Pulpit Commentary
Deu 5:17
I LOOK AT THE MEANING OF THIS COMMAND. It is sixfold.
1. It forbids the taking of human life from passionate vindictiveness. The Hebrews had, as we have, two verbs with the distinctive meanings of “to kill” and “to murder.” We see in the quotation in Mat_19:18, and from the reference in Mat_5:21, that the Savior regards the command as a prohibition of passionate lawlessness. But even had we not that light from Christ”s teaching, the legislation of Moses himself would shut us up to the same conclusion. For in the administration of justice and in necessary war, the taking of life was commanded. (see Num_15:35 Num_35:31; Exo_21:12-14) So that, unless we regard the lawgiver as setting enactment against enactment, there is in this commandment a prohibition of passionate outbreaks, but neither of capital punishment nor necessary war.
2. It forbids any carelessness by which the life or zeal of our neighbor would be risked. (Exo_21:28, Exo_21:29) Wherever human life is risked by insufficient precaution, there is a breach of the sixth commandment.
3. It forbids that anger which takes the form of a revengeful spirit. So Christ teaches. This precept strikes at the thoughts and intents of the heart. Every time a schoolboy angrily lifts a hand to hurt his school-fellow, he is breaking in spirit this commandment.
4. It forbids that indifference in our life to the power of example which would put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in a brother”s way. (see Mat_18:1-3; Rom_14:5) If by careless living we “destroy” him for whom Christ died, we are breakers of this law.
5. It forbids dislike and hatred to our brother, and also a selfish isolation and neglect of him. (1Jn_2:9-11 1Jn_3:14, 1Jn_3:15) If we are merely pursuing our own ends in life, and are not caring whether our brother is saved or lost, this law condemns us. If we even refrain from helping our brother in difficulty or trial, we are guilty (Pro_24:11, Pro_24:12; Isa_58:6, Isa_58:7) We may “kill” by withholding the help which might save!
6. It requires, therefore, the cultivation of that kindly spirit of genial benevolence, which would seek in every way to promote the gladness and safety of the society in which we move, and of men at large. Negative in form, the sixth commandment is positive in intent. “Thou shalt not kill” is but the elementary form in which God asserts the great law of mutual dependence and interdependence. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law.” Would we keep the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”? Let us read it in the New Testament light, “Thou shalt help thy neighbor.” “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:17
Mat_5:17.Think not. With regard to the perfection of his life, Christ might justly have maintained that he came to fulfill the law: but here he treats of doctrine, not of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that “the kingdom of God is come, ” (Mat_12:28,) and raised the minds of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted disciples by baptism, it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of suspense and doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that novelty. Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.
There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.
Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail, — and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its authority.
The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander which, he knew was brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This charge, it is evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he proceeds immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law; and, on the other hand, he boldly refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by which his enemies labored to make his preaching infamous or suspected.
If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must endeavor to oppose a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to prevent religion from being despised by the ignorant. The defense which Christ makes, to free his doctrine from slanders, ought to encourage us, if we are now exposed to the same calumnies. That crime was charged against Paul, that he was an apostate from the law of God, (Act_21:21) and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to clear ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the truth freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.
I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.
“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember their iniquities no more,” (Jer_31:33.) By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.
With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:17-20
Vers. 17-20. (1) With this aim he first states summarily and in nucleus the position that he himself holds towards the Law a statement which was the more necessary as he had already (ver. 11) claimed to be the object of his disciples” devotion.
Matthew only. Think not. Probably the tendency of his teaching was even already seen to be so different from that of the recognized authorities, that some had in consequence formed this opinion (nomizw) of him which he now repudiates, and which was near akin to the basis of the charge formulated afterwards against St. Stephen. (Act_6:14) In both cases the tendency of the new teaching (Mar_1:27) to abolish temporary forms was perceived by at least those whose powers of perception were quickened through their opposition.
That I am come; Revised Version, that I came (oti hlyon). Our Lord, both here and in the next clause, lays stress on his coming as a historic fact. The primary reference is probably to his coming forth from private life. (cf. Joh_1:31) Yet in his own mind there may have been a further allusion to his coming from above. (cf. Joh_8:14; and further, Mat_10:34) To destroy. The connexion between katalusai here and lush ver. 19 (vide note) is lost in the English. The Law or the Prophets. The Phrase, the law and the prophets,” is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament, (Mat_7:12Jo Mat 1:45 Rom_3:21; cf. Mat_11:13 Mat_22:40 Act_24:14) and our Lord means probably much the same here, the “or” distributing the katalusai (cf. Alford), and being used because of the negative. Such a distribution, however, though it could not have been expressed in an affirmative sentence, has for its background the consciousness of a difference in the nature of these two chief components of the Old Testament. Observe that the third part of the Hebrew Scriptures, “the (Holy) Writings of which “Psalms” (Luk_24:44) form the most characteristic portion is omitted in this summary reference to the Old Testament. The reason may be either that of the three parts it was used less than the other two as a basis for doctrine and for rule of life, or that it was practically included in the Prophets. (Act_2:30) The essential teaching of the Law may be distinguished from that of the Prophets by saying that, while the Law was the direct revelation of God”s will as law for the people”s daily life personal, social, and national the Prophets (including the historical books and the prophets proper) were rather the indirect revelation of his will for them under the fresh circumstances into which they came; this indirect revelation being seen more especially in God”s providential guidance of the nation, and in his explanation of principles of worship, as well as in occasional predictions of the future. It is to his relation to the Prophets in this connexion, as an indirect revelation of God”s will under changing circumstances (cf. Weiss) that our Lord here chiefly refers. For he is led to speak of his own relation to them from the bearing that this has on the conduct of his disciples. Many, however (e.g. Chrysostom), consider that he is thinking of his relation to them as containing predictions concerning himself. In answer to this it is not sufficient to say (Meyer, Weiss, Alford) that it was impossible that Messiah could be thought to abrogate the Prophets; for, in fact, to many Jews during his ministry (even if not at this early stage of it), and much more to Jews at the time when the evangelist recorded the words, our Lord must have seemed to contradict the predictions about himself as they were then understood. It is indeed true that the prima facie ground that existed for thinking that our Lord”s teaching was opposed, not merely to the religion of the day as dependent on the Law and the Prophets, but also to the predictions of Messiah contained in them, is enough to give a certain plausibility to this interpretation. But that is all. The absence in the context of any hint that he refers to his relation to predictions as such quite forbids our accepting it. It was probably derived solely from a misinterpretation of “fulfil” (vide infra), no regard being paid to the train of thought by which our Lord was led to speak of the subject at all.
Our Lord says that he is not come to “destroy” the Prophets as exponents of the will of God. I am not come to destroy; emphasizing his statement by repetition. But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. The fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets “is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited” (Meyer). Martensen puts the matter thus: “How can he say that not a tittle shall pass from the Law, since the development of the Church shows us that the ceremonial law, that the whole Mosaic dispensation, has been annihilated by the influences proceeding from Christ? We answer: He has fulfilled the Law, whilst he has released it from the temporary forms in which its eternal validity was confined; he has unfolded its spiritual essence, its inward perfection. Not even a tittle of the ceremonial law has passed away, if we regard the Mosaic Law as a whole; for the ideas which form its basis, as the distinction between the unclean and the clean, are confirmed by Christ, and contained in the law of holiness which he teaches men” (“Christian Ethics: General,” cf. ver. 18, notes, “till heaven and earth pass,” “till all be fulfilled.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:18
18.Till heaven and earth pass Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world. Some persons indulge in ingenious refinements on the word till, ( ἓως ἂ ν ,) as if the passing away of the heaven and earth, which will take place on the last day, the day of judgment, were to put an end to the law and the prophets And certainly, as “tongues shall then cease, and prophecies shall be abolished,” (1Co_13:8,) I think that the written law, as well as the exposition of it, will come to an end; but, as I am of opinion that Christ spoke more simply, I do not choose to feed the ears of readers with such amusements. Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the law shall give way. But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest point? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. “ There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.”
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:18
Cf. Luk_16:17, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the Law to fail” (Revised Version). The words are so similar that the two evangelists probably record the same utterance, the difference in the form of the sentence pointing rather to an oral than a written common source. St. Luke places it in an attack on the Pharisees, who had scoffed at our Lord for his parable of the dishonest steward. Verily; amhn (ma, literally, “established,” “sure”). It has hardly been sufficiently noticed by commentators that the New Testament usage of the word “Amen” often slightly differs from that found in the Old Testament. “Amen” in the Old Testament always involves the personal acceptance of the statement to which it refers (“so be it”), whether this be a statement upon oath, (Num_5:22, perhaps) or a statement of penalties incurred under certain circumstances; (Num_5:22, probably; Deu_27:15-26 Neh_5:13) or a statement expressing a pious hope uttered either by another; (1Ki_1:36 Jer_28:6 Jer_11:5; of. Neh_8:6; cf. also in 1Co_14:16) or by one”s self. (Psa_41:13) Hence the LXX either leaves it untranslated or, with but one exception, translates it by genoito . In Hellenistic Greek, however, it became often used as little more than a mere asseveration (“verily”). The earliest trace of this usage is found Jer_28:6, where the LXX renders ma by alhywv (Aquila much better pistyhtw , though generally elsewhere pepistwmenwv), and it is frequent in the New Testament, cf. especially Luk_9:27, legw de umin alhywv , with parallels, amhgw umin . (cf. also Luk_12:44 with Mat_24:47, and Luk_21:3 with Mar_12:43) Yet this usage of “Amen” in Hellenistic Greek does not seem to have ever spread into Hebrew or Aramaic. W. H. Lowe (“Fragm. Pesach.,” p. 70) says, and apparently truly, “The Jews never used “amen in the sense of “verily.” They say tmab, beemeth”, “in truth,” atwnmyh, hemanutha, “Faith!” or omnam, “verily. If so, the fact is interesting, for it implies that, notwithstanding the usage of “Amen” in Greek, our Lord himself, as speaking Aramaic, probably did not use it in the mere sense of strong asseveration, but rather always with its connotation of his entire concurrence in the statement he was making. In his mouth, that is to say, it always emphasized the thought of his personal acceptance of the statement with its legitimate issue. Observe that it makes no difference (cf. Jer_28:6) whether the “Amen” comes at the beginning or at the end of his utterance. N.B. Nai (Luk_11:51; cf. Mat_23:36) may be taken as intermediate between alhywv and amhn. Alhywv states a truth; nai assents with the intellect; amhn , in at least Hebrew and Aramaic usage, accepts it with all its consequences. (cf. 2Co_1:19, 2Co_1:20) Till heaven and earth pass ; Revised Version, pass away (parelyh); and so in the next clause. The same almost archaic sense of “pass” recurs in Psa_148:6, Authorized Version (Revised Version, “pass away”). Observe that our Lord does not say that the Law will then pass away. He says, not till then; i.e. he affirms, as in Luk_16:17, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Law. For, in fact, as being constantly fulfilled in its ideal and therefore permanent character, it must necessarily remain in the new world; cf. 1Pe_1:25 (the everlasting duration of the word of the Lord); 1Co_13:13 (love); 2Pe_3:13 (righteousness); cf. Meyer. The belief in the permanence of the Law which the Jews had (vide references in Meyer, and especially Weber, “Altsynag. Theol.,” 84) here finds its true satisfaction. “The least element of holiness which the Law contains has more reality and durability than the whole visible universe” (Godet on Luke). Comp. also Mar_13:31, “My words shall not pass away a claim only seen in its full three when put beside these words about the Law. One jot. The permanence of even every yod (y, j), though the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is not infrequently referred to by Jewish writers (cf. e.g. in Lightfoot, “Hor. Hebr.;” Edersheim, “Life,” 1.537). Observe:
(1) The mention of yod, evidently because of its small size, is one proof of the fact that the Hebrew characters in use in our Lord”s time were much more similar to the usual form under which we know them (Quadrate schrift) than to the form found on the Moabite Stone (Phoenician), where the god is no smaller than other letters (vide Euting”s very complete table of forms of the Hebrew alphabet in Chwolsen, “Corp. Inscript. Hebr.,” 1882; vide pp. 404-415 of the same work for Chwolson”s much-controverted theory of the gradual development of the Quadrat-sehrift, roughly from the time of Ezra till the eighth or ninth century A.D., out of old Aramaic forms slightly removed from Phoenician; and for the early history of the Hebrew alphabet generally, see the introduction to Driver”s “Samuel.
(2) We may, perhaps, see in our Lord”s reference to yod and a “tittle” an indication that even already scrupulous care was taken of the text. The objection to this, derived from the non-literal quotations in the New Testament is due to a misunderstanding of Jewish methods of quotation. Or one tittle. So Wickliffe and Tyndale downwards; “apparently a diminutive of tit, small” (Aid. Wright, “Bible WordBook”); keraia (kerea , Westcott and Heft, vide Appendix, p. 151), probably “a horn,” then anything projecting like a horn. Used by the early Greek grammarians, like apex by the Latin, to designate:
(1) A little projection in a letter, especially the top, the apex; Nicander, “the top and bottom are each called keraia” (keraia legetai to akron kai escaton ; gloss, keraia grammatov akron ); cf. Plutarch, “disputing about syllables and keraiwn (logomacein peri sullabwn kai keraiwn);” vide Wetstein.
(2) Accents. So Thayer”s Grimm; cf. Sophocles” “Lex.” (1870) s.v. keraia , “Apex, a mark over a letter, as in 5 (Philon., 2:536. 27);” but Philo in this passage only refers to keraian ekasthn , without defining it. This double use of the Greek word forbids absolute certainty as to what our Lord was referring to, especially as the Hebrew word (xwq, literally, “thorn”) of which keraia is a translation has itself a double sense, viz.:
(1) The end of a letter, especially the “thorn-like” small upward stroke of yod. So most interpreters since Origen (in Wetstein), who says that the Hebrew letters eaph (k) and beth (b) differ only by a short keraia . They also quote the well-known Jewish examples (e.g. in Wetstein) of the effect of negligence in writing similar letters; e.g. if one writes resh (r) for daleth (d), “one” (Deu_6:4) becomes “another;” if heth (j) for he (h), “praise” (Ps 150) becomes “profane.” It must be noticed that the extremities of such Hebrew letters as we possess, which were actually written in our Lord”s time on earth, are much more “thorn” “horn like than those of our printed texts. I cannot, however, find xwq actually used in this sense of other letters than yod.
(2) Some distinguishing mark over a letter to indicate care in writing and reading it, or to remind readers of some interpretation or rule attached as a peg to it or to the word of which it forms a part. It was much later, indeed, that such marks became very elaborate, but it is probable that the rudiments of them were known in our Lord”s time (for such cf. Weber, “Altsynag. Theol.,” 2 a, and the article on Akiba in “Dict. of Christian Biogr.”). If it be objected that our Lord could hardly refer to these marks of traditional explanation as of such permanence, the answer is that in so far as these expressed legitimate issues (vide infra, ver. 21) of the Mosaic Law, he could place them on the same level as that Law itself. Till all; Revised Version, till all things; i.e. all things in the Law all the requirements of the Law, in contrast to the one “jot” or “tittle” just mentioned. Till all be fulfilled; Revised Version, be accomplished (genhtai). The clause is probably epexegetical of “till heaven and earth pass away.” Nothing in the Law shall pass away till heaven and earth pass away, when, with a new heaven and earth, all the contents of the Law will be completely realized (cf. Nosgen) so that even then nothing in the Law shall pass away (vide infra). On the contrary, every part of it, moral or ceremonial (Weiss), shall then, by being fully understood and obeyed in its true meaning, enter on its full and complete existence (genhta).
A.T. Robertson
Matthew 5:18
One jot or one tittle (iōta hen ē mia kerea). “Not an iota, not a comma” (Moffatt), “not the smallest letter, not a particle” (Weymouth). The iota is the smallest Greek vowel, which Matthew here uses to represent the Hebrew yod (jot), the smallest Hebrew letter. “Tittle” is from the Latin titulus which came to mean the stroke above an abbreviated word, then any small mark. It is not certain here whether kerea means a little horn, the mere point which distinguishes some Hebrew letters from others or the “hook” letter Vav. Sometimes yod and vav were hardly distinguishable. “In Vay. R. 19 the guilt of altering one of them is pronounced so great that if it were done the world would be destroyed” (McNeile).
Albert Barnes
Matthew 5:18
Verily – Truly, certainly. A word of strong affirmation.
Till heaven and earth pass – This expression denotes that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying everything else may change; the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed until its whole design has been accomplished.
One jot – The word “jot,” or yod (י y), is the name of the Hebrew letter I, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
One tittle – The word used here, in the Greek, means literally a little horn, then a point, an extremity. Several of the Hebrew letters were written with small points or apices, as in the Hebrew letter, shin (שׁ sh), or the Hebrew letter, sin (שׂ s), which serve to distinguish one letter from another. To change a small point of one letter, therefore, might vary the meaning of a word, and destroy the sense. The name “little horn” was given to these points probably from the manner in which they were written, resembling a little horn. Professor Hackett says of a manuscript which he saw a Jew transcribing: “One peculiarity, that struck me at once as I cast my eye over the parchment, was the horn-like appearance attached to some of the letters. I had seen the same mark, before this, in Hebrew manuscripts, but never where it was so prominent as here. The sign in question, as connected with the Hebrew Letter Lamedh (ל L) in particular, had almost the appearance of an intentional imitation of a ram’s head. It was to that appendage of the Hebrew letters that the Saviour referred when he said, “‘Not one jot or little horn’ (as the Greek term signifies, which our version renders ‘tittle,’) ‘shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.’” – Illustrations of Scripture, p. 234. Hence, the Jews were exceedingly cautious in writing these letters, and considered the smallest change or omission a reason for destroying the whole manuscript when they were transcribing the Old Testament. The expression, “one jot or tittle,” became proverbial, and means that the smallest part of the law should not be destroyed.
The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed – such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These cannot be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men. Of this kind are the ten commandments, and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded. The ceremonial laws are such as are appointed to meet certain states of society, or to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies of a people. These can be changed when circumstances are changed, and yet the moral law be untouched. A general in an army may command his soldiers to appear sometimes in a red coat and sometimes in blue or in yellow. This would be a ceremonial law, and might be changed as he pleased. The duty of obeying him, and of being faithful to his country, could not be changed.
This is a moral law. A parent might permit his children to have 50 different dresses at different times, and love them equally in all. The dress is a mere matter of ceremony, and may be changed. The child, in all these garments, is bound to love and obey his father. This is a moral law, and cannot be changed. So the laws of the Jews. Those designed to regulate mere matters of ceremony and rites of worship might be changed. Those requiring love and obedience to God and love to people could not be changed, and Christ did not attempt it, Mat_19:19; Mat_22:37-39; Luk_10:27; Rom_13:9. A third species of law was the judicial, or those laws regulating courts of justice which are contained in the Old Testament. These were of the nature of the ceremonial law, and might also be changed at pleasure. The judicial law of the Hebrews was adapted to their own civil society. When the form of their polity was changed this was of course no longer binding. The ceremonial law was fulfilled by the coming of Christ: the shadow was lost in the substance, and ceased to be binding. The moral law was confirmed and unchanged.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:19
19.Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life. He therefore declares, that they are false and deceitful teachers, who do not restrain their disciples within obedience to the law, and that they are unworthy to occupy a place in the Church, who weaken, in the slightest degree, the authority of the law; and, on the other hand, that they are honest and faithful ministers of God, who recommend, both by word and by example, the keeping of the law. The least commandments is an expression used in accommodation to the judgment of men: for though they have not all the same weight, (but, when they are compared together, some are less than others,) yet we are not at liberty to think any thing small, on which the heavenly Legislator has been pleased to issue a command. For what sacrilege is it to treat contemptuously any thing which has proceeded from his sacred mouth? This is to sink his majesty to the rank of creatures. Accordingly, when our Lord calls them little commandments, it is a sort of concession. He shall be called the least This is an allusion to what he had just said about the commandments: but the meaning is obvious. Those who shall pour contempt on the doctrine of the law, or on a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of men.
The kingdom of heaven means the renovation of the Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to appear by the preaching of the Gospel. In this sense, Christ tells us, that “ he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than John,” (Luk_7:28.) The meaning of that phrase is, that God, restoring the world by the hand of his Son, has completely established his kingdom. Christ declares that, when his Church shall have been renewed, no teachers must be admitted to it, but those who are faithful expounders of the law, and who labor to maintain its doctrine entire. But it is asked, were not ceremonies among the commandments of God, the least of which we are now required to observe? I answer, We must look to the design and object of the Legislator. God enjoined ceremonies, that their outward use might be temporal, and their meaning eternal. That man does not break ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect. But if Christ banishes from his kingdom all who accustom men to any contempt of the law how monstrous must be their stupidity, who are not ashamed to remit, by a sacrilegious indulgence, what God strictly demands, and, under the pretense of venial sin, to overthrow the righteousness of the law. Again, we must observe the description he gives of good and holy teachers: that not only by words, but chiefly by the example of life, they exhort men to keep the law.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:19
Matthew only. As Christ honoured the Law (ver. 17) so are his disciples to honour it. Whosoever therefore. Seeing that every part of the Law is of permanent value. In this verse our Lord once for all declares his opposition to antinomianism. Every one of the commands in the Law is, in its true and ideal meaning, still binding. Shall break (lush). Not merely in contrast to “do” (poihsh vide infra) in the sense of “transgress” (Fritzsche), but “abrogate”. (cf. Bishop Westcott, on Joh_5:18, “Not the violation of the sanctity of the day in a special case, but the abrogation of the duty of observance;” cf. also Mat_16:19 Mat_18:18 1Jn_3:8) It expresses, indeed, a less complete abrogation than katalusai (ver. 17), because, while speaking of himself, the Lord could use the strongest word possible, and that with reference to the whole Law or the Prophets; but here his expression is limited by the inability of any individual disciple to carry out an abrogation even of one command. One of these least commandments. Not necessarily such as the Pharisees reckoned least, in their enumeration of small and great, but such as our Lord himself symbolized by “jot” or “tittle;” those precepts which in reality are the least important (Meyer).
Chrysostom strangely says that our Lord here refers, not to old laws, but to those which he was about to lay down; similarly Bengel thinks of vers. 22-28, etc. While the Jews distinguished carefully between small and great precepts, they insisted on the importance of keeping even the smallest; cf. “Ab.,” 4:5 (Taylor), “Hasten to a slight precept.., for the reward of precept is precept.” And shall teach men so. Doing his best to abrogate it, not only in his own person by neglect or violation, but also for others by teaching them to disregard it. He shall be called the least. The Revised Version omits “he, …. the.” He is not cast out of the kingdom (“Ubi nisi magni esse non possunt,” Augustine), but his want of moral insight (did he consider it “breadth of thought”?) leads to his being called least in the kingdom. It is the converse of the parable in Luk_19:17, etc. There faithfulness in a very little (elacistw) wins much; here disregard of a very little causes a person to be reckoned (ver. 9, note) as very little the principle of judgment being that of Luk_16:10, “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in avery little is unrighteous also in much.” In the kingdom of heaven; i.e. probably in its full and final establishment. The doctrine of grades of blessedness and of punishment hereafter is clearly taught in Scripture. (e.g. Luk_12:47, Luk_12:48) But whosoever shall do and teach them. Similarly the Revised Version; but rather supply “it,” i.e. “that which is required in the smallest commandment” (Meyer). The personal performance and conscious spreading of one of the least commandments will be found to involve so much that it gains for the person a high position. Do and teach. For many will perform a command without taking any conscious part in spreading it. The same; Revised Version, he (outov). Why inserted here and not in the previous clause? Partly because of the awkwardness of inserting outov there so soon after outwv ; partly because our Lord wished to lay stress there on the recompense, here on the person (“he and no other”) who receives recompense. On the thought, cf. “Test. XII Parr.” (Levi., “If he teach these things and practise them, he shall share the throne of the king, as also Joseph our brother.” It is worth adding Tyndale”s remark in his “Exposition,” “Whosoever shall first fulfil them these least commandments following himself, and then teach other, and set all his study to the furtherance and maintaining of them, that doctor shall all they of the kingdom of heaven have in price, and follow him and seek him out, as doth an eagle her prey, and cleave to him as burrs.”
A.T. Robertson
Matthew 5:19
Shall do and teach (poiēsēi kai didaxēi). Jesus puts practice before preaching. The teacher must apply the doctrine to himself before he is qualified to teach others. The scribes and Pharisees were men who “say and do not” (Mat_23:3), who preach but do not perform. This is Christ’s test of greatness.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:20
Mat_5:20.Unless your righteousness shall be more abundant. He takes a passing notice of the Scribes, who were laboring to throw a stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law. True, he does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly, that nothing has less influence over their minds than zeal for the law. “They pretend, that their hostility to me arises from their strong desire, that the law should not be violated. But their life makes it evident, how coldly they observe the law, — nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking God, while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness.” This is the view which the most of commentators give of the passage.
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.
We must bear in mind, what we have mentioned elsewhere, that the Pharisees are added to the Scribes by way of enlarging on what he had said: for that sect had, above all others, obtained a reputation for sanctity. It is a mistake, however, to suppose, that they were called Pharisees on account of division, because they separated themselves from the ordinary class, and claimed a rank peculiar to themselves. They were called פרושים, that is, Expounders, because they were not satisfied with the bare letter, but boasted of being in possession of a key to open up hidden meanings. Hence arose an immense mass of errors, when they assumed magisterial authority, and ventured, according to their wicked fancy and their equally wicked pride, to thrust forward their own inventions in place of Scripture.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:20
Matthew only. The verse from “except” to the end is quoted verbally in Justin Martyr (“Trypho,” as being in “the Memoirs.” For I say. So far from you my disciples (ver. 13) being right in despising any of the commands contained in the Law, they are all to be specially honoured by you; for your righteousness (i.e. the righteousness you show in observing them; there is no thought hero of the imputed righteousness of Christ) must far exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees; otherwise there is no entrance for you into the kingdom of heaven. But wherein lay the superiority of the righteousness which the disciples were to have? Did our Lord mean that his disciples were to painfully toil through the various enactments, ceremonial and other, of the Law as the scribes and Pharisees did, only with more serious and earnest purpose than they? That were in the ease of many scribes and Pharisees hardly possible. For notwithstanding our Lord”s occasional denunciations, many of them were men of the severest earnestness and the deepest conscientiousness, e.g. Gamaliel and Saul of Tarsus. Our Lord must refer to the Law otherwise than as a system of enactments. His thought is similar to that of his words addressed to Nicodemus, (Joh_3:5) where he says that change of heart evidenced by public profession (cf. Rom_10:10) is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. (cf. also Mat_18:8) So here; while the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, even when joined to earnestness of purpose, nevertheless consists in the observance of external rules, there is a higher principle in the Law, by observing which a higher righteousness can be attained. Christ points, that is to say, away from the Law as a system of external rules to the Law in its deeper meaning, affecting the relation of the heart to God (cf. further Weiss, “Life,” 2:147). Shall exceed; rather, shall abound still more than. The statement is not merely comparative, but implies an abundanceeven (cf. 1Th_4:10) in the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The Jewish spirit reckons up good actions as producing in many cases even a superfluity of righteousness. But the righteousness which Christ”s disciples must have needs to be still more abundant. The righteousness; omitted in the Greek (Westcott and Herr) by condensation. The scribes and Pharisees.
The most learned (scribes) and the most zealous (Pharisees) in the Law (cf. Nosgen) are here placed in one class (twn grammatewn kai Farisaiwn). Ye shall in no case ; Revised Version, in no wise. “The emphatic negative ou mh is not elsewhere so rendered in the Authorized Version. The previous versions have in this place simply. ye shall not,” following the Vulgate,. non intrabitis” (Humphry) Enter into the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Mat_18:3 Mat_7:21) A much stronger statement than that of ver. 19, though some would identify the two. There Christ was comparing one disciple with another; hero his disciples with non-disciples. “Such a relaxing for yourselves and others of the commandments will set you low in the true kingdom of obedience and holiness; but this of having a righteousness so utterly false and hollow as that of the scribes and Pharisees will not merely set you low, but will exclude you from that kingdom altogether (ver. 20); for while that marks an impaired spiritual vision, this marks a vision utterly darkened and destroyed” (Trench, “Sermon on the Mount”).
The righteousness of the kingdom.
Antinomianism is unchristian. If Christianity is to be found in the teachings of Christ, Christianity does not relax the moral Law. On the contrary, it elevates and strengthens that Law. We cannot make a greater mistake than to suppose that the grace of Christ means a certain easy treatment of men, any diminution of duty, any release from the obligations of right. It is not a pardon of the past with indifference as regards the future. It is forgiveness as a foundation and preparation for a new and better life. More is expected of the Christian than of the Jew, of the convert than of the sinner.
I IN WHAT RESPECTS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES. Israel was most famous for the holiness of her religion and the righteousness of her Law; the scribes were the trained teachers of the Law, skilled in making the most of it; the Pharisees were the professed examples of highest obedience to the Law. Yet Christ expects his disciples not only to be better than publicans and sinners; there is no hope for them unless their righteousness surpasses that of the official teachers and the professed saints of Judaism. Consider in what respects this is looked for.
1. In reality. The revered teachers and examples of Israel, as a class, were not good men at all. The teachers did not walk in the strict path they pointed out to others; the examples were but theatrical pretenders. Christ called them “hypocrites.” But Christ is true and real. He expects a genuine righteousness. He will not endure the mockery of a character that professes what it does not perform.
2. In depth. The righteousness of Judaism, even when genuine, was too external. It consisted too much in deeds of the hands, too little in thoughts of the heart. But Christ looks for inward righteousness the pure heart. He forbids hate as murder, and lust as adultery.
3. In positiveness. The Law dealt largely with negatives. Its refrain was, “Thou shalt not.” The righteousness of later Judaism was chiefly a matter of restraints. This is always the case in a stiffened, formal system. But Christ expects a positive goodness, a spirit of living energy in religion love and its outflowing activity of service.
II WHY THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE OF THIS HIGH CHARACTER. It may seem that Christ is binding a heavy yoke on the shoulders of his disciples. Is this consistent with his gracious promises and gospel invitations? Consider the reasons for such a requirement.
1. The blessedness of righteousness. This was clearly set forth in the Beatitudes. If it is good for a man to be righteous, it is no hardship that Christ should require a lofty standard; for this means a higher joy.
2. The obligations of light. Christ was a Light revealing a fuller righteousness, teaching it in his words, illustrating it by his conduct. It is reasonable that he should expect more from those who enjoy the privilege of his light than from those who have not received it. We may forgive in the night a stumbling which is unpardonable in broad daylight. Christians are expected to be better than heathens, better even than Jews, because they know more of God”s will and how to fulfil it.
3. The encouragements of grace. The Law cannot secure righteousness; the gospel can do this. Christ brings to us a God-made righteousness, and he gives us the power to be all that he expects of us. (Rom_3:21, Rom_3:22) His demand is only that we will not frustrate the working of his grace in us. W.F.A.
The better types of righteousness.
“Shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” How one righteousness can be thought of as exceeding another does not at once appear. We may apprehend it, if we duly consider this distinction. Heart-righteousness must, in every age, be the same thing; but practical righteousness, finding expression in conduct and relations, does go by an ascending scale, and does vary in different ages and nations.
I A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE SPACE IT COVERS. A ritual religion, such as formal Mosaism was, covers a precise and limited area. Its righteousness could be clearly defined. It bore relation to the prescribed acts of homage and worship; and even if it concerned itself with man”s private life and relations, its sphere was only conduct; it consisted in formal obedience to specified rules. This is illustrated in the confidence of righteousness expressed by the young rich ruler, when he said, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” The space his righteousness covered was very limited. Within its limits Mosaic righteousness stiffened until it became a mere ceremonialism, which could be kept up along with personal indulgence, and immorality. Men could honour God with their acts, and disgrace him by their lives. And then the Jehovah-prophets were sent, to awaken a moral life, and reveal the true sphere of righteousness. Still, a righteousness may be estimated according to the limits of its sphere. The Christ-righteousness demands the entire life and relations.
Right every day and everywhere.
II A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE DEPTH TO WHICH IT GOES. “They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth.” In this line set, in strong contrast, the righteousness of a characteristic Pharisee and the righteousness of a characteristic Christian. Granted that both are equally diligent in worship and outward obedience, what do we find if we go below the surface? Cain and Abel were alike “righteous” in bringing their thank-offering; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! David and Solomon were both “righteous” in attending to Jehovah”s temple; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! Christ”s righteousness is the highest type; it begins within and flows through all the life and relations. R.T.
Albert Barnes
Matthew 5:20
Your righteousness – Your holiness; your views of the nature of righteousness, and your conduct and lives. Unless you are more holy than they are, you cannot be saved.
Shall exceed – Shall excel, or abound more. The righteousness of true Christians is seated in the heart, and is therefore genuine. Jesus means that unless they had more real holiness of character than the scribes and Pharisees, they could not be saved.
The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees – See the notes at Mat_3:7. Their righteousness consisted in outward observances of the ceremonial and traditional law. They offered sacrifices, fasted often. prayed much, were punctilious about ablutions, and tithes, and the ceremonies of religion, but neglected justice, truth, purity, and holiness of heart. See Mat. 23:13-33. The righteousness that Jesus required in his kingdom was purity, chastity, honesty, temperance, the fear of God, and the love of man. It is pure, eternal, reaching the motives, and making the life holy.
The kingdom of heaven – See the notes at Mat_3:2. Shall not be a suitable subject of his kingdom here, or saved in the world to come.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 19:6-7
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot — This verse is a continuation of Deu_19:3 (for Deu_19:4, Deu_19:5, which are explanatory, are in a parenthetical form), and the meaning is that if the kinsman of a person inadvertently killed should, under the impulse of sudden excitement and without inquiring into the circumstances, inflict summary vengeance on the homicide, however guiltless, the law tolerated such an act; it was to pass with impunity. But to prevent such precipitate measures, the cities of refuge were established for the reception of the homicide, that “innocent blood might not be shed in thy land” (Deu_19:10). In the case of premeditated murder (Deu_19:11, Deu_19:12), they afforded no immunity; but, if it were only manslaughter, the moment the fugitive was within the gates, he found himself in a safe asylum (Num_35:26-28; Jos_20:6).
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 19:8-9
And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast — Three additional sanctuaries were to be established in the event of their territory extending over the country from Hermon and Gilead to the Euphrates (see Gen_15:18; Exo_23:31). But it was obscurely hinted that this last provision would never be carried into effect, as the Israelites would not fulfil the conditions, namely, “that of keeping the commandments, to love the Lord, and walk ever in his ways.” In point of fact, although that region was brought into subjection by David and Solomon, we do not find that cities of refuge were established; because those sovereigns only made the ancient inhabitants tributary, instead of sending a colony of Israelites to possess it. The privilege of sanctuary cities, however, was given only for Israelites; and besides, that conquered territory did not remain long under the power of the Hebrew kings.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 19:10
The design of appointing these cities was to prevent the shedding of innocent blood, which would be the case were the unintentional manslayer killed in revenge by one of the relatives of the man he had slain; in this case the guilt of bloodshed would rest upon the nation if they neglected to provide for the escape of the manslayer.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 19:11
Vers. 11-13. These cities, however, were not to be places of refuge for murderers, for those who from hatred and with wicked intent had slain others; if such fled to one of these cities, they were not to be suffered to remain there; the elders of their own city were to require them to be delivered up, that the avenger might put them to death. (Num_35:16-33, etc.) In the earlier legislation, it is enacted that the congregation shall judge in such matters, and that by their decision it should be determined in any case whether the person who had slain another was to be allowed to remain in a city of refuge or be delivered over to the avenger of blood. With this the ordinance here is not inconsistent; the elders were not to act as judges, but merely as magistrates, to apprehend the man and bring him to trial.
Vers. 11-13. Lex talionis.
The refuge provided by mercy is open to abuse. The perversity of man will poison the streams from the heavenly fountain. But in this city of peace none shall abide except those who have clean hands. False hopes are doomed to crushing disappointment. Even from the gate of heaven there is a back way to the prison-house of hell. The man of blood eventually destroys himself.
I HATRED IS INGENIOUS IN ACCOMPLISHING ITS NEFARIOUS ENDS. Hatred has an insatiable appetite. It drives a man in whom it dwells, as with a slave-master”s whip, to do its base behests. It robs him of his sleep at night, that he may lie in ambush for some innocent victim. All day long he is driven to most odious tasks by this spirit of mischief. Without interruption, hatred holds its busy conclave in the dark caverns of the soul, and presses into service every faculty of the man, until it has clutched its prey.
II THE MURDEROUS MAN FLATTERS HIMSELF THAT HE SHALL BE SAFE. He is conscious that vengeance is in store for him. No sooner is the deed done than cowardly fear seizes him. The righteousness of God has fleet-footed detectives in its service. Nevertheless, cunning falsehood comes to him as the devil”s comforter. Though his hands be stained through and through with blood, he will wear gloves of innocence, a mask of pretence. It were a nobler thing to brave the matter out, and defy all opposition. But this the sinner cannot do. He quails before the omniscient eye; and, however insecure the hiding-place, he cheats himself with the hope of escape. Guilty as his conscience affirms him to be, he seeks a place among the innocent. For the sinner no refuge can be found. The earth shall cast him out.
III THE POWER OF DEATH IS A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION OF THE STATE. “The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence.” Human life is too precious to be placed at the disposal of private revenge; therefore the chief province of the state politic is to protect life against violence. Unbiased natures are the only proper judges of right and wrong. Justice will speak only in the calm atmosphere of sincerity and truth. The representative power of the whole community is the only power which fully suffices to vindicate the claims of righteousness. This is God”s vicegerent upon the earth. Hence magistrates are described as “gods.
IV RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOBLER THAN PITY. There are circumstances in which Pity must not speak a time for her to be silent. “Thine eye shall not pity.” There are some situations in which her presence would be out of place, her action injurious. But Righteousness must never be absent. The very atmosphere in God”s kingdom is penetrated with her vital breath. Her scepter is the scepter of God, and exerts a potent influence over every department of human life. Righteousness is the soul”s proper robe, and without it she can nowhere fitly appear. All true prosperity is the fruit of righteousness. It cannot go well with any nation, nor with any man, until guilt is put away. Even compassion for others must be a righteous compassion. D.
John Calvin
Deuteronomy 24:6
Deu_24:6No man shall take the nether. God now enforces another principle of equity in relation to loans, (not to be too strict) in requiring pledges, whereby the poor are often exceedingly distressed. In the first place, He prohibits the taking of anything in pledge which is necessary to the poor for the support of existence; for by the words which I have translated meta and catillus, i e. , the upper and nether millstone, He designates by synecdoche all other instruments, which workmen cannot do without in earning their daily bread. As if any one should forcibly deprive a husbandman of his plough, or his spade, or harrow, or other tools, or should empty a shoemaker’s, or potter’s, or other person’s shop, who could not exercise his trade when deprived of its implements; and this is sufficiently clear from the context, where it is said, “He taketh a man’s life to pledge,” together with his millstones. He, then, is as cruel, whosoever takes in pledge what supports a poor man’s life, as if he should take away bread from a starving man, and thus his life itself, which, as it is sustained by labor, so, when its means of subsistence are cut off, is, as it were, itself destroyed.
Adam Clarke
Deuteronomy 24:6
The nether or the upper mill-stone – Small hand-mills which can be worked by a single person were formerly in use among the Jews, and are still used in many parts of the East. As therefore the day’s meal was generally ground for each day, they keeping no stock beforehand, hence they were forbidden to take either of the stones to pledge, because in such a case the family must be without bread. On this account the text terms the millstone the man’s life.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 24:6
No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge — The “upper” stone being concave, covers the “nether” like a lid; and it has a small aperture, through which the corn is poured, as well as a handle by which it is turned. The propriety of the law was founded on the custom of grinding corn every morning for daily consumption. If either of the stones, therefore, which composed the handmill was wanting, a person would be deprived of his necessary provision.
John Calvin
Deuteronomy 24:7
The same punishment is here deservedly denounced against man-stealers as against murderers; for, so wretched was the condition of slaves, that liberty was more than half of life; and hence to deprive a man of such a great blessing, was almost to destroy him. Besides, it is not man-stealing only which is here condemned, but the accompanying evils of cruelty and fraud, i. e. , if he, who had stolen a man, had likewise sold him. Now, such a sale could hardly be made among the people themselves, without the crime being immediately detected; and nothing could be more hateful than that God’s children should be alienated from the Church, and delivered over to heathen nations.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 24:7
Against man-stealing: repetition, with expansion, of the law in Exo_21:16.
Man-stealing a capital crime.
We have already noticed the merciful fugitive law which forbade any one to restore a runaway to his master. That was the cure of existing evil. Here we have the prevention, which is better still. For man-stealing and man-selling are the origin of slavery, and the Lord attaches to this the penalty of death. As Cheerer said of it, “God be praised for this law! It strikes through and through the vitals of this sin.
I LIBERTY MUST BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE PENAL SANCTION OF DEATH TO HIM WHO INVADES IT. The ruffian who would steal and sell a brother deserves to die. His treason against the liberty of his fellow is an unpardonable sin against society, and he should get no quarter. No wonder men have fought and died for liberty when God surrounds it with such tremendous sanctions.
II HOW MUCH GREATER THE CRIME OF BRINGING MEN INTO SPIRITUAL BONDAGE. And this is done daily. What is the meaning of the power exercised by superstitious priesthoods over their devotees? Is it not “spiritual despotism?” And should not the crime of man-stealing awake a suspicion in such hearts that their procedure is the exact analogue in the spiritual sphere? It should be combated and resisted unto the death, as destroying that heritage of liberty with which the Lord has endowed all men. R.M.E.
Slave-traffic a capital offence.
Slavery, in modified form, has always prevailed in Eastern lands; and, with prudent limitations, was tolerated among the Hebrews. To promulgate laws for men, which transcended their moral sense, would defeat the ends of law. God has continually to lead men from lower levels to higher. A man may voluntarily sell his liberty for a time. But to deprive a man of liberty by violence is a scarlet sin; and man-stealing is rightly branded with the deepest indignation of God.
I LIBERTY IS ESSENTIAL TO MAN”S FULLEST LIFE. Any form of bondage is a curtailment of life, a mutilation of the man. His outward condition may be bettered. He may have more food and warmer clothing and a healthier home, but the real man is injured. He is not fully susceptible of self-development. The springs of life are poisoned. He learns to despise himself, and to despise oneself is a step on the slippery road to ruin. Yet liberty is a human right not well understood. It must be distinguished from license. True liberty has its limits and its checks. A man is at liberty to part with his liberty for a time. Every man who toils for his bread is compelled to do this. Yet even this temporary cessation of his liberty must be voluntary.
II TO DEPRIVE A MAN FORCIBLY OF HIS LIBERTY IS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LIFE. The life of the body is not the whole of a man”s life. The intellect, affections, choice, will, have a life more precious than the life of the body. To steal a man or to kidnap a child is to interfere, wantonly and injuriously, with the proper life of the person. The outward conditions of training and probation are not such as God ordained. The man”s eternal prospects, as well as his earthly possibilities, are blighted. And all this moral damage is done for paltry gain. The man who can lend himself to such a business as slave-mongering is lost to all goodness, lost to shame. He is a disgrace to the human species a tool of Satan.
III FOR SUCH A CRIME THE GOD-APPOINTED PENALTY IS DEATH. No heavier penalty is imposed by the civil magistrate, because no heavier penalty is possible. Such a monster must be removed from the scenes of human society, because his presence is pestilential, demoralizing, deadly. Where human judgment ends, God”s judgment begins. Such a one is hurried before the higher court of heaven, is arraigned before the great white throne of the Eternal, and fullest justice will here be meted out. My soul, be thou free from such taint as this! D.
Deuteronomy 5:17; 19:7-13; 24:6-7; Matthew 5:17-20 Antique Commentary Quotes
Posted by Chuck Grantham on January 8, 2012
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 5:17
I LOOK AT THE MEANING OF THIS COMMAND. It is sixfold.
1. It forbids the taking of human life from passionate vindictiveness. The Hebrews had, as we have, two verbs with the distinctive meanings of “to kill” and “to murder.” We see in the quotation in Mat_19:18, and from the reference in Mat_5:21, that the Savior regards the command as a prohibition of passionate lawlessness. But even had we not that light from Christ”s teaching, the legislation of Moses himself would shut us up to the same conclusion. For in the administration of justice and in necessary war, the taking of life was commanded. (see Num_15:35 Num_35:31; Exo_21:12-14) So that, unless we regard the lawgiver as setting enactment against enactment, there is in this commandment a prohibition of passionate outbreaks, but neither of capital punishment nor necessary war.
2. It forbids any carelessness by which the life or zeal of our neighbor would be risked. (Exo_21:28, Exo_21:29) Wherever human life is risked by insufficient precaution, there is a breach of the sixth commandment.
3. It forbids that anger which takes the form of a revengeful spirit. So Christ teaches. This precept strikes at the thoughts and intents of the heart. Every time a schoolboy angrily lifts a hand to hurt his school-fellow, he is breaking in spirit this commandment.
4. It forbids that indifference in our life to the power of example which would put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in a brother”s way. (see Mat_18:1-3; Rom_14:5) If by careless living we “destroy” him for whom Christ died, we are breakers of this law.
5. It forbids dislike and hatred to our brother, and also a selfish isolation and neglect of him. (1Jn_2:9-11 1Jn_3:14, 1Jn_3:15) If we are merely pursuing our own ends in life, and are not caring whether our brother is saved or lost, this law condemns us. If we even refrain from helping our brother in difficulty or trial, we are guilty (Pro_24:11, Pro_24:12; Isa_58:6, Isa_58:7) We may “kill” by withholding the help which might save!
6. It requires, therefore, the cultivation of that kindly spirit of genial benevolence, which would seek in every way to promote the gladness and safety of the society in which we move, and of men at large. Negative in form, the sixth commandment is positive in intent. “Thou shalt not kill” is but the elementary form in which God asserts the great law of mutual dependence and interdependence. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law.” Would we keep the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”? Let us read it in the New Testament light, “Thou shalt help thy neighbor.” “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:17
Mat_5:17.Think not. With regard to the perfection of his life, Christ might justly have maintained that he came to fulfill the law: but here he treats of doctrine, not of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that “the kingdom of God is come, ” (Mat_12:28,) and raised the minds of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted disciples by baptism, it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of suspense and doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that novelty. Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being at variance with the law, that it agrees perfectly with the law and the prophets, and not only so, but brings the complete fulfillment of them.
There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which induced him to declare this agreement between the law and the Gospel. As soon as any new method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt from the law; while light and turbulent spirits would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.
Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which would destroy the authority of the Law and the Prophets, religion would have sustained a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that he had not come to destroy the Law. Indeed, the context makes this abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is impossible for even one point of the Law to fail, — and pronounces a curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its authority.
The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander which, he knew was brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This charge, it is evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he proceeds immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to the Law; and, on the other hand, he boldly refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by which his enemies labored to make his preaching infamous or suspected.
If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must endeavor to oppose a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to prevent religion from being despised by the ignorant. The defense which Christ makes, to free his doctrine from slanders, ought to encourage us, if we are now exposed to the same calumnies. That crime was charged against Paul, that he was an apostate from the law of God, (Act_21:21) and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to clear ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the truth freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.
I am not come to destroy. God had, indeed, promised a new covenant at the coming of Christ; but had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first, but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own people.
“I will write my law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember their iniquities no more,” (Jer_31:33.) By these words he is so far from departing from the former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of Christ’s words, when he says, that he came to fulfill the law: for he actually fulfilled it, by quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality, what had hitherto appeared only in figures.
With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies, but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for, when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless. Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing else than a fulfillment of the law; so that both, with one consent, declare God to be their Author.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:17-20
Vers. 17-20. (1) With this aim he first states summarily and in nucleus the position that he himself holds towards the Law a statement which was the more necessary as he had already (ver. 11) claimed to be the object of his disciples” devotion.
Matthew only. Think not. Probably the tendency of his teaching was even already seen to be so different from that of the recognized authorities, that some had in consequence formed this opinion (nomizw) of him which he now repudiates, and which was near akin to the basis of the charge formulated afterwards against St. Stephen. (Act_6:14) In both cases the tendency of the new teaching (Mar_1:27) to abolish temporary forms was perceived by at least those whose powers of perception were quickened through their opposition.
That I am come; Revised Version, that I came (oti hlyon). Our Lord, both here and in the next clause, lays stress on his coming as a historic fact. The primary reference is probably to his coming forth from private life. (cf. Joh_1:31) Yet in his own mind there may have been a further allusion to his coming from above. (cf. Joh_8:14; and further, Mat_10:34) To destroy. The connexion between katalusai here and lush ver. 19 (vide note) is lost in the English. The Law or the Prophets. The Phrase, the law and the prophets,” is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament, (Mat_7:12Jo Mat 1:45 Rom_3:21; cf. Mat_11:13 Mat_22:40 Act_24:14) and our Lord means probably much the same here, the “or” distributing the katalusai (cf. Alford), and being used because of the negative. Such a distribution, however, though it could not have been expressed in an affirmative sentence, has for its background the consciousness of a difference in the nature of these two chief components of the Old Testament. Observe that the third part of the Hebrew Scriptures, “the (Holy) Writings of which “Psalms” (Luk_24:44) form the most characteristic portion is omitted in this summary reference to the Old Testament. The reason may be either that of the three parts it was used less than the other two as a basis for doctrine and for rule of life, or that it was practically included in the Prophets. (Act_2:30) The essential teaching of the Law may be distinguished from that of the Prophets by saying that, while the Law was the direct revelation of God”s will as law for the people”s daily life personal, social, and national the Prophets (including the historical books and the prophets proper) were rather the indirect revelation of his will for them under the fresh circumstances into which they came; this indirect revelation being seen more especially in God”s providential guidance of the nation, and in his explanation of principles of worship, as well as in occasional predictions of the future. It is to his relation to the Prophets in this connexion, as an indirect revelation of God”s will under changing circumstances (cf. Weiss) that our Lord here chiefly refers. For he is led to speak of his own relation to them from the bearing that this has on the conduct of his disciples. Many, however (e.g. Chrysostom), consider that he is thinking of his relation to them as containing predictions concerning himself. In answer to this it is not sufficient to say (Meyer, Weiss, Alford) that it was impossible that Messiah could be thought to abrogate the Prophets; for, in fact, to many Jews during his ministry (even if not at this early stage of it), and much more to Jews at the time when the evangelist recorded the words, our Lord must have seemed to contradict the predictions about himself as they were then understood. It is indeed true that the prima facie ground that existed for thinking that our Lord”s teaching was opposed, not merely to the religion of the day as dependent on the Law and the Prophets, but also to the predictions of Messiah contained in them, is enough to give a certain plausibility to this interpretation. But that is all. The absence in the context of any hint that he refers to his relation to predictions as such quite forbids our accepting it. It was probably derived solely from a misinterpretation of “fulfil” (vide infra), no regard being paid to the train of thought by which our Lord was led to speak of the subject at all.
Our Lord says that he is not come to “destroy” the Prophets as exponents of the will of God. I am not come to destroy; emphasizing his statement by repetition. But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. The fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets “is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited” (Meyer). Martensen puts the matter thus: “How can he say that not a tittle shall pass from the Law, since the development of the Church shows us that the ceremonial law, that the whole Mosaic dispensation, has been annihilated by the influences proceeding from Christ? We answer: He has fulfilled the Law, whilst he has released it from the temporary forms in which its eternal validity was confined; he has unfolded its spiritual essence, its inward perfection. Not even a tittle of the ceremonial law has passed away, if we regard the Mosaic Law as a whole; for the ideas which form its basis, as the distinction between the unclean and the clean, are confirmed by Christ, and contained in the law of holiness which he teaches men” (“Christian Ethics: General,” cf. ver. 18, notes, “till heaven and earth pass,” “till all be fulfilled.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:18
18.Till heaven and earth pass Luke expresses it a little differently, but to the same import, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail The design of Christ, in both passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the world. Some persons indulge in ingenious refinements on the word till, ( ἓως ἂ ν ,) as if the passing away of the heaven and earth, which will take place on the last day, the day of judgment, were to put an end to the law and the prophets And certainly, as “tongues shall then cease, and prophecies shall be abolished,” (1Co_13:8,) I think that the written law, as well as the exposition of it, will come to an end; but, as I am of opinion that Christ spoke more simply, I do not choose to feed the ears of readers with such amusements. Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the law shall give way. But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be fulfilled down to the smallest point? for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the expression, shall not pass away, must be viewed as referring, not to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine. “ There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter shall perish.”
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:18
Cf. Luk_16:17, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the Law to fail” (Revised Version). The words are so similar that the two evangelists probably record the same utterance, the difference in the form of the sentence pointing rather to an oral than a written common source. St. Luke places it in an attack on the Pharisees, who had scoffed at our Lord for his parable of the dishonest steward. Verily; amhn (ma, literally, “established,” “sure”). It has hardly been sufficiently noticed by commentators that the New Testament usage of the word “Amen” often slightly differs from that found in the Old Testament. “Amen” in the Old Testament always involves the personal acceptance of the statement to which it refers (“so be it”), whether this be a statement upon oath, (Num_5:22, perhaps) or a statement of penalties incurred under certain circumstances; (Num_5:22, probably; Deu_27:15-26 Neh_5:13) or a statement expressing a pious hope uttered either by another; (1Ki_1:36 Jer_28:6 Jer_11:5; of. Neh_8:6; cf. also in 1Co_14:16) or by one”s self. (Psa_41:13) Hence the LXX either leaves it untranslated or, with but one exception, translates it by genoito . In Hellenistic Greek, however, it became often used as little more than a mere asseveration (“verily”). The earliest trace of this usage is found Jer_28:6, where the LXX renders ma by alhywv (Aquila much better pistyhtw , though generally elsewhere pepistwmenwv), and it is frequent in the New Testament, cf. especially Luk_9:27, legw de umin alhywv , with parallels, amhgw umin . (cf. also Luk_12:44 with Mat_24:47, and Luk_21:3 with Mar_12:43) Yet this usage of “Amen” in Hellenistic Greek does not seem to have ever spread into Hebrew or Aramaic. W. H. Lowe (“Fragm. Pesach.,” p. 70) says, and apparently truly, “The Jews never used “amen in the sense of “verily.” They say tmab, beemeth”, “in truth,” atwnmyh, hemanutha, “Faith!” or omnam, “verily. If so, the fact is interesting, for it implies that, notwithstanding the usage of “Amen” in Greek, our Lord himself, as speaking Aramaic, probably did not use it in the mere sense of strong asseveration, but rather always with its connotation of his entire concurrence in the statement he was making. In his mouth, that is to say, it always emphasized the thought of his personal acceptance of the statement with its legitimate issue. Observe that it makes no difference (cf. Jer_28:6) whether the “Amen” comes at the beginning or at the end of his utterance. N.B. Nai (Luk_11:51; cf. Mat_23:36) may be taken as intermediate between alhywv and amhn. Alhywv states a truth; nai assents with the intellect; amhn , in at least Hebrew and Aramaic usage, accepts it with all its consequences. (cf. 2Co_1:19, 2Co_1:20) Till heaven and earth pass ; Revised Version, pass away (parelyh); and so in the next clause. The same almost archaic sense of “pass” recurs in Psa_148:6, Authorized Version (Revised Version, “pass away”). Observe that our Lord does not say that the Law will then pass away. He says, not till then; i.e. he affirms, as in Luk_16:17, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Law. For, in fact, as being constantly fulfilled in its ideal and therefore permanent character, it must necessarily remain in the new world; cf. 1Pe_1:25 (the everlasting duration of the word of the Lord); 1Co_13:13 (love); 2Pe_3:13 (righteousness); cf. Meyer. The belief in the permanence of the Law which the Jews had (vide references in Meyer, and especially Weber, “Altsynag. Theol.,” 84) here finds its true satisfaction. “The least element of holiness which the Law contains has more reality and durability than the whole visible universe” (Godet on Luke). Comp. also Mar_13:31, “My words shall not pass away a claim only seen in its full three when put beside these words about the Law. One jot. The permanence of even every yod (y, j), though the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is not infrequently referred to by Jewish writers (cf. e.g. in Lightfoot, “Hor. Hebr.;” Edersheim, “Life,” 1.537). Observe:
(1) The mention of yod, evidently because of its small size, is one proof of the fact that the Hebrew characters in use in our Lord”s time were much more similar to the usual form under which we know them (Quadrate schrift) than to the form found on the Moabite Stone (Phoenician), where the god is no smaller than other letters (vide Euting”s very complete table of forms of the Hebrew alphabet in Chwolsen, “Corp. Inscript. Hebr.,” 1882; vide pp. 404-415 of the same work for Chwolson”s much-controverted theory of the gradual development of the Quadrat-sehrift, roughly from the time of Ezra till the eighth or ninth century A.D., out of old Aramaic forms slightly removed from Phoenician; and for the early history of the Hebrew alphabet generally, see the introduction to Driver”s “Samuel.
(2) We may, perhaps, see in our Lord”s reference to yod and a “tittle” an indication that even already scrupulous care was taken of the text. The objection to this, derived from the non-literal quotations in the New Testament is due to a misunderstanding of Jewish methods of quotation. Or one tittle. So Wickliffe and Tyndale downwards; “apparently a diminutive of tit, small” (Aid. Wright, “Bible WordBook”); keraia (kerea , Westcott and Heft, vide Appendix, p. 151), probably “a horn,” then anything projecting like a horn. Used by the early Greek grammarians, like apex by the Latin, to designate:
(1) A little projection in a letter, especially the top, the apex; Nicander, “the top and bottom are each called keraia” (keraia legetai to akron kai escaton ; gloss, keraia grammatov akron ); cf. Plutarch, “disputing about syllables and keraiwn (logomacein peri sullabwn kai keraiwn);” vide Wetstein.
(2) Accents. So Thayer”s Grimm; cf. Sophocles” “Lex.” (1870) s.v. keraia , “Apex, a mark over a letter, as in 5 (Philon., 2:536. 27);” but Philo in this passage only refers to keraian ekasthn , without defining it. This double use of the Greek word forbids absolute certainty as to what our Lord was referring to, especially as the Hebrew word (xwq, literally, “thorn”) of which keraia is a translation has itself a double sense, viz.:
(1) The end of a letter, especially the “thorn-like” small upward stroke of yod. So most interpreters since Origen (in Wetstein), who says that the Hebrew letters eaph (k) and beth (b) differ only by a short keraia . They also quote the well-known Jewish examples (e.g. in Wetstein) of the effect of negligence in writing similar letters; e.g. if one writes resh (r) for daleth (d), “one” (Deu_6:4) becomes “another;” if heth (j) for he (h), “praise” (Ps 150) becomes “profane.” It must be noticed that the extremities of such Hebrew letters as we possess, which were actually written in our Lord”s time on earth, are much more “thorn” “horn like than those of our printed texts. I cannot, however, find xwq actually used in this sense of other letters than yod.
(2) Some distinguishing mark over a letter to indicate care in writing and reading it, or to remind readers of some interpretation or rule attached as a peg to it or to the word of which it forms a part. It was much later, indeed, that such marks became very elaborate, but it is probable that the rudiments of them were known in our Lord”s time (for such cf. Weber, “Altsynag. Theol.,” 2 a, and the article on Akiba in “Dict. of Christian Biogr.”). If it be objected that our Lord could hardly refer to these marks of traditional explanation as of such permanence, the answer is that in so far as these expressed legitimate issues (vide infra, ver. 21) of the Mosaic Law, he could place them on the same level as that Law itself. Till all; Revised Version, till all things; i.e. all things in the Law all the requirements of the Law, in contrast to the one “jot” or “tittle” just mentioned. Till all be fulfilled; Revised Version, be accomplished (genhtai). The clause is probably epexegetical of “till heaven and earth pass away.” Nothing in the Law shall pass away till heaven and earth pass away, when, with a new heaven and earth, all the contents of the Law will be completely realized (cf. Nosgen) so that even then nothing in the Law shall pass away (vide infra). On the contrary, every part of it, moral or ceremonial (Weiss), shall then, by being fully understood and obeyed in its true meaning, enter on its full and complete existence (genhta).
A.T. Robertson
Matthew 5:18
One jot or one tittle (iōta hen ē mia kerea). “Not an iota, not a comma” (Moffatt), “not the smallest letter, not a particle” (Weymouth). The iota is the smallest Greek vowel, which Matthew here uses to represent the Hebrew yod (jot), the smallest Hebrew letter. “Tittle” is from the Latin titulus which came to mean the stroke above an abbreviated word, then any small mark. It is not certain here whether kerea means a little horn, the mere point which distinguishes some Hebrew letters from others or the “hook” letter Vav. Sometimes yod and vav were hardly distinguishable. “In Vay. R. 19 the guilt of altering one of them is pronounced so great that if it were done the world would be destroyed” (McNeile).
Albert Barnes
Matthew 5:18
Verily – Truly, certainly. A word of strong affirmation.
Till heaven and earth pass – This expression denotes that the law never would be destroyed until it should be all fulfilled. It is the same as saying everything else may change; the very earth and heaven may pass away, but the law of God shall not be destroyed until its whole design has been accomplished.
One jot – The word “jot,” or yod (י y), is the name of the Hebrew letter I, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
One tittle – The word used here, in the Greek, means literally a little horn, then a point, an extremity. Several of the Hebrew letters were written with small points or apices, as in the Hebrew letter, shin (שׁ sh), or the Hebrew letter, sin (שׂ s), which serve to distinguish one letter from another. To change a small point of one letter, therefore, might vary the meaning of a word, and destroy the sense. The name “little horn” was given to these points probably from the manner in which they were written, resembling a little horn. Professor Hackett says of a manuscript which he saw a Jew transcribing: “One peculiarity, that struck me at once as I cast my eye over the parchment, was the horn-like appearance attached to some of the letters. I had seen the same mark, before this, in Hebrew manuscripts, but never where it was so prominent as here. The sign in question, as connected with the Hebrew Letter Lamedh (ל L) in particular, had almost the appearance of an intentional imitation of a ram’s head. It was to that appendage of the Hebrew letters that the Saviour referred when he said, “‘Not one jot or little horn’ (as the Greek term signifies, which our version renders ‘tittle,’) ‘shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled.’” – Illustrations of Scripture, p. 234. Hence, the Jews were exceedingly cautious in writing these letters, and considered the smallest change or omission a reason for destroying the whole manuscript when they were transcribing the Old Testament. The expression, “one jot or tittle,” became proverbial, and means that the smallest part of the law should not be destroyed.
The laws of the Jews are commonly divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed – such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These cannot be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men. Of this kind are the ten commandments, and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded. The ceremonial laws are such as are appointed to meet certain states of society, or to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies of a people. These can be changed when circumstances are changed, and yet the moral law be untouched. A general in an army may command his soldiers to appear sometimes in a red coat and sometimes in blue or in yellow. This would be a ceremonial law, and might be changed as he pleased. The duty of obeying him, and of being faithful to his country, could not be changed.
This is a moral law. A parent might permit his children to have 50 different dresses at different times, and love them equally in all. The dress is a mere matter of ceremony, and may be changed. The child, in all these garments, is bound to love and obey his father. This is a moral law, and cannot be changed. So the laws of the Jews. Those designed to regulate mere matters of ceremony and rites of worship might be changed. Those requiring love and obedience to God and love to people could not be changed, and Christ did not attempt it, Mat_19:19; Mat_22:37-39; Luk_10:27; Rom_13:9. A third species of law was the judicial, or those laws regulating courts of justice which are contained in the Old Testament. These were of the nature of the ceremonial law, and might also be changed at pleasure. The judicial law of the Hebrews was adapted to their own civil society. When the form of their polity was changed this was of course no longer binding. The ceremonial law was fulfilled by the coming of Christ: the shadow was lost in the substance, and ceased to be binding. The moral law was confirmed and unchanged.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:19
19.Whoever then shall break Christ here speaks expressly of the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought to take as the rule of their life. He therefore declares, that they are false and deceitful teachers, who do not restrain their disciples within obedience to the law, and that they are unworthy to occupy a place in the Church, who weaken, in the slightest degree, the authority of the law; and, on the other hand, that they are honest and faithful ministers of God, who recommend, both by word and by example, the keeping of the law. The least commandments is an expression used in accommodation to the judgment of men: for though they have not all the same weight, (but, when they are compared together, some are less than others,) yet we are not at liberty to think any thing small, on which the heavenly Legislator has been pleased to issue a command. For what sacrilege is it to treat contemptuously any thing which has proceeded from his sacred mouth? This is to sink his majesty to the rank of creatures. Accordingly, when our Lord calls them little commandments, it is a sort of concession. He shall be called the least This is an allusion to what he had just said about the commandments: but the meaning is obvious. Those who shall pour contempt on the doctrine of the law, or on a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of men.
The kingdom of heaven means the renovation of the Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to appear by the preaching of the Gospel. In this sense, Christ tells us, that “ he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than John,” (Luk_7:28.) The meaning of that phrase is, that God, restoring the world by the hand of his Son, has completely established his kingdom. Christ declares that, when his Church shall have been renewed, no teachers must be admitted to it, but those who are faithful expounders of the law, and who labor to maintain its doctrine entire. But it is asked, were not ceremonies among the commandments of God, the least of which we are now required to observe? I answer, We must look to the design and object of the Legislator. God enjoined ceremonies, that their outward use might be temporal, and their meaning eternal. That man does not break ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect. But if Christ banishes from his kingdom all who accustom men to any contempt of the law how monstrous must be their stupidity, who are not ashamed to remit, by a sacrilegious indulgence, what God strictly demands, and, under the pretense of venial sin, to overthrow the righteousness of the law. Again, we must observe the description he gives of good and holy teachers: that not only by words, but chiefly by the example of life, they exhort men to keep the law.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:19
Matthew only. As Christ honoured the Law (ver. 17) so are his disciples to honour it. Whosoever therefore. Seeing that every part of the Law is of permanent value. In this verse our Lord once for all declares his opposition to antinomianism. Every one of the commands in the Law is, in its true and ideal meaning, still binding. Shall break (lush). Not merely in contrast to “do” (poihsh vide infra) in the sense of “transgress” (Fritzsche), but “abrogate”. (cf. Bishop Westcott, on Joh_5:18, “Not the violation of the sanctity of the day in a special case, but the abrogation of the duty of observance;” cf. also Mat_16:19 Mat_18:18 1Jn_3:8) It expresses, indeed, a less complete abrogation than katalusai (ver. 17), because, while speaking of himself, the Lord could use the strongest word possible, and that with reference to the whole Law or the Prophets; but here his expression is limited by the inability of any individual disciple to carry out an abrogation even of one command. One of these least commandments. Not necessarily such as the Pharisees reckoned least, in their enumeration of small and great, but such as our Lord himself symbolized by “jot” or “tittle;” those precepts which in reality are the least important (Meyer).
Chrysostom strangely says that our Lord here refers, not to old laws, but to those which he was about to lay down; similarly Bengel thinks of vers. 22-28, etc. While the Jews distinguished carefully between small and great precepts, they insisted on the importance of keeping even the smallest; cf. “Ab.,” 4:5 (Taylor), “Hasten to a slight precept.., for the reward of precept is precept.” And shall teach men so. Doing his best to abrogate it, not only in his own person by neglect or violation, but also for others by teaching them to disregard it. He shall be called the least. The Revised Version omits “he, …. the.” He is not cast out of the kingdom (“Ubi nisi magni esse non possunt,” Augustine), but his want of moral insight (did he consider it “breadth of thought”?) leads to his being called least in the kingdom. It is the converse of the parable in Luk_19:17, etc. There faithfulness in a very little (elacistw) wins much; here disregard of a very little causes a person to be reckoned (ver. 9, note) as very little the principle of judgment being that of Luk_16:10, “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in avery little is unrighteous also in much.” In the kingdom of heaven; i.e. probably in its full and final establishment. The doctrine of grades of blessedness and of punishment hereafter is clearly taught in Scripture. (e.g. Luk_12:47, Luk_12:48) But whosoever shall do and teach them. Similarly the Revised Version; but rather supply “it,” i.e. “that which is required in the smallest commandment” (Meyer). The personal performance and conscious spreading of one of the least commandments will be found to involve so much that it gains for the person a high position. Do and teach. For many will perform a command without taking any conscious part in spreading it. The same; Revised Version, he (outov). Why inserted here and not in the previous clause? Partly because of the awkwardness of inserting outov there so soon after outwv ; partly because our Lord wished to lay stress there on the recompense, here on the person (“he and no other”) who receives recompense. On the thought, cf. “Test. XII Parr.” (Levi., “If he teach these things and practise them, he shall share the throne of the king, as also Joseph our brother.” It is worth adding Tyndale”s remark in his “Exposition,” “Whosoever shall first fulfil them these least commandments following himself, and then teach other, and set all his study to the furtherance and maintaining of them, that doctor shall all they of the kingdom of heaven have in price, and follow him and seek him out, as doth an eagle her prey, and cleave to him as burrs.”
A.T. Robertson
Matthew 5:19
Shall do and teach (poiēsēi kai didaxēi). Jesus puts practice before preaching. The teacher must apply the doctrine to himself before he is qualified to teach others. The scribes and Pharisees were men who “say and do not” (Mat_23:3), who preach but do not perform. This is Christ’s test of greatness.
John Calvin
Matthew 5:20
Mat_5:20.Unless your righteousness shall be more abundant. He takes a passing notice of the Scribes, who were laboring to throw a stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law. True, he does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly, that nothing has less influence over their minds than zeal for the law. “They pretend, that their hostility to me arises from their strong desire, that the law should not be violated. But their life makes it evident, how coldly they observe the law, — nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking God, while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness.” This is the view which the most of commentators give of the passage.
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.
We must bear in mind, what we have mentioned elsewhere, that the Pharisees are added to the Scribes by way of enlarging on what he had said: for that sect had, above all others, obtained a reputation for sanctity. It is a mistake, however, to suppose, that they were called Pharisees on account of division, because they separated themselves from the ordinary class, and claimed a rank peculiar to themselves. They were called פרושים, that is, Expounders, because they were not satisfied with the bare letter, but boasted of being in possession of a key to open up hidden meanings. Hence arose an immense mass of errors, when they assumed magisterial authority, and ventured, according to their wicked fancy and their equally wicked pride, to thrust forward their own inventions in place of Scripture.
Pulpit Commentary
Matt 5:20
Matthew only. The verse from “except” to the end is quoted verbally in Justin Martyr (“Trypho,” as being in “the Memoirs.” For I say. So far from you my disciples (ver. 13) being right in despising any of the commands contained in the Law, they are all to be specially honoured by you; for your righteousness (i.e. the righteousness you show in observing them; there is no thought hero of the imputed righteousness of Christ) must far exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees; otherwise there is no entrance for you into the kingdom of heaven. But wherein lay the superiority of the righteousness which the disciples were to have? Did our Lord mean that his disciples were to painfully toil through the various enactments, ceremonial and other, of the Law as the scribes and Pharisees did, only with more serious and earnest purpose than they? That were in the ease of many scribes and Pharisees hardly possible. For notwithstanding our Lord”s occasional denunciations, many of them were men of the severest earnestness and the deepest conscientiousness, e.g. Gamaliel and Saul of Tarsus. Our Lord must refer to the Law otherwise than as a system of enactments. His thought is similar to that of his words addressed to Nicodemus, (Joh_3:5) where he says that change of heart evidenced by public profession (cf. Rom_10:10) is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. (cf. also Mat_18:8) So here; while the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, even when joined to earnestness of purpose, nevertheless consists in the observance of external rules, there is a higher principle in the Law, by observing which a higher righteousness can be attained. Christ points, that is to say, away from the Law as a system of external rules to the Law in its deeper meaning, affecting the relation of the heart to God (cf. further Weiss, “Life,” 2:147). Shall exceed; rather, shall abound still more than. The statement is not merely comparative, but implies an abundanceeven (cf. 1Th_4:10) in the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The Jewish spirit reckons up good actions as producing in many cases even a superfluity of righteousness. But the righteousness which Christ”s disciples must have needs to be still more abundant. The righteousness; omitted in the Greek (Westcott and Herr) by condensation. The scribes and Pharisees.
The most learned (scribes) and the most zealous (Pharisees) in the Law (cf. Nosgen) are here placed in one class (twn grammatewn kai Farisaiwn). Ye shall in no case ; Revised Version, in no wise. “The emphatic negative ou mh is not elsewhere so rendered in the Authorized Version. The previous versions have in this place simply. ye shall not,” following the Vulgate,. non intrabitis” (Humphry) Enter into the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Mat_18:3 Mat_7:21) A much stronger statement than that of ver. 19, though some would identify the two. There Christ was comparing one disciple with another; hero his disciples with non-disciples. “Such a relaxing for yourselves and others of the commandments will set you low in the true kingdom of obedience and holiness; but this of having a righteousness so utterly false and hollow as that of the scribes and Pharisees will not merely set you low, but will exclude you from that kingdom altogether (ver. 20); for while that marks an impaired spiritual vision, this marks a vision utterly darkened and destroyed” (Trench, “Sermon on the Mount”).
The righteousness of the kingdom.
Antinomianism is unchristian. If Christianity is to be found in the teachings of Christ, Christianity does not relax the moral Law. On the contrary, it elevates and strengthens that Law. We cannot make a greater mistake than to suppose that the grace of Christ means a certain easy treatment of men, any diminution of duty, any release from the obligations of right. It is not a pardon of the past with indifference as regards the future. It is forgiveness as a foundation and preparation for a new and better life. More is expected of the Christian than of the Jew, of the convert than of the sinner.
I IN WHAT RESPECTS THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND THE PHARISEES. Israel was most famous for the holiness of her religion and the righteousness of her Law; the scribes were the trained teachers of the Law, skilled in making the most of it; the Pharisees were the professed examples of highest obedience to the Law. Yet Christ expects his disciples not only to be better than publicans and sinners; there is no hope for them unless their righteousness surpasses that of the official teachers and the professed saints of Judaism. Consider in what respects this is looked for.
1. In reality. The revered teachers and examples of Israel, as a class, were not good men at all. The teachers did not walk in the strict path they pointed out to others; the examples were but theatrical pretenders. Christ called them “hypocrites.” But Christ is true and real. He expects a genuine righteousness. He will not endure the mockery of a character that professes what it does not perform.
2. In depth. The righteousness of Judaism, even when genuine, was too external. It consisted too much in deeds of the hands, too little in thoughts of the heart. But Christ looks for inward righteousness the pure heart. He forbids hate as murder, and lust as adultery.
3. In positiveness. The Law dealt largely with negatives. Its refrain was, “Thou shalt not.” The righteousness of later Judaism was chiefly a matter of restraints. This is always the case in a stiffened, formal system. But Christ expects a positive goodness, a spirit of living energy in religion love and its outflowing activity of service.
II WHY THE CHRISTIAN RIGHTEOUSNESS IS TO BE OF THIS HIGH CHARACTER. It may seem that Christ is binding a heavy yoke on the shoulders of his disciples. Is this consistent with his gracious promises and gospel invitations? Consider the reasons for such a requirement.
1. The blessedness of righteousness. This was clearly set forth in the Beatitudes. If it is good for a man to be righteous, it is no hardship that Christ should require a lofty standard; for this means a higher joy.
2. The obligations of light. Christ was a Light revealing a fuller righteousness, teaching it in his words, illustrating it by his conduct. It is reasonable that he should expect more from those who enjoy the privilege of his light than from those who have not received it. We may forgive in the night a stumbling which is unpardonable in broad daylight. Christians are expected to be better than heathens, better even than Jews, because they know more of God”s will and how to fulfil it.
3. The encouragements of grace. The Law cannot secure righteousness; the gospel can do this. Christ brings to us a God-made righteousness, and he gives us the power to be all that he expects of us. (Rom_3:21, Rom_3:22) His demand is only that we will not frustrate the working of his grace in us. W.F.A.
The better types of righteousness.
“Shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” How one righteousness can be thought of as exceeding another does not at once appear. We may apprehend it, if we duly consider this distinction. Heart-righteousness must, in every age, be the same thing; but practical righteousness, finding expression in conduct and relations, does go by an ascending scale, and does vary in different ages and nations.
I A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE SPACE IT COVERS. A ritual religion, such as formal Mosaism was, covers a precise and limited area. Its righteousness could be clearly defined. It bore relation to the prescribed acts of homage and worship; and even if it concerned itself with man”s private life and relations, its sphere was only conduct; it consisted in formal obedience to specified rules. This is illustrated in the confidence of righteousness expressed by the young rich ruler, when he said, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” The space his righteousness covered was very limited. Within its limits Mosaic righteousness stiffened until it became a mere ceremonialism, which could be kept up along with personal indulgence, and immorality. Men could honour God with their acts, and disgrace him by their lives. And then the Jehovah-prophets were sent, to awaken a moral life, and reveal the true sphere of righteousness. Still, a righteousness may be estimated according to the limits of its sphere. The Christ-righteousness demands the entire life and relations.
Right every day and everywhere.
II A RIGHTEOUSNESS MAY BE ESTIMATED BY THE DEPTH TO WHICH IT GOES. “They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth.” In this line set, in strong contrast, the righteousness of a characteristic Pharisee and the righteousness of a characteristic Christian. Granted that both are equally diligent in worship and outward obedience, what do we find if we go below the surface? Cain and Abel were alike “righteous” in bringing their thank-offering; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! David and Solomon were both “righteous” in attending to Jehovah”s temple; but what a difference down deep, in motive and feeling! Christ”s righteousness is the highest type; it begins within and flows through all the life and relations. R.T.
Albert Barnes
Matthew 5:20
Your righteousness – Your holiness; your views of the nature of righteousness, and your conduct and lives. Unless you are more holy than they are, you cannot be saved.
Shall exceed – Shall excel, or abound more. The righteousness of true Christians is seated in the heart, and is therefore genuine. Jesus means that unless they had more real holiness of character than the scribes and Pharisees, they could not be saved.
The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees – See the notes at Mat_3:7. Their righteousness consisted in outward observances of the ceremonial and traditional law. They offered sacrifices, fasted often. prayed much, were punctilious about ablutions, and tithes, and the ceremonies of religion, but neglected justice, truth, purity, and holiness of heart. See Mat. 23:13-33. The righteousness that Jesus required in his kingdom was purity, chastity, honesty, temperance, the fear of God, and the love of man. It is pure, eternal, reaching the motives, and making the life holy.
The kingdom of heaven – See the notes at Mat_3:2. Shall not be a suitable subject of his kingdom here, or saved in the world to come.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 19:6-7
Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot — This verse is a continuation of Deu_19:3 (for Deu_19:4, Deu_19:5, which are explanatory, are in a parenthetical form), and the meaning is that if the kinsman of a person inadvertently killed should, under the impulse of sudden excitement and without inquiring into the circumstances, inflict summary vengeance on the homicide, however guiltless, the law tolerated such an act; it was to pass with impunity. But to prevent such precipitate measures, the cities of refuge were established for the reception of the homicide, that “innocent blood might not be shed in thy land” (Deu_19:10). In the case of premeditated murder (Deu_19:11, Deu_19:12), they afforded no immunity; but, if it were only manslaughter, the moment the fugitive was within the gates, he found himself in a safe asylum (Num_35:26-28; Jos_20:6).
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 19:8-9
And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast — Three additional sanctuaries were to be established in the event of their territory extending over the country from Hermon and Gilead to the Euphrates (see Gen_15:18; Exo_23:31). But it was obscurely hinted that this last provision would never be carried into effect, as the Israelites would not fulfil the conditions, namely, “that of keeping the commandments, to love the Lord, and walk ever in his ways.” In point of fact, although that region was brought into subjection by David and Solomon, we do not find that cities of refuge were established; because those sovereigns only made the ancient inhabitants tributary, instead of sending a colony of Israelites to possess it. The privilege of sanctuary cities, however, was given only for Israelites; and besides, that conquered territory did not remain long under the power of the Hebrew kings.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 19:10
The design of appointing these cities was to prevent the shedding of innocent blood, which would be the case were the unintentional manslayer killed in revenge by one of the relatives of the man he had slain; in this case the guilt of bloodshed would rest upon the nation if they neglected to provide for the escape of the manslayer.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 19:11
Vers. 11-13. These cities, however, were not to be places of refuge for murderers, for those who from hatred and with wicked intent had slain others; if such fled to one of these cities, they were not to be suffered to remain there; the elders of their own city were to require them to be delivered up, that the avenger might put them to death. (Num_35:16-33, etc.) In the earlier legislation, it is enacted that the congregation shall judge in such matters, and that by their decision it should be determined in any case whether the person who had slain another was to be allowed to remain in a city of refuge or be delivered over to the avenger of blood. With this the ordinance here is not inconsistent; the elders were not to act as judges, but merely as magistrates, to apprehend the man and bring him to trial.
Vers. 11-13. Lex talionis.
The refuge provided by mercy is open to abuse. The perversity of man will poison the streams from the heavenly fountain. But in this city of peace none shall abide except those who have clean hands. False hopes are doomed to crushing disappointment. Even from the gate of heaven there is a back way to the prison-house of hell. The man of blood eventually destroys himself.
I HATRED IS INGENIOUS IN ACCOMPLISHING ITS NEFARIOUS ENDS. Hatred has an insatiable appetite. It drives a man in whom it dwells, as with a slave-master”s whip, to do its base behests. It robs him of his sleep at night, that he may lie in ambush for some innocent victim. All day long he is driven to most odious tasks by this spirit of mischief. Without interruption, hatred holds its busy conclave in the dark caverns of the soul, and presses into service every faculty of the man, until it has clutched its prey.
II THE MURDEROUS MAN FLATTERS HIMSELF THAT HE SHALL BE SAFE. He is conscious that vengeance is in store for him. No sooner is the deed done than cowardly fear seizes him. The righteousness of God has fleet-footed detectives in its service. Nevertheless, cunning falsehood comes to him as the devil”s comforter. Though his hands be stained through and through with blood, he will wear gloves of innocence, a mask of pretence. It were a nobler thing to brave the matter out, and defy all opposition. But this the sinner cannot do. He quails before the omniscient eye; and, however insecure the hiding-place, he cheats himself with the hope of escape. Guilty as his conscience affirms him to be, he seeks a place among the innocent. For the sinner no refuge can be found. The earth shall cast him out.
III THE POWER OF DEATH IS A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION OF THE STATE. “The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence.” Human life is too precious to be placed at the disposal of private revenge; therefore the chief province of the state politic is to protect life against violence. Unbiased natures are the only proper judges of right and wrong. Justice will speak only in the calm atmosphere of sincerity and truth. The representative power of the whole community is the only power which fully suffices to vindicate the claims of righteousness. This is God”s vicegerent upon the earth. Hence magistrates are described as “gods.
IV RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOBLER THAN PITY. There are circumstances in which Pity must not speak a time for her to be silent. “Thine eye shall not pity.” There are some situations in which her presence would be out of place, her action injurious. But Righteousness must never be absent. The very atmosphere in God”s kingdom is penetrated with her vital breath. Her scepter is the scepter of God, and exerts a potent influence over every department of human life. Righteousness is the soul”s proper robe, and without it she can nowhere fitly appear. All true prosperity is the fruit of righteousness. It cannot go well with any nation, nor with any man, until guilt is put away. Even compassion for others must be a righteous compassion. D.
John Calvin
Deuteronomy 24:6
Deu_24:6No man shall take the nether. God now enforces another principle of equity in relation to loans, (not to be too strict) in requiring pledges, whereby the poor are often exceedingly distressed. In the first place, He prohibits the taking of anything in pledge which is necessary to the poor for the support of existence; for by the words which I have translated meta and catillus, i e. , the upper and nether millstone, He designates by synecdoche all other instruments, which workmen cannot do without in earning their daily bread. As if any one should forcibly deprive a husbandman of his plough, or his spade, or harrow, or other tools, or should empty a shoemaker’s, or potter’s, or other person’s shop, who could not exercise his trade when deprived of its implements; and this is sufficiently clear from the context, where it is said, “He taketh a man’s life to pledge,” together with his millstones. He, then, is as cruel, whosoever takes in pledge what supports a poor man’s life, as if he should take away bread from a starving man, and thus his life itself, which, as it is sustained by labor, so, when its means of subsistence are cut off, is, as it were, itself destroyed.
Adam Clarke
Deuteronomy 24:6
The nether or the upper mill-stone – Small hand-mills which can be worked by a single person were formerly in use among the Jews, and are still used in many parts of the East. As therefore the day’s meal was generally ground for each day, they keeping no stock beforehand, hence they were forbidden to take either of the stones to pledge, because in such a case the family must be without bread. On this account the text terms the millstone the man’s life.
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Deuteronomy 24:6
No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge — The “upper” stone being concave, covers the “nether” like a lid; and it has a small aperture, through which the corn is poured, as well as a handle by which it is turned. The propriety of the law was founded on the custom of grinding corn every morning for daily consumption. If either of the stones, therefore, which composed the handmill was wanting, a person would be deprived of his necessary provision.
John Calvin
Deuteronomy 24:7
The same punishment is here deservedly denounced against man-stealers as against murderers; for, so wretched was the condition of slaves, that liberty was more than half of life; and hence to deprive a man of such a great blessing, was almost to destroy him. Besides, it is not man-stealing only which is here condemned, but the accompanying evils of cruelty and fraud, i. e. , if he, who had stolen a man, had likewise sold him. Now, such a sale could hardly be made among the people themselves, without the crime being immediately detected; and nothing could be more hateful than that God’s children should be alienated from the Church, and delivered over to heathen nations.
Pulpit Commentary
Deu 24:7
Against man-stealing: repetition, with expansion, of the law in Exo_21:16.
Man-stealing a capital crime.
We have already noticed the merciful fugitive law which forbade any one to restore a runaway to his master. That was the cure of existing evil. Here we have the prevention, which is better still. For man-stealing and man-selling are the origin of slavery, and the Lord attaches to this the penalty of death. As Cheerer said of it, “God be praised for this law! It strikes through and through the vitals of this sin.
I LIBERTY MUST BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE PENAL SANCTION OF DEATH TO HIM WHO INVADES IT. The ruffian who would steal and sell a brother deserves to die. His treason against the liberty of his fellow is an unpardonable sin against society, and he should get no quarter. No wonder men have fought and died for liberty when God surrounds it with such tremendous sanctions.
II HOW MUCH GREATER THE CRIME OF BRINGING MEN INTO SPIRITUAL BONDAGE. And this is done daily. What is the meaning of the power exercised by superstitious priesthoods over their devotees? Is it not “spiritual despotism?” And should not the crime of man-stealing awake a suspicion in such hearts that their procedure is the exact analogue in the spiritual sphere? It should be combated and resisted unto the death, as destroying that heritage of liberty with which the Lord has endowed all men. R.M.E.
Slave-traffic a capital offence.
Slavery, in modified form, has always prevailed in Eastern lands; and, with prudent limitations, was tolerated among the Hebrews. To promulgate laws for men, which transcended their moral sense, would defeat the ends of law. God has continually to lead men from lower levels to higher. A man may voluntarily sell his liberty for a time. But to deprive a man of liberty by violence is a scarlet sin; and man-stealing is rightly branded with the deepest indignation of God.
I LIBERTY IS ESSENTIAL TO MAN”S FULLEST LIFE. Any form of bondage is a curtailment of life, a mutilation of the man. His outward condition may be bettered. He may have more food and warmer clothing and a healthier home, but the real man is injured. He is not fully susceptible of self-development. The springs of life are poisoned. He learns to despise himself, and to despise oneself is a step on the slippery road to ruin. Yet liberty is a human right not well understood. It must be distinguished from license. True liberty has its limits and its checks. A man is at liberty to part with his liberty for a time. Every man who toils for his bread is compelled to do this. Yet even this temporary cessation of his liberty must be voluntary.
II TO DEPRIVE A MAN FORCIBLY OF HIS LIBERTY IS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LIFE. The life of the body is not the whole of a man”s life. The intellect, affections, choice, will, have a life more precious than the life of the body. To steal a man or to kidnap a child is to interfere, wantonly and injuriously, with the proper life of the person. The outward conditions of training and probation are not such as God ordained. The man”s eternal prospects, as well as his earthly possibilities, are blighted. And all this moral damage is done for paltry gain. The man who can lend himself to such a business as slave-mongering is lost to all goodness, lost to shame. He is a disgrace to the human species a tool of Satan.
III FOR SUCH A CRIME THE GOD-APPOINTED PENALTY IS DEATH. No heavier penalty is imposed by the civil magistrate, because no heavier penalty is possible. Such a monster must be removed from the scenes of human society, because his presence is pestilential, demoralizing, deadly. Where human judgment ends, God”s judgment begins. Such a one is hurried before the higher court of heaven, is arraigned before the great white throne of the Eternal, and fullest justice will here be meted out. My soul, be thou free from such taint as this! D.
Posted in sunday school notes, quotes, commentaries, SBC, bible commentary, bible study | Tagged: lifeway, sunday school notes, explore the bible, sunday school lesson, right to life, Deuternomy 5:17, Deuteronomy 19:7-13, Deuteronomy 24:6-7, Matthew 5:17-20 | Leave a Comment »