The Sermon on the Mount
Lesson 3/Matthew 5:19-26 Matthew 5:19-26"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent” 5:19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments”: The expression these commandments refers to any of the commands in the Old Testament, and the term annuls means to “loosen, destroy or unloose”. “Jesus refers not so much to that open disobedience or unblushing defiance of God’s government as to all the compromising and shrewd evasion of the force of God’s commands. There are many ways to loose or untie one from his obligation to the Law: through ignorant or wrong interpretations (2 Peter 3:16), by deliberate manipulation of the Law for selfish or ulterior motives, by cunningly devised rationalizations and justifications adopted as a means of escaping the guilt of violation. The subtle spirit of disobedience seeks to realize its desires just like
1
the openly sinful, but it always maintains a cloak of respectability and superficial piety continually stretched over every act” (Fowler pp. 249-250). People often have the wrong view of the Pharisees. Jesus accuses them here of unloosing God’s requirements (5:20). What they “bound” was not God’s law, rather it was human religious traditions (Matthew 23:4; Mark 7:1ff). Stott reminds us in the verses that follow, “What the scribes and Pharisees were doing, in order to make obedience more readily attainable, was to restrict the commandments and extend the permissions of the law. They made the law’s demands less demanding and the law’s permissions more permissive…(for example)…the scribes and Pharisees were evidently restricting the biblical prohibitions of murder and adultery to the act alone; (Matthew 5:21-28), Jesus extended them to include angry thoughts, insulting words and lustful looks. They restricted the command about swearing to certain oaths only (those involving the divine name) and the command about neighbor-love to certain people only (those of the same race and religion); Jesus said all promises must be kept and all people must be loved, without limitations” (pp. 79-80). Thus the Pharisees are not accused to teaching too much doctrine, but of neglecting sound doctrine and its proper application. They are charged with loosening the demands found in God’s law and trying to limit the application of certain Scriptures. 5:19 “Least of these commandments”: The question of course is “least” in whose opinion? Jesus did talk about the “weightier matters of the law” (Matthew 23:23), yet stressed that every command of God is important (Matthew 23:23). James reminds us that that authority of God’s Law is defied just as much by the violation of a least command as by a greater one (James 2:8-11). God often condemned individuals for what people today would call a least command (Leviticus 10:1; 2 Samuel 6:1ff; 1 Samuel 15:1ff; Acts 5:1ff; Numbers 20:12). Stott reminds us, “Yet even one of the least of these commandments, precisely because it is a commandment of God the King, is important” (p. 74). Lenski notes, that whoever sets aside even the least may progress in his wrong course and soon set aside other commands as well (pp. 211-212). Even in the context Jesus believed that every part of the Law was the word of God (5:18), and that even when it came to such things as oaths (5:33), that abuse of this command was evil (5:37). 5:19 “And so teaches others”: It is not enough to merely believe the truth; we must preach it and defend it (Jude 3; 2 Timothy 4:2). This verse should serve as a warning to all of us. God will hold us accountable for the errors, even concerning the least commandments, which we have perpetuated. Before one jumps on a bandwagon, one needs to seriously ask, “Is this the truth?” Personal obedience is not enough. We must teach others the permanent and binding nature of God’s word. Beware of people who ridicule God’s laws, try to loosen His requirements, or undermine the need to obey His will. Are we teaching people to respect all of God’s word or are we giving people the impression that
2
they can ignore certain aspects of God’s will? By your attitude and comments, what are you teaching others with respect to the Bible? 5:19 “Shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”: God is not impressed with people who try to undermine the authority of any of His commands. While the world must be impressed with those who elevate feelings over obedience, and provide convenient loopholes, God says otherwise. The expression, “in the kingdom of heaven” does not mean that such teachers will be in the kingdom, that is, saved despite their loosening “least commands”. Rather, they will be least esteemed by the faithful who compose the kingdom of heaven. In the eyes of the church, they will be seen for what they are (1 Timothy 1:3-7). This agrees with verse 20. The Pharisees were guilty of doing such, and unless they changed, such Pharisees could not enter the kingdom (5:20). “Greatness in the kingdom of heaven is measured by conscientiousness in reference to its least commandments” (McGarvey p. 237). 5:19 “But whoever”: No predestination here, this is a matter of our own choice. Notice, God’s word can be kept and accurately taught by human beings (2 Timothy 2:15). It is not enough to simply keep the commands of God, we must also teach them to others (Matthew 28:20). 5:20 “That unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” First of all, right here Jesus denies that the scribes and Pharisees (in their present condition) are saved. “Our Lord’s statement must certainly have astonished His first hearers as it astonishes us today” (Stott p. 74). In the verses that follow, Jesus will describe for us the level of spirituality and righteousness that is demanded of those who are in the kingdom. The Pharisees, like many people today assumed that an external conformity to the law would be righteousness enough (Matthew 23:25-28). The Pharisees at times taught the truth, but they failed to apply it or demonstrate it in their daily lives. In contrast, Jesus expects us to practice what we preach (Matthew 23:3). The Pharisees kept many rules, which were not found in Scripture, and as a result, often neglected the truth teaching of Scripture (Mark 7:1ff). They were often more concerned with religious tradition than with what the text actually said. Their motivation was often corrupt, they really did not love God, but rather, they loved to be viewed as religious and spiritual. They loved human praise rather than God’s praise (Matthew 6:1ff; John 12:42-43). They limited spirituality to an outward conformity of a command (Matthew 5:21), and were overconfident concerning their relationship with God (Luke 18:9-14). What Jesus is demanding is not more obedience to human rules, but rather, a deeper obedience to the law of God, an obedience that starts in the heart, where God’s law should be written (Jeremiah 31:34). One writer reminds us, “Holiness
3
is not an experience that we have; it means keeping and fulfilling the law of God” (Martin Lloyd Jones p. 200). Notice that Jesus attacked the most popular religious leaders of the day and virtually said they were lost men. “The Pharisees and the scribes were denounced by our Lord as being hypocrites. Yes; but they were unconscious hypocrites. They did not realize it; they really thought all was well. You cannot read the Bible without constantly being reminded of that terrible danger” (Jones p. 203). Here is one of those places that we can examine ourselves and make sure that we are not becoming too politically correct in our thinking. If preaching that exposes the errors of the denominations makes one uncomfortable, then Jesus’ sermons would have really made one uncomfortable. Jesus attacked the religious authorities of the time repeatedly, exposed their errors in detail and called them hypocrites, blind guides, a brood of vipers, and whitewashed tombs. Stott reminds us, “Yet the advocates of the ‘new morality’ or ‘situational ethics’ are in principle trying to do exactly what the Pharisees were doing. True, they claim to take Christ’s part against the Pharisees, but they resemble the Pharisees in their dislike of the law. They regard the law as rigid and authoritarian, and just like the Pharisees they attempt to relax its authority, to loosen its hold. So they declare the category of law abolished and they set law and love at variance with each other (in a way that Jesus never did)” (pp. 80-81). What is the contrast in the following verses? Some believe that in the verses that follow Jesus is contrasting the level of spirituality to be found in the New Covenant with what the Old Testament taught, yet we must reject this for a number of reasons:
Jesus also said that He did not come to destroy or undermine the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:18). Paul argues that the Old Testament Law was spiritual, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). The expression, “You have heard that it was said”, is not the expression that Jesus typically used when introducing an Old Testament quotation. When He introduced a biblical quotation, both verb and tense were different, namely gegraphai (perfect tense, “it stands written”), not errethe (aorist tense, “it was said”). In Matthew 5:28, the contrast cannot be with the Old Testament and the New Testament, because even the Old Testament condemned lusting after a woman, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:17). In Matthew 5:43, the expression “You shall hate your enemy” is not found in the Old Testament. The second half of this sentence is not found in the
4
Law, it comes neither in Leviticus 19:18, nor anywhere else. So here is a contemporary human addition of God’s law. Thus, Jesus must be contrasting the righteousness that God demands, with what the Pharisees taught. He is contrasting the truth with their misinterpretations of the Law. Since this is the level of righteousness demanded for one to enter into the kingdom, we cannot accept the argument that the Sermon on the Mount was only stating the correct view of the Old Testament Law and does not apply to those under the New Covenant. While the Old Testament Law ended at the cross (Hebrews 8-9), many of God’s requirements, especially His moral requirements, have remained the same. Hate is still wrong; lust is still wrong, divorce for a cause other than fornication is still wrong. Remember, Jesus is talking about a quality or level of righteousness for those who want to be part of His kingdom (5:20). The reason I bring this up is because there is a error which is surfacing among Christians (and comes from the denominational world), is that nothing in Matthew through John applies to Christians today, for it was all Old Testament teaching. Anger Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court’” “You shall not commit murder”: Here is a quotation from Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The commandment not to kill is best rendered, “You shall not commit murder”, for that is what God is condemning. This is clear from the fact that the same Mosaic Law, which forbids killing, elsewhere enjoins it both in the form of capital punishment and in the wars designed to exterminate the corrupt pagan tribes, which inhabited the Promised Land. Concerning the question of self-defense, using deadly force and the death penalty, people need to be reminded that the death penalty does not cheapen human life; rather it exists for the very opposite purpose. Those who campaign for the abolition of the death penalty on the ground that human life (the murderer’s) should not be taken tend to forget the value of the life of the murderer’s victim (Genesis 9:6). And those who campaign for unconditional pacifism tend to forget that God has given government the right and responsibility to protect the innocent and punish evildoers (Romans 13:1ff). “Shall be liable to the court”: That is, the judgment of a local court had to decide the acquittal or death sentence (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21). Apparently the scribes and Pharisees sought to restrict the sixth commandment to the deed of murder itself. If they refrained from this, they considered that they had kept the commandment, and this is what they had taught the people.
5
Matthew 5:22 “But I say to you”: Again, Jesus is not contradicting what Moses taught (5:18), which would sound silly, for Jesus, being God, is the true author of what Moses taught. For Jesus to set Himself against Moses would be to set Himself against Himself. “That everyone who is angry with his brother”: Notice the “everyone”. Some try to limit the application of these passages, especially Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage to Christians only (Matthew 5:32), that is, non-Christians can be living contrary to Matthew 5:32 and yet not be guilty of sin. The problem with such a view is that consistency would demand that non-Christians are not accountable to any of the other teachings in this section of Scripture. Thus non-Christians would not be sinning when they get angry, lust, or lie. If this is true, then when does a non-Christian sin? The truth of the matter is that everyone is accountable to these standards (1 Corinthians 6:911; Colossians 3:5-7). “Angry with his brother without cause”: Some manuscripts have the clause “without cause”. These words occur in most Greek manuscripts, but not in those which are considered the best. Nevertheless, the expression does correctly interpret what Jesus is saying to us. Because not all anger is evil, as is evident from the wrath of God, which is always holy and pure. One can be angry and yet not guilty of sin (Psalm 119:105; Ephesians 4:25). Jesus displayed anger on various occasions (Mark 3:5), and anger is proper in a noble character, which is stirred deeply about human wickedness (Exodus 32:19; Numbers 16:15; 1 Samuel 11:6; Nehemiah 5:6; Romans 12:9 “abhor what is evil”). Hence, we need to make sure that our anger remains pure. Sinful anger is motivated by pride and self, and has a desire to injure (not to save). Godly anger has a love for souls, righteousness, a hatred of sin, and a zeal for God’s honor and His kingdom. Righteous anger only seeks the spiritual good of the person who wronged you. “Shall be guilty before the court”: Compare with 5:21. God can condemn one long before they commit murder. Even before one has even made an angry statement, even before such anger is expressed in words, one can be in danger of condemnation. “Raca”: Raca was an Aramaic word of contempt and scorn. Probably equivalent to a word that means “empty”, which may have been a insult to a person’s intelligence, “empty-headed”, “nitwit”, “blockhead”, “numskull” or “bonehead”. “Guilty before the Supreme Court”: That is, the Supreme Court which heard cases In Jerusalem, the Jewish Sanhedrin. Far more than merely a local municipal court made up of town elders. “You fool”: Many feel that this word expresses contempt for a person’s heart and character—you scoundrel! Even the Bible calls certain people “fools” (often in the Proverbs), and see in Psalm 14:1. Jesus called people “fools” (Matthew 23:17; Luke 24:25), and the apostles likewise did the same (1 Corinthians 15:36; Galatians 3:1; James 2:20). Thus, the expression, “without cause” is highly important. When people abandon the faith, they are acting foolishly. This is a righteous judgment, and we are not making our own judgment, neither are we condemning them to hell because we simply do not like them. Yet God
6
condemns using such terms out of pure spite and personal hatred. Sadly, when people do not allow the Scriptures to determine who is and who is not a fool, they end up calling people names and making their own judgments. The only way to avoid being guilty of being angry without cause, is to let the Bible be your standard of determining when someone is wrong and when he or she is right. “Shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell”: Not only are unjustified anger and insult equivalent to murder, but the punishment to which they render us liable is nothing less than the divine judgment of hell. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount does Jesus tell anyone that even though something is wrong, we should not be too concerned about it because grace will just automatically take care of any violations. Jesus does expect us to clean up our hearts, to watch our every word (Matthew 12:36), and keep our anger a selfless and righteous emotion. Jesus also knew that hell is real and used it as an incentive to exhort men to change. 5:23 “If therefore you are presenting you’re offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you” Jesus now gives a practical application of the principles that He had just taught. “His theme was that if anger and insult are so serious and so dangerous, then we must avoid them like the plague and take action speedily as possible” (Stott p. 85). For the Jews, presenting their offering at the altar was what they did when they came and worshipped God. The modern application would be set things right with your brother prior to attending services. “There remember”: Worship should be convicting. In God’s presence we should see our own shortcomings and faults. Sadly, too many people want to come, worship, and feel completely satisfied with themselves. “Your brother has something against you”: The “something” is left intentionally vague. Obviously, Jesus is talking about something that a person rightfully against us, because many people have “something” against Christians, which Christians would have to compromise or become unfaithful in order to correct. If Jesus is talking about unjust criticisms, then we never could worship, for such things can never be cleared up with some people. Reconciliation takes precedence over worship, not because it is more important than worshipping God, but as long as we are in sin, we cannot worship God properly, or, in other words, God will not accept our worship (Isaiah 1:10-15). This is one more reason why I believe that the “something against you” in the above verse must be a real, legitimate complaint, because God does accept our worship, even when we have offended people with the truth (Matthew 15:12-14 Matthew 5:24 “Leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering”
7
“First be reconciled with your brother”: This is a situation that can be mended, which means that this is a situation in which we really have wronged someone, and our repentance will clear it up. It cannot be talking about where someone has been offended by the truth, for this cannot be changed until the offended party repents. Matthew 5:25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison” “With your opponent at law”: Again, such language suggests that the person we have offended has a legitimate complaint. Here Jesus likens the person who needs to stop worshipping and go to someone who needs to settle out of court before they are tossed into prison. “So payment before prison would be much more sensible” (Stott p. 86). The whole situation infers that the person taking one to court does have a case and that the judge is going to rule in their favor and toss one into prison. Matthew 5:26 “Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent” Of course, this means that one will never get out, for how can payment be made if one is sitting in prison? Compare with Matthew 18:34. Closing Comments “Yet how seldom do we heed Christ’s call for immediacy of action! If murder is a horrible crime, malicious anger and insult are horrible too. We need to be more sensitive about these evils. We must never allow an estrangement to remain, still less, to grow. We must not delay to put it right. As soon as we are conscious of a broken relationship, we must take the initiative to mend it, to apologize for the grievance we have caused, to pay the debt we have left unpaid, and to make amends. And these extremely practical instructions Jesus drew out from the sixth commandment as its logical implications (necessary inferences)!” (Stott p. 86). The expression “until you have paid the last cent”, 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. Yet neither “prison” nor “until” necessarily points to final deliverance (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Matthew 18:3435). Hence the word “until” does not mean that eventually the debt can be paid, but rather stresses the fact that unless one seeks forgiveness in this life, there will be no grace in the next. Those who die with unforgiven sins will face the rigors of divine justice. It exposes the vain hope of some that God will only lightly exact his debts. God knows only complete forgiveness or complete punishment.
8
9