But let your communication - Your word; what you say.

Be, Yea - Yes. This does not mean that we should always use the word “yea,” for it might as well have been translated “yes”; but it means that we should simply affirm or declare that a thing is so.

More than these -More than these affirmations.

Cometh of evil - Is evil. Proceeds from some evil disposition or purpose. And from this we may learn:

1. That profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart. To trifle with the name of God, or with any of his works, is itself most decided proof of depravity.

2. That no man is believed any sooner in common conversation because he swears to a thing. When we hear a man swear to a thing, it is pretty good evidence that he knows what he is saying to be false, and we should be on our guard. He that will break the third commandment will not hesitate to break the ninth also. And this explains the fact that profane swearers are seldom believed. The man who is always believed is he whose character is beyond suspicion in all things, who obeys all the laws of God, and whose simple declaration, therefore, is enough. A man that is truly a Christian, and leads a Christian life, does not need oaths and profaneness to make him believed.

3. It is no mark of a gentleman to swear. The most worthless and vile. the refuse of mankind, the drunkard and the prostitute, swear as well as the best dressed and educated gentleman. No particular endowments are requisite to give finish to the art of cursing. The basest and meanest of mankind swear with as much tact and skill as the most refined, and he that wishes to degrade himself to the very lowest level of pollution and shame should learn to be a common swearer. Any person has talents enough to learn to curse God and his fellowmen, and to pray - for every man who swears prays -that God would sink him and others into hell. No profane person knows but that God will hear his prayer, and send him to the regions of woe.

4. Profaneness does no one any good. Nobody is the richer, or wiser, or happier for it. It helps no one’s morals or manners. It commends no one to any society. The profane man must be, of course, shut out from female society, and no refined conversation can consist with it. It is disgusting to the refined; abominable to the good; insulting to those

with whom we associate; degrading to the mind; unprofitable, needless, and injurious in society; and awful in the sight of God.

5. God will not hold the profane swearer guiltless. Wantonly to profane His name, to call His vengeance down, to curse Him on His throne, to invoke damnation, is perhaps of all offences the most awful. And there is not in the universe more cause of amazement at His forbearance, than that God does not rise in vengeance, and smite the profane swearer at once to hell. Verily, in a world like this, where His name is profaned every day, and hour, and moment by thousands, God shows that He is slow to anger, and that His mercy is without bounds!

CLARKE, "But let your communication - Your word; what you say.

Be, Yea - Yes. This does not mean that we should always use the word “yea,” for it might as well have been translated “yes”; but it means that we should simply affirm or declare that a thing is so.

More than these -More than these affirmations.

Cometh of evil - Is evil. Proceeds from some evil disposition or purpose. And from this we may learn:

1. That profane swearing is always the evidence of a depraved heart. To trifle with the name of God, or with any of his works, is itself most decided proof of depravity.

2. That no man is believed any sooner in common conversation because he swears to a thing. When we hear a man swear to a thing, it is pretty good evidence that he knows what he is saying to be false, and we should be on our guard. He that will break the third commandment will not hesitate to break the ninth also. And this explains the fact that profane swearers are seldom believed. The man who is always believed is he whose character is beyond suspicion in all things, who obeys all the laws of God, and whose simple declaration, therefore, is enough. A man that is truly a Christian, and leads a Christian life, does not need oaths and profaneness to make him believed.

3. It is no mark of a gentleman to swear. The most worthless and vile. the refuse of mankind, the drunkard and the prostitute, swear as well as the best dressed and educated gentleman. No particular endowments are requisite to give finish to the art of cursing. The basest and meanest of mankind swear with as much tact and skill as the most refined, and he that wishes to degrade himself to the very lowest level of pollution and shame should learn to be a common swearer. Any person has talents enough to learn to curse God and his fellowmen, and to pray - for every man who swears prays -that God would sink him and others into hell. No profane person knows but that God will hear his prayer, and send him to the regions of woe.

4. Profaneness does no one any good. Nobody is the richer, or wiser, or happier for it. It helps no one’s morals or manners. It commends no one to any society. The profane man must be, of course, shut out from female society, and no refined conversation can consist with it. It is disgusting to the refined; abominable to the good; insulting to those with whom we associate; degrading to the mind; unprofitable, needless, and injurious in society; and awful in the sight of God.

5. God will not hold the profane swearer guiltless. Wantonly to profane His name, to call His vengeance down, to curse Him on His throne, to invoke damnation, is perhaps of all offences the most awful. And there is not in the universe more cause of amazement at His forbearance, than that God does not rise in vengeance, and smite the profane swearer at once to hell. Verily, in a world like this, where His name is profaned every

day, and hour, and moment by thousands, God shows that He is slow to anger, and that His mercy is without bounds!

GILL, "But let your communication be yea, yea,.... That is, let your speech, in your common conversation, and daily business of life, when ye answer to anything in the affirmative, be "yea"; and when ye answer to anything in the negative, "nay": and for the stronger asseveration of the matter, when it is necessary, double these words; but let no oaths be joined unto them: this is enough; a righteous man's yea, is yea, and his no, is no; his word is sufficient. Hence it appears, that our Lord is here speaking of rash swearing, and such as was used in common conversation, and is justly condemned by him. The Jews have no reason to reject this advice of Christ, who often use and recommend the same modes of expression. They endeavour to raise the esteem of their doctors and wise men, by saying, that their words, both in doctrines and dealings with men, are "yea, yea" (y). One of their (z) commentators on the word "saying", in, Exo_20:1 makes this observation;

"hence we learn, that they used to answer, על�הן�הן�ועל�לאו�לאו "concerning yea, yea, and concerning nay, nay".''

This way of speaking, they looked upon equivalent to an oath; yea, they affirm it was one.

"Says R. Eliezer (a), לאו�שבועה�הן�שבועה, "nay is an oath; yea is an oath", absolutely; "nay" is an oath, as it is written, Gen_9:11 and Isa_54:9. But that "yea" is an oath, how does it appear? It is concluded from hence, that "nay" is an oath; saith Rabba, there are that say "nay, nay", twice; and there are that say "yea, yea", twice; as it is written, Gen_9:11 and from hence, that "nay" is twice, "yea" is also twice said.''

The gloss upon it is,

"he that says either "nay, nay", twice, or "yea, yea", twice; lo! it is כשבועה�מאחר "as an after oath", which confirms his words.''

For whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil: that is, whatever exceeds this way of speaking and conversation, in the common affairs of life, is either from the devil, who is the evil one, by way of eminency; or from the evil heart of man, from the pride, malice, envy, &c. that are in it.

HE�RY, "5. That therefore in all our communications we must content ourselves with, Yea, yea, and nay, nay,Mat_5:37. In ordinary discourse, if we affirm a thing, let us only say, Yea, it is so; and, if need be, to evidence our assurance of a thing, we may double it, and say, Yea, yea, indeed it is so: Verily, verily, was our Saviour's yea, yea. So if we deny a thing, let is suffice to say, No; or if it be requisite, to repeat the denial, and say, No, no; and if our fidelity be known, that will suffice to gain us credit; and if it be questioned, to back what we say with swearing and cursing, is but to render it more suspicious. They who can swallow a profane oath, will not strain at a lie. It is a pity that this, which Christ puts in the mouths of all his disciples, should be fastened, as a name of reproach, upon a sect faulty enough other ways, when (as Dr. Hammond says) we are not forbidden any more than yea and nay, but are in a manner directed to the use of

that.

The reason is observable; For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil, though it

do not amount to the iniquity of an oath. It comes ek�tou�Diabolou; so an ancient copy has it: it comes from the Devil, the evil one; it comes from the corruption of men's nature, from passion and vehemence; from a reigning vanity in the mind, and a contempt of sacred things: it comes from that deceitfulness which is in men, All men are liars; therefore men use these protestations, because they are distrustful one of another, and think they cannot be believed without them. Note, Christians should, for the credit of their religion, avoid not only that which is in itself evil, but that which cometh of evil,and has the appearance of it. That may be suspected as a bad thing, which comes from a bad cause. An oath is physic, which supposes a disease.

JAMISO�, "But let your communication— “your word,” in ordinary intercourse, be,

Yea, yea; Nay, nay— Let a simple Yes and No suffice in affirming the truth or the untruth of anything. (See Jam_5:12; 2Co_1:17, 2Co_1:18).

for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil— not “of the evil one”; though an equally correct rendering of the words, and one which some expositors prefer. It is true that all evil in our world is originally of the devil, that it forms a kingdom at the head of which he sits, and that, in every manifestation of it he has an active part. But any reference to this here seems unnatural, and the allusion to this passage in the Epistle of James (Jam_5:12) seems to show that this is not the sense of it: “Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” The untruthfulness of our corrupt nature shows itself not only in the tendency to deviate from the strict truth, but in the disposition to suspect others of doing the same; and as this is not diminished, but rather aggravated, by the habit of confirming what we say by an oath, we thus run the risk of having all reverence for God’s holy name, and even for strict truth, destroyed in our hearts, and so “fall into condemnation.” The practice of going beyond Yes and No in affirmations and denials - as if our word for it were not enough, and we expected others to question it - springs from that vicious root of untruthfulness which is only aggravated by the very effort to clear ourselves of the suspicion of it. And just as swearing to the truth of what we say begets the disposition it is designed to remove, so the love and reign of truth in the breasts of Christ’s disciples reveals itself so plainly even to those who themselves cannot be trusted, that their simple Yes and No come soon to be more relied on than the most solemn asseverations of others. Thus does the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, like a tree cast into the bitter waters of human corruption, heal and sweeten them.

sbc, "I. A very few examples will show us that, as in the case of submission to injury, so in that of abstinence from swearing, our Lord laid down a principle and not a positive precept, and had regard rather to a frame of mind than to definite actions. He Himself, when the high priest adjured Him by the living God to answer his questions, which was a form of putting him on his oath, did not refuse to reply. We read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that God, "willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath," etc.

II. The two great evils into which we are liable to fall when our communication is more than yea and nay, are (1) untruthfulness, and (2) irreverence. Thus we may account for

the strength of language in which St. James reiterates the injunction: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not;... but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." No one can imagine him to mean that swearing is the greatest offence that we can commit; but if the foundation of the Christian society is mutual trust and confidence, then whatever tends to weaken that confidence or to lower our estimate of truth is above all things to be shunned. Let us remember that the two virtues of truthfulness and reverence are closely connected with each other, and are the beginning and foundation of all Christian faith and holiness. For "every one who is of the truth heareth God’s voice;" Christ came into the world to bear witness of the truth. Any Christian profession which does not spring from the love of truth and the fear of God is unworthy of the name it bears; and therefore in reflecting either on our outward life or on our inmost feelings and convictions these are the two principles to which we must ever recur, and which we must pray God to confirm and strengthen in our hearts.

Bishop Cotton, Marlborough Sermons, p. 234.

Reference: Mat_5:37.—Arthur Mursell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 24.

TRAPP, "Ver. 37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; �ay, nay] That is, as St Basil interpreteth it, yea in speech and yea in heart; nay in speech and nay in heart: or thus, let your common communication be plain, true, and sincere, that your bare word may be taken, without any further asseveration. �ot but that asseverations may be lawfully used, as verily, truly, indeed, &c. Sed, parcius ista tamen, not frequently or slightly, but advisedly and seriously, as our Saviour. {a} If thou be a creditable person and hast made faith of thy fidelity, with Quod dixi, dixi, thy word will be taken. Or if it will not, that CREDIT is dearly bought that is gotten by sin. Christ must be obeyed, though no man will believe us. But a good man’s oath is needless, a bad man’s bootless; for he that feareth not an oath, neither will he scruple a lie, but credit will follow honesty. {b} While therefore the communication is ours (as Christ here speaketh), that is, in our own power and of our own accord, "let our yea be yea, and nay, nay;" and let it appear that ordinarily and in common conversation our word is as soon to be taken as our oath. But when for the glory of God and clearing of the truth, an oath is required of us, then it is not our communication, but another’s. And in this case, for the manifestation or confirmation of a needful but doubtful truth, an oath may be safely and boldly taken, for an end of controversies and satisfaction of neighbours, Hebrews 6:16; yea, we may lay it up among our best services, and expect a blessing upon it (if rightly taken, according to Jeremiah 4:2) as well as upon hearing or reading, because it is an ordinance of God, Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 65:16, &c. Some of the ancients, I confess, as Jerome, Theophylact, Chrysostom, were in the error, that the Lord did only permit swearing in the Old Testament (as he did divorcement that he approved not), and that in this text our Saviour did quite take it away. But Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. God’s holy name is still to be sanctified by taking a religious oath, upon just occasion, sc. when either the magistrate imposeth it, or when some private person will not believe a necessary truth without an oath, and we cannot otherwise demonstrate it. Thus Jacob sware to Laban, Boaz to Ruth, Jonathan to David. And if it be lawful in private between two or more to admit God as a judge, why may he not as well be called as a witness? provided ever, that this be

done warily and sparingly, using it not as food, but as physic, to help the truth in necessity. Our King Henry VI was never heard to swear an oath; his greatest asseveration being, Forsooth, forsooth, verily, verily. I myself have used, saith Latimer, in mine earnest matters, to say, Yea, St Mary, which indeed is naught. Among the very heathens, Ex animi sui sententia, In very deed, was instead of an oath.

For whatsoever is more cometh of evil] That is, of the devil. {c} That which St Matthew calleth the wicked one, Matthew 13:38; (the self-same word with that in this text), St Mark calleth Satan, and St Luke the devil. �ow can any good come out of such a �azareth? Swearing is the devil’s drivel, and swearers the devil’s drudges, acted and agitated by that foul fiend: and though they be not always drunk when they swear, yet they are not their own men. "For know ye not," saith that great apostle, "that his servants ye are to whom ye obey?" His work swearers do (as those Jews did in the Gospel, John 8:34), and his wages they shall receive, for they fall hereby into hypocrisy, as some copies have it ( לח ויע ץנןךסיףים), James 5:12, while they daily pray, But deliver us from that evil one, and yet entertain him by this sin: or rather, as other copies in our translation have it, they fall into condemnation. And at the last day, when the MASTER OF the harvest shall gather out of his kingdom all such botches and scandals ( פב בךבםהבכב), Matthew 13:41; Matthew 13:50, he will say to the reapers, "Gather ye first the tares, and bind them in bundles" (swearers with swearers, drunkards with drunkards, &c., sinners of a kind with their fellow sinners), "and cast them into the fire, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Good, therefore, is the counsel of St James, "Above all things, my brethren, swear not;" whatever ye do, look to that: it is a senseless sin, and that which maketh the tongue to become, not a city, not a country, but a world of iniquity, James 3:6. It is the devil’s hook without a bait, as having neither profit nor pleasure (many times) to draw to it, and that is no small aggravation. The devils fell without a tempter, and are therefore left without a Saviour. Other sinners usually kill not till provoked, steal not till forced, whore not till enticed. But what hath God done to these monstrous men, that they should thus fly in his face, chop (as much as they may) his heart in pieces, and upon every small occasion shoot such chain shot, as if they would make the windows of heaven to shake and totter? When �aboth was said to have blasphemed, Jezebel proclaimed a fast. When our Saviour was accused of that sin, the high priest rent his garments. When Rabshakeh had done it indeed, Hezekiah fell to his prayers, and humbled himself before God. Did these do thus for others, and wilt not thou do as much for thyself? God hath against thee, and is coming out armed with plagues and power. Oh, meet him upon the way, with entreaties of peace, as Abigail did David; as Jacob did Esau: quench his flames with floods of tears. Learn of Shimei (when he had reproached David, and knew himself obnoxious) to be with God with the first, as he was with the king, 2 Samuel 19:18-20; and as Joseph’s brethren supplicated him for grace, whom they had reviled and misused, Genesis 50:17, do you the like. This do or you are undone for ever. This do, and do it seriously, and God must either forswear himself, or forgive thee thy swearing, if thou forego it.

ELLICOTT, "(37) Let YOUR communication.—One of the few instances in which

our translators seem to have preferred a somewhat pedantic Latin word for the more literal and homely English speech. (Comp. Luke 24:17.)

Yea, yea.—St. James reproduces the precept in James 5:12 of his Epistle, but the phrase is found in the Talmud, and was probably proverbial. In all common speech a man’s words should be as good as his oath. Yes should mean yes, and �o should mean no, even though there be no oath to strengthen it.

Cometh of evil.—The Greek may (as in the Lord’s Prayer, “Deliver us from evil”) be either neuter, “from evil in the abstract,” or masculine, “from the evil one.” With some hesitation, and guided chiefly by Matthew 13:19-38, I accept the latter as the more probable. These devices of fantastic oaths come not from Him who is the Truth, but from him who “when he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own” (John 8:44).

CALVI�, "37.But YOUR speech shall be, Yes, yes; �o, no Christ now prescribes, in the second place, a remedy; which is, that men act towards each other sincerely and honestly: for then simplicity of speech will have quite as much weight as an oath has among those who are not sincere. �ow, this is certainly the best way of CORRECTI�G faults, to point out the sources from which they spring. Whence comes the great propensity to swearing, but from the great falsehood, the numerous impositions, the unsteady and light conduct, so that hardly any thing is believed? (411) Fairness and honesty in our words are, therefore, demanded by Christ, that there may be no longer any occasion for an oath.

“ yes; �o, no.” This repetition means, that we ought to abide by our words, so that all may be convinced of our honesty. �ow, as this is the true and lawful method of PROCEEDI�G, when men have nothing on their tongue but what is in their heart, Christ declares, that what is beyond these comes from evil I do not approve of the exposition of these words which some have given, that the criminality of swearing ought to be charged on the man who does not give CREDIT to what another says. Christ teaches us, in my opinion, that it originates in the wickedness of men, that they are compelled to swear: for, if honesty prevailed among men, if they were not inconsistent and hypocritical, they would maintain that simplicity which nature dictates. And yet it does not follow, that it is unlawful to swear, when necessity demands it: for many things are proper in themselves, though they have had a wicked origin.

(411) “D’ vient une si grande legerete en sermens, sinon qu'entre tout de mensonges, tromperies, inconstance et babil, on ne sait qui croire, ni a qui se fier ?” — “ comes so great a lightness about oaths, but that among so many lies and impositions, and so much unsteadiness and trifling, one does not know whom to believe or whom to trust?”