« Prev Matt. V. 17-48; Luke VI. 27-30, 32-36. Next »


The Sermon on the Mount.

(a Mountain Plateau Not Far from Capernaum.)

Subdivision D.

Relation of Messianic Teaching to

Old Testament and Traditional Teaching.

A Matt. V. 17–48; C Luke VI. 27–30, 32–36.

a 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [This verse constitutes a preface to the section of the sermon which follows it. It is intended to prevent a misconstruction of what he was about to say. Destroy is here used in antithesis, not with perpetuate, but with fulfill. To destroy the law would be more than to abrogate it, for it was both a system of statutes designed for the ends of government, and a system of types foreshadowing the kingdom of Christ. To destroy it, therefore, would be both to abrogate its statutes 236 and prevent the fulfillment of its types. The former, Jesus eventually did; the latter, he did not. As regards the prophets, the only way to destroy them would be to prevent the fulfillment of the predictions contained in them. Instead of coming to destroy either the law or the prophets, Jesus came to fulfill all the types of the former, and (eventually) all the unfulfilled predictions of the latter. He fulfills them partly in his own person, and partly by his administration of the affairs of his kingdom. The latter part of the process is still going on, and will be until the end of the world.] 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all things be accomplished. [The jot or yod answering to our letter i was the smallest of the Hebrew letters. The tittle was a little stroke of the pen, by which alone some of the Hebrew letters were distinguished from others like them. To put it in English, we distinguish the letter c from the letter e by the tittle inside of the latter. This passage not only teaches that the law was to remain in full force until fulfilled, but it shows the precise accuracy with which the law was given by God.] 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [Disobedience is a habit, and it is not easily laid aside. Hence he that is unfaithful in that which is little will also be unfaithful in that which is great. So also those who were disobedient and reckless under the Jewish dispensation would be inclined to act in like manner in the new, or Christian, dispensation: hence the warning. Not only shall God call such least, but men also shall eventually do likewise. Those who by a false system of interpretation, or an undue regard for the traditions of men, enervate or annul the obligations of Christ's laws or ordinances, and teach others to do the same, shall be held in low esteem or contempt by the church or kingdom of God as fast as it comes to a knowledge 237of the truth. Greatness in the kingdom of heaven is measured by conscientiousness in reference to its least commandments. Small Christians obey the great commandments, but only the large are careful about the least.] 20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. [Since the scribes and Pharisees were models of righteousness in their own sight and in that of the people, Jesus here laid down a very high ideal. Though one may now enter the kingdom of heaven having of himself far less righteousness than that of the Pharisees, yet he must attain righteousness superior to theirs, or he can not abide in the kingdom. A large portion of the sermon from this point on is a development of the righteousness of the kingdom of heaven in contrast with old dispensation righteousness and Pharisaic interpretation of it. The laws of Moses regulated civil conduct, and being state laws, they could only have regard to overt acts. But the laws of the kingdom of Christ are given to the individual, and regulate his inner spiritual condition, and the very initial motives of conduct; in it the spirit-feelings are all acts—I. John iii. 15.] 21 Ye have heard [Ex. xx. 13; Deut. v. 17. The common people, for the most part, knew the law only by its public reading, and hence the exposition of the scribes which accompanied the readings shared in their estimation the very authority of Scripture itself.] that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger [shall be liable to] of the judgment; 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [an expression of contempt frequently used in rabbinical writings, but of uncertain derivation, so that it may mean “empty head” or “spit out;” i. e., heretic], shall be in danger of the council: and whosoever shall say, Thou fool [“'Thou impious wretch;' folly and impiety being equivalent with the Hebrews”— Bloomfield], shall be in 238danger of hell fire. [We have here three degrees of criminality or offence as to the sin of anger: 1. Silent rage; 2. Railing speech; 3. Bitter reproach (Ps. xiv. 1). With these are associated respectively three different degrees of punishment. The law of Moses provided for the appointment of judges (Deut. xvi. 18), and Josephus informs us that in each city there were seven judges appointed (Ant. iv. 8, 14). This tribunal was known as the judgment, and by it the case of the manslayer was determined. Compare Num. xxxv. 15, 24, 25 with Josh. xx. 4. And in determining his case this court might certify it for decision to the Sanhedrin, or they might themselves confine the man in of the cities of refuge, or order him to be stoned to death. The second punishment would be the result of a trial before the Sanhedrin or council. This chief court of the Jews sat at Jerusalem (Deut. xvii. 8–13), and common men stood in great awe of it. The third punishment passes beyond the pale of human jurisdiction. It is the final punishment—being cast into hell. The Scripture word for hell is derived from the name of a place in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, called the valley of Hinnom. It was a deep, narrow valley, lying southeast of Jerusalem. The Greek word Gehenna (which we translate hell) is first found applied to it in the Septuagint translation of Josh. xviii. 16. (For the history of the valley, see the following passages of Scripture: Josh. xv. 8; II. Chron. xxviii. 3; xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31; xix. 1–5; II. Kings xxiii. 1–14; II. Chron. xxxiv. 4, 5.) The only fire certainly known to have been kindled there was the fire in which children were sacrificed to the god Moloch. This worship was entirely destroyed by King Josiah, who polluted the entire valley so as to make it an unfit place even for heathen worship. Some commentators endeavor to make this third punishment a temporal one, and assert that fires were kept burning in the valley of Hinnom, and that as an extreme punishment the bodies of criminals were cast into those fires. But there is not the slightest authentic evidence that any fire was kept burning there; nor is there any evidence at all that casting a criminal into the 239fire was ever employed by the Jews as a punishment. It was the fire of idolatrous worship in the offering of human sacrifice which had given the valley its bad name. This caused it to be associated in the mind of the Jews with sin and suffering, and led to the application of its name, in the Greek form of it, to the place of final and eternal punishment. When the conception of such a place as hell was formed, it was necessary to give it a name, and there was no word in the Jewish language more appropriate for the purpose than the name of this hideous valley. It is often used in the New Testament, and always denotes the place of final punishment (Matt. x. 28; xviii. 9; xxiii. 33; Mark ix. 43). We should note that while sin has stages, God takes note of it from its very first germination in the heart, and that a man's soul is imperiled long before his feelings bear their fruitage of violence and murder.] 23 If therefore [having forbidden anger, Jesus now proceeds to lay down the course for reconciliation] thou art offering thy gift at the altar [that which was popularly esteemed the very highest act of worship], and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, 24; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. [Reconciliation takes precedence of all other duties, even of offerings made to God. A very important teaching in these days, when men, by corrupt practices, by extortionate combinations, and by grinding the face of the poor, accumulate millions of dollars and then attempt to placate God by bestowing a little of their pocket change upon colleges and missionary societies. God hears and heeds the voice of the unreconciled brethren, and the gift is bestowed upon the altar in vain. The offering of unclean hands is an abomination. The lesson teaches us to be reconciled with all who bear grudges against us, and says nothing as to whether their reasons are sufficient or insufficient, just or unjust. “It is enough to say, I have naught against him, and so justify myself”—Stier.] 25 Agree with thine adversary [opponent in a lawsuit] 240quickly, while thou art with him in the way [on the road to the judge]; lest haply thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer [one answering somewhat to our sheriff], and thou be cast into prison. [“In this brief allegory one is supposed to have an adversary at law who has just cause against him, and who will certainly gain a verdict when the case comes into court. The plaintiff himself used to apprehend the defendant” (Bengel). The defendant is, therefore, advised to agree with this adversary while the two are alone on the way to the judge, and thus prevent a trial. Jesus still has in mind the preceding case of one who has given offence to his brother. Every such one is going to the final judgment, and will there be condemned unless he now becomes reconciled to his brother.] 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last farthing. [This is the text on which the Roman Catholic Church has built its doctrine of purgatory, and one of those on which the Universalists build theirs of final restoration. But neither “prison” nor “till” necessarily point to ultimate deliverance. Compare II. Pet. ii. 4 and Jude 6. The allusion here is of course to imprisonment for debt. In such a case the debtor was held until the debt was paid, either by himself or some friend. If it were not paid at all, he remained in prison until he died. In the case which this is made to represent, the offender would have let pass all opportunity to make reparation and no friend can make it for him; therefore, the last farthing will never be paid, and he must remain a prisoner forever. So far, therefore, from being a picture of hope, it is one which sets forth the inexorable rigor of divine justice against the hardened and impenitent sinner. It is intended to teach that men can not pay their debts to God, and therefore they had better obtain his forgiveness through faith during these days of grace. It exposes the vain hope of those who think that God will only lightly exact his debts. God knows only complete forgiveness or complete exaction. This is an action founded upon the perfection of his nature. The Greek word 241translated “farthing,” is derived from the Latin “quadrans,” which equals the fourth part of a Roman As, a small copper or bronze coin which had become common in Palestine. The farthing was worth about one-fifth part of a cent.] 27 Ye have heard that it was said [Ex. xx. 14; Deut. v. 18], Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [Here, as in reference to murder, Jesus legislates against the thought which lies back of the act. He cuts off sin at its lowest root. The essence of all vice is intention. Those who indulge in unchaste imaginations, desires and intentions are guilty before God— II. Pet. ii. 14.] 29 And if thy right eye [the organ of reception] causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee [these words indicate decision and determination, and suggest the conduct of a surgeon, who, to protect the rest of the body, unflinchingly severs the gangrened members]: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand [the instrument of outward action] causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell. [Jesus here emphasizes the earnestness with which men should seek a sinless life. To this the whole Scripture constrains us by the terrors of hell, and encourages us by the joys of heaven. The right eye and hand and foot were regarded as the most precious (Zech. xi. 17; Ex. xxix. 20), but it is better to lose the dearest thing in life than to lose one's self. To be deprived of all earthly advantage than to be cast into hell. Of course the Saviour does not mean that we should apply this precept literally, since bodily mutilation will not cure sin which resides in the will and not in the organ of sense or action. A literal exaction of the demands of this precept would turn the church into a hospital. We should blind ourselves by taking care not to look with evil eyes; we should 242 maim ourselves by absolutely refusing to go to forbidden resorts, etc. “'Mortify' (Col. iii. 5) is a similar expression”—Bengel.] 31 It is said also [Deut. xxiv. 1, 3], Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress [the mere fact of divorce did not make her an adulteress, but it brought her into a state of disgrace from which she invariably sought to free herself by contracting another marriage, and this other marriage to which her humiliating situation drove her made her an adulteress]: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. [The law of divorce will be found at Deut. xxiv. 1–4. Jesus explains that this law was given by Moses on account of the hardness of the people's heart; i. e., to prevent greater evils ( Matt. xix. 8). The law permitted the husband to put away the wife when he found “some unseemly thing in her.” But Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry again without committing adultery (Matt. xix. 9). Such is Jesus' modification of the Old Testament law, and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth. It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty part could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong. For further light on the subject, see Rom. vii. 1–3; I. Cor. vii. 10–16, 39. It is much to be regretted that in many Protestant countries the civil authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority of Christ can take advantage of such legislation.] 33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform 243unto the Lord thine oaths [Lev. xix. 12; Num. xxx. 2; Deut. xxiii. 21]: 34 but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is the throne of God; 35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. [Ps. xlviii. 2.] 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one. [It will be seen from the quotation given by Jesus that the law permitted oaths made unto the Lord. It was not the intention of Jesus to repeal this law. But the Jews, looking upon this law, construed it as giving them exemption from the binding effect of all other oaths. According to the their construction no oath was binding in which the sacred name of God did not directly occur. They therefore coined many other oaths to suit their purposes, which would add weight to their statements or promises, which, however, would not leave them guilty of being forsworn if they spoke untruthfully. But Jesus showed that all oaths were ultimately referable to God, and that those who made them would be forsworn if they did not keep them. To prevent this evil practice of loose swearing Jesus lays down the prohibition, “Swear not at all;” but the universality of this prohibition is distributed by the specifications of these four forms of oaths, and is, therefore, most strictly interpreted as including only such oaths. Jesus surely did not intend to abolish now, in advance of the general abrogation of the law, those statutes of Moses which allowed, and in some instances required, the administration of an oath. See Ex. xxii. 11; Num. v. 19. What we style the judicial oaths of the law of Moses then were not included in the prohibition. This conclusion is also reached when we interpret the prohibition in the light of authoritative examples; for we find that God swore by himself (Gen. xxii. 16, 17; Heb. vi. 13; vii. 21). Jesus answered under oath before the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 63), and Paul also made oath to the Corinthian church (II. Cor. i. 23). See also Rom. i. 9; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8 I. Cor. xv. 31; Rev. x. 5, 6. 244We conclude, then, that judicial oaths, and oaths taken in the name of God on occasions of solemn religious importance, are not included in the prohibition. But as these are the only exceptions found in Scriptures, we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden. Looking at the details of the paragraph, we find that oaths by heaven and by the earth, by Jerusalem and by the head, are utterly meaningless save as they have reference to God. “Swearing is a sin whereunto neither profit incites, nor pleasure allures, nor necessity compels, nor inclination of nature persuades”—Quarles.] 38 Ye have heard that it was said [Ex. xxi. 24; Lev. xxiv. 20; Deut. xix. 21], An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil [The lex talionis, or law of like for like, was the best possible rule in a rude state of society, its object being not to sacrifice the second eye, but to save both, by causing a man when in a passion to realize that every injury which he inflicted upon his adversary he would in the end inflict upon himself. From this rule the scribes drew the false inference that revenge was proper, and that a man was entitled to exercise it. Thus a law intended to prevent revenge was so perverted that it was used as a warrant for it. This command which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon, does not demand of us absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We are to submit to evil for principle's sake and to accomplish spiritual victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so far encourage crime as to become a sin. As in the case of the precept about swearing just above, Jesus distributes the universal prohibition by the specification of certain examples, which in this case are three in number]: but 245whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [This first example is taken from the realm of physical violence. The example given, a slap in the face, has been regarded as a gross insult in all ages, but it is not an assault which imperils life. We find this precept illustrated by the conduct of the Master himself. He did not literally turn the other cheek to be smitten, but he breathed forth a mild and gentle reproof where he might have avenged himself by the sudden death of his adversary (John xviii. 22, 23). The example of Paul also is given, but it is not so perfect as that of the Master (Acts xxiii. 2–5). Self-preservation is a law of God giving rights which, under most circumstances, a Christian can claim. He may resist the robber, the assassin and all men of that ilk, and may protect his person and his possessions against the assaults of the violent and lawless (Acts xvi. 35–39). But when the honor of Christ and the salvation of man demands it, he should observe this commandment even unto the very letter.] 40 And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. [This second case is one of judicial injustice, and teaches that the most annoying exactions are to be endured without revenge. The coat was the inner garment, and the cloak was the outer or more costly one. The creditor was not allowed to retain it over night, even when it was given to him as a pledge from the poor, because it was used for a bed-covering (Ex. xxii. 26, 27). The idea therefore is, “Be ready to give up even that which by law can not be taken” (Mansel). This case, as the one just above, is also an instance of petty persecution, and shows that the command does not forbid a righteous appeal to the law in cases where large and important interests are involved.] 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile [the Roman mile; it was 142 yards short of the English mile], go with him two. [This third instance is a case of governmental oppression. It supposes a man to be impressed by government officials to go a mile. The custom alluded to is said to have originated with Cyrus, king of Persia, and it 246 empowered a government courier to impress both men and horses to help him forward. For an example of governmental impress, see Luke xxiii. 26. The exercise of this power by the Romans was exceedingly distasteful to Jews, and this circumstance gave a special pertinency to the Saviour's mention of it. (See Herodotus viii. 98; Xen. Cyrop. viii. 6, 7; Jos. Ant. xiii. 2, 3.) The command, “Go with him two,” requires a cheerful compliance with the demands of a tyrannical government—a doubling of the hardship or duty required rather than a resistance to the demand. But here again the oppression is not an insupportable one. A man might go two miles and yet not lose his whole day's labor. The Saviour chooses these lesser evils because they bring out more distinctly the motives of conduct. If we resist the smaller evils of life, we thereby manifest a spirit of pride seeking revenge; but when the larger evils come upon us, they waken other motives. A man may strive for self-protection when life is threatened without any spirit of revenge. He may appeal to the law to protect his property without any bitterness toward the one who seeks to wrest it from him, and he may set himself against the oppression of his government from the loftiest motives of patriotism. If revenge slumbers in our breast, little injuries will waken it as quickly as big ones.] 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. [Jesus here turns from the negative to the positive side of life. Our conduct, instead of being selfish and revengeful, should be generous and liberal. A benevolent disposition casts out revenge as light does darkness. No lending was provided for by the law of Moses except for benevolent purposes, for no interest was allowed, and all debts were canceled every seventh year. The giving and lending referred to, then, are limited to cases of real want, and the amount given or loaned is to be regulated accordingly. Giving or lending to the encouragement of vice or indolence can not, of course, be here included. Good actions are marred if they bear evil fruit.] 43 Ye have heard that it was said [Lev. xix. 18], 247 Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: 44 but I say unto you, c that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you 28 bless them that curse you [I. Cor. iv. 12], a and pray for them that persecute you; c that despitefully use you. [The law commanding love will be found at Lev. xix. 18, while the sentiment “hate thy enemy” is not found in the law as a precept. But the Jews were forbidden by law to make peace with the Canaanites (Ex. xxxiv. 11–16; Deut. vii. 2; xxiii. 6), and the bloody wars which were waged by God's own command inevitably taught them to hate them. This was the feeling of their most pious men (I. Chron. xx. 3; II. Kings xiii. 19), and it found utterance even in their devotional hymns; e. g., Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9; cxxxix. 21, 22. It is a true representation of the law, therefore, in its practical working, that it taught hatred of one's enemies. This is one of the defects of the Jewish dispensation, which, like the privilege of divorce at will, was to endure but for a time. To love an enemy has appeared to many persons impossible, because they understand the word “love” as here expressing the same feeling in all respects which are entertained toward a friend or a near kinsman. But love has many shades and degrees. The exact phase of it which is here enjoined is best understood in the light of examples. The parable of the good Samaritan is given by Jesus for the express purpose of exemplifying it (Luke x. 35–37); his own example in praying on the cross for those who crucified him serves the same purpose, as does also the prayer of Stephen made in imitation of it (Luke xxiii. 34; Acts vii. 60). The feeling which enables us to deal with an enemy after the manner of the Samaritan, or Jesus, or Stephen, is the love for our enemies which is here enjoined. It is by no means an impossible feeling. Prayer, too, can always express it, for as Hooker says, “Prayer is that which we always have in our power to bestow, and they never in theirs to refuse.”] a 45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on 248the just and the unjust. [Jesus here gives two reasons why we should obey this precept: 1. That we may be like God; 2. That we may be unlike publicans and sinners. Of course right action towards our enemies does not make us sons of God, but it proves us such by showing our resemblance to him. We are made children of God by regeneration. God, in his daily conduct toward the children of this earth, does not carry his discrimination to any great length. Needful blessings are bestowed lavishly upon all.] c 29 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. [The teaching of this passage has been explained above. It is repeated because of its difference in verbiage, and because its position here illustrates the spirit of the verses which precede it.] a 46 For { c 32 And} if ye love them that love you, what thank { a reward} have ye? do not even the publicans the same? c for even sinners love those that love them. 33 And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do the same? [The Roman publican proper was a wealthy man of the knightly order, who purchased from the state the privilege of collecting the taxes, but the publicans mentioned in the Scripture were their servants—the men who actually collected the taxes, and the official name for them was portitores. These latter were sometimes freedmen or slaves, and sometimes natives of the province in which the tax was collected. The fact that the Jews were a conquered people, paying tax to a foreign power, made the tax itself odious, and hence the men through whom it was extorted from them were equally odious. These men were regarded in the double aspect of oppressors and traitors. The odium thus attached to the office prevented men who had any regard for the good opinion of their countrymen from accepting it, and left it in the hands of those who had no self-respect and no reputation. Jesus teaches that our religion is 249worth little if it begets in us no higher love than that which is shown by natural, worldly men. “Christianity is more than humanity”—M. Henry.] 34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do them good [Ex. xxiii. 4; Prov. xxiv. 17; Rom. xii. 17, 19–21], and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. [“To make our neighbor purchase, in any way, the assistance which we give him is to profit by his misery; and, by laying him under obligations which we expect him in some way or other to discharge, we increase his wretchedness under the pretense of relieving him”— Clarke.] a 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? do not even the Gentiles the same? [The Jews despised the Gentiles, so that they did not usually salute them. This was especially true of the Pharisees. The morality, therefore, of this sect proved to be, in this respect, no better than that of the heathen. Salutation has always been an important feature in Eastern social life. The salutation, with all its accompaniments, recognized the one saluted as a friend.] c 36 Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful. a 48 Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Luke emphasizes the particular characteristic of God's perfection which Jesus has been discussing; namely, mercy; but Matthew records the broader assertion which bids us resemble God's perfections in all their fullness and universality. God is our model. Everything short of that is short of what we ought to be. God can not be satisfied with that which is imperfect. This requirement keeps us in mind of our infirmities, and keeps us at work. Like Paul, we must be ever striving (Phil. iii. 12). Our standard is not the perfection of great and heroic men, but of the infinite Creator himself.] 250

« Prev Matt. V. 17-48; Luke VI. 27-30, 32-36. Next »
VIEWNAME is workSection