Sermon on the Mount/Matthew Chapter 5:35-48/Commentary

The Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:33-48

Concerning Oaths: Matthew 5:33-37 “There may be those who ask: ‘Is it profitable for us, confronted as we are by vast problems in this modern world, to be considering this simple matter of our speech and how we should be speaking to one another? The answer, according to the New Testament, is that everything that a Christian does is most important because of what he is, and because of his effect upon others” (Jones p. 262).

Matthew 5:33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord’” “If the rabbis tended to be permissive in their attitude towards divorce, they were permissive also in their teaching about oaths. It is another example of their devious treatment of Old Testament Scripture” (Stott p.

99). The above statement is not a quotation from any one Law of Moses, but is rather a summation of several Old Testament precepts, which required people who made vows to keep them. The vows in question are, strictly speaking, “oaths” in which the speaker calls upon God to witness his vow and to punish him if he breaks it. See Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deut. 23:21.

The Pharisees got to work on these awkward prohibitions and tried to restrict them. “They shifted people’s attention away from the vow itself and need to keep it to the formula used in making it. ‘False swearing’, they concluded, meant profanity (a profane use of the divine name), not perjury (a dishonest pledging of one’s word). So they developed elaborate rules for the taking of vows. They listed which formulae were permissible, and they added that only those formulae, which included the

1

divine name, made the vow binding. One need not be so particular, they said, about keeping vows in which the divine name had not been used” (Stott p. 100).

In Matthew 23:16-22 Jesus gives specific examples of how the Pharisees tried to get around various vows: "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.'

"You fools and blind men; which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold? "And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is obligated.'

19"You blind men, which is more important, the offering or the altar that sanctifies the offering? "Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. "And he who swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. "And he who swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it”.

Matthew 5:33-36 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black”.

Jesus pointed out that the formula used in making vows is of total irrelevance. “And in particular that the Pharisee’s distinction between formulae which mention God, and those which do not, is entirely artificial.

However hard one tries, Jesus said, one cannot avoid some reference to God, for the whole world is God’s world and one cannot eliminate Him from any of it. If one vows by ‘heaven’, it is God’s throne; if by ‘earth’ it is His footstool; if by ‘Jerusalem’ it is His city. If one swears by his head, it is indeed ours in the sense that it is nobody else’s, and yet it is God’s creation and under God’s control. One cannot even change the natural color of a single hair, black in youth and white in old age” (Stott p. 101).

“Thus, there is no real way to keep God out of your smallest transactions.

God is the Owner of the universe and all in it, even the smallest part, yes, even the hair of man’s head” (Fowler p. 291).

Matthew 5:36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black”.

2

First of all, this demonstrates man’s vulnerability and his lack of power.

Since I cannot even influence a natural change in the color of one hair on my head, I need to be very careful about what I “promise”. Too many people in our society make rash promises that they cannot fulfill. The verse also reminds us that God’s providential power extends over every man and woman. If we cannot even change the natural color of one hair, then obviously, the idea of plants, insects, animals, and man being able to “evolve”, adapt, and grow new mechanisms is false.

Matthew 5:37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’”: This does not absolutely forbid all oaths, for even God makes oaths (Genesis 22:16,17; Hebrews 6:13-18). Jesus responded to an oath (Matthew 26:63-64), and Paul used them (2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20). Jones feels that Jesus is forbidding all oaths in ordinary conversation. Remember, the marriage vow is also an oath.

“Yes, yes” or “No, no”: “Let your speech be exactly what it pretends to be. If you mean ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’ then, avoid equivocation by saying so. There can be no trick words or evasions which take away personal responsibility” (Fowler p. 293). “And anything beyond these is of evil”: Side ref., of “from the evil one”. That is, the desire to reinforce everything with an oath, infers that people are basically untruthful. “By inserting oaths we imply that our statements are not truthful, that we really cannot be believed except under oath” (Lenski p. 239). “If divorce is due to human hard-heartedness, swearing is due to human untruthfulness” (Stott p. 101). In addition, the inference seems to be that those who desire to use oaths frequently are like people who like the fine print in a contract, that is, they are trying to use the law to further their own selfish agenda. Many of us have learned that the person who makes a big deal about “being able to trust them”, is often the person not to trust!

Applications  



Keep your promises, even if it brings hardship upon you personally.

Be honest. Remember, the Pharisees were the experts in getting out of a promise or claiming that they said something entirely different from what they had said. If we are good at manipulating language and putting a “good spin” on what we said, then we have more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus. Jesus says, speak the truth.

If our heart is pure, then our language will not have a double or hidden meaning.

3

    

People who repeatedly claim that they are being misunderstood or misrepresented need to seriously look at what they are saying.

We can use God’s name in a careless manner by attaching it to common things.

We need to watch everything we say (Matthew 12:36).

Exaggeration is another form of lying and so are idle and hypocritical promises that we never intended to keep.

Inattentive prayers are equally idle words.

An Eye for an Eye: 5:38-42

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’” The Law of Moses actually did teach this (Exodus 21:24). The problem was not the statement, but how the Pharisees were applying this law. In the context of Exodus, this law was a measuring stick for civil authorities in Israel in determining what punishment would fit the crime. It was never meant to be applied literally, that is, even in Exodus if a Master seriously injured the eye of a servant, the servant was not allowed to poke out the Master’s eye, rather, the servant was set free (Exodus 21:26). It was a law designed to regulate punishments handed down by the courts, that is, the punishment must equal the crime. Stott notes, that the context makes it clear beyond question that this was an instruction to the judges (civil authorities) of Israel (see also Deuteronomy 19:17-18). “It expressed the principle of exact retribution, whose purpose was both to lay the foundation of justice, specifying the punishment, which a wrongdoer deserved, and to limit the compensation of his victim to an exact equivalent and no more. It thus had the double effect of defining justice and restraining revenge. It also prohibited the taking of the law into one’s own hands by the ghastly vengeance of the family feud” (p. 104).

The Pharisees were arguing that this law gave the individual the right of personal retaliation, and from this law they tried to justify personal revenge.

Matthew 5:39 “But I say to you, do no resist him who is evil”: First, this verse applies to the individual. It does not apply to civil government, for government is given the right to arrest, punish, and even execute the evildoer (Romans 13:1-4). Secondly, there is evil that we must resist (the devil, Ephesians 6:13; 1 Peter 5:9; James 4:7); unfaithful members (Matthew 18:15-17); and false teachers (Titus 1:9-11). This is not a command to compromise with sin or Satan, nor is it a command to look 4

the other way when people are breaking the law. Rather, the command is that we are not allowed to take the law into our own hands and take our own personal revenge even if someone wronged us. Note: Jesus does acknowledge that the person who wronged one is “evil”.

Remember, defending yourself (self-defense) or your family from an intruder is not personal retaliation. If your husband hits you, calling the police and having him arrested is nor revenge, rather you are calling upon God’s minister to help you (Romans 13:1ff). Unfortunately, some have taken the statement, “resist not evil” as the basis for an uncompromising pacifism, as the prohibition of the use of force in any and every situation.

“But whoever slaps you on your right cheek”: Fowler notes, “This is a question of one’s honor, not a defense of his life” (p. 301). To be struck on the right cheek as you face a right-handed person would mean that they would have struck you with the back of his right hand. “Turn to him the other also”: First of all, Jesus told His disciples that they would suffer persecution (Matthew 5:10-12). This would include the blow given to Christians as heretics. Jesus is talking about suffering without offering insults, cussing, or retaliation (1 Peter 2:21-23). “We are to be as the anvil when bad men are the hammers” (Stott p. 107). Secondly, this rule was never meant to be applied literally. Jesus Himself did not always literally turn the other cheek. He Himself challenged the high priest when questioned by him in court (John 18:19-23). “They depict rather the strong man whose control of himself and love for others are so powerful that he rejects absolutely every conceivable form of retaliation” (Stott p. 107).

We see the same attitude in Paul (Acts 23:3), who while not retaliating did not become a doormat.

Matthew 5:40 “And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also”.

Now we have a question of property and possessions and not an involvement of conscience or life. This command is not a prohibition against using the courts to defend yourself, for Paul used the courts (Acts 22:25-29; 25:10-11). “Jesus’ prohibition intends to discourage that selfish preoccupation with holding possessions that fails to look beyond self to see the true needs of one’s opponent” (Fowler p. 302). Jesus here attacks the insistence upon our “rights at all cost”. Many are always thinking of their rights and saying, “I must have them”. In the context it would appear that the person who wants to sue you, is evil (5:39). Instead of wanting to immediately fight, we should do everything we can to seek reconciliation.

5

Matthew 5:41 “And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two” “This compulsion of which Jesus speaks is a historic allusion to the right of those in government service, whether postal carriers or occupation soldiers or others, to impress anyone into service to help them carry forward their own mission. Naturally, such impressments would be galling to a subject people as well as inconvenient and fatiguing. Going that mile might mean shouldering a soldier’s baggage” (Fowler p. 303). Before we complain that such is unfair or too hard, what if God and Jesus had not gone the second mile with us? On a practical level Jesus is saying, “Do not seek revenge, do not litigate, do not render grudging service, be willing to suffer, surrender more and help twice as much as is asked”.

“Rather than rebelliously resist the imposition with a heart full of bitterness the true disciple will of his own accord, in perfect cheerfulness of heart, add a second Roman mile” (Lenski p. 243). This is another example of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

“The result will be that when you arrive this soldier will say: ‘Who is this person? What is it about him that makes him act like this? He is doing it cheerfully, and is going beyond his duty’. And they will be driven to this conclusion: ‘This man is different, he seems to be unconcerned about his own interests’” (Jones p. 287).

Applications     

Christians need to pay their taxes cheerfully.

We need to respect the laws of the land and those who enforce them.

Change an unwise law if we can, but God does not like those who complain about government regulations. While that regulation is on the books, we must comply cheerfully.

Do more than is expected even when the task is unpleasant or difficult.

“If we believe that a particular law includes injustices, then in the name of justice, not for our own personal feelings, nor for our own private gain” (Jones p. 288).

Matthew 5:42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you”.

6

This is not an unqualified giving, for Jesus commands us not to give to those who will not work (2 Thessalonians 3:10), and Christians are forbidden to assist those who teach error (2 John 10-11). The Law of Moses had commanded generosity to any countryman who, being impoverished, was in need (Exodus 22:25-27; Leviticus 25:35-46; Deuteronomy 15:7-15; 23:19,20). Since, we are not to encourage sin in others, including laziness, greed, or shiftlessness, it would appear that the person asking has a true need and that need is known by the giver. Jesus encourages such generosity with widows, orphans (James 1:27), and others (Matthew 25:35-45). Remember, money is not the only thing we can give. Sometimes gainful employment is the most honorable help to give; and at other times, food, clothing and so on. See Acts 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-28,31; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Ephesians 4:28; Galatians 6:10.

Note: We never find early Christians simply giving indiscriminately or to those who were not really in need.

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy’” Of course, the Law of Moses never taught such. Rather, it taught that the Jewish people were to love “strangers” as themselves (Leviticus 19:34).

The Pharisees had limited “neighbor” to a fellow Israelite (and at times, to a fellow Pharisee), and Jesus would point out that our neighbor is anyone in need (Luke 10:29-37). In addition, the Pharisees had overlooked the passages in the Old Testament that commanded love towards enemies (Proverbs 25:21; Exodus 23:4-5).

Some say that the Pharisees thought they had the right to “hate” their enemies from the passages in the Old Testament that commanded Israel to avoid and exterminate the Canaanites. Yet these were specific groups and specific commands; in addition, they were God’s enemies, not our own personal enemies. From the fact that they were also given commands to love strangers and aliens, they should have concluded that God was commanding them to love Gentiles who were not from the corrupt Canaanite nations.

Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” Remember that “love” does not look the other way or ignore sin; rather, love tries to help this enemy change their ways (1 Corinthians 13:4-8).

Instead of taking revenge, we are commanded to pray for them and do

7

what is in their best spiritual interest. God expects more than not striking back, He also commands us to do something good (Romans 12:20).

Luke 6:27-28 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” “Do-gooders are despised in today’s world, and, to be sure, if philanthropy is self-conscious and patronizing, it is not what Jesus meant by ‘doing good’. The point He is making is that true love is not sentiment so much as service—practical, humble, sacrificial service” (Stott p. 118).

Here we have what someone said was “The very highest summit of selfcontrol”. “Jesus seems to have prayed for His tormentors actually while the iron spikes were being driven through His hands and feet; indeed the imperfect tense suggests that He kept praying, and kept repeating His entreaty ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23:34). If the cruel torture of crucifixion could not silence our Lord’s Prayer for His enemies, what pain, pride, prejudice, or sloth could justify the silencing of ours?” (Stott p. 119).

Matthew 5:45 “in order that you may be sons of your Father who is heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous’.

Loving our enemy does not mean that we pretend that they have not done something wrong. When God loves His enemies, He still knows that they are evil and unrighteous, and this love will not last forever. If I die as one of God’s enemies, then I will not longer enjoy any of His blessings.

Loving our enemy does not mean that we ignore their sins, but rather, that we do everything we can to encourage them to repent. The kindness we show an enemy is always done in the context of wanting them to repent.

“By the word love He intends a purposeful, intelligent, comprehending love which cannot ignore the hatefulness and wickedness of the enemy, but seeks in every way to free him from the sin which blinds and binds him” (Fowler p. 313).

Application Loving our enemy could mean: 1. Treating them fairly, even when they have not treated us fairly. 2. Refusing to gossip or exaggerate about what they have done to us. 3. Always leave the door open for reconciliation, let them know that we stand willing to forgive them and that we really want to be friends with them. 4. When we rebuke them, we express sorrow, not over our loss-but the lost ness of their soul.

8

Matthew 5:46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?

Do not even the tax-gatherers dot he same?”

Matthew 5:47 “And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?”

The moral standard found in secular society is not high enough. In fact, only loving the people who already love us does not take much effort.

What would God say about someone who did not even love the people who love them? What makes the Christian different from others, is “the more”, the “beyond-all-that”. God expects us to be more than “average” when it comes to morality, integrity and love.

Matthew 5:48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” “Some holiness teachers have built upon this verse great dreams of the possibility of reaching in this life a state of sinless perfection. But the words of Jesus cannot be pressing into meaning this without causing discord in the Sermon. For He has already indicated in the beatitudes that a hunger and thirst for righteousness is a perpetual characteristic of His disciples, and in the next chapter He will teach us to pray constantly, ‘Forgive us our debts’” (Stott pp. 121-122). See also 1 John 1:8-10.

In the context, Jesus is talking about love; how the world loves and how God loves. When it comes to love, we are to be just like God, that is, love our enemies as well. Love is incomplete if it fails to embrace our enemies, and if it accept God’s commandments (John 14:15; 1 John 2:5; 1 John 4:12). Only when we love with an all-embracing love like His, have we reached a complete and mature love. This section challenges us, for many have learned to turn to the other cheek, but do not know how to love him who struck them. “For we are to go beyond forbearance, to service, beyond the refusal to repay evil, to the resolve to overcome evil with good” (Stott p. 122).

9